OZONE is significant?

[HighPressure]

I cannot find a suitable thread for this so hope a new one is in order?

As many of you will know I am a sceptic as far as CO2 emissions alone being the single most significant factor in climate change. From my limited understanding of climate feedback systems and from biological processes, I have made no secret that I believe that ozone will be found to be a major player within GW due to its direct effects on biological processes and its indirect effects via increased UV levels on organisms particularly phytoplankton. Its interesting that our ocean sinks appear to be losing their capacity to absorb CO2 which in turn may have a significant effect on Ocean fluxes. I am not an expert on this subject but would like to learn more, I do not put this forward as an anti AGW argument merely that I believe CO2 take up could be more of an issue than CO2 emissions.

This link to my mind is the just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Ozone/UV and climate feedback systems for which we currently know very little:

"This study is described as significant because it shows that O3 also has a large, indirect effect in the lower part of the atmosphere."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6916162.stm

Sorry if my post is a little amateurish as I am not a scientist, but it is thread I would like to return too once I learn and understand more.

[Gray-Wolf]

So in areas populated by humans not only are they pumping out CO2 but the concentrations of 'low level' O3 (pushed out by petrol/diesel engines etc) limit any chance of the O2 being 're-absorbed' at source. The list is becoming endless of things that the scientists didn't consider when looking into carbon sinks and their impacts on rising CO2 emissions. Do we need wonder why things have 'hotted up' (pardon the pun but you did use the 'tip of the iceberg' one!!) over the last few years with record polar melts, droughts,heat waves,floods, increased tropical rainfall etc,etc, all above and beyond 'current predictions'.

[HighPressure]

For anyone who is interested here is a link to the NASA resource page showing the latest Antarctic Ozone. September is the most critical month for Antarctic ozone and judging by the latest images 2007 could well be another record breaker.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...ource_page.html

The purpose of this thread is to look at the possibility that Ozone in both the upper and lower atmosphere could play a far more significant role in climate change to that currently thought.

[parmenides3]

Here is a link to the executive summary of the WHO/UNEP 2006 report on this: http://www.ehso.com/ehso3.php?URL=http%3A%...sessment02.html

The entire publication can be downloaded free at the websites of both organisations. Wirth a read, if you have the time. The summary is about 36 pages long.

:)P

That do, Colin?

[HighPressure]

Thanks P3!

I have taken this exert from the executive summary:

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN STRATOSPHERE AND TROPOSPHERE

• Changes to the temperature and circulation of the stratosphere affect climate and weather in the troposphere. Consistent evidence for this coupling comes from both observational analyses and models, but the mechanisms responsible are not well understood. The dominant tropospheric response comprises changes in the strength of the midlatitude westerlies (the prevailing winds from the west). Observations and models suggest that Antarctic ozone depletion, through its effects on the lower stratospheric vortex, has contributed to the observed strengthening of tropospheric winds and Antarctic surface cooling during December-February.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Does anyone want to know Why there is no Arctic Ozone hole?

I did, and found this.

* Arctic winters average 10c warmer than Antarctic

* Circumpolar vortex around Arctic weakens earlier in the year

However, a colder than normal winter and a persistant vortex could have major implications since the Arctic is closer to human populations.

Puts another perspective on hopes for a cold winter...

[HighPressure]

With every report issued regarding ozone its effects seem to increase on direct climate forcing such as coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere leading to increased southern ocean winds and indirect such as effects on oceanic biological processes. The more I read the clearer it becomes that understanding of all these processes are not well understand, however it does seem very likely that as knowledge grows so will the role of ozone depletion in climate change. Although proving a more significant role in GW will not in itself mean that CO2 is innocent it could show us why it is having such a dramatic effect on warming.

Some things of interest to me:

UV-B causes problems with the biological processes of phytoplankton.

Increased southern ocean winds also causes problems with biological process leading to the inability of the oceans to soak up CO2.

What effect both the above maybe having on ocean feedback's as a whole?

Occurrence of Hurricanes appears to more closely match the severity of the ozone hole year on year then it does CO2 emissions.

Arctic ozone depletion as well as ground level ozone.

The WHO/UNEP 2006 report leads us to believe that ozone depletion should be levelling out yet 2006 was a record breaking year with 2007 looking although it could set another if it continues on its current path?

I don't want this to become a HP blog so others input would be appreciated

[davehsug]

Just a simple question from me, that I have asked before but I don't think has ever been answered.

If I'm correct, the ozone hole was "discovered". Do we know, & if so how, that it is not an entirely normal phenomenon that has always existed to a greater or lesser degree?

It reminds me of the old trick question of "what was the highest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?".

Not being provocative or anything, it is a genuine question that has sometimes puzzled me.

Dave

[HighPressure]

Just a simple question from me, that I have asked before but I don't think has ever been answered.

If I'm correct, the ozone hole was "discovered". Do we know, & if so how, that it is not an entirely normal phenomenon that has always existed to a greater or lesser degree?

It reminds me of the old trick question of "what was the highest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?".

Not being provocative or anything, it is a genuine question that has sometimes puzzled me.

Dave

The following is what the WMO say:

"The primary cause of the Antarctic ozone hole is firmly

established to be halogen chemistry....There is not a full

accounting of the observed downward trend in _global ozone_.

Plausible mechanisms include heterogeneous chemistry on sulfate

aerosols [which convert reservoir chlorine to active chlorine -

R.P.] and the transport of chemically perturbed polar air to middle

latitudes. Although other mechanisms cannot be ruled out, those

involving the catalytic destruction of ozone by chlorine and

bromine appear to be largely responsible for the ozone loss and

_are the only ones for which direct evidence exists_."

I think that the science is pretty good and is not disputed, but the existance of an ozone hole in the Antarctic in the past cannot be ruled out. Ozone history is extremely short and its state during previous climate changes are not known.

[parmenides3]

Another link just for you, HP: http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/09/05/ozone-hole-update/

What do you think?

:)P

[HighPressure]

Another link just for you, HP: http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/09/05/ozone-hole-update/

What do you think?

:)P

Maybe its late but that data looks different from what NASA are saying:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html

NASA are reporting Ozone min DU as 150 3/9 and Area already at 24 million km2 (unless I am reading it wrong?)

[jethro]

Don't know if you've already seen this HP but thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/...01215082423.htm

[HighPressure]

Don't know if you've already seen this HP but thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/...01215082423.htm

Thanks Jethro for an interesting read. 12th Sept hole measured 25million sq km nudging the largest ever of 26 although UNEP have stated they expect improvements in depletion to be masked for a few years due to other factors. I don't think they meant we would be see 2006 and 2007 with quite the record breaking levels we are observing?

[jethro]

Thanks Jethro for an interesting read. 12th Sept hole measured 25million sq km nudging the largest ever of 26 although UNEP have stated they expect improvements in depletion to be masked for a few years due to other factors. I don't think they meant we would be see 2006 and 2007 with quite the record breaking levels we are observing?

Just wondering, given the info in the link I found, do you think the increase in the ozone hole could have anything to do with the current solar cycle? I understand it to be approaching minimum (no one seems too sure whether it has reached minimum yet) but I understand it to be a Hale cycle too where the magnetic fields flip. Any connection possible?

[HighPressure]

Just wondering, given the info in the link I found, do you think the increase in the ozone hole could have anything to do with the current solar cycle? I understand it to be approaching minimum (no one seems too sure whether it has reached minimum yet) but I understand it to be a Hale cycle too where the magnetic fields flip. Any connection possible?

I am not sure my theory would stand up to much scientific scrutiny, but the more I follow this subject I am beginning to form links in solar activity, orbital forcing from planets in our solar system to Ozone depletion and in turn the direct and indirect effects from UV-B on our oceans ability to soak up CO2. Then we have Rossby waves which no one really understands and how they interact with the stratosphere etc etc. Basically the answer to your question could well be yes but I don't blame all GW on Ozone, I merely put the case that CO2 is only a very small part of a very complex chain of effects and events. My main argument needs cracks to appear in current thinking which I think Ozone depletion could be showing us, if understanding of this is wrong its because other factors are having an effect which are not acknowledged or underplayed.

The key for me in all of this is that I strongly believe that the CO2 present in our atmosphere should not be having the effect it is suggested without other major factors being involved. As I have said before its not an attempt to disprove AGW but to understand. I can see a situation where its possible for both the pro AGW camp and disbelieves to actually be partially right!

[MAF]

something i have just read titled -

Bush aide says warming man-made

the full story here > http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6994760.stm

what amazes me is that, firstly, Bush has an advisor for climate conditions. and secondly that he actually listens to him.

i then read this > http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6995667.stm and felt saddened that bush's advisor is not very good at his job.

[HighPressure]

The Ozone hole area for last update 15th September stands at 25 million sq km, just 1 mill sqkm from the largest hole ever recorded. UNEP report that improvements could be masked for a few years does not really fit with a still increasing depletion? 2006 set new records and 2007 still with 2 or 3 weeks to go has the potential of topping the lot.

[parmenides3]

You'll love this, then HP: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2918.htm

:)P

[HighPressure]

OK so time to rekindle this thread I think:

2007 Ozone hole max hole size 24.7 million Kmsq 19th September, ozone destruction totalled 27 million tonnes 30% lower than 2006 when 40 million tonnes were lost. Its important to note that the reduction in the loss this year is due to the hole being off centre allowing it to mix with warmer air and not a sign of ozone repair.

In addition the following article/reserch calls into the question the actual chemistry of ozone destruction:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

I remain intrigued by this subject and even with my limited understanding of the science I do find myself asking do they actually have any idea what is happening with ozone depletion and does call into question the understanding of the whole issue?

I do not say I know the answers here or where this will all eventually end up, but one very important thing to point out to those who have stated we have a good understanding of the chemistry involved in climate. If a cast in stone theory such as how ozone is depleted within our atmosphere is accepted without question by 200 countries is called into question, how on earth can we accept the chemistry of AGW a far more complete subject?

I will state again this is not a denialist thread it simply wants to find the truth whatever that outcome!

[Hiya]

OK so time to rekindle this thread I think:

2007 Ozone hole max hole size 24.7 million Kmsq 19th September, ozone destruction totalled 27 million tonnes 30% lower than 2006 when 40 million tonnes were lost. Its important to note that the reduction in the loss this year is due to the hole being off centre allowing it to mix with warmer air and not a sign of ozone repair.

In addition the following article/reserch calls into the question the actual chemistry of ozone destruction:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

I remain intrigued by this subject and even with my limited understanding of the science I do find myself asking do they actually have any idea what is happening with ozone depletion and does call into question the understanding of the whole issue?

I do not say I know the answers here or where this will all eventually end up, but one very important thing to point out to those who have stated we have a good understanding of the chemistry involved in climate. If a cast in stone theory such as how ozone is depleted within our atmosphere is accepted without question by 200 countries is called into question, how on earth can we accept the chemistry of AGW a far more complete subject?

I will state again this is not a denialist thread it simply wants to find the truth whatever that outcome!

Interesting article, first thing that strikes me is the method they used for determining the kinetics is very good, but could be a little too good, there could well be a catalytic component that is present in the atmosphere and thus in the original kinetic experiments. When you're in the lab doing kinetic studies with catalysts you have to be very careful with catalyst contamination of the control, so they could be going backwards to go forwards.

I don't think you can really compare ozone and AGW chemistry, same idea, different fish.

[HighPressure]

Interesting article, first thing that strikes me is the method they used for determining the kinetics is very good, but could be a little too good, there could well be a catalytic component that is present in the atmosphere and thus in the original kinetic experiments. When you're in the lab doing kinetic studies with catalysts you have to be very careful with catalyst contamination of the control, so they could be going backwards to go forwards.

I don't think you can really compare ozone and AGW chemistry, same idea, different fish.

I think that would also be an interesting outcome a so far undiscovered catalyst present in the atmosphere, because surely then the next question would be what that was?

[parmenides3]

But note also the comments at the end of the piece by the guy who did the work:

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”

This seems to imply that what is missing, if anything, is a more detailed picture of the chemistry involved, rather than a re-writing of the whole theory. It's an intriguing discovery, but I think the article overstates the case in the first paragraph, which is deceptive. I can't find a link to any actual paper, but I'll have a dig for some ozone stuff.

:)P

[Hiya]

I think that would also be an interesting outcome a so far undiscovered catalyst present in the atmosphere, because surely then the next question would be what that was?

Ozone doesn't have a lot going for it, plenty of things catalyse their destruction, nitrates, sulphates and even ice particles provide a surface for heterogeneous catalysis, so an undiscovered one is probable. A carbon nanoparticle springs to mind, might have a look on google and see if anyone has done experiments with that.

I agree with P3, the article is written from top heavy dramatic way.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71003100537.htm

At least something seems to have improved!

I don't know whether I posted this here but I should have!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70930083243.htm

So it would seem that Ozone is very significant for city dwellers exposed to low level ozone (god bless my Green and pleasant Hills!!!)

[Hiya]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71003100537.htm

At least something seems to have improved!

I don't know whether I posted this here but I should have!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70930083243.htm

So it would seem that Ozone is very significant for city dwellers exposed to low level ozone (god bless my Green and pleasant Hills!!!)

I'm not certain but surely this gives higher toxicity to bacteria, thus reducing background counts? Still not good for the immune system in the long run, but good for where large groups of people collect? Pros and cons to everything.