Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Still Waters

Unusual ozone hole opens over the Arctic

42 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

Scientists using data from the Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite have noticed a strong reduction of ozone concentrations over the Arctic. Unusual atmospheric conditions, including freezing temperatures in the stratosphere, have led ozone levels to plummet—causing a 'mini-hole' in the ozone layer.

The ozone layer is a natural, protective layer of gas in the stratosphere that shields life from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation—which is associated with skin cancer and cataracts, as well as other environmental issues.

The 'ozone hole' most commonly referenced is the hole over Antarctica, forming each year during autumn.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-unusual-ozone-hole-arctic.html

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Yeah. Abnormally low temperatures.

Due to ... global warming ?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthenerON

It's called climate change now. Sorry had too I'm with you on the logic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah. Abnormally low temperatures.

Due to ... global warming ?

If "Arctic" = "Globe" and "Global Warming" means "every year warmer than the previous one without exception" then yes

;)  
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdbuilder
1 hour ago, Essan said:

If "Arctic" = "Globe" and "Global Warming" means "every year warmer than the previous one without exception" then yes

;)  
 

I think, in this case, "Arctic" means "Arctic" and "Global Warming" means "abnormally low temps". Definitions are ambiguously amorphous when discussing climate change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah. Abnormally low temperatures.

Due to ... global warming ?

Hard to say, but CFCs (the gases that created the Antarctic Ozone Hole),  are greenhouse gases.  Doesn't sound like this one is being caused by them, though.

I'll see what I can find.

Doug

Best I could do in a few short minutes is this:  https://www.nature.com/articles/360221a0

It's a copyrighted article published by Nature Publishing.  You'll have to fork over if you want to read it.  I'll be able to access it when I return to work.  The publication date was 1992 and the idea was theoretical then.  But it does seem to fit the model.

 

Here's another:  https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1412

Looks like there may be a connection.

Doug

 

 

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
15 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Hard to say, but CFCs (the gases that created the Antarctic Ozone Hole),  are greenhouse gases.  Doesn't sound like this one is being caused by them, though.

I'll see what I can find.

Doug

Best I could do in a few short minutes is this:  https://www.nature.com/articles/360221a0

It's a copyrighted article published by Nature Publishing.  You'll have to fork over if you want to read it.  I'll be able to access it when I return to work.  The publication date was 1992 and the idea was theoretical then.  But it does seem to fit the model.

 

Here's another:  https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1412

Looks like there may be a connection.

Doug

 

 

Lack of ozone layers is a good way to disinfect the world of living things on the surface, lol

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman

Sure , the world stops for the virus , previous dirty air cleans up on a large scale, then a hole opens in the ozone.Go figure

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Lack of ozone layers is a good way to disinfect the world of living things on the surface, lol

If covid19 doesn't get them first.  If you need something else to worry about:  there was an outbreak of Marburg virus in Africa a few weeks ago.  Covid bumped it off the news.  Don't know what it's doing just now.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
41 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

If covid19 doesn't get them first.  If you need something else to worry about:  there was an outbreak of Marburg virus in Africa a few weeks ago.  Covid bumped it off the news.  Don't know what it's doing just now.

Doug

Yeah wherever we look, doom is lurking, doooooooommmmmm ! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Well, ozone is a very strong 'greenhouse gas', so is it possible that the reduced temperatures (due to global warming :P ) are actually a consequence of this ozone hole ? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

This ozone hole is simply a consequence of the polar vortex staying unusually still this winter - so a small part of the Arctic was colder than usual even though most of the northern hemisphere, especially mid latitudes, had a remarkably warm winter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, ozone is a very strong 'greenhouse gas', so is it possible that the reduced temperatures (due to global warming :P ) are actually a consequence of this ozone hole ? 

In the lower atmosphere ozone is produced by the breakdown of commercial chemicals.  In this context it is a greenhouse gas, but it is short-lived and the effects are local rather than global.  In the upper atmosphere, CFCs are the greenhouse gases.

The recently-discovered Arctic ozone hole is the result of global warming, not the cause.  I don't know the mechanism and I can't access the scientific search engines from my home computer, so I'll have to wait until this epidemic is over to find out.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
43 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

In the lower atmosphere ozone is produced by the breakdown of commercial chemicals.  In this context it is a greenhouse gas, but it is short-lived and the effects are local rather than global.  In the upper atmosphere, CFCs are the greenhouse gases.

The recently-discovered Arctic ozone hole is the result of global warming, not the cause.  I don't know the mechanism and I can't access the scientific search engines from my home computer, so I'll have to wait until this epidemic is over to find out.

Doug

I dunno @Doug1029. I've got this vague recollection that the original holes in the high-level ozone layer - the ones that precipitated the bans on CFC's - where associated with global COOLING back in the 1970's ??? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Just now, RoofGardener said:

I dunno @Doug1029. I've got this vague recollection that the original holes in the high-level ozone layer - the ones that precipitated the bans on CFC's - where associated with global COOLING back in the 1970's ??? 

There was a bried downturn in temps in the late 60s and early 70s.  That only lasted seven or eight years so it doesn't fit the definition of climate change.  I don't think it had anything to do with CFCs.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
18 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Yeah wherever we look, doom is lurking, doooooooommmmmm ! :P

I guess you can always find a disaster somewhere if you're really looking.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 4/8/2020 at 5:10 AM, RoofGardener said:

Yeah. Abnormally low temperatures.

Due to ... global warming ?

Yeah.  Like who would have thought we would have weather, in amongst all that climate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
On 4/8/2020 at 8:43 AM, mdbuilder said:

I think, in this case, "Arctic" means "Arctic" and "Global Warming" means "abnormally low temps". Definitions are ambiguously amorphous when discussing climate change.

So we'll just ignore the abnormally high temps?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

So we'll just ignore the abnormally high temps?

Indeed ! 

Except... the OPA is talking about LOW temperatures ? 

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yeah.  Like who would have thought we would have weather, in amongst all that climate?

Well, how long does it take a hole in the ozone layer to form ? If its more than a year, then this is NOT "Weather" ? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
30 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Except... the OPA is talking about LOW temperatures ? 

Indeed, it talks of extremely low temperatures, in the Arctic - not abnomally low temperatures.

So this raises the question of why you protest about high temperatures when you, yourself, introduced global warming into the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Indeed, it talks of extremely low temperatures, in the Arctic - not abnomally low temperatures.

So this raises the question of why you protest about high temperatures when you, yourself, introduced global warming into the thread.

I'm not protesting about high temperatures. I was just being sardonic that we have an ozone hole caused by unusually low temperatures, which must REALLY annoy all the Global Warming enthusiasts. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'm not protesting about high temperatures. I was just being sardonic that we have an ozone hole caused by unusually low temperatures, which must REALLY annoy all the Global Warming enthusiasts. :P 

OPA didn't actually say unusually or abnormally.  It said extremely.  It also only mentioned the Arctic.  And only as it it came out of winter.  Ie, local weather.

I don't think the global warming advocates would worried by the glib iceage touters (GITs).  Not while there's shorts and t-shirt weather in the Antarctic.

Edited by Golden Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

We shall see, Oh Gilded Mallard, we shall see. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, how long does it take a hole in the ozone layer to form ? If its more than a year, then this is NOT "Weather" ? :) 

Climate is measured in thirty-year increments.  We need sixty years of data to know if there has been a change.  That is to get away from weather.  We want to measure climate, not whether there was a bad snowstorm that year.

There is no international body that determines definitions.  The closest approximation to one is the IPCC.  They do not publish original research.  They try to put the research together into a synthesis:  the Assessment Reports.

Natural phenomena do not conform to any particular period of time.  So we get lots of situations in which there are 3.22 (or some other fraction) cycles in a standardized period.  That means the averages will be slightly different depending on where in the cycle you happened to start or stop.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 4/9/2020 at 8:54 PM, RoofGardener said:

I'm not protesting about high temperatures. I was just being sardonic that we have an ozone hole caused by unusually low temperatures, which must REALLY annoy all the Global Warming enthusiasts. :P 

Not the ones that understand weather versus climate...

Here you go, as Doug points out:

Quote

Climate is the long-term average of weather, typically averaged over a period of 30 years.

 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate)

Obviously climate also extends for much longer periods than that.

 

Now, you tell us, RG, in what period of time has this hole developed?  Here, let me help.. from the OP site (did you read it, at all?)
 

Quote

In the past weeks, scientists from the German Aerospace Center (DLR) have noticed the unusually strong depletion of ozone over the northern polar regions.

Anything to add?  Weeks, versus 30 years plus?  Not seeing the difference..?

Maybe drop the smarm - it looks embarrassing when you are shown to not even understand the basic terms...  Or is it the arithmetic you are having a problem with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.