Ozone Hole Gone

Can I have my R-12 back now, please?

IMHO, the “Ozone Hole” has gone away. At best, it’s now a “chaotic density” pattern. More likely, it’s just packed up and left town. To me, the ozone pattern does not look at all like a diffuse atmospheric phenomenon from a set of ‘well mixed gasses’ and it looks a whole lot more like something being driven by external forces. UV from the sun, Birkeland Currents from the sun, perhaps even cosmic ray variations.

Why do I say this? Look at these two maps of the South Pole view of Ozone. First up is the 16th of May, then the 17th of May, 2011. In particular, notice that the “deviation” is, on average, about nil. There are a couple of spots a bit high, and a couple a bit low, net nil.

Second off, notice how rapidly the concentrations of Ozone change in the “hot spots” by the next day. The one near New Zealand is almost gone. Overnight. Things changing that fast are not due to a gas that takes 50 years to diffuse to the upper atmosphere. They are due to flux changes of some highly rapidly changing thing. “Southern Lights” particles from space. Birkeland currents. UV blocked by clouds. Whatever. But not a “well diffused gas” with a 50 years residency time…

Ozone Dev SP 16 May 2011

Ozone Dev SP 16 May 2011

Ozone Dev SP 17 May 2011

Ozone Dev SP 17 May 2011

Any other interesting graphs?

Here is the “May Mean” total ozone from the “climatology” (i.e. history) data:

Ozone Total SP Mean May

Ozone Total SP Mean May

Compare that to the Total Ozone graphs:

Ozone Total SP 16 May 2011

Ozone Total SP 16 May 2011

Ozone Total SP 17 May 2011

Ozone Total SP 17 May 2011

Other than being a bit more “mottled” (i.e. not smoothed by averaging together a whole lot of years), thing look just about “normal”.

But the thing that gets me is the gradient. Look at that “hot spot” on the 16th and the nearby “cool spots” off the end of Argentina and in Antarctica. From 250 to 400 range. It is realistic to attribute an almost 50% variation over that space to a “well diffused gas”? And while that N.Z. Hot Spot fades, the tiny ‘warm spot’ in the upper right grows. It gains a higher density gradient spot in the middle and spreads out.

This does not look at all like diffusion chemistry happening. It looks a great deal like “incident energy” happening.

Is it the North Pole?

As one would expect for May, moving closer to the Summer Solstice in about 5 weeks, there is more UV at the North Pole and so, the “normal” is for more Ozone:

Ozone Total NP Mean May

Ozone Total NP Mean May

Our present data look rather close to that normal, but with some “spots”:

Ozone Total NP 16 May 2011

Ozone Total NP 16 May 2011

Ozone Total NP 17 May 2011

Ozone Total NP 17 May 2011

Notice, again, just how fast the density in that “spot” over Canada changes in just one day. While it grows, the one over Siberia shrinks. Yet it was not by diffusion through the lower density between them…

Data Source

This data is from the Canadian Ozone site of Environment Canada.

Here is a live map from that site:

Ozone Anomaly Map

Ozone Anomaly Map

This is a link to the site:


Just not looking like a whole lot of “hole” to me. I’ve saved a copy of what it looks like as I’m saying that here:

Ozone Dev 16 May 2011

Ozone Dev 16 May 2011

Ozone Dev 17 May 2011

Ozone Dev 17 May 2011

And for comparison, here is the current “live map” of “all ozone”:

Daily "All Ozone" Live Map

Daily "All Ozone" Live Map

Sidebar on Quakes

In the prior posting on ozone:


There was a curious coincidence of a ‘hot spot’ over Japan just about the time of their Great Quake. Might one presume that as things are looking particularly quiet now there ought not be much in the way of Great Quakes? I don’t know, but the quake map has been quiet the last couple of days. Lots of yellow, not so much blue, very little red… Here’s a global live map so we can watch a bit…

Current quake map

Current quake map

Original Image, with captions and description. The original is interactive with clickable regions for ‘close ups’.

In Conclusion

IMHO, something interesting is happening to Ozone levels and it has a lot to do with the solar changes, very little to do with freon. The major effects look to be more in line with an electrical or charged particle driven activity and not at all in line with a diffused gas activity.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events, Earth Sciences and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Ozone Hole Gone

  1. Adrian Vance says:

    The “Ozone Hole” was another science myth for money. There is no “ozone shield.” The stuff is made by sunlight all through the atmosphere as gases cannot form reflective or opaque surfaces like liquids and solids. When the South Pole is in darkness no ozone is formed, thus the “hole.” When the sun returns, so does the ozone. It is just that simple.

    For political analysis, science and humor see The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com Now on Kindle.

  2. Level_Head says:

    I remember seeing predictions of how long it would take for the “normal” conditions to be restored; the half-life of CFCs in the atmosphere and so on.

    These have needed to be adjusted, much like Solar Cycle 24 — and possibly for the same reason.

    The subscription emails seem to have stopped, by the way. Anyone else experiencing this?

    ===|==============/ Level Head

  3. gnomish says:

    ontological samurai – it is a pleasure to watch you slice.

  4. David says:

    Interesting research indicating atmosphere heated above Japan before quake…


  5. George says:

    There is no ozone hole at either pole this time of year.

    You will have to look at late winter of both hemispheres, just before Spring arrives. The hole dissipates very quickly in early spring and does not reform again until mid-winter.

    Have a look at the South pole again in August or the North Pole in February.

  6. xyzlatin says:

    It would be interesting to see a history of the whole ozone movement, the scientists involved, the UN etc, to see where it all originated and how it was pushed. Was it a trial run to soften the world (us) for the CO2 scam?

  7. I have seen recently on pseudo science TV (don´t remember if in geography channel or BBC) that it has been recently found that the new refrigerant gases which replaced the older ones are building up new ozone holes, then we are in URGENT NEED of a brand new generation of cooling gases………(perhaps patents are about to expire or are about to expire then poor chemical companies need to keep on receiving royalties).
    BTW Nobody has talked about the recent LYERS´jamboree at the amazon jungle city of Manaus, Brazil, where the ineffable “Al Baby”lectured on “Global Warming”.

  8. Ozone + proton = Water

  9. R. Shearer says:

    I believe it was Susan Solomon, senior scientist at NOAA, who discovered that the ozone hole was due to all of the air travel taken by climate scientists (or something like that).

    Anyway, I also know that among atmospheric chemists there is still a great deal of desire to prove other chemists wrong, almost like competition of theories. Sadly, this is not the case regarding CAGW.

    It clearly is more complicated than Soloman and others have put forth. I’ve faith that one day we will have a better understanding but it’s quite possible that Soloman could win a Nobel prize for her work as the Montreal Protocol is viewed as a great achievement by socialist climate scientists (and socialists in general).

  10. E.M.Smith says:


    Nice thesis. Map doesn’t match it though.


    Ought to give you global ozone deviation for 2007 and 1986. You will find a “hole” in Antarctica in 2007, while 1986 has a bright red excess spot “near” Antarctica… from which there seems to have been an “unfortunate” loss of data… I checked 1980 – 1986 and all of them have that “loss of data” with the high spot “nearby”… Truely an unfortunate accident I’m sure…

    At any rate, if you look through a LOT of the graphs, you find all sorts of “hole” and “non-hole” at all sorts of times of the year…

    This set, of 1999 and 2009, shows a nice modest “hole” of -20 or so in 2009 but a +30 in 1999. Go figure…


    But I suppose one can try to say that the “holes” are just small natural variations… but that was sort of my whole point…

    Just for fun, here is a “June” map:


    Note that 2009 has a nice Ozone Hole in June… at the NORTH pole(!)… while 1999 has almost exactly zero deviation at both poles…

    Here is January for the same years. For 2009, GREAT ozone hole at the North Pole… right next to that giant red +40 spot that lacks any possible explanation via UV or CFCs… but the South pole, well, it’s, er, um,…. about -10 at solar “high noon”…


    But 1999 makes up for it with, oh dear, BACKWARDS holes… It’s got a nice fat ozone low of -20 in Antarctica and the North Pole is a rosy red orange blob….

    In short, ascribing a seasonal pattern is a nice hypothetical, until you start looking at actual maps…

  11. kuhnkat says:

    I would point out that a recent study determined that the Ultraviolet bands were disproportionately reduced by the recent “quiet sun”. Lower incidence of ultraviolet on the upper atmosphere WILL mean less ozone. Expect some ravings about how it will take a long time for it to recover and it really was caused by CFC’s.

    I think the science is pretty solid that CFC’s Do have some effect, but, like CO2, it is not a large effect. Just your basic Junk Science misused for specific agendas.

    “In 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC’s to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light.”


    The problem here is obvious. When the ozone hole is growing and peaking there is NO light, ultraviolet or otherwise!!!! It should also be noted that it takes the very cold temps only found at the poles to cause any acceleration of ozone loss.


    Another issue is that CFC’s were first produced in the 30’s and, with their long atmospheric lifetime, should have been increasing the size of the ozone hole since at least the 60’s, yet, some Brits didn’t see this hole until the early 80’s with a fast decline to about the current levels. Note that the actual loss and speed of loss were much higher and faster than expected. Basically a hypothesis applied to a different issue.

    Interesting article that ties into your observations of non-linear and scattered ozone making a mockery of the models predicting depletion.



    why was he investigating cfc’s??

    Other interesting articles.


    it should be noted that little if any cfc’s are measured in the strat, just chlorine, bromine, HFl… We don’t really know where it comes from unless it is volcanoes!! I would say that this is the smoking gun that NASA was compromised even earlier!! Any one with a good conspiracy theory to explain it??

  12. kuhnkat says:

    Some interesting info on volcanoe quakes in the Phillipines:


  13. P.G. Sharrow says:

    IIRC back when the “ozone hole” was discovered there were several explainations for the cause. After several years this lame CFC cause was put forward and steamrolled over all others. The oceans pump huge amounts of chlorine and bromine into the atmosphere and that has no effect while man produced emissions cause ozone depleation, yeah right. pg

  14. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @Adolfo Giurfa; When I learned the refrigeration trade “FREON” was the new thing that was replacing the old time refrigerants that had been outlawed. F-12 was the exact replacement for isobutane. If the temperature pressure curves and density are correct for the systems engineered requirements, then that gas will work. Now, let’s see, gas lighters use isobutaine…………. ;-) pg

  15. E.M.Smith says:


    You can get Isobutane as camping fuel at backpacking stores. Somewhere I have the “vampire tap” that lets you get it out easily and into the R-12 harness. For several years I ran my Honda on a mix of about 90% iso-butane 10% propane (it gave the right pressures in my particular system). Works fine. Cheap.

    I’ve had folks panic over the fact that is is flamable. There was more fuel in less well sealed containment in the carburettor / fuel pump / lines / gas tank. The gas is “odorized” so any in-the-cabin leak would be detected just like a leak from the original propane tanks / isobutane cans on the drive home from the store…

    As I don’t smoke, I just didn’t see it as much of an issue… and it never was.

    After about a half dozen years on the mix, I got around to letting the mechanic convert the system to R-134a when the compressor eventually gave out (at that point, about 10 years of use on it… Owned the car for 14 years…)

    I’ve also run it in one of my Mercedes for a few years. As of now, though, I think they are all on 134a… Though my son’s BMW is still R-12. Maybe I ought to tell him about isobutane ;-)

    Then again, he’s just over the border from Mexico so can probably get Mexican R-12 pretty cheap…

    At any rate, somewhere in my garage are a couple of cans of R-12 / lubricant mix and a couple of cans of Iso-butane camp stove fuel and the “rig” to use it… (It is fully miscible with R-12, so you can just “top up” as needed with either. No need for any kind of drain / flush process…)

    Oh, and you can use N-Butane mixed with Propane too, but it takes a bit more propane. Something like 20% IIRC. All I did was put in the butane, then add Propane until the gages read the right pressures.

    The first batch I ever did, I took a Propane Torch and took the valve body off the burner head. Filed a ‘notch’ in the end (that pushes the valve in the can) a bit larger so I could get liquid out if desired and higher flow rates in any case. Then took an old empty Propane can and stuck it in an ice / salt bath. I added a lb of butane (that condenses to a liquid at frozen temps, so pulls a vaccume on the line and sucks the source dry). Then topped it up to weight with Propane. Later I didn’t bother with the exact mixing, just reading the target pressures…

    Oh, and FWIW, you can “vampire” the R-12 out of cars that have a load in them, but are kaput engine wize, the same way. Tank in ice bath, attach gage set to AC system… wait patiently… Prior to used the butane / propane mix, I’d move the R-12 between various of my cars as needed. So if one got “a lb low” I could top it up from one that was “going out of service” or I could drain it down before sending it off to the mechanic…

    Thankfully, I don’t need to do any of that any more.

    At the “last ban date” I’d bought a 20 lb bottle of it at COSTCO and that, with the above behaviours, lasted long enough for folks to work out the bugs in the conversion process for R-134a (flush out mineral oil, replace with ester oil…)

    Oh, the joys of being a DIY AC mechanic against my will…

    FWIW, R-22 was a ‘drop in replacement’ for Propane. Thus the higher pressure on a gage set for R-22. Which means that propane is a drop in replacement for R-22 in old refrigerators…

  16. Keith Battye says:

    Thanks for the article, particularly the distribution maps, most informative.

    I wonder how long “science” will be used to intimidate people into specific courses of action?

  17. H.R. says:

    Regarding the sidebar on quakes:

    Given the discussion in the news that someone has predicted the end of the world at around 6:00 pm on Saturday, May 21, and it will be recognized that the end of the world has come by the sign of a massive, massive, MASSIVE earthquake, I figure it’s been quiet because the earth has been saving up for this doomsday quake.

    I’ll have my TV on at that time. Wouldn’t you know that the MSM talking heads will probably have a teaser like

    “End Of The World at 6:00 pm!

    Film at 11:00.”

    ;o) (make that a double winkie)

  18. John F. Hultquist says:

    The largest ever Ozone hole:

    Research “the halogens” and for a source see “ocean.” We’ll have to cover the latter to get rid of the former!

  19. kuhnkat says:


    are there separate areas for total column ozone and stratospheric ozone?? I think you are looking at total column, but, not sure.


    Talks about the Ozonesonde measurements which are separate from the ground based Brewer instruments.

  20. E.M.Smith says:


    Thanks for the links… I’m still working my way through them… (I’ve been busy…)

    If you go to this link:


    You can get maps for the different sources. As near as I can tell the choices are:

    GB (that I presume means Ground Based)

    The only one that looks dramatically different to me is GB, and that looks like it is mostly just the lack of coverage (large areas, especially over water or very remote areas, are simply blank).

    To my eye, “Total” looks more like an average of GOME and KNMI with GB having too sparce a coverage to impact much. But thats just an ‘eyeball estimate’…

    @Keith Battye:

    As long as it works…


    I’m busy all day that day, I’ll have to catch it on the morning news re-runs ;-)

    BTW, did they happen to give a time zone for that date / time? I understand Samoa just swapped sides of the International Dateline… Silly people, now they have one less day to live before The End as now they get to the 21st at the start of it instead of 24 hours later ;-)

    @John F. Hultquist:

    Oh, but that article is from 2006! Nice bit of “nostalgia” that is! So we’ve gone from “worst ever” to “what hole?” in 5 years. Wonder what changed…. Oh, that’s right, the sun…

  21. oMan says:

    Chiefio: great stuff as usual. I was impressed by the rapid shifting of the ozone contour lines in your pix. It certainly supports your argument that a substance with a 50-year “hang time” simply doesn’t behave that way. Would the point be reinforced by an over-mapping of the wind velocities in the polar regions? In the Antarctic, I believe, there are the circumpolar high-velocity winds (“Roaring 40’s”) but over Antarctica proper a much more quiet regime? In which case, the rapid shifting of ozone densities, by many hundreds of klicks overnight, is even more impressive. IMHO.

  22. H.R. says:



    I’m busy all day that day, I’ll have to catch it on the morning news re-runs ;-)

    BTW, did they happen to give a time zone for that date / time?”

    Good question, E.M., and did they take Daylight Savings Time into account?

    I’m not sure their analysis is rigorous enough for this blog. I want to see some links to back up their claim ;o)

  23. Thanks, good question.

    However you hurt yourself by throwing in very brief speculation on a different topic – earthquakes.

  24. E.M. This does not look at all like diffusion chemistry happening. It looks a great deal like “incident energy” happening.
    Those nasty protons again, making water out from our dear Ozone!

  25. E.M.Smith says:

    @Keith Sketchley:

    It never hurts to indulge in speculation when it is clearly stated as an “I don’t know” question. Curiousity is the seed from which all truth and wisdom grows. What hurts is to kill that seed as it tries to spout…


    I think it’s pretty clearly not a wind effect as the dominant shapes of the pattern hold static. It’s just a density shift inside that static frame…


    Did you catch the end of the world on tape? I seem to have missed it and I’d like to get a copy if I can …


    It IS an interesting question of “what particles are there”…

    Do you know of any source or reference for the notion that the particle stream (hypothesized) that might be making those spots might be made of protons? I just am not that “up” on what is in the Birkeland Currents vs the Helio-sheath vs the Southern & Northern Lights vs….

    So if we can show it’s not GCR’s but protons, that would be very nice to know.

  26. kuhnkat says:

    This alternative climate theory contains an interesting theory on stratospheric ozone destruction.


  27. E.M.Smith:

    My simple point is that popping in very brief speculation on a different subject is not good practice.

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    @Keith Sketchley:

    But it isn’t a different subject. Vukcevic found an anomaly over Japan before the quake. Others have found things like “heating anomalies” before the quake.


    There is enough indicia of “something odd, possibly” to justify putting a live chart of quakes in so folks can see if it is or is not connected.

    It is a very interesting question and so quite reasonable to include the needed tool to let folks see what happens if they are interested and save them some page clicks.

    If you want to believe you already have the answer to that question (presumably that there is no connection between electrical, seismic, heating of air events) you can simply not look at the graph.

    Or you can look at it, see disjoint behaviours, and cite it as proof of your prior knowing…

  29. Pingback: Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s.. - Page 6 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Comments are closed.