From NASA Earth Observatory:
Ozone concentrations over the Arctic reached a record-high monthly average in March 2024. Due to large-scale weather systems that disturbed the upper atmosphere throughout the 2023-2024 winter, more ozone moved into and persisted in the stratosphere over the Arctic than at any other time in the satellite record.
A team of NASA and University of Leeds scientists reported their findings in a September 2024 paper in Geophysical Research Letters. “Given the absence of high Arctic ozone since the 1970s,” the authors wrote, “the March 2024 record high should be considered a positive harbinger of the future Arctic ozone layer.”
Between December 2023 and March 2024, a series of planetary-scale waves propagated upward through the atmosphere and slowed the stratospheric jet stream that circulates around the Arctic. When that happens, air from the mid-latitudes converges on the pole, sending ozone into the Arctic stratosphere. In addition to the influx of ozone, there was very little of the typical ozone depletion by substances such as chlorine, said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and lead author of the study. “It was a very dynamical, active winter in the northern hemisphere,” he said.
More stratospheric ozone is positive for life on Earth. The stratospheric ozone layer is a natural sunscreen, absorbing harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The authors calculated that from April–July 2024, the UV index was 6 to 7 percent lower in the Arctic and 2 to 6 percent lower in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. Less UV radiation means less damage to plant DNA and a lower risk of cataracts, skin cancer, and suppressed immune systems in humans and animals.
The activity in March 2024 is in sharp contrast to March 2020, when stratospheric ozone concentrations hit extremely low levels. Without disruption from upper atmospheric wave events, steady circumpolar winds prevented ozone from other latitudes from replenishing the Arctic stratosphere. The stable polar vortex also created colder-than-average conditions, favorable for ozone-depleting reactions to occur.
The maps above show ozone concentrations over the Arctic for March 2020 (left) and March 2024 (right), illustrating the large amount of variation possible there. The monthly averages were calculated by the NASA Ozone Watch team and are based on data acquired by the OMPS (Ozone Mapping Profiler Suite) on the NASA-NOAA Suomi-NPP satellite.
Unlike over Antarctica, where ozone holes form each year, the concentration of ozone over the Arctic is highly variable and subject to the “year-to-year vagaries” of tropospheric and stratospheric weather, Newman said.
1979 – 2024
The strong wave events from late December 2023 through early March 2024 resulted in the increases in ozone concentration seen in the chart above. Ozone levels peaked in March, as they typically do, and then remained well above average. May, June, July, and August also set new records for monthly average ozone concentrations. “This really is an extraordinary northern summer period,” Newman said.
As for what could have caused the unusual stratospheric weather, the authors looked at a variety of factors without finding a clear answer. The effect of climate change, for example, is difficult to quantify. “There might be a climate factor here, but it’s not obvious,” said Newman. With respect to larger atmospheric patterns such as El Niño and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation: “Possibly, but the contribution is relatively small.”
In addition to stratospheric weather, which is the primary determinant of Arctic ozone levels, the authors think longer-term trends likely bumped ozone concentrations to record highs. Since the Montreal Protocol phased out production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons in 1987, ozone levels have been slowly recovering. As such, the high March 2024 levels were within the authors’ expectations: the Goddard chemistry–climate model, GEOSCCM, showed a 1-in-8 chance of a record high by 2025, and more records are anticipated in the future. However, because CFCs persist in the atmosphere for decades, average Arctic ozone is not expected to return to 1980 levels until about 2045, they note.
Higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the stratosphere also accelerate ozone recovery. “This record was likely a result of decreased ozone-depleting substances and increased greenhouse gases. Otherwise, it would have been just a high year and not a record,” said Newman. “I call this year a harbinger of the future.”
NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison, using data courtesy of NASA Ozone Watch. Story by Lindsey Doermann.
Good example of how complex the climate system is, further exposing the ignorance and destructiveness of climate alarmists!
Hopefully, that source will only be demoted, and not found deceased in his pickup truck after a nice lunch.
Just possibly they didn’t consider solar magnetic activity.
Or Hunga Tonga
According to my hypothesis ozone over the poles increases when the sun is less active and decreases when the sun is more active. This observation is not a surprise.
More ozone in the stratosphere over the poles pushes the polar tropopause downwards which forces more outward flows of cold air in the troposphere across middle latitudes.
The result is more wavy and equatorward jet stream tracks, longer lines of cloudiness globally and less solar energy into the global oceans for eventually a cooling world.
Hi Stephen
Are you sure about this? Is it not the other way around? My impression has always been that a more active sun produces more solar wind and causes more aurora forming more ozone, NOx and HxOy TOA. See my comment further below.
Hi Henry, good to hear from you again.
Yes, I’m quite sure.
There was a measurement some time ago to the effect that from 2004 to 2007 when solar activity was quite weak ozone amounts above 45 km increased rather than decreased.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45km, with an increase above this altitude.”
That was entirely unexpected but the implications do not seem to have been followed through by the climate establishment.
The most likely cause is a change in the mixture of particles and wavelengths from the sun interfering with the ozone destruction/creation process in the stratosphere with the opposite sign to that previously believed.
An increase in ozone will push down tropopause height beneath it and force tropospheric polar air masses outwards across middle latitudes.
Stephen
Yes, still alive and kicking against the climate nonsense. That is my breadonthewater (.co.za)
Indeed, ‘here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude.
They mention specifically a decline in UV – coming through. So there is less UV going into the oceans (LaNina? = cooler water). I am inclined to think that the ozone @45km has no relevance on the weather. So, if we were just looking at the stratosphere, I was right.
You can’t possibly be suggesting the sun has anything to do with it? (/sarc)
You don’t suppose….
Magnetic fields on ionized (ozone) molecules.
High energy particles (alpha, beta, gamma) plus neutrinos from the sun.
Watch for the persistently pessimistic to turn this into a dire omen of climate change, overpopulation, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, whatever. They don’t like good news. You can’t frighten people into adopting your crazy schemes with it.
Thank the alarmists of the 80s for the Montreal Protocol 😉
“is in sharp contrast to March 2020, when stratospheric ozone concentrations hit extremely low levels.” ..
Rare ozone hole opens over Arctic — and it’s big (nature.com)
Montreal Protocol works in mysterious ways… causes increases and decreases..
right ! 😉
Charles Dobson himself observed Antarctic ozone depletion in the 1930’s, long before the introduction of CFC’s.
and data from the 1930’s is “old”!
which inflicted huge increases in the costs of refrigerant gas, ultimately to no avail, except to cause widespread loss of refrigeration of meat & perishables for many third-world tropical zone families and businesses who couldn’t afford to have their fridges re-gassed as needed.
I wanted to make a comment suggesting reintroduction of CFCs as a test of the theory, but as usual… I don’t know any good model of the system to test and there’s not a long enough time-series of data to see patterns. Once I take on the assumption that Earth is very old, most available data is unhelpful.
From the article: ““This record was likely a result of decreased ozone-depleting substances and increased greenhouse gases. Otherwise, it would have been just a high year and not a record,” said Newman. “I call this year a harbinger of the future.””
Well, the Hunga-Tonga volcanic eruption put a lot of greenhouse gases high into the Earth’s atmosphere.
I saw an article the other day about ozone expansion at the South Pole and Hunga-Tonga was claimed to be contributing to this.
Are Hunga-Tongas’ effects restricted to the Southern Hemisphere?
And if Hunga-Tonga is responsible for propagating a planetary wave, then this couldn’t be called “a harbinger of the future” since these kinds of eruptions are few, and far between.
Good point. Also, most people don’t know it, but volcanoes emit chlorofluorocarbons in addition to many other trace, not well characterized species.
Yes, and I’m reminded about that climate history denying claim that “the planet has never before been subjected to such high levels of CO2 as fossil fuels are releasing today”.
Which would make all those geophysicists and other proper scientists who contributed research findings over centuries to inform us about the evolution of this planet just a bunch of cranks?
Are Hunga-Tongas’ effects restricted to the Southern Hemisphere?
Stratospheric moisture increase went first to the SH, but some did finally make it to the NH.
Ozone has strong IR absorption right in the middle of the atmospheric window, 8 to14 microns, and thus is actually a very strong greenhouse gas (exceeding methane in its outgoing IR blocking of the atmospheric window).
There is really very little of it in the atmosphere yet it makes a pretty large bump in the spectrum at 9.6 microns…but since it is deemed to be “required”, increasing levels of ozone are “good news”, while increasing levels of methane are “bad news”. Hmmm…
FYI ……. https[colon]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_ozone
I agree with the ozone stopping some outgoing radiation from earth, but it deflects a lot of UV from earth that would have otherwise ended up in the oceans (since 70% is water) forming clouds. See my comment lower down. The netto effect of more ozone is cooling rather than warming,
You can also see that in your own picture. Note that the ozone on its own seem to deflect almost 20-25% of the incoming solar radiation. Do you see that amount of blue on the left? And that radiation is much more energetic than the one at 10um.
Over at the left is total absorption of incoming radiation at those UV frequencies causing the dissociation of oxygen molecules and formation of ozone. Again…Deflects ?
Look at the report from Turnbull et al on moonshine. On the far left hand side of Fig.6 (bottom) you can see a little violet from the ozone being deflected off from earth to space, also to the moon.
I wish so-called “scientists” would stop saying atmospheric events (i.e.,weather) are “caused” by climate or climate change. “Climate (or climate change) can’t “cause” anything. Weather is a real, observable phenomenon while climate is a human-defined abstract, generally the average of weather over a 30-year period in some location. An abstract idea can’t “cause” anything.
And we don’t even know the gender of weather and climate, although in German they take the neutral definite article form in grammar.
I’m more inclined to believe that weather at least is a woman, as it can often be a bitch, though beautiful, warm, and friendly weather is definitely welcome.
“generally the average “
Please understand that it is not an average!
Climate is an abstract idea of the types of conditions a region usually experiences over each month or season of a year, a climate-classification scheme communicates (probability) expected conditions. The notion of 30-year ” Climate Normals** ” was chosen to reflect what an adult has experienced and might usefully compare to.
In short, climate is what to expect, weather is what you get.
** “Normals” is a defined term, much like the sport of tennis uses the term “love”.
Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, but the point that I was trying to make is that “climate Scientists” tend to reify the abstract as if it was real and can have an effect on or cause an event. However “climate” or “climate change” is defined it is defined (tautology, I know) by humans and cannot “cause” anything.
Reification: The consideration of an abstract thing as if it were concrete, or of an inanimate object as if it were living, or regarding something abstract as a material thing.
When I saw your word “reify“, I thought it was just a typo, where you meant to type “deify“ (the ‘R’ key being just below the ‘D’ key).
But on 2nd thought, “deify” is probably an equally apt description of what the religious “climate scientists” think about abstracts and constructs.
You beat me to it. Gratz!
Thanks. The idea and assertion that “climate” or “climate change” is responsible for or “causes” weather and weather-related events (droughts, floods, hurricanes, wild fires, etc.) has been bugging me for a long time, and I’m sure that it bugs people that are a lot smarter than me and I wish it would be called out more.
The word “absorption’ might give a bit of a wrong impression. What happens is that more (harmful) UV is deflected away from earth. More ozone therefore leads to less heat in the ocean. The UV radiation is so intense that it can bring the top layers of the water to evaporation, eventually leading to clouds. Due to temperature and pressure difference the clouds then move to areas where it is condenses. When it condenses it releases 2260kJ per kg of water vapor. This effect is in fact the biggest amount of the so-called gh-effect of the planet being 33 degrees warmer than a planet without water. That ‘cold front’ moving in, is in fact mother Earth’s way to distribute the temperature more equally to 14-15 degrees C instead of -18 degrees C.
If you comprehend this, you will understand that more ozone leads to some global cooling (La Nina?). CO2 is just a red herring.
Forgot to mention: a hotter sun leads to a cooler earth as more ozone, NOx and HxOy is formed TOA.
Good description of water cycle.
Which “greenhouse gas” contributes to increasing ozone?
I believe it’s space weather that has an impact on ozone. Sunspots
produce an 20%-ish increase in UV radiation which when it hits oxygen
produces ozone. IIRC
According to NASA (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/archive/2001_shindell_05/ ), water vapor in the stratosphere leads indirectly to the destruction of ozone:
“Water vapor breaks down in the stratosphere, releasing reactive hydrogen oxide molecules that destroy ozone. These molecules also react with chlorine containing gases, converting them into forms that destroy ozone as well. So a wetter stratosphere will have less ozone.”
Therefore, the record-high March 2024 ozone level shown in the graph in the above article indicates there’s likely very little water vapor still in the stratosphere over the North Pole as a result of the January 15, 2022 eruption of the Hunga-Tonga volcano.
In fact, it’s very interesting to note that the bounding lower grey curve in that graph, with March ozone values below 340 Dobson units is for 2019/2020, well before the H-T eruption that some have claimed put “massive amounts” of water vapor into the stratosphere.
To be frank, I’m pretty sick and tired of people on “our side” of the climate debate latching onto Hunga Tonga as an explanation for anything whatsoever. It reeks of hypocrisy and scientific illiteracy.
You mean speculative conjecture is a bad thing? A Hunga Tonga event has never been experienced before. It’s new. Of course there will be speculative conjecture about it, just like that lump you just found on your testicle or breast.
Well, let’s specify that “experienced” must be defined as being within the context of human capability to monitor volcano eruptions from space with scientific knowledge capable of estimating (even erroneously) the amount of water (as vapor or flash-frozen ice) injected into the stratosphere by such eruption.
Homo sapiens have only existed on the 4.5 billion-year Earth for last 350,000 years or so.
If the uninformed platitudinal catastrophists of the mainstream media see this, they will probably be able to twist it into yet another message of doom and despair. There’s no such thing as good news in the climate business (as if we didn’t know that)
To get semi-serious for a minute, the article also offers this:
“…Antarctica, where ozone holes form each year…”
Are they telling us that ozone holes over Antarctica are natural seasonal events? That all the hype leading to the Montreal Protocol was just that – hype, based on a total lack of satellite data before 1979 and “science” whose conclusions were determined in advance. Who would ever have guessed that it was a phony false alarm*?
(* thanks to Bob Dylan for a memorable quote, I’ve been dying to use it)
Can’t expect to launch millions of dollars of Satellites then wait 100 years to report anything useful I guess. The need for long term data creates difficult situations.
Over the Antarctic the seasonal ozone holes are a consequence of the low temperatures which is a natural phenomenon. There was always a reduction of O3, however since the 50s a deeper minimum occurred due to reactions of chlorine compounds resulting from the breakdown of CFCs.
There has been little change in the min and max size of the Antarctic ozone hole since the mid 1990s.
There is basically no correlation between the World Ozone Deleting Substance Consumption and the Antarctic ozone hole size in summer.
You’re talking about the size of the ozone hole over Antarctica whereas the above article specifically discusses the changes in the size of the ozone hole over the Arctic . . . the two are not correlated.
There is a good correlation between the CFC concentration and the hole size though.
https://www.fluorocarbons.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Atmospheric-concentrations-04.svg
And the Hunga Tonga eruption and high altitude water injection never entered their minds?
The timing is all wrong . . . plus the H-T eruption was in the Southern hemisphere and the ozone “hole” monitoring images for areas around and including the South Pole (available at https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2019-03_SH.html at monthly intervals) for the month of March show no significant variations from 2021 up to 2024, quite unlike what is documented at the same site for areas around and including the North Pole for March.
In the 1970’s at a lecture by Rowland I asked what the level of chlorine in the stratosphere might be and how much it had increased by the chlorine brought by chlorofluorocarbons. It is chlorine that was the basis for his theory of ozone depletion but he had no answer. Rowland took a valid chemical equation and extended it to a completely theoretical discussion that ignored other important factors like sinks or degradation of chlorofluorocarbons before ascending to the stratosphere, the epidemiology of skin cancer, etc to declare we all were to be doomed.
Do we know have a better idea of the level of chlorine in the stratosphere and how it is changed by human use of chlorine containing chemicals?