Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

It's ozone

What the science says...

Multiple satellite measurements and ground-based observations have determined the ozone layer has stopped declining since 1995 while temperature trends continue upwards.

Climate Myth...

It's ozone
The Ozone Layer stops UV radiation from entering our atmosphere. As the ozone layer has been declining in recent decades, that may be causing global warming.

Multiple satellite measurements and ground-based observations have determined the ozone layer has stopped declining since 1995 (Yang 2005) while temperature trends continue upwards.

Antarctic ozone hole minimum
Figure 1: Antarctic ozone minimum (Atmoz).

Last updated on 26 June 2010 by John Cook.

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 12:

  1. This is another case of folks expecting everything to be simultaneous. Since temperature is a reflection primarily of ACCUMULATED joules in the oceans and planet, leading to a buildup of water vapour in the air, there is no reason to ever suspect that the peak of anything else would match to the hour the peak of temperature.

    Ozone is thought to be a strong greenhouse gas. But thats far less relevant then its blocking potential for UV since that affects joules punched directly into the oceans.

    So if industrial chemicals were destroying ozone there is the very real potential for less ozone to account for part of the alleged 1978-2000 divergence between solar irradiation trends and global temperatures.
  2. A decline in ozone levels has a direct effect on the removal mechanism of methane from the atmosphere.

    Ozone is split by UV and the O atom combines with H to form hydroxyl radical OH. Methane reacts with the hydroxyl radical producing a methyl radical which bonds with another hydroxyl radical to produce formaldehyde.

    Formaldehyde reacts with hydroxyl radicals forming carbon dioxide and water vapor.

    You could summarise the reactions into:

    (3)CH4 + (4)O3 = (3)CO2 + (6)H2O

    Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere
  3. „while temperature trends continue upwards” - I don’t see it. And I looking in: the 1996-2008 period ( see for example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part1/)) GISS , HadCRUT, UAH_MSU and RSS_MSU - cumulative seasonal differences temperature. The trends is reverse, not upwards, but same decreased or = 0, ± as exactly the ozone trend.

    All arguments for “It's the ozone…” are on: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm. About UV radiation on the Earth surface, decide a ozone concentration with lover stratosphere, so temperature in this layer (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg - it’s same different than above-mentioned Figure).
  4. Nice. I asked everyone to give me the latest ozone graph and nobody says anything. Then I find it here on same site!
    Did you notice the upward trend since 1998? We or on the road back up the hill - but true - it is going slowly.Unfortunately the damage done by the CFC's must not be underestimated. But we are going up. I am confident that this will result in more of the sun's radiation being blocked. The CO2 going up will also help!~
  5. The second link (to science.nasa) for the quoted JGR paper works no more, its abstract is here. A fully accessible link to the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006 might replace it - or directly its Questions and Answers (2 MB).

    Re#3: For rising temperatures see e.g. here.
    Response: I've updated the broken link, thanks for the heads up.
  6. I wonder how the above chart explains the current ozone hole in the arctic ...
    Response:

    [DB] Actually, the chart does nothing to explain Arctic ozone holes, as the chart above deals with the Antarctic. :)

    The Arctic ozone hole that formed this winter (2010/2011) was primarily due to prolonged cold in the stratosphere during the long Arctic winter:

    "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"

    This NOAA page does an excellent job differentiating between the Antarctic and Arctic ozone depletions.

    Note that stratospheric cooling is an expected effect of AGW...

  7. OK - so it's the cold rather than a drop in CFCs?
    Or, maybe it's due to the cold, period(?).
  8. Shibui,

    The ozone hole is a result of both the cold and CFCs.

    The abnormally cold stratosphere allows the formation of clouds, which serves as a catalyst for the destruction of ozone. The reaction also requires chlorine, which is supplied by CFCs.
  9. Ian,
    Thank you.
    The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area ...
  10. Shibui - Note that a cooling stratosphere is one of the fingerprints of greenhouse gas increases. The troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools, as heat is increasingly kept lower in the atmosphere.

    A cooling stratosphere is entirely expected given current forcings.
  11. KR - Yes. Science of Doom concurs, but only just :)...

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
  12. Shibui,

    The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area ...

    The abnormally cold arctic stratosphere this spring is attributed to a lack of polar vortex disruption (which is turn is a result of weak planetary waves). The strong vortex keeps the arctic stratospheric air isolated, allowing it to cool sufficiently to form clouds.

    As the stratosphere continues to cool due to an increase in green house gas, it'll be interesting to see if this occurs more frequently.

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us