Greenhouse gases to overpower ozone hole

Nov 02, 2011 By Alvin Stone

(PhysOrg.com) -- One set of human-created gases is starting to relinquish its hold on Antarctic climate as another group of emissions produced by human activity is starting to take hold, according to a paper in Nature Geoscience, co-authored by ARC Laureate Fellow Professor Matthew England, co-director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre.

The review paper highlights how the influence on Southern Hemisphere climate of the Antarctic ozone hole is slowly dissipating and will be progressively overtaken by human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide and other .

Research into the ozone hole has shown that it has had a profound impact on Southern Hemisphere climate. This has directly affected rainfall, and temperatures over an area that ranges from Antarctica to the mid-latitude regions of the Southern Hemisphere.

"Our study shows how ozone depletion over the past three to four decades has had a marked impact on Antarctic and Southern ,” says Professor England, who is also a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

“However, this will shortly be overwhelmed by the influence of greenhouse gases."

The ozone hole has significantly transformed the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which sets the latitude of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream and storm track, and has a profound influence on the oceans.

The ozone-induced changes in the SAM have been linked to cooler than average temperatures over East Antarctica and higher than normal summer temperatures over Patagonia and the northern Antarctic Peninsula.

Further north, it has been identified as leading to higher mountain-related rainfall on the eastern side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps and the south east coast of Tasmania. At the same time this has led to less over western Tasmania and west of New Zealand’s Southern Alps and higher than normal summer temperatures in New Zealand.

As the influence of the ozone hole on the SAM decreases and greenhouse gases increase, dramatic shifts in climate are expected across Antarctica and many regions of the mid-latitude the .   

" was an unintended consequence of global CFC emissions during the 20th Century, with pervasive impacts on our climate system,” Professor England said.

“This highlights how human activity can strongly alter atmospheric chemistry and how this, in turn, impacts the Earth’s radiation balance; altering natural systems now and into the future.

“Unfortunately, carbon dioxide resides in the atmosphere for many hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, unlike CFCs that decline over just decades.  So, while the ozone hole will repair over the coming decades, the legacy of our emissions of is still likely to be felt 1,000 years from now”.

Explore further: Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

More information: Paper online: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1296.html

Related Stories

Professor foresees rising Antarctic snowmelt

Dec 03, 2009

The 30-year record low in Antarctic snowmelt that occurred during the 2008-09 austral summer was likely due to concurrent strong positive phases for two main climate drivers, ENSO (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) and SAM ...

Study Finds Clock Ticking Slower On Ozone Hole Recovery

Jun 30, 2006

The Antarctic ozone hole's recovery is running late. According to a new NASA study, the full return of the protective ozone over the South Pole will take nearly 20 years longer than scientists previously expected.

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Apr 18, 2014

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 14

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eachus
1 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011
I wish I could believe that Professor England was misquoted, unfortunately the global warming mafia don't want some of the real numbers in circulation. The current net carbon budget shows that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. (True) I actually conclude that this is more dangerous to humans than the global warming fanatics. However, when you look at the global carbon budget, the average residence of carbon in the atmosphere is less than one year. How long would it take for the atmospheric CO2 levels to return to "normal" if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning was reduced to zero? Good question. But the answer is definitely less than a century, since atmospheric CO2 levels vary by about 1% over the course of a year.

(Flame Retardant: Note what I said, current global CO2 levels are dangerous to humans like you and me. But through direct health consequences which are much more of a threat than global warming, whether anthropocentric or not.)
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2011
a
plaasjaapie
2 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2011
The Warmists are really getting hysterical.
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2011
Like there really even is an "ozone hole"....
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2011
Like there really even is an "ozone hole"....

There is at the poles.
Cave_Man
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011
Like there really even is an "Earth"

Some people should be confined to non-science sites.

Earth's Circumference at the Equator: 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 km)

Assuming you're poor as heck like me you have ~175-200k miles on your car (even if you dont how many miles have you driven in the last decade)

So that means we all could have driven around the planet, assuming you have a hover car, roughly 8 times.

Tell me a billion people doing that wont alter the planet on a global scale.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2011
OF course there is an Ozone hole, I just read the first 3 posts and thought that it was "post something rediculous day" on Physorg...
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2011
@eachus,
the average residence of carbon in the atmosphere is less than one year
The average residence of a human on this planet is about 70 years. Does that mean the planet will be devoid of human life by 2081? Probably not, since humans tend to procreate. Analogously, CO2 *circulates*, in a *carbon cycle*. Carbon gets taken up by plants, then gets eaten by animals and bacteria, and finally respired/belched back out into the atmosphere. That's why you get this:
CO2 levels vary by about 1% over the course of a year
This is because north and south hemispheres are not balanced with respect to photosynthesis-capable biomass, so seasonal variations show up. These indicate CYCLICAL processes. Natural sequestration of excess carbon takes a couple thousand years.
the global warming mafia don't want some of the real numbers in circulation
No, you just don't understand what the numbers MEAN, so you use the wrong numbers in the wrong context and then blame the world.
Cave_Man
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
OF course there is an Ozone hole, I just read the first 3 posts and thought that it was "post something rediculous day" on Physorg...


I know, I just borrowed some of your sarcasm, you can have it back now if you like
Who_Wants_to_Know
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2011
ROFLMAO!! Except, gee, considering when we first began regular measurements of the ozone hole, we've no idea if it has been there all along and is natural to begin with rather than caused or enlarged significantly by man made CFCs. Then, for all the man-made CFC reduction, not only has the Antarctic ozone hole not decreased, but now there's the most unprecedented hole over the Arctic.

But sure, man is responsible for everything under the sun and the sun itself, and, golly, it's worse than we thought, be alarmed, run away and give away all your money and power in the process!

Far too many scientists no longer deserve the name - they're clearly not performing anything that passes for the scientific method - and the media and alarmists are clearly warming up (no pun intended) for the upcoming global hysteria summit/vacation.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
we've no idea if it has been there all along and is natural to begin with
Wrong.

http://en.wikiped...zone.jpg

Ignorance is NOT bliss. Willful ignorance is the mark of a true idiot. Be an idiot, or educate yourself. Your choice:

http://en.wikiped...epletion
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
The eminent scientist Rush Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

So do not be concerned, we can all relax knowing that ozone depletion has no negative effects and is simply fiction.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2011
Pinkelephant replied:

Wrong. http://en.wikiped...zone.jpg Ignorance is NOT bliss. Willful ignorance is the mark of a true idiot. Be an idiot, or educate yourself. Your choice


Gee Pink, you need to lay off the booze. Your first link proved my point, that the CFC ban hasn't helped and the ozone hole(s) have gotten worse rather than better. Both of your links were from the notoriously incorrect wikipedia. Finally, your last link doesn't address the issue of whether the ozone hole has always been there or not.

Try taking your own advice - the first satellite measurements of ozone began in the 70's, but there wasn't any sort of comprehensive worldwide measurement until 1978, and no Antarctic image until 1980.

At this point, we've got NO way of knowing whether the ozone hole is completely natural with a long term cyclical nature just as exists with so many other natural phenomena.

So, take your own advice, and perhaps you'll see a few less pink elephants.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
Your first link proved my point, that the CFC ban hasn't helped and the ozone hole(s) have gotten worse rather than better.
I don't use booze, so stop projecting. The link proves the point that the CFC ban stopped the deterioration of the ozone layer, which has been holding fairly steady since the 90's. Without the CFC ban, that curve would've continued plummeting to 0.
Both of your links were from the notoriously incorrect wikipedia.
Standard bullshit non-point for those who have no facts to back them up. Wikipedia, however, does have facts to back it up. Sources are cited for all the graphs, but if you're too lazy to look them up while suspecting the veracity of the claims, that's not Wikipedia's fault. Stop blaming Wikipedia for your own shortcomings.
Finally, your last link doesn't address the issue of whether the ozone hole has always been there or not.
No, my first link did that. My last link offered you a chance to learn the subject matter. FAIL.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.