From the Harvard University news service and the what are they smoking department, comes this suggestion that apparently it never was ozone damaging CFC refrigerants at all, it was those nasty thunderstorms wot done it. They say:
“Recent studies have suggested that the number and intensity of such storms are linked to climate changes…which could in turn lead to increased ozone loss and greater levels of harmful UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, and potentially higher rates of skin cancer.”
I have a pretty hard time believing this one, because, well, it’s like Rube Goldberg machine construct where lots of things have to happen to get the end result of skin cancer, plus, there’s a “could” spanner thrown into the works. I did a search for data on global thunderstorm frequency and found what I think is the basis for the claim:
Changes in severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing Robert J. Trapp, Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Harold E. Brooks, Michael E. Baldwin, Eric D. Robinson , and Jeremy S. Pal Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 25, 2007 PNAS
They say in the notes: Based on a compilation of data from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center and the U.S. National Weather Service Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml) from 2000 to 2004
As anyone knows, four years does not a climatic trend make, and I could not find anything else that might be relevant. But there is a proxy for thunderstorms; tornadoes. Without strong thunderstorms, tornadoes don’t happen.
While the USA is not the world, it does have the most extensive and complete tornado database, and it suggests no upward trend in tornadic thunderstorms at all in the last 60 years:
UPDATE: Chip Knappenberger adds in comments: From Hicke et al., 2008, Trends and interannual variability in surface UVB radiation over 8 to 11 years observed across the United States, JGR (available here):
“Our study illustrates that, using a well-calibrated instrument record, the 10 years beginning around 1995 did not show significant trends in surface UVB irradiance at stations across the United States.”
Sooo, I think the leaps of logic in this paper are Olympic class ones.
Climate concerns
Harvard researchers find link between climate change, ozone loss and possible increase in skin cancer incidence
For decades, scientists have known that the effects of global climate change could have a potentially devastating impact across the globe, but Harvard researchers say there is now evidence that it may also have a dramatic impact on public health.
As reported in a paper published in the July 27 issue of Science, a team of researchers led by James G. Anderson, the Philip S. Weld Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, are warning that a newly-discovered connection between climate change and depletion of the ozone layer over the U.S. could allow more damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, leading to increased incidence of skin cancer.
In the system described by Anderson and his team, water vapor injected into the stratosphere by powerful thunderstorms converts stable forms of chlorine and bromine into free radicals capable of transforming ozone molecules into oxygen. Recent studies have suggested that the number and intensity of such storms are linked to climate changes, Anderson said, which could in turn lead to increased ozone loss and greater levels of harmful UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, and potentially higher rates of skin cancer.
“If you were to ask me where this fits into the spectrum of things I worry about, right now it’s at the top of the list,” Anderson said. “What this research does is connect, for the first time, climate change with ozone depletion, and ozone loss is directly tied to increases in skin cancer incidence, because more ultraviolet radiation is penetrating the atmosphere.”
Unfortunately, Anderson said, we don’t know how this process will evolve over time.
“We don’t know what the development of this has been – we don’t have measurements of this deep convective injection of water into the stratosphere that go back in time,” Anderson said.
“But the best guide for the evolution of this is to look at the research that connects climate change with severe storm intensity and frequency, and it’s clear that there is a developing scientific case that the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is increasing climate change, and in turn driving severe storm intensity and frequency.”
While it’s impossible to know how many skin cancer cases may be related to ozone depletion over the U.S., the link between ozone loss and increased incidence of the disease has been extensively studied, Anderson said.
“There has been a major effort by the medical community to define the relationship between decreases in ozone and the subsequent increases in skin cancer,” he said. “The answer is quite clear – if you multiply the fractional decrease in ozone protection by about three, you get the increase in skin cancer incidence. There are 1 million new skin cancer cases in the U.S. annually – it’s the most common form of cancer, and it’s one that’s increasing in spite of all the medical research devoted to it.”
But it isn’t only humans who have to worry about the effects of increased UV radiation.
Many crops, particularly staple crops grown for human consumption – such as wheat, soybeans and corn – could suffer damage to their DNA, Anderson said.
Ironically, Anderson said, the discovery that climate change might be driving ozone loss happened virtually by accident.
Though they had worked since the mid-1980s to investigate ozone depletion in the Arctic and Antarctic, by the early-2000s, Anderson’s team had turned their attention to climate studies. In particular, they were working to understand how the convective clouds – updrafts that cause storms to build high into the sky – contribute to the creation of cirrus clouds.
“It was in the process of looking at that mechanism that we came to this unexpected observation – that the convective clouds in these storm systems over the U.S. are reaching far deeper into the stratosphere that we ever expected,” Anderson said.
While earlier tests performed in the Arctic had demonstrated that water vapor was a key component in creating the “free-radical” compounds that break down ozone, Anderson said the latest finding is much more troubling, because it suggests the process can happen at much higher temperatures than initially suspected.
“The bottom line is that if you increase the water vapor concentration, you actually increase the threshold temperature for executing this chemical conversion – from the stable forms of chlorine to the free radical form,” Anderson said. “If the amount of water vapor and the temperature over the U.S. satisfies the conditions for rapid conversion of inorganic chlorine to this free-radical form, we’ve got a real problem, because the chemistry is identical to what we previously demonstrated is taking place over the Arctic.”
Also surprising, he added, was the realization that, to throw water vapor high into the atmosphere, storms needn’t be unusually large.
“We have hundreds of measurements world-wide addressing the photochemical structure controlling ozone, but only a limited number of flights over the U.S. in summer,” he said. “The flights were studying average storms over the middle-west, and of the 20 observations we made over the U.S., about half demonstrated significant penetration into the stratosphere,” he said.
The next step in the research, Anderson said, is to conduct a series of tests to confirm whether the free-radical form of chlorine and bromine are present in the stratosphere at significantly elevated levels in the presence of convectively-injected water vapor.
“In my mind, this is not just a broad public health issue,” Anderson said. “This is about actually being able to step out into the sunlight – it’s about your children and your children’s health. Of course, we don’t know how rapidly the frequency and intensity of these storms will increase, so we can’t place a time scale on this problem, but the core issue here is quite straightforward and simple, because we understand this chemistry.”
Predictably, The New York Times has covered this, not questioning the conclusions at all:
Storms Threaten Ozone Layer Over U.S., Study Says
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
Strong summer storms that pump water high into the upper atmosphere pose a threat to the protective ozone layer over the United States, researchers said on Thursday, adding that the risk of damage may increase as the climate warms.
h/t to Harold Ambler at Talking About the Weather
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Is it me or a lot of these papers full of coulds and maybes followed by a ‘more research is necessary’?
If your initial research was so poorly constructed why should we give you any more of our money?
Radiate forcing gives increased thunderstorms. Would that be an acknowledgement of negative feedback by any chance?
Interesting, the host’s take on this. Anthony introduces with a minimum of analysis, then prints the piece and allows it to fall flat on its face. I read the whole thing and didn’t see a single thing that would cause me to feel fear, certainly nothing that would prevent from leaving the house (my vehicle ceasing to run is my greatest fear there). All I saw was the typical “woulda/maybe/coulda” that we always see in these kinds of pronouncements.
Endless invention. Artistic creativity these days resides in “climate science”. Expressionism, impressionism, pointillism, it all runs together nowadays. What a show.
“There has been a major effort by the medical community to define the relationship between decreases in ozone and the subsequent increases in skin cancer,” he said. “The answer is quite clear – if you multiply the fractional decrease in ozone protection by about three, you get the increase in skin cancer incidence. There are 1 million new skin cancer cases in the U.S. annually – it’s the most common form of cancer, and it’s one that’s increasing in spite of all the medical research devoted to it.”
It’s going to awkward when they start to realize that it’s the UVB that prevents skin and other cancers… It’s called vitamin D. Of course, if you do it right…
I would think that widespread vitamin D deficiency is the root cause but it’s going to take 20-40 years for them to admit it like everything else.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the ozone layer significantly higher than the highest thunderstorm (100+ miles vs. 10 miles)? Don’t see any correlation or measureable interaction between the two. Is this another attempt to ban CFC’s? What were these guys smoking, and how can I get some?
Bill
From Hicke et al., 2008, Trends and interannual variability in surface UVB radiation over 8 to 11 years observed across the United States, JGR (available here):
“Our study illustrates that, using a well-calibrated instrument record, the 10 years
beginning around 1995 did not show significant trends in surface UVB irradiance at
stations across the United States.”
-Chip
It must be officially called “global climate change” now. Their behaving like a company of cowboy builders, every time they’re work is shown to be of poor standard and not fit for purpose they change the name of their company and continue with the same terrible quality of work.
Same S*** different name!
I don’t suppose the “depletion of the ozone layer over the U.S”. could be related in any way to current sunspot numbers? Mssrs. Anderson et al might wish to check that out…
*”They’re” NOT “Their”.
sorry long day 🙂
Bill Yarber,
This page shows it to be centered at about 25 km (~15 Mi.)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Of course, most of the ozone depeletion occurs in early spring, so all those ozone-depletion-induced cancers will have to occur in tropical climates….oh wait.
Seriously, WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?
They’re smart, right? Okay, okay, I can hear some chortling over there in the corner, but these really are intelligent people pushing non-intelligent claims. You’d think they’d twig that the whole CAGW claim is seriously crumbling and when it collapses it will have serious earth-shattering repercussions for all those still clinging to the scam. Switching sides earlier would be smarter than leaving it to the last minute and showing themselves as late bloomers, or worse, being too late and wearing political and criminal egg on their face for the rest of their lives.
Gee, I suppose if they hang in there for that extra dollar, it’ll help with their defense trials. Don’t leave it too long, CAGW guys and gals, have your bags packed and be ready to jump across with your “We knew all along it was a scam” lines. Sheesh!
What they’re saying is it’s still our fault. It isn’t our CFC.s that did it, though, it is our air conditioned SUVs and Big Oil life style. They never tire of that meme.
Have they included in their analysis any studies on how many people are more active outside than in the past? At my age, I do things outside that my parents never dreamed of doing at the same age. And wasn’t there a study about 1-2 months ago about sunscreen causing sun cancer, I only heard it did not read it.
Don’t large scale storms produce high voltage discharges that create ozone? They always focus on the negative.
Its hard to sell research without a healthy dose of doom.
The tornado data simply demolishes this. More “pal review” at Science. Had I been sent the paper for review that would have been my first comment–and probably just about anyone else with a smidgen of skepticism would have done the same. You can bet that Science chose their reviewers to avoid this.
beesaman says:
July 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Is it me or a lot of these papers full of coulds and maybes followed by a ‘more research is necessary’?
If your initial research was so poorly constructed why should we give you any more of our money?
___________________________________
Because it is the Headline and MSM doing the chicken little dance you are paying for and not real research. By having the research continue you can keep the headlines coming. CAGW scientists have played the game for forty years
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ~ H. L. Mencken
And there you have the real reason for federal grant money… IT’s WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT! (snicker)
I wish you wouldn’t include these ridiculous articles, it literally gets me ill. These people are like malevalent children. And they’re everywhere. There’s no hope. I just get sick to my stomach. But thanks so much for what you do.
Friends:
I am surprised at this resurrection of the nonsensical claim that significant increase to UV at the surface would result from depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer.
This claim was a popular scare a decade ago until it was debunked. Indeed, back then Greenpeace claimed that sheep in Argentina were being blinded by exposure to enhanced UV as a result of the Antarctic ozone hole: in fact the sheep were being blinded by sharp grass piercing their eyes.
Ozone exists all the way from the stratosphere down to the surface. Deplete the ozone in the stratospheric layer and UV absorbtion would increase at lower altitudes so negligible difference to UV flux at the surface would occur.
An attempt to start a health scare on the basis of possible stratospheric ozone depletion is as daft as the attempts to start scares about possible ocean acidification, possible peak oil, and possible fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Richard
“But the best guide for the evolution of this is to look at the research that connects climate change with severe storm intensity and frequency, and it’s clear that there is a developing scientific case that the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is increasing climate change, …”
A developing scientific case? I thought it was settled. 🙂
“It was in the process of looking at that mechanism that we came to this unexpected observation – that the convective clouds in these storm systems over the U.S. are reaching far deeper into the stratosphere that we ever expected,”
And thus, far deeper into the stratosphere than the current models account for. How much of the radiative forcing assumed for CO2 is countered by this negative convection feedback?
It’s based on Kerry Emmanuel’s (note he is one of the authors) crackpot theory that a mass extinction was caused by a “supercane” enhanced by something that raised the sea surface temperatures, transported water vapor into the stratosphere, and depleted the Ozone layer, and the UV exposure killed almost everything. I saw him spewing this bizarre convoluted theory on the either the Discovery Channel or The History Channel a few years ago (probably the History Channel, fits in really well with their regular bits about Nazi-Space Alien Technology (As a crackpot theory! Not calling anyone a Nazi!) or stuff like that). He was the “expert” they brought in to offer this wild-eyed theory. So now he is applying this craziness to the present? Holy Crap!
Sioned L says:
July 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm
… And wasn’t there a study about 1-2 months ago about sunscreen causing sun cancer, I only heard it did not read it.
_________________________
YES
Study Suggests That Sunscreen Could Cause Skin Cancer
I just make sure I introduce myself to the sun gradually to get a decent tan in the spring and use long pants, a long sleeve shirt and a hat otherwise. (The southerners think I am nuts but I do not get sunburn or bug bites) I also make sure I get enough sun that I do not have to worry about Vit D3 but that is no real problem on a farm in the south.
You would think people would have a bit more common sense.
I seem to recall that all this ozone stuff started with the ‘hole’ over the Antarctic? No recognition of the fact that the size fluctuated with the season, and the presence of a huge CFC generator – Mt Erebus.
I once made a device that was intended to be a negative ion generator, but it went a bit wrong and was apparently generating ozone. They can have that if they like.
Since the human increment to CO2 is not causing any substantial amount of warming, there is no concern that human behavior presents any significant risk by this mechanism, even if it isn’t a total crock.
Coauthor Kerry Emanuel is a pretty good indicator for poor science.
Heh, pretty good chance that last comment didn’t make it…
[Oh? Robt]