Ozone Hole Splits in Two

DaDigz writes "CNN is reporting here that the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica has split in two "like a giant amoeba". It's not yet been determined whether this is a result of unusual weather patterns or whether the ozone layer is recovering. One can hope, though, that this may be a sign of a mend in the ozone layer."

Comments

Re:A Silly Conjecture.

[Yokaze]

Yes, if they were located in the northern hemisphere :)

The reason, why there is are Ozone "Holes", and not just a uniformly reduced ozone layer is that the ODS are carried by the global winds to the poles.

All hail to the Coriolis effect.

To be pedantic:

[Observer]

<>slashdot>It's not yet been determined whether this is a result of unusual weather patterns or whether the ozone layer is recovering.</slashdot>

Actually, the CNN article quotes Long at MOAA as saying that the change is the result of unusual weather patterns but that it is too soon to say whether the ozone layer is recovering. Slight difference in meaning there.

Re:Possibly a mend? Really?

[Mr. Slippery]

Seriously, has the human population been reducing the amount of ozone-depleting activities... I thought we were still pumping out the carbon monoxide at apocalyptic rates.

You're mixing up different problems and different chemicals.

We have reduced chloroflorocarbon - CFC - production pretty well. CFCs are what attack the ozone layer.

Carbon dioxide - CO2 - emmissions continue to be high. You get it every time you burn something or breathe out; but the problem is that burning fossil fuels adds more C02 to the air than the normal biological cycle. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but not toxic.

Carbon monoxide - CO - is a toxic gas. This is what kills you if you leave your car running in a closed garage; it is often used for killing animals. It results from ineffecient combustion. Catalytic converters and oxygenated fuels have reduced CO emissions over the past few years.

Summary:

• CFCs - ozone killer. Emissions down, but potential that newly industrialized nations may start pumping the stuff out again.
  
  
• Carbon dioxide - greenhouse gas. (One of several.) Emissions up. To reduce CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
  
  
• Carbon monoxide - toxic. Mostly comes out of our vehicle's tailpipes. Emissions down but still a significant health problem in large cities.

Everybody knows == A failure of imagination

[geoswan]

Everybody knows that any ozone hole data means nothing. Including the data that termed it a hole in the first place.

I believe my math geek friends would characterize this as, "proof by assertion" ?

You aren't making this assertion from knowledge. Your assertion is coming from your intuition. Everybody doesn't know this. I don't know this. Neither do a lot of climate experts. Neither do you. You don't have knowledge. You have a belief about the ozone hole -- based on your intuition.

Well intuition failed us when it came to the ozone hole.

Here are some RISKS articles, from 1986, shortly after the ozone hole was first recognized, to back me up.
Ozone hole undetected for years due to programming error
Ozone references.

Recently, it was disclosed that a large hole in the ozone layer appears once a year over the South Pole. The researchers had first detected this hole approximately 8 years ago by tests done at the South Pole itself.

Why did they wait 8 years to disclose this disturbing fact? Because the satellite that normally gives ozone levels had not reported any such hole and the researchers could not believe that the satellite's figures could be incorrect. It took 8 years of testing before they felt confident enough to dispute the satellite's figures.

And why did the satellite fail to report this hole? Because it had been programmed to reject values that fell outside the "normal" range!

What happened here is that intuition failed. Intuition failed the physicists who specified the sanity filters. And, I would argue, that intuition failed you too.

Re:Smaller holes or more distributed?

[helix400]

I remember reading one of the articles saying that the ozone hole was defined as an area where the density of ozone drops below a certain level.

Yep. Quoting the article on Yahoo:
"The ozone hole is the area with total column ozone below 220 Dobson Units...A reading of 100 Dobson Units means that if all the ozone in the air above a point were brought down to sea-level pressure and cooled to freezing it would form a layer 1 centimeter thick. At that scale a reading of 250 Dobson Units translates to a layer about an inch thick."

So isn't it possible that two holes would spread the thinning area out? The total lack of ozone still exists and could still be growing.

Sort of...ozone in the southern hemisphere has a funny way of displacing itself. The ozone hole is comes and goes in a cycle. First its there, half a year later it vanishes, half a year later its back...etc. The funny part is, when the hole arrives, a lot of the ozone is *displaced* around the hole. So if the south pole had only 150 Dobson units of ozone, Australia could jump up to 400 units. (275 being the rough average).

So with today's smaller ozone holes, the missing ozone isn't necessarilly thinning the surrounding area out, its bringing all the ozone in the atmosphere back to a uniform density.

Ice core samples tell us much.

[ratzmilk]

Yes, ice core samples reveal that prior to 1960, there was no hole in the ozone layer. The effects of UV on the ice layers is quite easy to detect in ice cores.