New Paper Shows Antarctic Ozone Hole Receding

False color images of the Antarctic ozone hole left (in September, 2000) and right (in September 2014. According to a recent paper the hole area has shrunk by 4.5 million square kilometers. (Blue tones indicate areas of extremely low O3 concentrations)

One of the events that got me interested in solar research occurred when a massive solar flare shredded the ozone layer in the early 1970s. The then Skylab orbital observatory reported up to 80 percent of the ozone layer "eroded" by one single super flare (class 4B optical, and X 9 x-ray). The event also aroused my curiosity regarding the ozone layer and its importance for Earth - or rather the organisms that inhabit the Earth.

By now most people know that ozone O3 - is a form of oxygen - and fond 20-30 km above Earth's surface or at the lower edge of the stratosphere. It basically is critical in protecting life forms from the effects of the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Take that layer away and you will behold sunburns the likes of which would rival 20 hours straight in a tanning bed, not to mention an explosion of skin cancers.  Minus the ozone layer, in other words, life as we know it would not exist.

So, it is important what happens to that layer.

What disturbed many space and atmospheric scientists is that the ozone layer over the Antarctic appeared to be especially susceptible to erosion, but not from solar flares. We became aware of this via tracking of ozone concentrations by NASA satellites since the 1970s. This paved the way for a study that tapped into that database thereby discovering the adverse role of chlorfluorocarbons or CFCs.

This ground breaking research by Susan Solomon and her team discovered that these chemicals - often released via hair sprays, spray deodorants etc. - reduced stratospheric ozone concentrations all over the world. At that time (1986) industries also used CFCs in refrigeration and dry cleaning. The reduction was observed to be especially bad over Antarctica hence the term "ozone hole".

One by product of the work was to explicate the processes underlying ozone hole formation. It was known, for example, that CFCs destroyed Antarctic ozone every spring. But only later was it revealed that the process begins even before winter.  It commences, in fact, at the summer solstice or shortly thereafter when the Sun rises causing light to strike the ambient CFCs, breaking its chemical dons and freeing chlorine (e.g. CCl₃F → CCl₂F^. + Cl^.    )

The freed chlorine atoms (at the end of the right side of the above equation) then strip the oxygen  (O2) from the ozone (O3) to form other chemicals destroying the ozone itself. This leads to the emergence of an "ozone hole" which generally reaches peak area in October.

The latest research by Solomon et al, published on June 30th, e.g.

http://bit.ly/science-ozone

shows the extent to which changes in atmospheric chemistry and human activity are inextricably linked. Specifically, the authors show how public policy efforts i.e. (to ban CFCs) over decades have paid off by shrinking the Antarctic ozone by more than 4 million square miles (a 16 percent decrease) since 2000.

The obvious question is whether the success of activated public policy as it pertained to CFCs - to significantly reduce the ozone hole -could also have relevance to global warming and cutting CO2 emissions. We know that every 2 ppm increase in CO2  concentration in the atmosphere increases the effective solar insolation value by 2.0 w/  m²  .

This means the impact of CO2 on greenhouse heating is analogous to the impact of CCl₃F on ozone depletion. It makes sense then that dramatically reducing the source, CO2, can make for an improved situation with anthropogenic global warming. The problem, of course, is that carbon - which gives rise to CO2-  is a far more contentious substance with vast economic import. This is because it is part and parcel of the fossil fuels which when converted in factories or automobile engines, spawns CO2. Resistance to cutting CO2 emissions really signals opposition to altering, lowering economic growth.

Hence, naturally then there will be far more opposition to limiting fossil fuels (and by association carbon deposition) than eliminating CFCs for refrigeration or hair sprays - since alternatives can easily be found for the latter/

Never mind! A way must be found to sanely balance energy demands and needs with the worst effects of the CO2 that issues from carbon burning.

Our Students at Risk of Delusion on Climate Change

The newly issued report entitled 'What Do U.S. Students Know About Climate Change?, EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 92, No. 51, 20 December, 2011, p. 477) was sobering to say the least. The report noted for example, that if a cross section of undergraduates are asked climate questions - one is liable to get a whole set of "hair raising responses".

Examples (ibid.):

"The greenhouse effect is caused by a hole in the ozone layer which allows in more sunlight".

""Humans are not the main cause of climate change"

These responses and many others disclose that while a plurality of students (83%) are concerned about climate change, "many have significant misconceptions about the fundamental science behind it".

The article -report notes that the best documented of these involves confusion between stratospheric ozone (O3) destruction and the Greenhouse effect. What this shows me is that the students are sadly lacking in both chemistry and physics preparation. This is a warning that perhaps our colleges and universities need to do more. I suggest it needs to start as early as high school where U.S. students typicall take only one year of each science subject - i.e. biology, chemistry and physics in separate years, while students in Barbados take 5 consecutive years of subjects - mainly physics and chemistry. Hence the latter are much better prepared and less likely to make gross errors or confuse issues such as noted concerning the erosion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect.

In the case of stratospheric ozone depletion, what is happening is that solar UV radiation is disrupting ozone (O3) as a result of the presence of chemicals called chloro-fluourocarbons. This means the ozone layer, which protects us from the UV radiation, is progessively weakened ...and yes, a "hole" may ultimately occur within it. This "hole" then admits more UV radiation which can cause more blindness and severe sunburns, skin cancers if people aren't protected.

The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, is due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. This particular gas - as well as some others (e.g. methane) are important in terms of the capacity to warm our atmosphere if present beyond a certain limiting concentration. That is, they possess the ability to absorb heat in the form of solar infrared radiation. This ability is directly contingent on the molecular vibrations undergone by the particular greeenhouse gas molecule which allow it to absorb and re-emit incident radiation. The particular radiation in this case is also different, namely infrared or heat radiation, as opposed to ultraviolet. (Which has a much shorter wavelength).

The other side of the problem of too little education, is too much mis-education! The Eos report puts the blame for this on "climate myths and misinformation that are perpetuated by a small but vocal group of politicians and climate change skeptics."

It adds:

"Relative to climate experts, the skeptics have an unreasonable large platform in the media and on web sites"

The web site pathology is understandable, because the blogosphere is replete with wild speculations and skepticism about a whole range of fare. The media is more difficult to countenance, since by now NO skeptic ought to be permitted a platform to spiel his nonsense and especially in the interest of a pseudo-objectivity - being paired off vs. a serious climate expert. This should no more be permitted than allowing a Holocaust denier to pair off against a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz. There is no equivalence here, and it isn't a matter of "free speech". The denier has no basis at all to have his spurious voice heard! (And in Germany and Austria would be locked up for expressing these views).

But American corporate media, so obsessed as they are with the "crossfire" and fight syndrome, are always interested more in charging up a dust up than getting the truth out.

This is sad, because the way things are, students often retain their misconceptions "even after focused instruction on the topic". And this was despite the fact that students' depth of understanding of the greenhouse effect increased, e.g. during courses given on climate change.

This resistance suggests they've been infected by a mind virus and its disinfection likely requires more rigorous methods than mere counter teaching them the actual scientific evidence and data.

Another undertaking suggested for experts by the authors, is to formulate a compilation of "accepted explanations" which can serve as the minimal knowledge students can be expected to have. Such accepted explanations will also dampen the variations of emphasis and cause that many students are subject to, when they do hear or see actual climate experts...such as Michael Mann, and others. They will also come to understand that environmental activists like Patrick Moore, a former Canadian Greenpeace Foundation president and now a global warming critic, are not real climate experts or climate scientists. such discrimination of sources will enable students to pay more attention to the real experts and less to the hobbyists or others who claim to be experts.

Once more, the best web site source for information and news from real climate experts is:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Meanwhile, the Table from the Eos report with examples of student misconceptions is shown.