Guest essay by Steven Capozzola
Even though declining ozone cooled the stratosphere in the 20th Century, the IPCC says this cooling proves solar variability doesn’t impact surface temperatures.
The climate community has repeatedly dismissed solar variance as a key driver of rising temperatures during the 20th Century. But their reasoning may have a key flaw, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unwittingly supplying the evidence.
A November 2013 statement from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) explains the prevailing sentiment against solar variability: “…if warming had been caused by a more active sun, scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.”
The observation they’re referring to is that, from roughly 1960 to 1995, stratospheric temperatures showed a net cooling. This decline occurred at the same time that surface temperatures were rising (driven, presumably, by increasing concentrations of CO2.) Thus, the absence of a parallel rise in stratospheric temperatures negates the possibility of a solar connection.
But what’s important to note is that ozone is the primary “greenhouse gas” of the stratosphere. As NASA explains it, “Ozone is both a major absorber of incoming ultraviolet in the stratosphere (leading to stratospheric heating) and a strong emitter in the thermal infrared spectrum.” Simply put, stratospheric temperatures are maintained by concentrations of ozone. If ozone levels decline, temperatures fall.
Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”
This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.
The direct relationship between ozone and stratospheric temperature became apparent during the mid-Twentieth Century. Ozone suffered an existential threat as the continued release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) ate away at its concentrations. Stratospheric ozone levels tumbled steadily from the late 1950s onward, creating a serious, and recognized, international problem. It wasn’t until the implementation of the Montréal Protocol in 1989 that real action to reduce CFCs took effect. Revisions to the Protocol subsequently led to a more complete ban on CFC production in 1996.
As NOAA’s Ozone Depleting Gas Index demonstrates, the Montreal Protocol has succeeded in gradually restoring ozone concentrations in the stratosphere. Specifically, CFC levels in the stratosphere continually rose until roughly 1996, the point at which the effects of the Montreal Protocol began to fully register. Starting in 1996, stratospheric CFC levels actually began to decline.
This action to restore ozone shows a remarkable correlation with recent stratospheric temperatures. Whereas cooling in the stratosphere was continually evident from 1960-1996, and tracked closely with falling ozone levels, temperatures have subsequently leveled off. Specifically, net temperatures in the stratosphere have remained essentially unchanged since the late 1990s.
Unfortunately, at the IPCC, one hand seems not to know what the other is doing. And so it’s questionable whether the IPCC has considered the ozone variable when citing stratospheric cooling as an invalidator of the solar activity thesis.
What’s rather striking, though, is that the flat-lining of stratospheric temperatures since roughly 1998 corresponds quite remarkably with the current “pause” in surface temperatures. This prompts a question: Could the stabilization of ozone levels in the stratosphere help to explain the subsequent ‘pause?’
If so, would the IPCC wish to promote this fact? Such a correlation would finally solve a vexing, recent climate mystery. But it would also establish a more concrete solar connection to temperature variability.
The evidence is compelling, and the subject deserves further scrutiny.
Already in play:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Exactly Stephen.
Well I don’t know that there is any purpose in invoking solar variability in ozone abundance variations whether such a link it true or not.
If ozone is declining for any reason, that reduces the short wavelength end of the solar spectrum, atmospheric absorption; and those are the high energy photons.
That must result in more solar energy reaching the surface, and deep oceans, and that will cause surface Temperatures to rise.
So of course, declining ozone should lower stratospheric heating and raise surface heating. The sun’s involvement in ozone change is an entirely separate matter.
g
If it was the sun that caused the decline in stratospheric ozone all along then there are potentially serious consequences for some.
Indeed, Stephen.
To my shame, I originally went along with the ozone-consensus with little skepticism. I now suspect the topic may need revisiting.
Whatever the facts turn out to be, targeting CO2 emissions is orders of magnitude more expensive (and futile, too!) than getting rid of CFCs was ever likely to be. And it’s not like CFCs were the essential defining chemical of carbon-based life forms for a billion years before “Greenpeace” graced this Earth.
GE Smith is correct, falling ozone levels allowed more of the ocean penetrating, high energy part of the solar spectrum to make it into the lower atmosphere. There is a recent ‘hiatus’ in the stratosphere the matches the surface hiatus.
.
This is a false statement, there is no “remarkable correlation ” since the “action” is not a clearly defined dataset, just two protocols that were variously implemented. In truth there is a vague, ildefined similarity between CFC emmissions and TLS ( temp of lower stratosphere ). The UN are trying to cliam credit for a mostly natural change in ozone that happended at about the same time as their bureaucratic dictates.
IPCC
This is typical of the obsession in climatology of viewing everything as ‘linear trends’.
?w=842
Here is what it really looks like:
No ‘linear trend’ but two step events that appear fairly obviously caused by the two major stratospheric eruptions in the record. Any recovery of stratospheric ozone has little to do with the UN Montreal protocol but simply the lack of major volcanoes since Mt Pinatubo.
I’m not sure that any of this informs us about whether solar activity is a factor. I’m not against such a suggestion but I don’t seen any clear case for it in this data.
What is clear is that more high frequency solar energy, capable of penetrating into the ocean ( not just warming the ten microns of the surface ) would cause a warming of the worlds oceans. There is at least prima facea evidence that major volcanoes caused a warming forcing of surface climate at the end of the 20th c.
Explained in more detail here:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
Comparison of surface warming and stratospheric cooling.
Looking again at that last graph, the difference between the two lines may suggest a possible solar component: trough in 1996 and 2008; peak around 2000.
@Mike, your graph shows
1) Strat temps predictably lead sea surface temps.
2) A strong suggestion of the influence of solar activity on strat temps.
I’m not so sure about volcanism causing warming, unless you are saying that the rebound from volcanic cooling has staying power. That is an interesting speculation, especially since we give ENSO such an important role re SST.
I’m not so sure about ozone data with the Montreal Protocol in the background. Could have a political component.
Interesting work!
Surely it’s a coincidence that the whole CFC/ozone debacle hit the papers just a few years before the patent on CFCs was scheduled to run out. Now we are all using a different chemical that still has decades left on it’s patent.
Mike: Prior to the satellite era, there was no way to directly measure ozone concentrations. It was assumed that the sun produced a constant supply of UV and that any variation seen at the surface must be due to changes in ozone levels.
I do not recognise any flat line from 1998. Can you explain what you mean with that?
Not only that, but if the ozone decline was due to CFC there should have been a gradual recovery, not a sudden spike up in 96.
Agree, I never did give much credence to CFCs and the “Ozone holes.”
I doubt you would understand if it was explained to you
Sun Spot. I certainly would listen if you would explain it.
I never claim to have all the facts but there were substantial issues never fully explained.
As I understand the CFC’s are heavy molecules and would take substantial lift to get up to the stratosphere. Most CFC’s were used in the Northern Hemisphere and somehow sneakily managed to cross the hemisphere boundary en masse and make it all the way to Antarctica where a ozone (hole?) had been discovered but no particular history of what conditions should be; and all about the time the chemical company (was it Dow?) was about to have the patent lapse.
This is one area in the climate debate where skeptics have been very lucky. Had for whatever reason CO2 stabilized or reduced during the current no warming the alarmists would be declaring victory and spending even more money to solve a non problem.
That’s more than probable but then I could relay on other, more educated people, to comment on your reply. I born at 83 and to me, the whole ozone hole thing was presented as absolute truth in Finnish schools. Just recently I’ve learn that there might have been some other theories about it.
It means, No statistically significant temperature change since 1998
This too:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/must-read-co2-or-sun-which-one-really-controls-earths-surface-temperatures/
Stephen do you have the study that showed ozone concentrations changes is anti correlated with solar activity above 45km and correlated with solar activity below?
If so could you post it?
Salvatore, here you go:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“Here we show that 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”
Thanks Stephen.
As a presentation:
http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/meeting-products/presentations/2012-1st-solar-forcing-wshop/haigh.pdf
That presentation was based on the old assumption that an active sun increases ozone above the equator and pushes the climate zones poleward.
They make no observation that it is the resultring reduction in global cloudiness that warms the system.
Also it was out of kilter with the actual observations of a reduction in ozone during the warming spell especially over the poles. Hence the blaming of CFCs.
It is because of that old assumption that Haigh and her colleagues were surprised by the 2004 to 2007 observations:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“Here we show that 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”
My hypothesis attempts to rersolve thoise issues and appears to do so thus far.
Clarification appreciated, as are the blog post and many edifying comments.
Thanks, fascinating interactions described here. Live and learn!
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) explains the prevailing sentiment against solar variability: “…if warming had been caused by a more active sun, scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.”
Quick, someone inform the WMO about the oceans, their heat capacity, and their effect of global climate.
It was the lack of warming at all levels that caused them to look for other explanations. They couldn’t believe that the sun could cause different thermal responses at different heights.
They decided that the cooling aloft and warming below was due to CO2 heat trapping and they expected to find the tropospheric hot spot just below the point where warming transitioned to cooling. It wasn’t there.
At first, the ozone reduction was attributed just to CFCs but they later said that because CFCs were powerful GHGs they also contributed to stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming. Still no hot spot.
Then the whole pattern went into reverse as the level of solar activity declined between cycles 23 and 24. and at the same time the jet streams became more meridional and global cloudiness increased whiilst the AO and AAO showed much more negative characteristics than previously observed.
All at the same time as tropospheric warming ground to a halt.
Still no hot spot.
====================
Which in normal circumstances should have overturned the AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately too many reputations in high places are tied to AGW for it to fail gracefully. Contradiction will be heaped on contradiction, until a more convincing theory emerges. For until that new theory gains acceptance, contradiction alone will not be enough. Science also abhors a vacuum.
epi-cycles upon epi-cycles
The “warming on the surface” came about by modifying the land temperature record. The Satellite data shows the “Pause”.
The Oceans have a 3 to 5 year time-lag for reducing their heat. The Pacific is larger takes longer. Look at the Atlantic; the “AO” cooling is in force. By the way, it is interesting that a cool Atlantic, in the tropics, produces NO hurricanes.
Again, as the Solar Output declines [check the Flux at 90 sfu], expect the Oceans to cool, the atmosphere to cool, and the major ocean currents to decline.
For the Flux:
http://www.spaceweather.ca/solarflux/sx-4a-en.php
That demonstrates a biblical level of ignorance regarding the atmosphere and climate, but is great propaganda because is sounds plausible at first glance so the liberal media can run with it without analysis. Best understandable counter argument is does a more active sun heat your windows more? Nope.
I wouldn’t doubt if the WMO made this chart that they now claim ignorance of.
Thank you RWturner!
According to my calculations the thermal reservoir of the oceans is almost a 1000 times that of the atmosphere, but I used a slide-rule not a computer so I could be wrong..? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to bring back R12 CFC to open up the Ozone hole again and bury the 2〫 -6〫 C Global Warming for the Century in the deep ocean? I doubt whether even the ARGOS would notice 0.002- 0.006〫 C….
Wouldn’t warming at all levels of the atmosphere only be true if energy directly from the sun was the only thing affecting the earth’s temperature. If part of the change were due to cosmic rays causing more clouds, than an entirely different temperature profile would be the result.
Steven Capozzola wrote, “Unfortunately, at the IPCC, one hand seems not to know what the other is doing.”
That is very true. I ran into that with my AR5 Expert Reviewer comments.
In comments on several parts of the draft Report, I complained about the addition to reported sea-level rise of Prof. Dick Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr estimate of “glacial isostatic adjustment.” That is his estimate of the amount by which sea-level at the coasts would be falling due to ongoing post-glacial sinking of the ocean floor (enlargement of ocean basins), due to crustal loading from meltwater from the last major deglaciation (about 10K yrs ago), were there no other factors affecting sea-level. The IPCC’s 1.7 mm/year claimed rate of sea-level rise for the 20th century is exaggerated by the addition of that 0.3 mm/yr adjustment.
But sea-level is the level of the surface of the sea, which means that you can’t legitimately subtract off factors (like Peltier’s 0.3 mm/yr GIA) which lower sea-level. Such arithmetic is useful for mass budget calculations, but the result of that subtraction is not sea-level.
In every case the IPCC rejected my complaints. But their reasons were contradictory.
Sometimes their response claimed that they did not include the 0.3 mm/yr adjustment (“the 1.7 mm/year rate does not have a 0.3 mm/year correction applied,” they said). Other times they claimed that it was proper to include the 0.3 mm/yr adjustment (it was “done to extract the 1.7 mm/yr SLR supposed to reflect climate processes only,” they said).
I suppose that inconsistency happened because they had multiple people writing the responses, but it is telling that those people didn’t agree except about the result: “Rejected.”
Of course, since Reviewers didn’t get to see any of the responses to their comments until after the final AR5 report had been released, there was no way to point out their confusion to them.
All Ozone is created by the Solar EUV. There is not a 1 to 1 relationship between creation and destruction. Try to find a chart or graph about Ozone creation verses Solar EUV; and/or Ozone destruction verses Solar EUV. I couldn’t. I would appreciate a link to that formula/graph.
Presently, we are just finishing Solar Cycle 24. So over the last three years the Solar EUV has been high.
Watch what happens when Solar Cycle 24 hits its minimum [ just like Solar Cycle 23 in 2006, that had the largest Antarctica Ozone Hole].
One can assume that all Ozone created by Solar EUV [after subtracting out the minor destruction], will be destroyed by the cold over Antarctica.
Unfortunately, we must wait several years to get the complete picture.
By the way, the hydrogenated chlorinated fluorocarbons [HCF] have declined [R12, etc.], but the Ozone Hole set the maximum in 2006. They, NOAA, then moved the date for HCF Ozone destruction reduction to 2050.
Typical. When proven wrong they just throw the end point way out in the future so people will have forgotten it by that time, and if it is remembered they just move the goal post once more.
R-12 is not a hydrogenated fluorocarbon, it is dichlorodifluoromethane: CCl2F2
Jlurtz
There are several papers, well defended in my view, by Prof Liu at the University of Waterloo, Ontario saying that the ozone level in Antarctica is mediated by the level of GCR and (among other chemicals) Bromine from the ocean. The drop over Antarctica is not just because of a lack of sunlight but because GCR are abundant. This means, seek a GCR mediated temperature mechanism involving ozone as a primary valve letting heat out. He claims the effect is strong enough to account for all recent warming, cooling and hiatus.
The idea was attacked by Eli Rabbet on his own site and we’ll defended by Liu, I thought. The physical explanation looks good. Liu is a physicist.
https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-astronomy/people-profiles/wing-ki-liu
The interchange between Liu and published critics purporting to debunk his proposed mechanism is hilarious. They published a claim that the effect he claimed was not evident in the data. His response was that they used data from a satellite that did fly over the affected region! Oops. Natural variation with devastating consequences for CAGW apparently needs full metal jacket responses fired from a weapon loaded with ignorance.
The CFC/Ozone/Temperature thing looks shaky next to his proposed mechanism. GCRs rule. Together with Svensmark’s hypothesis there is little room for a significant role for CO2. As the GCRs pick up next cycle, look for significant cooling.
To the main post. Yes, it deserves more scrutiny. But not so simple as the ozone hypothesis alone. Rising CO2 should trap some troposphere heat. And since the stratosphere is much more IR transparent, the slowing flux from below should cause it to cool if ozone is constant. The troposphere pause is clearly due to natural variation (oceans?). Whether it continues beyond about 30 years (going from last time about 1945-75) might depend on solar influences like delta UV on strat ozone. Long term research stuff.
To spike CAGW, only 3 stakes are needed. 1. The pause has already falsified models using Santer’s criterion. (A prominent warmunist.) Therefore modeled ECS 3.2 and pdf are falsified. 2. Observational effective sensitivity from about 1880 is about 1.6-1.7, perhaps even less if the new Stephens aerosol estimates are correct. 3. 2C from preindustrial is a purely arbitrary invention of Schellnhuber.
Game over. Cancel CAGW alarm. Best done after Paris spectacularly fails even after foolish Papal intervention based on Schellnhuber. More stinky stuff to rub green watermelon noses into that way.
That is assuming that IR between 13µ and 18µ isn’t already saturated by H2O. You can only absorb 100% of something and if H2O is already doing it, adding CO2 won’t change much.
BTW, this study by Mike Crow needs to be redone and focused on the desert and Antarctica region. By doing so you would remove the absolute humidity issue. Unless you control for humidity that study may give misleading results. The deserts and Antarctica are pretty much void of humidity so you can get a better understanding of the role of CO2. IMHO this is a smoking gun way to disprove CO2 driven climate change. If the spread between daytime and nighttime highs and nighttime lows isn’t narrowing you can’t claim CO2 is trapping much heat. If daytime temps reach 100°F and fall to 80°F in 250 ppm CO2 and reach 100°F and fall to 60°F under 400ppm, CO2 can’t be the cause of warming. Using average daytime and average nightime temperatures may also give some insight.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/
You are making the same mistake that gets repeated here often.
The fictitious overlap of CO2 and water bands.
The ” bands ” are in fact a whole slew of extremely narrow fine lines, that are often not resolvable in simple spectrometers.
So water bands may overlap CO2 bands, but the actual fine line spectral lines in general DO NOT match. There may be the odd case of overlapping lines, but generally not.
So the idea that CO2 and water compete for the same radiation is simply false; they are additive.
G
george e. smith August 15, 2015 at 5:59 pm
You are making the same mistake that gets repeated here often.
The fictitious overlap of CO2 and water bands.
The ” bands ” are in fact a whole slew of extremely narrow fine lines, that are often not resolvable in simple spectrometers.
Really? That is what you are going with?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
The HITRAN spectroscopy database lists more than 37,000 spectral lines for gaseous H216O, ranging from the microwave region to the visible spectrum
Going to get a little crowded in there. Water drops or ice crystals have broadband IR absorption.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/radiativeff.htm
The other problem is absorption spreading. When water vapor is 2-3% of the atmosphere the CO2 concentration is largely irrelevant. The emission lines are a gaussian distribution and rising concentrations of water vapor saturate further and further from the center frequency (making CO2 a disinterested bystander).
Don’t absorption lines get influenced by both temperature and pressure?
“Observational effective sensitivity from about 1880 is about 1.6-1.7
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
0.2 W m−2 per decade with uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade for a 22 PPM CO2 increase.
This would seem to indicate a TCR of less than 1°C (actually about 2.4 W/m2 or 0.65°C). Which would imply an ECS less than the figures being quoted.
The different between the “observational sensitivity” and the measured IR forcing due to a CO2 concentration change would tend to indicate that the Non-GHG Anthropomorphic Global Warming (NGAGW – the UHI etc.) is significant and about the same magnitude as the GHG warming.
It is troubling there is not more literature on NGAGW. That GISS is purported has a positive UHI correction.
The situation on temperature is just bizarre. The solution is pretty simple. Require by law that the official government reported temperature data be either the raw data or an adjusted temperature that conforms to an approved engineering standard. Congress should require, by law, that the various temperature adjusters make a submission of their procedure to an engineering standards committee for review and codification. Whatever the resulting engineering standard is, by law, will be what is used. The engineering standards committees would experience considerable delay reviewing existing NOAA and GISS procedures. They would have to stop laughing before they could start work on a standard for honest and reality-based temperature adjustment.
Further, Congress should require that an engineering standard for determination of NGAGW be developed and applied so both the accurate temperature trend and the NGAGW compensated trend (AGW only) are available.
This would take the gamesmanship out of temperature reporting.
“And since the stratosphere is much more IR transparent, the slowing flux from below should cause it to cool if ozone is constant.”
Not when things are in equilibrium. Have a look at the atmospheric temperature vs height well above this comment. Lowering ozone lowers the rate of thermalisation of UV. It is hot up there. CO2 doesn’t reduce ozone. Ozone absence can heat the oceans driving out CO2.
The big shock will be significant cooling and a drop in CO2. Alarmists will be reduced to saying cooling causes ocean acidification (again).
after Paris spectacularly fails
====================
large numbers of governments will commit to voluntarily reducing CO2 and make all sorts of promises to voluntarily commit large amounts of money to help the poor. the Paris conference will thus be hailed as a great success.
what will actually result however will be much different than the promises made.
What is “Surface Temperature?”
Hmmm….I’m just a layman. But wasn’t Algores first foray into Environmentalism have to with “The Ozone Hole”?
Enter Montreal.
His latest has to do with “Global Warming:”
Is Algore responsible for “Global Warming”?
But, I suppose, as long as his green agenda is advanced…
(Now where did I put that sarc tag….?)
Sorry for that.
I just never trusted “The A” and his hole.
+1
A look back at the history of meteorological / climatic scare stories always leads back to one significant fact: they have all been the result of environmental activism by those opposed to the use by humanity of all chemicals (so far as that is possible).
So: the ozone hole (which only “came into being” when there was a way to measure it), the opposition to nuclear fuel coincident with the opposition to fossil fuels with the demonisation of CO2 as the “active ingredient”, even the opposition to GM crops, and of course (the daddy of them all) the DDT scare.
Science, non-science, and pseudo-science have been used to persuade, read ‘bully’, the layman (which includes politicians) to adopt a “natural” lifestyle which is anathema to the vast majority of us and quite unnecessary.
But it does look as if, at last, at least some of the global warming chickens may be coming home to roost.
Mother Nature hates humans. She kills them quickly, as can be seen by the fate of hikers that get lost in the woods. They rarely survive more than 2 days.
God kicked humans out of the Garden of Eden, which was pretty much the only place where naked humans could survive without dying of exposure. Hardly a friendly act because God surely would have known what Mother Nature had in store for us.
The Pope has confused Mother Nature with the Garden of Eden. After wandering in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights, Jesus understood the difference. Perhaps our current Pope should follow in His footsteps.
I think you’ve discovered the cause of a significant fraction of the warming over the last half of the 20th century. Your post
reminded me of a prior post by Mike Crow.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/
He stated that daytime and nighttime temperatures were increasing at the same rate.
In the thread, I stated that he had discovered a way to determine whether the heating was caused by the sun, or by greenhouse gases. If caused by the sun, temperatures would increase both day and night, summer and winter, by roughly the same rate. If caused by greenhouse cases, a majority of the increase should be at night and in the winter.
Mike Crow demonstrated that a significant fraction of the warming was caused by the sun, your post explains just HOW the sun caused the warming- by the effect of infrared radiation on the Ozone in the atmosphere.
There is a University of Waterloo professor who argues that the Montreal Protocol essentially ended global warming.
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says
That’s interesting in that it does make the link to ozone concentration. IMO it totally misses the major cause of that variation which was volcanoes, not CFCs. The graph I lined at the beginning of comments contains the detailed data which clearly demonstrates it was two step changes, not gradual ‘linear trend’ due to increasing human emmisions of CFCs.
Qing-Bin Lu has attracted a lot of attention from people who don’t like the idea that he is doing science. Having said that, I’m almost certain that the following quote is intended to be humorous.
What on Earth gave you the idea that the heavy dose of sarcasm was an attempt at humor, Bob?
Poe’s law:
Just covering my butt.
There is a University of Waterloo professor
=============
“He was even more startled when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he was lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had realized that one thing they couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.”
“Aircraft produce up to 4 percent of the annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels near the Earth’s surface as well as at higher altitudes (25,000 to 50,000 feet).” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html
” Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosene type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosene (a blend of gasoline and kerosene) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.” http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
“Aircraft emissions have an impact on the Earth’s radiation budget and climate through direct and indirect changes in aerosols and cloudiness.” http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=40
BTW, this explains the warming of the oceans which CO2 can’t explain.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/uk/wilde/active-sun-stephen-wilde-sm.jpg
I’ve pointed out that O2 is strongly paramagnetic -attracted to a mag field and O3 is diamagnetic – repulsed by a field. It has been criticized saying the stronger effects of polar vortices (making a wall), etc. makes the ozone hole. This may be right. However the effect, even weak is there. With this attraction-repulse pair, pushing the ozone away from the poles is aided by the willing replacement of magnetic oxygen. In a quiet atmosphere, I expect it would be measurable ( calculable).
Not only that, O2 is the ONLY magnetic gas in the atmosphere – all the others are diamagnetic, so the poles are pushing away all gases but O2. Of course we can’t create a vacuum and there is unquestionably ‘weather’, most notably in the Arctic, which is simply wind (the Russian word for wind is ‘ветер’ pronounced ‘Vietyair’) so it is a matter of degree (I’ll accept small degree). The support for this effect is the not-well-known fact that the polar areas are also a CO2, Nitrogen, methane, noble gases ‘hole’, too. At least they are somewhat diminished there.
Additionally, a look at the South Polar ozone hole shows a wide thickened ‘collar’ of ozone around the hole, like a turtle-neck sweater collar rolled down. This suggests that the TOA is not a uniform temperature. It further suggests that the ozone has NOT BEEN DEPLETED at all but has been redistributed away from the poles. This is evident from Nasa’s imagery:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/Scripts/big_image.php?date=2006-09-24&hem=S
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=54991
Note the CO2 hole in the Arctic http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142
Perhaps the worrisome CO2 concentration in the equatorial region is because it is the weakest magnetic field. I better sign off before I open more channels for criticism.
I’ve just noted the posting above my magnetic explanation for the ozone hole – it seems to fit with Stephen Wilde’s image and JoNovas article.
Btw, the premature recovery trends in total zone may indicate a natural cycle.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612810
ozone
… This prompts a question: Could the stabilization of ozone levels in the stratosphere help to explain the subsequent ‘pause?’/i>
I haven’t noticed that ozone levels have stabilized. The Antarctic hole is just as prominent now as it was when the Montreal protocol was implemented, and levels over the northern hemisphere have, if anything, gone down.
Mike,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“Here we show that 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. ”
Different ozone responses to solar effects at different heights is what makes the difference to the shape of the global air circulation and thus the level of global cloudiness.
Unless you have a better idea 🙂
I don’t see any stabilization of ozone levels around the beginning of the pause. They look about as random then as any time, including before and after Montreal.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_10_SH.html
Clicking on a month under “Map archives – Monthly averages (1979–2015)” will change the “Yearly Maps” array.
Steven Capozzola,
By any chance do you have numbers for the stratospheric energy balance? That would be absorption of incoming UV and upwelling IR along with emission of IR, ideally broken down by major absorber/emitters.
I would like to suggest/recommend that WUWT publish an article directed towards creating an 8th Grade Presentation to give to Congress debunking CO2 caused CAGW and the creation of a Scientific Verification and Validation Agency.
?w=720
?w=978
The presentation would go like this. The X and Y Axis Titles would be removed. The people of congress would simply be asked do they see the relationship.
Here is another pair of charts. The R^2 between H2O and temperature is 0.75.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Inform Congress of this data.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Show the relationship between temperatures and CO2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2015_v6.png
Make sure Congress is aware of this:
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628×353.jpg
Also, create a unified Climate Change Theory that explains all the “smoking guns” that can’t be exchanged by CO2. This article on Ozone fills in the blank as to why the Oceans have been warming. The warming oceans create greater absolute humidity, more heat is trapped. This article also explains the record high day time temperatures, and another article demonstrates that the spread between daytime and nighttime temperatures hasn’t been narrowing. These articles highlight how CO2 has nothing to do with it. Bottom line, we need to dumb down these arguments, boil them down, condense them into talking points and make them understandable to the 8th grade dropouts and liberal arts majors in Congress and readers of various liberal media sources.
High School science lesson plans should also be created where Ice Core Data is tested for the Holocene period. Correlation studies should be run between Ozone, Absolute Humidity, CO2 and Temperature. Calculations on how much CO2 is needed to change the pH of the Oceans, how much radiation is needed to increase the temperature of the Oceans, and how much energy in is the 13µ and 18µ.
The presentation should also include cost benefit analysis and spending on Climate Science and higher gas prices should be put in terms of schools not built, teachers and union iron workers not hired, heart surgeries not performed, hospitals not built, roads and bridges not repaired, drugs not researched and approved, hospitals not built, VAs not properly staffed, boarders not secured, pensions reduced, loss of disposable income, loss of job opportunities, etc etc etc. If the people only knew what they weren’t getting for their money they would be furious, and we need angry voters to make a difference. We need the voters to know the truth.
A brief introduction to the offence of Fraud may also be included.
It looks better that way.
Auto.
co2islife August 14, 2015 at 7:14 pm presents some important graphical aids that should have educational value for presentations to Congress. Unfortunately not all of them ate suitable for teaching about temperature. Your first figure is too angular and information is lost between the cracks. Do not use one year intervals, use at least monthly spacing. And by the way, the peak to which the arrow opn the right points is obviously an accidental outlier. Your stratospheric graph is interesting because it shows the volcanic peaks that cannot be seen in ground-based or lower tropospheric satellite graphs. They simply do not get down there because they are broken up in an attempt to cross the tropopause. But this does not stop people from marking temperature charts with locations of “volcanic cooling.” All of them La Nina valleys, accidentally located where a volcanic cooling should have theoretically existed. And the next graph marked “global lower troposphere and surface anomalies from Jan 1958 to Dec 2012” is worthless. It is not what it says because it is totally land-based and satellite data are not shown correctly but are distorted to make them seem agree with land-based data. So what is so bad about being land-based? you might ask. The problem is that it is a total fraud, showing warming in the eighties and nineties that does not exist. There was a hiatus there according to satellite data and I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” What happened is that this hiatus was covered up by a phony warming called “late twentieth century warming.” The temperature controllers responsible for this criminal act are HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC. If you take a transparent ruler and lay it across that graph you can draw a straight line that follows it from the sixties to 2010. Wiped out is the hiatus that lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. Wiped out is the current hiatus that starts with the twenty-first century. It is replaced by a phony temperature rise, continuation of the false warming from the eighties and nineties. I have been mentioning this outrage from time to time over the last five years but nothing has happened. I have to conclude that the management of this temperature section is either incompetent or, which is worse, crooked. Luckily they still don’t control satellites or we would never know what is going on. But their arguments for global warming have been backed up by this fake warming for the last twenty years and they are still going strong.
@ Anro, Please break down your comments in paragraphs, trying to read it ( although I managed) was a chore. You made great points btw.
The graph is presented as showing stratospheric ozone and temperature in the Arctic. But ozone levels well outside the polar regions have been more constant, since CFCs are much less damaging to ozone without polar ice clouds, which are mainly present in polar regions in winter and early spring. Also, where there is more sunlight, ozone is maintained better. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases in general cool the stratosphere, and stratospheric temperature has cooled worldwide.
Donald, that is the ‘old’ AGW idea but it is not right.
The ‘smoking gun’ is the opposite ozone response to solar variations below and above 45km and above the poles as compared to above the equator.
As I have been saying since 2007 it has to be the way I describe it in order to achieve the correct sign of jet stream shifting.
If the CO2 scenario were correct the jets could never have become more meridional again since 2000 or thereabouts.
I well remember assertions that the more zonal jets observed before 2000 (and after the Great Climate Shift of the mid 70s) were supposed to be permanent and all our fault.
The consequence of the differential ozone response to solar fluctuations is a solar induced change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and alter the proportion of solar energy that gets into the oceans to drive the climate system.
The influence of CO2 and / or CFCs disappears to insignificance in comparison.
Can you cite the oppositeness of ozone response to solar variation above/below 45 km and in equatorial/polar zones?
Meanwhile, the way I have been hearing it, manmade global warming is making the polar front jet streams more meridional as well as slower. Whatever the cause of the warming below the tropopause, that is making the north polar front jet slower since the Arctic has warmed more than the tropics. Maybe the zonal/meridional pattern has to do with the PDO.
One wonders how people fail elementary logic and can’t tell the difference between “If the sun had contributed to variations in surface temperature” and “if CO2 had no effect whatsoever, and also the Ozone had been being depleted up until the early 1990’s”
Like, seriously guys. The Stratosphere would have cooled due to Ozone depletion and CO2 whether the surface warmed or not, whether the sun did anything or not. This…Really should not be that hard to understand. The…The cooling stratosphere doesn’t cause the warming surface temperature.
I just. I can’t believe I have to explain their own model to them. They literally don’t understand it.
“The cooling stratosphere doesn’t cause the warming surface temperature.”
It does if it changes global cloudiness.
A cooling stratosphere raises tropopause height and a warming stratosphere lowers it.
A differential effect between equator and poles alters the gradient between equator and poles which allows the tropospheric climate zones and jets to slide about latitudinally into different patterns depending on the gradient.
Zonal patterns produce less clouds and meridional patterns produce more clouds.
You don’t even need the Svensmark hypothesis in that scenario.
Stephen-that’s interesting, but it’s not the way the way it works in the models of those claiming a cooling stratosphere must mean the surface warming is due to CO2. And since that’s the case, their argument is fallacious and contrary to their own model.
The tropopause is always lower at the poles than at the equator. Is decrease of the differential between the equator and the poles supposed to make the jets more zonal or more meridional?
Global warming, whatever its cause, has reduced the differential between the Arctic and the equator in the levels of the atmosphere that lead to the north polar front jet, and the jet is formed from pressure patterns which are heavily influenced by air temperature from the surface to the tropopause level just south of the polar front jet (or the altitude of the core of the jet). That is generally roughly the 250 to 200 millibar level, roughly 30,000-40,000 feet above sea level. What happens below this level matters to polar front jet streams a lot more than what happens above.
In 1991 the Mount Pinatubo volcano blew its’ top and injected into the stratosphere an awesome amount of chlorine. We need somebody to match eruptions to the ozone and stratosphere temperature charts.
Do you have a source for this claim of “awesome” amount of chlorine?
I think you will find that it is sulphate aerosols that are mainly responsible for stratospheric ozone destruction.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
I may be out of date. After Mt Pinatubo blew I remember from news stories that it had raised upper atmosphere chlorine levels around the world and that the chlorine was about 1,000 times greater than all CFCs humanity has ever made. Also CFCs were heavier than most of the atmosphere and only about 4% ever get up to the ozone layer. The Antarctic ozone hole got bigger. There were predictions that other holes would form but they did not.
Now can I prove that. Wellllllll. maybe not.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/
http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/jskiles/fliers/all_flier_prose/chlorine_tabazadeh/chlorine_tabazadeh.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120612115920.htm
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/151
http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0210/10041.html
“Researchers from the 17-nation European Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Experiment (EASOE) based in Kiruna, northern Sweden, say the falling ozone levels were triggered by last June’s eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines.”
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/volcanic_chlorine.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/heavier.html
Sigh. I hate being wrong but I should be used to it by now.
I still think the level 5 and 6 volcanoes should be matched to the ozone chart.
Mike,
I’m no expert, so your chart selection puzzles me. All it shows is temperature changes in the LS over time. It does NOT show changes in OZONE levels. A volcanic eruption doesn’t just toss gases into the atmosphere, it also ejects massive amounts of visible particulate matter (ash) as well. Particulate matter that ALSO decreases the amount of short wave radiation that reaches the surface-causing the atmospheric layers below the particulate haze to cool, and those above it to warm.
All your graph shows is an overall gradual cooling trend of the lower stratosphere from 1980 to approx 2013 with two spikes in LS temperatures corresponding with major volcanic eruptions. It does NOT show what changes took place in actual background OZONE levels during that time period.
Marlow Metcalf,
Ozone is destroyed by free radicals; the chlorine containing radicals are especially effective. CFC’s photolyze in the stratosphere to make chlorine containing radicals, which is why CFC’s destroy ozone. The chlorine in volcanic emissions (at least the part that stays in the strosphere) is in the form of HCl, which does not photolyze in the stratosphere. So HCl has little effect on ozone.
The American Chemical Association also have found there just is not enough energy to break the CFC bonds, even if they could get up there. I’m still looking for mt file on that…
iNature News homepage nature news home news archive specials opinion features news blog nature journalPublished online 26 September 2007 | Nature 449, 382-383 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449382a
News
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.
Quirin Schiermeier
The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.
The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.NASA/APAs the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules’ ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.
Cl2O2 is key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl•) that reacts with O3.
Cl2O2 is key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl•) that reacts with O3.So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won’t be before the end of next year, “modellers must make up their minds about what to do,” says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander’s group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.
“Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing — the free atmosphere is something else,” says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. “There’s no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day — whether or not we completely understand the chemistry.” But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don’t match the observed losses.
Hot topic
Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander’s group has started to study possible candidates one by one — but so far without success.
Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer — a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure — might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different — or even opposite — from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.
The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
References
Pope, F. D., Hansen, J. C., Bayes, K. D., Friedl, R. R. & Sander, S. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4322–4332 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Molina, L. T. & Molina, M. J. J. Phys. Chem. 91, 433–436 (1987). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
comments on this story
So HCl has little effect on ozone.
=============
Nonsense. HCl is hydrochloric acid. It doesn’t need UV to break its bonds like CFC’s, because it is already hugely reactive.
“The central feature of this unusual chemistry is that the chlorine reservoir species HCl and ClONO2 (and their bromine counterparts) are converted into more active forms of chlorine on the surface of the polar stratospheric clouds. The most important reactions in the destruction of ozone are:”
HCl + ClONO2 -> HNO3 + Cl2 (1)
ClONO2 + H2O -> HNO3 + HOCl (2)
HCl + HOCl -> H2O + Cl2 (3)
N2O5 + HCl -> HNO3 + ClONO (4)
N2O5 + H2O -> 2 HNO3 (5)
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html
Brett Keane August 16, 2015 at 12:36 am
The American Chemical Association also have found there just is not enough energy to break the CFC bonds, even if they could get up there. I’m still looking for mt file on that…
iNature News homepage nature news home news archive specials opinion features news blog nature journalPublished online 26 September 2007 | Nature 449, 382-383 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449382a
News
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.
Quirin Schiermeier
The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.
The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.NASA/APAs the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Pope’s method required a correction for the presence of Cl2 impurity in their sample, subsequent work using a different method by Lien et al, which didn’t require such a correction indicated that the Pope results were too low. Pope followed this up and determined that his correction was overdone in the earlier work.
http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/15006004/grl51389.pdf
That was inorganic chlorine compounds, which are not nearly as destructive to ozone as organic chlorine compounds are. The main chlorine compound in volcanic gas is hydrogen chloride, which is extremely hygroscopic. And when air moves from the surface to the tropopause, it is generally cloudy by the time it gets to the tropopause. The hydrogen chloride ends up dissolved in cloud droplets that suck it in. This traps the hydrogen chloride in the troposphere until it is rained out.
Just looked at the Wikipedia List of large volcanic eruptions of the 20th and 21st century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century
Will need a specialist to decide what to chart.
The ozone chart goes from 1979 to 2001??
“Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid fuel rocket boosters used on the space shuttle release 187 tons of ozone destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch.
Valery Burdakov, co-designer of the Russian “Energiya” rocket engine, also noted that each shuttle launch produces seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the “greenhouse effect”) and 177 tons of aluminum oxide (thought to be linked to Alzheimer’s Disease) before reaching an altitude of 31 miles. Burdakov also notes that the history of ozone depletion correlates closely with the increase of chlorine discharged by solid fuel rockets since 1981. Soviet rockets employ a fuel combination that is 2000 times less damaging than the shuttle’s but which still destroys 1500 tons of ozone per launch.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/4-nasa-space-shuttles-destroy-the-ozone-shield/
Donald asked:
“Is decrease of the differential between the equator and the poles supposed to make the jets more zonal or more meridional?”
It isn’t solely a matter of the size of the differential.
It is a matter of the size of the equatorial and polar air masses.
The oceans affect the size of the equatorial air masses as they run through their own cyclical processes such as ENSO.
The sun’s effect on ozone above 45km and towards the poles affects the size of the polar air masses.
As each waxes and wanes the interplay results in latitudinal climate zone shifting and jet stream waviness as the system seeks to retain thermal equilibrium.
One could have very zonal equatorward jets during ice ages when the polar air masses greatly expand, push equatorward, and easily resist poleward excursions from the equator.
Interestingly, a recent paper suggested persistent El Nino conditions during ice ages. If that were correct it would be because the expanded polar air masses and the development of ice caps prevented the El Nino conditions from dissipating poleward. There would have been a lot of snow though around the ice cap boundaries.
One could also have very zonal poleward jets during warm times when the equatorial air masses have little resistance from a contracted polar air mass.
Generally though the more meridionality, the more clouds and the more likely is cooling to develop over enough time to overcome the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Lock southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_sh_f00.png
1) Why is L so cold when there is 400ppm CO2? There is no H2O.
2) Why is the coastal area so much warmer? It has CO2 AND H2O.
3) Why is that one spot so red? There is a volcano beneath it. Climate “scientists” claim it is due to CO2. CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, especially in local spots.
4) Antarctica has nothing but sub zero temperatures. How does CO2 cause melting in sub zero temperatures? It doesn’t.
Oooops, that chart is for the stratosphere, or 100 h-PA, or 1/10 the atmosphere at sea level.
Ren, the ice seems to be getting “shredded” off by the winds below New Zealand and elsewhere. It still seems cold. Any comments on what is happening, and the causes, would be appreciated. Brett
Look at the pressure.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
And the forecast.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f120.png
Holes in the Recent Arctic Ozone Hole Story … by Dr. Tim Ball on October 10, 2011
http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the-recent-arctic-ozone-hole-story/
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
It is truly frightening to see an activist press team up with those most able to loot the public treasury. We have so many real issues that must be resolved but these well organized looters have us pouring money down the climate science rat hole. Once people start getting their medical treatment denied because Medicare is out of money, or the Social Security Checks get cut, and people start asking why, and the answer is it went to fund climate research so you can pay higher energy bills and have more black outs, the poop will hit the fan. Unfortunately that may be a way off in the future. This misguided priorities of these greedy climate scientists is of biblical proportions. They act with impunity and waste fortunes of the tax payers money on their own pet projects. Reform had better be coming and coming fast.
http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the-recent-arctic-ozone-hole-story/
Mark
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
That quote from Tim Ball sums up where we are.
We do know something of natural variability.
We do not know all the causes.
We do know some of the causes, but we do not understand their influence, singly, let alone together.
The atmosphere is a complex system.
The atmosphere, the oceans (in their current configuration), solar radiation, plus volcanoes as a sort of wild card, plus – whatever – add up to a very complex system.
And when we do not know which bit does what, nor how it affects other bits [if it does], our predictive ability is not much better than
“Tomorrow will be quite like today”
And, as co2islife notes, there are some criminals trying to steal gazillions from the public purse.
Some are watermelons.
Some are simply opportunists with a high regard for their own comfort, and no morals if, because of high fuel costs [to pay for the subsidies they get] old folk die of malnutrition or hypothermia.
I don’t know how many Congressmen have a degree in any of the hard sciences.
I don’t know how many MPs have a degree in any of the hard sciences.
[Ditto for other legislatures]
( I understand Vladimir Putin has a doctorate in the dark arts . . . /sarc )
A simple presentation – a Janet & John one really [when I was growing up, this was a very simple reading book system for five and six year-olds], never mind 8th grade – as espoused by
co2islife
August 14, 2015 at 7:14 pm
is a very good idea.
Auto
PS
I omitted Fat Boy Kim, the One-man, One-Vote [and he IS the man . . . .], ‘beloved leader” of the Peoples’ democratic republic of North Korea.
He seems to have a professorship in nasty murders.
Auto
Auto, re your remark to Mark
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
That quote from Tim Ball sums up where we are.
I read the rest of your comment as well. but that first one says it all.
The amount of variables are astounding and I think, (unless we can all sit around the table as civilized humans, if there is such a thing), we will never understand the scope of what our planet/solar system/galaxy/universe is all about. And at my age I have a suggestion, live and let live and help your neighbors to do the same.
http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/1666959-20150814-usa-2016-al-gore-peut-contrarier-hillary-clinton#xtor=EPR-182-%5Bwe
what about Al Gore as president ?
ratu, old soul
What about Al Gore as president of – what?
Haiti [a dollar year, plus all the watermelons he wants]?
Watermelon International?
Preening Billionaires Inc.?
Red’n’Greenpeace?
no, sorry, I’m struggling!
Auto
Changes EUV radiation causes changes in temperature and density of the thermosphere.
co2islife August 15, 2015 at 6:43 am
BTW, it is worth noting that O3 is the only greenhouse gas that has its peak absorption between 9µ and 11µ which is earths peak radiation.
Peak wavelength is not the same as the peak of the energy distribution which is more relevant. CO2 is nearer to the peak energy than O3. In fact it is CO2 which is ‘ideally located on the absorption spectrum’.
Mike Crow needs to be redone and focused on the desert and Antarctica region. By doing so you would remove the absolute humidity issue. Unless you control for humidity that study may give misleading results. The deserts and Antarctica are pretty much void of humidity so you can get a better understanding of the role of CO2. IMHO this is a smoking gun way to disprove CO2 driven climate change. If the spread between daytime and nighttime highs and nighttime lows isn’t narrowing you can’t claim CO2 is trapping much heat. If daytime temps reach 100°F and fall to 80°F in 250 ppm CO2 and reach 100°F and fall to 60°F under 400ppm, CO2 can’t be the cause of warming. Using average daytime and average nightime temperatures may also give some insight.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/
BTW, it is worth noting that O3 is the only greenhouse gas that has its peak absorption between 9µ and 11µ which is earths peak radiation. If CO2 can result in warming then why not CO2 which is ideally located on the absorption spectrum? O3 near the surface is also largely limited to urban areas. Climate Scientists only look for data that supports their misguided conclusion that CO2 is the causes and they overlook much more obvious causes.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
The flat Ozone concentration corresponds with the “pause”.
http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/img/activity_pics/12_using_ozone_graph.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/12/06/ast17sep_1_resources/cfcstrip.gif
WUWT needs to host a series of High School Lesson Plans that can be printed off and given to a High School Science teacher. We need to develop a way to get the counter argument into the class rooms.
1) Use ice core data from the Holocene to test the Hypothesis “Man is not causing climate change.”
2) Understanding the IR absorption spectrum for GHGs.
3) Running correlation studies between GHGs and temperature.
4) Why does the temperature drop so much between coastal and inland Antarctica, why do temperatures drop so much in the desert.
5) What is the trend in polar bear populations
etc etcs.
These lesson plans can also be sent to politicians and political activists so that the public in general can start having a conversation instead of name calling like “deniers” and statements like “the science is settled.” We need to provide people willing to argue this issue in public the means and supporting documents to do so. That is why I keep focusing on condensing these arguments down it actionable talking points and 8 grade lesson plans. Simply preaching to the Choir isn’t enough, we all know it is a fraud, we need to convert people to our side and get them to vote. Al Gore is likely running for president on this nonsense. We need to have just an effective way to communicate to the public.
Other lesson plans:
1) What is warming the oceans, it is likely the oceans and atmosphere are warming due to different causes? Can CO2 warm the oceans, if not, what is causing the warming?
2) Why has CO2 never caused CGW in the past 600 million years even when it reached 7000 ppm?
3) How can rising CO2 explain the pause?
4) Why have the temperature data been altered to show more warming and why do they differ from satellite?
5) Review the success of the IPCC models.
6) Detail the smoking guns in the data
Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but the ozone absorption is predominantly in the stratosphere. Consequently it is not a major warming factor on the surface. You can verify this for yourself on MODTRAN, here http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
Set the ‘Strat. Ozone scale to 0’ and notice that the blip in the outgoing radiation spectrum between 9 and 10 microns is much reduced.
More importantly, ozone also blocks some of the solar radiation coming in, taking out most of the ultraviolet, and thus shields the planetary surface from the full intensity of the insolation.
The absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone warms the upper atmosphere and actually causes the stratosphere itself (a region in which the temperature rises as one goes to higher altitudes)
I understand that, but a computer model isn’t reality. That computer model doesn’t account for changes in cloudiness or changes in the zonal jet stream. IMHO all this focus on CO2 and the GHG is pure nonsense, and unlikely the cause of the warming. If we are warming we should be focused on the source of the incoming warming. If we are hitting record high daytime temperatures it is due to more sunlight reaching the earth’s surface. It strikes me that more incoming radiation is far more likely the cause of the warming than trapping outgoing radiation. Also play around with MODTRAN. A 10% change in absolute humidity basically makes any contribution by CO2 insignificant. H2O is an infinitely more potent green house gas and absolute humidity has been increasing thanks to more sunlight reaching the oceans. CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans.
When I first started work on missile guidance systems, some 50 years ago, we used a model called LOWTRAN, a precursor to MODTRAN. LOWTRAN was good then, MODTRAN is even better now. These models are not used to predict winds, jet streams or global warming. They are not General Circulation Models. They simply calculate the transmittance of radiation at various wavelengths through the atmosphere. To do that they rely on an extensive database of many 1000s of empirical measurements. Note MEASURED not modelled. The model simply collates the measured results for a given scenario.
The Mariner and Voyager spacecraft used models to plan their gravitational slingshots through the solar system, relying on rules known since the time of Isaac Newton. Some models are verified. Some models are useful. Don’t confuse them with climate models which are still in their infancy.
MODTRAN is useful. The following shows the results from MODTRAN (in red) compared to actual satellite measurements made by the Nimbus 3 IRIS instrument(Black) Hanel et al., 1972
http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/722d8552a9cbc163ecc372b97b57026d6b794ea6.png
I think that’s very good, certainly better than a random guess. The slight deviations are probably due to differences in the actual prevailing conditions and the standardised model atmospheres in the database.
Ozone comes and goes. You would think, in this satellite age, that we have a good handle on how to measure it. We don’t. Measuring the diurnal variation alone is a complex problem. Column ozone is equally a wicked measuring problem. Finally, the overall error bar is massively large. The tiny solar variation effect on ozone is within a very noisy data set. Given the post author’s contention that a case can be suggested that solar variability is a possible cause, me thinks he jumps too quickly off the cliff. Why do armchair solar enthusiasts continue to ignore error bars given a NOISY data set????? My back of the envelope measure of this post? Epic fail.
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/ozonetrend/proposal.pdf
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/611/2005/acp-5-611-2005.pdf
http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/atm/v20n3/v20n3a3.pdf
Distribution of ozone in the stratosphere over the polar circle changes over longer periods of time.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.png
Therefore, the pattern of circulation in winter can be very durable, even many weeks.
Uh oh. My comment did not show up. I had three pdf links in it. Might that be why?
” Stratospheric ozone levels tumbled steadily from the late 1950s onward, creating a serious, and recognized, international problem.”
—————-
Since we did not start measuring ozone until Dobson in the 50’s we only assume the changes are a problem. And as measuring became more sophisticated the holes got bigger. Relationship?
The ozone/freon scam lives on.
Yep, even as a Kid I smelled a rat. Problem is, no one is held accountable for all the wasted costs imposed on society. These sanctimonious misguided environmentalists act with impunity. There is no accountability. Millions have died due to the DDT ban and nothing is said or done. It is an outrage.
MALARIA VICTIMS: HOW ENVIRONMENTALIST BAN ON DDT CAUSED 50 MILLION DEATHS
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/whats-petas-position-on-the-animal-liberation-front-alf/
I wonder if PETA would appreciate the opposition burning down PETA offices? Funny how as long as they don’t bare the costs of their positions they support them. The moment everyone follows PETA’s approach we would have chaos. The hypocritical double standard and tolerance afforded these left-wing groups is an outrage.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/AgainstALF/PETA%20rejects%20claim%20it%20funds%20terror%20groups.htm
Some relevant links for the data and assertions made above…
WMO dismissal of solar variability:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/factsheet/documents/ClimateChangeInfoSheet2013-03final.pdf
Stratospheric Temperatures, 1958-2012:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
NASA fact page on ozone function in the stratosphere:
http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateO3/
Declining ozone, 1961-2013:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/images/ozone_depletion.png
NOAA Ozone Depleting Gas Index:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/
CFC levels in stratosphere, 1970 and beyond:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/
Ozone levels declining after 1996:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html
Stratosphere and troposphere temperatures, 1958-2012:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
IPCC report stating a linkage between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc01.pdf
“Revisions to the Protocol subsequently led to a more complete ban on CFC production in 1996.”
Ok and it appears ozone and stratospheric temps then rose. But soon after returned to nearly 96 levels? Why if the correlation is valid?
Conjecture abounds as we can have very little confidence in the role of CFCs, Ozone, CO2, the sun, water vapor or the oceans.
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_5_1.htm
“Ozone forms a kind of layer in the stratosphere, where it is more concentrated than anywhere else, but even there it is relatively scarce. Its concentrations in the ozone layer are typically only 1 to 10 parts of ozone per 1 million parts of air, compared with about 210,000 parts of oxygen per 1 million parts of air.”
With so many variables and so much unknown how in the heck can alarmists continue clinging to their most ludicrous claim that natural causes cannot explain 20th century warming.
Is it not far more rationale to assume that if we know anything it is that it is overwhelmingly likely the many natural influences are most likely the cause of everything atmospheric and climate?
That is why I keep saying test the ice core data. There is absolutely nothing abnormal about the past 50 and 150 years. Just test the Holocene period in ice cores from around the globe. None will show that the past 50 and 150 years falls outside the norm.
Theory and modelling are good scientific tools. But nothings as good as a experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Highwater .One thing man has become a expert at is blowing sh-t up and destroying it.
“Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”
This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.”
Wrong. Surface temperature initially increases with *decreasing* solar activty, by warming of the AMO and the associated drying of continental interiors, which is what happened from 1995. High solar activity levels do the reverse, particularly by stronger solar wind states as we saw in the mid 1970’s.
Low solar activity causes a blockade of circulation (increase in pressure over the polar circle) and the weakness of the wind (decrease in water vapor).
We must remember that at the beginning of 2015 the solar wind was the strongest in 24 cycle.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2010&starttime=00%3A00&endday=16&endmonth=08&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Specific Humidity levels in the upper troposphere (near stratospheric) have decreased with temperature which could be attributed to excess solar input. I’d expect these erasure in the majority of thestratosphere as well. The % of humidity variability is low in the stratosphere, but the volumes (space volume) at that altitude are much greater than near surface.
This is potentially huge. Definitely one of the more intriguing topics of late.
Yes,
If a warming stratosphere proves to be a consequence of a less active sun then climate scientists have been grossly negligent for decades.
The entire CO2 and CFC narrative would have to be consigned to the trash can.
times will tell.
starting 2016 CAGW will be dead and gone.
spare’s left for real world encounter, stay tuned to Vatican Radio.
/ sarc off /
Fine piece… too bad arrogant turds in charge of Academia, Science Journals.. and the IPCC would never consider promoting anything but CO2 related Apocalyptic Climate Factors… don’t expect any “peer reviewed” scIEnCE on this topic…
Sun, Ozone, Earths wobble orbit, massive human induced water vapor injections.. not relevant according to the horse with blinders on…
Again… fine piece