First, a clarification; while the AGU calls it an “ozone hole”, it technically isn’t. As NASA says here, it really isn’t a “hole” in the true sense of the word, it is simply a region of reduced O3 concentration that periodically changes in size, shape, and density. -Anthony
Ozone hole might slightly warm planet
AGU Release No. 13-39
WASHINGTON, DC—A lot of people mix up the ozone hole and global warming, believing the hole is a major cause of the world’s increasing average temperature. Scientists, on the other hand, have long attributed a small cooling effect to the ozone shortage in the hole.
Now a new computer-modeling study suggests that the ozone hole might actually have a slight warming influence, but because of its effect on winds, not temperatures. The new research suggests that shifting wind patterns caused by the ozone hole push clouds farther toward the South Pole, reducing the amount of radiation the clouds reflect and possibly causing a bit of warming rather than cooling.
“We were surprised this effect happened just by shifting the jet stream and the clouds,” said lead author Kevin Grise, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York City.
Grise notes this small warming effect may be important for climatologists trying to predict the future of Southern Hemisphere climate.
The work is detailed in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. Grise collaborated on the study with Lorenzo Polvani of Columbia University, George Tselioudis of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Yutian Wu of New York University, and Mark Zelinka of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Hole in the sky
Each ozone molecule consists of three oxygen atoms bound together. These ozone molecules gather in the lower portion of the stratosphere about 20 to 30 kilometers (12 to 19 miles) above the ground—about twice as high as commercial airliners fly.
Thankfully for the living things below, this layer of ozone shields Earth from some of the hazardous ultraviolet radiation barraging the atmosphere. Unchecked, these ultraviolet rays can cause sunburns, eye damage and even skin cancer.
In the 1980s, scientists discovered thinning of the ozone layer above Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere’s spring months. The cause of this “hole” turned out to be chlorofluorocarbons, such as Freon, from cooling systems, aerosols cans and degreasing solvents, which break apart ozone molecules. Even though the1987 Montreal Protocol banned these chlorofluorocarbons worldwide, the ozone hole persists decades later.
Many people falsely equate the ozone hole to global warming. In a 2010 Yale University poll, 61 percent of those surveyed believed the ozone hole significantly contributed to global warming. Additionally, 43 percent agreed with the statement “if we stopped punching holes in the ozone layer with rockets, it would reduce global warming”.
An actual consequence of the ozone hole is its odd effect on the Southern Hemisphere polar jet stream, the fast flowing air currents encircling the South Pole. Despite the ozone hole only appearing during the spring months, throughout each subsequent summer the high-speed jet stream swings south toward the pole.
“For some reason when you put an ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere during springtime, you get this robust poleward shift in the jet stream during the following summer season,” said Grise. “People have been looking at this for 10 years and there’s still no real answer of why this happens.”
Cloud reflection
The team of scientists led by Grise wondered if the ozone hole’s impacts on the jet stream would have any indirect effects on the cloud cover. Using computer models, they worked out how the clouds would react to changing winds.
“Because the jet stream shifts, the storm systems move along with it toward the pole,” said Grise. “If the storm systems move, the cloud system is going to move with it.”
High- and mid-level clouds, the team discovered, traveled with the shifting jet stream toward the South Pole and the Antarctic continent. Low-level cloud coverage dropped in their models throughout the Southern Ocean. While modeling clouds is a difficult task due to the variety of factors that guide their formation and movement, Grise noted that observational evidence from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, a decades-long NASA effort to map global cloud distributions, supports their theory of migrating cloud coverage.
When the cloud cover moves poleward, the amount of energy the clouds can reflect drops, which increases the amount of radiation reaching the ground. “If you shift the reflector poleward,” Grise explained, “you’ve moved it somewhere there is less radiation coming in.”
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported a direct cooling effect from the thinning ozone layer—specifically, a reduction of about 0.05 watts per square meter’s worth of energy reaching the ground. However, Grise and his colleagues estimated the indirect effect of the shifting cloud coverage to be an increase of approximately 0.2 watts per square meter. Their result not only suggests that warming rather than cooling would be taking place, but also that there’s a larger influence overall. Since the jet stream only shifts during the summer months, the warming only takes place in those months.
“Theoretically this net radiation input into the system should give some sort of temperature increase, but it’s unknown if that signal could be detected or what the magnitude of it would be,” said Grise. For comparison, worldwide, an average of about 175 watts per square meter reaches the ground from sunlight, according to the George Washington University Solar Institute.
Dennis Hartmann, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle unrelated with the project, points out that since predicting cloud behavior is so challenging, the model used in Grise’s study could be underestimating clouds north of the jet stream being pulled toward the equator and in turn reflecting more light, potentially reducing or even negating the warming effect. Hartmann added that he also has some concerns about the modeling of the low-level cloud response.
Still, “this is certainly a very interesting topic and potentially important from a practical perspective of predicting Southern Hemisphere climate and even global warming rates,” he commented.
Climate tug-of-war
Looking toward the future, the jet stream should do less and less shifting to the south during the summer months as the ozone layer above the South Pole recovers. However, increasing levels of greenhouse gases can also change mid-latitude wind patterns and push the jet stream poleward, creating a complicated scenario which Grise said he plans to study in future work.
“You have sort of this tug-of-war between the jet being pulled equator-ward during the summer because of the ozone recovery and the greenhouse gases pulling the jet further poleward,” said Grise. “What the clouds do in that scenario is an open question.”
Funding for the research was provided by the National Science Foundation and by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Notes for Journalists: Journalists and public information officers (PIOs) of educational and scientific institutions who have registered with AGU can download a PDF copy of this article by clicking on the following link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50675/abstract
Or, you may order a copy of the paper by emailing your request to Thomas Sumner. Please provide your name, the name of your publication, and your phone number.
Neither the paper nor this press release is under embargo.
Title:
The Ozone Hole Indirect Effect: Cloud-Radiative Anomalies Accompanying the Poleward Shift of the Eddy-Driven Jet in the Southern Hemisphere
Authors:
Kevin M. Grise: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Lorenzo M. Polvani: Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA;
George Tselioudis: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA;
Yutian Wu: Center for Atmosphere Ocean Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, New York, USA;
Mark D. Zelinka: Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA.
Contact information for the authors:
Kevin Grise, +1 (845) 735-3802, Email: kgrise@ldeo.columbia.edu
Lorenzo Polvani, +1 (212) 854-7331, Email: lmp@columbia.edu
Please can someone help me:
Does this model explain the creation of clouds?
Does this model explain how winds affect clouds?
Is it general for other parts of the world or special to the Antarctic region?
If only the Antarctic, why not the Arctic (how do winds know if it they are over sea or land)?
Do I just completely misunderstand what this model is testing?
“The cause of this “hole” turned out to be chlorofluorocarbons, such as Freon…
Another one of those consensuses. Must be true. No other planets in our Solar System show this Ozone hole phenomenon, do they. Oh wait…
Hilarious amount of BS (Bad Science) here, followed by the required overture for more funding for more BS:
“creating a complicated scenario which Grise said he plans to study in future work.”
……….head wall
I’ve suggested another mechanism for formation of the ozone hole based on properties of O2 and O3 plus the appearance of a thicker collar of O3 around the hole. It is like a turtleneck sweater rolled down. O2 is fairly magnetic as paramagnetic materials go – these are attracted to the poles of a magnet and O3 is diamagnetic which is repulsed from the poles of a magnet. To me the imagery shows this very well. I suspect the O2 in the hole is a higher percentage than average atmosphere because it takes the place of O3 and also displaces of other atmospheric gases at least to some degree. This is a very easy thing to test but I haven’t pricked anyone’s interest in this experiment it seems. In an argument with a self-described Ozone hole expert who visited WUWT and bragged about his role in the Montreal Accord, I found he wasn’t aware of this phernomenon. I be most gratified to hear from someone on this to be sure I’m not writing with invisible electrons.
Seems to me the authors forgot abt the back radiation caused by ozone (trenberth)
I guess the Antarctic Sea Ice increase can no longer be blamed on Stratospheric Ozone changes, even though many have said that this was “well understood science.”
In the you cannot make this stuff up department:
The prediction is based on computer models of clouds, which even AR5SOD says is still very difficult in the Japanese sense.
The prediction is a value so small that even the authors say they don’t know if it would be detectable, or what the temperature impact would be.
The prediction is only for summer, only for the southern ocean and south pole, where contrary to AGW predictions sea ice extent continues to set new records.
Yet The AGU press release says this may be important for climate change. Undoubtedly what they mean is more government funding for more study of this admittedly undetectable niggle may be important for AGU members.
Gary Pearse says at August 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm…
That does make sense at first glance. It’s definitely not worth ignoring.
But can you put some figures on the effect? The Antarctic is large and magnetic effects are relatively short-range.
Also, it was my understanding that a smaller ozone hole had been observed at the north pole. That would blow the idea out of the water (no problems, these things do happen).
The first thing to check is whether the hole is centred on the magnetic S Pole, the actual S Pole or the centre of the land mass.
Climate – ozone – computer model. Zzzz.
If their computer model makes the same unwarranted assumptions doubt the warmiing effect of “greenhouse” gases, then this is slated to be a bogus result. It is cold over the Antarctic and difficult to think that it will have any detectable effect on the climate. This all only academically interesting as we do not affect the ozone later.
The CFC-ozone connection was junk science paid for by Dupont Chemical to get their out of patent refrigerant banned and then to sell their more expensive patented brand. Recent work shows that it is UV and nitrogen gas that affects the ozone, not human emissions.
Another “models all the way down” paper that seems to totally ignore any actual temperature data. Antarctica is obviously cooling. Both station data and sea ice extent indicate that. Download directly to your round file.
In a 2010 Yale University poll, 61 percent of those surveyed believed the ozone hole significantly contributed to global warming
I prefer the other nonsense ( CO2 ) where 97% of the scientists agree.
Correct me, if I am wrong, but this seems incorrect. “…In the 1980s, scientists discovered thinning of the ozone layer above Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere’s spring months…” My understanding is that the ‘ozone hole’ was discovered in the 1950’s and the effect was latched onto in the 1970’s as the end-of-the-world due to CFC’s.
If the ozone hole is still as big as it ever was, decades after CFC’s were banned. That’s pretty good evidence that CFC’s did not cause the ozone hole.
M Courtney
Magnetic pole has moved away from the land mass, currently is just outside the Antarctica’s polar circle at the latitude of 65S.
I see they have changed wording again “May Be” from “Could or If” then why is Antarctica sea at record highs and over 29 average. Yellow line is this year , NASA is run by Obamas BS Propaganda brain washing machine.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Sea Ice coverage record
But I was also told that the Ozone ‘hole’ was causing Antarctic ice expansion. I was also told that warm water plumes was causing it too. I am going out on the town now, so no time to really check what I recall.
http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.document&N_RCN=30712
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/
MarkW says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm
If the ozone hole is still as big as it ever was, decades after CFC’s were banned. That’s pretty good evidence that CFC’s did not cause the ozone hole.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That was my reaction too. You’d think that it at least merits more explanation in the article (assuming there is one, of course) as the whole premise depends on the CFC – ozone hole connection.
Get ready America we will be paying $16.00 a gallon for gas like in Broke Euro Zone.
“The cause of this “hole” turned out to be chlorofluorocarbons ….. Even though the1987 Montreal Protocol banned these chlorofluorocarbons worldwide, the ozone hole persists decades later.“. Well, no. The cause of the “hole” was hypothesised to be chlorofluorocarbons. The banning of chlorofluorocarbons allowed the hypothesis to be tested. It failed the test.
Mike Jonas:
At August 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm you rightly and accurately point out
Yes, but it is also important to remember that the ban was imposed by the1987 Montreal Protocol. And imposition of the Montreal Protocol was used as the model for imposition of the later Kyoto Protocol which attempted to constrain emissions of a basket of GHGs, notably CO2.
Richard
My father who was at the max Planck Institut fur Physic in 1935 to 37 flew to both poles every year and everytime there was a ozone hole in winter at both both poles Duh…..
M Courtney says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Gary Pearse says at August 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm…
That does make sense at first glance. It’s definitely not worth ignoring.
But can you put some figures on the effect? The Antarctic is large and magnetic effects are relatively short-range.
Also, it was my understanding that a smaller ozone hole had been observed at the north pole. That would blow the idea out of the water (no problems, these things do happen).”
Re the North Pole: apparently this area is subject to much more in the way of weather incursions from the land in the temperate zone, the jet stream undulating back and forth causing a better air mixing. If the explanation is not sufficient, it also creates the same problem with the CFC hypothesis where mag lines of force move the CFC’s to the poles. Here is a you-tube demonstration of oxygen’s strong paramagnetism.
Incidentally, visualize the entire mix of gases which of course includes the most abundant one, nitrogen which would be preferentially pushed away by oxygen in the ozone hole, even though the actual strength is not high.
The best I can do on short notice re ozone’s diamag is Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
I am at least amazed that no scientist appears to have investigated this plausible hypothesis.
Three lies or inaccuracies right there. Can anyone spot them?
1. “We were surprised”. No, I highly doubt that they were surprised, with the only possibility being that they were surprised they could actually adjust the model to get that particular result.
2. “this effect happened”. Well, it happened in a model. That doesn’t mean the effect actually happened.
3. Climate “Scientist”. Not sure “scientist” is an accurate word for this. Or he might be, except for this particular foray into non-scientific voodoo.
Mind boggling that something so uncertain and riddled with doubt could actually be published as a result.
Further re O2 paramagnetism and O3 diamagnetics as an explanation for the hole, is there not data from satellites on the varying composition of the atmosphere? That would be pretty supportive if it showed my prediction that O2 ratio to each other atmospheric gas is greater in the hole than its other atmospheric friends including CO2. This should make for a small depletion of oxygen and enrichment of CO2, N2, O3…in equatorial regions. Winds may disturb this relationship (although it certainly seems to hold somewhat for O3) My point is it can be tested and if correct, we can perhaps give the CFC folks a run for their money.
Eliza : “My father who was at the max Planck Institut fur Physic in 1935 to 37 flew to both poles every year and everytime there was a ozone hole in winter at both both poles Duh…..”
The ozone hole does not form in winter, so you father must have been observing something else.
Shaved Ape” : “Correct me, if I am wrong, but this seems incorrect. “…In the 1980s, scientists discovered thinning of the ozone layer above Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere’s spring months…” My understanding is that the ‘ozone hole’ was discovered in the 1950′s and the effect was latched onto in the 1970′s as the end-of-the-world due to CFC’s.”
Yes, you are wrong (well you did ask). The ozone ‘hole’ (dip really) was recognised in the 1980’s when it was realised that ozone concentrations in the Spring were must lower than had been measured in the 50’s and 60’s See this graph http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif
which show the concentrations as actually measured.
The graph is from here http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html which describes what has been observed, and what chemistry is involved.
“Ozone hole” is a technical term meaning an area less than 220 DU thick. So, technically, there’s an ozone hole.
The prediction I remember from the late 80s/early 90s was that the hole would continue to get worse even if we stopped all CFC emissions immediately, but then would stabilize after about 20 years, and recover after 50 or so years. So far, this is exactly what has happened.
Another case of “If we model it, it must be true,” huh?
M Courtney says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Gary Pearse says at August 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm…
That does make sense at first glance. It’s definitely not worth ignoring.”
Here is an image of CO2 concentration around the globe. As predicted in my post above based on diamagnetism:
Gary Pearse says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“Further re O2 paramagnetism and O3 diamagnetics as an explanation for the hole, is there not data from satellites on the varying composition of the atmosphere? That would be pretty supportive if it showed my prediction that O2 ratio to each other atmospheric gas is greater in the hole than its other atmospheric friends including CO2….”
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/datareleases/acos-version-3.3
Click on the graphic to the right
Non sequester comment follows (which, by definition, cannot be followed).
The so-called “ozone hole(s)” have nothing to do with climate nor CO2 nor refrigerants nor the Montreal Protocol.
The “Ozone Hole” is to do with solar activity and the interaction of solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. Period.
This whole bunkam is just that, a scare opportunity by the UN, gratis greenies, to further its role as a global government. Damn their hopes!
“…Now a new computer-modeling study suggests that…”
A computer modeling study might easily suggest that 2 = 0, but it ain’t.
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 8, 2013 at 5:29 pm
> Non sequester comment follows (which, by definition, cannot be followed).
I wasn’t aware it had a definition, I would have thought that a definition couldn’t follow it unless you’re defining it by right of invention.
For some reason, it makes me think of the US Congress’ stupid sequester own goal instead of not sequestering CO2.
Anthony, thanks for an interesting post. And particularly for putting the “hole” into context at the begining of the post.
As I read the post, I did not see any of the usual “Propaganda” that signifies an “Alarmist” piece. As Willis woudl say, for me ( not Willis ) this passes my sniff test. It looks ( to me ) as a reasonable but provisional piece of good scientific research. They claim that they used a model but then state that they checked the model output against emperical data. Note, I have only read the post and not the paper. The effect they are claiming is 0.2 w/m2. That is tiny. And they are not, as some commenters are claiming, saying that the Antartic is warming. Far from it. The Antartic, would be cooling from what they descrfibe, but the planet an a whole would be warming by the tiny amount of 0.2 w/m2. The one big flaw in thew article or post is iirc the claim that the incomming energy from the Sun is 175 w/m2. Again iirc, I remember this as usually being said as 1270 w/m2. This could be explained by a typo and where they say 175 they could have meant 1275 w/m2.
I lived through the 1980’s CFC scare and I believed it. This post plus some of the comments caused be to do a little bit of googleing. I discovered that both Venus and Mars have Ozone layers and that the current theory is that they are created by Sunlight breaking down CO2. However, Earth’s Ozone layer is mainly caused by life. This is not impossible, but I question the inconsistancy of the explanation.
I also searched for “Ozone Hole Controversey” and found an article by Dr. Fred S. Singer at the Hertland Institute. I have not read enough of Dr. Singer’s work ti fully trust him. However, it was a well written article with a lot of references. It acknowledges many conventional aspects of Ozone hole theory whilst challenging others. It looks like, to me, a well written article.
I think that clouds are probably the most understudyed major climate elements. So I welcome that some one is attempting to study and model clouds. This effect may be trival but it is a start. For far to long, the “biggest problem in the wood pile” has been clouds. It has always struck me that ignoring clouds was akin to searching for the car keys under the lamppost when you knew that was not wherer you lost them. But doing it bevcause it was where there was light.
We need more Cloud research. And not just of tiny effects like this.
/ikh
Even if it is wrong, the explanation offered by Gary Pearse is more sufficient than the CFC-depletion hypothesis, if only because it attempts to explain the phenomena as it appears in maps rather than as it is misrepresented with words ( e.g., “A Piece of the Sky is Missing” – Carl Sagan). The map does appear to show a displacement of ozone rather than a depletion, with a nearly doubling of normal concentrations surrounding the so-called “hole.”
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/ozone_deplete/fig4.gif
But whenever someone looks at a map and asks the rational question –
“Why is ozone concentration so high in the area surrounding the so-called hole?“,
– there is never an answer.
That means it’s a good question.
Actually, the polar vortex changes gears at Antarctic sunrise, leading to the weak upward motion of air in the center of the vortex. It is only during this brief pause between gears that ozone concentrations change dramatically – and temporarily:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/#comment-570274
Ozone does not absorb UV heat. Oxygen absorbs the heat to form Ozone (very unstable) which releases heat in the colder surroundings and again forms stable Oxygen molecules. Ozone depletion before the extinction of human race is impossible. click on my name for details.
Perfect, now they say that the North and South Poles will warm the Earth.
Scientists, on the other hand, have long attributed a small cooling effect to the ozone shortage in the hole.
Now a new computer-modeling study suggests that the ozone hole might actually have a slight warming influence, …
If what was thought to have been a cool forcing is now asserted to be a warm forcing, then even less ‘global warming’ can be attributed to CO2 than was previously thought.
Khwarizmi says: August 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm
“Why is ozone concentration so high in the area surrounding the so-called hole?“,
– there is never an answer.
That means it’s a good question.
Actually, the polar vortex changes gears at Antarctic sunrise, leading to the weak upward motion of air in the center of the vortex. It is only during this brief pause between gears that ozone concentrations change dramatically – and temporarily:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/#comment-570274
Yes, the “ozone hole” is likely a result of the dynamical effect of the stratospheric polar vortex, along with the other “holes”, i.e. “The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false
There are also “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract
For those not familiar, Polar Vortices “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/.
“A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.” “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
“The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
Northern and Southern hemisphere ozone holes, slightly out of datel
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/ozone_hole_2011_NH.jpg
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/ozone_hole_2010.png
An actual consequence of the ozone hole is its odd effect on the Southern Hemisphere polar jet stream, the fast flowing air currents encircling the South Pole. Despite the ozone hole only appearing during the spring months, throughout each subsequent summer the high-speed jet stream swings south toward the pole.
“For some reason when you put an ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere during springtime, you get this robust poleward shift in the jet stream during the following summer season,” said Grise. “People have been looking at this for 10 years and there’s still no real answer of why this happens.”
They appear to have this backward, i.e. what’s the dog and what’s the tail. As I noted above “The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.” It is absurd to think that a massive polar vortex, “they usually span 1,000–2,000 kilometers (620–1,240 miles) in which the air is circulating in a counter-clockwise fashion (in the northern hemisphere)”, is being driven by the decreased concentration of Ozone that occurs within it. It appears that the reason for Polar Vortices and the “holes” within them are “the same as any other cyclone, the Coriolis effect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
For reference, Polar Vortices and their “holes” have also been sighted on Mars;
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3248.pdf
Venus;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
Saturn;
http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/atmosphere/south_polar_vortex.html
and Saturn’s Moon Titan;
http://www.space.com/16520-saturn-s-moon-titan-sports-polar-vortex-video.html
Gary Pearse says:
Here are the Japanese (JAXA) CO2 images:
September 2009:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/img/20091030_ibuki_2_e.jpg
July 2009 and January 2010
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/img/20121203_ibuki_05_e.gif
August 2012
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jaxa-xco2_l2_201208010831average_v02_11.png
JAXA digital Archives:
http://jda.jaxa.jp/category_p.php?lang=e&page=6&category1=352&category2=&page_pics=50
Satellite image of changes in ozone distribution in the southern hemisphere. (All sorts of neat images)
http://jda.jaxa.jp/result.php?lang=e&id=ce47d4aa632c51c46cebbe5ff93b2f90
I too remember that prediction. You’d think it was made by somebody with a deep understanding of solar cycles. If it’s really the case that solar activity (particularly UV and EUV) is what determines the size of the ozone ‘hole’, then that would also fit:
20 years until stabilisation = 2009, around the start of SC24 and a very quiet year for solar activity. 50 years until recovery = 2039, around the end of what could be an exceptionally quiet SC25, according to some predictions.
Yep, if 30 years of low UV and EUV levels allow polar ozone levels to rise, that’ll validate the Montreal Protocol. If only an aggressive global CO2 emissions reduction plan could also have been agreed in 2009, that could also have demonstrated its efficacy over the subsequent 30 years…
keith says
50 years until recovery = 2039, around the end of what could be an exceptionally quiet SC25, according to some predictions.
henry says
this is exactly what I predicted from my own results
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I have found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. 1) my own results. 2) W..Arnold’s results. 3) the ozone results. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..
However, a natural consequence of my a-c wave is that we are now hurling towards the point of zero acceleration of cooling somewhere @ ca. 2016-2019 (the a-c wave could in fact be somewhat warped)
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
2014-88 = 1926
It looks like we could be about 5-7 years away from the start of these great droughts.
To get the switch to work (towards warming) is going to take some time…..that, and the reduced moisture content (due to the global cooling) is what causes the droughts.
Just The Facts says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)
There are also “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex”
Khwarizmi says:
August 8, 2013 at 7:52 pm
“Even if it is wrong, the explanation offered by Gary Pearse is more sufficient than the CFC-depletion hypothesis,”
Gentlemen, you have just fulfilled my prediction based on Oxygen’s strong paramagnetism (attracted to magnet), all other atmospheric gases diamagnetic (repulsed by a magnet) from my posts above. Moreover, the effect would be enhanced in the cold of winter since cooling.
Gary Pearse says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“Further re O2 paramagnetism and O3 diamagnetics as an explanation for the hole, is there not data from satellites on the varying composition of the atmosphere? That would be pretty supportive if it showed my prediction that O2 ratio to each other atmospheric gas is greater in the hole than its other atmospheric friends including CO2….”
Check out also if the gas-ratio relationship is reversed in temperate-equatorial regions. Just the facts, you are seeing a barrier keeping these gases out, I think my theory is stronger that they are being shoved out. Hmm… “Pearse Effect”? See my fuller explanation and prediction at:
August 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Several points in that article overlap with my New Climate Model:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/
What they don’t seem to realise yet is that an active sun reduces ozone towards the poles which cools the stratosphere towards the poles.
The colder stratosphere results in a more intense polar vortex in the vertical plane but contracts the vortex in the horizontal plane which pulls the entire global air circulation towards the poles.
The result is more poleward/zonal jets which reduce global cloudiness as they say and let more solar energy into the oceans for a net warming effect.
The opposite when the sun is inactive.
Naturally the effect is heavily modulated by the lagging ocean response.
From MWP to LIA to date the latitudinal shifts were in the region of 1000 miles in certain sensitive locations such as the western approaches to Europe.
If GHGs have a net warming or cooling effect then they would also modulate the solar driving force but to a far lesser degree than the oceans.
Maybe a shift of less than a mile from all our emissions
just so as everyone understands
trenberth calculated that ozone accounts for about 25% of all that is being back radiated (to space) by the atmosphere; but I think he actually forgot about the peroxides and nitrous oxides also being formed TOA. (trenberth’s missing energy?)
That means any “holes” allow more SW through, especially high energy SW – that which eventually heats the oceans, which are SH, mostly. The SH oceans are earth’s energy store.
So, yes, less ozone allows more energy in, but nothing to do with the wind, IMHO.
Hence me finding the correlation of increasing ozone versus dropping maxima.
A “quiet” sun does not mean a cooler sun, although, yes, a quiet sun does cause cooler temps. on earth,.
The half life of ozone at -50degrees C is 3 months – there’s your ozone hole. As soon as the sun goes down. and the UV rays stop producing more ozone. the ozone hole gets bigger until the sun returns. Tell me what’s wrong with this simple expalnation. Too simple?.
henry@barrie
I think you do have a point
– you mean the long night on the south /north poles – is what causes the holes…
but all of that is a given constant factor?
the variation in energy coming from the sun (when it goes quiet) is not
henry@stephen
amazing, your picture here
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
sums up nicely what I had figured out…..
it is exactly what I said, is it not? You showed in that picture exactly what I said in words:
namely.
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
Barrie Sellers says:
August 9, 2013 at 6:55 am
“The half life of ozone at -50degrees C is 3 months – there’s your ozone hole. As soon as the sun goes down. and the UV rays stop producing more ozone. the ozone hole gets bigger until the sun returns.”
Exactly. The ozone hole is a region of stagnant air surrounded by the polar vortex. It has no effect on climate. The action is in the polar vortex which surrounds the hole, specifically the temperature inversion which can form. With a temperature inversion (active sun) downflow in the vortex is reduced and polar air stays isolated in the polar region. Without it, polar air is free to move southward, mainly over continental interiors (blocking). This theory is not yet ready for textbooks (conflicts with AGW).
HenryP
We share the conclusion but our descriptions as to how one gets there differ somewhat.
An active sun reduces ozone at higher levels (above 45km). That cools both mesosphere and stratosphere. Conventional climatology says that an active sun creates more ozone. That may be so below 45km but it is the changes above 45km that appear to dominate because we saw that the period of active sun was accompanied by a cooling stratosphere and now that the sun is less active the stratosphere is no longer cooling and may be warming, ozone is increasing above 45km and the ozone holes are shrinking.
When the stratosphere above the poles cools relative to the stratosphere above the equator as happens when the sun is more active the tropopause height above the poles rises relative to tropopause height above the equator,.the polar vortex shrinks horizontallly and the entire global air circulation is pulled poleward in both hemispheres.
Global cloudiness is decreased as the subtropical high pressure cells expand and more energy enters the oceans for net warming.
The opposite when the sun is less active.
At some specific level of solar activity global cloudiness and albedo switches the system to and fro between net warming or net cooling via changes in the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans.
In order to achieve that which is observed it is essential to reverse the sign of the effect of solar activity on the atmosphere which is something that Joanna Haigh said might be necessary.
However I think she and her colleagues are still hung up on the conventional view of active sun warming the stratosphere.
It was as a result of that hangup that AGW theory came to the fore as a possible non solar reason for the cooling stratosphere when the sun was more active.
An active sun must cool the stratosphere because the same pattern of climate change occurred in the MWP (and the previous warm spells) long before the Industrial Revolution.
It cannot have been CO2 causing the cooling stratosphere when the sun was more active because the whole scenario went into reverse in the late 90s when the sun declined from the high level of activity of cycle 23 and the increased meridionality with recovering ozone and warming stratosphere have all occurred despite a considerable increase in our CO2 emissions.
Observations have invalidated AGW theory.
My recollectiion of the initial discovery of the ozone hole was that it was almost immediately followed by alarmism, and an assumption that it was an unnatural, man-caused phenomenon. We had no previous knowledge of this thing, yet we jumped to costly, probably ineffectual solutions. And now, here we are30 years later, and those same silly assumptions hold sway over most of the world. It was partially because of the ozone hole alarmism phenomenon that I almost automatically dismissed CAGW alarmism when I first heard its CO2 hypothesis. Of course, one bit of alarmism being stupid, premature, wrong, etc. does not preclude another bit of alarmism from being plausible or even likely. But since it was the same basic interests promoting both bits, I decided to watch my wallet, and wait for some real science to make a good case before I’d jump on the band wagon. I’m still waiting.
Henry@Reno
Ozone loss due to CFC’s was a red herring
(although I believed it and personally helped to get rid of the CFC’s )
It appears that the decrease noted from 1951-1995 was natural.
Heat gain due to CO2 increase is simply not happening
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
It is not my fault the scientists got it wrong.
Stephen says
We share the conclusion but our descriptions as to how one gets there differ somewhat.
An active sun reduces ozone at higher levels (above 45km).
Henry says
It is important to note that we did reach the same conclusion looking at it from different angles.
This is how science progresses. As far as ozone is concerned, I remember looking at a station in the Swiss Alps with data from 1927. It was good enough to find a bending point of 1951 (corresponding with an increase of warmth from that date)
and increase in ozone since 1995 and decrease of warmth since 1995.
I don’t know what height they measured, but it must have been below 45 km…….
The SH data came from a graph from the SS.
I am sure that must be right???
Henry.
Not sure how reliable ozone and temperature records are historically.
Also not sure about regional divergences from the general principle.
Best to focus on modern sensing techniques and see what transpires.
Either I’ve nailed it or I haven’t and only Nature will tell me.
In the 1980s, scientists discovered thinning of the ozone layer above Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere’s spring months. The cause of this “hole” turned out to be chlorofluorocarbons, such as Freon, from cooling systems, aerosols cans and degreasing solvents, which break apart ozone molecules. Even though the1987 Montreal Protocol banned these chlorofluorocarbons worldwide, the ozone hole persists decades later.
Petitio principii: How do they know for certain that the Ozone depletion/thinning hasn’t always been there? Just because measurements were made in the 50s with primitive yet state of the art equipment then measurements were made in the 80s with superior state of the art equipment 30 years later, but still primitive by today’s standards, suggesting that quality of measurement could be an issue.
As to this study with yet another puter model? When one reads with a wry smile the UK Wet Office’s summary explanation to DEFRA, for the 2012 wash out Spring/Summer/Autumn (fall), the excuses one after another as to why it is very difficult t make predictions, especially about the future, & how little is fully understood about the drivers of climate, it would appear that this study should be taken with pinch of salt, although I would suggest that it be part of your recommended daily intake, to keep the Drs happy!!! 😉
Henry.
Ozone measurements in the troposphere, especially near the surface, are a whole different matter to ozone above the tropopause.
Not remotely comparable.
” it would appear that this study should be taken with pinch of salt,”
Maybe.
But bear in mind that ozone concentrations are a proxy for atmospheric temperatures above the tropopause and it is well known that stratosphere temperature changes affect the height of the tropopause.
Then bear in mind that the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles affects the latitudinal position of all the permanent climate zones and the jet streams.
All one needs to do to shift the whole lot equatorward or poleward is to change the gradient of that slope.
So I think they are stumbling towards my solution as are many others at present.
Stephen says
Not sure how reliable ozone and temperature records are historically.
Henry@Stephen
I am convinced my temp.data (from 1974) are correct. I took several precautionary measures.
e.g. Spencer (UAH) gets the same result on the warming rate in degrees C per annum for the past 30 years as myself.
True, the SS graph on ozone only had more recent data, clearly showing a big increase since 1995,; the question is : where did you find ozone data from >45 km?
Gary Pearse says: August 9, 2013 at 5:07 am
Check out also if the gas-ratio relationship is reversed in temperate-equatorial regions. Just the facts, you are seeing a barrier keeping these gases out, I think my theory is stronger that they are being shoved out. Hmm… “Pearse Effect”? See my fuller explanation and prediction at:
August 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm
I think the “barrier” versus “shove out” question is just semantics/phase, i.e. conceptually it is similar to the eyewall of a hurricane;
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/hurr/stages/cane/wall.rxml
as the polar vortex forms/drops it creates a low pressure area/shoves out much of the gases that were there before and then the wall of the vortex serves as a barrier that prevents the gases from returning, i.e.:
http://opendx.informatics.jax.org/cds/proceedings96/cart/csfig211.jpeg
I think the real question here is the “effect”, i.e. are the “holes” a result of the Coriolis Effect or the Pearse Effect. In this case, there appears to be ample evidence of the impact of the Coriolis Effect and thus far I’ve seen no observational evidence to support the existance of the Pearse Effect. Furthermore, even if the Pearse Effect exists, it would likely be a minor variable and easily overwhelmed by the Coriolis Effect, e.g.:
Mickey Reno says: August 9, 2013 at 8:58 am
My recollectiion of the initial discovery of the ozone hole was that it was almost immediately followed by alarmism, and an assumption that it was an unnatural, man-caused phenomenon.
Yep, a strong sense of Déjà vu…
Time – Feb 17, 1992
M Courtney says: August 8, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Also, it was my understanding that a smaller ozone hole had been observed at the north pole. That would blow the idea out of the water (no problems, these things do happen).
Yes, it’s the same effect as I noted above, when a polar vortex forms in the Northern Hemisphere, you also get an “ozone hole”:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/vortex_NH.html
The first thing to check is whether the hole is centred on the magnetic S Pole, the actual S Pole or the centre of the land mass.
The “hole” is not centered around “the magnetic S Pole, the actual S Pole or the centre of the land mass”, “The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
HenryP asked:
“where did you find ozone data from >45 km?”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/abs/nature09426.html
“these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude.”
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.”
I’d be interested in hearing what has happened since 2007.
Stephen says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/ozone-hole-may-be-a-warming-factor-due-to-wind-shifts/#comment-1385596
henry says
sorry, this cannot possibly qualify
there are no actual reported measurements?
Well you could pay for the whole paper. I’m sure there will be actual measurements there.
Keith says: @ August 9, 2013 at 2:57 am
….I too remember that prediction. You’d think it was made by somebody with a deep understanding of solar cycles. If it’s really the case that solar activity (particularly UV and EUV) is what determines the size of the ozone ‘hole’, then that would also fit….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The information was out there.
By 1965 the Milankovitch cycles were known and starting to be confirmed by hard evidence.
88 yr Geissenberg cycle (1939 & 1971) SEE: http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Remember in the early seventies the media was still hyping the ‘Coming Ice Age’ See: http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/
Yet in the middle of the Ice Age hype at the 1972 First Earth Summit, Maurice Strong first mentions Global Warming and tells Greenpeace to “go home and raise hell” This is when we were still at the bottom of a cold cycle. Hansen’s US temp Graph
The history of the science at that time:
If the climate was to be used as a political weapon the UN had to move fast to deflect the “profusion of information and discussion on this subject.”
Shahinaz M. Yousef in his paper THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH says…
I think the UN/Strong was well aware we were looking at the beginning of ‘Global Warming’ in 1972 and was jumping in at the bottom of the ramp hoping for a forty year increase in temperature that could be attributed to CO2.
they are full of BS!
Stephen says
Well you could pay for the whole paper. I’m sure there will be actual measurements there.
Henry says
measure ozone at >45 km height?
how?
\from what year onward? how long since then? (which is relevant, in the light of my own findings)
unfortunately nobody is paying me for my hobby so I cannot pay for the results
but if you cannot produce those results I would be careful in promoting them…
When solar activity is low, it is the distribution of ozone that changes in a vertical and horizontal sense that causes the polar regions to warm relative to the lower latitudes which in turn gives a more meridional atmospheric circulation for the N.H., which in turn results in more low clouds, more snow cover ,and greater amounts of precipitation for the N.H., hence a higher albedo and lower temp.
The amounts of ozone going up or downin concentrations with high or low solar activity I think is not of most importance,rather it is where the ozone is relative to the atmosphere both in a vertical and horizontal sense.
Although I think on balance unlike Stephen, that ozone levels probably decrease during very low solar periods due to very weak UV emissions.
I know solar storms during active solar periods also destroy ozone but I think the intensity of UV light versus ozone overides solar storm contributions to the amounts of ozone that may be present.r.
However I think a prolonged solar minimum with a few active spurts from time to time probably results in ozone concentrations to be at their lowest.
Sakvatore del prete says
they are full of BS!
henry asks
your comment does not make any sense
who is they? Why? what? how?
please stop this idiotic approach to conversation, leif
They are the ones that keep trying to promote the AGW theory and will use any means to do it, nomatter how ridiculous it is. Don’t you get tired of it? I do and these people will not look at the data in an objective manner and constantly spin it to make themselves look correct even when wrong.
An example would be their explanation for the recent severe winters, is low arctic sea ice, which is the cause of a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
The correlation does not hold up if one looks at past history,although the correlation with prolonged minimum solar periods does in contrast.
Their theory will be toast before this decade ends, despite their efforts.
SvP says
When solar activity is low, it is the distribution of ozone that changes in a vertical and horizontal sense that causes the polar regions to warm relative to the lower latitudes
henry
we (several of us) proved the opposite
please
ET,
go home
and RIP
If you look they use the bogus greenhouse gasses in this article. Had to get it in, and really takes away from this article, in my opinion.
Henry I am curious about what you think the role of ozone is on the climate and how it may relate to solar activity.
If one looks at atmospheric circulation studies during the past two prolonged solar minimum (maunder and dalton) periods the conclusions are these periods of prolonged low solar activity result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.
Ozone is the key to the temperature profile of the atmosphere which in turn determines the atmospheric circulation patterns. End of story.
Still I want to hear from Henry, on this matter.
Henry while you are at it, give us a outlook for global temp. going forward and your reasoning.
I say they will be going down for the rest of this decade due to very low solar conditions and the secondary effects associated with this solar condition. What do you say?
HenryP says: August 9, 2013 at 10:34 am
The question is : where did you find ozone data from >45 km?
Much of the recent data I’ve seen is from below 45km, e.g.:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/images/FIG-FAQ01.JPG
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/sp_profile.gif
However this 2011 paper, “Twenty-two years observations of stratospheric ozone concentration,
temperature and aerosol over Tsukuba, Japan”
http://www-lidar.nies.go.jp/LRSJ/28thLSS/28th_papers/PG-34.pdf
included data above 45 KM data, as well as this 1999 paper “Relation between ozone and temperature in the Arctic stratosphere”;
http://www.agu.org/journals/ijga/v01/gai97140/gai97140.htm
here’s their Fig 1;
http://www.agu.org/journals/ijga/v01/gai97140/fig01.htm
this 1970 paper “An Explanation for the Worldwide Anomaly in the Concentration of Ozone above 40 km”;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281970%29027%3C0968%3AAEFTWA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
as does this 1969 paper, a “Worldwide Anomaly in the Concentration of Ozone above 40 km”;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281969%29026%3C0613%3AAWAITC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
and 1958 paper, “The Temperature Dependence of Ozone Radiational Heating Rates In The Vicinity of The Mesopeak” has 45km data:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281958%29015%3C0059%3ATTDOOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Salvatore Del Prete says: @ August 9, 2013 at 12:08 pm
If you look they use the bogus greenhouse gasses in this article. Had to get it in, and really takes away from this article, in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A nod to the Greenhouse Gas Gods is the necessary ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card in most journals. Without it you do not get published.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
They redefined it to mean Greenpeace and WWF propaganda pieces are ‘Science’ and papers by skeptics are not. UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 “F”s on Report Card
Just The Facts.
Many thanks for those references.
The last one clearly suggests that temperatures are substantially governed by ozone amounts above 45km.
Couple that with the reverse sign ozone response above 45km and my propositions have ‘legs’.
Surely someone in authority can join the dots?
Barrie Sellers : ““The half life of ozone at -50degrees C is 3 months – there’s your ozone hole. As soon as the sun goes down. and the UV rays stop producing more ozone. the ozone hole gets bigger until the sun returns.”
This is one of the theories that comes up frequently but is simply disproved. The ozone hole does NOT form in winter. It forms in Spring when the sunlight returns. Most alternative theories fail on this point
As for diamagnetism/paramagnetism – those are very weak effects measurable only under laboratory conditions with magnetic fields much greater than that of the Earth. (Consult a book on Physical Chemistry if you doubt me). To prove any merit in this suggestion you would have to demonstrate that the effect is large enough to overcome the mixing of the atmosphere. Is there any evidence that this is possible?
One further comment on diamagnetic/paramagnetic. To clear up a confusion evident in some comments, molecules which are diamagnetic or paramagnetic are NOT drawn towards to poles of a magnet – they move in a direction perpendicular to the field.
And keep in mind that the swift shrinkage and re-expansion, etc., of the O-hole instantly disproved the Montreal Meme, that human-source CFCs control it.
Another KO for Natural Variation!
Can anybody tell me how to make a hole in the air? Atmosphere above both poles are thinner than above equator, there are no holes. Use common sense with centripetal / centrifugal force due to rotation of the earth and high / low tides of the sea due to pulling force of the moon.
I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.
The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.
If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.
The biggest fault I have with many of the climatic outlooks is almost all of them fail to take into account possible thresholds that exist in our climatic systen(therefore none can address the abrupt climate changes of the past that have occurred on a regular basis) andmany of them are always trying to fit the climate into a neat regular rythmic cycle.
It does not work that way due to the following:
1. The beginning state of the climate has much to do with how the climate will change even if the same forcings are applied.
2. The climatic system is non linear which means the same forcings can produce a completly different result.
3. Even if one and two were not correct the location, the degree of magnitude of the forcings and the duration of time of the forcings and how many different forcings are phased into a cold regime or a warm regime at the same time would cause major differences in the evenual climatic outcome.
That is why these percise climatic outlooks like Henry is trying to do are estimates.
I can say with confidence that the temperature trends are going to be down at least until 2040 or so due to the very weak prolonged solar minimum and what past history has shown to be the climatic reaction to this type of an event.
However I don’t know the degree of magnitude or duration of time, the prolonged solar minimum will be, how much of an impact the weakening geo magnetic field will have,don’t know exactly how much volcanic activity may or may not be taken place going forward or the location, cosmic ray increases and their effects on clouds, and UV light decline impacts on ozone, and how meridional the atmospheric circulation may become and how long it may be sustained, or how this this circulation pattern may, or may not effect the thernmohaline circulation.
Let’s not forget a decline in solar visible light and how that will play upon ocean heat content going forward.
Then if this were not bad enough you have thresholds which are out there, which might be reached or may not be reached.
This is why( aside from co2 being a non climatic leader but rather a climatic result) the AGW model forecast are essentially uselss.
Nevertheless, through past evidence and current studies on solar/climatic relationships I can confidently conclude that the temperature trend will be down due to the prolonged solar minimum which started in earnest in late 2005.
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years) for minor temp decline are as follows:
solar flux sub 90
solar wind sub 350 km/sec
ap index 5-8
solar irradiance off .1 %
UV light off up to 25%
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years,which started in year 2005) for major temperature declines and even possible thresholds to come about are as follows:
solar flux sub 72 or lower
solar wind sub 300 km/sec or lower
ap index sub 5
solar irradiance off .2% or more
uv light emissions off upwards of 50%
None of the above has happened since the solar Dalton Minimumon a sustained basis following many years of sub solar activity.
This decade with the first prolonged solar minmium since the Dalton Minimum offers us an opportunity to see just how much or how little of an impact certain solar parameters will have on the climate in general.
Again because of the reasons given earlier the exact impacts are impossible to quantify.
If one looks at the aao index from 1979 to present the trend is there is no trend.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1979 0.209 0.356 0.899 0.678 0.724 1.700 2.412 0.546 0.629 0.160 -0.423 -0.951
1980 -0.447 -0.980 -1.424 -2.068 -0.479 0.286 -1.944 -0.997 -1.701 0.577 -2.013 -0.356
1981 0.231 0.039 -0.966 -1.462 -0.344 0.352 -0.986 -2.118 -1.509 -0.260 0.626 1.116
1982 -0.554 0.277 1.603 1.531 0.118 0.920 -0.415 0.779 1.580 -0.702 -0.849 -1.934
1983 -1.340 -1.081 0.166 0.149 -0.437 -0.263 1.114 0.792 -0.696 1.193 0.727 0.475
1984 -1.098 -0.544 0.251 -0.204 -1.237 0.426 0.890 -0.548 0.327 -0.009 -0.024 -1.476
1985 -0.795 0.215 -0.134 0.031 -0.066 -0.331 1.914 0.595 1.507 0.471 1.085 1.240
1986 0.158 -1.588 -0.770 -0.087 -1.847 -0.619 0.089 -0.157 0.849 0.306 -0.222 0.886
1987 -0.950 -0.708 -0.133 -0.286 0.039 -0.702 -1.531 1.485 -0.799 0.455 1.060 0.272
1988 -0.612 0.551 -0.219 -0.077 -0.749 -1.055 0.576 -0.745 -0.689 -2.314 0.401 1.074
1989 0.618 0.849 0.632 -0.573 2.691 1.995 1.458 -0.132 -0.121 0.136 0.572 -0.445
1990 -0.352 1.151 0.414 -1.879 -1.803 0.093 -1.215 0.466 1.482 0.139 -0.359 -0.312
1991 0.869 -0.852 0.522 -0.639 -0.539 -1.155 -1.220 0.036 -0.513 -0.623 -0.804 -2.067
1992 0.073 -1.627 -1.010 -0.439 -2.032 -2.193 -0.566 -0.350 0.435 -0.319 0.122 0.244
1993 -2.021 0.437 -0.378 0.087 1.260 1.218 1.957 1.083 1.061 0.748 0.324 1.028
1994 0.723 1.157 0.693 -0.052 -0.153 -1.682 -0.492 1.910 -0.947 -0.578 -0.793 0.933
1995 1.448 0.533 -0.154 0.649 1.397 -0.802 -3.010 -0.696 1.173 -0.057 0.143 1.470
1996 0.332 -0.525 0.543 0.115 0.983 -0.252 0.021 -1.502 -1.314 0.966 -1.667 -0.023
1997 0.369 -0.244 0.701 -0.458 1.028 -0.458 0.780 0.768 0.122 -0.595 -1.905 -0.835
1998 0.413 0.390 0.736 1.927 -0.038 1.031 1.450 0.904 -0.122 0.400 0.817 1.435
1999 0.999 0.456 0.180 0.949 1.639 -1.325 0.316 0.042 -0.012 1.653 0.901 1.784
2000 1.273 0.620 0.133 0.233 1.127 0.117 0.059 -0.674 -1.853 0.347 -1.537 -1.290
2001 -0.471 -0.265 -0.555 0.515 -0.262 0.386 -0.928 0.910 1.161 1.277 0.996 1.474
2002 0.747 1.334 -1.823 0.165 -2.798 -1.112 -0.591 -0.099 -0.864 -2.564 -0.924 1.308
2003 -0.988 -0.357 -0.188 0.224 0.385 -0.775 0.727 0.678 -0.323 -0.025 -0.712 -1.323
2004 0.807 -1.182 0.432 0.151 0.460 1.195 1.474 -0.071 0.254 -0.042 -0.242 -0.973
2005 -0.129 1.243 0.158 0.355 -0.297 -1.428 -0.252 0.228 0.241 0.031 -0.551 -1.968
2006 0.339 -0.211 0.501 -0.169 1.695 0.438 0.926 -1.727 -0.324 0.879 0.101 0.638
2007 -0.083 0.075 -0.570 -1.035 -0.612 -1.198 -2.631 -0.108 0.031 -0.434 -0.984 1.929
2008 1.208 1.147 0.587 -0.873 -0.490 1.348 0.320 0.087 1.386 1.215 0.920 1.194
2009 0.963 0.456 0.605 0.029 -0.733 -0.470 -1.234 -0.686 -0.017 0.085 -1.915 0.607
2010 -0.757 -0.775 0.108 0.377 1.021 2.071 2.424 1.510 0.402 1.335 1.516 0.205
2011 0.052 1.074 -0.296 -0.870 1.266 -0.099 -1.384 -1.202 -1.250 0.388 -0.908 2.573
2012 1.583 -0.283 0.275 0.666 0.153 -0.197 1.259 0.489 0.562 -0.444 -1.701 -0.764
2013 0.071 0.716 1.375 0.611 0.360 -0.271 0.945