Looks to me like the Montreal Protocol is working.
Unlike global warming, the theory relating CFC release and stratospheric ozone depletion is very well understood and has been experimentally verified.
And the ozone hole? The smallest it’s been in about 10 years (note the Montreal Protocol didn’t fully kick in until 1995).
Carrick - 07:05pm on 05/06/2008
These environmental people are starting to get smarter. Now everything and anything that happens with the climate fits their models. Hopefully the American people will see this for what is really is.
dougee - 07:05pm on 05/06/2008
It would be interesting to compare your graph with an estimate of the amount of freon that escaped into the atmosphere. The reason is during the short term of your graph it appears that the Ozone levels were fairly flat through about 1986 and really started dropping.
Freon was invented in the early 20th century and was really popular in the 60’s and 70’s.
You show a large drop attributed to Mt Pinatubo. That’s one, albeit large, volcano. Aren’t there other volcanoes in the world?
The Whistler - 08:05pm on 05/06/2008
Whistler, to see much of an effect you have to pass over the threshold where you are destroying it faster than its being created, otherwise (given that there are natural sinks for O3) you end up with a more-or-less fixed level in the atmosphere. That’s called “resiliency” of course.
I would presume that’s what was happening before the mid 80s.
In regards to when it was invented, that hardly matters. What matters is when it started getting released in significant quantities, which was in the 1970s.
Finally, yes there are other volcanos, but Pinatubo was a very large eruption, and the chemistry of the released gases is different between different volcanos.
Regardless, the data clearly don’t sync up with Jerry’s claim:
They did something similar with the ozone hole, which continues to maintain its size despite a constant decrease in the manmade catalysts in the atmosphere.
What he said is clearly wrong, whatever the explanation you want to give for why ozone is increasing in level over time.
Carrick - 09:05pm on 05/06/2008
Isn’t ozone (O3) basically unstable? If so, what determines its decay or absorbtion rate? What actions besides lightning creates ozone?
docdave - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
Ozone will react with itself at high enough concentration levels.
Basically, it’s 2 O3 -> 3 O2
It is this reaction that limits how much ozone you have in the atmosphere.
If you add Cl to the mix, it turns out that Cl acts as a catalyst for this reaction, allowing the reaction to occur at lower concentrations.
Besides that, it is destroyed by absorption of ultraviolet energy:
O3 + hv -> O + O2
O3 + O -> 2O2
Additionally there is the opposite reaction, the primary source for ozone:
O2 + hv -> O + O
O2 + O -> O3
These reactions produce an equilibrium concentration level of ozone. Add the Cl (coming via the decomposition of freon molecules for example), and you create a lower “set point” for equilibrium balance between the creation and destruction of O3.
Lightning is an important source of ozone in the troposphere; as I understand it, solar activity is the prominent driver of O3 in the lower stratosphere.
Carrick - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
Here is one article. I will dig up another that made the assertion that the shrinking of the “ozone hole” is in fact increasing ice loss in Antarctica.
Long story short? These idiots don’t know what the hell they are talking about. They are using the tried and true socialist rule, tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people begin to believe it.
2Hotel9 - 03:05am on 05/07/2008
2hotel9: Good post. Few Americans realize that the whole ‘global warming’ scam is based on “computer-models” created by lab scientists who design a program, imput the data they choose, and then get hysterical at what their own methodology tells them.
A classic THE SKY IS FALLING mentality.
pparets - 04:05am on 05/07/2008
Well, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas, so you would get a warming effect if you were to reduce the hole in the ozone. Sounds right.
The temperature in the stratosphere is actually higher than that of the upper troposphere, which is due to the absorption of heat by the ozone layer. Some ozone from the stratosphere makes it into the troposphere, and further heats that, which is what is responsible in turn for greater surface heating…
2Hotel9, I believe that’s the study that Pournelle is dissing. At least they are finally admitting after 10 years of cooling that natural effects can still swamp the warming signal from human generated CO2. This is a discussion form the global warmingest perspective. They need the crisis to be immediate: Hence the lies about hurricane activity increasing when in fact it has not, the claims of the uniqueness of the melting of the NW passageway (it’s happened at least three other times in the last 150 years), the claims that the ice caps will melt and the ocean level will rise catastrophically by e.g. 2050, and so forth.
The cooling of the Earth over the last 10 years, and the increased appreciation for the driving force of the ocean currents certainly helps in that regards.
Note however, that this decrease in temperature they are talking about is only Europe and North America, not worldwide temperatures. I’m not sure their models are capable of explaining this global temperature downturn, or at least I’ve not seen anybody discuss it. (Yes I know, it is almost certainly solar forcing related, the problem is that the solar forcing on climate is very complex and poorly treated in the models.)
Carrick - 05:05am on 05/07/2008
Models? Does anyone remember the “hockey stick” ? Scientists? I don’t think so. True Scientists hold their theories up to examination and replication. I learned that in the 5th grade (before socialism in the public schools). It is called the scientific method.
The story of ozone:
Looks to me like the Montreal Protocol is working.
Unlike global warming, the theory relating CFC release and stratospheric ozone depletion is very well understood and has been experimentally verified.
And the ozone hole? The smallest it’s been in about 10 years (note the Montreal Protocol didn’t fully kick in until 1995).
These environmental people are starting to get smarter. Now everything and anything that happens with the climate fits their models. Hopefully the American people will see this for what is really is.
It would be interesting to compare your graph with an estimate of the amount of freon that escaped into the atmosphere. The reason is during the short term of your graph it appears that the Ozone levels were fairly flat through about 1986 and really started dropping.
Freon was invented in the early 20th century and was really popular in the 60’s and 70’s.
You show a large drop attributed to Mt Pinatubo. That’s one, albeit large, volcano. Aren’t there other volcanoes in the world?
Whistler, to see much of an effect you have to pass over the threshold where you are destroying it faster than its being created, otherwise (given that there are natural sinks for O3) you end up with a more-or-less fixed level in the atmosphere. That’s called “resiliency” of course.
I would presume that’s what was happening before the mid 80s.
In regards to when it was invented, that hardly matters. What matters is when it started getting released in significant quantities, which was in the 1970s.
Finally, yes there are other volcanos, but Pinatubo was a very large eruption, and the chemistry of the released gases is different between different volcanos.
Regardless, the data clearly don’t sync up with Jerry’s claim:
What he said is clearly wrong, whatever the explanation you want to give for why ozone is increasing in level over time.
Isn’t ozone (O3) basically unstable? If so, what determines its decay or absorbtion rate? What actions besides lightning creates ozone?
Ozone will react with itself at high enough concentration levels.
Basically, it’s 2 O3 -> 3 O2
It is this reaction that limits how much ozone you have in the atmosphere.
If you add Cl to the mix, it turns out that Cl acts as a catalyst for this reaction, allowing the reaction to occur at lower concentrations.
Besides that, it is destroyed by absorption of ultraviolet energy:
O3 + hv -> O + O2
O3 + O -> 2O2
Additionally there is the opposite reaction, the primary source for ozone:
O2 + hv -> O + O
O2 + O -> O3
These reactions produce an equilibrium concentration level of ozone. Add the Cl (coming via the decomposition of freon molecules for example), and you create a lower “set point” for equilibrium balance between the creation and destruction of O3.
Lightning is an important source of ozone in the troposphere; as I understand it, solar activity is the prominent driver of O3 in the lower stratosphere.
Here is one article. I will dig up another that made the assertion that the shrinking of the “ozone hole” is in fact increasing ice loss in Antarctica.
Long story short? These idiots don’t know what the hell they are talking about. They are using the tried and true socialist rule, tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people begin to believe it.
2hotel9: Good post. Few Americans realize that the whole ‘global warming’ scam is based on “computer-models” created by lab scientists who design a program, imput the data they choose, and then get hysterical at what their own methodology tells them.
A classic THE SKY IS FALLING mentality.
Well, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas, so you would get a warming effect if you were to reduce the hole in the ozone. Sounds right.
The temperature in the stratosphere is actually higher than that of the upper troposphere, which is due to the absorption of heat by the ozone layer. Some ozone from the stratosphere makes it into the troposphere, and further heats that, which is what is responsible in turn for greater surface heating…
2Hotel9, I believe that’s the study that Pournelle is dissing. At least they are finally admitting after 10 years of cooling that natural effects can still swamp the warming signal from human generated CO2. This is a discussion form the global warmingest perspective. They need the crisis to be immediate: Hence the lies about hurricane activity increasing when in fact it has not, the claims of the uniqueness of the melting of the NW passageway (it’s happened at least three other times in the last 150 years), the claims that the ice caps will melt and the ocean level will rise catastrophically by e.g. 2050, and so forth.
The cooling of the Earth over the last 10 years, and the increased appreciation for the driving force of the ocean currents certainly helps in that regards.
Note however, that this decrease in temperature they are talking about is only Europe and North America, not worldwide temperatures. I’m not sure their models are capable of explaining this global temperature downturn, or at least I’ve not seen anybody discuss it. (Yes I know, it is almost certainly solar forcing related, the problem is that the solar forcing on climate is very complex and poorly treated in the models.)
Models? Does anyone remember the “hockey stick” ? Scientists? I don’t think so. True Scientists hold their theories up to examination and replication. I learned that in the 5th grade (before socialism in the public schools). It is called the scientific method.