Hi,

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

From the abstract, it argues that the ozone levels above the arctic
will be reduced because of greenhouse gas increases. This is because
the greenhouse gases will increase temperature affecting Rosby waves by
reducing their ability to inhibit the Arctic polar vortex. The arctic
polar vortex lowers stratospheric temperatures -which raises the rate
of ozone destruction.

On some internet sites (e.g, realclimate), they argue that
stratospheric temperatures will generally lower becuase the only way
that temperature is transferred between atmospheric layers is by
radiating, and by trapping heat in the troposphere the stratosphere
will "miss out on the heat" and consequently cool.

My question is: have there been any studies into the change in
stratospheric temperature and projections for the antarctic ozone hole?
Will the temperature reduction based on reduced radiating heat from
trop to strato have a significant effect on the antarctic hole? Or is
most of the drama based on the weakening rosby waves?

Thanks,

wrote:
Hi,

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

From the abstract, it argues that the ozone levels above the arctic
will be reduced because of greenhouse gas increases. This is because
the greenhouse gases will increase temperature affecting Rosby waves by
reducing their ability to inhibit the Arctic polar vortex. The arctic
polar vortex lowers stratospheric temperatures -which raises the rate
of ozone destruction.

On some internet sites (e.g, realclimate), they argue that
stratospheric temperatures will generally lower becuase the only way
that temperature is transferred between atmospheric layers is by
radiating, and by trapping heat in the troposphere the stratosphere
will "miss out on the heat" and consequently cool.

My question is: have there been any studies into the change in
stratospheric temperature and projections for the antarctic ozone hole?
Will the temperature reduction based on reduced radiating heat from
trop to strato have a significant effect on the antarctic hole? Or is
most of the drama based on the weakening rosby waves?

Thanks,

I suspect that seasonal synoptic scale events such as the
Antarctic winter vortex are poorly represented by climate models
making meaningful analysis difficult.

It is interesting however, to view temperature responses.
The strat is modeled to cool. The bases of strong inversions
(tropical upper trop and Arctic surface) are modeled to warm the most.
The tropical tropopausal inversion would weaken due to such forcing.
Also, the Antarctic tropopausal inversion is the weakest and would also weaken
further due to such forcing.
So there would be some dynamical response - that is increased
mixing of strat-trop, such that dynamic transfer would provide
a negative feedback to radiative forcing.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/tra...c_pj.4.04.html

wrote:
Hi,

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

From the abstract, it argues that the ozone levels above the arctic
will be reduced because of greenhouse gas increases. This is because
the greenhouse gases will increase temperature affecting Rosby waves by
reducing their ability to inhibit the Arctic polar vortex. The arctic
polar vortex lowers stratospheric temperatures -which raises the rate
of ozone destruction.

The "greenhouse gas" they are talking about is water vapour, it destroys
ozone.

On some internet sites (e.g, realclimate), they argue that
stratospheric temperatures will generally lower becuase the only way
that temperature is transferred between atmospheric layers is by
radiating, and by trapping heat in the troposphere the stratosphere
will "miss out on the heat" and consequently cool.

Please disregard that "realclimate" web site, they have no idea at all
about what constitutes meteorology, none at all.

My question is: have there been any studies into the change in
stratospheric temperature and projections for the antarctic ozone hole?

There has been recent observation of stratospheric cirrus stratus cloud
above the Antarctic. This demonstrates an increase in water vapour,
which causes a destruction of ozone via a chemical reaction.

Will the temperature reduction based on reduced radiating heat from
trop to strato have a significant effect on the antarctic hole? Or is
most of the drama based on the weakening rosby waves?

No, none whatever.

wrote:

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

From the abstract, it argues that the ozone levels above the arctic
will be reduced because of greenhouse gas increases. This is because
the greenhouse gases will increase temperature affecting Rosby waves by
reducing their ability to inhibit the Arctic polar vortex. The arctic
polar vortex lowers stratospheric temperatures -which raises the rate
of ozone destruction.

Essentially because polar stratospheric clouds can form at these low
temperatures (also called nacreous clouds) provide a large surface area
for the catalytic reactions to occur.

On some internet sites (e.g, realclimate), they argue that
stratospheric temperatures will generally lower becuase the only way
that temperature is transferred between atmospheric layers is by
radiating, and by trapping heat in the troposphere the stratosphere
will "miss out on the heat" and consequently cool.

Crude analogy is that under a thicker quilt you lose heat more slowly.

My question is: have there been any studies into the change in
stratospheric temperature and projections for the antarctic ozone hole?

Antarcticas winter is already plenty cold enough for PSCs to form.
Arctic winters tend to be a lot more variable. Volcanic aerosols may
also influence the arctic situation (Krakatoa certainly did). See for
example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=122395

Will the temperature reduction based on reduced radiating heat from
trop to strato have a significant effect on the antarctic hole? Or is
most of the drama based on the weakening rosby waves?

I suspect it will have a weak global influence. One side effect and
possible easily visible observational litmus test is that temperate
displays of nacreous clouds have become more common in the past couple
of decades. This tends to suggest stratospheric cooling.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Rodney Blackall wrote:

In article .com,
Martin Brown wrote:

wrote:

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

I would advise trying to find something more recent. The Antarctic "Ozone
hole" is as big as ever with some recent CFC substitutes reaching the
stratosphere and being just as damaging.

Northern hemisphere depletions verge on "hole" standards, but the more
turbulent nature of the circulation around the North Pole is generally
inimicable to large concentrations of anything collecting in a small volume.

One such N/S decadal comparative study by the LIDAR folks is online at

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/208...-2081-2005.pdf
(approx 1MB)

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
Rodney Blackall wrote:

In article .com,
Martin Brown wrote:

wrote:

I was looking at the 1998 Nature article "Increased Polar Stratospheric
Ozone Losses and Delayed Eventual Recovery Owing to Increasing
Greenhouse-gas Concentrations." by Shindell et al.

I would advise trying to find something more recent. The Antarctic "Ozone
hole" is as big as ever with some recent CFC substitutes reaching the
stratosphere and being just as damaging.

Northern hemisphere depletions verge on "hole" standards, but the more
turbulent nature of the circulation around the North Pole is generally
inimicable to large concentrations of anything collecting in a small volume.

One such N/S decadal comparative study by the LIDAR folks is online at

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/208...-2081-2005.pdf
(approx 1MB)

Does it mention that like the quilting effect the green house effect is
two faced?

I still can't see why in the years that there have been such radical
cyclonic events the hole should grow at all. Hoe is CFC and whatever
else is also doing the damage seeping out?

Surely in the countries that produce these pollutants, the hole would
show up as some sort of deficit whilst all the pollutants are still in
this flux.

I think all these studies can ever show up is that the models lack at
least one vital ingredient and so it is no use looking at ozone holes
as a function or product.

How electronically active is ozone? I wonder how likely it is to react
to the earth's electromagnetic field. I take it that that side of
things has been looked at? And also how likely ozone is to form over
the poles compared to the more active tropics?

Dear Weatherlawyer:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
....
How electronically active is ozone?

Ozone is diamagnetic in gas phase. Which means it tends to counter
changes in magnetic field.

I wonder how likely it is to react to the earth's
electromagnetic field.

I don't think this fluctates fast enough that ozone will be affected
such that you could measure.

I take it that that side of things has been looked at?

Yes.

And also how likely ozone is to form over
the poles compared to the more active tropics?

Good question. The amount of ozone present at any altitiude will be a
balance of the rate of production, the rate of natural decay, and the
rate of consumption. For poles, incident UV is near nil, so it depends
on the aurorae as the radiation source for production. Variations in
local oxygen levels may also be a player, since oxygen is required to
make ozone in the first place. Natural decay at those elevations will
be on the order of a half-life of a few days to a week. Water vapor
and other materials act as ozone consumers.

Consumption of oxygen and delivery of water vapor at altitude is
provided (at least) by commercial aircraft.

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:
Dear Weatherlawyer:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
...

How electronically active is ozone?


Ozone is diamagnetic in gas phase. Which means it tends to counter
changes in magnetic field.

Same as water....

I wonder how likely it is to react to the earth's
electromagnetic field.


I don't think this fluctates fast enough that ozone will be affected
such that you could measure.

The earth reverses its polarity at intervals of approximately 5000
years. We are about half way in that cycle at present.


I take it that that side of things has been looked at?


Yes.


And also how likely ozone is to form over
the poles compared to the more active tropics?


Good question. The amount of ozone present at any altitiude will be a
balance of the rate of production, the rate of natural decay, and the
rate of consumption. For poles, incident UV is near nil, so it depends
on the aurorae as the radiation source for production. Variations in
local oxygen levels may also be a player, since oxygen is required to
make ozone in the first place. Natural decay at those elevations will
be on the order of a half-life of a few days to a week. Water vapor
and other materials act as ozone consumers.

First of all lets remember that the Ozone layer sits on top of the
stratosphere. Ozone is a strong oxidising element both as a gas and as a
liquid

There is plenty of ozone being created. The problem being that there is
"good" ozone and "bad" ozone. Ozone in high concentrations near the
ground level is toxic to life and is the "bad" ozone. Strong sunlight
and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations.

As it reacts strongly with other molecules it causes pollution. There
are the Volatile Organic Compounds and "nitrogen oxides" being created
There are often referred to as a groups and designated as, "VOC" and
"NOx". NOx are mostly colourless and odourless gasses. Some of it we can
see as a brown haze over cities.

It is ozone oxidised nitrogen forming NO2. Most of the VOC's are indoors
and originates from many chemicals (including in solids used in
furnishings and the like) and solvents in the house. Generally they only
represent 5% of the total production of VOC's. The remainder comes from
motor vehicles and industry. 56% of NOx produces by motor vehicles, 17%
is from industrial, commercial and residential fuel burning, remainder
is in the majority from "utilities".


Consumption of oxygen and delivery of water vapor at altitude is
provided (at least) by commercial aircraft.

Bull****! They can't fly anywhere near high enough for that! The manner
in which it is transported is standard convection and turbulence between
atmospheric layers. The transport mechanism is poor, but there is
sufficient water being transported for stratospheric cirrus form clouds
to occur over the Antarctic. This destroys ozone when it reaches high
enough.

dlzc wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
...
How electronically active is ozone?

Ozone is diamagnetic in gas phase. Which means it tends to counter
changes in magnetic field.

Its chemistry is more influenced by free electrons when the Earth is
hit by a coronal mass ejection causing ionisation and auroras. That can
generate nitrogen species that accelerate ozone damage (but at the same
time it also inhibits other ozone depleting reactions) see for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...zone-hole.html
or more recently in ScienceNews
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010120/bob10.asp

I wonder how likely it is to react to the earth's
electromagnetic field.

I don't think this fluctates fast enough that ozone will be affected
such that you could measure.

Although the injection of fast particles from the solar wind and
especially from solar flares can generate ionisation in the high parts
of the atmosphere with effects on the chemistry.

I take it that that side of things has been looked at?

Yes.

And also how likely ozone is to form over
the poles compared to the more active tropics?

Good question. The amount of ozone present at any altitiude will be a
balance of the rate of production, the rate of natural decay, and the
rate of consumption. For poles, incident UV is near nil, so it depends
on the aurorae as the radiation source for production.

UV can both create and destroy ozone. There is a balance between
various processes. When the stronger sunshine returns in the spring
whilst the stratosphere is still very cold and there are large numbers
of reaction sites available on the surface of PSC droplets the ozone
levels plummet. Ozone levels also plummet at temperate latitudes when
PSC displays occur.

Consumption of oxygen and delivery of water vapor at altitude is
provided (at least) by commercial aircraft.

Nowhere near high enough. They are still below the tropopause.

Rocket launches do put a tiny amount of water vapour into the
stratosphere (and you sometimes get artificial PSC like coulds formed
in their con trails).

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Orator wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Dear Weatherlawyer:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
...

How electronically active is ozone?


Ozone is diamagnetic in gas phase. Which means it tends to counter
changes in magnetic field.

Same as water....

I wonder how likely it is to react to the earth's
electromagnetic field.


I don't think this fluctates fast enough that ozone will be affected
such that you could measure.

The earth reverses its polarity at intervals of approximately 5000
years. We are about half way in that cycle at present.


I thought we were due or even overdue. We're seeing isolated pockets of
reversal already, often a prelude to total reversal.