VLF Ozone Hole Patch?

[Axion]

why there is not official statement that the ozone hole shrinkage is due to vlf technology application? maybe because this technology is use as w-weapon too?

 

• 15.01.2009 - 14 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007RG000235#rog1670-sec-0048-title - Reviews of Geophysics Volume 47, Issue 1 - Free Access - Powerful electromagnetic waves for active environmental research in geospace

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, Axion said:

why there is not official statement that the ozone hole shrinkage is due to vlf technology application? maybe because this technology is use as w-weapon too?

 

• 15.01.2009 - 14 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007RG000235#rog1670-sec-0048-title - Reviews of Geophysics Volume 47, Issue 1 - Free Access - Powerful electromagnetic waves for active environmental research in geospace

Welcome and thank you for an interesting discussion topic.  +1

 

I note that the paper is now more than 10 years old and contains much 'proposed' work.

Do you know of any follow up information, particularly if any of the rpoposals were actually carried out ?

Edited March 6, 2021 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

48 minutes ago, Axion said:

why there is not official statement that the ozone hole shrinkage is due to vlf technology application?

Because the hole is repairing itself since we stopped using so much CFC.

The VLF is not going to make much difference to it.

[Axion]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Do you know of any follow up information, particularly if any of the proposals were actually carried out ?

Thanks for the Welcome ... about any new papers I am not aware, I just know that since this technology was proposed things started to move on around the shrinkage ...

altho I am not sure why, if that is the reason for oh-shrinkage, why this is not publicly announced, as You can see I speculate maybe because unwanted hype about the vlf technology, but eventually how much methane is released into the atmosphere its question what positive effects we would see even with closed ozone hole!?

[beecee]

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-oceans-emitting-ozone-depleting-cfcs.html

Study predicts the oceans will start emitting ozone-depleting CFCs:

The world's oceans are a vast repository for gases including ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. They absorb these gases from the atmosphere and draw them down to the deep, where they can remain sequestered for centuries and more.

Marine CFCs have long been used as tracers to study ocean currents, but their impact on atmospheric concentrations was assumed to be negligible. Now, MIT researchers have found the oceanic fluxes of at least one type of CFC, known as CFC-11, do in fact affect atmospheric concentrations. In a study appearing today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team reports that the global ocean will reverse its longtime role as a sink for the potent ozone-depleting chemical.

 

more at link....................

the paper:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/12/e2021528118

On the effects of the ocean on atmospheric CFC-11 lifetimes and emissions:

 

Significance

Manufactured CFC-11 is depleting the Antarctic ozone layer. CFC production has been strictly controlled by the Montreal Protocol, but emission estimates are very sensitive to choices of lifetimes, which are often assumed as constant over time. We employ a hierarchy of models to study the effect of the ocean on the time-dependent uptake and release of atmospheric CFC-11. The ocean is a sink for CFC-11 and significantly affects its total lifetime and hence the emission inferred from concentration data of past decades. This has not been explicitly included in international ozone assessments. We show that, as anthropogenic production ceases, ocean fluxes become more important, suggesting a need for further studies with high-resolution global models linking atmospheric chemistry and ocean processes.

Abstract

The ocean is a reservoir for CFC-11, a major ozone-depleting chemical. Anthropogenic production of CFC-11 dramatically decreased in the 1990s under the Montreal Protocol, which stipulated a global phase out of production by 2010. However, studies raise questions about current overall emission levels and indicate unexpected increases of CFC-11 emissions of about 10 Gg ⋅ yr⁻¹ after 2013 (based upon measured atmospheric concentrations and an assumed atmospheric lifetime). These findings heighten the need to understand processes that could affect the CFC-11 lifetime, including ocean fluxes. We evaluate how ocean uptake and release through 2300 affects CFC-11 lifetimes, emission estimates, and the long-term return of CFC-11 from the ocean reservoir. We show that ocean uptake yields a shorter total lifetime and larger inferred emission of atmospheric CFC-11 from 1930 to 2075 compared to estimates using only atmospheric processes. Ocean flux changes over time result in small but not completely negligible effects on the calculated unexpected emissions change (decreasing it by 0.4 ± 0.3 Gg ⋅ yr⁻¹). Moreover, it is expected that the ocean will eventually become a source of CFC-11, increasing its total lifetime thereafter. Ocean outgassing should produce detectable increases in global atmospheric CFC-11 abundances by the mid-2100s, with emission of around 0.5 Gg ⋅ yr⁻¹; this should not be confused with illicit production at that time. An illustrative model projection suggests that climate change is expected to make the ocean a weaker reservoir for CFC-11, advancing the detectable change in the global atmospheric mixing ratio by about 5 yr.