Antarctic Ozone Hole Shrinks 30 Percent

polar red sends us news of a story that many outlets have picked up from a European Space Agency press release: the Antarctic ozone hole is 30% smaller than it was during the previous record year. It's still about the size of North America. "Scientists say this year's smaller hole... is due to natural variations in temperature and atmospheric dynamics... and is not indicative of a long-term trend. 'Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already,' [one researcher said]."

Comments

Environmental spin

[Hal_Porter]

Very strange effect. It seems like lots of studies are done. The ones that show drastic environmental collapse are reported very widely. In this case the news seems good and there isn't an alternative study so we get the comment 'Although the hole is somewhat smaller than usual, we cannot conclude from this that the ozone layer is recovering already'. So the studies may be ok scientfically but picking the outliers which show immininent catastrophe and if that is impossible adding comments that the catastrophe might still be present is not.

So bad news is bad news. Good news means we can't conclude anything.

It reminds me of the 'worst headline ever' : 'Small earthquake : not many killed'. If you want to attract attention, I guess you need a bit of drama.

But maybe I'm complacent and we'll all die of avian flu or global warming or a meltdown in the financial markets causing a collapse of our civilisation.

Re: Conspiracy Theory! ... what are you smoking?

[MillionthMonkey]

You have got to be kidding! We changed our behaviour and it worked? In such a short time frame? You know what? That's utter BS and most climatologists would concur.

It may not be conclusive that the hole shrank because of what we did, but we definitely reduced the stratospheric CFC concentrations:

There are no sinks for CFCs in the lower atmosphere. As a result they are transported to the stratosphere (10 to 50km altitude) where they are broken down by UV radiation, releasing free chlorine atoms which cause significant ozone depletion. In 1998 global atmospheric concentrations of on of the CFCs, CFC-11 was 268pptv. Over the past few decades CFCs 11,12 and 113 have increased more rapidly (on a percent basis) than any other greenhouse gas, but there is now clear evidence that growth rates of CFCs have slowed significantly in the aftermath of the Montreal Protocol (1985) to prevent ozone depletion. In fact, the 1998 atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 was lower than the concentration 5 years earlier. The total forcing value for Chlorofluorocarbons is +0.3Wm-2. This includes CFC-11, 12, 113, 114, 115, methylchloroform and carbon tetrachloride. Under the Montreal Protocol, the production of CFCs 11, 12 and 113 has been successfully phased out since 1995. However, despite these measures, the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere will remain significant into the next century because of the relatively long lifetimes associated with these compounds.

There's probably better stuff to be Googled up but I'm going to be late for work.

But they spend better than half their time screaming "M-Fer, I want more research funding". Or so my 15 years in academia and government research leads me to believe.

I find your credentialism unconvincing- in fact you don't know how many years I have over you. I've been involved in those filings myself and am familiar with what happens. What I find offensive are the accusations that the entire scientific consensus on the issue is attributable to a desire for research funding. Most scientists do not receive funding for climate research. And it's not as if climate research dollars are even in short supply- after all, allocating that money and "waiting until the results are in" is basically how the president has dealt with all these problems.

You've got your numbers reversed

[Ambitwistor]

but what the article states is "Antarctic ozone hole is 30% smaller than it was during the previous RECORD year". My emphasis. 5-10% beyond a record year would be acceptable. 30% beyond a record year (which yields 60-70% beyond the average) is a BIG DEAL. 30% beyond the record year is not 60-70% beyond the average: you're confusing the signs. The current hole is 30% SMALLER than last year's LARGEST size — i.e., closer to the average size.

We've seen interannual jumps of 30% in ozone hole size before (e.g., here); it's within the range of natural variation, and as such, does not indicate some total failure of the models.