Ozone depletion describes two distinct but related phenomena observed since the late 1970s: a

steady decline of about 4% in the total volume of ozone in Earth's stratosphere (the ozone layer),

and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone around Earth's polar regions.[1] The
latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. In addition to these well-known stratospheric
phenomena, there are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events.

The details of polar ozone hole formation differ from that of mid-latitude thinning but the most
important process in both is catalyticdestruction of ozone by atomic halogens.[2] The main source of
these halogen atoms in the stratosphere is photodissociation of man-
made halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing
agents (CFCs, HCFCs, freons, halons). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by
winds after being emitted at the surface.[3] Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase
as emissions of halocarbons increased.

CFCs and other contributory substances are referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

Since the ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths (280–315 nm) of ultraviolet light (UV
light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere, observed and projected decreases in ozone
generated worldwide

e concern, leading to adoption of the Montreal Protocol that bans the production of CFCs, halons,
and other ozone-depleting chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethane. It is
suspected that a variety of biological consequences such as increases in sunburn, skin
cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic
zone may result from the increased UV exposure due to ozone depletion.

Ozone cycle overview[edit]

Three forms (or allotropes) of oxygen are involved in the ozone-oxygen cycle: oxygen atoms (O or
atomic oxygen), oxygen gas (O
2 or diatomic oxygen), and ozone gas (O
3 or triatomic oxygen). Ozone is formed in the stratosphere when oxygen molecules photodissociate
after intaking an ultraviolet photon whose wavelength is shorter than 240 nm. This converts a
single O
2 into two atomic oxygen radicals. The atomic oxygen radicals then combine with separate O
2 molecules to create two O
3 molecules. These ozone molecules absorb UV light between 310 and 200 nm, following which
ozone splits into a molecule of O
2 and an oxygen atom. The oxygen atom then joins up with an oxygen molecule to regenerate
ozone. This is a continuing process that terminates when an oxygen atom "recombines" with an
ozone molecule to make two O
2 molecules.

2 O
3 → 3 O
2

The overall amount of ozone in the stratosphere is determined by a balance between photochemical
production and recombination.

Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radical catalysts, the most important of which are
the hydroxyl radical (OH·), nitric oxide radical (NO·), chlorine atom (Cl·) and bromine atom (Br·). The
dot is a common notation to indicate that all of these species have an unpaired electron and are thus
extremely reactive. All of these have both natural and man-made sources; at the present time, most
of the OH· and NO· in the stratosphere is of natural origin, but human activity has dramatically
increased the levels of chlorine and bromine. These elements are found in certain stable organic
compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which may find their way to the stratosphere
without being destroyed in the troposphere due to their low reactivity. Once in the stratosphere, the
Cl and Br atoms are liberated from the parent compounds by the action of ultraviolet light, e.g.

CFCl
3 + electromagnetic radiation → Cl· + ·CFCl
2

The Cl and Br atoms can then destroy ozone molecules through a variety of catalytic cycles. In the
simplest example of such a cycle,[4] a chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule, taking an oxygen
atom with it (forming ClO) and leaving a normal oxygen molecule. The chlorine monoxide (i.e., the
ClO) can react with a second molecule of ozone (i.e., O
3) to yield another chlorine atom and two molecules of oxygen. The chemical shorthand for these
gas-phase reactions is:

 Cl· + O
3 → ClO + O
2: The chlorine atom changes an ozone molecule to ordinary oxygen

 ClO + O
3 → Cl· + 2 O
2: The ClO from the previous reaction destroys a second ozone molecule and recreates the
original chlorine atom, which can repeat the first reaction and continue to destroy ozone.
The overall effect is a decrease in the amount of ozone, though the rate of these processes can be
decreased by the effects of null cycles. More complicated mechanisms have been discovered that
lead to ozone destruction in the lower stratosphere as well.

The ozone cycle

Global monthly average total ozone amount.

Lowest value of ozone measured by TOMS each year in the ozone hole.

A single chlorine atom would keep on destroying ozone (thus a catalyst) for up to two years (the time
scale for transport back down to the troposphere) were it not for reactions that remove them from
this cycle by forming reservoir species such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) and chlorine nitrate (ClONO
2). On a per atom basis, bromine is even more efficient than chlorine at destroying ozone, but there
is much less bromine in the atmosphere at present. As a result, both chlorine and bromine contribute
significantly to overall ozone depletion. Laboratory studies have shown that fluorine and iodine
atoms participate in analogous catalytic cycles. However, in the Earth's stratosphere, fluorine atoms
react rapidly with water and methane to form strongly bound HF, while organic molecules containing
iodine react so rapidly in the lower atmosphere that they do not reach the stratosphere in significant
quantities.

On average, a single chlorine atom is able to react with 100,000 ozone molecules before it is
removed from the catalytic cycle. This fact plus the amount of chlorine released into the atmosphere
yearly by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) demonstrates how
dangerous CFCs and HCFCs are to the environment.[5][6]

Observations on ozone layer depletion[edit]

The most-pronounced decrease in ozone has been in the lower stratosphere. However, the ozone
hole is most usually measured not in terms of ozone concentrations at these levels (which are
typically a few parts per million) but by reduction in the total column ozone above a point on the
Earth's surface, which is normally expressed inDobson units, abbreviated as "DU". Marked
decreases in column ozone in the Antarctic spring and early summer compared to the early 1970s
and before have been observed using instruments such as the Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer (TOMS).[7]
Reductions of up to 70% in the ozone column observed in the austral (southern hemispheric) spring
over Antarctica and first reported in 1985 (Farman et al.) are continuing. Since the 1990s, Antarctic
total column ozone in September and October continued to be 40–50% lower than pre-ozone-hole
values.[1] In the Arctic, the amount lost is more variable year-to-year than in the Antarctic. The
greatest Arctic declines, up to 30%, are in the winter and spring, when the stratosphere is coldest.

Reactions that take place on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) play an important role in enhancing
ozone depletion.[8] PSCs form more readily in the extreme cold of the Arctic and Antarctic
stratosphere. This is why ozone holes first formed, and are deeper, over Antarctica. Early models
failed to take PSCs into account and predicted a gradual global depletion, which is why the sudden
Antarctic ozone hole was such a surprise to many scientists.[citation needed]

In middle latitudes, it is more accurate to speak of ozone depletion rather than holes. Total column
ozone declined to about 6% below pre-1980 values between 1980 and 1996 for the mid-latitudes of
35–60°N and 35–60°S. In the northern mid-latitudes, it then increased from the minimum value by
about 2% from 1996–2009 as regulations took effect and the amount of chlorine in the stratosphere
decreased. In the Southern Hemisphere's mid-latitudes, total ozone remained constant over that
time period. In the tropics, there are no significant trends, largely because halogen-containing
compounds have not yet had time to break down and release chlorine and bromine atoms at tropical
latitudes.[1][9]

Ozone depletion also explains much of the observed reduction in stratospheric and upper
tropospheric temperatures.[10][11] The source of the warmth of the stratosphere is the absorption of UV
radiation by ozone, hence reduced ozone leads to cooling. Some stratospheric cooling is also
predicted from increases in greenhouse gases such as CO
2 and CFCs themselves; however the ozone-induced cooling appears to be dominant.[12]

Predictions of ozone levels remain difficult, but the precision of models' predictions of observed
values and the agreement among different modeling techniques have increased rapidly and steadily.
[1]
 The World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report
No. 44 comes out strongly in favor of the Montreal Protocol, but notes that a UNEP 1994
Assessment overestimated ozone loss for the 1994–1997 period.[13]

Chemicals in the atmosphere[edit]

CFCs and related compounds in the atmosphere[edit]

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogenated ozone depleting substances (ODS) are mainly
responsible for man-made chemical ozone depletion. The total amount of effective halogens
(chlorine and bromine) in the stratosphere can be calculated and are known as the equivalent
effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC).[14]
CFCs were invented by Thomas Midgley, Jr. in the 1920s. They were used in air conditioning and
cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1970s, and in the cleaning processes of
delicate electronic equipment. They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No
significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds—their presence in the
atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned above, when such ozone-
depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release
chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and each can break down tens of thousands of
ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC
molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an
average of about five to seven years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it
can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during
that time.[15][verification needed].

1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane, also known as CFC-113a, is one of four man-made chemicals

newly discovered in the atmosphere by a team at the University of East Anglia. CFC-113a is the only
known CFC whose abundance in the atmosphere is still growing. Its source remains a mystery, but
illegal manufacturing is suspected by some. CFC-113a seems to have been accumulating unabated
since 1960. Between 2010 and 2012, emissions of the gas jumped by 45 percent.[16][17]

Ozone depletion and global warming[edit]

Main article: Ozone depletion and global warming

Among others, Robert Watson had a role in the science assessment and in the regulation efforts
of ozone depletion and global warming.[27] Prior to the 1980s, the EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and
the British government had dissenting scientific reports and Watson played a crucial role in the
process of unified assessments. Based on the experience with the ozone case, the IPCC started to
work on a unified reporting and science assessment[27] to reach a consensus to provide the IPCC
Summary for Policymakers.

There are various areas of linkage between ozone depletion and global warming science:
Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sources.

 The same CO
2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[107] This
cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O
3) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes.[108]
 Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are
two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation,
thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere
emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling
dominates; the IPCC concludes "observed stratospheric O
3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere
system"[10] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2).[109]
 One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.
[107]
 Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in
the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling.
However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from theNational
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that
above 20 km (12 mi), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[110]
 As noted under 'Public Policy', ozone depleting chemicals are also often greenhouse gases.
The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m2 of radiative
forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the
concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.[109]
 The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and
testing take decades to document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant
paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone were hypothesized in the 1980s,
published in the late 1990s, and are currently being investigated. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul
 Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using computational modeling
methods to model ozone destruction, that accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further
refinement of that model accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the
estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years. (An important part of that
model is the lack of stratospheric flight due to depletion of fossil fuels.)

Misconceptions[edit]
CFC weight[edit]
Since CFC molecules are heavier than air (nitrogen or oxygen), it is commonly believed that the
CFC molecules cannot reach the stratosphere in significant amount.[111]However, atmospheric gases
are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind can fully mix the gases in the atmosphere. Lighter CFCs
are evenly distributed throughout theturbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere,[112] although some
of the heavier CFCs are not even distributed.[113]

Percentage of man-made chlorine[edit]

Sources of Stratospheric Chlorine

Another misconception is that "it is generally accepted that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine
are four to five times larger than man-made ones." While strictly true, tropospheric chlorine is
irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that affects ozone depletion. Chlorine from ocean spray is
soluble and thus is washed by rainfall before it reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are
insoluble and long-lived, allowing them to reach the stratosphere. In the lower atmosphere, there is
much more chlorine from CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in
the stratosphere halocarbons are dominant.[114] Only methyl chloride, which is one of these
halocarbons, has a mainly natural source,[115] and it is responsible for about 20 percent of the chlorine
in the stratosphere; the remaining 80% comes from man made sources.

Very violent volcanic eruptions can inject HCl into the stratosphere, but researchers[116] have shown
that the contribution is not significant compared to that from CFCs. A similar erroneous assertion is
that soluble halogen compounds from the volcanic plume of Mount Erebus on Ross Island,
Antarctica are a major contributor to the Antarctic ozone hole.[116]

First observation[edit]
G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when
springtime ozone levels in the Antarctic over Halley Bay were first measured in 1956, he was
surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, or about 150 DU below spring Arctic levels of ~450 DU.
These were at that time the only known Antarctic ozone values available. What Dobson describes is
essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the
150–100 DU range.

The discrepancy between the Arctic and Antarctic noted by Dobson was primarily a matter of timing:
during the Arctic spring ozone levels rose smoothly, peaking in April, whereas in the Antarctic they
stayed approximately constant during early spring, rising abruptly in November when the polar
vortex broke down.

The behavior seen in the Antarctic ozone hole is completely different. Instead of staying constant,
early springtime ozone levels suddenly drop from their already low winter values, by as much as
50%, and normal values are not reached again until December.[117]

Location of hole[edit]
Some people thought that the ozone hole should be above the sources of CFCs. However, CFCs
are well mixed globally in the troposphere and stratosphere. The reason for occurrence of the ozone
hole above Antarctica is not because there are more CFCs concentrated but because the low
temperatures help form polar stratospheric clouds.[118] In fact, there are findings of significant and
localized "ozone holes" above other parts of the earth.[119]

World Ozone Day[edit]

In 1994, the United Nations General Assembly voted to designate September 16 as "World Ozone
Day", to commemorate the signing of the Montreal Protocol on that date in 1987.

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer". Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010 (PDF). World Meteorological Organization. 2011.
Retrieved March 13, 2015.
2. Jump up^ "Part III. The Science of the Ozone Hole". Retrieved 2007-03-05.
3. Jump up^ Andino, Jean M. (October 21, 1999). "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier
than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to
adversely affect it?". Scientific American.
 4. Jump up^ Newman, Paul A. "Chapter 5: Stratospheric Photochemistry Section 4.2.8 ClX
catalytic reactions". In Todaro, Richard M. Stratospheric ozone: an electronic textbook. NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch.
5. Jump up^ "Stratospheric Ozone Depletion by Chlorofluorocarbons (Nobel Lecture)—
Encyclopedia of Earth". Eoearth.org. Retrieved 2011-03-28.
6. Jump up^ Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
7. Jump up^ "The Ozone Hole Tour: Part II. Recent Ozone Depletion". Atm.ch.cam.ac.uk.
Retrieved2011-03-28.
8. Jump up^ U.S. EPA: Ozone Depletion. epa.gov
9. ^ Jump up to:a b "Myth: Ozone Depletion Occurs Only In Antarctica". EPA. 2006-06-28.
Retrieved2011-03-28.
10. ^ Jump up to:a b "Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis". Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Work Group I. 2001. pp. Chapter 6.4 Stratospheric Ozone.
11. Jump up^ 2008 News, Briefs, and Features. NASA
12. Jump up^ "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis". UNEP.
13. Jump up^ Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 1998 – Preface. Esrl.noaa.gov.
Retrieved on 2012-12-21.
14. Jump up^ Newman, P. A., Daniel, J. S., Waugh, D. W., Nash, E. R.; Daniel; Waugh; Nash
(2007)."A new formulation of equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC)". Atmos. Chem.
Phys. 7 (17): 4537–52. doi:10.5194/acp-7-4537-2007.
15. Jump up^ "chlorofluorocarbons". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2011-03-28.
16. Jump up^ Laube, Johannes C.; Mike J. Newland, Christopher Hogan, Carl A. M.
Brenninkmeijer, Paul J. Fraser, Patricia Martinerie, David E. Oram, Claire E. Reeves, Thomas
Röckmann, Jakob Schwander, Emmanuel Witrant, William T. Sturges; Hogan, Christopher;
Brenninkmeijer, Carl A. M.; Fraser, Paul J.; Martinerie, Patricia; Oram, David E.; Reeves, Claire E.;
Röckmann, Thomas; Schwander, Jakob; Witrant, Emmanuel; Sturges, William T. (9 March
2014). "Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere". Nature Geoscience 7 (4):
266. doi:10.1038/ngeo2109. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
17. Jump up^ McGrath, Matt. "Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer".
BBC. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
18. Jump up^ Nash, Eric; Newman, Paul (September 19, 2001). "NASA Confirms Arctic Ozone
Depletion Trigger". Image of the Day. NASA. Retrieved April 16, 2011.

Research history[edit]
See also: Ozone-oxygen cycle

The basic physical and chemical processes that lead to the formation of an ozone layer in the
Earth's stratosphere were discovered by Sydney Chapman in 1930. Short-wavelength UV radiation
splits an oxygen (O
2) molecule into two oxygen (O) atoms, which then combine with other oxygen molecules to form
ozone. Ozone is removed when an oxygen atom and an ozone molecule "recombine" to form two
oxygen molecules, i.e. O + O
3 → 2O
2. In the 1950s, David Bates and Marcel Nicolet presented evidence that various free radicals, in
particular hydroxyl (OH) and nitric oxide (NO), could catalyze this recombination reaction, reducing
the overall amount of ozone. These free radicals were known to be present in the stratosphere, and
so were regarded as part of the natural balance—it was estimated that in their absence, the ozone
layer would be about twice as thick as it currently is.

In 1970 Paul Crutzen pointed out that emissions of nitrous oxide (N

2O), a stable, long-lived gas produced by soil bacteria, from the Earth's surface could affect the
amount ofnitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere. Crutzen showed that nitrous oxide lives long enough
to reach the stratosphere, where it is converted into NO. Crutzen then noted that increasing use
of fertilizers might have led to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions over the natural background,
which would in turn result in an increase in the amount of NO in the stratosphere. Thus human
activity could have an impact on the stratospheric ozone layer. In the following year, Crutzen and
(independently) Harold Johnston suggested that NO emissions from supersonic passenger aircraft,
which would fly in the lower stratosphere, could also deplete the ozone layer. However, more recent
analysis in 1995 by David W. Fahey, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, found that the drop in ozone would be from 1 to 2% if a fleet of 500
supersonic passenger aircraft were operated.[84] This, Fahey expressed, would not be a showstopper
for advanced supersonic passenger aircraft development.[85]
Rowland–Molina hypothesis[edit]
In 1974 Frank Sherwood Rowland, Chemistry Professor at the University of California at Irvine, and
his postdoctoral associate Mario J. Molina suggested that long-lived organic halogen compounds,
such as CFCs, might behave in a similar fashion as Crutzen had proposed for nitrous oxide. James
Lovelock had recently discovered, during a cruise in the South Atlantic in 1971, that almost all of the
CFC compounds manufactured since their invention in 1930 were still present in the atmosphere.
Molina and Rowland concluded that, like N
2O, the CFCs would reach the stratosphere where they would be dissociated by UV light, releasing
chlorine atoms. A year earlier, Richard Stolarski and Ralph Cicerone at the University of Michigan
had shown that Cl is even more efficient than NO at catalyzing the destruction of ozone. Similar
conclusions were reached by Michael McElroy and Steven Wofsy at Harvard University. Neither
group, however, had realized that CFCs were a potentially large source of stratospheric chlorine—
instead, they had been investigating the possible effects of HCl emissions from the Space Shuttle,
which are very much smaller.

The Rowland–Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and
halocarbon industries. The Chair of the Board of DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone depletion
theory is "a science fiction tale ... a load of rubbish ... utter nonsense".[86] Robert Abplanalp, the
President of Precision Valve Corporation (and inventor of the first practical aerosol spray can valve),
wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland's public statements.[87] Nevertheless,
within three years most of the basic assumptions made by Rowland and Molina were confirmed by
laboratory measurements and by direct observation in the stratosphere. The concentrations of the
source gases (CFCs and related compounds) and the chlorine reservoir species (HCl and ClONO
2) were measured throughout the stratosphere, and demonstrated that CFCs were indeed the major
source of stratospheric chlorine, and that nearly all of the CFCs emitted would eventually reach the
stratosphere. Even more convincing was the measurement, by James G. Anderson and
collaborators, of chlorine monoxide (ClO) in the stratosphere. ClO is produced by the reaction of Cl
with ozone—its observation thus demonstrated that Cl radicals not only were present in the
stratosphere but also were actually involved in destroying ozone. McElroy and Wofsy extended the
work of Rowland and Molina by showing that bromine atoms were even more effective catalysts for
ozone loss than chlorine atoms and argued that the brominated organic compounds known
as halons, widely used in fire extinguishers, were a potentially large source of stratospheric bromine.
In 1976 the United States National Academy of Sciences released a report concluding that the
ozone depletion hypothesis was strongly supported by the scientific evidence. Scientists calculated
that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10% per year until 1990 and then
remain steady, CFCs would cause a global ozone loss of 5 to 7% by 1995, and a 30 to 50% loss by
2050. In response the United States, Canada and Norway banned the use of CFCs in aerosol spray
cans in 1978. However, subsequent research, summarized by the National Academy in reports
issued between 1979 and 1984, appeared to show that the earlier estimates of global ozone loss
had been too large.[88]

Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on
stratospheric ozone.

Antarctic ozone hole[edit]

The discovery of the Antarctic "ozone hole" by British Antarctic
Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (first reported in a paper in Nature in May 1985[89])
came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far
larger than anyone had anticipated.[31] Satellite measurements showing massive depletion of ozone
around the south pole were becoming available at the same time. However, these were initially
rejected as unreasonable by data quality control algorithms (they were filtered out as errors since the
values were unexpectedly low); the ozone hole was detected only in satellite data when the raw data
was reprocessed following evidence of ozone depletion in in situ observations.[55] When
the software was rerun without the flags, the ozone hole was seen as far back as 1976.[90]

Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), proposed that chemical reactions on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) in the cold Antarctic
stratosphere caused a massive, though localized and seasonal, increase in the amount of chlorine
present in active, ozone-destroying forms. The polar stratospheric clouds in Antarctica are only
formed when there are very low temperatures, as low as −80 °C, and early spring conditions. In such
conditions the ice crystals of the cloud provide a suitable surface for conversion of unreactive
chlorine compounds into reactive chlorine compounds, which can deplete ozone easily.
Moreover, the polar vortex formed over Antarctica is very tight and the reaction occurring on the
surface of the cloud crystals is far different from when it occurs in atmosphere. These conditions
have led to ozone hole formation in Antarctica. This hypothesis was decisively confirmed, first by
laboratory measurements and subsequently by direct measurements, from the ground and from
high-altitude airplanes, of very high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (ClO) in the Antarctic
stratosphere.[91]

Alternative hypotheses, which had attributed the ozone hole to variations in solar UV radiation or to
changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, were also tested and shown to be untenable.[citation needed]

Meanwhile, analysis of ozone measurements from the worldwide network of ground-based Dobson
spectrophotometers led an international panel to conclude that the ozone layer was in fact being
depleted, at all latitudes outside of the tropics.[9] These trends were confirmed by satellite
measurements. As a consequence, the major halocarbon-producing nations agreed to phase out
production of CFCs, halons, and related compounds, a process that was completed in 1996.

Since 1981 the United Nations Environment Programme, under the auspices of the World
Meteorological Organization, has sponsored a series of technical reports on theScientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion, based on satellite measurements. The 2007 report showed that the
hole in the ozone layer was recovering and the smallest it had been for about a decade.[92] The 2010
report found, "Over the past decade, global ozone and ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is
no longer decreasing but is not yet increasing. The ozone layer outside the Polar regions is
projected to recover to its pre-1980 levels some time before the middle of this century. In contrast,
the springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is expected to recover much later."[93] In
2012, NOAA and NASA reported "Warmer air temperatures high above the Antarctic led to the
second smallest season ozone hole in 20 years averaging 17.9 million square kilometres. The hole
reached its maximum size for the season on Sept 22, stretching to 921.2 million square
kilometres."[94]

The hole in the Earth's ozone layer over the South Pole has affected atmospheric circulation in the
Southern Hemisphere all the way to the equator.[95] The ozone hole has influenced atmospheric
circulation all the way to the tropics and increased rainfall at low, subtropical latitudes in the
Southern Hemisphere.

Arctic ozone hole[edit]

On March 15, 2011, a record ozone layer loss was observed, with about half of the ozone present
over the Arctic having been destroyed.[96][97][98] The change was attributed to increasingly cold winters
in the Arctic stratosphere at an altitude of approximately 20 km (12 mi), a change associated with
global warming in a relationship that is still under investigation.[99] By March 25, the ozone loss had
become the largest compared to that observed in all previous winters with the possibility that it would
become an ozone hole.[100] This would require that the quantities of ozone to fall below 200 Dobson
units, from the 250 recorded over central Siberia.[100] It is predicted that the thinning layer would affect
parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on March 30–31.[100]

On October 2, 2011, a study was published in the journal Nature, which said that between
December 2010 and March 2011 up to 80% of the ozone in the atmosphere at about 20 kilometres
(12 mi) above the surface was destroyed.[101] The level of ozone depletion was severe enough that
scientists said it could be compared to the ozone hole that forms over Antarctica every winter.
[101]
 According to the study, "for the first time, sufficient loss occurred to reasonably be described as
an Arctic ozone hole."[101] The study analyzed data from the Aura and CALIPSO satellites, and
determined that the larger-than-normal ozone loss was due to an unusually long period of cold
weather in the Arctic, some 30 days more than typical, which allowed for more ozone-destroying
chlorine compounds to be created.[102] According to Lamont Poole, a co-author of the study, cloud
and aerosol particles on which the chlorine compounds are found "were abundant in the Arctic until
mid March 2011—much later than usual—with average amounts at some altitudes similar to those
observed in the Antarctic, and dramatically larger than the near-zero values seen in March in most
Arctic winters".[102]

Tibet ozone hole[edit]

As winters that are colder are more affected, at times there is an ozone hole over Tibet. In 2006, a
2.5 million square kilometer ozone hole was detected over Tibet.[103] Also again in 2011 an ozone
hole appeared over mountainous regions of Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai and the Hindu Kush, along with
an unprecedented hole over the Arctic, though the Tibet one is far less intense than the ones over
the Arctic or Antarctic.[104]

Potential depletion by storm clouds[edit]

Research in 2012 showed that the same process that produces the ozone hole over Antarctica
occurs over summer storm clouds in the United States, and thus may be destroying ozone there as
well.[105][106]