Ozone depletion and Climate

[HighPressure]

The purpose of this thread is to explore Ozone depletion and its connection if any with climate or even the other way around. I don't see it as including aerosols / CFCs directly although I am aware there is some debate over these too. There is also the subject of ground level Ozone but again unless linked directly with upper atmosphere depletion I see it as outside this arena.

Ozone depletion and its connection(s) to climate and in particular recent global warming. Below is basic chart from 1979 - 2007 with Antarctic ozone hole area (data from Goddard Space flight centre / TOMS) plotted against global mean temp (data NASA / GISS).

On the face of it all this chart shows us is that Ozone depletion and GW started or appeared to start at around the same time and without further evidence could be dismissed as just coincidence. However there now does seem to be evidence which supports the correlation at least on 2 fronts. Firstly increased southern ocean wind speeds have been attributed as a direct result of Ozone depletion:

Exert from 'Climate Change - Our View' British Antarctic Survey

Further experiments have indicated that changes in anthropogenic forcings, particularly stratospheric ozone depletion and increases in greenhouse gases, have made the largest contribution to the strengthening of the westerlies14,15. Recent climate observations show that changes in the strength of the westerlies strongly influence temperature variations on the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula16

Full article: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/o...mate_change.php

So we have our link, further reading from British Antarctic Survey goes on to suggest a direct link with Sink failure and to suggest that merely reducing CO2 emissions may not be the panacea we are lead to believe?

Author Dr Corinne Le Qéré of the University of East Anglia and British Antarctic Survey says, "The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. We found that nearly half of the decline in the efficiency of the ocean CO2 sink is due to the intensification of the winds in the Southern Ocean".

Full article: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_re...ease.php?id=328

Another issue is the direct effects of UV on the ecosystem as a result of Ozone depletion: The penetration of increased amounts of UV-B light causes DNA damage of marine plankton that densely populate the top 2 meters of ocean water. The natural protective-responce of most chlorophyll containing cells to increased light-radiation is to produce more light-absorbing pigments but this protective response is not triggered by UV-B light. Another possible response of plankton is to sink deeper into the water but this reduces the amount of visible light they need for photosynthesis, and thereby reduces their growth and reproduction rate. In other words, the amount of food and oxygen produced by plankton could be reduced by UV exposure without killing individual organisms.

The study of Phytoplankton is ongoing but it is known that some spices cope better when exposed to UV-B then others but it is also known that some species are better at CO2 absorption?

Full 2006 UNEP Asseement report: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/EE...-report2006.pdf

Further ongoing research is being carried out on the poorly understood area of Stratosphere / Troposhere circulation by NASA's Aura Satalite launched in 2004:

Jim Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, agrees with Ramaswamy on the need for data. “Climate forcing by ozone is uncertain because ozone change as a function of altitude is not well measured. Especially at the tropopause (where the troposphere meets the stratosphere), we don’t know enough. The climate system is highly sensitive, especially to changes in the tropopause region. We need exact temperatures and ozone profiles at different altitudes and around the globe.” A vital part of NASA’s Earth Observing System, Aura will observe the composition, chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s upper and lower atmosphere, including temperatures and ozone amounts. “What Aura will give us is quite exciting. There will be a suite of instruments measuring in regions not well measured before,” says Hansen.

Can Ozone Depletion and Global Warming Interact to Produce Rapid Climate Change?

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424...STOR-reducePage

I think I have rambled on enough but wanted to set the scene for the thread which is not meant to challenge existing theory on CO2 rather what I see as the potentially more serious issue of sink failure. I am not a scientist but do think that a considerable amount of evidence exists within the mainstream to support firm links between Ozone depletion and Climate change.

My main interest in this subject is simply that I don't think that CO2 on its own answers fully the question of GW. An analogy would be that CO2 = rain the backyard is flooding, yes you can blame the rain but if the drain is blocked and is becoming more so you need to clear it. We could be facing the possibility that we cannot clear the drain because we cannot reduce the rain enough to get to it?

Edited February 13, 2008 by HighPressure

[HighPressure]

Just a slight correction to the above, the chart I posted was US Mean Temp and not Global, here is Global Mean Surface temp / Ozone hole area in millions Km sq:

Date in tab form:

YR.....Oz.....Temp

1979 1.09.....0.14

1980 3.27.....0.28

1981 3.15.....0.4

1982 10.8.....0.09

1983 12.24...0.34

1984 14.65...0.15

1985 18.79...0.12

1986 14.37...0.19

1987 22.35...0.35

1988 13.76...0.39

1989 21.73...0.26

1990 21.05...0.48

1991 22.6.....0.44

1992 24.9.....0.15

1993 24.02...0.19

1994 23.43...0.32

1995 ****....0.46

1996 26.96...0.39

1997 25.13...0.41

1998 28.21...0.72

1999 26.09...0.46

2000 30.31...0.42

2001 26.52...0.57

2002 21.74...0.69

2003 28.51...0.67

2004 22.76...0.6

2005 26.77...0.76

2006 27.9.....0.66

2007 24.1.....0.73

Edited February 14, 2008 by HighPressure

[Lettucing Gutted]

I wonder how much blame can be put on ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling for our recent hot summers and mild winters etc?

Edited February 14, 2008 by Craig Evans

[PersianPaladin]

As far as I understand it...the ozone hole in the northern hemisphere has been slowly improving in the last decade or so, whereas in the Antarctic..there has been a general worsening trend. Whether this is just lag from previous outputs and use of CFC's prior to the Montreal Protocol..remains to be seen.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I actually think this is a very interesting subject. I would love to see some more information (will do it myself with time permitting) about the ozone layer depletion.

I'm sure I remember a while ago, back in the 90's that the whole was actually decreasing in size. I wonder where it is now (in terms of size)?

[HighPressure]

The Ozone hole is not actually getting any smaller it is at its upper end in size, what is being claimed is that the growth of the hole year on year has stopped but repair could take until @2070.

2006 was a record breaker:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingat...one_record.html

2007 saw a slightly smaller hole but this was more to with weather patterns then repair, December saw the largest hole measured for that date so talk of repair is premature, this date has slipped from 2030 to 2050 and now @2070 and beyond?

[HighPressure]

Heres a couple more charts, this time I have split northern and Southern hemisphere mean temps and plotted them on separate charts. Its the first time I have seen these plotted together but I think it makes interesting viewing? Although I have lots more charts to do, I do think that it would be a brave person to deny links between Ozone depletion and Mean Temps exist. There are patterns and correlation's here which are unlikely to be caused merely by coincidence.

Is climate effecting Ozone repair or is Ozone depletion effecting Climate??

Don't let this be a one man band tell me what you think?

[Red Raven]

Not to with Ozone but the final paragraph or 2 of this article posted elsewhere may be relavent.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Di...rticle10630.htm

[HighPressure]

I am a little disappointed that this thread has not had more interest but I will press on

Below are 3 charts all with Ozone hole area plotted 2 yrs in advance of mean temps, I have done this for Global Mean plus Northern and Southern hemispheres to see if the pattern repeats?

I am not drawing any conclusions at this stage as its still far to early as correlation's may just be fluke but there does seem to be an awful lot of to be merely written off as coincidence.

I will stop short of saying it is possible to predict mean temps on the basis of Ozone hole area but it just might be? Its interesting that the Southern hemisphere should show the closest correlation :huh:

[HighPressure]

Following on from the previous graphs this is Ozone Hole area again its 1979 start delayed by 2 years to show a predictive path.

Where this gets interesting for me is that a clear correlation again shows back to 2000 and suggests that 2008 should show similar Global temps to 2007 with a cooling in 2009. The Southern hemisphere shows a much closer correlation to Ozone hole area when compared with the Northern Hemisphere which could find 2008 to be a defining year as to follow the Ozone path it needs to stay around the 1deg mark. Any further increase will show little or no correlation to hole area and suggest that other factors are the main driver especially in the Northern part of the globe. I am fairly confident that the Southern Hemisphere will continue to show tight correlation to hole area at least for the next few years, but if the North breaks away then the South will eventually follow. I expect Sothern Hemisphere to report @+0.4 and Northern @+0.7 giving a 2008 global mean of @+1 deg.

[HighPressure]

Although it may not be directly linked with ozone depletion, I think this is relevant:

Startling Discovery About Photosynthesis: Many Marine Microorganism Skip Carbon Dioxide And Oxygen Step.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80311131851.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ozone_ho...ar_WMO_999.html

that time of year again.

[HighPressure]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ozone_ho...ar_WMO_999.html

that time of year again.

Hi GW it certainly is and I have been watching, its started a bit later this year but is holding @26m sqkm and it will be very interesting to see if it increases further which would be a fly in the eye for some.

Incidentally NASA measure Ozone hole size on an average between 7th Sep-13th Oct which are the figures I use.

I have seen nothing this year to suggest the link above between climate and Ozone has diminished in anyway, in fact had I of been a bit braver I may of predicted a sharper decline in global temps this year?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi H.P.,

Seeing as we know a 'causal link' between some of our pollutants and the generation of the hole if we were to be significantly 'up' on previous years we might need to look toward indo-china for our reasons.

I would imagine that their rapid industrialisation will come with the same price tags as our own did......even though we now 'know better'!

[jethro]

Here's some details of a new study linking cosmic rays with ozone depletion:

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpos...day/091811.html

[HighPressure]

Here's some details of a new study linking cosmic rays with ozone depletion:

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpos...day/091811.html

Hi Jethro: Interesting as if O2 depletion is linked to climate then it would not be too far away from suggestion that cosmic rays play at least some part in our climate...worth a closer look?

[jethro]

Hi Jethro: Interesting as if O2 depletion is linked to climate then it would not be too far away from suggestion that cosmic rays play at least some part in our climate...worth a closer look?

Absolutely HP; I haven't seen anything new from Svensmark or the CLOUD experiment at Cern, not sure when the results are due to be published, should be interesting though.

[jonboy]

Absolutely HP; I haven't seen anything new from Svensmark or the CLOUD experiment at Cern, not sure when the results are due to be published, should be interesting though.

My understanding of Svensmark theory is that cosmic rays plays a role in lower cloud formation which in turn leads to a cooler climate. So more cosmic rays reaching earth the greater the cloud cover. Now as we know an energetic sun keeps much off the cosmic rays from outer space at bay but we are / have entered a quiet period for the sun so can expect to see an increase in the level of cosmic rays reaching earth. Equally the news that the solar wind is at its lowest since measurements started is another sign in my mind that we are indeed entering a cooling period which we should be planning for now rather that all this wohaabout global warming

[jethro]

I'd say there's more than an evens chance you could be right. "The Chilling Stars" by Svensmark is an interesting read, albeit he can be rather selective in his data in order to validate his theory. Hadron has reaped all the headlines from CERN lately so it's no surprise that it's all rather quiet about the CLOUD experiment.

For those wishing to keep an eye on cloudiness/cosmic rays, here's a few links

http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

http://www.ips.gov.au/Geophysical/1/4

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/COSMIC_RAYS/cosmic.html

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/.../cloud_lat.html

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/onlineData.html

[HighPressure]

Thx for that Jethro:

I certainly think that the cloud studies are interesting and could be an aspect of the overall picture. For me the key is if Ozone depletion correlates with global temperatures then we must look for a trend that matches Ozone depletion. With CFC production now decreasing we have to look elsewhere for what is causing its apparent fluctuation with global temps. The really interesting part is that Cosmic Rays do appear to be linked with O2 destruction and cosmic rays are not influenced by man.

If the above were to be effecting global temps I would then expect main stream projections to get things wrong such as sea ice loss and ocean sink performance. And funnily enough IPCC sea ice predictions are not even on the chart and CO2 absorption rate is far lower than predicted. What this suggests to me is the mainstream CO2 = AGW theory does not carry over to ocean performance and they are really only looking at front end warming, the tail wagging the dog scenario.

Edited October 3, 2008 by HighPressure

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81007102853.htm

Well ,there we have it. 2nd biggest on record.

[Mondy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81007102853.htm

Well ,there we have it. 2nd biggest on record.

Are you not content GW? You alarm us about the vast impending doom in Antarctica and Artic sea ice levels which are recovering very, very well as a whole - so one begins to wonder if you are indeed "stirring it"; as was likened to recent anti-agw comments on here recently ( I think said comments were removed for some reason, when validity in point was there for all to see)

Regarding solar winds levels, yes, they have dropped, lack of coronol holes proves that. As the Sun cycle titters between 23 and 24, CH's and solar wind calm down. Until last week, I can't recall the solar wind reaching almost 700km/s since approx late 2006.

Svensmark. Read his first book a few years ago. Cosmic Rays are a big player..you only have to do a small google search to see that.

Besides, ScienceDaily is a good advert for agw and like minded ilk, similarly "What's up with that" is a good source for anti's..swings, roundabouts and point scoring et al....

Edited October 8, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[jethro]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81007102853.htm

Well ,there we have it. 2nd biggest on record.

My goodness, that's the biggest pile of ifs, buts, maybes and total speculation that I've seen in quite a while.

There are new studies which show a strong link with ozone depletion and cosmic rays (supported by NASA), we've had the latest from NASA on the quiet Sun and how cosmic rays have and will increase; I'd say there's more than an evens chance that this is the cause of the larger hole - not man.

In case you missed it, here's the link again for the cosmic ray/ozone hole:

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpos...day/091811.html

[johnny1972]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81007102853.htm

Well ,there we have it. 2nd biggest on record.

GW

Like some of the other articles attached on here they promote the view of one side or the other and are theories. Im sorry mate i don't know you at all but from reading numerous threads on here and the vast amount of information attached i have never come across someone so negative - doom and gloom. I think alot of people are starting to realise including scientists that alot of what is going on is purely natural. Quick point re the ice - if 1st year ice survices like has this year in the Artic - could you explain how then next year this then doesnt become 2nd year ice etc so harder to melt?? - same with the ozone layer it has diminished and grown over the last decade. To little is known about this yet and it may well repair again. 2nd Largest hole but yet one of the coldest winters with numerous records broken in Antartica!! Don't see how this can be doom and gloom. You may well quote re ice levels being down on last year - i think personally that would be more down to warmer ocean currents and strong surface winds than anything else.

Please note GW this isnt a personal attack on you just my point of view but just cant grasp the doom and gloom constantly.

[HighPressure]

Yes it appears that ozone depletion and repair theories could just be falling apart and with that its link to climate as depicted by the IPCC. I don't think we are far away from a scientifically provable theory that cosmic rays effects ozone depletion which in turn is effecting our ocean sinks. This leaves CO2 at the end of the chain and not the start and I think that O2 depletion's correlation with climate and the lack of current understanding of ocean sinks all points this way not the other way around.