Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss Occurred Last Winter

Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss Occurred Last Winter
www.sciencedaily.com...

A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring that was caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere.
. . .
The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone. While the same ozone-loss processes occur each winter in the Arctic, the generally warmer stratospheric conditions there limit the area affected and the time frame during which the chemical reactions occur. This means there is generally far less ozone loss in most years in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.

As the article states this was caused by unusually frigid temperatures in the atmosphere. Interesting to see the "scientific" community of climatologists actually got a prediction right for once.

Additional Info for those following the study:

NASA Study Sheds Light On Ozone Hole Chemistry
www.sciencedaily.com...

Record Depletion of Arctic Ozone Layer Causing Increased UV Radiation in Scandinavia
www.sciencedaily.com...

Antarctic Ozone Hole Shrinking Because Of Mild Weather, Not Recovery
www.sciencedaily.com...

Record Ozone Loss Over the North Pole
www.sciencedaily.com...

So any thoughts?

reply to post by MasterGemini
So...stratospheric cooling is going to kill us all?

I'm SO confused.

EDIT:
AND I think our network filter here is a bit too arbitrary...blocking Science Daily but allowing ATS? Really?

If you live in the Arctic circle permanently use a 30+ sun cream that contains zinc oxide as this will block out almost all UVB and UVA rays....

The 2011 Arctic ozone loss occurred over an area considerably smaller than that of the Antarctic ozone holes. This is because the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place, was about 40 percent smaller than a typical Antarctic vortex. While smaller and shorter-lived than its Antarctic counterpart, the Arctic polar vortex is more mobile, often moving over densely populated northern regions. Decreases in overhead ozone lead to increases in surface ultraviolet radiation, which are known to have adverse effects on humans and other life forms.

www.physorg.com...

reply to post by Praetorius


I think the bloody great big hole in the ozone layer is the cause for concern.

I do remember all those news appearances concerning this last year.
I also remember a space event in the news simultaneous to the southern hole and I put them both together but couldn't find enough proof to support my theory.
It did, however, feel 'right'.
If anyone here remembers that period then perhaps you could help my ailing brain. There were a series of regular but fluctuating pulses coming from some strangely named galaxy and hitting us directly at the south pole. Now, if I remember correctly, the nebula was having some sort of catastrophe (exploding or imploding...) but NASA had tracked the gamma-ray filled beam to a tiny area in this galaxy. It was called the Bee or Bell or something. They described an EXTREMELY small area for the origin of these nasty rays. Their language suggest 'ship' or inhabited planet'.
So, can anyone help with this? The science and, ultimately, the proof is there is we can find the stories

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Praetorius

 

I think the bloody great big hole in the ozone layer is the cause for concern.

*ahem*:

The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone.

So, back in the 80's when we were all using Aquanet on our hair and the Chloroflourocabons -CFC-'s were destroying the ozone...and we had to stop using them.

Now...the hole is back anyway. Imagine that, us humans really aren't the ones affecting such large planetary phenomena....

Shocking.

^sarcasm^

reply to post by kalunom
I was actually just about to ask that...were CFC's not actually the problem with ozone destruction, or would they have had a cumulative effect, making this even more significant?

Originally posted by kalunom
So, back in the 80's when we were all using Aquanet on our hair and the Chloroflourocabons -CFC-'s were destroying the ozone...and we had to stop using them.
Now...the hole is back anyway.

The CFC's take a decade to work their way to the upper atmosphere and stay there for several more decades.
It is normal, and expected, that the "peak" of ozone activity would be occuring now and will very gradually decline over the course of the next hundred years.

Wikipedia says...

Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.

Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5%–10% by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075

Arctic conditions are similar.

The problem didnt just go away instantly that they were banned.

Or was it predicted a few years ago and even told they knew about it.. former navy man explained everything written here and what was going to happen about the antarctic ice chunks,and teh gulf stream is slowing and will everntually stop,said places that never had snow will start getting it... winters will get colder and summer longer and hotter..

Originally posted by MasterGemini
As the article states this was caused by unusually frigid temperatures in the atmosphere. Interesting to see the "scientific" community of climatologists actually got a prediction right for once.

Actually, it the article says it was the unusually prolonged period of cold temperatures at high altitudes, not that the temperatures were unusually low.

The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The prolonged period allowed polar stratospheric clouds to persist longer that usual and thus allowing the reactions between CFCs and O3 to persist longer than usual. This resulted in a greater net loss of O3.

This isn't the Antarctic guys.

It's the Arctic, our hemisphere!

Thanks for the story OP, I didn't know about this.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2011) — In the past few weeks, exceptional weather conditions have led to unprecedented ozone depletion over the Arctic. Ground and satellite observations by researchers at the Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales (CNRS/UVSQ/UPMC) as well as French models show that ozone loss reached around 40% at the end of March. The phenomenon was caused by an extremely cold and persistent stratospheric winter, resulting in significant ozone destruction, which, unusually, continued into spring.

"Past few weeks" , dated from Apr 8, 2011? Fukushima happened March 11-13th.

I have a guess as to why "exceptional weather conditions led to unprecedented ozone depletion".

Oh neat I found someone who agreed that there could be a connection between Fukushima and this new found timely ozone hole.

Posted today by Yoiichi Shimatsu: link

The Arctic ozone hole, that began expanding due to the clouds, radically widened in March and April, coinciding with the Fukushima disaster. The damaged Fukushima reactors and burning fuel rods released many, many tons of of iodine (a highly-reactive ozone-attacking agent) and xenon, which soon transformed into xenon fluoride (produced when xenon comes under UV catalysis to combine with fluorine gas in the atmosphere). Fluorine is abundant over the US Pacific Northwest and Canada. The jet stream carried the iodine and newly-formed XeFl compounds in a northeasterly direction, crossing into the Arctic circle and looping back down over Greenland, Scandinavia and European Russia. This exactly accounts for the oblong shape and direction of the expanded ozone hole.

Remember that the xenon can float really far.
More info:

Some radioactive isotopes of xenon, for example, 133Xe and 135Xe, are produced by neutron irradiation of fissionable material within nuclear reactors.[7]

wiki on xenon

It is reactive with Oxygen.
Look, they have to use oxygen just to get it in a jar in the first place!

Xenon is obtained commercially as a byproduct of the separation of air into oxygen and nitrogen. After this separation, generally performed by fractional distillation in a double-column plant, the liquid oxygen produced will contain small quantities of krypton and xenon. By additional fractional distillation steps, the liquid oxygen may be enriched to contain 0.1–0.2% of a krypton/xenon mixture, which is extracted either via adsorption onto silica gel or by distillation.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by MasterGemini
As the article states this was caused by unusually frigid temperatures in the atmosphere. Interesting to see the "scientific" community of climatologists actually got a prediction right for once.

Actually, it the article says it was the unusually prolonged period of cold temperatures at high altitudes, not that the temperatures were unusually low.

The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The prolonged period allowed polar stratospheric clouds to persist longer that usual and thus allowing the reactions between CFCs and O3 to persist longer than usual. This resulted in a greater net loss of O3.

edit on 10/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Okay smarty pants . . .

Unusual
www.merriam-webster.com...

un·u·su·al
   [uhn-yoo-zhoo-uhl, -yoozh-wuhl] Show IPA
adjective
not usual, common, or ordinary; uncommon in amount or degree; exceptional: an unusual sound; an unusual hobby; an unusual response.
Origin:
1575–85; un-1 + usual

Related forms
un·u·su·al·ly, adverb
un·u·su·al·ness, noun

Synonyms
extraordinary, remarkable; rare, strange, singular, curious, queer, odd.

I think I was quite accurate and did not misrepresent anything here . . .

Originally posted by kalunom
So, back in the 80's when we were all using Aquanet on our hair and the Chloroflourocabons -CFC-'s were destroying the ozone...and we had to stop using them.

Now...the hole is back anyway. Imagine that, us humans really aren't the ones affecting such large planetary phenomena....

Shocking.

^sarcasm^

Think about that for a minute.

So "we" used hair spray here in the North Hemisphere, and then way down in the Southern Hemisphere massive effects were noted? And just now suddenly we are seeing the effects up here in the north? Doesn't make much sense honestly.

Maybe the ozone depletion is due to massive amounts of xenon or other similar radioisotopes released in fission reactions in nuclear materials?

If the Arctic ozone hole is depleting directly a few weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns what does that tell us? Could be connected it seems.

Also, could this imply that the actual reasons for the extensive ozone damage in the Antarctic is somehow caused by a similar process, well hidden until now?

reply to post by MasterGemini

Please show where the article says "unusually frigid temperatures" were found.

That may be difficult because the article says this:

"In the 2010-11 Arctic winter, we did not have temperatures that were lower than in the previous cold Arctic winters," said Walker. "What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time

www.sciencedaily.com...

As I said, the temperatures were not unusually "frigid". They persisted for an unusually long period.

Someone come tell me it wasn't Fukushima so we can debate.

I am getting lonely here in my radioactive solitude.

Phage or someone come convince me that Xe^133 or Xe^135, or various molecules like XeF2, XeF4, etc don't react with O3 in anyway. Use some sort of compelling evidence or link.

That would be cool. But also I would want to go over each isotope from Fukushima (there are many dozens), and over every type of chemical combination they could be found in after reacting with chemicals in the environment.

So this debate could go pretty deep. But I bet that eventually we will find a culprit through the discourse.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

Please show where the article says "unusually frigid temperatures" were found.

That may be difficult because the article says this:

"In the 2010-11 Arctic winter, we did not have temperatures that were lower than in the previous cold Arctic winters," said Walker. "What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time

www.sciencedaily.com...

As I said, the temperatures were not unusually "frigid". They persisted for an unusually long period.

edit on 10/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The period in which the ozone was depleting was experiencing unusually frigid temperatures in comparison to historical benchmarks.

Perspectives I suppose.

A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring that was caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere

reply to post by MasterGemini

No.

"In the 2010-11 Arctic winter, we did not have temperatures that were lower than in the previous cold Arctic winters," said Walker. "What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by Phage


Chlorine? Hmmm.

What about Uranium Tetraflouride? or other molecules similar to this?

Uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) is a green crystalline solid compound of uranium with an insignificant vapor pressure and very slight solubility in water. Uranium in its tetravalent (uranous) state is very important in different technological processes. In the uranium refining industry it is known as green salt. UF4 is generally an intermediate in the conversion of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to either uranium oxides (U3O8 or UO2) or uranium metal. It is formed by the reaction of UF6 with hydrogen gas in a vertical tube-type reactor or by the action of hydrogen fluoride(HF) on uranium dioxide. UF4 is less stable than the uranium oxides and reacts slowly with moisture at ambient temperature, forming UO2 and HF, which are very corrosive; it is thus a less favorable form for long-term disposal. The bulk density of UF4 varies from about 2.0 g/cm3 to about 4.5 g/cm3 depending on the production process and the properties of the starting uranium compounds.

I understand that this is a heavy molecule and that the discussion originates with molten salt reactors, but let us entertain such a scenario for a moment.

Could it be possible that a molecule of UF4 (or something similar) could have been produced and been caught up in the steam release (pressure upwards into high atmosphere), and been propelled high into the region where O3 is prevalent? Then it may be able to break up the O3 (despite the fact there is no H within O3)?

I don't know, I realize this isn't exactly the answer to the problem but with all of the countless molecules and potential chemical reactions with other molecules, it could even be a combination of various factors which together create a notable decrease in O3 values.

I'll keep digging and see what I find.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

No.

"In the 2010-11 Arctic winter, we did not have temperatures that were lower than in the previous cold Arctic winters," said Walker. "What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time

www.sciencedaily.com...

edit on 10/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding me Phage? You have such a high rating here this is an easy one.

The temps are not lower as in more cold, they were colder longer . . . hence unusually frigid.

If the the area was following historically established patterns this would not have happened.

"What was different about this year was that the temperatures were low enough to generate ozone-depleting forms of chlorine for a much longer period of time.

It does have to be cold for this phenomena correct?
So if it was not unusually cold this would have occurred anyways?

I think not.