Public Release: 20-Dec-2018
New threat to ozone recovery
Study finds chloroform emissions, on the rise in East Asia, could delay ozone recovery by up to 8 years
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Earlier this year, the United Nations announced some much-needed, positive news about the environment: The ozone layer, which shields the Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, and which was severely depleted by decades of human-derived, ozone-destroying chemicals, is on the road to recovery.
The dramatic turnaround is a direct result of regulations set by the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a global treaty under which nearly every country in the world, including the United States, successfully acted to ban the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the main agents of ozone depletion. As a result of this sustained international effort, the United Nations projects that the ozone layer is likely to completely heal by around the middle of the century.
But a new MIT study, published in Nature Geoscience, identifies another threat to the ozone layer’s recovery: chloroform — a colorless, sweet-smelling compound that is primarily used in the manufacturing of products such as Teflon and various refrigerants. The researchers found that between 2010 and 2015, emissions and concentrations of chloroform in the global atmosphere have increased significantly.
They were able to trace the source of these emissions to East Asia, where it appears that production of products from chloroform is on the rise. If chloroform emissions continue to increase, the researchers predict that the recovery of the ozone layer could be delayed by four to eight years.
“[Ozone recovery] is not as fast as people were hoping, and we show that chloroform is going to slow it down further,” says co-author Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. “We’re getting these little side stories now that say, just a minute, species are rising that shouldn’t be rising. And certainly a conclusion here is that this needs to be looked at.”
Xuekun Fang, a senior postdoc in Prinn’s group, is the lead author of the paper, which includes researchers from South Korea, Japan, England, Australia, and California.
Short stay, big rise
Chloroform is among a class of compounds called “very short-lived substances” (VSLS), for their relatively brief stay in the atmosphere (about five months for chloroform). If the chemical were to linger, it would be more likely to get lofted into the stratosphere, where it would, like CFCs, decompose into ozone-destroying chlorine. But because it is generally assumed that chloroform and other VSLSs are unlikely to do any real damage to ozone, the Montreal Protocol does not stipulate regulating the compounds.
“But now that we’re at the stage where emissions of the more long-lived compounds are going down, the further recovery of the ozone layer can be slowed down by relatively small sources, such as very short-lived species — and there are a lot of them,” Prinn says.
Prinn, Fang, and their colleagues monitor such compounds, along with other trace gases, with the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) — a network of coastal and mountain stations around the world that has been continuously measuring the composition of the global atmosphere since 1978.
There are 13 active stations scattered around the world, including in California, Europe, Asia, and Australia. At each station, air inlets atop typically 30-foot-tall towers pull in air about 20 times per day, and researchers use automated instruments to analyze the atmospheric concentrations of more than 50 greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases. With stations around the world monitoring gases at such a high frequency, AGAGE provides a highly accurate way to identify which emissions might be rising and where these emissions may originate.
When Fang began looking through AGAGE data, he noticed an increasing trend in the concentrations of chloroform around the world between 2010 and 2015. He also observed about three times the amount of atmospheric chloroform in the Northern Hemisphere compared to the Southern Hemisphere, suggesting that the source of these emissions stemmed somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
Using an atmospheric model, Fang’s collaborators on the paper estimated that between 2000 and 2010, global chloroform emissions remained at about 270 kilotons per year. However, this number began climbing after 2010, reaching a high of 324 kilotons per year in 2015. Fang observed that most stations in the AGAGE network did not measure substantial increases in the magnitude of spikes in chloroform, indicating negligible emission rises in their respective regions, including Europe, Australia, and the western United States. However, two stations in East Asia — one in Hateruma, Japan, and the other in Gosan, South Korea — showed dramatic increases in the frequency and magnitude of spikes in the ozone-depleting gas.
The rise in global chloroform emissions seemed, then, to come from East Asia. To investigate further, the team used two different three-dimensional atmospheric models that simulate the movement of gases and chemicals, given global circulation patterns. Each model can essentially trace the origins of a certain parcel of air. Fang and his colleagues fed AGAGE data from 2010 to 2015 into the two models and found that they both agreed on chloroform’s source: East Asia.
“We conclude that eastern China can explain almost all the global increase,” Fang says. “We also found that the major chloroform production factories and industrialized areas in China are spatially correlated with the emissions hotspots. And some industrial reports show that chloroform use has increased, though we are not fully clear about the relationship between chloroform production and use, and the increase in chloroform emissions.”
“An unfortunate coherence”
Last year, researchers from the United Kingdom reported on the potential threat to the ozone layer from another very short-lived substance, dichloromethane, which, like chloroform, is used as a feedstock to produce other industrial chemicals. Those researchers estimated how both ozone and chlorine levels in the stratosphere would change with increasing levels of dichloromethane in the atmosphere.
Fang and his colleagues used similar methods to gauge the effect of increasing chloroform levels on ozone recovery. They found that if concentrations remained steady at 2015 levels, the increase observed from 2010 to 2015 would delay ozone recovery by about five months. If, however, concentrations were to continue climbing as they have through 2050, this would set a complete healing of the ozone layer back by four to eight years.
The fact that the rise in chloroform stems from East Asia adds further urgency to the situation. This region is especially susceptible to monsoons, typhoons, and other extreme storms that could give chloroform and other short-lived species a boost into the stratosphere, where they would eventually decompose into the chlorine that eats away at ozone.
“There’s an unfortunate coherence between where chloroform is being emitted and where there are frequent storms that puncture the top of the troposphere and go into the stratosphere,” Prinn says. “So, a bigger fraction of what’s released in East Asia gets into the stratosphere than in other parts of the world.”
Fang and Prinn say that the study is a “heads-up” to scientists and regulators that the journey toward repairing the ozone layer is not yet over.
“Our paper found that chloroform in the atmosphere is increasing, and we identified the regions of this emission increase and the potential impacts on future ozone recovery,” Fang says. “So future regulations may need to be made for these short-lived species.”
“Now is the time to do it, when it’s sort of the beginning of this trend,” Prinn adds. “Otherwise, you will get more and more of these factories built, which is what happened with CFCs, where more and more end uses were found beyond refrigerants. For chloroform, people will surely find additional uses for it.”
###
This research was supported by NASA, the National Institute of Environmental Studies in Japan, the National Research Foundation of Korea, the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of Australia, and other organizations.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Another sleepless night worrying about penguins getting skin cancer.
I hear you but me, I think I will save my worry for the study that reports “is” not “could” and provides verifiable data to link the two. Alarmism is a weak bastard with many Government Granted fathers.
Freon is/was a molecule almost as magic as CO2. Though primarily used in the Northern hemisphere it managed to migrate across the equator, gather in Antarctica, get lifted into the atmosphere, whack the ozone all just before the patent for freon would lapse.
Back when ozone depletion was the cause du jour, NASA predicted that a hole was about to open over the USA. Still waiting for that one.
And when Mt. Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991, NASA detected massive amounts of resulting chlorides in the upper atmosphere were drifting toward Canada and warned that there would be massive ozone depletion there that summer. Panic! Three inch banner headlines. Of course it didn’t happen and that autumn there was a small article in the back pages where NASA scientists couldn’t understand why. Pretty sad when they believe their own BS.
Just before the vote on the Montreal Protocols, NASA actually announced that they had found an ozone hole over the US.
A few months later an independent review of the data showed that NASA was incorrect and there was no hole.
Typical of NASA, wasn’t it? And so convenient for the anti-CFC panic agenda.
The ozone hole continues to wax and wane, as it is not controlled by the factors that ‘they’ are continuing to blame.
It’s destroyed from the top by the mesosphere dropping into the stratosphere. The hole appears at sunrise every Antarctica day ( in the spring) and heals itself by Antarctica midday (in the summer) every year. It’s a weather event.
Cinaed
I look forward to your supporting evidence. Alas, I suspect you have none.
Regards
this might be a source of chlorine..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_flower_(sea_ice)
“Frost flowers growing on sea ice have extremely high salinities and concentrations of other sea water chemicals and, because of their high surface area, are efficient releasers of these chemicals into the atmosphere”
a continent sized evaporation/sublimation zone concentrating halide salts and releasing them into the atmosphere. Might be worth consideration.
I wonder is all this chloroform starting to put people to sleep?
Maybe that’s the cause of dumb down education.
Chloroform is still formulated into some old style embalming fluids which are still used by some embalmers. Slow seepage over the centuries from many tombs is a grave threat to the ozone layer, so I guess we’re going to have to exhume all of those dead people and doubly incinerate their remains. Oh wait, that increases CO2.
And just “what affect”, ….. if any, …… will the current extended period of a “quiet” Sun have on the creation of atmospheric Ozone?
SCC
Good question!
Pedant alert. To affect (verb) but an effect (noun).
@ Jane Rush
How is it possible for you to improve your knowledge of the natural sciences if you reading comprehension is limited to insuring correct vocabulary usage?
Shouldn’t that be “ensuring”? 😉
Shouldn’t that be “ensuring”?
Really now, Albert, ….. best you tell us what Jane R’s intent was.
Was it to, …… to wit:
insure – to be certain about something occurring
Or. to wit:
ensure – to make certain that something shall occur
“is not as fast as people were hoping”
So instead of calling it a falsification, we provide rationalizations.
Experts almost never admit they were wrong. They have a reliable set of excuses ready to deploy when their predictions don’t happen.
In an exhaustive decades long study, Philip Tetlock found that expert predictions are no more accurate than those produced by a dart-throwing chimp. In spite of that, the public craves expert predictions and always gives failed predictors a bye.
The problem goes beyond mere excuse making.
I have no way of evaluating the above two links but they are consistent with a vast body of evidence that the majority of published research findings are false. The above accusation that the system actually subverts the scientific method is deeply disturbing. On the other hand, what we know of climate science means I shouldn’t be surprised. 🙁
And even worse IMO, when research comes along that looks to be valid but which implies a course of action completely counter to what “experts” have been recommending, every effort is made by the mainstream to ignore or discredit it. Three recent examples include 1) Dr. Bredesen’s recently published study demonstrating reversal of dementia (the second study he has done showing this) 2) The Hallberg et al study showing the effectiveness of low carb diets for diabetes, and 3) the study (from late 2016 I believe) showing the effectiveness of the Paleo Auto-immune protocol for previously unresponsive digestive issues. One would think that all of these (and others) should be stop-the-presses front page news, however just the opposite has been the case.
Ozone hole 13 Oct 2018 – 22.9M km2
Ozone hole 13 Oct 1996 – 22.8M km2
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html
No statistical difference.
Someone with a proper degree needs to weigh in here, but isn’t an increase in the “ozone hole” evidence of decreased solar activity? If it gets as big as it was when it was first discovered, back in the colder 70s, we could be heading for another similar cold period. Less ozone, more cosmic rays, more clouds, cold Earth?
I think just the opposite is true, ….. if a decrease in solar activity also means a decrease in UV radiation.
Less UV means less ozone, hence a larger “ozone hole”.
“Less UV means less ozone, hence a larger “ozone hole”.”
No, the reaction is zero-sum (apart from the production of heat), as UV splits an O3 molecule into O2 + O.
The O then almost immediately recombining with an O2 to make another Ozone molecule.
And most O3 is made/destroyed in the tropical upper stratosphere and mesosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
The UN couldn’t blame UV, so they blamed an industrial chemical. Again no science behind it , just another excuse to control the world.
Anthony Banton – December 25, 2018 at 8:01 am
Anthony B, you still got it arse backward.
Anthony B, ….. read carefully, …… the reason the per se Ozone Hole is ONLY situate over Antarctica is simply because there is no Sunshine (UV radiation) entering the atmosphere during the SH winter months.
NO sunshine, …… = NO UV radiation, ….. = NO ozone generation, ….. = Ozone Hole.
“Anthony B, ….. read carefully, …… the reason the per se Ozone Hole is ONLY situate over Antarctica is simply because there is no Sunshine (UV radiation) entering the atmosphere during the SH winter months.
NO sunshine, …… = NO UV radiation, ….. = NO ozone generation, ….. = Ozone Hole.”
Samuel:
Sorry but you’re either confused over the physics or misread my post.
Yes, No O3 generation but ALSO no O3 destruction (by UV).
I was replying to this …..
“Less UV means less ozone, hence a larger “ozone hole”.”
And that isn’t true.
Because…
As, as I said, UV both destroys and creates O3 in equal measure, along with the production of heat.
So “Less UV” does not mean “less O3” – it’s a zero-sum + heat.
In the polar night (again obviously) no UV then no creation/destruction of O3 occurs.
And further, the reason the O3 hole lies over Antarctica in spring is the conjunction then of uniquely cold temps (~ MS90C) and the emergence of sunshine. Along of course with CFCs.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/ozoned36.jpg
Anthony Banton – December 25, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Anthony B, ….. I fear that your delusion about O3 is directly attributable to you pee poor adolescent nurturing and your “politically correct” miseducation during and after your formal schooling years.
“DUH”, Ultra Violet (UV) radiation DOES NOT destroy atmospheric ozone (O3) any more than does Infra-Red (IR) radiations destroys the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (H2O, CO2, etc.)
Tell me, Anthony B, …… what was the original source of all the atmospheric O3 if not UV radiation?
Surely not atmospheric “lightening” flashes during inclement weather.
I fear that your delusion about O3 is directly attributable to you pee poor adolescent nurturing and your “politically correct” miseducation during and after your formal schooling years.
And your rudeness is motivated by your political views and lack of knowledge of physical chemistry?
“DUH”, Ultra Violet (UV) radiation DOES NOT destroy atmospheric ozone (O3) any more than does Infra-Red (IR) radiations destroys the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (H2O, CO2, etc.)
Actually it does, photodissociation of ozone in the wavelength range 220-310nm is a major absorbance of UV in the atmosphere. The photodissociation reaction is:
O3 + hν→ O2+O
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/j100395a002
Tell me, Anthony B, …… what was the original source of all the atmospheric O3 if not UV radiation?
Tell me, Anthony B, …… what was the original source of all the atmospheric O3 if not UV radiation?
The source is due to the absorption of UV radiation by oxygen molecules:
O2 + hν→ O+O (less than 240 nm)
O2 + O + M→ O3+M
and the destruction of the O3 by:
O3 + hν→ O2+O (between 220 and 310 nm)
However this is not a termination reaction since the O can react again with an O2 to regenerate O3, a termination reaction is:
O3 + O→ 2O2
There are also a number of termination reactions which involve catalysis by other species such as OH, NOx and ClOx (the important sink that causes the ozone hole).
The magnetic reluctance of Ozone is an order of magnitude lower than O2, around high levels of UV or static charge gradient, O2 shifts to Ozone to conserve energy. The half life of Ozone in dark, and low charge conditions, is about 12 hours.
It is a natural condition, has been ongoing since sunlight hit the atmosphere. Due to the circular polar winds over Antarctica, the “Hole” shows up every winter, because of low mixing rates from tropical Ozone rich areas.
It has always been and always will be, area grows with solar activity levels, and “Heals some” with periods of low solar activity…… End of story, rest is graft and corruption fear mongering for monetary/political gain, trial run for the CGW Agenda pushed by the U.N.
The magnetic reluctance of Ozone is an order of magnitude lower than O2, around high levels of UV or static charge gradient, O2 shifts to Ozone to conserve energy. The half life of Ozone in dark, and low charge conditions, is about 12 hours.
It is a natural condition, has been ongoing since sunlight hit the atmosphere. Due to the circular polar winds over Antarctica, the “Hole” shows up every winter, because of low mixing rates from tropical Ozone rich areas.
If the ozone hole showed up every winter your explanation might have some merit, however the ozone concentration stays approximately constant through the winter due to the absence of UV. The ozone hole shows up in the spring, following the return of sunlight, when photolysis of Chlorine containing compounds releases Cl radicals leading to the catalytic destruction of O3 .
Phil. – December 26, 2018 at 8:54 am
Shur nuff, ……. Phil, …… but ya can’t leave that freed-up oxygen atom (+O) running free n’ loose in the atmosphere, cause it will just “re-connect” to the next oxygen molecule it encounters.
Phil. – December 26, 2018 at 9:10 am
Phil, I sincerely hope that your above comment was meant for Anthony Banton because it was his miseducation that was being discussed.
Cheers
Phil. – December 26, 2018 at 8:54 am
“The photodissociation reaction is:
O3 + hν→ O2+O”
Shur nuff, ……. Phil, …… but ya can’t leave that freed-up oxygen atom (+O) running free n’ loose in the atmosphere, cause it will just “re-connect” to the next oxygen molecule it encounters.
Exactly as I pointed out:
“O3 + hν→ O2+O (between 220 and 310 nm)
However this is not a termination reaction since the O can react again with an O2 to regenerate O3, a termination reaction is:
O3 + O→ 2O2
There are also a number of termination reactions which involve catalysis by other species such as OH, NOx and ClOx (the important sink that causes the ozone hole).”
So some of the O recycles to reform O3 but some of it reacts with other species to reduce the O3 concentration.
The source is due to the absorption of UV radiation by oxygen molecules:
O2 + hν→ O+O (less than 240 nm)
O2 + O + M→ O3+M”
Phil, I sincerely hope that your above comment was meant for Anthony Banton because it was his miseducation that was being discussed.
Actually I was addressing Anthony’s correct statement that UV both creates and destroys O3 (two different wavelength ranges).
I was also addressing your incorrect assertion that “Ultra Violet (UV) radiation DOES NOT destroy atmospheric ozone (O3)”. In fact it is the first step in the destruction of O3, the actual concentration of O3 depends on a balance between the creation and destruction processes. In the absence of UV there will be no further creation of O3 and also no further destruction. Also there will be no photolysis of the Cl2/Cl2O2 formed in the stratosphere during the winter to create the ClO which will catalytically destroy O3 when the UV returns in the spring.
Phil. – December 27, 2018 at 10:32 am
Phil, I did receive a passing grade in Organic Chemistry, therefore you equations are not completely foreign to my understanding.
And Phil, it was more like you citing “out-of-context” rather than my “incorrect assertion”, because, ….. iffen I remember correctly …… I was addressing the claim that “UV radiation creates the Ozone Hole by destroying the ozone in the Antarctica atmosphere” that is being touted by MFKboulder
So Phil, since you didn’t pounce on MFK’s arse for said claim, …. I have to assume you agree with him …. and surely NOT just feeling sorry for his miseducation.
Cheers
To Troll S C Cogar who wrote: “UV radiation creates the Ozone Hole by destroying the ozone in the Antarctica atmosphere” that is being touted by MFKboulder”
This was never my statement. Since you had only a passing grade in organic chemistry it does not make me wonder why you are not even able to quote here correctly.
Try it again (better without “cheers” before typing). Before you answer read the stuff you use as reference from NASA. And try to understand the role of UV and the gases, liquids and particles invovled in antartic spring’s Ozone depletion (this is the time when the ozone hole appears since the 1980ies).
Quoting: MFKBoulder – December 28, 2018 at 5:39 am
HA, apparently it was your highly emotional mindset that resulted in your confusion of not knowing the difference between …. “addressing a claim” ….. and …. “quoting a statement”.
Here is a QUOTE of the comment in question, …. try reading it unemotionally this time, …. and with better comprehension, to wit:
And here is the QUOTED statement THAT I WAS ADDRESSING ….. wherein YOU are claiming that UV radiation creates the Ozone Hole, to wit:
NASA is not a reliable source for actual, factual scientific info, especially when it concerns climate, near-surface air temperatures and the AGW junk science.
Nuff said
@ Trollling Sam C Cogar:
You say “NASA is not a reliable source for actual, factual scientific info, especially when it concerns climate, near-surface air temperatures and the AGW junk science.”
Hey man you brought up the reference to
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Ozone/ozone_2.php
O.k. You did not comprehend it si you start now bashing it. Not my fault, more a problem of your poor scientific education. Otherwise you should knw that “Double quotes” are used for verbatim quotations. Again: Not my fault, more a problem of your poor scientific education.
Once again you stated that the so called ozone hole is caused by the lack of UV radiation in Antartic Winter.
British Antarctic survey says that it is occuring wehn in Antartic spring the UV Radation hots the stratospehere after winter again. An this is the fact (the minimum at Halley and South pole is occuring regularly in October.
According Feynman your “theory” is proven wrong.
Just as a hint: the springtime UV Radiation is not necessaryly splitting up the O3-Bound directly. There are other reagents involved. And to be as effective as observed it is likely that the reactions involved are not taking place in gaseous phase (alone).
MFKBoulder, what you are averting your eyes and your mind to is the literal fact that all organized religions are based solely on fear and ignorance.
And that includes: the Christian Religion, the Islamic Religion, the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion, the CO2 Causing AGW Climate Change religion, the Ozone Hole Depletion religion, the Cigarette Smoke Causing Cancer religion, the Political Party Partisanship religion, just to name the major ones.
New Scientific Evidence Proves Ozone Depletion Theory False
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
Dear SC Cogar,
with citing the author of “The Holes in the Ozone Scare” you were consequently turing this discussion from physics to “metaphysics”. In case you want to come back to science I am willing to continue the discussion. But not in the “Rogelio-Maduro-style”, to many flaws in his book.
“In case you want to come back to science I am willing to continue the discussion.”
Getta clue, ….. MFKBoulder, as far as your input/contribution is concerned, this conversation HAS NEVER BEEN a discussion on or about science.
I’ve known from the “get-go” that your forte is limited to copying, quoting, mimicking, paraphrasing, extracting, citing and/or touting “commentary” you obtain from Internet “searches”, …… which is the exact reason you can not explain, define or defend that which you post hereon, except by “more-of-the-same” copying, quoting, mimicking, paraphrasing, extracting, citing, touting, etc. And when you lack any of the aforesaid, …… you quickly try to change the subject.
Given my schooling as a Professional (licensed) Educator of the General Sciences, you are an excellent “teaching aid” that defines “what not to believe” for the potentially hundreds of potential observers of this conversation.
Sam C Coar:
“MFKBoulder, as far as your input/contribution is concerned, this conversation HAS NEVER BEEN a discussion on or about science.
I’ve known from the “get-go” that your forte is limited to copying, quoting, mimicking, paraphrasing, extracting, citing and/or touting “commentary” you obtain from Internet “searches”, …… which is the exact reason you can not explain, define or defend that which you post hereon, except by “more-of-the-same” copying, quoting, mimicking, paraphrasing, extracting, citing, touting, etc. And when you lack any of the aforesaid, …… you quickly try to change the subject.”
So My point of view:
IMHO discussion on science is based on observations and explaining those observations. Fortunatly this was done for centuries and in the scientific discourse it is common standard to support your own view with scientific literature at best with primary and sceond best with secondary sources. At my university tertiary sources were not accepted.
Your point of view on this was documented by yourself:
Sam C Cogar:
“Clyde Spencer, there is ABSOLUTELY no need for a citation simply because the, per se, Ozone Hole has existed in the Antarctica atmosphere ever since the earth has had an atmosphere of different gasses”
So you deliver your (religious?) belief about the ozone hole without quoting some primary or secondary source?!?!?. That’s a thorough scientific approach. Since you had some license to teach, I hope it was not on this subject where your education is not even covering the basic 100-level.
Just tell me: where did I switch the subject? I made statements to several subjects here since my education on this was on the graduate level.
Once again: when the minimum Ozone level in Antarctica is (roughly) a month after the sun with its UV hit the atmosphere again in spring, is it likely the lack of UV is cause of the ozone hole? I admit that ozone in declining during winter (without the sun) but the drop to minimum occurs when there is UV radiation around.
I expect you to come up with some primary or secondary sources (if you know what this is) which support your private theory. And then we can continue a scientific discourse. Until then you are IMHO a troll.
MFKBoulder – December 30, 2018 at 1:39 pm
MFK, …. SO WHAT, ….. you have never quoted any primary or secondary sources that substantiate the claims of any of the sources that you cited.
What the hell gives you the right to “quote a source” without providing a primary or secondary source to support “your quoted source”?
Or were you taught to believe that because of your “graduate level education” (your claim) that you are immune from citing legitimate sources that support the “sources you cite”?
Such stupidity.
Demanding that someone provide primary or secondary sources to support their original thinking (private theory).
I will, …… MFK, ….. cite a primary or secondary source responsible for my “original thinking” …… just as soon as you cite for me the primary or secondary source(s) that Albert Einstein cited when he published his original thoughts in a paper titled Theory of General Relativity.
Or you could cite the primary or secondary source(s) that Dimitri Mendeleev cited in his 1st published copy of The Periodic Table.
HA, …. MLK, ….. I hafta assume your College Professors nurtured you to believe that the US Patent Office REQUIRES the inclusions of primary or secondary source(s) on all Patent Applications. ……. RIGHT?
Sorry for you, …… but, ….. “the miseducation of a mind is a terrible injustice”.
Dear Sam C Cogar,
Interesting to see that you compare yourself with Einstein et al. You doubted that Einstein used quotes for his “private theory”,
The comparison does not sustain: In his Work “Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus dem selben gezognen Folgerungen”, Einstein qutoted Lozenz, Stark, von Mosengeil , Michelson & Moreley, e.t.c,
In his work „Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie“ hi is referencing to Mach, Morley, Leverrier et al.
So he knew how to discuss and support a „private theory“.
Now it_is_your_turn_.
(And please do not come up with Rogelio, Maduro et al. )
I referenced my claim with a link to these guys (and gals) who measure ozone now over half of a century in the Antarctic:
here I gave you the link to the measured data from Halley Bay,
and it was in this post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/new-threat-to-ozone-recovery/#comment-2567836
MFKBoulder,
Because of their “quoted commentary”, …….. were Lozenz, Stark, von Mosengeil , Michelson & Moreley’s ….. all given equal credit and notoriety, ….. along with Albert Einstein, ….. for the composition and publication of the Theory of General Relativity?
HELL NO, they were not.
And ps, MFK, why did you ignore my question about Patent Applications?
And a follow-up question, ……. iffen cited primary or secondary sources are important, …… why didn’t Albert Einstein mandatorily require them on all Patent Applications when he worked at the …… Office for Intellectual Property in Bern, colloquially known as the patent office?
MFK, those silly arsed rules you are mouthing are simply PJE (proof of job existence) “demands” by the Degree “awarders” in control of the public educational institutions to INSURE that they alone control the “consensus of opinions” that the public is “brainwashed” into believing.
And I am tired of responding to your silliness, ….. so Happy New Year
Sam C Cogar wrote:
“Because of their “quoted commentary”, …….. were Lozenz, Stark, von Mosengeil , Michelson & Moreley’s ….. all given equal credit and notoriety, ….. along with Albert Einstein, ….. for the composition and publication of the Theory of General Relativity?
HELL NO, they were not.”
Hi Sam,
Why should they get equal credit? All I said: Einstein used quotes in his fundamental works.
And Sam C Cogar went on writing:
“And ps, MFK, why did you ignore my question about Patent Applications?”
I am not into Patent applications, so why should I bother the audience with my knowledge gaps?
And Sam, you still missed to deliver:
You promised you will come up with a primary or secondary rated source for you claims (as I did – at least with a link to the “primary source” of Ozone Data at Halley bay), as soon as I cite from Einstein’s fundamental works examples where he quoted someone. The need for the quoting was questioned by you here several times.
You _DID_NOT_ deliver.
What you call “those silly arsed rules” about scientific discourse and quoting are long time habit in the scientific community. When you do not find valid references for your private theory, you can blame the scientific community or your own “private theory”. Before you have straightened up this, I would like to ask you not to judge other folk’s “silliness”, “miseducation”, “stupidity”, etc.
Happy New Year
MFK, if the “shoe” fits you, …… wear it or change “shoes”.
Here are just a few of the dozens of “original (radical) thinking” theories that that you can “chew on”, MFKBoulder, …… that the Degreed Supremist that have entrenched themselves in Colleges and Universities FLATLY REJECTED simply because they could not claim being associated with said miraculous discoveries.
Darwin’s Origin of the Species Theory
Darwin’s Jump Dispersal Theory
Alister Hardy/Elaine Morgan – Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) [waterside model]
How Buckyballs Are Formed
Man The Hunted
Sympatric Speciation
First Settlers Of The Americas
Turin’s Theory Of Olfactation
blood circulation
Mendel’s “recessive” and “dominant” genes
Louis Pasteur’s germ theory
Bacterium H Pylori causes stomach ulcers
Etc., etc., …………….
b>MFKBoulder,
“Just so you are aware, academia is a very narrow measure of intellect.”
Authored/quoted by: David Ball
Dear Sam C Cogar,
you still did not deliver any reference for your “private theory”. Instead you came up with scientific theories not accepted at the time when they were published. Again, YOU switched the topic (troll-like).
By the way you mentioned the plate tectonic theory by Alfred Wegener. Although this is off topic just this statement: When you read his book “Enstehung der Kontineten und Ozeane” you will find lots of quotes.
Just go ahead and bring you references, finally.
Thanks
Well now, …… Miss MFKBoulder, …… given the fact that it was my subconscious mind and the DNA in my brain’s neurons that is/was responsible for the origin of my “private theory”, ……. then you will have to explain to me your preferred method of citing a reference to the aforenoted “source”.
And Miss MFK, …… I am so very sorry for you, ….. that Mozart is done long time dead, ….. otherwise you could have demanded that he provide you, …… Miss MFK, …… a reference to the exact source of his musical compositions.
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, …… 😊 😊 ….. YUCK, YUCK
The Ozone hole was observed in the 80s, the rapid decline in O3 over the S Pole didn’t start until the late 70s and really accelerated through the 80s.
Dobson actually showed the “ozone hole” during the international geophysical year of July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958. This fact appears to be totally ignored by “settled science.”
Dan Kurt
Dan,
I’ve read this claim a number of times. Can you provide me with a citation that supports it?
Clyde Spencer, there is ABSOLUTELY no need for a citation simply because the, per se, Ozone Hole has existed in the Antarctica atmosphere ever since the earth has had an atmosphere of different gasses, …. even before the blue-green algae in the ocean began emitting oxygen (O2) a billion years or so ago, that escaped into the atmosphere which the UV radiation then partly converted to ozone (O3) …… EXCEPT in the atmosphere atop Antarctica during the SH wintertime when there is NO UV radiation.
The Hole has always existed as long as the earth’s axial rotation and orbital rotation has existed.
When Dobson had the first measurements made at Halley Bay in IGY they noticed that the springtime Ozone measurements were lower than the equivalent values measured at Spitzbergen, but that the values quickly jumped back up to match the Spitzbergen values in November. So much so that they thought that a mistake had been made or that the instrument had been damaged in transit. However when the result was replicated the next two years they realized that something different was happening in the Antarctic stratosphere (note however that the maximum value in the spring was ~300DU and rose to ~400DU in the summer).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/dobson/papers/Applied_Optics_v7_1968.pdf
Those values persisted through the sixties until in the late 70s when the October minimum dropped rapidly to a low of ~90DU. The existence of a hole is defined as less than 220DU as that was a value that wasn’t observed in the atmosphere prior to 79. So while the winter/spring behavior was different from the Arctic, presumably due to the colder air and PSCs, a major shift in behavior was observed through the 80s and 90s.
Actually Dobson discovered in in 1956 and confirmed it again in 1957. In 1958, French scientists Rigaud & Leroy published a paper describing the natural cause. When the furor erupted after NASA finally noticed the hole in 1985 Rigaud & Leroy re-published their findings. They were ignored, of course.
Citation – Rigaud, P. and B. Leroy, 1990, “Presumptive Evidence for a Low Value of Total Ozone Content Above Antarctica in September, 1958,” Annales de Geophysique, 1990, Vol 8 (11), pp. 791 – 94.
SCC
You claimed, “… Ozone Hole has existed in the Antarctica atmosphere ever since the earth has had an atmosphere of different gasses,…” And you know that how? BTW, Antarctica as we know it, did not exist before “…blue-green algae in the ocean began emitting oxygen …”
However, to be clear, I was not asking for proof how long the ‘ozone hole’ has existed. I was, instead, asking for a citation that Dobson had observed and reported the phenomenon during the IGY.
Circa 1970 I was a Post Doc at an Ivy and had access to many scattered libraries. In one where I would peruse some obscure journals I encountered Applied Optics. At the time I had an interest in Optics and Lasers. I read many back issues. The article was in this: Applied Optics, vol. 7, no. 3, March 1968, pages 387-405 by G.M.B. Dobson.
Dan Kurt
Clyde Spencer – December 25, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Elementary, my dear Clyde S, ….. my use of common sense thinking, ….. logical reasoning ….. and intelligent deductions ….. permits me to be knowledgeable of many aspects of the natural world that I have been a learned observer of for the past 7+ decades. 😊 😊
A picky, picky CYA, …. of no value. It is irrelevant, immaterial and of no concern as to whether or not the per se “continent” of Antarctica existed or exists simply because the discussion is concerned with the atmosphere at the South Pole of the Southern Hemisphere,
Clyde S, the presence or absence of the proverbial Ozone Hole doesn’t matter one iota whether or not there is a land mass covered with snow and ice situate at the South Pole.
“DUH”, there is also an Arctic Ozone Hole, but no land mass at the North Pole, to wit:
http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
However, to be clear, I was not asking for proof how long the ‘ozone hole’ has existed. I was, instead, asking for a citation that Dobson had observed and reported the phenomenon during the IGY.
The present ‘ozone hole’ has existed since about 1979, what Dodson observed in the Antarctic during the IGY and later was a springtime reduction in O3 below that observed in the Arctic. Certainly a related phenomenon but Dobson was observing the effect of natural sinks whereas later the anthropogenic sinks led to the enhanced ‘hole’.
There is a lot of natural fluctuation in stratospheric ozone levels including the Antarctic winter level. Calling the deeper reduction anthropogenic and the lesser reductions natural reminds me of the claim that warmer temperatures is dangerous anthropogenic global warming but colder temps is just weather. Sorry, don’t buy it.
SCC
You said, “Elementary, my dear Clyde S, … that I have been a learned observer of for the past 7+ decades.” I have nearly identical qualifications — maybe a few more years of observing. Pawn takes pawn.
You further claimed, “… whether or not the per se ‘continent’ of Antarctica existed or exists simply because the discussion is concerned with the atmosphere …” I’m pretty sure that if there wasn’t a two-mile high ice-cube sitting at the south pole, then it would be much like today’s Arctic, which lacks the strong circumpolar vortex, does not get as cold, and doesn’t experience the same magnitude of ozone loss. Therefore, having land at the South Pole DOES matter!
Clyde Spencer – December 26, 2018 at 4:33 pm
Clyde, ….. “pretty sure” doesn’t even count in the game of Horseshoes.
Enough is ENOUGH.
Read these excerpts and then tell me where it states anything about prerequisites such as …. land masses, two-mile high ice-cubes and/or Polar weather, …… to wit:
And ps, Clyde, to wit:
Clyde, do I need to guess as to what it was that you wasted a lifetime on “observing”?
SCC
You asked, “Clyde, do I need to guess as to what it was that you wasted a lifetime on “observing”?”
Go ahead and guess. It would be interesting to see if you are also wrong about that. It wouldn’t be surprising. However, you also said “Enough is ENOUGH.” I take it that the admonition doesn’t apply to you.
The essence of being a jerk is not being aware of acting like a jerk. Have a friend that you can trust read your replies and ask him/her if you are behaving in a reasonable, mature manner. It might be enlightening.
SCC your statemants are based on a Hoax.
Google let you find Dobsons reports and the British Antarctic Surves reprots on Ozone since 1958 (or was ist 1957?). They mesaured annually drops to approx. 210-220 DU O3 during Antarctc spring. Not before the mid-80ies the Birts measured then a drp to approx 100-120 DU (first taking instrument’s failure into consideration). The confirme measured drops to 100-120 DU were then callled the Ozone hole.
MFKBoulder – December 26, 2018 at 3:35 am
MFKBoulder, me thinks you are sorely confused, …… whenever my posting is an intentional “hoax”, which is noninfrequently, ….. I always “sign” it ….. Eritas Fubar ….. or Eritas Rabuf.
Samuel C Cogar,
no I am not even slightly confused. When I read yoour comments I see such a sorely insufficient expertise on your side that I admire your guts to stand up here for your statements. Unfortunately you are making a fool out of you.
– O3 is bulit AND destroyed by UV radiaten (google Chapman-cycle)
– the ozone hole is not caused by the (slow) degradation of O3 in the antarctic winter: it occurs just when UV Radiation hit the stratospereh again
Dobson found the results of the slow degradation of O3 during the antartic winter (as he expected) and this was observed in Antarctica from 1957 on. “Ozone Hole” was observed from the mid-80ies on, when the ussual 220 DU end of winter low vales droped regularly to even below 100 DU.
I never stated that your postings were intentional hoaxes triggered by you (which would show some sophistication). Your smartness is sufficient to redsitribute what is a hoax but was not identified by you as one.
MFKBoulder – December 26, 2018 at 8:34 am
MFK, apparently you have a “split personality” ….. because it is obvious that you are arguing with yourself.
The “1st Face” of MFK is claiming that O3 is created AND destroyed by UV.
Whereas the “2nd Face” of MFK is claiming that O3 IS ONLY destroyed by UV.
Here ya go, MFK, ……. I’ll repost this for your “learning” pleasure, to wit:
S C Cogar states:
No idea where I should have stated this. Samuel C Cogar is acting here toll-like.
His hint fro my “learning” is a nice try: I was familiar with this topic years before the so called “Antarctic ozone hole” was reported. Then again since you (SCC) found already a fairly good introduction into this topic (for your level of (miss-)understanding), tell us which parts you did not comprehend.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Ozone/ozone_2.php
S.C. Cogar stated “the reason the per se Ozone Hole is ONLY situate over Antarctica is simply because there is no Sunshine (UV radiation) entering the atmosphere during the SH winter months.”
And this hre is what the experts say:
“The Antarctic ozone hole begins to form when sunlight returns at the end of the Antarctic winter and reaches its largest extent every spring. By midsummer it has disappeared again. ” (From the British Antarctic Survey).
This is more like my statement:
“the ozone hole is not caused by the (slow) degradation of O3 in the antarctic winter: it occurs (is destroyed) just when UV Radiation hit the stratospereh [sic, I have to admit] again”
MFKboulder – December 27, 2018 at 1:52 pm
“YUP”, that’s what it says, …. MFK.
No ozone hole during the Antarctica winter time …… but a hole is created when the UV laden sunshine returns in the Antarctica springtime. Right, MFK?
Huuuummmm, then I assume that it is the UV laden sunshine during the Antarctica summer time, …. or is it during the Antarctica autumn time, …… that creates tons of ozone to fill up that Ozone Hole for the coming Antarctica winter time …… to await the spring time UV to destroy it again.
“YUP”, …. MFK, ….. that makes perfectly good sense, and I am pleased that you brought it to my attention..
Cheers,
Sam C, …. AB Degree, Physical and Biological Science, GSC 63’
Sam C Cogoar,
You wrote:
“Huuuummmm, then I assume that it is the UV laden sunshine during the Antarctica summer time, …. or is it during the Antarctica autumn time, …… that creates tons of ozone to fill up that Ozone Hole for the coming Antarctica winter time …… to await the spring time UV to destroy it again.
[…]
Cheers,
Sam C, …. AB Degree, Physical and Biological Science, GSC 63’”
I thought this would be beyond your comprehension. Since I do not want to repeat standard text books I repeat my question: which parts of the introductory level information provided by NASA
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Ozone
did you ot understand?
I am not quite sure waht you ment with
Cheers […] AB degree […]”
Was it A/B average rating? When it was this: nothing to impress me. More like: it takes me wonder how comes…?
Read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/new-threat-to-ozone-recovery/#comment-2566912
BR
Bruce
The size of the ozone area of dilution is controlled by the volume of equatorial -mid latitide atmospheric mass moving poleward. The atmospheric temperature above Antarctica plays a significant role also.
The second smallest ozone diluted area ever recorded above Antarctica in 2012 resulted from the majority of atmospheric mass going to the arctic, resulting in the great arctic cyclone and the lowest sea ice extent and volume.
There is an atmospheric pressure cycle that starts as early as May and ends late September that causes the atmosphere to move poleward, however there is atmospheric restriction . This restriction is the prime cause of hurricane occurrence and rapid intensification. The pressure cycle also controls the very regular saw toothed co2 undulations recorded at Mauna Loa. The atmospheric displacement destination also controls where the evaporated ocean heat goes and controls the temperature anomalies, that is why the anomaly method is useless unless you determine where the anomaly occurred and what caused it.
Regards
These.
To understand what you claimed. The heated mid-latitudes with O3 flow towards the polls and hits what may be called a Winter Wall which pushes back. AKA Ozone hole or my favorite fear The Polar Vortex.
“…when it was first discovered, back in the colder 70s…”
Uh, no. It was discovered in 1956.
Wrong, see my comment above.
Definition of a “hole” conveniently happens to support the fear mongering. The fact is that ozone fluctuates considerably due to numerous influences including at the south pole. There never has been a complete absence of O3 detected so it could more plausibly be argued that no such hole has ever existed.
Actually there has but as you’ve shown here you don’t know what you’re talking about. The ozone layer peaks around 16km, in the spring the ozone around that peak is destroyed and the ozone concentration drops down to zero, forming a hole in the layer.
Ozone recovery?
From what?
Was it sick?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/07/testozonedepletion/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/07/history-of-the-ozone-depletion-scare/
Again excellent posts completely describing this whole scam.
Yes. The whole thing has been a fountain of nonsense in day one.
First. The observations of the so called ozone hole cover less than 50 years of time. In the life of the earth , that is a mere eye blink. It is not sufficient to sort out very much in the way of cyclical phenomena.
Second. There is an infinite (OK, very, very large) amount of chlorine available at the surface of the ocean. Further: “The total global flux of chloroform through the environment is approximately 660000 tonnes per year, and about 90% of emissions are natural in origin.” wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform Higher order halocarbon compounds are very heavy. Chloroform has a molecular weight of 119.
Is there any reason to believe that they are a real problem.
This would be a good place to point out that nobody has ever proven that the ozone hole wasn’t there for millennia before the satellite age made measurements easy. Nor for that matter, has real evidence been provided that CFCs make it worse – correlation isn’t causation. Just because there is chlorine and flourine in the Antarctic atmosphere and an ozone hole doesn’t mean that A caused B.
This.
Worldwide Ozone levels have not increased at all since CFCs were banned and the Ozone Hole continues coming and going as it always has.
Merry Christmas everyone.
I have not studied the ozone hole question to the same extent that I have global warming and wilder weather alarmism, but the ozone hole was probably another false crisis.
What has certainly happened though, is that perfectly good refrigerators are now scrapped rather than having their Freon topped up, because of new legislation and the over-reaching extremism of the watermelon state.
I owned a perfectly good expensive fridge and after a decade or so it required a top-up of Freon. No problem – done for a few dollars. A decade later, it needed another top-up – but now that was impossible with fines of $10,000 or more – so it had to go to the dump.
So to “save-the-world” from a few grams of Freon, several hundred pounds of perfectly good machinery must now rust in a dump forever. It seems like everything the Greens touch turns out to be anti-environmental destructive nonsense.
My fridge got trashed for the same reason.
“DUH”, were all the “freon” using A/Cs in the tens-of-millions of automobile and trucks also trashed/scrapped when they needed a “re-charge”?
SCC, that depends on how expensive it was to replace vs fix.
Samuel – when you say “duh” and talk down to people, are you implying that you are ‘way smarter than them? See Dunning-Kruger Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304246
Claude
A theory, that’s all.
So what DuPont refrigerant’s patent is coming due for expiration now?
I’m old enough to remember everyone freaking out over the ozone layer when hardly anyone knew what that meant. Even Hollywood chronicled this hysteria in several movies, so like tree rings, we can look back later as history is being revised to reconstruct one environmental scam after another designed to get the West to do one thing or another.
And I still no one has ever offered a good explanation of why a heavier-than-air product such as Freon® ever got from the leaking air-conditioning compressor of a car in Arkansas to the Antarctic’s upper atmosphere.
And I still no one has ever offered a good explanation of why a heavier-than-air product such as Freon® ever got from the leaking air-conditioning compressor of a car in Arkansas to the Antarctic’s upper atmosphere.
Has been explained many times, diffusion and turbulent mixing.
And those CFC’s for some reason like that magical Antarctic air. We never observe big ozone holes anywhere else. Antarctica is truly a magical place when it can entice all those CFC’s to migrate there. Maybe its the cold. Maybe CFC’s like the cold. If that is the case CFC’s will have no place to hide when CAGW happens. It will be the end of CFCs. That puts CFC’s on the same side of CAGW alarmists. But wait, alarmists are the same type of people that hate CFCs. It is all getting confusing . Aggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh.
What makes Antarctica different is the circumpolar vortex, which prevents equatorial air from reaching the interior. Even without photocatalytic destruction of ozone, it has a relatively short half-life. So, no sunlight in the Winter, no replenishment from ozone produced in the Tropics, and ozone declines even before the Spring photolysis can accelerate the decline. With the breakup of the vortex, and sunlight reaching the region, the ozone level is typically back to normal by mid-Summer. When ozone is low, the sun is very low on the horizon, thereby having a long slant-range through normal or even ozone-enriched air; the sun never gets high enough to be directly over the so-called hole.
Clyde, an effect that may be small, as many have argued when I presented it, is that O2 is fairly strongly paramagnetic (attracted by a strong magnetic field) and O3 is diamagnetic (repelled by same). Note the ozone hole has a collar of thicker than usual ozone around the hole (green-yellow- orange annular “ridges”). I had hoped that someone would digitize this and see if there is actually a reduction or simply redistribution of ozone. No one seems to have been interested. BTW, my mechanism would also result in a CO2 hole and, if I recall, noble gases hole and NOx hole, too.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/82235/ozone-hole-2013
Note the ozone hole has a collar of thicker than usual ozone around the hole (green-yellow- orange annular “ridges”).
The ridges form when the Ozone created in the tropics flows south via the Brewer-Dobson circulation. In the winter the polar vortex strengthens and the ozone remains trapped north of the vortex. The ozone within the vortex does not decline because in the absence of UV it does not degrade, in the spring the return of the UV and warming up which releases Cl from the PSCs as they melt causes the rapid decline in the O3. As the stratosphere warms up further the vortex weakens and the O3 to the North is also photolysed by the UV and can also mix with the polar air and the ridges disappear.
Phil
This link indicates that ozone has a half-life of about 3 months at -50 C:
https://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm
Gary,
I have been aware for some time of the magnetic properties of ozone and oxygen. However, while measurable, they are not high. Bismuth is the most diamagnetic metal known, with a (CGS) magnetic susceptibility of −2.82×10^−4 cm^3/mol, compared to ozone at -6.7·10^−6 cm^3/mol. That is, the force experienced by bismuth is roughly two orders of magnitude greater than that experienced by ozone. Water is shown to have a magnetic susceptibility of −1.298×10^−5. That is, water droplets should experience a magnetic repulsive force about twice that of ozone. Overall, I think the forces involved are too small to have any consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility
Phil
This link indicates that ozone has a half-life of about 3 months at -50 C:
Yes, but it’s referring to the use of O3 as a sterilizing agent, therefore at atmospheric pressure, and is not really relevant to what happens at 15km altitude.
Phil
You said, “…is not really relevant to what happens at 15km altitude.” I just spent some time looking at the tabular data at the NASA Goddard Ozonewatch site. I appears that the ozone declines from July 1st (night) to about half its value in 2 to 3 months. So, that 3-month estimate DOES appear to be relevant!
Phil
You said, “…is not really relevant to what happens at 15km altitude.”
I just spent some time looking at the tabular data at the NASA Goddard Ozonewatch site. I appears that the ozone declines from July 1st (night) to about half its value in 2 to 3 months. So, that 3-month estimate DOES appear to be relevant!
That is a rather superficial view, you need to look in more detail.
At 25km the O3 partial pressure remains at 5-6kPa from June through october (no decline)
At 20km the O3 partial pressure remains at 10kPa from June through august (drops to 8kPa by end of august then declines to 0kPa by the end of september.
At 15km the O3 partial pressure remains fairly steady until early august (~13kPa), whereupon it declines to 0kPa by the end of september (mostly in sept.)
Clearly a monotonic decline due to the absence of UV light is not what is happening in the lower stratosphere.
By the end of november the O3 partial pressure has risen to 11, 10 & 2kPa at those altitudes
Even without photocatalytic destruction of ozone, it has a relatively short half-life. So, no sunlight in the Winter, no replenishment from ozone produced in the Tropics, and ozone declines even before the Spring photolysis can accelerate the decline.
Ozone is measured to stay constant there from November through July, O3 starts to decline in August at altitudes around 20km, but nowhere else. So according to you the lifetime of O3 at 20km is shorter than that at 15km and 22km, according to me that’s due to the demise of the PSCs and release of Cl, what’s your explanation?
With the breakup of the vortex, and sunlight reaching the region, the ozone level is typically back to normal by mid-Summer.
Phil,
You said, “Ozone … starts to decline in August at altitudes around 20km, but nowhere else. So according to you the lifetime of O3 at 20km is shorter than that at 15km and 22km, …”
I have spent some time trying to verify your claim that O3 at 20km starts to decline in August, but not at other altitudes. I haven’t been able to confirm the claim, so I’m not going to speculate on what I haven’t validated.
You obviously didn’t try very hard!
Phil
It was more a matter of how much time I wanted to spend on the topic, not how hard I looked. Your links do demonstrate that the lowest ozone values (Sept) occur at an altitude where the lowest temperatures are reached. That is in line with what one expects with photocatalytic disassociation.
I had a little more time tonight and found something specific to your claim, i.e. that “Ozone…stay[s] constant there from November through July, O3 starts to decline in August. The graphs for the 2018 season, to be found at https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
show that ozone starts to decline in July, in the middle of the Antarctic night (e.g. no UV available to cause it) So, while I accept that the photocatalytic dissociation it driven by cold air and UV, it looks to me that my claim of ozone being unstable and spontaneously breaking down in the absence of sunlight is supported by the graph. Actually, there is no obvious evidence for UV accelerating the dissociation. The decline looks rather linear.
Incidentally, it looks to me that up until late September, the lowest temperatures are at 20+ km, while the loss of O3 is occurring at lower altitudes. So, it appears that the maximum loss at around 16 km is temperature driven in the presence of UV, but that losses (as I claimed) also occur in the absence of UV.
Clyde and Phil
Clyde says:
‘Your links do demonstrate that the lowest ozone values (Sept) occur at an altitude where the lowest temperatures are reached. That is in line with what one expects with photocatalytic disassociation’.
But there is a very different explanation of the ‘ozone hole’ that accords with what can be observed, if we care to look.
As Clive asserts, UV radiation from the sun creeping above the horizon is unlikely to be a material factor in the causation of the ‘hole’. The hole begins to manifest in July.
30 hPa or 25km is the cold point tropopause over Antarctica in July. Below this altitude there will be a tendency of air that is warmer than its surrounds to rise because it has lower density.
The cold point tropopause rises progressively to 10hPa or 30km in altitude from February through to June falling thereafter.
The ozone content of the air below the cold point tropopause is conditioned by the interaction of air masses of contrasting composition so far as O3 and NOx is concerned.
The air masses that compete for a place are 1) Tropical tropospheric air low in O3 and high in Nox. 2) Mid latitude air from above the much lower mid latitude tropopause with high O3 content feeding into low pressure cells surrounding Antarctica. 3) Air inside a ‘vortex’ made up of a chain of low-pressure cells that descends from the mesosphere but since the vortex is leaky it contains ozone rich air from mid latitudes that finds its way in at all elevations, particularly as an infeed to a descending circulation above the continent, at the highest altitudes. The notion that the vortex excludes air from lower latitudes is demonstrably false. The vortex is just a chain of separated, rotating low-pressure cells that draw in air from all directions.
The nature of the air below the cold point tropopause over Antarctica changes as atmospheric pressure over the continent increases from February through to July and declines from July through to February. From February through to November an east to west circulation exists at 10 hPa. It’s a very high velocity circulation in the winter months with air tending to descend over the continent. At its strongest, in winter, this air dominates the polar cap even down to the surface. From November to February the 10hPa circulation is low in velocity from east to west and ascending. The cold point tropopause is at its lowest level during the summer months and O3 levels are conditioned by the ozone content of mid latitude, above tropopause air, that is seasonally weak in O3 content in summer. (high tropopause in mid latitudes, more NOx coming from soil and more destructive UVB destroying ozone from above).
After July, (during the Antarctic night) tropospheric air weak in ozone and elevated in its nitrogen oxide content circulates on the outside of the very much expanded leaky vortex. As the cold point tropopause over Antarctica slowly descends towards its summer minimum and atmospheric pressure begins to rise across the continent this rotating air of low ozone, high NOx content closes in like a hang man’s noose’. Finally, it takes the place of the gradually elevating west to east circulation inside the vortex as this circulation weakens from July onwards. In this way an ‘ozone hole is established with peak deficit at 50 hPa below the cold point tropopause. It’s made up partly of air of a tropospheric origin and partly of stratospheric origin. So, it’s a mixed content air stream that can be mapped due to its elevated content of both ozone and NOx, that eats ozone. The configuration of this circulation is constantly changing.
After November, air of mid latitude origin gets to inhabit the zone at 50 hPa (about 20km), that is now above the cold point tropopause that is at the heart of the so-called ‘ozone hole’ The so called ‘hole’ disappears via lateral displacement. Air of tropospheric origin is simply excluded from the circulation above Antarctica. This happens regularly in November and the change in the weather that occurs in the entire southern hemisphere is sudden. It’s as though a switch has been flicked.
When chemists began to fervently point towards the ‘ozone hole’ and provide an explanation for it that involved anthropogenic causation they were feeding into a climate of anxiety about man’s effect on the planet and picking up Nobel prizes for their enterprise. At the time, students of the circulation of the atmosphere like Harry Van Loon were saying ‘hang on guys’, there is another explanation. They didn’t get a hearing. One must recall that until the advent of the satellite age in the 1980s the Southern Ocean and the atmosphere above it was an uncharted area.
The chemists are invested in their story as is the Green Movement and the United Nations. Phil knows nothing about the circulation of the air above Antarctica. He bats for the Chemists team and is a very worthy representative of that team.
Sadly, those who are fixated on the notion that Man is despoiling the planet have infected the imagination of the media and all political parties. In this climate, the impartiality of ‘science ‘ cannot be guaranteed, and political judgements are impaired.
I end with a comment from Harry Van Loon that is part of a personal communication back in 2008 that is illustrative of the takeover that occurred. Harry wrote:
“I submitted a paper in July which (I believe) showed that the warming of the past 120 years is predominantly a solar effect. But it was rejected, I suspect because of the dominant faith in human guilt. It’s depressing that there are so many closed minds. ”
Both Harry Van Loon and Gordon Dobson were very much aware that the circulation of the atmosphere is intimately connected with the distribution of ozone. It’s the stratosphere that drives what’s happening in the troposphere. Somehow, just before WW2 academia got stuck on the idea that the reverse is the case. And we are still stuck with that notion today. Everything that happens in the upper atmosphere must have a ‘bottom up’, rather than a ‘top down’ explanation.
Harry collaborated with Karin Labitzke from the Freie Univursitat Berlin in the writing of their book ‘The Stratosphere’, Phenomena, History, and Relevance. It’s a good place to begin one’s study of the atmosphere.
The greenhouse theorem is patently nonsense. The entire southern hemisphere is no warmer in the month of December today, than it was in 1948. Does the Greenhouse effect take a pre-Christmas holiday? Very unlikely. And yet, its an article of faith, even amongst the ‘sceptics’. So, no progress is currently possible.
I had a little more time tonight and found something specific to your claim, i.e. that “Ozone…stay[s] constant there from November through July, O3 starts to decline in August. The graphs for the 2018 season, to be found at https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
show that ozone starts to decline in July, in the middle of the Antarctic night (e.g. no UV available to cause it)
The there referred to was the lower stratosphere, as I posted out above:
“At 25km the O3 partial pressure remains at 5-6kPa from June through october (no decline)
At 20km the O3 partial pressure remains at 10kPa from June through august (drops to 8kPa by end of august then declines to 0kPa by the end of september.
At 15km the O3 partial pressure remains fairly steady until early august (~13kPa), whereupon it declines to 0kPa by the end of september (mostly in sept.)
Clearly a monotonic decline due to the absence of UV light is not what is happening in the lower stratosphere.”
So, while I accept that the photocatalytic dissociation it driven by cold air and UV, it looks to me that my claim of ozone being unstable and spontaneously breaking down in the absence of sunlight is supported by the graph. Actually, there is no obvious evidence for UV accelerating the dissociation. The decline looks rather linear.
I don’t know what data you’re looking at but that’s not happening in the stratosphere.
The chemists are invested in their story as is the Green Movement and the United Nations. Phil knows nothing about the circulation of the air above Antarctica. He bats for the Chemists team and is a very worthy representative of that team.
Ozone creation and destruction involves chemistry, pure and simple. You try to invoke chemistry too with your NOx but you get it wrong. The importance of NOx is that it converts ClO into a stable chemical, a reservoir species ClONO2, and prevents it from destroying Ozone. However in those polar regions it is so cold that it creates HNO3 ice clouds (PSCs) and liberates Cl2. Those PSCs ‘snow’ out of the lower stratosphere thus denitrifying it, consequently in the spring there is no NOx there to trap any Cl produced by photodissociation of the Cl and the O3 is destroyed. The region where O3 is effectively zero in the spring is where the temperature was low enough to form PSCs and where NOx is extremely low, not as you assert where NOx is high. The Cl2 is photodissociated by wavelengths around 350nm and Cl2O2 formed in the process is dissociated by wavelengths above 300nm.
At 50 hPa on September 18th
HNo3 http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=hno3&l=at-050hPa&date=201809182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
Note that the strongest concentration of HNO3 is outside the margins of the continent where there are no polar stratospheric clouds. The vortex over the polar cap is penetrated at the margins.
Ozone
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=o3&l=at-050hPa&date=201809182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
The strongest concentration of ozone is outside the vortex and there is obvious mixing into a leaky vortex from the perimeter.
It’s the same story with NOx
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=nox&l=at-050hPa&date=201809182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
Progressively from August the polar cap region over the continent of Antarctica that is relatively free of NOx and ozone shrinks.
Here is August.
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=nox&l=at-050hPa&date=201808182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
A very large NOx free zone is apparent. Compare to the last link to see the hangman’s noose tightening over the month.
A month later (October) the noose is tighter.
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=nox&l=at-050hPa&date=201810182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
And by November on the same day of the month the transition is almost complete.
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=nox&l=at-050hPa&date=201811182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
Can we rule out the interaction of oxides of nitrogen with the polar cap atmosphere as the vortex weakens and shrinks in size between July and November with the progressive increase in atmospheric pressure over the continent of Antarctica?
As atmospheric pressure falls away we see a shrinking vortex and an increase in the concentration of NOx of mid latitude and tropical origin on the margins of the vortex. And there is obvious mixing from outside the margins of the vortex into the polar cap atmosphere. One should not pretend that the polar cap is a test tube in a laboratory where all the additions are under strict control. That idea is laughable.
The vortex at 50 hPa is a chain of low pressure cells with air entering from all directions. Its like a mixing bowl with half a dozen agitators surrounding the core.
Well for some reason my response to Erl has gone astray, perhaps the MODS can find it?
In any case the data Erl cited supports my argument, the polar regions show the disappearance of the HNO3 as it gets cold enough to form PSCs there, then Cl2O2 forms leading to ClO inside the vortex thus destroying the O3. The ClO and Cl2O2 don’t exist outside the vortex., whereas the NOx doesn’t exist inside the vortex.
Thus Erl’s proposed mechanism of NOx within the vortex destroying O3 clearly doesn’t happen.
You can lead a horse to water but…….
So, Phil, is there any evidence that the deficit of ozone in the so call ‘hole’, however caused, is responsible for a loss of ozone outside the vortex, say north of 50° south latitude?
Secondly, is it also your belief that the greenhouse effect is the dominant cause of the warming of the atmosphere that has occurred over the last seventy years.
Phil doesn’t like questions. It interferes with his mantra.
Does the development of the hole (and the flux in ozone concentration within the hole) influence ozone levels outside the vortex?
This is a very pertinent question. Either the vortex is leaky or its not. There is either a two way passage of air parcels of very different composition across the vortex (that’s what the maps show) or there is not.
Erl Happ January 2, 2019 at 5:54 pm
You can lead a horse to water but…….
Apparently, but in your case rather than drink the water you try to change the subject!
Your idea that NOx enters the vortex where it destroys the O3 is refuted by the data that you yourself cited. The role of Chlorine compounds and HNO3 is clearly shown in that data and refute your hypothesis concerning the “Tropical tropospheric air low in O3 and high in Nox”.
Erl Happ January 3, 2019 at 5:17 pm
Phil doesn’t like questions. It interferes with his mantra.
I don’t like you changing the subject to avoid addressing clear errors in your model.
Remember you said:
“After July, (during the Antarctic night) tropospheric air weak in ozone and elevated in its nitrogen oxide content circulates on the outside of the very much expanded leaky vortex.
The data you cited however shows air containing both elevated NOx and high O3 (not weak), completely contradicting your model!
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=nox&l=at-050hPa&date=201808182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
Inside the vortex there is an absence of O3, coinciding with an abundance of ClO compounds which don’t exist outside the vortex, also the absence of HNO3 inside the vortex due to its freezing out forming PSCs.
Face up to it Erl, you got the chemistry wrong and your flow model isn’t consistent with the data that you cited. Failing to address this and trying to change the subject doesn’t work.
On the contrary the data shows a circulation at work, and migration across the vortex
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=o3&l=at-050hPa&date=201808182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=BASCOE&spc=n2o&l=at-050hPa&date=201808182100&ptype=sh&mos=1ppp
Its not a test tube and the variables involved are numerous. It doesn’t require Polar stratospheric clouds to generate chemicals antagonistic to ozone.
Your assertions are not supported by the evidence.
On the contrary the data shows a circulation at work, and migration across the vortex
That there is circulation and migration is not in dispute, where you are wrong is in claiming, for example, that “tropospheric air weak in ozone and elevated in its nitrogen oxide content circulates on the outside of the very much expanded leaky vortex”. The data that you cited shows that not to be the case!
Its not a test tube and the variables involved are numerous. It doesn’t require Polar stratospheric clouds to generate chemicals antagonistic to ozone.
However, the formation of PSCs do result in the generation of chlorine species ‘antagonistic to ozone’ and result in the denitrification of the air within the vortex. This is shown by the data you cited but you choose to ignore it. The chlorine compounds are generated within the vortex, they aren’t transported from anywhere else, ozone does not coexist with them, yet you choose to believe that ozone is destroyed by NOx when the data you cite shows that is not the case.
The chemistry is important, you don’t understand the chemistry so you believe that the ozone hole is due to atmospheric circulation, something you claim to understand.
Phil you say: ‘That there is circulation and migration is not in dispute’.
Great. That’s a good start. We are not dealing with a test tube or any sort of ‘container’ that enables us to say with surety that the interacting trace gases over Antarctica are in any sense stable in their presence or concentration. The ‘container’ is constantly morphing from one shape to another in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions, with the composition of the atmosphere on both sides of the zone varying dramatically on all time scales. There is mixing, with air of different origins entering from the side, from above and below. At times the ‘container’ is displaced sideways and absorbed into the surrounding atmosphere.
The fundamental relationships between oxygen and nitrogen that allows the stratosphere to manifest, albeit in different form and at different levels, varying with the month of the year, and to do so in very different forms at different latitudes. The form of the stratosphere also changes systematically across the decades. This is reflected in surface pressure change. The chief driver of this change is what’s happening over Antarctica. The low-pressure zone below the ‘vortex’ represents a global ‘sink’ for the atmosphere. As pressure falls here, it rises elsewhere, and particularly in the mid latitudes of the southern hemisphere driving the north westerly component that brings tropospheric air to Antarctica. But pressure rises across the entire globe, even in the Arctic enhancing the power of the Antarctic sink.
I am not a chemist, so I will quote from a reliable source:
“Previous measurements of stratospheric NO2 profiles have shown that its chemistry is fairly well understood [e.g., Solomon and Garcia; 1983]. The main stratospheric source of odd nitro gen is the oxidation of N20 via the reaction N20 + O(•D) –• 2 NO where N20 is produced in the troposphere and transported to the stratosphere. A secondary stratospheric source of NO is the reaction of atomic nitrogen with molecular oxygen. This mechanism for the formation of NO is most important in the polar regions, where the oxidation of N20 is slow [e.g., Brasseur and Solomon, 1984]. Sources of atomic nitrogen in the stratosphere include dissociation of molecular nitrogen, N2, by energetic particles from galactic cosmic rays or solar proton events (SPEs) which penetrate to the stratosphere [Jackman et al., 1980] and by the propagation to the stratosphere of bremsstrahlung X rays resulting from the deceleration of energetic electrons in the upper mesosphere or lower thermosphere [Frahm et al., 1997]. In addition to the stratospheric sources listed above, when photochemical time constants are long enough, as in the polar winter, another source of stratospheric odd nitrogen is the downward transport of mesospheric or thermospheric NO [e.g., Solomon et al., 1982; Russell et at., 1984; Garcia and Solomon, 1994; Callis et at., 1996; Siskind et al., 1997]. Processes leading to N2 dissociation and NO production in the mesosphere and thermosphere include SPEs, relativistic electron precipitation (REP), ablating meteors, and thermospheric ion chemistry [Jackman et al., 1980”
Source: https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD02092
So, we can say with confidence that nitrogen from above and below the ozone rich layer erode ozone on the upper and lower margins. But the word ‘margin’ requires qualification.
The ‘margin’ between the troposphere and the stratosphere is broad and diffuse depending on the interaction of air masses of very different composition from above and below. Between 400 hPa and 50 hPa very different air masses in terms of their chemical composition occupy the same lateral space. If one studies radiosonde data from one day to the next one realizes that the flux in ozone and temperature at altitude depends upon the changing presence of passing air masses. A fall in air pressure at ground level is accompanied by an increase in the partial pressure of ozone aloft. The tropopause is lower when surface pressure falls. In Antarctica, the cold point tropopause rises to as high as 10 hPa in the winter months encouraging warmer air from below to ascend and occupy space normally inhabited by stratospheric air.
When I look at a sonde for a location affected by the ‘ozone hole’ I see shapes that are consistent with change in the direction of the wind.
When I look at a map showing the concentration of trace gases at 100 hPa and at 50 hPa it simply shows that the air is in motion and that incoming air from outside the so-called vortex has the capacity to change what’s inside the vortex. Pressure data shows that the flow of air from the north reaches its annual peak in intensity in the month that the hole manifests.
The ozone hole was present over Antarctica before the advent of refrigeration as revealed in Gordon Dobson’s data. Given the nature of the atmosphere over the continent of Antarctica and around its margins, the paucity of knowledge and the apparent lack of interest in what I consider to be the prime driver of natural climate variation globally, I have little patience for those who assert that the hole is aggravated by the activities of man.
The truth is that the atmosphere is evolving over time. So, will the hole. Those who study the hole who are less passionate about the environmental cause realize that they don’t understand what’s going on and so should you.
Sadly, CFC’s has no affect on Ground Base Ozone. Diffusion and Turbulence ensures immediate transfer to the polar regions.
Well that’s the best chuckle I’ve had all day.
No, it’s been BS’ed many times.
Chloroform reacts with oxygen and UV light to produce phosgene.
Phosgene reacts slowly with mositure to produce hydrochloric acid and carbon dioxide.
Or acid rain and the gas of life.
The mesosphere is where most small meteorites disintegrate.
Meteorites contain both chlorine and alkaline metals – both will react with the ozone. At the end of Antarctica night, the mesosphere descends down into the stratosphere and destroys the ozone from above.
The metals from the meteorites and the ice in the mesosphere are believed to create the noctilucent clouds.
At the end of Antarctica night, the mesosphere descends down into the stratosphere and destroys the ozone from above.
No, the ozone hole forms between about 12km and 22km altitude, above 22km it’s unaffected!
“Let’s replace the world’s most popular crucial medicine that has a long shelf life and is trivial to mass produce, with a precision manufactured device with a short shelf life that costs many times as much.”
A moment in history when it became crystal clear that Environmentalists hate people.
CFC Asthma inhalers
how many deaths are at their hands?
Affecting most, the poor in developing countries.
Who’da thunk it
Similar to how they brought in a worldwide ban on phosphates in Laundry detergents.
Sodium tripolyphosphate is an very effective cleaner, cheap, and so non toxic they use it as a food additive.
There was very little evidence it caused algal blooms, and certainly it had negligible effect when compared with the human waste sewerage it was with.
Thanks for reminding me of that one.
Jeff
I won’t claim to know a lot about this issue. However, I will make the observation that the problem of sudsy rivers and algal blooms that can’t be attributed agricultural runoff seem to have abated.
Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. “We’re getting these little side stories now that say, just a minute, species are rising that shouldn’t be rising.
scuse me? but since when????do we call a chemical a species?
curious whos got shares in the nonstick Enamel pans that cost a motza? in this mob or who funded it?
and what they really are as well cos the old enamels I have got scratched by scourers and and whatever you cooked except boiled veg sure stuck like chewy on a blanket!
scuse me? but since when????do we call a chemical a species?
Since long before I started studying chemistry in the 60s!
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Dobson himself had detected a thinning of the Antarctic ozone layer years before the introduction of CFCs. Can anyone confirm this?
If so, we will have evidence that the fabled Ozone Hole is perfectly natural.
Yep, Dobson discovered in in 1956. It’s natural.
I answered the same question above at December 25, 2018 8:21 am. Dobson wrote an article in 1968 titled: “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History” (Applied Optics, vol. 7, no. 3, March 1968, pages 387-405). He noted the Antarctic OZONE anomaly during the International Geophysical Year: July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958.
Dan Kurt
Yes, I answered this and referred to Dobson’s paper but for some reason it disappeared. Dobson was expecting the results to mirror the results from Spitzbergen and was surprised to see that the springtime results were lower but in november it returned to the Spitzbergen value. Initially he thought that something had gone wrong with the instrument, but the same results were obtained the next two years. However, this low spring value was ~300DU not the values seen since the late 70s. The typical value seen each spring (october) remained the same until the late 70s when it started to drop precipitately ultimately reaching ~90DU. The value used to define the ozone hole is less than 220DU, a value not seen before 1979. So the colder conditions and PSCs could be responsible for the reduction observed by Dodson but the substantial reduction since the 70s needs some additional mechanism.
Read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/new-threat-to-ozone-recovery/#comment-2566912
BR
New threat to ozone recovery
Post on Acid Rain to follow
There is no ozone hole.
Peroxides are formed here rather than ozone.
Now look at the spectra of ozone and H2O2…
“Using atmospheric model” Fortune tellers have more credibility.
“chloroform emissions, on the rise in East Asia”…along with everything else
More total “what-iffery”. They even admit it in the article itself. “Here is something that is not a problem, but I think I can find a way to imagine that it might be problem someday if we try hard enough.”
But it is a reminder that the ozone hole was the example that showed the global-warmers how to operate. People had been speculating for decades about how it might be problem, but the evidence refused to play the game. Until they discovered that what you are supposed to do is adjust the evidence until you get the result you want. I still feel embarrassed that I was taken in by it too.
Like many other synthetic chemists, I used to use chloroform regularly until regulations justified by the Montreal Protocol was rushed through. Yes, it was fairly easily replaced in most applications, with only marginal extra cost and inconvenience. But that is not the issue. It was just another turn of the ratchet against all things chemical. When you start to run out of good cost effective replacements, then difficulties multiply until eventually…..your industry and source of employment moves to China.
We see similar approaches in the energy and automotive industries. Politicians and activists with no knowledge of what is and is not possible assume that if you ban something then a perfectly simple solution must necessarily arise immediately because it was only lazy evil capitalists preventing it from doing so.
Anyone with time to kill can read about 30 chapters about ozone here… https://reality348.wordpress.com
Erl Happ has plenty of maps and charts to visualise ozone impact on weather.
Cheers.
If, as I was taught way back when, Ozone is generated by ‘Cosmic rays’ from the sun in the upper atmosphere it would seem rational that with no ozone generation in the Antarctic winter, the reactive and unstable ozone would morph back into Oxygen and perhaps some oxides of Nitrogen. Coupled with the descending cold dense polar air mass, adiabatic collapse? increasing temperature and pressure, ozone depletion would seem inevitable and predictable as an annual cycle. If this is the case, the impact of chlorine radicals from whatever source including sea salt from cyclones and ejecta from Mt. Erebus, would seem to be trivial or irrelevent.
Is there any data for example on the ratios of Carbon14 to Carbon12 winter v summer in the antarctic Ozone hole?
If C14 is generated from Nitrogen by ‘cosmic rays’ in the upper atmosphere, then there should be a detectable seasonal variation in the ratios.
Cheers and Merry Christmas
If, as I was taught way back when, Ozone is generated by ‘Cosmic rays’ from the sun in the upper atmosphere it would seem rational that with no ozone generation in the Antarctic winter, the reactive and unstable ozone would morph back into Oxygen and perhaps some oxides of Nitrogen.
Except that isn’t what happens, the Ozone stays constant during the winter and the hole forms in the spring when the sunlight returns and the polar stratosphere starts to warm up.
But then by December, the “hole” is gone. All the Ozone is back within 1-2 months. And the surplus Ozone at 60S as of October goes back to normal by December. It just gets moved out by atmospheric circulation at the end of the winter and then when the Sun comes back it moves back in.
There is no Ozone destruction. It just gets moved around.
Oct 28, 2018. Highest Ozone levels on the planet for any time of year at 60S. But big Hole at 90S.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/sh/sbuv19_sh_181028.png
Jan 15, 2017. Excess Ozone at 60S is now gone. And no Hole at 90S.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/archive/sh/2017/sbuv19_sh_170115.png
It just moves to different latitudes at different times of year.
Not true, but you keep spouting the same nonsense time and time again. The vortex cuts off access to the polar region and O3 starts building up outside the vortex before the polar ozone starts to decrease. Similarly the O3 starts to increase before the vortex breaks down.
Phil
Assuming that what you say is true, it doesn’t contradict the idea that ozone has a short half-life and will decline in the absence of replacement or newly generated ozone from UV. Additionally, while the ozone may start to increase before the breakup (because of the end of the Antarctic ‘night’), that doesn’t provide evidence that the ozone enriched air doesn’t accelerate the return to ‘normalcy’ as it migrates into the interior. How else would you explain the disappearance of the air masses anomalously high in ozone?
Phil.
Often claimed, those who claim the Antarctic is “cut-off” from the rest of the world’s climate by the winds above the Southern Ocean fail to explain how the heat energy that is continuously lost to the infinite blackness of space from regions south of -56 latitude is replenished. (If there were no continuous replacement of every watt-hour lost to space, that 8% of the earth’s surface south would eventually decrease to -273 C.)
On the other hand, sea ice loss in that little bit of 2.5% of the earth north of 72 latitude is considered important. Even though, for 7 months of the year, the less Arctic Ice is present on the Arctic Ocean, the greater the heat energy lost from the Arctic to space! It is only those few fleeting days between mid-April and mid-August that more heat is absorbed from the sun than is lost to air, then to the space above the Arctic Ocean.
Phil
Assuming that what you say is true, it doesn’t contradict the idea that ozone has a short half-life and will decline in the absence of replacement or newly generated ozone from UV.
In the absence of UV the lifetime of O3 is not short, also when O3 breaks down it forma an O2 molecule and an O radical, if the O collides with another O2 molecule it will form another O3 molecule.
Additionally, while the ozone may start to increase before the breakup (because of the end of the Antarctic ‘night’), that doesn’t provide evidence that the ozone enriched air doesn’t accelerate the return to ‘normalcy’ as it migrates into the interior. How else would you explain the disappearance of the air masses anomalously high in ozone?
As the vortex weakens then it is possible that the O3 to the north of the vortex can migrate towards the pole but also the increase in UV can also degrade the O3 in the ‘ridges’.
Phil,
See my referenced note above that ozone has a half-life of 3 months at -50 C. If O3 breaks down, the resulting monotonic oxygen is also free to combine with another monotonic oxygen, which doesn’t require the addition of energy. Therefore, it is more probable in a low-pressure environment in the absence of UV.
It isn’t just the presence of UV that photolyzes ozone. It must be very cold and chlorine must be attached to the noctilucent ice crystals. You appear to be suggesting that the stratospheric meteorological conditions outside the vortex are the same as inside the vortex. That hasn’t been demonstrated.
If O3 breaks down, the resulting monotonic oxygen is also free to combine with another monotonic oxygen, which doesn’t require the addition of energy. Therefore, it is more probable in a low-pressure environment in the absence of UV.
Yes, the reaction O+O+M→O2+M was originally included in the Chapman mechanism but due to the much lower concentration of O compared with O2 it was found to be insignificant. So it is much less probable than O+O2+M→O3+M.
It isn’t just the presence of UV that photolyzes ozone. It must be very cold and chlorine must be attached to the noctilucent ice crystals. You appear to be suggesting that the stratospheric meteorological conditions outside the vortex are the same as inside the vortex. That hasn’t been demonstrated.
No, the chlorine and ice crystals are not necessary for the photolysis of O3, they are responsible for the very enhanced destruction of O3 within the vortex, but the slower decay of O3 outside the vortex can be due to the regular photolysis of the Chapman mechanism.
Phil
See my comment above where the graph shows that O3 starts to decline (linearly) in early-July, i.e. the middle of the Antarctic night.
See my comment where I refute that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/new-threat-to-ozone-recovery/#comment-2572556
No “chemtrails” involved this time ? C’mon folks, back to the drawing board, you can’t miss this scare ingredient.
“There are 13 active stations scattered around the world, including in California, Europe, Asia, and Australia. At each station, air inlets atop typically 30-foot-tall towers pull in air about 20 times per day, and researchers use automated instruments to analyze the atmospheric concentrations of more than 50 greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases. With stations around the world monitoring gases at such a high frequency, AGAGE provides a highly accurate way to identify which emissions might be rising and where these emissions may originate.”
Wow. 13 stations covering 197,000,000 sq miles of earth’s surface. Impressive. No wonder the last sentence contains the inevitable “might” and “may”.
Interesting that the evil CO2 is not one of the items being measured.
https://agage.mit.edu/data/agage-data
Is that because no-one wants to disturb/question the Hawaii measurements?
That’s because that’s not their mission, CO2 is already being monitored at a number of sites (many of the same sites) under a different program.
Scouse
The Hawaii measurements are not genetally questioned for accuracy. What is also not questioned unfortunately is the mechanical accuracy of the curves, despite pretty much everything. Yes they are the result of natural forces, but more to do with atmospheric control mechanisms.
Why does the Arctic sea ice cycle align with the Alaskan CO2 cycle, perfectly. They are controlled by the same atmospheric cycle.
Regards
In my letter to Santa I asked for the Complete Earth Operating Manual as my main present, which, among other things, states exactly what size the ozone hole should be; the correct global temperature; default setting for climate; exactly how many elephants, snow leopards, Polar bears and other fauna and flora there should be; maximum permitted sea level;the definitive Arctic Sea ice extent Summer/Winter…
Unfortunately Ralph Hinkley lost that manual (along with the one for his super-suit) Ralph was not very good at keeping track of important manuals.
“…But because it is generally assumed that chloroform and other VSLSs are unlikely to do any real damage to ozone, the Montreal Protocol does not stipulate regulating the compounds…”
So the science behind the Montreal Protocol was wrong?
“…They found that if concentrations remained steady at 2015 levels, the increase observed from 2010 to 2015 would delay ozone recovery by about five months. If, however, concentrations were to continue climbing as they have through 2050, this would set a complete healing of the ozone layer back by four to eight years…”
This sounds very close to being a non-issue.
“…But because it is generally assumed that chloroform and other VSLSs are unlikely to do any real damage to ozone, the Montreal Protocol does not stipulate regulating the compounds…”
So the science behind the Montreal Protocol was wrong?
Very Short Lived Substances are those chlorine (or bromine) compounds which have a sufficiently short lifetime that they are unlikely to survive the ~5yrs it will take to reave the stratosphere.
Reasons for skepticism:
1. Anyone predicting the results of the ozone treaty would have had to admit some uncertainty.
2. Such predictions as were made have not come true.
3. There is a need for a new explanation. The CFCs that we banned were indeed a problem, but now it turns out there are other man-made chemicals that are also a problem. Or maybe there are natural cycles at work?
The great David Middleton at WUWT on June 5, 2017. https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/now-that-trump-has-defeated-paris-hes-taking-on-montreal/
Fred Pearce, “Solving the Ozone Problem Remains Elusive,” August 14, 2017. https://e360.yale.edu/features/thirty-years-after-the-montreal-protocol-solving-the-ozone-problem-remains-elusive
Well, something new is needed to explain why the ozone hole refuses to go away despite all the prohibitions on various halogenated hydrocarbons.
The hole is very likely caused by the halogens released into the antarctic stratosphere by Mount Erebus, which has been in continuous eruption since 1971, so until Mt Erebus is obliging enough to shut down, they have to keep inventing new chemicals to blame as the old ones disappear without noticeable effect on the ozone hole.
Well, something new is needed to explain why the ozone hole refuses to go away despite all the prohibitions on various halogenated hydrocarbons.
No, the major halogenated compounds have an atmospheric lifetime of ~100 years so they are slowly decaying, the concentration has dropped about 10% since the Montreal Protocol.
http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/data_archive/data_figures/monthly/png/CFC-12_mm.png
The hole is very likely caused by the halogens released into the antarctic stratosphere by Mount Erebus, which has been in continuous eruption since 1971, so until Mt Erebus is obliging enough to shut down, they have to keep inventing new chemicals to blame as the old ones disappear without noticeable effect on the ozone hole.
The majority of the old ones are not disappearing they are slowly degrading. Erebus is a source of inorganic chlorine molecules which flow out of the volcano with steam, as these compounds are water soluble they get flushed out of the atmosphere and are found in the snow downwind.
More made up “climate model” outcomes disconnected from reality.
The biggest threat to the ozone layer is bullshit, now, thanks to modern technology, available in ultra-pure form.
I state that the so-called “ozone hole” is totally natural, a consequency of the distribution of solar energy on the lanet. Prove me wrong b
As one would expect from publications of this kind, the message of an increase in chloroform concentration in the atmosphere over East Asia is not accompanied by data on changes in the concentration of stratospheric ozone in this region. Very similar to the situation in 1980-90, when CFCs were produced in Europe and North America. and the “ozone hole” was discovered over Antarctica. As before, there is no reliable data on the concentration of chloroform in the stratosphere.
It seems to me that, until now, due attention has not been paid to the fact that the C-Cl bond is capable of photochemical splitting already in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Bond energy for C-Cl is of 339 kJ/mol, therefore, the wavelength of the radiation capable of splitting this bond is less than 354 nm, and this radiation freely passes through ozone layer.
Chloroform emissions into the atmosphere are certainly harmful to human health and the environment, but this is unlikely to be related to stratospheric ozone.
That’s why chloroform is classified as a VSLS (very short lived) so it doesn’t have time to reach the stratosphere except in extreme conditions. The AGAGE data shows N hemisphere concentrations of chloroform gradually increasing but not yet in the S Hemisphere.
http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/data_archive/data_figures/monthly/png/CHCl3_mm.png
This confirms that chloroform has no effect on atmospheric ozone, and therefore, the statement “chloroform emissions could delay ozone recovery by up to 8 years” is not justified. By the way, the remark about the splitting of the C – Cl bond in the near UV region also applies to the well-known “long-lived” ozone destroyers CFC-11, CFC-12, and so on.
This confirms that chloroform has no effect on atmospheric ozone, and therefore, the statement “chloroform emissions could delay ozone recovery by up to 8 years” is not justified.
Read the paper, “The fact that the rise in chloroform stems from East Asia adds further urgency to the situation. This region is especially susceptible to monsoons, typhoons, and other extreme storms that could give chloroform and other short-lived species a boost into the stratosphere, where they would eventually decompose into the chlorine that eats away at ozone.”
If it weren’t for that I would agree with you.
By the way, the remark about the splitting of the C – Cl bond in the near UV region also applies to the well-known “long-lived” ozone destroyers CFC-11, CFC-12, and so on.
Actually it takes wavelengths less than 290nm to break the C-Cl bond.
“Actually it takes wavelengths less than 290 nm to break the the C-Cl bond”.
According to Bond Dissociation Energies data, bond energies in CFC-11 and CFC-12 are even less: 305 kJ/mol for Cl-CCl2F and 318 kJ/mol for Cl-CCl2F2 https://labs.chem.ucsb.edu/zakarian/armen/11—bonddissociationenergy.pdf Corresponding maximum wavelengths are 392 and 376 nm. M.Molina and F.S.Rowland (1974) claimed that “stratospheric photolysis will occur mainly in the “window” at 1,750 – 2,200 A (175 – 220 nm)”, https://unep.ch/ozone/pdf/stratopheric.pdf though at wavelengths less than 240 nm the O=O bond already splits and ozone itself is formed. So, I’d like to know who and how found this “actual value” 290 nm (link, please).
According to Bond Dissociation Energies data, bond energies in CFC-11 and CFC-12 are even less: 305 kJ/mol for Cl-CCl2F and 318 kJ/mol for Cl-CCl2F2 https://labs.chem.ucsb.edu/zakarian/armen/11—bonddissociationenergy.pdf Corresponding maximum wavelengths are 392 and 376 nm.
That’s your mistake, assuming that a wavelength corresponding to the bond dissociation is what is needed to break the bond. First of all the molecule needs to be able to absorb the wavelength, and that depends on the electronic structure of the molecule, subsequent distribution of the energy to the vibration of the various bonds can cause dissociation of the bond. Generally it’s necessary to absorb more energy in total that required for dissociation. In the case of CFCs they do not absorb in the wavelengths that you give but actually at much shorter wavelengths.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8043–8052, 2016 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/8043/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-8043-2016
M.Molina and F.S.Rowland (1974) claimed that “stratospheric photolysis will occur mainly in the “window” at 1,750 – 2,200 A (175 – 220 nm)”, https://unep.ch/ozone/pdf/stratopheric.pdf though at wavelengths less than 240 nm the O=O bond already splits and ozone itself is formed. So, I’d like to know who and how found this “actual value” 290 nm (link, please).
The ‘window’ is where the CFCs absorb and where the paper I cite measures the absorption cross-section.
Regarding Hawai being a accurate way to measure CO2, you must be joking. The station is surrounded vents puffing out CO2.
Best place would be Tasmania, the Mountains to their West. A vast area of Ocean too their West to accurately measure.
Re. the so called Ozone Hole, Du Pont did very well out of that farce, and no doubt when their present patient expires expect something similar to happen.
I recall the Fuss over Indian Hemp, because it competed against Nylon back in the 1930 tees. Du Pont was again involved.
MJE
Exactly, Cape Grim, where they also measure CO2, currently ~405ppm, less seasonal variation as is typical in the S hemisphere.
“What our country needs is tax reform and land reform. Instead, all we get is chloroform! Shall we continue to remain asleep?”
Moe Howard, Three Dark Horses, 1952
It’s about time they stopped beating this dead horse. The ozone “hole” has long been determined to be natural.
It would be great if there were some figures given fore the annual manufacture of chloroform, reliable ones.
Many references say it is used in the production of other chemicals, so that would often destroy the chloroform.
It is a heavy molecule, beats me how it makes it to these atmospheric heights.
As a chemist, I am not impressed by the supposed dangers of chloroform. Geoff
And also how they all migrate over the south pole.
It would be great if there were some figures given fore the annual manufacture of chloroform, reliable ones.
Many references say it is used in the production of other chemicals, so that would often destroy the chloroform.
Indeed, I recall back in the 60s chloroform was used in labs as a ‘universal organic solvent’ to cleanup glassware etc., the labs always smelled of it (as did my lab coat!). I suspect that a similar laxity in its use may be the reason for the increase now.
It is a heavy molecule, beats me how it makes it to these atmospheric heights.
As a chemist, I am not impressed by the supposed dangers of chloroform. Geoff
Simple the lower part of our atmosphere is referred to as the homosphere, that is constant composition for long lived stable gases (up to 100km), heaviness has nothing to do with it.
SF6 is another ‘heavy’ gas which because of its inertness and IR signature is used as a tracer of atmospheric transport.
For example:
“SF6 provides a useful tracer of atmospheric transport in both the troposphere and stratosphere. Rates for transport of pollutants into, within and out of the stratosphere are important parameters that regulate stratospheric composition. The basic characteristics of the stratospheric Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC) are known from observations of trace gases such as SF6: air enters the stratosphere at the tropical tropopause, rises at tropical latitudes, and descends at middle and high latitudes to return to the troposphere. Understanding the rate of this transport on a global scale is cru- cial in order to predict the response of stratospheric ozone to climatic or chemical change. SF6 is essentially inert in the troposphere to middle stratosphere and is removed by electron attachment and photolysis in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere (Ravishankara et al., 1993). This tracer therefore provides an ideal probe of transport on timescales of importance in the stratospheric circulation and quantitative information on mean air mass age for the lower and middle stratosphere.”
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74236447.pdf
It takes something like 5-10 years for a release in one place to spread around the globe and into the stratosphere.
Phil,
While gaseous chloroform has a molecular weight of about 120 to compared with N2 of about 28 (and SF6 about 140), I am surprised by claims of atmospheric homogenization. After all, climate research makes frequent use of partitioning of gas isotopes like oxygen and the carbon in CO2, which are very much closer together in weight and size.
So, why do isotopes partition, when chloroform and nitrogen in the air are claimed not to? Geoff
Partioning of isotpes is taking place during phase-changes(liquid-gas) not weithin one phase.
BR
MFKBoulder
MFKB,
So why does the light gas helium escape to space, while you say that the heavy gases SF6 and CHCl3 can’t sink down to earth? And does not chloroform exist in nature as both liquid and gas?
Geoff.
Hi Geoff,
vapor of chloroform of SF6 druing conditions of laminar flow will gather at the bottom of a given space. As soon as the flow is not laminar (as in the turbulent atmosphere) the mixing with the other gases will occur. “Demixing” under normal (atmospheric) conditions is not observed: Otherwise only giraffe cpuld suvive stickng their head above the 3m CO2 covering the earth surfcae.
Yes choloform exists under “normal conditions” as gas and liquid. Is there an issue I did not see?
So why does the light gas helium escape to space, while you say that the heavy gases SF6 and CHCl3 can’t sink down to earth? And does not chloroform exist in nature as both liquid and gas?
The kinetic energy of Helium in the atmosphere is such that individual molecules can have an escape velocity so in the upper atmosphere if they don’t strike another molecule they will continue uninterrupted into space. Heavier molecules aren’t able to reach escape velocities. Heavier gases constantly collide with other gases and maintain their mixing, there’s no mechanism to segregate them. At 10ppt concentrations in the atmosphere chloroform is only capable of being a gas, its vapor pressure at -80ºC is ~0.1kPa (way above 10ppt).
Covering their arses — if ozone doesn’t recover as advertised, new “excuses” will be manufactured.
Stratospheric ozone hit it’s lowest (known) level in 1962. It hit a high in ’69-’70 and then dropped again and started rising in 1986. But cherry picking natural fluctuations is great for inducing panic and mass hysteria.
Hi Art,
can you supply any references?
Ozone generally is measured as a total Ozone coulumn at Halley, Antarctica:
The Earth is a whole lot bigger than Halley, Antarctica. That info comes from satellite data which covers the globe much more completely and is in the citations below in my response to Clyde.
Which satellite was measuring stratospheric ozone in 1962, just 5 years after Sputnik 1 was launched?
The satellite data refers to “hit a high in ’69-’70 and then dropped again and started rising in 1986.”
Again which satellite data, it isn’t cited in the reference you gave and just asserts it in vague terms?
Here’s some real satellite data:
Art
Could you please provide citations for specific information like this that is not widely known? I’m dubious about your claims about lowest and subsequent high ozone levels in the ’60s because the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer didn’t start providing world-wide coverage until late-1978.
I’m quoting from Dr. Dixy Lee Ray who cites:
‘Two Environmental Issues: 1. Ozone, 2. The Greenhouse Problem,” a report to the World Affairs Council, Pittsburgh, George C. Marshall Institute, Washington DC, “Ozone,” Dec. 1991, pp 1 – 7.
Ellsaesser, Hugh W., 1991 “The Holes in the Ozone Hole II,” Cato Institute Conference, Washington DC, June 5-6, 1991
A quote of a quote of a quote
During my studies this was a “NoQuote”.
So that disqualifies any info contained therein? I could have just quoted her sources and you wouldn’t have known the difference, but then you’d have judged them valid? Sounds like you’re just looking for an out.
Well in the Cato Institute paper the author says: “We know that ozone was at a lower level in 1962 than it is today.”
That’s it, no source, no justification for that assertion.
Some additional remarks about the photodissociation of C-Cl bond.
I think it’s important in this thread, because if this bond can split in the lower troposphere, this calls into question the theory that organochlorine compounds rise into the stratosphere and, by cleaving chlorine, destroy the ozone layer.
Objecting to me, Phil wrote (December 26, 8:41 a.m.):” That’s your mistake, assuming that a wavelength corresponding to the bond dissociation is what is needed to break the bond. First of all the molecule needs to be able to absorb the wavelength, and that depends on the electronic structure of the molecule, subsequent distribution of the energy to the vibration of the various bonds can cause dissociation of the bond. Generally it’s necessary to absorb more energy in total that required for dissociation. In the case of CFCs they do not absorb in the wavelengths that you give but actually at much shorter wavelengths.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8043–8052, 2016 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/8043/2016/ doi:10.5194/acp-16-8043-2016 “
It’s not my mistake. I am ready to admit this as a mistake if, for example, the authors of this textbook agree with this: Th.L. Brown a.o. Chemistry. The Central Science. Pearson. 2009, p.771 (Calculation the wavelength requiring to break a bond). You can also recall that in this discussion, arguing with Anthony Barton (December 26, 9:10 a.m.) Phil have written:” The source is due to the absorption of UV radiation by oxygen molecules:
O2 + hν→ O+O (less than 240 nm)
O2 + O + M→ O3+M ”
So, the calculation of the maximum wavelength by the binding energy is correct for O = O bond and is incorrect f C – Cl bond (rhetoric question). And about the link given by Phil (I’ve read the full text): https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/atmosphere/publications/28.OrphalChance-491-504.pdf
This article talks about the UV spectra of some CFCs in the range of 190-235 nm. In this interval, photodissociation of C – Cl, C – F and O = O bonds occurs, so this study is not related to the question under consideration. The question is what the wavelength is necessary for splitting the C-Cl bond, and the article does not contain information on this issue.
Finally, a link to one important publication. G.Crecentini and F.Bruner (1980) using gas chromatography with mass-spectrometric detector found the presence of CFC-21 (CHCl2F) in the place that it was not used. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022113900841226 Authors’ explanation is: CFC-21 is a product of decompositon of CFC-11 (CCl3F) after photochemical splitting of one C-Cl bond and further substitution of Cl by hydrogen atom. It is important that this process takes place in the lower troposphere and can be considered as experimental evidence of the photolytic decomposition of the C – Cl bond under these conditions.
“That’s your mistake, assuming that a wavelength corresponding to the bond dissociation is what is needed to break the bond. First of all the molecule needs to be able to absorb the wavelength, and that depends on the electronic structure of the molecule, subsequent distribution of the energy to the vibration of the various bonds can cause dissociation of the bond. Generally it’s necessary to absorb more energy in total that required for dissociation. In the case of CFCs they do not absorb in the wavelengths that you give but actually at much shorter wavelengths.”
In order to break a bond it is necessary to increase the vibrational energy in that bond until it exceeds the bond dissociation energy. In order to absorb UV radiation the wavelength has to excite a resonance in the electron cloud of the molecule. In order to cause dissociation of a bond sufficient energy must then be transferred to the bond to be broken.
So, the calculation of the maximum wavelength by the binding energy is correct for O = O bond
So in order to break the bond the molecule has to be able to absorb a photon of sufficient energy, frequently that isn’t possible at the wavelength corresponding to the bond energy. In the case of a diatomic molecule there is only one bond so it is possible that all the energy absorbed can be transferred to that bond and break it. This is indicated in the case of oxygen.
However in the case of a polyatomic molecule even if it is able to absorb photons of the bond energy the energy is likely to be distributed among the different bonds not all to one. In the case of CFCs the molecule doesn’t absorb at the wavelength corresponding to the bond energy.
The question is what the wavelength is necessary for splitting the C-Cl bond
That is the wrong question, what you should ask is what wavelength that the molecule is capable of absorbing is able to break the bond.
I read the paper you referenced and see no evidence that CFC-21 is a photolysis product, it seems more likely to me that it is the result of a reaction between OH and CFC-11
OH + CCl3F → CHCl2F + ClO
Some bronchodilators actually contained a mixture of CFC-21 and CFC-11
What puzzles me is that the ‘hole’ in the ozone layer receives much comment, but the concomitant increase in the ozone concentration around the hole receives so little comment.
I should appreciate it if somebody would explain why, as the ‘hole’ develops, the periphery shows an increase. It looks much like a moving sideways of the ozone rather than ozone being destroyed.
Its a long read but this chapter will assist. https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/23-the-dearly-beloved-antarctic-ozone-hole-a-function-of-atmospheric-dynamics/
Specifically, The troposphere is rich in NOX. That’s why it is almost devoid of ozone. NOx is emitted from soil. More is emitted in summer than winter. Consequently stratospheric ozone levels peak in winter.
Re the hole:
NOx charged air gradually occupies the entire space over the Antarctic continent that formerly exhibited high surface pressure, extreme cold and a very dry atmosphere with some ozone. This is the process that erodes ozone to produce the ‘ozone hole’. It proceeds by gradual replacement of one sort of air with another, the latter including a compound, namely NOx, that soaks up ozone. It closes from the perimeter like the iris in the aperture of a camera.
Plainly NOx rich air is progressively entrained into the core of the circulation over the continent as mesospheric air stalls in its descent. NOx rich air from below 50 hPa accumulates in the lower stratosphere as the formerly descending circulation withdraws. The hole is a function of atmospheric dynamics that are initiated in August on the margin of the ‘night zone’.
Suggest you read up on ‘denitrification’ of the polar stratosphere, extreme low levels of O3 are associated with air pockets which have extremely low levels of nitric acid, i.e. those which has experienced denitrification by PSCs. The NOx rich air is a myth.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5df5/8604ef57a30b225113c55e9be68965f93f27.pdf
It’s due to the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Brewer-Dobson Circulation, is a circulation pattern that sets up between equator and pole. First, air is lifted out of the tropics from the troposphere to the stratosphere, where it acquires a high ozone content in the photochemical source region of the tropical high stratosphere. Then this high-ozone air moves poleward and downward, descending into the lower stratosphere in the polar latitudes . It is the reason for the observed column ozone distribution: low in the tropics and high in the polar regions. A complication in the southern hemisphere is the strong polar vortex that forms in the austral winter and effective isolates the polar air (~60ºS). Consequently the B-D flow stops short of the pole and ozone accumulates to the north of the vortex. In the late spring (november) the vortex weakens and the flow can resume and the accumulated ozone can mix with the ozone depleted polar stratosphere.
The Brewer Dobson circulation is a product of the imagination of two guys who worked in the nineteen thirties when the notion of the stratosphere was very new. Today, some of us know a lot more about atmospheric processes.
But for the release of NOx by soil ozone would increase in concentration all the way to the surface of the planet.
Ozone concentration peaks in winter due to lower soil temperature and diminished release of NOx.
In the winter, the tropopause is lower in the northern hemisphere than in summer.
Ozone in the stratosphere is not there due to photolysis of oxygen. That process is exhausted in the ionosphere. Wave lengths short enough to cleave oxygen are not present in the stratosphere and certainly completely unavailable over the poles in winter and springtime.
However, the longer wave lengths capable of cleaving ozone do reach the stratosphere, and in the absence of ozone the surface of the Earth. That said, the stratosphere is a relatively safe zone for ozone. Its free of attack by NOx from below or radiation from above……except in the polar regions during winter where there is a descent of NOx from the mesosphere. So, if ozone is transported from higher elevations into what we call the stratosphere, it can persist in concentrations sufficient to make the lapse rate positive rather than negative.
Its free of attack by NOx from below or radiation from above……except in the polar regions during winter where there is a descent of NOx from the mesosphere. So, if ozone is transported from higher elevations into what we call the stratosphere, it can persist in concentrations sufficient to make the lapse rate positive rather than negative.
Several observation refute your claim. Firstly the ozone peaks at ~16km over the S Pole during the winter. NOy in the form of nitric acid descends from the mesosphere but disappears from the gas phase as it crystallizes, those crystals fall through the lower stratosphere in a process referred to as denitrification, when it reaches the warmer atmosphere below the crystals sublime in the process of renitrification. During the spring the ozone around the peak starts to decline in the absence of HNO3, below ~16km and above ~22km the O3 is unaffected. This process continues until early october by which time the O3 concentration in the vicinity of 16-20km is zero, the O3 below ~16km and above ~22km is unchanged. By november the stratosphere above 22km has started to warm up significantly (about -40ºC at 25km vs -80º in winter), at the same time the O3 at 25km has increased to about 8mPa (Cf ~4mPa in winter) while the O3 in the hole is still ~0. By mid december the temperature at 25km has continued to warm and the O3 has increased to ~13mPa and this high O3 atmosphere has started to descend into the former hole and the low O3 minimum has descended to ~12km.
Your explanation: ” By November, gentle ascent is the rule and the circulation is clockwise rather than anticlockwise as it is in the winter. The tropospheric air is drawn in predominantly at the 50hPa level, and this creates the ‘hole’”, is contradicted by this data, the hole is being filled in november not created and the ozone appears to come from above not below.
Phil, Its important to grasp the fundamentals that condition the circulation of the air in high southern latitudes.
1. The zone of low surface pressure surrounding the Antarctic continent represents a planetary trough without comparison.
2. Low surface pressure is due to elevated total column ozone. Ozone absorbs infrared energy from the Earth. The upper portion of the atmospheric column is rarified. The entire column weighs less because there are fewer molecules stacked up at 60-70° south latitude.
3. Surface pressure has been in decline for seventy years across all high southern latitudes.
4. The temperature of the upper air in the entire southern hemisphere increased between 1948 and 1978 by about 10C. It has been in slow decline since that time but not in the ozone hole months when surface pressure falls to its annual minimum.
5 The circulation of the upper air slows dramatically and reverses in November then back to West to East by February-March. Its the transition from descent to ascent over the pole that is associated with the tightening of a noose of high Nox air of tropospheric origin at 50hPa. That air is drawn into the ascending vortex created by polar cyclones that surround the continent as is the descending air over the continent itself. As atmospheric pressure falls away over the continent there is a natural decay of the descending circulation over the continent. Within the vortex there is ozone. But the tropospheric air has virtually none. The tropospheric air substitutes for the descending relatively ozone rich air as it ceases to descend. Meanwhile, ozone partial pressure is falling away north of 60° of latitude yielding a rise in surface pressure across all high southern latitudes. The flow of the atmosphere with its very different parcels of air, so far as ozone content is concerned is conditioned by surface pressure. These are the fundamentals of atmospheric dynamics that determine the air flows.
Change in the nature of the hole is due to change in the background circumstances that determine atmospheric dynamics.
There is no better place to study these phenomena than at http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=MACC_o-suite&l=TC
Thank you, Erl & Phil, much appreciated.
A lot to get my head around, particularly with your ongoing discussions…
Thank you again.
Dobson observed the hole from the British Antarctic base at Halley Bay before the advent of refrigeration.
In Philvs comments you find those Details, wjic are omitted by the folks wjo starte: Dobson found the ozone hole in 1957:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/25/new-threat-to-ozone-recovery/#comment-2566912
BR
Sorry for the typos, not acquainted to MY smartphone…
No he didn’t, he observed that the springtime ozone was lower than observed in the Arctic (Spitzbergen), however it was still ~300DU well above today’s levels. What is known as the Ozone hole is the rapid drop in the springtime O3 to about 90DU which started in ~1979. Reasons for the levels being lower than the Arctic could include weaker Brewer-Dobson circulation, stronger polar vortex and lower temperatures leading to PSC formation. The rapid drop through the 80s required a new sink for the O3 involving Cl.
Phil, that’s all toss I am afraid.
Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic experiences a global high in surface atmospheric pressure in winter creating a gently descending circulation inside the vortex of cyclones circulating on the margin of the continent. As winter gives way to spring this circulation weakens and tropospheric air, devoid of ozone takes the place of the ozone bearing air inside the vortex. As the descending circulation inside the vortex weakens, the zone of descent ascends. By November, gentle ascent is the rule and the circulation is clockwise rather than anticlockwise as it is in the winter. The tropospheric air is drawn in predominantly at the 50hPa level, and this creates the ‘hole’. Variation from year to year and across the decades is an entirely natural meteorological phenomenon due to changing surface pressure relations with the ‘hole’ peaking on the average a month later in recent decades by comparison with the decades prior to the 1970s.
The progressive appearance of the hole at the 50 hPa level can be traced at this site: http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=MACC_o-suite&l=TC
The northern hemisphere occasionally experiences the same phenomenon despite its very different geography and pressure relations.
The hole is a meteorological phenomenon.
As for the Brewer Dobson circulation hypothesised in the 1930s, the circulation of the atmosphere at high altitudes is away from, rather than towards the poles. That’s apparent if one looks at the distribution of ozone at the 10 hPa level and higher as seen here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
Dobson observed that low pressure cells had a rarified upper atmospheric column due to the enhanced ozone content. The tropopause in a low pressure cell is always low by several km by comparison with the tropopause of a high pressure cell. In fact, a map of total column ozone is as good for weather forecasting as a map of surface pressure. It is not strange therefore that a deficit of ozone at some particular elevation is related to meteorological phenomena and seasonal change in the same.
In similar news, a woman waved her hands around in the air in a farm barn at a fat cow and claims to have caused the spontaneous splitting of the cow into a little cow and one a little smaller than the original. People amazed and convinced her expert hand waving can create new life after watching the amazing video..