Ozone hole over the Arctic for the first time.

[ivanm]

• Tweet

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44749022/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001


Scientists report ozone hole over the Arctic for the first time

By Wynne Parry Senior writer


updated 10/2/2011 3:52:01 PM ET

The high atmosphere over the Arctic lost an unprecedented amount of its protective ozone earlier this year, so much that conditions echoed the infamous ozone hole that forms annually over the opposite side of the planet, the Antarctic, scientists say.

"For the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as an Arctic ozone hole," write researchers in an article released online Sunday by the journal Nature.

Some degree of ozone loss above the Arctic, and the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole, are annual events during the poles' respective winters. They are driven by a combination of cold temperatures and lingering ozone-depleting pollutants. [North vs. South Poles: 10 Wild Differences]

The reactions that convert less reactive chemicals into ozone-destroying ones take place within what is known as the polar vortex, an atmospheric circulation pattern created by the rotation of Earth and by cold temperatures. This past winter and spring saw an unusually strong polar vortex and an unusually long cold period.

This year's record vortex persisted over the Arctic from December to the end of March, and the cold temperatures extended down to a remarkably low altitude, the researchers write.

At altitudes of about 11 to 12 miles (18 to 20 kilometers), more than 80 percent of the ozone present in January had been chemically destroyed by late March.

The same dynamics create the infamous ozone hole over Antarctica. But above the South Pole, ozone is essentially completely removed from the lower stratosphere ever year. Above the North Pole, however, ozone loss is highly variable and has, until now, been much more limited, according to an international research team led by Gloria Manney of the California Institute of Technology.

Countries agreed to end their production of the substances ultimately responsible for destruction of the ozone in 1987 with the Montreal Protocol. However, these pollutants, including chlorofluorocarbons, still linger in the atmosphere. The ozone situation is expected to improve in the coming decades as atmospheric levels of these chemicals decline.

On Earth's surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere, it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space. Ultraviolet rays can damage DNA and lead to skin cancer and other problems.

Global warming is implicated in the loss of Arctic ozone because greenhouse gases trap energy lower down, heating up the atmosphere nearer the ground but cooling the stratosphere, creating conditions conducive to the formation of the reactive chemicals that break apart the three-oxygen molecules of ozone.

[ivanm]

"Countries agreed to end their production of the substances ultimately responsible for destruction of the ozone in 1987 with the Montreal Protocol. However, these pollutants, including chlorofluorocarbons, still linger in the atmosphere. The ozone situation is expected to improve in the coming decades as atmospheric levels of these chemicals decline. "

I wonder if there is a natural process that destroys these substances, like binding with othe elements to make them harmless to the atmosphere.

It seems that we have had new refrigerants for at least two decades. 

[johnhp]

"Countries agreed to end their production of the substances ultimately responsible for destruction of the ozone in 1987 with the Montreal Protocol. However, these pollutants, including chlorofluorocarbons, still linger in the atmosphere. The ozone situation is expected to improve in the coming decades as atmospheric levels of these chemicals decline. "

I wonder if there is a natural process that destroys these substances, like binding with othe elements to make them harmless to the atmosphere.

It seems that we have had new refrigerants for at least two decades. 

If something natural ate the ozone wouldn't it have eaten it away long ago?

[ivanm]

If something natural ate the ozone wouldn't it have eaten it away long ago?

I was speaking of the harmful substances such as refrigerants. Maybe I did not make myself  clear.

I find this green background to be very annoying.

[johnhp]

i think that this is just another consequence of industrialization without thinking about the environment.  It is something we can address.

[ivanm]

i think that this is just another consequence of industrialization without thinking about the environment.  It is something we can address.

Agree, but I am afraid the inititative will have to be taken by groups without public support.  Maybe we cannot do anything about global warming but do we wait several more decades to discover that we should have been trying to do something about it?

It is like shouting in the wind john as this thing has been turned into a political football.  Bigoted conservatives would rather choke on the fumes than admit that maybe we can make a difference by changes in our lifestyles, particularly the way we use energy.

Consider this, which is in the long run would be better for our health.  I like my beef and other cuts of meat too, but the darned stuff keeps gooing up my arteries.  A large percentage of the crops that are grown are fed to livestock to make meat, milk, eggs, and other food and fiber products.  Billions upon billlions of dollars are spent on humongous machines that gulp fuel and belch smoke, and on fertilizer made from NG.  We can put our limited resources to better use and can live healthier and longer if we just cut down on our meat and dairy
consumption. 

We then could use the resources that are being devoted to growing food for livestock to make renewable energy supplies, with the premise that growing a renewable feedstock for fuel consumes some of the CO2 that we produce when we oxidize the fuel.

Which brings up another point. If we can learn to utilize fuel without running having to burn it or to oxidize it then we can avoid the byproducts of combustion such as CO2 and other gases that are harmful to the atmosphere. There are a number of ways that this can be done such as feeding NG or hydrogen to a fuel cell to produce electrical power.  The combustion of hydrogen, by the way, is a very clean way to use energy as it produces little in the way of harmful emission.

In closing, the technology is in place and what is lacking is the incentive and the will to have a cleaner energy system. But when the issue becomes politicized then there is little chance for any progress to be made.  What is it going  to take to jar the bigots out of their ivory mansions and see the need for change?  Maybe another oil embargo might help to spur things along?

[johnhp]

Ivan that is the problem with political defeatism.  You want to see how to change politics?  Support the folks in occupy wall street.

[ivanm]

Ivan that is the problem with political defeatism.  You want to see how to change politics?  Support the folks in occupy wall street.

Market forces are gradually bringing about the needed change in our fuel habits.  I think that may be the only politically acceptable way that will endure. When it becomes economically not feasible to continue burning gasoline,  for example, then folks will adapt to other ways of getting around.

[johnhp]

Market forces are gradually bringing about the needed change in our fuel habits.  I think that may be the only politically acceptable way that will endure. When it becomes economically not feasible to continue burning gasoline,  for example, then folks will adapt to other ways of getting around.

How big will the hole have to get before you understand that market forces are addressing the issue too slowly?

[Sassy]

AHHHHH!  MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[dustup]

Someone slimed the board!   

[ivanm]

Someone slimed the board!   

Those darned greens are at it again. 

[ivanm]

How big will the hole have to get before you understand that market forces are addressing the issue too slowly?

I see your point john, but I doubt the entrenched special interest groups such as big oil, the farm bloc, and others who stand to gain from maintaining the status quo will budge an inch on their positions, unless they see a chance to make a buck from change.

Too many legislators are in the pockets of the big lobby groups to give up the largesse they enjoy on the side, like staying in office.

People like the Wall Street protestors complain  that corporate America has too big of an influence on policy, and they may be right,
but a politician will think twice before taking them to task because too many people are dependent upon the corps for their jobs.

I think the average voter is at a disadvantage over a strong lobby group unless he organizes politically and is part of a strong and unified voice.  In this issue, for example, there are probably as many for change as ther are against it, and the basis of those who oppose change
is inadequate info. or even mis information .

I have always said to err on the side of caution with this issue as long as it is done in a way that doesn't work to the hardship of special groups, and by that I am not speaking of competition.  The natural gas utilities fought change for decades, but in time when electrical power became more competitive they loosened up.  I still think their stinkin' NG is much too high, but here in this part of the country it is best to have at least some sort of space heating powered by NG as a backup in case we lose due to severe weather like ice storms that  knock out the electrical power, sometimes for days on end.

 I have installled two free standing space heaters, which are enough to keep the pipes from freezing, and have a propane camp stove that we do light cooking with when the power is off.  I also have a 10 HP generator, which makes about 5500 watts of power, to run the furnaces, the freezer, and other critical appliances.

So what is my point?  If people had fuel cells that can run off of NG, and they are available in a basic state, then a house could be relatively storm proof when it comes to energy needs. Why?  NG service is very dependable here in the cold areas because the distribution lines are buried deep enough to keep them from freezing up like they do in the Dallas area when it is unusually cold.

[johnhp]

I see your point john, but I doubt the entrenched special interest groups such as big oil, the farm bloc, and others who stand to gain from maintaining he status quo will budge an inch on their positions, unless they see a chance to make a buck from change.

Too many legislators are in the pockets of the big lobby groups to give up the largesse they enjoy on the side, like staying in office.

People like the Wall Street protestors complain  that corporate America has too big of an influence on policy, and they may be rigtht,
but a politician will think twice before taking them to task because too many people are dependent upon the corps for their jobs.

That is why you need mass movements to force political change.  Real political change.