Here is a live map (that will initially be the same) for comparison to the static map in the posting below:
For some time now I’ve been watching the Ozone Deviation Map from this site:
And much of the time when I’ve checked it, during the last couple of years, there would be a couple of bright yellow or sometimes red spots up near the North Pole that were near each other but not touching, and a bland South Pole, often with a low level. Now we’ve got the opposite. Two bright red spots at the South Pole, and a bland North Pole.
My interpretation had been that Birkeland Current from the sun was landing on the North Pole and making the spots (and also preventing the ozone from depleting at the North Pole during the winter absence of UV which makes Ozone). But now….
On this graph as I type:
There are a couple of areas of low ozone at the North Pole, but strong variations on the south. That’s what I used to see on the opposite pole before. Here is a quasi-representative map selected from 1998 (but with a really strong “ozone hole” over the south pole):
So, OK, what does this mean? Nothing? Who knows what? That the Birkeland Current has swapped polarity? That we’re going to get an Ozone Hole at the North Pole? That I ‘randomly’ sampled on a too small biased basis as I was just browsing? That a day by day look is prone to wild meaningless swings and we need annual average maps?
I don’t have nearly enough information to reach any kind of conclusion, but it looks like an interesting question.
It will certainly be very interesting to watch this Southern Hemisphere winter to see if we have No Ozone Hole…
Sidebar on Ozone and Models
I suspect that the Ozone Depletion scare was the model on which the AGW scare was built. There are curious similarities. For example, from this paper:
we have a long discussion of the evils of ozone depletion along with references to the implications of various “ozone depleting” gases to the GHG scenarios. So what do we find in the middle of it? A chart in Figure 13 purporting to show the increase in such gases over time with a nice, if minor, hockey stick shape. And the kicker is the description:
Values from the late 1980s on are derived from actual measurements. Earlier values are estimates derived from related meteorological information by a statistical model.
To me, it looks more like a bad graft of a statistically flattened averaged shaft to a measured rolling cyclical pattern during an upturn for the blade. They do a nice job of cherry picking starting points to fit trend lines to show scary increases in slope, though…
Update 7 March 2011
Just adding a couple of maps for further data points. First up is an average of Ozone (not the deviation, actual ozone levels) for February 2011. Notice that Ozone level is quite high, up where it’s supposed to be dark in winter… so if UV isn’t making that Ozone, what is?
Solar UV output is ‘way down’ and we see fairly low ozone levels around the entire equator (where one would expect solar UV to be quite high) but with ‘hot spots’ over the North high latitude areas that have quite high levels. From day to day and month to month the location of those “ozone eyes” changes, but they tend to be a persistent effect.
Here is “March 1998 Average” actual ozone so you can see what the typical pattern has been:
And for comparision, here is the current “live map” of “all ozone”:
Which at the moment has “three eyes” in the Northern Hemisphere. Something I’ve not noticed before…