Ozone hole modest despite optimum conditions for ozone depletion

Now this is an interesting article on a couple of levels.. Remember the Ozone hole that was attributed to man made chemicals such as Freon which ended up being banned.. Well the 2018 measurement shows the hole is actually bigger than it was in 1980..

The almost complete phase out of the chlorfluro carbons (CFC) was around the year 2000.

Also all we constantly hear how the Antarctic is getting warmer and we are all doomed..

Colder-than-average temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere created ideal conditions for destroying ozone this year, but declining levels of ozone-depleting chemicals prevented the hole from as being as large as it would have been 20 years ago.

The 2018 ozone hole was strongly influenced by a stable and cold Antarctic vortex—the stratospheric low pressure system that flows clockwise in the atmosphere above Antarctica. These colder conditions—among the coldest since 1979—helped support formation of more polar stratospheric clouds, whose cloud particles activate ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and bromine compounds.

phys.org...
youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

Regardless, whether you believe that our presence on this planet is contributing to planet warming or not, would it still not be safer to switch to more greener methods anyway? I'm sure that the corporations have made quite enough cash, we can sacrifice their profits in order just to be safe anyway. These same people have probably also suppressed better and safer methods for their own gain, this kind of attitude is totally counter-productive.

In our sad world, business does rule at the expense of everything else, and I would certainly be wary of who's saying what

In late 1973, Rowland and Molina, who had recently joined Rowland’s lab, used data from a variety of published sources to calculate that CFC molecules released near the surface of Earth would, over decades, wind up in the stratosphere where UV radiation would split off chlorine atoms. Each chlorine atom would react immediately with an ozone molecule, setting off a chain reaction that would destroy thousands of ozone molecules. In their paper, they estimated that if CFC use was banned immediately, ozone loss would go on for years. If CFC production continued, however, ozone loss would be even greater.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I love how people like yourself think that these big corporations will not be making profits with green tech. They will just shift around the numbers.
That and you will be squealing like little girls when the prices of everything goes up to cover the diminished profits.

www.acs.org...


This couldn't be a cause could it ? www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I love how people like yourself think that these big corporations will not be making profits with green tech. They will just shift around the numbers.
That and you will be squealing like little girls when the prices of everything goes up to cover the diminished profits.

I never said they wouldn't be making profits, they will always find a way, although implementation of better methods would probably require a period of non-profit

I love how people like yourself presume things that aren't true

Didn't they figure out that it was China that were using chemicals that messes the ozone up. China said they use the bad chemicals because it is a extremely cheap way of making something.

That was a couple months ago, they didn't know how but then they figured it out.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

would it still not be safer to switch to more greener methods anyway?

Name one.
It has to be a viable "green" method.
And safer.

a reply to: watchandwait410

China seems to be implicated in everything lately - oh wait - what have we here.....

Nuclear atmospheric testing by the US

www.nzherald.co.nz...

A Punakaiki-based scientist has come up with a new theory on the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. Bill Hartley believes Starfish Prime, an American upper atmospheric nuclear test he witnessed in 1962, is partly to blame for the hole.

He connected the event with the hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s when he read Earth's Aura - a layman's guide to the atmosphere in which author Louise B Young discussed the destructive effects atmospheric nuclear testing could have on ozone.

"This rang a very loud bell for me in thatgradual depletion of ozone by chemical reactions would lead to a generalised thinning of the layer as the pollutants spread throughout the atmosphere, whereas massive nuclear blasts in the upper atmosphere would produce instant holes," Mr Hartley said.

He believed with the rise of the global warming phenomena everyone was overlooking the probability that the ozone hole was largely involved. Yet they were pointing the finger at fossil fuel burning emissions.

After some research he discovered the US tested 331 bombs in the atmosphere, six above the US and the rest above the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean with some in the South Atlantic.

Let me pose a very important question that I want you to answer truthfully. Whether it's air travel or chemicals (ie man made triggers) that cause ozone depletion, how come the vast majority of human "pollution" is happening in the Northern hemisphere not the Southern hemisphere. Now think on that a moment then tell me all the hoohaa is about Antarctica not the Arctic? Why if all the pollution is in the Northern hemisphere is not the Arctic ozone hole vastly larger than the Antarctic one?

a reply to: 727Sky

Also all we constantly hear how the Antarctic is getting warmer and we are all doomed..

The atmosphere is not vertically homogenous. Your quote concerns stratospheric conditions, not surface conditions. There's a difference.

a reply to: crayzeed

Why if all the pollution is in the Northern hemisphere is not the Arctic ozone hole vastly larger than the Antarctic one?

It has to do with something quoted by the OP. Stratospheric temperatures.
www.abc.net.au...

a reply to: Phage

Current conditions and forecast

Day Temperature Weather Feels Like Wind Humidity Chance Amount UV Sunrise Sunset
Mon
5 Nov [Partly sunny.] -45 / -45 °C Partly sunny. -58 °C 12 km/h ↑ 60% 5% - 0 (Low) - -
Tue
6 Nov [Light snow early. Mostly cloudy.] -45 / -41 °C Light snow early. Mostly cloudy. -57 °C 16 km/h ↑ 59% 26% 2.5 mm 0 (Low) - -
Wed
7 Nov [Light snow late. Mostly cloudy.] -40 / -39 °C Light snow late. Mostly cloudy. -56 °C 22 km/h ↑ 59% 30% 5.0 mm 0 (Low) - -
Thu
8 Nov [Light snow. Mostly cloudy.] -39 / -30 °C Light snow. Mostly cloudy. -51 °C 30 km/h ↑ 65% 54% 60.0 mm 0 (Low) - -
Fri
9 Nov [Light snow. Mostly cloudy.] -30 / -25 °C Light snow. Mostly cloudy. -39 °C 26 km/h ↑ 73% 53% 60.0 mm 0 (Low) - -
Sat
10 Nov [Light snow early. Mostly cloudy.] -30 / -26 °C Light snow early. Mostly cloudy. -41 °C 20 km/h ↑ 69% 39% 22.5 mm 0 (Low) - -
Sun
11 Nov [Light snow late. Overcast.] -37 / -35 °C Light snow late. Overcast. -48 °C 12 km/h ↑ 91% 40% 7.5 mm 0 (Low) - -
Mon
12 Nov [Snow showers early. Overcast.] -42 / -37 °C Snow showers early. Overcast. -52 °C 14 km/h ↑ 95% 36% 7.5 mm 0 (Low) - -
Tue
13 Nov [Light snow. Overcast.] -42 / -39 °C Light snow. Overcast. -53 °C 11 km/h ↑ 92% 36% 22.5 mm 0 (Low) - -
Wed
14 Nov [Morning clouds.] -42 / -40 °C Morning clouds.

Yep darn global warming it might warm up to a toasty -25C on 9 November....www.timeanddate.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

Ah. I see. You think that global warming means no place will ever be cold.


You're mistaken.