Ozone depletion?

[invisibledodo]

I'm not a scientist but I've recently done some digging and it doesn't seem like the ozone is actualy depleting. Hear me out. These are facts I've gardnered:

 

the ozone is thinning.

the stratospheric ozone over the polar regions is decreasing.

the emission of halo-carbon has increased.

 

Here is my question.

 

Is it possible that the halo-carbons are increasing the size of the atmospher causing the ozone to stretch making the thickness of the layers decrease as it tries to spread enough to cover the polar regions?

 

I would appreciate any information you can provide that I am unaware of.

[Strange]

Is it possible that the halo-carbons are increasing the size of the atmospher causing the ozone to stretch making the thickness of the layers decrease as it tries to spread enough to cover the polar regions?

 

I have no idea. These are some of the questions I might ask:

 

1. Is there any evidence that the size of the atmosphere has increased? (This is something that is monitored pretty much continuously, as far as I know)

 

2. How much would the atmosphere have to grow by to cause the observed thinning?

 

2. Is there any mechanism by which halocarbons could cause the atmosphere to increase in size? By that much?

 

3. Why would this cause a decrease in ozone only over the polar regions, rather than uniformly?

 

4. What is wrong with the well-studied chemistry that enables halocarbons to catalyse the breakdown of ozone?

 

5. Why do you think the ozone is not depleting?

[Harold Squared]

In the polar regions ozone is depleted by the same means which produce the auroras Borealis and Australis. Earth's magnetic field directs charged particles into the upper atmosphere ionizing gas molecules, including ozone. It is just that simple. Halocarbons have little to nothing to do with it.

 

Seriously, does anyone think that the devious little(but heavier than air) halocarbon molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns before wreaking havoc? I mean, anyone SANE?

[Essay]

Seriously, does anyone think that the devious little(but heavier than air) halocarbon molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns before wreaking havoc? I mean, anyone SANE?

 

Of course the notion that “molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns” seems to fly in the face of common sense, or to violate the logic of everyday common experience; but that is why policy makers shouldn't rely upon the advice of folks without expertise.

 

Trying to find a link to explain why “molecules migrate to the poles,” you can find lots of scholarly work on the effect, but this will probably be the easiest to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distillation

 

 

“Global distillation or the grasshopper effect is the geochemical process by which certain chemicals, most notably persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are transported from warmer to colder regions of the Earth, particularly the Poles and mountain tops.”

 

“…some amount evaporates when ambient temperatures are warm, blows around on winds until temperatures are cooler, and then condensation occurs. Drops in temperature large enough to result in deposition can occur when chemicals are blown from warmer to cooler climates…”

 

“The net effect is atmospheric transport from low to high latitude and altitude.”

 

“…found in Arctic and high altitude samples …and why indigenous peoples of the Arctic have some of the highest body burdens of certain POPs ever measured.”

 

~

[John Cuthber]

In the polar regions ozone is depleted by the same means which produce the auroras Borealis and Australis. Earth's magnetic field directs charged particles into the upper atmosphere ionizing gas molecules, including ozone. It is just that simple. Halocarbons have little to nothing to do with it.

 

 

In much the same way that Essay has pointed out that you are wrong about molecules migrating to the Arctic- because you don't understand the physics involved, it seems that you don't understand the photochemistry involved in the destruction of ozone by halocarbons.

 

The ozone hole is getting smaller. that's consistent with the reduction of halocarbons.

The Sun is still there, and it's still producing the aurorae, so that can't be the reason for the increased ozone.

Your bias seems to have blinded you to the facts.

[Harold Squared]

Of course the notion that molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns seems to fly in the face of common sense, or to violate the logic of everyday common experience; but that is why policy makers shouldn't rely upon the advice of folks without expertise.

 

Trying to find a link to explain why molecules migrate to the poles, you can find lots of scholarly work on the effect, but this will probably be the easiest to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distillation

 

 

~

Thanks for the spiffy quote, nice to know that WIKIPEDIA is considered such an authoritative source in this community. But, dear colleague, you left out the bit about it only applying to "semi-volatile" chemicals such as lindane, DDT, and poly chlorinated biphenyls. To my knowledge, not even the most deranged environmentalist has implicated these compounds in the alleged artificial decline in stratospheric ozone levels and refrigerant gases are not mentioned at all in the cited WIKIPEDIA information.

 

Are you sure you are posting to the correct thread?

In much the same way that Essay has pointed out that you are wrong about molecules migrating to the Arctic- because you don't understand the physics involved, it seems that you don't understand the photochemistry involved in the destruction of ozone by halocarbons.

 

The ozone hole is getting smaller. that's consistent with the reduction of halocarbons.

The Sun is still there, and it's still producing the aurorae, so that can't be the reason for the increased ozone.

Your bias seems to have blinded you to the facts.

The hole is a seasonal phenomenon in no way affected by refrigerants. There are a few more facts for you, colleague. Would you like to know the origin of the myth to the contrary? And thanks for the solar update, but I am not so blind as you two seem to think- I can read WIKIPEDIA aaall day long.

 

Is that what you guys do to get all that there "expertise"? Golly gee, maybe a rube like me could get some of it one day too!

Edited January 26, 2015 by Harold Squared

[John Cuthber]

"nice to know that WIKIPEDIA is considered such an authoritative source in this community."

No, it's considered easy to read and easy to cite.

 

"The hole is a seasonal phenomenon in no way affected by refrigerants. "

Half right.

Why do you think the hole isn't as big as it used to be?

 

"Is that what you guys do to get all that there "expertise"? "

No.

"Golly gee, maybe a rube like me could get some of it one day too!"

Not unless you start learning

[Essay]

Thanks for the spiffy quote, nice to know that WIKIPEDIA is considered such an authoritative source in this community. But, dear colleague, you left out the bit about it only applying to "semi-volatile" chemicals such as lindane, DDT, and poly chlorinated biphenyls. To my knowledge, not even the most deranged environmentalist has implicated these compounds in the alleged artificial decline in stratospheric ozone levels and refrigerant gases are not mentioned at all in the cited WIKIPEDIA information.

 

If I were trying to convince “this community,” then I’d use an “authoritative source” such as the “lots of scholarly work on the effect” that I mentioned you could easily search for; but to quickly and easily explain the effect for you, Wikipedia seemed most appropriate. Try searching “volatile organic migration latitudinal,” for some typical results.

 

Then you’ll see that this effect is due to a general principle of chemistry, and so it applies to all molecules, though especially to any semi-volatile or volatile molecules such as CFCs. Surely you saw this on WIKIPEDIA, in aaall your searching, where they say: “A chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains only carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane, ethane, and....”

 

Because the Grasshopper Effect [or Arctic Tern Effect?] was discovered as an explanation for the noticeable health effects within arctic populations, iirc, I’d guess the Wikipedia article mentioned the molecules (pesticides) that were relevant to that focus. Maybe some expert should edit the article, indicating how the Effect can be applied as a general physical principle to all molecules …and especially the volatile and semi-volatile molecules.

~

[StringJunky]

 

If I were trying to convince “this community,” then I’d use an “authoritative source” such as the “lots of scholarly work on the effect” that I mentioned you could easily search for; but to quickly and easily explain the effect for you, Wikipedia seemed most appropriate. Try searching “volatile organic migration latitudinal,” for some typical results.

 

Then you’ll see that this effect is due to a general principle of chemistry, and so it applies to all molecules, though especially to any semi-volatile or volatile molecules such as CFCs. Surely you saw this on WIKIPEDIA, in aaall your searching, where they say: “A chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains only carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane, ethane, and....”

 

Because the Grasshopper Effect [or Arctic Tern Effect?] was discovered as an explanation for the noticeable health effects within arctic populations, iirc, I’d guess the Wikipedia article mentioned the molecules (pesticides) that were relevant to that focus. Maybe some expert should edit the article, indicating how the Effect can be applied as a general physical principle to all molecules …and especially the volatile and semi-volatile molecules.

~

From your WIKIPEDIA link in one of the references:

 

 

Global distribution of persistent organochlorine compounds.

Simonich SL¹, Hites RA.

Abstract

 

The global distribution of 22 potentially harmful organochlorine compounds was investigated in more than 200 tree bark samples from 90 sites worldwide. High concentrations of organochlorines were found not only in some developing countries but also in industrialized countries, which continue to be highly contaminated even though the use of many of these compounds is restricted. The distribution of relatively volatile organochlorine compounds (such as hexachlorobenzene) is dependent on latitude and demonstrates the global distillation effect, whereas less volatile organochlorine compounds (such as endosulfan) are not as effectively distilled and tend to remain in the region of use.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7569923

Edited January 26, 2015 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Seriously, does anyone think that the devious little(but heavier than air) halocarbon molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns before wreaking havoc? I mean, anyone SANE?

 

!

Moderator Note

Can we please have one Earth Science thread where nobody posts arguments from incredulity? Discussion fails when faced with fallacies.

[Harold Squared]

If I were trying to convince “this community,” then I’d use an “authoritative source” such as the “lots of scholarly work on the effect” that I mentioned you could easily search for; but to quickly and easily explain the effect for you, Wikipedia seemed most appropriate. Try searching “volatile organic migration latitudinal,” for some typical results.

 

Then you’ll see that this effect is due to a general principle of chemistry, and so it applies to all molecules, though especially to any semi-volatile or volatile molecules such as CFCs. Surely you saw this on WIKIPEDIA, in aaall your searching, where they say: “A chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains only carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane, ethane, and....”

 

Because the Grasshopper Effect [or Arctic Tern Effect?] was discovered as an explanation for the noticeable health effects within arctic populations, iirc, I’d guess the Wikipedia article mentioned the molecules (pesticides) that were relevant to that focus. Maybe some expert should edit the article, indicating how the Effect can be applied as a general physical principle to all molecules …and especially the volatile and semi-volatile molecules.

~

[John Cuthber]

Harold,

Just to clear something up for you...

DDT is a halocarbon.

The PCBs are halocarbons

lindane s a halocarbon

Hexachlorobenzene is a halocarbon

 

So, pretty much all the compounds mentioned here

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

are, whether anyone likes it or not, halocarbons.

 

That page also refers to persitent pollutants, and there's a well known list of a "dirty dozen" of those

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant#The_2001_Stockholm_Convention.E2.80.99s_Dirty_Dozen

Ten of those are halocarbons, and even the other two are closely related compounds.

 

 

Now, what did you think your point was when you said "Seriously, does anyone think that the devious little(but heavier than air) halocarbon molecules migrate to the poles like arctic terns before wreaking havoc? I mean, anyone SANE? "?

 

Actually, I don't care.

The damage to the ozone hole over the Arctic isn't particularly due to a raised local concentration of CFCs there.

It's due to the weather- specifically this

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

giving rise to conditions where the CFCs really trash the ozone.

 

The CFCs themselves are reasonably evenly distributed so your whole point was a red herring.

 

BTW, if you don't like WIKI, feel free to check out the references it gives.

Edited January 27, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Harold Squared]

I have considered all the above and more and am more confused than ever. For example, John C, your flat assertion that the CFCs are evenly distributed is at odds with the cited explanation of preferential planetary distillation. If you are correct in this, why is the condition of the polar regions of such grave concern? They are, after all, relatively thinly populated. Why not focus on the alleged detiorioration of the ozone layer in temperate or tropical regions?

 

That would scare people more, which is pretty much the primary goal of the environmentalists.

 

Furthermore, given that ultraviolet radiation is responsible for the formation of ozone to begin with, isn't some sort of temporary deficiency in ozone to be expected at the polar regions after months of continued darkness? The polar regions are notoriously variable, regardless of human activity.

 

This would account for the recent "all-time low" reported in April 2011(universe today.com), as well as reports of low levels prior to the introduction of the CFC hypothesis and indeed the development of such now taboo refrigerants.

 

R. Penndorf, "The annual variation of the amount of ozone over northern Norway", Annales de geophysique, time 6, fasc. 1, 1950, pp. 4-9.

 

P.Rigaud and B. Leroy, "Presumptive evidence for a low value of the total ozone content above Antarctica in September, 1958", Annakes Geophysicae, 1990, 8(11), pp. 791-94.

 

These introduce enough reasonable doubt to acquit said refrigerants, not guilty of assault on the ozone layer, next case.

 

The example of April 2011 also contradicts the implied gradual post ban recovery of the phenomenon, naturally. Not that anyone on the thread would knowingly try to pull the proverbial wool over any observing eyes, of course.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Harold Squared

[John Cuthber]

I have considered all the above and more and am more confused than ever. For example, John C, your flat assertion that the CFCs are evenly distributed is at odds with the cited explanation of preferential planetary distillation. If you are correct in this, why is the condition of the polar regions of such grave concern? They are, after all, relatively thinly populated. Why not focus on the alleged detiorioration of the ozone layer in temperate or tropical regions?

 

That would scare people more, which is pretty much the primary goal of the environmentalists.

 

Furthermore, given that ultraviolet radiation is responsible for the formation of ozone to begin with, isn't some sort of temporary deficiency in ozone to be expected at the polar regions after months of continued darkness? The polar regions are notoriously variable, regardless of human activity.

 

This would account for the recent "all-time low" reported in April 2011(universe today.com), as well as reports of low levels prior to the introduction of the CFC hypothesis and indeed the development of such now taboo refrigerants.

 

R. Penndorf, "The annual variation of the amount of ozone over northern Norway", Annales de geophysique, time 6, fasc. 1, 1950, pp. 4-9.

 

P.Rigaud and B. Leroy, "Presumptive evidence for a low value of the total ozone content above Antarctica in September, 1958", Annakes Geophysicae, 1990, 8(11), pp. 791-94.

 

These introduce enough reasonable doubt to acquit said refrigerants, not guilty of assault on the ozone layer, next case.

 

The example of April 2011 also contradicts the implied gradual post ban recovery of the phenomenon, naturally. Not that anyone on the thread would knowingly try to pull the proverbial wool over any observing eyes, of course.

OK, lets have a quick look

"I have considered all the above and more and am more confused than ever. "

Seems like fair comment.

 

"For example, John C, your flat assertion that the CFCs are evenly distributed is at odds with the cited explanation of preferential planetary distillation. "

OK, your problem here is that you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I said "The CFCs themselves are reasonably evenly distributed".

For some reason you either didn't see, or didn't understand the word "reasonably".

Which was it?

 

Re.

"If you are correct in this, why is the condition of the polar regions of such grave concern? ".

Well, because I live on the same planet as the polar regions; perhaps more importantly, the whole of the ozone layer is in trouble, it's just a lot more obvious at the poles.

Then you say "That would scare people more, which is pretty much the primary goal of the environmentalists." which is odd.

The point of the my posts here (and I suspect most others) is to put forward the evidence.

Your point seems to be to ignore it- fore example, you ignored the word "reasonably" in what I wrote earlier.

Yet, for some weird reason you think that saying "we can avoid some of our problems getting worse if we actually do something" is a way to scare people.

Nope, it's a way to offer some sort of hope.

 

"Furthermore, given that ultraviolet radiation is responsible for the formation of ozone to begin with, isn't some sort of temporary deficiency in ozone to be expected at the polar regions after months of continued darkness"

Nope, it's more complicated than that. I guess you were right when you said you were confused.

 

Measuring ozone isn't easy. It's only relatively recently that we have been able to get accurate measurements over large areas. The first measurements from space were in about 1978.

So a paper from 1980 can't have more than 2 years of good data.

The 1990 paper seems to be commenting on the validity of a paper from 1958- Interesting in its way, but I can't see from the title how it relates to the topic in hand.

The one from 1950 is of historical interest only.

It would be interesting to see them; are they on line somewhere?

Also, do you have any more recent papers? the ones that can look at the most reliable data are likely to be recent

 

Since,as has already been pointed out, the weather also has an effect on ozone levels, the single datum from 2011 doesn't really tell you a lot.

Why did you raise it,then knock it down.

Was that an attempt at a straw man?