Guest post by Tony Brown,
The Ozone Hole returns to both Poles
Some years ago, relating to a project I was carrying out, I asked the Max Planck Institute and Cambridge University –both experts in this field-if it were possible that Antarctic ‘ozone hole’ -actually a ‘thinning’ – existed prior to it being first ‘discovered’ in 1957.
Prior to that date the apparatus did not exist in any convenient form that could measure the likely extent of any hole, should it have existed. This is the official explanation;
“The springtime Antarctic ozone hole is a new phenomenon that appeared in the early 1980s.
The observed average amount of ozone during September, October, and November over the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley, Antarctica, first revealed notable decreases in the early 1980s, compared with the preceding data obtained starting in 1957. The ozone hole is formed each year when there is a sharp decline (currently up to 60%) in the total ozone over most of Antarctica for a period of about three months (September-November) during spring in the Southern Hemisphere. Late-summer (January-March) ozone amounts show no such sharp decline in the 1980s and 1990s. “
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/ozone-uv/moreinfo?view=antarctic-ozone-hole
Both organisations I approached agreed it was theoretically possible the hole could have existed prior to 1957, but thought it unlikely, as it was proven that refrigerants and other man- made chemicals were the cause of the thinning and it must therefore be a recent problem, as the circumstances that caused it did not exist in the past.
.In 2019 there was a considerable amount of press and government comment that the ‘Hole’ was ‘healing,’ as it was unusually small, said to be due to actions taken by global governments in 1987 who signed the Montreal protocol ;
“The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the landmark multilateral environmental agreement that regulates the production and consumption of nearly 100 man-made chemicals referred to as ozone depleting substances (ODS). When released to the atmosphere, those chemicals damage the stratospheric ozone layer, Earth’s protective shield that protects humans and the environment from harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Adopted on 15 September 1987, the Protocol is to date the only UN treaty ever that has been ratified every country on Earth – all 197 UN Member States.”
https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol
A year on however, there was this surprising announcement from the World Meteorological Organisation, made on 6 October 2020;
“2020 Antarctic ozone hole is large and deep”
“There is much variability in how far ozone hole events develop each year. The 2020 ozone hole resembles the one from 2018, which also was a quite large hole, and is definitely in the upper part of the pack of the last fifteen years or so”, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Director of Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service at ECMWF, said in a news release.
“With the sunlight returning to the South Pole in the last weeks, we saw continued ozone depletion over the area. After the unusually small and short-lived ozone hole in 2019, which was driven by special meteorological conditions, we are registering a rather large one again this year, which confirms that we need to continue enforcing the Montreal Protocol banning emissions of ozone depleting chemicals.”
The Montreal Protocol bans emissions of ozone depleting chemicals. Since the ban on halocarbons, the ozone layer has slowly been recovering; the data clearly show a trend in decreasing area of the ozone hole.”
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/2020-antarctic-ozone-hole-large-and-deep
The size of the 2019 hole is now seen as not being part of a welcome downwards trend that was proving the effectiveness of global measures, but as an ‘unusual’ event. The hole is expected to revert to its ‘natural’ condition by the middle decades of this century. Data on the progression of the ‘hole’ since 1979 can be seen in the left hand panel of this link
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
The Hole in the Arctic Ozone.
After researching further I note that earlier this year the Arctic hole was the largest on record, according to Nature magazine and Scientific American, exciting and concerning scientists. It was driven by exceptionally cold winter temperature. From “Nature”
Rare ozone hole opens over Arctic — and it’s big” ( 27 March 2020)
“Cold temperatures and a strong polar vortex allowed chemicals to gnaw away at the protective ozone layer in the north.
A vast ozone hole — probably the biggest on record in the north — has opened in the skies above the Arctic. It rivals the better-known Antarctic ozone hole that forms in the southern hemisphere each year.
Record-low ozone levels currently stretch across much of the central Arctic, covering an area about three times the size of Greenland (see ‘Arctic opening’). The hole doesn’t threaten people’s health, and will probably break apart in the coming weeks. But it is an extraordinary atmospheric phenomenon that will go down in the record books.
“From my point of view, this is the first time you can speak about a real ozone hole in the Arctic,” says Martin Dameris, an atmospheric scientist at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00904-w
“After looming above the Arctic for nearly a month, the single largest ozone hole ever detected over the North Pole has finally closed, researchers from the European Union’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) reported.
“The unprecedented 2020 Northern Hemisphere ozone hole has come to an end,” CAMS researchers tweeted on April 23.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/north-poles-largest-ever-ozone-hole-finally-closes/
The Montreal protocol was seen as the global template for the Kyoto protocol on CO2 emissions adopted in 1997 and which entered into force in 2005 and the subsequent Paris agreement, a global attempt to curb CO2 emissions and limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre industrial. Like the ozone hole, CO2 emissions seem surprisingly robust and any reduction in its rate of increase following the sharpest lockdown on human activity since the industrial revolution is difficult to discern at present.
Sept 2020 411.29ppm
Sept 2019 408.54ppm
Updated 6th October 2020
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html
There is a useful link from here entitled “Can we see a change in the record because of covid19” indicating that “The International Energy Agency expects global CO2 emissions to drop by 8% this year. Clearly, we cannot see a global effect like that in less than a year.”
Only time will tell if Man’s culpability in both these important areas is greater or lesser than currently thought.
Tony Brown (tonyb) October 2020
The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon. The ozone layer is produced by the action of sunlight on oxygen atoms in the stratosphere. During the polar winter, in the absence of sunlight, the ozone spontaneously breaks down back into oxygen. The half life of ozone is 3 months at -50C and 18 days at -35C.
“The International Energy Agency expects global CO2 emissions to drop by 8% this year.” Global CO2 emissions include the non-anthropogenic contribution , which is approximately 95% ±3% of the total. It is doubtful that true global CO2 emissions will decrease by much. So the sentence should include “man-caused” to be truthful.
I agree. Tony Brown in his post on ozone mentioned this. I submitted my agreement earlier.
To Tony Brown: Thank you for your presentation on ozone.
Regarding your suggestion: “Like the ozone hole, CO2 emissions seem surprisingly robust and any reduction in its rate of increase following the sharpest lockdown on human activity since the industrial revolution is difficult to discern at present”. Your link is the best to use: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html
At this link one can select “Interactive Plot” on the opening page. A graph will be showing monthly average CO2 since 1958. At the bottom of the graph there are two sliders to go up or bottom of the graph on the X axis.
Click on the slider on the left and go up to and stop when you see 2012 or so. Now look at the situation. Easy to see, when from ENSO we have El Nino starting 2015, mid 2015 started to increase CO2 and stay at the increasing even today. This would suggest that the increase was due to CO2 release from the oceans due to increase in ocean temperature. Quite plausible from Henry’s law. And this increase was steady until now.
Currently, from ENSO we have going out of El Nino back to neutral and maybe toward La Nina, cooler oceans temperature. Indeed, you are right that no decrease in CO2 can be demonstrated so far due to the pandemic.
This would suggest that the increase was due to CO2 release from the oceans due to increase in ocean temperature. Quite plausible from Henry’s law. And this increase was steady until now.
Short term trends will be affected by ENSO but not the overall trend – so ENSO partly explains increases but we still see increases in La Nina years when oceans are cooler. The overall trend is still positive.
If ENSO were soely determining CO2 levels we’d just see fluctuations in a generally flat long term trend.
ENSO indicating El Nino status simply provides an explanation of increase slightly of CO2 in air over the general increase due to natural increase from all other natural sources.
So indeed if ENSO turns to indicate La Nina, will CO2 continue to increase. It certainly will. However, will we see a diminution in the baseline rate like seeing the baseline increase when El Nino started in 2015-2016.
This what I posted. We will now have to wait and see, yes obviously the overall trend will be positive. However we may learn something about the influence of ENSO.
To Tony Brown: Thank you for your presentation on ozone.
Regarding your suggestion: “Like the ozone hole, CO2 emissions seem surprisingly robust and any reduction in its rate of increase following the sharpest lockdown on human activity since the industrial revolution is difficult to discern at present”. Your link is the best to use: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html
At this link one can select “Interactive Plot” on the opening page. A graph will be showing monthly average CO2 since 1958. At the bottom of the graph there are two sliders to go up or bottom of the graph on the X axis.
Click on the slider on the left and go up to and stop when you see 2012 or so. Now look at the situation. Easy to see, when from ENSO we have El Nino starting 2015, mid 2015 started to increase CO2 and stay at the increasing even today. This would suggest that the increase was due to CO2 release from the oceans due to increase in ocean temperature. Quite plausible from Henry’s law. And this increase was steady until now.
Currently, from ENSO levels we have going out of El Nino back to neutral and maybe toward La Nina, cooler oceans temperature. Indeed, you are right that no decrease in CO2 can be demonstrated so far due to the pandemic. Just the opposite occured.
rd50,
Useful tip about the interactive version of the atmospheric CO2 graph for Mauna Loa. Thanks. Here is a version of the data which I put together some time ago, which supports your comment:
Yes. I hope you continue with your graph for several years, particularly if we go into La Nina.
Thanks for the response. I will try to keep it up to date, but of course the key with this one was the lack of a follow up La Niña (so far … unlike others such as 1997-1998). What I really need to do is to highlight the δ13C response which is very widely overlooked, perhaps because it is not well understood even though it is critical to any attempt to understand atmospheric CO2 behavior.
F Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina taught a graduate level gas phase kinetics while I was at UCI between 1975 and 1979. It was a very good class. His work on CFC’s was born out of looking for how they might contribute to smog formation in the LA Basin. Turns out They were very photochemically stable in the lower atmosphere so didn’t contribute to smog. They only broke down at very altitudes with a shorter wavelength of UV radiation and they released Chorine radicals. The Chlorine radicals are the actual culprit in depleting Ozone. CFC’s just deliver the chorine without getting washed out by the weather in the lower atmosphere.
If there is a natural way to deliver chorine to the stratosphere without it being washed out by weather at lower altitudes. This could lead to ozone depletion. As the article stated, it was very cold at the poles with a strong polar vortex and I can’t see why Ice particles couldn’t provide an alternate path to bring chlorine to the stratosphere at the poles. It would be released in the spring when warmed by the sun and then dispersed/washed out which is essentially what happens.
Considering the lies of the warmists we know about, I consider the ozone / cfc was used as a test scam run for the current warming scam. Both of these scams have nothing to do with the climate in any way but are a political exercise in socialists gaining ascendancy to have the world turned into a one world communist state.
The World Ocean is a source of halogens.
I’ve been skeptical of the claims made about human-causes since Old Shep was a pup.
Non-fluorinated halogenated hydrocarbons are also listed as ozone depleting compounds.
In 1957, the enormous production by seaweed of halogenated hydrocarbons was unknown. Likewise, it wasn’t until the 1990s that it became known that soil bacteria also produce halogenated hydrocarbons.
These chemicals, including methylene chloride CH2Cl2, chloroform CHCL3, and carbon tetrachloride, CCl4, all can be entrained by convection into the upper atmosphere.
Seaweed produce a veritable witches brew of chlorinated hydrocarbons, as well as the brominated alternatives.
All of this, of course, was a constant of the climate well before humans ever came on the scene, much less developed technology.
If halogenated hydrocarbons are the ozone-depleting culprit, humans aren’t the originally guilty party
Charles Higley your wise contributions over a broad range of important issues deserve applause. I do hope we can correspond. My email address is michael@michaeldarby.net.
A suggestion, Michael: In general, putting an unobfuscated email address in blog posts (or anywhere “out on the Internet”) is probably a bad idea, because it enables ‘bots (programs) to find and “harvest” your email address. Such ‘bots are used by spammers to build the lists of email addresses which they target.
That increases the amount of spam that you’ll receive at that address.
One solution is to use an image of your email address, like I do here:
https://sealevel.info/contact.html
Another solution is to obfuscate it with English prose, perhaps like this:
michael [at-sign] michaeldarby [period, and something thrown from a boat to catch fish in John 21:6]
Or this:
somename.delete.these.seven.words.from.my.address@michaeldarby.com
Or this:
“ncdave4life” (at that gargantuan googley email service)
This is probably insufficiently obfuscated:
somename at gmail dot com
When I first asked Cambridge and Max Planck about this a decade ago, one of them said they were hoping to conduct a study to try to backtrack ozone levels before 1957. I shall see if anything ever came of this.
As for CO2, it will be interesting to see where that heads. A couple of weeks ago Javier did a calculation here that demonstrated the effect of the lockdown on man made CO2- which is 4% of the total. The figure came to something like a 0.2ppm reduction when all the sinks were considered in the rate of increase. If he is around he might like to clarify that.
As the link in the article shows an 8% change is expected but with the caveat that it will take a year to be seen and natural variability might obscure it.
We shall see sometime in 2021 the lockdown effect and in 2021 we will also see if the ozone hole grows larger or smaller
tonyb
Tonyb –
If the sinks are constant (likely incorrect, but that is what most calculations assume, except for the seasonal fluctuations) then a reduction in man-made output should show up rather more quickly, as it will be proportionately a larger reduction of the ‘mass balance’ excess, rather like an 8% reduction in revenue is going to do some serious damage to your profit and loss account! However, the ‘mass balance’ argument is to me unconvincing in any case where biological systems are involved, and assumes we know a heck of a lot more about quantifying those flows than we actually do, so I wouldn’t expect anything conclusive to come of this.
What the CFC or ODS do to the global warming is found in this study from January 2020:
“Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4
About half of the arctic warming and a third of global warming is “made” by the CFCs.
That means the CO2 is not the only (or the main?) cause of the AGW …. ?!
As for CO2, it will be interesting to see where that heads. A couple of weeks ago Javier did a calculation here that demonstrated the effect of the lockdown on man made CO2- which is 4% of the total. The figure came to something like a 0.2ppm reduction when all the sinks were considered in the rate of increase. If he is around he might like to clarify that.
Think about it logically. CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere by around 1 ppm per year when human emissions were less than half of what they are now. It’s likely that emissions in 2020 are at least 80% of 2019 emissions so why would the atmospheric concentration increase be any less than 80% of last year’s.
There are fluctuations around the ENSO cycle (i.e. warmer oceans = less CO2 absorption; cooler = more) but the reduction in CO2 won’t affect the overall trend much.
Mr Finn you highlight what people had wrong or incomplete until now.
If ENSO were solely determining CO2 levels we’d just see fluctuations in a generally flat long term trend. and
There are fluctuations around the ENSO cycle (i.e. warmer oceans = less CO2 absorption; cooler = more) but the reduction in CO2 won’t affect the overall trend much.
Outgassing occurs above 25.6C. The area of the ocean above 25.6 has grown (from decadal solar activity above 93 v2 SN) leading to overall ocean warming and more CO2 due to the increasing ratio over time of above 25.6 to below 25.6C ocean temperatures, causing more outgassing, driving the trend in CO2. The 12m change in CO2 lags by 5 months the 12m change in ocean area >=25.6C.
ML CO2 is a measure of outgassing alone, not of MM emissions. All MME and excess natural CO2 is re-absorbed via greening and ocean sinking very quickly. The ML CO2 level is only set by what the ocean will allow the air to hold via Henry’s Law. The most recent Nino34 data has it at 25.6C. The last Nino3 weekly data is at 23.8C, lower than 25.6C, and it will be lower for at least a few months or maybe longer, which will impact the ML CO2 readings downward. By how much? Don’t know haven’t figured it out.
Late this year or early next year I expect to hear many claims that such future falling ML CO2 was from reduced emissions, when it won’t be, just from less outgassing due to lower Nino 3 below 25.6C.
Ozone thinning occurs when there is very cold air as in Antarctica, colder than the Arctic. The Arctic is supposed to be warming, bit of a disconnect there somewhere.
Nothing new under the sun, yet again. Every so often, scares have to be regenerated to keep the public onside and the money still flowing:
This was in 2006: https://theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
“An Arctic Ozone Hole, if similar in size to the Antarctic Ozone Hole, could expose over 700+ million people, wildlife and plants to dangerous UV ray levels. The likelihood of this happening seems inevitable based on the deterioration of ozone layer caused by the effects of global warming on the upper atmosphere.”
So these happy souls don’t even bring CFC’s into the picture for their scary scenario. There is of course, no knowledge of whether the Antarctic ozone “hole” has been growing and shrinking since time immemorial, before anyone ever thought to measure it and link it to CFC’s.
Also in 2006 we had a familiar headline, “Biggest ozone hole on record opens up over Antarctic”
27 October 2006: https://www.edie.net/news/1/Biggest-ozone-hole-on-record-opens-up-over-Antarctic/12192/
“The record depletion, which saw practically all of the ozone gone from the crucial region 8-13 km above the earth’s surface, coincided with extremely high levels of chlorine ozone-depleting chemicals in high atmospheric regions. In this critical layer, the instrument measured a record low of only 1.2 DU., having rapidly plunged from an average non-hole reading of 125 DU in July and August,” NOAA said.
David Hofmann of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory said: “These numbers mean the ozone is virtually gone in this layer of the atmosphere. The depleted layer has an unusual vertical extent this year, so it appears that the 2006 ozone hole will go down as a record-setter.
The World Meteorological Organization predicted that the ozone hole would fully recover by 2065 in its recently completed Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, with the recovery initially masked by annual variation.”
In the case of CO2, the role of natural emissions is greatly down-played. In the case of CFC’s it is usually denied. However, in 2007 BAS found natural ozone depleting chemicals in the Antarctic atmosphere: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/uol-nct072607.php
“The team of atmospheric chemists carried out an 18-month study of the make-up of the lowest part of the earth’s atmosphere on the Brunt Ice Shelf, about 20 km from the Weddell Sea. They found high concentrations of halogens – bromine and iodine oxides – which persist throughout the period when there is sunlight in Antarctica (August through May).”
The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent.
These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface. This affects the so-called oxidising capacity of the atmosphere – its ability to “clean itself” by removing certain – often man-made – chemical compounds. The iodine oxides also form tiny particles (a few nanometres in size), which can grow to form ice clouds, with a consequent impact on the local climate.”
These effects were of course blamed on “climate change”.
There were rich pickings to be had from CFC destruction under the UN CDM mechanism: https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE65C1FZ20100613
“Analysis of monitoring data from all registered HFC-23 destruction projects revealed that plants are intentionally operated in a manner to maximize the production of CERs,” CDM Watch said in a statement. “Because of the extra revenue … far more HFC-23 is generated than would occur without the CDM.”
The UN supposedly took action against this scam which was rampant in China and India: https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/un-halts-carbon-credits-to-chinese-hfc-plants/
It must have stopped you think. Not quite, this was written last year:
https://blueskieschina.com/2019/04/24/how-china-gamed-the-wests-carbon-credits/
“The UN, to be fair, came down reasonably quickly to stop this chemical loophole. But, too late, given how many CERs had already been issued. To date, even though no new HFC-23 project has been approved since 2009, the CER registry is completely overrun by Chinese and Indian HFC-23. And that’s stuff is still on sale today.
China’s dominance of the Kyoto subsidy scheme and the quantities of HFC-23 CERs beggar belief. Chinese HFC-23 accounts for 76% of the total world’s HFC-23 reduction credits, at around 447 million tonnes, with HFC-23 now accounting for 43% of China’s total CER haul and 25% of the world’s total CERs. 447 million CERs is $2.7 billion at 2012 prices.”
Increased CFC production in China was detected last year:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341
“Researchers say that they have pinpointed the major sources of a mysterious recent rise in a dangerous, ozone-destroying chemical. CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010. But scientists have seen a big slowdown in the rate of depletion over the past six years. This new study says this is mostly being caused by new gas production in eastern provinces of China.”
Yes, same as my comment and your graph shows this very well.
We just have to wait now to see if this increase will be sustained.
Using this interactive graph, go back earlier. We can see the same phenomenon earlier when El Nino started and then a return back. Not as pronounced as the current one and not lasting long enough to draw any conclusion. The current one has been on for since 2015. Should be interesting if it stays this way or if the ENSO meter indicates a La Nina and there is a return on your graph.
rd50,
Was this a response to me?
Yes it was. I don’t know what is happening at this site. Very slow to post a reply and /or a reply to a specific poster is posted at a wrong place.
I hope we get La Nina at any time now. If you show a the decrease in your graph if this happens it certainly would indicate that oceans temperatures changes are a significant factor.
I always suspected that the ozone hole problem could be a result of capturing a very short period of data from a long period cycle. Analogous to breaking the Nyquist frequency constraint with Fast Fourier Transforms, perhaps there should be a special name for capturing just the upslope of a cyclic wave.
I think they call it Global Warming?
I have three questions:
1) Given that ozone is created by sunlight’s interaction with oxygen and that ozone has a short half life, should the presence of ozone holes in the polar regions during periods of no sunlight (i.e., winter) be expected?
2) Have (heavy molecular weight) fluorocarbons actually been identified in the ozone layer.
3) What other factors can affect the rate of ozone creation and decomposition in the ozone layer?
Looking forward to your replies.
Ozone is created by UV interaction with oxygen and ozone is destroyed by UV (lower energy). Consequently both the creation of O3 and its destruction halts during the polar winter. Destruction of O3 starts in the spring when the stratosphere warms up releasing chlorine containing molecules which had been stored in the Polar Stratospheric clouds. These compounds catalyst the destruction of O3 as more UV reaches the polar stratosphere the regeneration of O3 accelerates. There is no ozone hole in the winter.
I was swayed by this Peter Temple video years ago. That is ozone is a very unstable molecule and probably influenced by many things but, most significantly by the lack of UV light during polar winters. Solar UV creates ozone. A lack of sunlight causes its depletion. The idea that molecular heavy Freon enables chlorine concentrations to somehow find their way to the poles and then elevate itself to the stratosphere to attack ozone is suspicious. Peter claims this science has never been proven. So, how is Peter wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc2M_FKyvaE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0ge6U7M6mexA1M9xp3bSFg6gcG6ftULniVOs9VsHFv5V0G0K9g8E24LtY&ab_channel=worldcyclesinstitute
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
-James Lovelock
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock/print
And is skeptics of CO2 induced bad weather have seen this before in climate science via the climate gate emails.
VOTE Biden if you support globalism and want the new world that the WEF and the rich multi-millionaire and billionaire leftist slobs who attend it via their private jets have planned for us.
Typo: should have said
“And us skeptics of CO2 induced bad weather…”
Just saw a post on LinkedIn quoting President Trump about getting Regeneron and how he felt much better immediately, and authorized it and called it a cure.
Then the author saying this is anti-scientific and all scientists must rally to refute this n of 1 politicization of such an important topic.
And yet with global warming, so much is based on this n of 1 interpretation. A hurricane going this way or that way or stalling or not stalling. An ozone hole being bigger or smaller or later or earlier. A gaunt polar bear, a coral reef bleaching event. A tree ring series, a glacier retreating (never mind if it extends for a few years).
Yet we get lectured by those who now demand every scientist rebuke Trump when they’ve been the ones rebuking skeptics for decades.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” {TDS} has not yet made it into the official book of mental disorders. If he is elected for a 2nd term raising this from a “folk category” to a real condition may be necessary. How else will those with TDS get the help they need? Let’s hope he wins so we can see how this plays out.
If the USA gets a Harris-Biden administration there will we an immediate recovery or dissipation of TDS for millions of people. Ten years after “The Donald’s” death, TDS will be a footnote of history.
Yeah, the Regeneron cocktail will probably be blackballed by the media because it seems to have had very good results when used on Trump.
I told my doctor if I get the Wuhan virus, I want what the president got. He told me that’s easier said than done. 🙂
I read where it will take a couple of months to produce two million doses of the Regeneron cocktail, so it’s not going to be widely available for a while unless they step up production.
It looks like Trump went from positive to negative in about a week. We don’t know what exactly to attribute that to, but we’ll know more in the future.
With a medication that can prevent people from suffering dire consequences from the Wuhan virus by limiting the stay of the virus in the body, the population can pretty much go back to business as usual, assuming there are enough doses to meet the needs. It looks to me like we have several drugs that can do this job if used early enough in the process.
The picture is going to be looking better in the next few months. Effective medications bridging the gap to vaccines.
And we will be in much better shape for any future unknown viruses that rear their ugly heads. Practice makes perfect.
And if we rid ourselves of the radical Democrat infection by voting them out of office on November 3, we will thrive for decades to come.
The ozone “hole” was first discovered in 1956, not 1957. It was confirmed to be a natural occurrence in 1957. The natural cause was determined in 1958. This was before widespread use of substances that resulted in so-called “ozone depleting substances” emissions. Like global warming, it is not and never was a problem.
I agree with Art.
The pulsing polar holes of the ozone are still regarded as evidence of its depletion from human activity and remains one of the chapters in the man-made global warming scary narrative nonsense.
We all know some industrial compounds (chlorofluorocarbons or CFC’s) chemically react with the O3 molecule of the ozone layer of the stratosphere thus “depleting” it. But there are other explanations.
The ozone layer is relatively thin (at 1 atm it would be less than 1/8 of an inch thick) and in a constant state of replenishment as well as depletion. 12 to 25 miles up high energy UV splits the O2 molecule into two atomic O1 molecules that then combine with O2 to form the unstable, temporary O3 ozone molecule which absorbs low energy UV. It is understood, or should be understood the main reasons for the changing polar ozone hole sizes are natural and include the seasonal lack of light, the atmospheric fluid dynamics of the polar vortices, fluctuations with naturally occurring nitrous oxide and most importantly, the solar variances in UV radiation.
I wish they’d get rid of the Montreal Protocol and lift the ban on REAL Albuterol that actually works.
The magnetic field solar flares and northern lights
Northern Lights and Ozone
February 24, 1976 / T. Neil Davis
The ozone layer–the thin high-altitude shield of O 3 molecules that protects life on earth from damaging solar ultraviolet light–continues in the news. Chemicals released by aerosol spray cans and SST aircraft have the potential to destroy ozone, but just how large these effects are remains controversial.
Now, a recent TIME (February 23, 1976) article cites the effect on ozone of large solar flares. Similar processes occur over Fairbanks when the aurora appears. The same incoming particles (fast electrons and protons) causing the aurora affect the chemistry of the high atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides are formed which attack the ozone.
Consequently, the ozone content of the air over Fairbanks rapidly goes up and down depending upon the amount of aurora. Whether or not this causes us any special problems here is not yet known.
https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/northern-lights-and-ozone
Doesn’t look like jet travel became an issue.
In 1998 a New Scientist report, super sonic jets damage ozone.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320692-500-science-aircraft-wreak-havoc-on-ozone-layer/
NASA website highlights jet exhaust problem.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html
Just another situation w multiple natural and human contributing factors.
Seems that Southern Hemisphere likely for thousands years had ozone hole, given Antarctica stability. Liveable zones close to South Pole, high UV, dark skin best, liveable regions close to North Pole, lower UV, light skin best.
Australians with blood lines from Northern Europe – highest skin cancer rates in the world. So whites fry inder an ozone depleted sky. Worst place for sunburn, most southern part, Tasmania, lower atmospheric moisture w ozone hole.
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how a gas with Mw > 100 (and in some cases, very much so) can reach significant concentration in the stratosphere, by just brownian motion. Yes, if you fill a box with ozone and add some CFCs, they will gradually eat it up. But has it some relation to the REAL situation? I’d have more than some doubt.
Moreover, has anyone tried to estimate the amount of ozone-depleting gas that can have been released by Mt. Erebus, which is erupting CONSTANTLY since 1972? For that’s really propelled in the high atmosphere.
Giorgio October 12, 2020 at 7:25 am
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how a gas with Mw > 100 (and in some cases, very much so) can reach significant concentration in the stratosphere, by just brownian motion. Yes, if you fill a box with ozone and add some CFCs, they will gradually eat it up. But has it some relation to the REAL situation? I’d have more than some doubt.
It’s not due just to Brownian motion it’s due to turbulent flow (winds, convection etc.), the atmosphere below 100km is known as the homosphere where the composition does not depend on altitude.
Moreover, has anyone tried to estimate the amount of ozone-depleting gas that can have been released by Mt. Erebus, which is erupting CONSTANTLY since 1972? For that’s really propelled in the high atmosphere.
Mt Erebus is a non factor it’s a Strombolian eruption in which the material is only ejected a few hundred feet, also the chlorine containing gases are water soluble and rapidly fall out of the atmosphere.
The Antarctic ozone hole probably originated in 1972.
That is when Mount Erebus started erupting. It has been active ever since, continuously injecting halogens into the stratosphere above Antarctica.
They say this:
“Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, ozone in the upper stratosphere – ie above 30 kilometres – has increased significantly since 1998, and the stratosphere is also recovering above the polar regions,” said William Ball, researcher at ETH Zurich.”
However, my previous hypothesis predicted just that:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
with the cause being solar variations.
I also predicted a rebalancing of the relationship between El Nino and La Nina in favour of La Nina for a cooling world.