The Ozone Hole: It’s Still Up There, Changing Oceans, Maybe Climate

The ozone hole—the thinning of ozone in the lower stratosphere above Antarctica—has changed the way that waters in the Southern Ocean mix. And that has the potential to change how much CO2 the ocean sequesters from the atmosphere. Hence the course of global climate change. This according to a new paper in Science.

“This may sound entirely academic, but believe me, it’s not,” said lead author Darryn Waugh at Johns Hopkins’ Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. “This matters because the southern oceans play an important role in the uptake of heat and carbon dioxide, so any changes in southern ocean circulation have the potential to change the global climate.”

Map of local rates of sea level rise due to ocean heating below 4000m (colors and black numbers) for deep ocean basins. Also included is the rate from 1000-4000m warming (magenta) for the Southern Ocean (south of magenta line): via NOAA PMEL

The Southern Ocean has warmed at roughly twice the rate of the global mean ocean over the past few decades (even in its deep waters, map above), with some 40 percent of the anthropogenic carbon in the oceans entering south of 40°S. The authors write:

Southern ocean ventilation is driven primarily by the [prevailing] westerly winds, which have strengthened and shifted poleward over recent decades, primarily as a consequence of Antarctic stratospheric ozone depletion. Modeling studies suggest that this has caused changes in the ocean’s overturning circulation and carbon uptake.

Thermohaline circulation (aka the “ocean conveyer”) showing overturning circulation (aka deep water formation): Avsa via Wikimedia Commons

The overturning circulation, as I’ve written before (here and here and here), plays a big part in global climate. The places where the overturning circulation (also known as deep water formation) occur—just a few spots in the high latitudes—are being closely monitored for changes.

For the research reported in this paper, the authors used water samples collected in the Southern Ocean in the early 1990s and resampled again in the the middle and late 2000s. They measured chlorofluorocarbon-12, or CFC-12. That’s the ozone-killing stuff that was first produced commercially in the 1930s for use in aerosols, refrigerants, and air conditioners, and which grew rapidly in the atmosphere until the 1990s when it was phased out by the Montreal Protocol. It’s been useful to oceanographers ever since as a tracer for measuring water movements over time.

Comparing CFCs in the 1990s versus 2000s samples, the researchers were able to infer changes in how rapidly surface waters have mixed into the depths. They knew that concentrations of CFCs at the ocean surface increased in tandem with those in the atmosphere. So they were able to surmise that the higher the concentration of CFC-12 deeper in the ocean, the more recently those waters were at the surface.

What they found was younger than expected waters in the subtropics and older than expected waters further south. These findings correlate to observed intensification of surface westerly winds driven primarily by the Antarctic ozone hole. Which suggests that dwindling  ozone in the stratosphere is the primary cause of the observed changes in ocean circulation.

As stratospheric ozone recovers, the circulation may recover too. But there are other factors at work here. The authors conclude: 

As stratospheric ozone recovers over the next 40 to 60 years, the recent trend of intensifying summer westerly winds may slow or reverse. However, continued increases in greenhouse gases will likely lead to strengthened westerlies during other seasons. The integrated impact of these trends in Southern Hemisphere westerlies on the ocean’s ventilation and uptake of heat and anthropogenic carbon is an open question.

 

We don’t hear so much about the ozone hole as we did in the 1990s. But that doesn’t mean it’s going away anytime soon. The video (above) by the American Museum of Natural History animates projections for a slow recovery.

The ozone layer if CFCs hadn’t been banned, progression by decade. Dark blue indicates zero ozone: Goddard Space Flight Center Visualization Studio

And this series of images (above) show projections of what might have become of global stratospheric ozone if we hadn’t curbed our emissions through the Montreal Protocol. Dark blue indicates zero ozone.

The paper:

  • Darryn W. Waugh, Francois Primeau, Tim DeVries, Mark Holzer. Recent Changes in the Ventilation of the Southern Oceans. Science (2013). DOI:10.1126/science.1225411

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate