"....Scientists worry......."

Generally they don't.

But people generally worry about what Scientists say!

This is actually quite important!

We were all horrified by by the fact that those Italian scientists were jailed for failing to predict the earthquakes.

But what comeback do we have with scientists who scare us with untruths?!!

I for one am relieved to see that the ozone layer has healed again. I hope I'm around to see it heal in 2022-2023.

Looks to me like a ten year cycle...but healing? No...

Healed? No. Healing? Yes. Definitely not a ten year cycle. CFCs, the primary contributor to (excessive) ozone destruction have atmospheric lifetimes measured in centuries. Most speak of 2050 when the healing process has gone far enough to be back within thew normal boundaries of natural variability.

'...natural variability...'

.

I can't help but wince a little when I read or hear 'natural' used in this sense. It has a very preachy ring to it, along the lines of the belief that 'man is 'specially' created by god, not like the other lowly life forms'.

.

Using 'natural' in earnest must take a belief that man is separate and unlike the rest of nature that man can reasonably be considered 'not of nature'....'unnatural'.

.

That frame of mind seems counter-productive and maybe even a little 'unnatural'.

I always wondered how all those heavy CFCs got into the upper atmosphere, while the ozone produced at the surface never seems to. Especially since the amount of ozone is vastly larger than the relatively insignificant amount of CFCs that leak out of random appliances. This goes hand in hand with the supposed threat posed by CO2. But then I guess that's why AGW theory only works in computer models and can't be replicated in observed phenomena. I know... I know, it's not politically expedient to bring logic and science into the discussion when so many people are making money off scaring ignorant civilians.

Then there is that little conundrum of ozone and CFC's tend to need some heat and pressure to react.

Where's the ozone layer and how 'warm' is it up there anyway?

I've also wondered the same thing, still no answer. Another point is what was the size of the hole in 1870, 1900, 1930, 1960?

There was a Tarzan film from the '30's IIRC Johnny Weismuller. The resident scientist had a microscope. "Boy" looked at a drop of water and saw things swimming in it, he refused to drink water. Tarzan though, just grabbed a coconut shell and drank away. The microbes, like GW, and the Ozone hole have been there since time immemorial, we have only just discovered instruments to detect it. As we have had accurate measurements for less than a century, it is hard to imagine anyone can discern what "normal" is.

I read somewhere (Popular Science, Scientific American, Natural History can't remember where?) that scientists couldn't account for the cause of 60% of the depletion.

The ozone hole did not exist until the 1970's. It was largely caused by our discovery and subsequent use (and leaks) of CFCs that the destruction of ozone became out of balance and hence "the hole".

Ozone (creation and) depletion is a natural process. Many different substances can destroy ozone. The addition of a fairly aggressive chemical family, CFCs, upset this balance.

How far back do decent measurements of the ozone layer go? How certain are we that there wasn't an intermittent or periodic hole previous to our earliest measurement?

.

That may sound like I am baiting you (I guess I might be depending on your answer), but I am genuinely interested in the answers to those questions.

Now this just gets even more disturbing. Apparently the hole is not continuous but follows a well defined seasonal cycle that goes from non existent, 300 - 400+ DU, for the spring/summer seasons of the year to being large in the fall/winter season, 100 - 200 DU.

Have a look for yourself at the numerous animations that cover the whole year and not just focus on the normal September - December high points of the holes annual cycles in size and position. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Oddly suspicious that the ozone hole fanatics only comment on its size using data that always comes from around September to December as shown here, http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm ,when the hole is at its seasonal maximum rather than during April - July where it at times does not exist!

You make the call be me thinks there is a bit of shady data manipulation/omission work at hand being played on what makes it to the medias public awareness level.

BTW the hole is not a zero level event but a low point occurrence of around 100 -200 Dobson units whereas the high points considered a normal range for the rest of the ozone layer range from ~250 - 400 Dobson Units.

Have a look for yourself at the numerous animations that cover the whole year and not just focus on the normal September - December high points of the holes annual cycles in size and position. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

You are right. Ozone depletion is at a maximum when the unique conditions exist, Sep through Dec. There is no hole the rest of the year and no "problem". The higher levels of UVB radiation that reach the earth's surface only occur during this period.

Well to me that right there suggests that this may very well be a normal cyclic phenomenon that happens every year and that has been happening since the beginning of time but the problem is it wasn't until around 1958 that it became possible to do any type of valid sampling.

Are there any forms of geologic or cyclic environmental evidence, like ice core data and tree rings, that has been found that either does or does not support this being a normal annual natural occurrence similar to winter always being colder than summer during specific months of the year?

Good lord! We just figured out how to define and measure temperature and wouldn't you know it since the day of its defilement and discovery we have seen an alarming trend that during specific months out of the year the temperature is substantially lower that others.

Replying to Comment by truth is not a compromise:

How far back do decent measurements of the ozone layer go? How certain are we that there wasn't an intermittent or periodic hole previous to our earliest measurement?

Stratospheric data measurements were not common before the 1960's. No need. No problem. Except for the few atmospheric scientists like Dr. Sherwood Rowland (and Mario Molina) who noticed (measured) higher concentrations of chlorine containing molecules in the stratosphere and postulated the chemistry that was later confirmed and labeled as ozone depletion.

'...Stratospheric data measurements were not common before the 1960's. No need. No problem....'

You have been planted here to make arguments that purport to be in support of an anthropogenic ozone hole; but are actually so bad as to undermine that idea......haven't you?

.

Go on. Admit it.

CFCs are gases at atmospheric pressures. Gases diffuse throughout the atmosphere based on their partial pressures, so yes, there are CFCs, ozone and a lot of other gases in the stratosphere. The long atmospheric lives of CFCs gives them plenty of time to get all the way to the stratosphere and find their way to the unique polar vortex which exists over the south pole where they cause accelerated rates of destruction of ozone.

I encourage you to read the explanation of this phenomena in the link I provided from OzoneNews.

'...I encourage you to read the explanation of this phenomena in the link I provided...'

.

So I clicked on your link, hoping to get an explanation of the phenomena, but there is no explanation nor any links to specific articles that might contain such an explanation.

.

The link you provided just restated a hypothesis and offers very little in the way of possible mechanisms or routes of testing those ideas.

.

'...Ozone depletion is more extreme in Antarctica than at the North Pole because high wind speeds cause a fast-rotating vortex of cold air, leading to extremely low temperatures. Under these conditions, human-made chlorofluorocarbons - CFCs - have a stronger effect on the ozone, depleting it and creating the infamous hole....'

So if you have based your belief on something more substantial that just taking the word of someone you consider pretty smart, I'd really like have access to those papers/studies.

.

Specifically I am very interested in why the process should occur more rapidly at lower temperature. Also the migration of CFC's up to the ozone layer, and the inabiity of pollutant ozone to make the same migration. CFC's are larger molecules by far, right?

Replying to Comment by truth is not a compromise

So if you have based your belief on something more substantial that just taking the word of someone you consider pretty smart, I'd really like have access to those papers/studies.

It sounds like you have not heard of the IPCC or TEAP groups, international bodies of leading scientists charged with reviewing the data, analyzing and making policy recommendations. One of their recent reports can answer all your questions and then some. Note that this is a 477 page report which is a 15MB download. I direct you to page 437 for the list of authors, contributors and editors.

And most directly, go to page 85 which is Chapter 1: Ozone Depletion and Climate change. It will provide plenty of detail and scientific facts and hypotheses from the worlds leading scientists.

Thank you. That is very helpful. I appreciate the reference you provided.

.

I know I gave you a hard time about comment #18. I still stand behind giving you a hard time for #18. But this last comment puts you in a much better light.

CFCs are gases at atmospheric pressures. A wide range of gases co-exist in the atmosphere based on their partial pressures. Some gases are lighter than others and vice versa.

The presence of CFCs(a man-made gas) is a catalyst in the consumption of ozone in the stratosphere where very low temperatures exist (-100F).

CFCs have long atmospheric lives giving them plenty of time to get to the stratosphere. One of the more common CFCs, CFC 12, has an atmospheric life of 100 years.

Man-made CFCs were not in the atmosphere until we started using them in the 1940's. Their addition to the stratosphere adds a man-made consumer of ozone that has upset to natural balance of creation and consumption of ozone and hence areas of lower than normal levels of ozone, i.e. "ozone hole".

CFCs are a catalyst in the process of consuming ozone, e.g. it occurs over and over, more than 100,000 times during the life of a CFC molecule.

And yes, there is some similarities with the CO2 "problem", that is, the atmospheric life of CO2which is measured in centuries. Any "healing" process that may be discovered will take centuries.

I don't see any difference....2002 looked the best....Besides if I remember the classes I took for the EPA certification, the CFC's acted as a catalyst that would continue to deplete the ozone for many years...This from Wiki...

" In a 2001 report, NASA found the ozone thinning over Antarctica had remained the same thickness for the previous three years,^[16] however in 2003 the ozone hole grew to its second largest size.^[17] The most recent (2006) scientific evaluation of the effects of the Montreal Protocol states, "The Montreal Protocol is working: There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and some early signs (?) of stratospheric ozone recovery."^[18]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

...Seems I'm always late to the party.

So we gots our ozone (hole or layer),our Montreal protocol (which everyone adheres to right?),our cfc's and whatnot.

In any discussion (especially rhetoric) re: such things I've never heard anything about lightning.

Uh-huh. You heard me right. Lightning. I mean that's how we got our ozone in the first place right?

What I wanna know is how much ozone gets created from a lightning 'bolt' (or should that be bolts)?

Is ozone production related to total discharge power or more skewed to the voltage or current of a lightning 'event' ? Or how about peak voltage/current? Maybe ozone is only produced at the very peak of the voltage or current or power discharged during a lightning event? Does anyone know?

Can this information be relevant to the ozone hole/global warming dialog?

Or how about those wonderfully special, southern polar ocean currents,could there also be wonderfully special atmospheric currents too!? Could these currents be playing with our ozone?

I wonder if 'scientists' could answer these questions for me/us (as long as they're not the same scientists that decided my coffee was not good for me)?

Thanks for indulging me in my state of quandry-this one's for you Andy.

J

P.S. And about that lightning,how much lightning 'happens' anyway? I'll bet it's a lot

The consensus seems to be about 100 lightning strikes per second on this planet in total. This calculation arrives at a figure over 400 lbs of O³ produced for each lighting strike. So production is likely to exceed 20 tons per second. A significant amount of oxides of nitrogen are also produced.

.

In some systems, where something occurs is just as important as how much of it there is.