There was a crash in the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) following the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
By 1999 atmpospheric levels of manmade ozone destroying chemicals had leveled off and since 2003 there has been a 7 percent drop in the amount of chlorine and bromine in the lower stratosphere (10-25 km). This is apparently where most ozone loss occurs.
Given its original objectives, the Montreal Protocol has been a huge success and reduced concentrations of ozone-depleting gases.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been predicting for some time that the reduction in concentrations of ozone-depleting gases will result in a recovery in the ozone layer and also the Antarctic ozone hole.
So what happened this year?
Over the last few weeks we have heard report after report that the ozone hole over the Antarctic has expanded to a near-record size despite the successful global ban on chlorofluorocarbons.
An incredible 40 million tonnes of ozone had been lost over Antarctica this year, exceeding the record 39 million tonne loss in 2000 with the depth of the ozone hole now rivaling the record low ozone values of 1998.
Discussion, including at this blog, has focused not on chlorofluorcarbons as the cause of the now growing ozone hole, but on atmospheric temperatures and other phenomena.
It is interesting to reflect on what some skeptics were writing 10 years ago.
At that time S. Fred Singer was sounding something like a global warming skeptic with his piece entitled ‘Ozone politics With a Nobel imprimatur’ in the Washington Post.
He wrote: “Further research will likely prove the CFC-ozone issue to have been a minor environmental problem. In the meantime, hasty policies to ban CFC production by the end of 1995, though a financial windfall for chemical companies and appliance manufacturers, will impose substantial economic costs — up to $100 billion — on U.S. consumers and make life worse for the poorest everywhere — especially in developing nations.”
There is even mention of hurricanes and Al Gore in the article.
Anyway, it is interesting to ponder why, given the success of the Montreal Protocol, there has not been a reduction in the hole over the Antarctic?
———————————————————————–
Thanks to Bob Foster for sending me the S. Fred Singer paper.
A note to commentators, I am interested in better understanding this issue and I’m interested in your opinion. But comments that don’t add new information and/or that are disrespectful may be edited and /or deleted.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is worth noting that Fred Singer is an 82 year old octogenarian who runs the notorious shill outfit the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
Singer hasn’t had a paper published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature since Black Sabbath and Deep Purple were having top 40 hits.
Singer has a long history of taking money from oil corporations, tobacco corporations and many others and producing “science” that no-one outside shill circles takes seriously. Singer for example has taken money from the Tobacco Institute and produced reports on their behalf that supposedly prove that environmental tobacco smoke is not a health hazard.
So let us examine if Fred Singer is a truth teller or an hysterical shrieking shill. In Marohasy’s above quote Singer says that CFC control “will impose substantial economic costs — up to $100 billion — on U.S. consumers…”
Was he right? Did it cost industry and consumers even a small fraction of this amount? Not on your Nelly.
“In 1995, the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel of the Montreal Protocol concluded that virtually all of the global reduction of CFC use had come at little or no cost to consumers and that “particular examples of successful hangeovers from ozone-depleting technologies are now too numerous to mention individually”. In conclusion the ODS phase out has, hardly affected industry negatively at all. There are even numerous
examples “where the substitute technologies have
saved money and improved quality over the CFC technologies they replaced”
http://www.wwf.be/detox/online_publications/crywolf.pdf#search=%22eban%20goodstein%20%22montreal%20protocol%22%22
Jen – some speculation based on the below:
“The stratosphere lags behind the surface by several years and the loading of ozone depleting chemicals in the ozone layer is at or near the peak. Satellite measurements show that the RATE of decline in ozone amount in the upper stratosphere is slowing, however the TOTAL ozone amount is still declining. “
Then Kenneth Towe says.. .. ..
Science 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, p. 442
THE NETWATCH ITEM “OZONE TRACKER” (9 June, p. 1447) furthers the common misconception that the size of the Antarctic ozone hole is a function of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The column amount of ozone within the hole (its depth) may be controlled, in part, by inorganic chlorine derived from the breakup of CFCs, but the area occupied by the hole is not. Indeed, in the face of steadily rising amounts of atmospheric CFCs, the area has shrunk several times since 1979. It is cold wind-driven climatic conditions that create the
polar vortex. This vortex isolates the atmosphere in the area of the hole, and polar stratospheric
clouds forming within it may foster the deepening of the hole with destruction of the trapped ozone, but the total area covered by the vortex has nothing to do with CFCs. KENNETH M. TOWE*
Department of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution, 230
DOI: 10.1126/science.313.5786.442a CFCs and the Size of the Ozone Hole
SO – if you have a look at the next 3 references you might consider that troposheric increases in greenhouse gases and depletion of stratospheric ozone has combined to jam the polar vortex full on one way? Impacts of global warming may have already begun. And that vortex might also be doing a few things to our rainfall (hence my interest). Perhaps we’ve left it too late ! Slip slop slap !!
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;296/5569/895
Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273
Can ozone depletion and global warming interact to produce rapid climate change?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412
A more detailed excerpt from http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm says:
Is the ozone hole recovering ? Some reports in the media suggest that the ozone layer over Antarctica is now recovering. This message is a little confused. Recent measurements at surface monitoring stations show that the loading of ozone destroying chemicals at the surface has been dropping since about 1994 and is now about 6% down on that peak. The stratosphere lags behind the surface by several years and the loading of ozone depleting chemicals in the ozone layer is at or near the peak. Satellite measurements show that the rate of decline in ozone amount in the upper stratosphere is slowing, however the total ozone amount is still declining. The small size of the 2002 ozone hole was nothing to do with any reduction in ozone depleting chemicals and it will be a decade or more before we can unambiguously say that the ozone hole is recovering. This assumes that the decline in ozone depleting chemicals continues and that there are no other perturbations to the ozone layer, such as might be caused by a massive volcanic eruption or Tunguska like event. It will be the middle of this century or beyond before the ozone hole ceases to appear over Antarctica. What we saw in 2002 is just one extreme in the natural range of variation in the polar stratosphere and is the equivalent of an extreme in ‘stratospheric weather’. By contrast the ‘weather’ in 2003 moved to the opposite extreme and we saw one of the largest ozone holes on record.
For up to date information on the hole itself
ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
More on hollow posts linked to amateur reviews of hollow reports:
The first person I saw die was a large man riddled with cancer. The primary cancers were skin cancers of various types all over his big white face. I was the last person in our hospital to chat about his life under the Tasmanian sun and his personal future. My brave stranger died without a whimper. He was I believe the ozone hole’s first victim. Any one on this blog who disregards our increasing UV threat is less than a fool. Any one who has limited engineering knowledge may perhaps be excused.
Two types of suspect gasses were dominant in post war industrial manufacturing. One was used extensively in refrigeration engineering, the others were mass produced for electrical caused fire suppression however these were hardly ever used in a real fire fight. It’s my opinion our ozone situation was rapidly made worse by a particular set of upgraded regulations based on new fire fighting equipment standards hosted in this country. Who started before others is a matter for debate but any silly academic report that does not account for this Australian connection is not worth the paper it’s written on.
How do I know you may well ask? But I stuck my neck out and investigated a whole industry to save my own bacon several times.
So what is the disinformation that Steve Munn so “passionately” writes about?
*Is it that the ozone hole is not so big as reported or,
*The Montreal Prootocol has not been successfulas reported or,
*What?
Steve gets it right some of the time, anybody who is 82 is an octogenarian.
Rog – the disinformation is what he has “omitted” to add ! Has he supported the ozone destruction chemistry. Has he commented whether there will be a lag in reaching the stratosphere. Has he suggested when and what the magnitude of the effect may be over time. Has he addressed the issue of the polar vortex. It’s a puff piece with max political impact and minimum science communication intent.
So Rog let’s quickly promote you to a position of authority – would you support open season on CFC emissions?
To get some idea of the magnitudes involved, someone here may like to knock up a quick estimate of total no of 1kg BCF extinguishers issued in this country since 1970. 1 kg units were common in places like cars and boats. Let me assure you each was routinely discharged on or near its schedule check-up date.
How long this type of extinguisher BCF and its refills were available is the easy bit for any one with access to the www.
The only big guess left is how long it takes all this stuff to completely do its bit up at the top of all other gases. BCF practically eats oxygen
BTW there was a lot of CO2 around too however that’s not a problem on this blog yet. I won’t discuss ammonia except to say its long been a big part of our industrial picture.
Has anyone seen an article on no’s of recalled BCF units, volumes etc published any where in the world? It’s only a guess that scientists really don’t have these facts however it’s critical for them estimating peak ozone damage. Many other places could still be hanging on to their halons.
Who made them, where are they still being distributed etc?? I don’t expect an answer.
So now we are guilty for the things we silently acquire, excepting recycling and composting. Strange world you characters live in.
The moral dimension is never far away from the activist’s minds, those that do not agree with them are labelled as “deniers,” Al Gore equates “deniers” with flat earth society and those that believe the moon landing was staged.
Others call them “omitters” or “anal retentives.”
This is not a rational discussion this is a political campaign on a “you are either with us or against us” platform. Deniers can be silenced or charged with crimes against humanity.
Whilst pillorying omitters and deniers Al Gore does not act effectively to curb his own emissions, seemingly in denial of his own rhetoric.
http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf
..”More broadly, we strongly suggest it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages to convince people of the reality of climate change and urge them to act. We need to work in different and more sophisticated ways, harnessing tools and concepts used by brand advertisers, to make it not dutiful or
obedient to be climate-friendly, but desirable.
How can we change what constitutes ‘common sense’? The challenge is to make climate-friendly behaviours feel normal, natural, right and ‘ours’ to large numbers of people who are currently unengaged, and on whose emotional radar the issue does not figure. The answer is not to try to change their radar but to change the issue, so it becomes something they willingly pick up, because it means something valuable in their own terms.
Inevitably, these conclusions lead us to treat climate-change communications in the same way as brand communications: we have to approach positive climate behaviours in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming. This is the relevant context for climate change communications in the UK today – not the increasingly residual models of public service or campaigning communications. It amounts to treating climate-friendly everyday activity as a brand that can be sold. This is not necessarily a familiar or comfortable proposition for those engaged in campaigning or public sector work, but it is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour change.”
So it sounds like the IPPR is just like the IPA?
“Since its inception, ippr has built up a well-deserved reputation for generating new and imaginative ideas. Our aim is to continue to be
a force for change by delivering far-reaching and realistic policy solutions that we hope will produce a fairer, more inclusive and more environmentally sustainable world.”
I’m going straight to hell for that one. Dons hard hat and assumes crouch position.
Anyway – meanwhile back at the ozone hole .. ..
Rog do you want to be a big CFC emitter or not – spare us the philosophy.
It would be good if this thread could get back to the topic of ozone and the Montreal Protocol. Is the hole likely to start shrinking any time soon?
Perhaps I should explain my initial reaction to this thread. Please note I withheld comment on the earlier thread.
All discussion about the ozone layer in this blog is based on two concepts, the adverse effects of CFC’s and the Montreal protocol. Our general understanding is not advanced with out a working knowledge of the gases involved. We had refrigerants for decades, more recently propellants and in particular BCF known as halon gas. I claim our use of BCF is least known in scientific circles and although it was subject to stringent regulatory regime in Australia the actual amounts of this chemical compared to others impacting on our atmosphere now will never be appreciated.
Jennifer says “it is interesting to ponder why, given the success of the Montreal Protocol, there has not been a reduction in the hole over the Antarctic?”
Australia’s history in generating standards is well known. Australia’s history in trade negations based on universal application of standards, internal and external is also well known. We are quick to adopt best practice and drive all industry into new levels of compliance. In the case of BCF it backfired and nobody is talking about it.
IMHO our professional firemen developed a bad habit of routinely empting everyone’s fire extinguisher. Simply the old dry powder types failed after even short periods of storage. Rivalry between fire protection import agencies encouraged all firemen to act early in ridding the market of old equipment in general. With the arrival of BCF, companies, contracts, governments and people were targeted. Soda acid and trichlorethane types were largely eliminated, the high cost Nu Swift appliances were dumped from the recycle lists everywhere, Quell (FFE Appliances) and Chubb had a field day. Nu Swift had been masters of the marine environment.
But “Firemaster” in QLD held out and the battle for AS compliance labels began. BCF and silicon coated monamonium phosphate triple rated powder had to have a use by date regardless of their long term storage safety. The rest is history because bad habits prevailed under the various states’ and their agents interpretation of new regulations. All gas storage had to be pressure tested over and over. This I believe is the most likely way our ozone hole was unwittingly engineered.
Jennifer: It remains my concern that our corporate zeal for OH&S type policy development by the remote end of government leaves us with blunt instruments like pressure testing regimes for various commercial gas vessels. BCF from its introduction was promoted for its long term storage properties in reservoirs suitable for flooding systems. The finger tip tilt test for a domestic sized fire extinguisher in experienced hands was enough to tell us about the majority of units in service. Blanket routines such as we had with fire protection were never fully challenged on the whole question of recycling, either bits and pieces or gas.
rog; we are often forced to be a greater consumer society at every level of business. By judging your response to my “A” windup next door I think we finally hit the sensitive nerve. You need labels to operate
By mentioning the contest for market share in Australia above I hope I have left enough clues as to how it was elsewhere. Development of long shelf life fire extinguishers including ABC (E) powder should have eliminated a lot of waste. Our late reaction to the real danger of BCF was in part due to our individual dependence on those tasked with looking after us. Science as usual came after the event.
Jennifer: I don’t believe much in keeping routines for their own sake other than eating or sleeping.
Gavin,
So in a nutshell what is the situation now with BCF?
And are you suggesting that concentrations of ozone destroying gases have been increasing since 2003? The ‘officials’ claim concentrations started to level off in 1999 and have been dropping since 2003?
How good are we at measuring these emissions?
Jen – read what I’ve posted – perhaps not if the polar vortex keeps behaving as it is… Towe is saying the vortex behaviour is more the issue.
You would have to expect some lag in the CFCs getting into the stratosphere. Doesn’t seem to be immediate.
And if the Ruskies or anyone else with black market CFCs is not doing the right thing well perhaps the Protocol is being thwarted?
And lastly did anyone promise when “an improvement” might be forthcoming? Or do we just intuitively feel “it’s been long enough”. My memory was that it would takes “decades”.
At this point in time Jennifer I can find nothing on the www to help me with the following statement. Also I have been too long outside the fire protection industry to get an update on the current movers and shakers world wide.
Although Australia has an active BCF bank in operation we know nothing about other places, Africa, SE Asia, South America and so on. What bothers me most though it the lack of discussion on this issue here and elsewhere.
Given the above, was Singer correct in noting that the Montreal Protocol would not be effective?
Rog – WAIT FOR IT !!!!!!!
Changes in Ozone-Depleting Compounds
In the troposphere observations show that the total abundance of ozone-depleting compounds continues to decline slowly from the peak that occurred in 1992-1994.
Observations in the stratosphere indicate that the total chlorine abundance is at or near a peak, while bromine abundances are probably still increasing.
Analyses of air trapped in snow since the late 19th century have confirmed that non-industrial sources of the CFCs, halons, and major chlorocarbons were insignificant. The data suggest that substantial natural sources exist for atmospheric methyl bromide (CH3Br).
The abundances of HCFCs in the troposphere continue to increase.
Predictions
Chemistry-climate models predict that springtime Antarctic ozone levels will be increasing by 2010 because of projected decreases of halogens in the stratosphere. A return to pre-1980 total column ozone amounts in the Antarctic is expected by the middle of this century.
Arctic ozone depletion is highly variable and difficult to predict, but a future Arctic polar ozone hole similar to that of the Antarctic appears unlikely.
The full 2002 report is here: http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/reports/o3_assess_rep_2002_front_page.html
Luke,
In this thread you are focusing on chemicals as a cause of ozone depeletion, in previous recent threads you focused on low temperatures as a cause of ozone depeletion.
What do you think the relative contribution of natural versus man-made factors might be, specifically with respect to the hole over Antartica?
WMO say that it is a result of both;
“This year’s hole was caused by the continuing presence of peak levels of ozone destroying substances in the atmosphere combined with a particularly cold stratospheric winter.”
http://www.wmo.ch/news/news.html
Scientists say that this extremely cold winter was the result of massive solar flare in 2003 which impacted on high leverls winds.
Jen – it’s a bit complex – you need both CFCs and cold as the cutting at the bottom this post indicates. But if the vortex is being affected by climate change processes – see the references in my first post this thread we may have a hitherto unforeseen interaction/complication.
Note the chemical reactions are catalytic !
And other chemicals are involved,
http://www.theozonehole.com/odcs.htm
Says:
The destruction of ozone is accelerated by certain trace gases containing nitrogen, hydrogen, bromine, and chlorine. These are referred to as ozone depletion chemicals.
The most commonly known ozone depletion chemicals (ODCs) are the CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons. Over the last 30 years man-made CFCs have been the main cause of stratospheric ozone depletion.
CFCs however, are not the only ozone-depleting chemicals. Other ODCs include the methylhalides, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), and the halons which contain bromine instead of chlorine. Such compounds are called halocarbons.
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), despite its toxicity, was first used in the early 1900s as a fire extinguishing agent, and more recently as an industrial solvent, an agricultural fumigant, and in many other industrial processes including petrochemical refining, and pesticide and pharmaceuticals production. Recently it has also been used in the production of CFC-11 and CFC-12.
Methyl chloroform, also known as 1,1,1 trichloroethane is a versatile, all-purpose industrial solvent used primarily to clean metal and electronic parts. It was introduced in the 1950s as a substitute for carbon tetrachloride.
Halons, unlike CFCs, contain bromine, which also destroys ozone in the stratosphere. Halons are used primarily in fire extinguishers. Halon-1301 has an ozone depleting potential 10 times that of CFC-11. Although the use of halons in developed countries has been phased out since 1996, the atmospheric concentration of these potent, ozone destroyers is still rising because of their long atmospheric lifetimes.
Methyl bromide, another bromine-containing halocarbon, has been used as a pesticide since the 1960s.
I’m speculating on the basis of the research but it seems the polar vortex is contributing to the effect. And is the vortex changing and why? Climate change from AGW and ozone depletion interacting.
The vortex issue may also be involved in Australian rainfall decline by moving the southern hemisphere circulation patterns.
But I’m just a dabbler and a mug punter on the darker side. Read the papers above and ponder !
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html
says:
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS AND OZONE
Many people have heard that the ozone hole is caused by chemicals called CFCs, short for chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs escape into the atmosphere from refrigeration and propellant devices and processes, and in the lower atmosphere, they are so stable that they persist for years, even decades. This long lifetime allows some of the CFCs to eventually reach the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, ultraviolet light breaks the bond holding chlorine atoms (Cl) to the CFC molecule. A free chlorine atom goes on to participate in a series of chemical reactions that both destroy ozone and return the free chlorine atom to the atmosphere unchanged, where it can destroy more and more ozone molecules. For those who know the story of CFCs and ozone, that is the part of the tale that is probably familiar.
The part of the story that fewer people know is that while the chlorine atoms freed from CFCs do ultimately destroy ozone, the destruction doesn’t happen immediately. Most of the roaming chlorine that gets separated from CFCs actually becomes part of two chemicals that—under normal atmospheric conditions—are so stable that scientists consider them to be long-term reservoirs for chlorine. So how does the chlorine get out of the reservoir each spring?
POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS AND OZONE
Under normal atmospheric conditions, the two chemicals that store most atmospheric chlorine (hydrochloric acid, and chlorine nitrate) are stable. But in the long months of polar darkness over Antarctica in the winter, atmospheric conditions are unusual. An endlessly circling whirlpool of stratospheric winds called the polar vortex isolates the air in the center. Because it is completely dark, the air in the vortex gets so cold that clouds form, even though the Antarctic air is extremely thin and dry. Chemical reactions take place that could not take place anywhere else in the atmosphere. These unusual reactions can occur only on the surface of polar stratospheric cloud particles, which may be water, ice, or nitric acid, depending on the temperature.
These reactions convert the inactive chlorine reservoir chemicals into more active forms, especially gas (Cl2). When the sunlight returns to the South Pole in October, UV light rapidly breaks the bond between the two chlorine atoms, releasing free chlorine into the stratosphere, where it takes part in reactions that destroy ozone molecules while regenerating the chlorine (known as a catalytic reaction). A catalytic reaction allows a single chlorine atom to destroy thousands of ozone molecules. Bromine is involved in a second catalytic reaction with chlorine that contributes a large fraction of ozone loss. The ozone hole grows throughout the early spring until temperatures warm and the polar vortex weakens, ending the isolation of the air in the polar vortex. As air from the surrounding latitudes mixes into the polar region, the ozone-destroying forms of chlorine disperse. The ozone layer stabilizes until the following spring.
Clear as mud Jen?
So you have to ponder if you were the policy officer in the Commonwealth environment department who has to write a brief for the Minister supporting or rejecting the ban/restrictions on these chemicals – what do you do?
[Down side of procrastinating say the scientists is the longer you leave it the more difficult it is to do anything]
You’re just about to send the brief upstairs and you read Singer’s article. So what are you going to do? Minister’s waiting .. ..
P.S. Climate change brief is tomorrow. Plenty of time.
You may find this interesting, & it highlits why science, & government are held in such low esteem in many industries.
In the 80s I was running a fleet of tourist boats in the barrier reef area.
In 84, Queensland Harbours & Marine Dept required me to spend $60,000, to install automatic halon extingisher systems in our passenger boats.
In 86, they required me to spend $40,000 evacuating the halon, & converting the systems to Co2.
In just a little over 2 years, I had spent almost the cost of a 100 passenger ferry, on a total stuff up.
I wonder what’s in those tanks now?
Governments, don’t you just love them.
Peter Singer also said that ozone depletion was a combination of CFCs and other factors such as the weather.
NASA agrees
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm
They say that global recovery to 1980 levels will be around 2030 – 2070.
Problem is that halon was you beaut for fire supression and relatively safe. Pity about the ozone layer. Hasby – so the private enterprise that sold the solution has no responsibility?? Did govt science make the halon ? Why is it just govt’s fault – I’m told repeatedly here on the blog that private enterprise supplies cheap competitive environmentally friendly products. You mean that’s not always so ? I’m shocked?
[No wonder government gets cynical about private enterprise ripping them off – e.g. govt price is often double the real market price. And always more of the old capitalising profits and socialising losses game]
So what’s Singer on about – just have a cranky whinge then ?
Has anyone here not asked the obvious question, why we have a hole downunder and they don’t top side?
Luke has slipped back into regurgitating scientific reports (thanks) and models based on what’s readily available on the www but most know where I get my opinions from. It’s mucking around in the business of self preservation that creates survivors at the grass roots.
I made a phone call and asked a battery of questions re our stocks and wares. It will take me a little while to absorb some answers.
Jennifer: this is a most interesting topic.
Following on from Rog’s excellent web link, here’s some details of the issues from that reference. Apologies for the length but worth it I think (you should see the full papers !!). Issue is that I find the two papers a bit at odds in places. But does retrace some elements over most of what we’ve discussed above and again re-introduces elements of climate change uncertainty in all this. Essentially Jen – you’ll be waiting a while.
Nature 441, 39-45 (4 May 2006)
The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer
Elizabeth C. Weatherhead1 and Signe Bech Andersen2
“Expectations for ozone levels near the end of this century
A question often asked is ‘will ozone return to pre-1980 levels, and if so, when?’
Because many of the factors influencing ozone levels are also changing, even if all anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances were removed from the atmosphere, ozone levels might not stabilize at pre-1980 levels. Total column ozone, carbon dioxide emissions, stratospheric temperatures and circulation patterns are closely linked, and changes in one of these variables can affect the others. By the end of the century, provided the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances decrease, ozone levels are expected to be dominated by temperature, atmospheric dynamics and the abundances of trace gases, including water vapour, methane and N2O. For example, future growth in N2O, due in part to increased fertilizer production, could lead to decreases in ozone. Some model calculations indicate that ozone could increase to a higher level than that observed before the influences of ozone-depleting substances, while other models indicate that ozone could increase, but reach lower levels. Clarifying the expectations for ozone amounts near the end of this century will require improved estimates of future impacts of the various factors as well as continued improvements in the models to represent the combined effects on ozone of these processes.
Remaining uncertainties
Although many factors affect ozone concentrations and it is difficult to be confident about trend results derived from ten years of data, many of the changes observed in the recent ozone data are qualitatively consistent with what would be expected on the basis of a reduction in the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Over the past ten years, total column ozone values for most of the world have levelled off or show a slight increase. No area shows significant depletion of total ozone, marking the first ten-year period since 1980 (omitting the perturbation following the eruption of Mt Pinatubo) in which ozone has not declined. The observed levelling off of ozone is generally consistent with declines in ozone depleting substances due to international agreements controlling their production. However, the large increases in column ozone observed in the mid- to high-northern latitudes are probably due to the higher temperatures in the Arctic polar vortex as well as to solar influence and the recent lack of volcanic activity. In contrast, the winter of 2004/05 was extremely cold in the Arctic stratosphere, allowing for severe ozone depletion before the polar vortex broke up. The 11-year solar cycle recently peaked and its influence on ozone is uncertain, but solar variability appears to have contributed to some of the observed levelling off and increases in ozone over the past eight years. As concentrations of ozone-depleting substances subside, considerable uncertainty about the rate of ozone recovery and future ozone levels exist. In the future, ozone levels will depend on continued compliance with the Montreal Protocol and its amendments and on climate change policies that influence atmospheric changes. Changes in the atmosphere as a result of continued anthropogenic impacts suggest that ozone will recover in an atmosphere much different from that which prevailed before the build-up of ozone-depleting substances. Whether ozone stabilizes at a level higher or lower than pre-1980 levels, the vertical distribution of ozone in the future is almost certain to be different from the pre-depletion period. Because recovery approaching pre-1980 levels could take decades, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is likely to remain elevated for as long as ozone remains below historically normal values. Data through to the end of this decade are needed to help determine how much of the recent ozone increases are attributable to solar influences, and to establish the extent to which temperatures and concentrations of ozone-depleting substances are affecting current ozone amounts. During the next few years, ozone levels in the Arctic will be strongly influenced by stratospheric temperature, possibly resulting in delayed recovery or record-low ozone observations. Considerably longer data series and improved understanding of atmospheric processes and their effects on ozone are needed to estimate future ozone levels with confidence. “
Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone
Eun-Su Yang1, Derek M. Cunnold1, Ross J. Salawitch2, M. Patrick McCormick3, James Russell III3, Joseph M. Zawodny4, Samuel Oltmans5, Michael J. Newchurch6
Journal of Geophysical Research, accepted for publication, March 22, 2006, in press.
Abstract
Multiple satellite and ground-based observations provide consistent evidence that the thickness of Earth’s protective ozone layer has stopped declining since 1997, close to the time of peak stratospheric halogen loading. Regression analyses with Effective Equivalent Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC) in conjunction with further analyses using more sophisticated photochemical model calculations constrained by satellite data demonstrate that the cessation of ozone depletion between 18-25 km altitude is consistent with a leveling off of stratospheric abundances of chlorine and bromine, due to the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. However, ozone increases in the lowest part of the stratosphere, from the tropopause to 18 km, account for about half of the improvement in total column ozone during the past 9 years at northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. The increase in ozone for altitudes below 18 km is most likely driven by changes in transport, rather than driven by declining chlorine and bromine. Even with this evidence that the Montreal Protocol and its amendments are having the desired, positive effect on ozone above 18 km, total column ozone is recovering faster than expected due to the apparent transport driven changes at lower altitudes. Accurate prediction of future levels of stratospheric ozone will require comprehensive understanding of the factors that drive temporal changes at various altitudes, and partitioning of the recent transport-driven increases between natural variability and changes in atmospheric structure perhaps related to anthropogenic climate change.
Rog: you will be pleased to know “that global recovery to 1980 levels will be around 2030 – 2070” is probably the official line here too and we are a model for the world in collecting that bad stuff halogen. Also our people at this level were part of the input at Montreal and continue with the good work.
Luke can love or leave it but the ozone hole thing is not mixed up with AGW.
Jennifer: when I look at the 2030-70 time scale for ozone restoration knowing BCF has not been superseded for certain users like the military, I think the global temperature restoration will take a wee bit longer even though we have the best of all government hands in the world. This leaves us fishing some of our neighbors out of the drink soon. Mind your water meantime.
Luke, did you read my post? Queensland Harbours & Marine [government] REQUIRED me to install the stuff.
Survey requirement. No halon, no survey, no passengers, NO BUSINESS.
B grade government scientists had either, taken a quid under the table, or been sold a pup.
This is what worries me re GHG. B grade government people will fall for the rubish, & we will get the bill for yet more stuffed up policies.
Rog: you will be pleased to know “that global recovery to 1980 levels will be around 2030 – 2070” is probably the official line here too and we are a model for the world in collecting that bad stuff halogen. Also our people at this level were part of the input at Montreal and continue with the good work.
Luke can love or leave it but the ozone hole thing is not mixed up with AGW.
Jennifer: when I look at the 2030-70 time scale for ozone restoration knowing BCF has not been superseded for certain users like the military, I think the global temperature restoration will take a wee bit longer even though we have the best of all government hands in the world. This leaves us fishing some of our neighbors out of the drink soon. Mind your water meantime.
I’m not sure how right or otherwise Singer might be about the severity of the problem caused by CFCs – I’ve always thought the case against them was fairly strong – but I suspect he’s quite wrong about the cost to the economy.
He appears to make the same mistake that many analysts make in assuming that you can measure a cost to the economy simply by analysing how much a particular measure costs to implement. So, if the cost to industry of changing from CFCs to something harmless to ozone is $100B, then you assume that to be the cost to the economy.
It’s not. Rather it is a transference from one particpant to another participant which may, or may not, have any net cost. One person’s cost is another person’s turn-over. The cost to the economy will result in the extent to which the general standard of living is lowered, which relates to productivity.
Why I think it is important to bring this up now is that many of the AGW proponents make exactly the same mistake, but for their own propaganda reasons. They assume that any change in climate is a cost to the economy, which makes it difficult to rationally argue about what one ought to do about climate change, if anything.
And that’s where the real debate should be.
BTW, reading the NASA piece that Rog cites, it was refreshing to read people being honest about the limits of their models.
Luke, did you read my post? The Dept of Harbours & Marine, [GOVERNMENT] REQUIRED me to install the halon for survey. No survey = no passengers =
no business.
Some “B”grade government scientists had either, taken a quid under the table, or been sold a pup. Which ever way, they recommended to government, & we got the law.
A bit like the worry with GHG. “B” grade government staffers have bought the pup. Just how long before we will have to pay the bill?
Gavin,
I’m interested in your comments about BCF. Is it listed as part of the Montreal Protocol?
But your comment about saving “neighbours from the drink” I assume to mean a concern about sealevel rise? Are you referring to tropospheric ozone?
This thread so far has been about stratospheric ozone and indeed Luke’s comments about the Antartica and the ozone hole suggest this largest of ice masses could cool further … or am I drawing too long a bow?
Isn’t stratospheric ozone contributing to global cooling?
I always thought the ozone issue was not a climate change issue per se, but I’m a bit confused now.
Exactly Haso – private entrprise needs to take full responsibility for lack of disclosure with poor chemical products and their full impacts. Blame the halon company ! Anyway I’m sure you just billed the customers – cost of business you know.
Gavin re ozone and climate change. Think again.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412
Graham Young makes the same mistake: Lumping the causes of ozone depletion under a common heading of CFC’s gives us no insight to causes or cures. This grand sweeping of detail under the carpet gives us the reason for Hasbeen’s frustration.
In many ways we are all victims of this chemical era. I prefer to use the original trade name Halon (BCF), Freon, Teflon, Santobrite etc then learn their history and impact. Somebody has to clean them up one by one.
BTW We don’t know how much BCF was imported.
Hopefully the ozone depletion era, excess UV radiation and personal suffering due to skin cancer will be limited to a hundred years or so. However Graham, cost to the community is enormous regardless of who makes a quid on the technology transfer. Then there are our animals…wildlife …etc Economic analysis becomes heartless.
Winners and losers Graham: how smug are we at the tree top?
Jen
Coby told us here on the blog in September
“A cooling stratosphere is actually consistent with GW theory and this is one of the model predictions that satellite measurements were able to confirm.
But the poles both remain the most difficult to model well. Ozone depletion also causes stratospheric cooling which complicates both expectations and attribution of observations.”
Thanks Coby.
But the stratosphere is not the troposhere. So what happens to the surface ice mass is more complex. But if the polar vortex tends to isolate the inner part of Antarctica by a synergistic interactions between stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse warming (see above paper) then this may explain why the inner part of that continent has warmed little (as compared to the Peninsula) – is the inner part effectively “walled” off. But at some point the greenhouse warming (which David reminded us was less in the southern hemisphere due to more ocean soak capacity) would presumably increase and overwhelm these effects and a warming would occur. So you could see a rapid change when this happened.
Then do further changes in all this business mean fundamental changes in the southern hemisphere circulation which may explain some of drying trends in Australia (longer bow)?!
And even more head-spinning – what happens to southern hemisphere climate change when the hole finally closes in 2030-2070? Will things change around somewhat? Are there sudden thresholds to be crossed? Golly it’s enough to make you reach for a computer model of climate isn’t it 🙂
Isn’t complexity marvellous ? And the interactions daunting. (And we haven’t even factored in the cosmic rays yet or solar torque yet 🙂 )
P.S. I think you guys (even Rog) are starting to get it !
Dear Ms Marohasy,
The above text from Fred Singer puts the cost of CFC control at $100 billion for US consumers alone. Do you believe this figure? If you do could you kindly furnish your evidence. I would also like to know your explanation for the ozone hole over the Antarctic.
I would be most grateful for your valuable thoughts.
cheers and best wishes
Steve Munn
Jen, the simple answer is in the chemistry. You need three things for the initial reaction in CFC-based ozone destruction to occur: CFCs, ultaviolet light and ice crystals. The stratosphere has so little water that it has to get exceptionally cold for ice crystals to form. These normally form only over the Antarctic and in winter. The stratosphere above the Arctic is much warmer. The size of the ozone hole will change from year to year due to changes in concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals (there are some natural ones up there too), temperature in the stratosphere and stratospheric air movements. So an decrease in size of the ozone hole may not reflect decreased ozone-depleting chemicals, but simply warmer stratospheric temperatures.
Chris
Steve Munn, You’ve been commenting on this blog for a long time but its always the same… you suggest that because I provide a link to a piece of information, that you really disagree with, I some how must support it and am wrong. While you may have a fixed view and closed mind on many issues… I often post information here simply because I would like to explore the issue. As regards you specific questions:I have no idea how much it cost to phase out CFCs in the USA and I had always assumed that the hole over the Antarctic was caused by CFCs.
But hey, I don’t consider myself knowledgable on either issue. I have learnt a lot from reading the comments in this thread.
Chris Preston, Thanks for the information. I’m perhaps just starting to understand the basics here. So was there ever even a little hole over the Antarctic before manmade CFCs?
Gavin, You forgot bromine. And how many of them are covered by the Montreal Protocol?
Jennifer: I have a very limited understanding of how the Antarctic “vortex” is linked to the ozone hole but I am certain that largest of all ice mass and the unusual differential with the warming process is driving weird events in the atmosphere. However logic tells me the sea is our major dampening factor in all warming equations. On the other hand your “7 percent drop” wiki link gives us a good outline of the stew that eats ozone at any level. The trick is to put values on each one say Halon versus Freon etc. My assumptions were hammered today but I have not misled the blog except for the fact discharged BCF flows upwards via the equator and it takes about 15 years.
Note; Teflon PTFE gets a mention on wiki but that was a pure guess on my part and just thinking about its maker. There are interesting gaps on wiki too when you look with some purpose.
Luke; I have never deviated from either cause; ozone depletion and global warming both have a common generator back in our industry. I’m also confident our federal government has taken a lot of notice lately about possible long term consequences. Statements on radio today by the environment minister confirm they are moving quickly to settle bits of the Pacific. Minding that sloppy sea water won’t be easy, minding everyone’s fresh water reserves even harder.
Sea level rise? SURE! Next question ? QUICK!
Steve Munn says ” Singer hasn’t had a paper published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature since Black Sabbath and Deep Purple were having top 40 hits.*
I say Munn hasnt made an inteligent comment (let alone a peer reviewed paper) in his whole life, and more. I say that with considerable confidence, he continues to prove me right.
Jen, indeed there was. There is evidence of a small ozone hole appearing over the Antarctic from the 1950s. I forget where I read this, so I don’t have the reference handy. I had to come to grips with the chemistry of ozone depletion for use in teaching. I have not followed the meteorology with as much interest, but understand it is crucial in allowing the chemistry to proceed.
History o the Hole
n 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC’s to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light. Further studies estimated that the ozone layer would be depleted by CFC’s by about 7% within 60yrs and based on such studies the US banned CFC’s in aerosol sprays in 1978. Slowly various nations agreed to ban CFC’s in aerosols but industry fought the banning of valuable CFC’s in other applications. A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC’s and that shock came in a 1985 field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin. Published in _Nature_, May 1985, the study summarized data that had been collected by the British Antartic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. The authors had been somewhat hesitant about publishing because Nimbus-7 satellite data had shown no such drop during the Antarctic spring. But NASA soon discovered that the spring-time ”ozone hole” had been covered up by a computer-program desiged to discard sudden, large drops in ozone concentrations as ”errors”. The Nimbus-7 data was rerun without the filter-program and evidence of the Ozone-hole was seen as far back as 1976.
Gavin, How could our environment minister “settle” those pacific islands? Aren’t those islands mostly volcanic – rising and then falling?
Gavin, if you read what I wrote I was saying that the cost to the economy of phasing out CFCs, properly measured, was probably quite small, certainly smaller than Singer’s estimate.
I don’t understand why you would consider it “smug” to want to assess costs accurately. Or are you in the “any change is bad” brigade?
Jennifer: I don’t have the quote but from his tone yesterday on ABC it sounded like our minister was “poring oil on troubled waters” regarding our help in maintaining fresh water on the coral islands in the Pacific. That is at least an acknowledgement of some sea level rise in the short term.
Graham: I spent some time on the phone yesterday ascertaining how advanced we are in Australia with the CFC clean up, in particular Freon and Halon. We have been good but I reckon the cost is widely distributed. For instance I doubt a manufacturer like Du Pont picks up the bill for the extras when we get the AC serviced on the family wagon. BTW it was yours truly who mentioned various co names, not the program minder.
These costs can be measured Graham and we do bear them willingly enough, however the costs of not cleaning up can’t be measured in regard to extra UV damage etc.
My aim these days after years of service around our chemical industry is to use what ever experience remains relevant in getting folk on blogs like this to be more aware of our industrial legacy. Conservative yes, concerned yes. In my day I sold Firemaster or CIG branded BCF to lots of people and still have a can of Freon in my garage.
Gavin, I actually did ask your question “has anybody asked why we have a hole downunder but not up top,” on the previous thread where you appeared to be very frustrated at people expressing opinions.
My comment related to other things I am sceptical about other than AGW.
I have since spent many hours reading prior threads (sadly still havent found the commentary on co2 and temp lag/lead, to ensure I do not (again) bring up stuff you have all repeatedly discussed.
It is certainly very interesting reading.
I would add that a lot of what is written is clearly opinion.
I would go one step further and say unless you are an expert it can only be opinion….I would also say that because it is opinion does not make it wrong, just like because it comes from an expert it does not make it right.
You said something like, if I wanted opinions I would sample people walking down the street. Most of them dont have a clue and if they have an opinion probably base it on outlandish scare tactics from NGO’s or the media…or even IPCC….. or on the I don t care principle. Surely its better to get opinions from people who have at least made the effort to form their own opinion based on a wide array of reading?
From all my reading …and this blog site has been great to actually get to read much of the really scientific arguments first hand rather than as ‘opinion pieces’…..it appears that for most scientific arguments another expert will be able to refute their conclusions or at least cast doubt on the validity of findings/source material/ bias etc.
So where does that leave me a non scientist? You probably do not care (fair enough!) but courtesy of all of you who have contributed to these threads I think I am moving from a 50/50 sceptic to a 70/30 in favour of AGW. Hold onto your hat Luke!
Anybody who does not however harbour some doubt needs to take a check of reality. It seems to me we should all have some degree of sceptism on most issues (fair enough to believe the moon really is there!).
That then brings us to assessing the risk/costs and probability associated with doing nothing/ something or a lot. Very few things have no risk…. for instance in all probability it seems to me the risks associated with GM food are far outweighed by the benefits…hence use them after careful testing.
Schiller put up some very pertinent questions in my mind when he states..”nobody is proving that warmer is bad and colder good and nobody is proving what the ideal planetary temp is.”
From what I have read on this blog (maybe 1000 or so of the comments) those of you who choose at times to play the “man/woman not the ball” are letting yourselves down and weaken the way your arguments are then perceived on other or the same issue.
Congratulations Jen and all of your readers.
Luke thankyou again for pointing me in many directions, I still have not finished reading but I hope my shift to 70/30 gives you some hope!
Gavin, sorry if my opinion /thoughts upset you!
Toby – why notan Arctic ozone hole – because the northern vortex is not as strong and temperatures don’t get as cold, but mini-holes have formed.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm
Speculation that it may get worse.. ..
http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
Toby – CO2 Temp lag stuff
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/09/co2_and_t_over_ice_age_cycles.php
Toby writes: “It is certainly very interesting reading”. Let me add it’s entertaining
“I would add that a lot of what is written is clearly opinion”. What I object to Toby is the endless reinforcement based on other peoples reports, heartless gutless opinion at its worst.
“I would go one step further and say unless you are an expert it can only be opinion” That’s all we need in politics.
Toby; when I worked for teams of specialists it was sometimes necessary to unpick their work. That too becomes political. I frequently refer to this process as “reading between the lines”, a very useful concept in say minding security between agencies. In this sort of arena its experience not science that counts. A great deal happens anywhere because of some hard headed policy.
Toby: You are too polite for this blog hey. Besides I’m very thick skinned.
Thanks for the exchange