Unusual ozone hole opens over the Arctic

[Still Waters 52,376]

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

[RoofGardener 17,379]

Yeah. Abnormally low temperatures.

Due to ... global warming ?

[NorthenerON 77]

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

[Essan 7,605]

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

  
 

[mdbuilder 98]

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.

[Doug1029 7,625]

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 April 7, 2020 by Doug1029

[Jon the frog 2,417]

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

[razman 874]

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

[Doug1029 7,625]

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

[Jon the frog 2,417]

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 ! 

[RoofGardener 17,379]

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

[Essan 7,605]

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.

[Doug1029 7,625]

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  ) 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

[RoofGardener 17,379]

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 ??? 

[Doug1029 7,625]

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

[Doug1029 7,625]

18 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Yeah wherever we look, doom is lurking, doooooooommmmmm ! 

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

Doug

[ChrLzs 22,221]

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?

[Golden Duck 12,363]

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?

[RoofGardener 17,379]

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" ?  

[Golden Duck 12,363]

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.

[RoofGardener 17,379]

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.  

[Golden Duck 12,363]

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.  

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 April 9, 2020 by Golden Duck

[RoofGardener 17,379]

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

[Doug1029 7,625]

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

[ChrLzs 22,221]

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.  

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?