From a University of Waterloo press release (h/t to commenter Rob)
WATERLOO, Ont. (Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008) — A University of Waterloo scientist says that cosmic rays are a key cause for expanding the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole — and predicts the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks.
Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy who studies ozone depletion, said that it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by sunlight-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. But more and more evidence now points to a new theory that the cosmic rays (energy particles that originate in space) play a major role.
The ozone layer is a layer in Earth’s atmosphere that contains high concentrations of ozone. It absorbs almost all of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on Earth and causes diseases such as skin cancer and cataracts. The Antarctic ozone hole can be larger than the size of North America.
Lu said that data from several sources, including NASA satellites, show a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Lab measurements demonstrate a mechanism by which cosmic rays cause drastic reactions of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds.
Satellite data in the period of 1980-2007, covering two full 11-year solar cycles, demonstrate the significant correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion.
“This finding, combined with laboratory measurements, provides strong evidence of the role of cosmic-ray driven reactions in causing the ozone hole and resolves the mystery why a large discrepancy between the sunlight-related photochemical model and the observed ozone depletion exists,” Lu said.
For example, the most recent scientific assessments of ozone depletion by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, which use photochemical models, predict ozone will increase by one to 2.5 per cent between 2000 and 2020 and Antarctic springtime ozone is projected to increase by five to 10 per cent between 2000 and 2020.
In sharp contrast, Lu said his study predicts the severest ozone loss — resulting in the largest ozone hole — will occur over the South Pole this month. The study also predicts another large hole will probably occur around 2019.
“the largest ozone hole ”
Is that the largest ozone hole ever recorded?
Regarding CFC’s, does anybody know if NASA or any other organization has ever measured the amount of CFC’s in the atmosphere by altitude? I’ve searched and searched for this information and have never found anything. This to me is odd because somebody must have measured CFC concentration by altitude at some point in the past and shown the data to governments to help get the CFC ban into place.
Interesting,
If true, then we could have a new barometer for predicting cloud cover, and thus global temperature variation.
By correlation do they mean ozone is directly proportional or inversely proportional to cosmic ray intensity?
This may be connected to an article published last year concerning the whole CFC “theory”, referenced here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002341.html
And was this prediction right?
Bring back Halon 1301 fire extinguishers. The best all rounders there ever were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_1301
Why? In practice, the operators of many Halon 1301 total flooding systems evacuated the space on impending agent discharge. In other words, just depart the scene, because the Halon 1301 would have the fire out in seconds.
No, you can’t have mine.
Perry
Nasa Ozone Hole data page:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Hmmmm – Not another scientist disagreeing with the WMO and the UN. Whatever next. Will he be branded an anthropogenic ozone hole (AOH) sceptic (or denier).
IPCC claims Ozone depletion causes global cooling:
“observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system”[42] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²)”
I have also seen the ozone hole used as the explanation for lack of warming in the Antarctic.
From the article above it sounds like the current consensus is that ozone is expected to increase and the ozone hole diminish resulting in less negative forcing. I wonder how this has been modeled.
We can not heat our homes when it is cold because it will cause warming, we can not cool our homes when it is hot because it depletes the ozone layer and causes cooling, hmmmm. Our position at the top of the evolutionary ladder is being challenged because of our ability to adapt ourselves to our environment. I feel like watching “Planet of the Apes” again.
Looks like from the page linked by kunhkat, Lu missed his prediction, but came close on area.
From the bar graphs shown on the NASA page referred to above, it looks like the southern Sept/Oct ozone hole leveled off in the early to mid 90s, and has stayed surprisingly stable since. Weren’t stratospheric CFC levels supposed to keep going up until about 2000 and then come down?
I’m not questioning the theory, just asking a question.
One major problem with CFC’s, at least in the Antarctic is how they get there. Most were produced in the north, the U.S., Europe, Japan. There is little mixing of NH and SH air, the jet streams keep them separate. So how did all those nasty CFC’s make it to the south pole and clobber the ozone? And why not an even bigger hole up north?
I recall an article in Science News many years back that a Dutch team had first noticed the ozone hole in the 1950’s (before we produced massive amounts of CFC’s) and that observations had tracked growth and shrinkage with the solar cycle. Lief may have to correct me on this, but I think GCR’s would also track the solar cycle.
Of course, all this was long before the politically correct Montreal Protocol which blamed everything on that nasty refrigerant and made everything more expensive and less efficient.
Does anyone have the reference to the original article reference. Lu originally published on oxone and cosmic rays in 2001 in Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 078501 (2001) [4 pages]. However I can find no reference to his 2008 article. Presumably there is a graph which would be interesting to see!!
There are skeptics who do not believe that CFCs are the cause of the Ozone hole (and their arguments are interesting).
The debate over CFC’s is over folks! The Montreal Protocol has solved the problem.
Move along – nothing to see here.
Greenhouse gas trends including the two most important CFCs here.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png
According to the NASA Ozonehole watch timeline linked above, it appears there is more correlation to CFCs than to the solar cycle.
As Antarctica warms up due to global warming, the penguins will need more refrigerators. The vicious cycle continues. Temperatures have already reached a blistering -56F this spring at Vostok.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/89606/2008/10/25/MonthlyHistory.html
Bill Illis (10:21:44)
Thanks. I’ve seen those, but I’m pretty sure those are tropospheric levels.
I seem to recall stratospheric levels were supposed to peak later.
John M (10:54:14) :
Bill Illis (10:21:44)
Thanks. I’ve seen those, but I’m pretty sure those are tropospheric levels.
I seem to recall stratospheric levels were supposed to peak later.
Try here, Figs 8 & 9
http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm
The WMO/UNEP report “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006” by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer [http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/arep/gaw/reports/ozone_2006/pdf/exec_sum_18aug.pdf] states: “Model simulations suggest that changes in climate, specifically the cooling of the stratosphere associated with increases in the abundance of carbon dioxide, may hasten the return of global [(60°S-60°N)] column ozone to pre-1980 values by up to 15 years”. Apparently CO2 has positive effects.
Is this not more a question of a less active sun in general, where the cosmic rays are inversely coupled to?
If the sun is very active, more ozone is formed near the equator and the temperature gradient of the stratosphere between the equator and the poles is increased. This shifts the jet stream position towards the poles too, including rain patterns in the troposphere. This may influence the Antarctic vortex in winter (here I am speculating) and hence the strength of the ozone hole in spring.
Thus while solar activity is the origin in all cases, it doesn’t necessary include that cosmic rays are the real trigger of the reactions.
I guess I can google too (time I got off my lazy duff).
Looks like the peak is a little after 1995.
Guess that’s close enough.
Is this caused by the shrinking heliosphere?
Sun’s protective ‘bubble’ is shrinking
Retired engineer- you forgot one space shuttle. The fuel tank spray-on insulating foam chemistry was switched to reduce CFC emissions associated with the spray process (perhaps a few parts per quintillion of total US CFC emissions, but that’s just a detail…). There were clearly some adhesion problems with the new formulation that eventually led to the loss of a shuttle.
There are some big problems with the CFC-ozone causal link claimed by promoters of the Montreal protocol. There was a paper in Nature last year from NASA JPL that reported measured reaction rates for one particular chemical pathway to be much too slow compared with the assumed reaction rate that led to the predictions of ozone destruction rates from A-CFC’s.
http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm
Some of the quotes from the authors and other atmospheric chemistry/ozone experts are very enlightening. For example,
“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.”
But Montreal Protocolists continue to point to the ‘success’ of the CFC-banning protocol as a blueprint for carbon dioxide controlling protocols. I guess it depends on your measure and definition of ‘success’.
*sigh*.
re: deadwood (10:17:10) :
“The debate over CFC’s is over folks! The Montreal Protocol has solved the problem.”
And the Montreal Protocol is a fine model of how the nations of the world can work together to resolve a global “problem”. Right.
Retired Engineer,
I remember my high school chemistry teacher in the mid 80s having the same problem. He could not understand how the CFC’s got up there either.
“They must be clever than me” – he said ….But no, they where not….
He had a great reputation. He could distil denatured alcohol – “They” don’t come clever than that…..
I have a lot of bets from 1988-1995 finally coming due. 🙂
CFC’s my hairy …..
Are comic rays the missing piece of the ozone climate puzzle? Do we have enough data over a long enough period of time to really know. And isn’t that the real problem most of our climate theories suffer.
The sun creates ozone, the sun destroys ozone. Ah the good old days of innocence. The ozone hole seems to do whatever it wants regardless what man does with CFCs. That’s odd. Now we find the sun allowing an increase in comic rays, and that is affecting the ozone hole.
I wonder, has anyone tried correlating the balance of the sun’s shortwave and longwave UV to the ozone hole? Wouldn’t that be something relatively easy to do? Might that produce some answers that may be additive to the cosmic ray theory of ozone creation/destruction? I would think the two would be similar processes, with additive results.
All this ozone stuff, it’s sort of like global warming not obeying Al Gore. Next people will be saying the whole DDT scare was a hoax — Bring back DDT.
Maybe if we spent more time on real science, than trying to disprove the latest concocted liberal taxing theory … The Internet is a vast resource, it’s past time we put it to good use “the wisdom of the crowd”.
The NASA Ozone hole website references 1979 as a benchmark year. It seems that just like with the climate change/AGW scientific analysis, whatever might have happened before 1979 isn’t important.
Also note that the “Hole”, is not the complete absence of Ozone, it’s a region that has about 2/3rds (or less) of the typical 300 DU concentration.
So, there are now two theories about ozone depletion and the Antarctic ozone hole. Should Dr. Lu’s bear up to the test of time, I expect that the UN still will never abandon their cherished CFC theory. It’s a pity we don’t have solid data {not proxies} about the condition of the ozone hole before the introduction of CFC’s. Should Dr. Lu’s prediction for the ozone hole bear up this month, I can see the UN/WMO twisting themselves into pretzels in trying to account for what, in their view, would be an anomaly. And a century from now, when the ozone hole is still there as big and strong as ever, everyone will have forgotten about the pseudo-science that resulted in the banning of CFC’s. This whole episode seems like a dry run that was used in working up to CO2 and AGW.
Bill Illis, thanks for graphs.
“producing ethanol from corn grain can release large amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the environment”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218140850.htm
Al Gore – Increasing greenhouse gasses through stupidity!
Another lost theory, from 1998:
“One of the reasons for the warmer Arctic is that large-scale planetary atmospheric waves, similar to solitons in the oceans, deposit heat energy in the North, breaking up an atmospheric vortex of cold air that sits over the Arctic. In the simulations performed by the NASA-Columbia team, temperature and wind changes induced by greenhouse gases alter the propagation of planetary waves, which no longer disturb the Arctic vortex as often. The combination of greenhouse-induced stratospheric cooling and the increased stability of the Arctic polar vortex dramatically increase ozone depletion.
Because of international controls on the emission of ozone-depleting halogens, those gases are expected to peak about the year 2000. In the Columbia-NASA model, Arctic ozone depletion will be worst in the decade 2010 to 2019, with two-thirds of atmospheric ozone lost in the most severely affected areas.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980409081315.htm
Ferdinand Engelbeen (11:24:06) :
Is this not more a question of a less active sun in general, where the cosmic rays are inversely coupled to?
Seems likely to me, but I need to see the original article. I have great ‘admiration’ for NASA’s ability to blow something out of proportion and label it as “New”, “breakthrough”, “important”, etc.
dmdoug (11:37:22) :
Is this caused by the shrinking heliosphere?
No, the cosmic ray intensity now is not any larger than it usually is a every solar minimum. On http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html look for Neutron Monitor % of background, Oct 24 100.0 %
The ‘background’ is the normal long-term intensity when there is no solar modulation.
—–
Cosmic rays have always been around. So the ozone hole during the Maunder and Dalton minima [where many people (including the Heartland Institute representatives) claim less solar activity -> more cosmic rays -> LIA] should have been larger than now if the primary driver of Ozone hole size was cosmic rays. So, next month’s hole would not be the largest, unless, of course, helped along by CFCs.
My daughter-in-law [Signe] had a review article in Nature a couple years back. They concluded:
“Nature 441, 39-45 (4 May 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04746
The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer
Elizabeth C. Weatherhead & Signe Bech Andersen
Abstract
Evidence of mid-latitude ozone depletion and proof that the Antarctic ozone hole was caused by humans spurred policy makers from the late 1980s onwards to ratify the Montreal Protocol and subsequent treaties, legislating for reduced production of ozone-depleting substances. The case of anthropogenic ozone loss has often been cited since as a success story of international agreements in the regulation of environmental pollution. Although recent data suggest that total column ozone abundances have at least not decreased over the past eight years for most of the world, it is still uncertain whether this improvement is actually attributable to the observed decline in the amount of ozone-depleting substances in the Earth’s atmosphere. The high natural variability in ozone abundances, due in part to the solar cycle as well as changes in transport and temperature, could override the relatively small changes expected from the recent decrease in ozone-depleting substances. Whatever the benefits of the Montreal agreement, recovery of ozone is likely to occur in a different atmospheric environment, with changes expected in atmospheric transport, temperature and important trace gases. It is therefore unlikely that ozone will stabilize at levels observed before 1980, when a decline in ozone concentrations was first observed.
I thought the “consensus” had decided cosmic rays weren’t allowed to do anything important.
Jørgen F. (11:55:35) :
He could not understand how the CFC’s got up there either.
The Brewer-Dobson circulation is a plausible mechanism:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/sparc/downloads/weberrsparc07.pdf
There is also a lot of other good stuff at that link.
We have our own little area right where we live. The thinning ozone over the NW area of the US is really progressing compared to when I first brought this to your attention. Not so little anymore.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us
To be fair, the question Qing-Bin Lu raised is not about whether CFCs are ‘responsible’ but whether cosmic rays have any more effect than previously thought. As I understand it, they’re saying that cosmic rays interact with CFCs to reduce ozone, whereas previously it was thought only sunlight did:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8
What I am waiting for is the spin the media put on this…someone might even mention that cosmic rays imcrease cloud cover and this leads to cooling and increased precipitation.
Whoever raises this subject probably wont have the surname Gore!
Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA led an agency investigation of the causes of ozone fluctuations during the 1980s. As he told me: “The overwhelming portion of the ozone depletion in the 1980s was due to natural causes,” and the effect of CFCs “was really quite small — less than one-half of one percent.” (His paper “Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude Lower Stratosphere: 1979-1990″ appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937.) Callis went on to say that he thought that scientists blaming CFCs for ozone depletion were being “less than honest.”
Another one bites the dust.
http://ftp.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html
tarpon (12:21:26)
“Maybe if we spent more time on real science, than trying to disprove the latest concocted liberal taxing theory…”
The concentration on this forum has been real science by those who are qualified as scientists. Real science is the way to disprove AGW.
A major problem is the difficulty in reversing the Pavlovian response to X happens, X is considered to be bad, X is caused by global warming; or Y is man-made, Y is a GHG, Y causes global warming; or, as Dr. Pachauri postulates, B is a bovine emission, B is a GHG, B causes global warming. Eat more vegetables.
[…] New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month – cosmic rays at f… From a University of Waterloo press release (h/t to commenter Rob) WATERLOO, Ont. (Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008) — A […] […]
I seem to recall that the sulfur from major volcanic eruptions somehow reacted with ozone, depleting it. Anyone care to comment on this?
Absolutely amazing. Science by correlation fails again. I’m not being sarcastic, if the ozone hole expands dramatically again we have to do a good job of quantifying and publicizing the massive efforts to stop it and the end result.
—
Anyway, remember how just a few days ago Grant Tamino was bashing this top web site as garbage and my post as junk. It turns out that Tamino Foster has spent his time over the last few days subtracting instrument data and looking closely at the difference — how’d he think of that one.
He found something interesting or we would never have known his true feelings. A one year heating and cooling in the difference signal by SUBTRACTION of the RSS and UAH data.
From that post I did some math an found out that when the earth is closest to the sun we get hotter. — Sounds like a kindergarten class but there is a small possibility from my less experienced perspective that this effect has never been quantified. Tamino Foster makes it sound like it’s a revelation.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/an-orbital-heating-signal-from-solar-input/
Hmm. Even if it was found that CFC’s had nothing to do with it, it would never be rescinded as the cause of the Ozone depletion, to much money has changed hands over it, and thousands of people and corporations could sue governments , scientists, and the UN I suspect, for repairs and replacements of refrigeration equipment that was using cfc’s.. I think of all the machines I personally converted to 134a or replaced with r-134a, r-404a variants, and the dollar number is huge. It also pains me to think that the hauling of all that recovery equipment up ladders to roofs was all for nothing but a sore back. Before the ozone scare , we just let ‘er rip, refrigerant was cheaper than labour.
The CFC skeptics had eluded to the expiration of Duponts patent on R-12 and 11, being very conveniently around the time it was found that CFC’s killed ozone. Clinton and Gore then fired a Nasa scientist who said it was bunk, his name escapes me, Gore has no right to talk about muzzling scientists..
Martin is correct. This article does not refute that CFC’s breakdown the ozone layer, just that they do so at a greater rate with cosmic rays than sunlight, and an increase in cosmic rays due to the reduction of solar wind accelerates the reaction, and so the ozone hole increases.
Jeff Id (17:50:08) :
From that post I did some math and found out that when the earth is closest to the sun we get hotter. — Sounds like a kindergarten class but there is a small possibility from my less experienced perspective that this effect has never been quantified.
In January we receive 90 W/m2 more TSI than in July, or 7%. That should translate into a 7%/4 = 1.7% of 300K = 5K temperature difference. Because of the uneven land/sea distribution the effect is a bit smaller, but easily discernible. However, when you deal with temperature anomalies, this seasonal variation should disappear, if you do it correctly, i.e. deal with the two hemispheres separately [computing and subtracting the mean for each month [or day, whatever they use]]. If that is not done, or if the coverage is not the same in both hemispheres, or if there are any other little asymmetries, then you very easily get this kind of annual wave. For instance, the geomagnetic Dst-index [that measures the strength of magnetic storms] suffers from being based on 3 Northern and only 1 Southern station. This introduces an artificial annual cycle, see e.g. page 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202005%20SA12A-04.pdf
I don’t think [don’t know – more precisely] your effect has been noticed before. Good work.
Jeff Id (17:50:08) :
Tamino Foster makes it sound like it’s a revelation.
He may be on to something, for once. I took a look at his posting:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/rss-and-uah/#more-1145
“The RSS data show about what we’d expect, given the red-noise character of the data. The UAH data show the same, plus a strong response at a period of 1 year”, so the effect depends on the series [a good sign that it is artificial]. There is also the step in 1992. This is, indeed, interesting. Now, it is too early in the game to jump to conclusions [Tamino even had a ‘brain fart’ – his words…].
Jeff Id (17:50:08) :
From that post I did some math and found out that when the earth is closest to the sun we get hotter.
1-One big question in climatology is the response of the planet to changes in solar output.
2-We seem to have a signal created by our distance from the sun
3-We should be able to calculate the (short term) response of the climate system to net solar input. This would include solar particle as well as other forms of energy.
Unfortunately it won’t work with the data you have. The ‘signal’ is an artifact because of incomplete compensation for the seasons and the orbit. To investigate the real ‘signal’ you have to work with actual temperatures [and not subtract the average to get the anomaly]. You see, it’s the average that is not determined ‘correctly’ and that bleeds through to the anomalies.
But, the principle is sound. I have often asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Schmidt] to see if their model could handle the 90 W/m2 and what would be computed differently if you changed the 90 to 0 or to 180, but he never seems to be interested enough to do something about it [too busy?!].
The CFC distribution in the atmosphere was never measured. It was the result of computer modeling.
The impact of CFC’s on ozone was never measured. Once again, all of the scary results came from computer models only.
As to the ozone hole getting bigger. Well the sun is in a minima right now, which means that it’s production of UV is down. Based on previous minima, it might be down by as much as 10%.
Less UV means less ozone.
[…] HT Watt’s Up with that. […]
Thank you for the Uni-Bremen link Dr. Svalgaard. Upon visiting, this first sentence jumped right out at me; “Wir freuen uns über Ihren Besuch. Mehr als 200 Seiten mit laufend aktualisierten Informationen erwarten Sie.”
I am floored! Though the meaning escapes me as I do not sprachen ze german, I can only imagine what such ominous sounding words portend! (All science should be related in German. Way cool)
BTW. Two esteemed and respected scientists in one family; impressive!
🙂
DaveM: Achtung! Alles touristen und non-technishen looken peepers! Das machine is nicht fur der fingerpoken und mittengrabben. Is easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und popencorken mit spitzen sparken. Das machine is diggen by experten only. Is nicht fur gerwerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen das cottenpiken hands in das pockets. Relaxen und watchen das blinkenlights.
[…] Watts Up With That? […]
Two outcomes of the Montreal Protocol ban on CFC’s were an increase in cost and a reduction in effectiveness of asthma inhalers, especially rescue inhalers. Millions of asthma suffers have been directly harmed. The number of deaths from acute asthma attacks due to less effective inhalers is unknown, but I do know that the price of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) inhalers is 5 times that of the more effective CFC inhalers.
For more information on this issue see The National Campaign to Save CFC Asthma Inhalers here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveCFCinhalers/
James Lovelock’s book, Homage to Gaia, Chap 8 – The Ozone War, is interesting. He discusses his analysis of atmospheric CFC’s and CCl4 from samples he took in a jet plane which flew to 45,000 ft (1974). From this he showed that CFC concentrations remained constant in the atmosphere but declined in the stratosphere. This accorded with M-R’s theory. However, he also demonstrated a large flux of natural chlorine and other halogens. When he presented his findings about the natural flux at CFC meetings. “…Many seemed to have accepted uncritically the “Green” notion that organisms rejected chlorine from their metabolism, and they saw chlorine compounds as the toxic products of industry. To me this was fanaticism, not science….”. I understand that James Lovelock is an advocate for the “Green” AGW catastrophe. Plus ca change…
Off topic: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081023_Obstruction.pdf
Thought you might want to know what our good friend James is up to.
This may be interesting regarding ozone breakdown
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm
excerpt,
” detected the presence of the chemicals bromine and iodine oxide over the ocean for this region. These chemicals, produced by sea spray and emissions from phytoplankton (microscopic plants in the ocean), attack the ozone, breaking it down. As the ozone is destroyed, a chemical is produced that attacks and destroys the greenhouse gas methane. Up until now it has been impossible to monitor the atmosphere of this remote region over time because of its physical inaccessibility. Including this new chemistry in climate models will provide far more accurate estimates of ozone and methane in the atmosphere and improve future climate predictions. ”
end of excerpt.
Hmm, ozone and methane with one “stone”…
that won’t be modelled then…
I have found this NASA publication that relates OZON to the Maunder Minimum: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17460
In regard to the CFC discussion, you can find some nice articles about the subject on: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozone.html
When CFC’s (especially FREON GAS) was banned, a US multinational, holding the patent for a FREON alternative made a bundle at the expense of the consumer (a multi-billion dollar business) and the Russian refrigerator manufacturers.
Now it’s CO2, already listed as a dangerous gas by US law with no proof whatsoever that it is causing GW.
Since CO2 can not be banned the caps and trade is created.
No matter what the trend in lower global temperatures state, no matter what scientist say, it is all about power and money.
“… combined with laboratory measurements …”
Obviously Qing-Bin Lu isn’t a proper scientist. Doesn’t he know that you don’t do proper science in the laboratory? For proper science you write a computer model with plenty of tunable inputs so you can generate the correct results.
Question, & I apologise if I have missed something. Has any one heard the answer to the question posed a while ago of,”how do we know it hasn’t always been there?”
I have never seen any response to it only that according to lab experiments CFCs destroy ozone.
All I know is that as a practicing engineer, I am frequently called in to look at cracking in old building/houses, etc. Minor cracks the owner had suddenly “discovered”. It equally frequently turns out that the cracking has been there for yonks, but only just observed, & are merely an old building relaxing a little over a long timescale!
Any opinions as to whether it has always been there?
Still something missing tho, Like maybe solar wind beaming us like a lighthouse for quite a while now. Increases in atmospheric disturbances like aurora and gee a larger southern pole hole. Take that in account with decreased magnetism, and then maybe add increased cosmic rays. You cant explain it with just one thing.. Its that blinders method that gets ya in trouble.
PS Sun has a pumpkin face:)
AnyMouse (23:14:10) : Sweet, pal!
Takes me back to The Saturday Evening Post c.1950s.
The possible role of cosmic rays is interesting because being a retired radiation chemist I have often suspected that fast ion molecule reactions might play an important role in ozone destruction. Could the effect of the earths magnetic fiels on electrons and positive ions explain why the ozone hole only appears ar the south pole?
OT: The Blog Stats hits counter passed another megahit. 5,011,568 hits and counting.
Lief,
Thanks for the reply, you might be the perfect person to answer my questions about this.
When you say the signal is an artifact of incomplete compensation I wonder how do they make compensation for the seasons. And if the seasonal compensations were done perfectly, wouldn’t that still leave the effects of solar forcing.
I found the same phase angle for all three temp metrics?? GISS, UAH and RSS within a few weeks. Are they all using the same correction techniques?
I see both 1 year and half year variations in the signal. I’m working on half year today.
I am going to copy your comments over to my blog for my visitors to read. If you don’t mind, could you answer the questions there, Anthony has a very interesting post here on a different topic.
It is very interesting to see that there already was a link between low solar activity resulting in OZON depletion (confirming the link between solar activity and cosmic radiation)
This is another article from NASA 2001:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html
“During those periods of low solar activity, levels of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation decrease, and can significantly impact ozone formation in the stratosphere. “The changes in ozone that we modeled were key in producing the enhanced response,” Shindell said. “The changes in the upper atmosphere then feed down to the surface climate.”
“European winter temperatures over that time period were reduced by 1.8 to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1-1.5 Celsius). This cool down is evident through derived temperature readings from tree rings and ice cores, and in historical temperature records, as gathered by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the University of Virginia”.
It looks if we are now in a position to observe first hand what is happening with our climate: low sunspot activity, low magnetic field, higher levels of cosmic radiation and now the OZON link! I think it is a very interesting time for scientists.
Are we really heading for a new Maunder Minimum?
Ozone depletion was never as big of a problem as was advertised by proponents of the Montreal Protocol. As I recall, the reduction of ozone, whether natural, man-made or some combination of both, had a health impact similar to moving about 60 miles closer to the equator. In other words, it was not a threat worth worrying about. Even in Antarctica, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface at the height of the ozone hole is still a tiny fraction of the amount that falls per acre in the tropics every day.
Considering that the environmental movement views the Montreal Protocol as a blueprint for successful global action, and the harm of ozone depletion was knowingly blown out of proportion, is it not likely that the same modus-operandi is being used today on global warming?
As Sarah Palin would say…”You betcha!”
Caleb (17:49:01)
This brief summary from NASA addresses your question about volcanoes and stratospheric ozone.
As I recall, there was a lot of hype about a sudden ozone drop over mid-northern latitudes in the early-mid 90s. Quite similar in fact to the convulsions over arctic ice recently. It turned out that Mt. Pinatubo had greatly exagerated a smaller downward trend, leading to a lot of “if current trends continue” speculation.
Having said that, just a general note of caution regarding the tone of this thread. Steve McIntyre used to frequently remind his commenters that critics will use your weakest argument against you and ignore your strongest arguments. I would caution against arguing there is no evidence for CFC-driven ozone depletion or that there are no measurements showing increased levels of CFCs in the stratosphere in the 20th century.
paminator: I try to forget about Columbia. Damn fool decision.
I suspect the ozone hole has been there for a very long time. Mount Erebus spews kilotons of SO2 into the atmosphere every year. Perhaps not as potent as CFC’s in damaging ozone, but much closer to the action and in greater volume.
Of course, that’s a bit like the MWP and LIA. If they existed, many of today’s sky-is-falling theories come unglued. As do their proponents.
There was no ozone hole before CFC’s.
There was no warming before human produced CO2.
The Emperor’s new clothes look just splendid.
(the check is in the mail)
Ron de Haan (06:37:30) :
It looks if we are now in a position to observe first hand what is happening with our climate: low sunspot activity, low magnetic field, higher levels of cosmic radiation and now the OZON link! I think it is a very interesting time for scientists.
Are we really heading for a new Maunder Minimum?
The sunspot number, magnetic field, and cosmic ray level all revert to closely the same values at EVERY sunspot minimum [even the Maunder minimum] so today’s values are not unusual in themselves. What is interesting for scientists is that we now are getting so much more and better data that we better can assess the situation at all those previous minima [even at the Maunder Minimum itself].
I do not think that a Maunder Minimum is imminent [but would not be surprised if I’m wrong – THAT would be really exiting].
Rick Werne:
That sounds like 5MWatts. Congratulations to Anthony.
Jeff Id (06:36:02) :
When you say the signal is an artifact of incomplete compensation I wonder how do they make compensation for the seasons. And if the seasonal compensations were done perfectly, wouldn’t that still leave the effects of solar forcing.
I don’t KNOW how they compensate, but as far as I can tell the compensation is empirical: you just calculate the average temperature for each day of the year [or month?] over a baseline period and subtract the resulting curve from subsequent measurements. This takes care [it is thought] of the seasonal variation of solar forcing [incl. varying distance]. Apparently, there are some problems with that assumption [as per Tamino and you].
Alan the Brit
I have read something elsewhere (sorry where I can not remember where at present) that a seasonal ozone “hole” was first measured in the Antarctic in the late 1940s or early 1950s.
The “consensus” later dismissed this because the “instruments” used were not accurate enough to be reliable.
Using the very same type of “instruments” however the “hole” was discovered in the 1980s……………
Mark (08:40:18) :Regarding CFC’s, does anybody know if NASA or any other organization has ever measured the amount of CFC’s in the atmosphere by altitude? I’ve searched and searched for this information and have never found anything. Try Peter Taylor who as a scientist and Greenpeace supporter worked to ban CFC’s. He’s one of us, in fact his climate work was what prompted me to abandon AGW.
John C. Roberts, B.S Atmospheric Science Says:
October 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The idea that the hole in the ozone layer is man-made is a myth. One must ask themselves this question: Why is the hole in the southern hemisphere when most of the poluting countries of the world (US/Europe/Russia/China) are in the Northern hemisphere? A very important question to ask. As a meteorologist, I can tell you that because of the way air flows on our planet that air in the northern hemisphere generally stays there and the same for the south.
To understand why the hole is there you need to understand how ozone is created. Ozone is formed naturally in the upper stratosphere by short wavelength ultraviolet radiation. Wavelengths less than ~240 nanometers are absorbed by oxygen molecules (O2), which dissociate to give O atoms. The O atoms combine with other oxygen molecules to make ozone. The bottom line is that you need sunlight to create ozone. Mild levels of ozone are found at the earths surface in city streets all across the world especially toward the end of the day. About an hour after the sun sets the ozone at the surface is gone.
Alright, now that you got that you need to ask yourself what the two poles don’t have 6 months out of the year since the earth is tilted 23 1/2 degrees. Answer: Sunlight.
The reason why a hole develops over the south pole is because there is no sunlight there during its winter. During the summer time the hole gets much smaller.
So why isn’t there a hole in the northern hemisphere if it gets dark there too? Good question. The main reason is because of the northern jet stream. The northern jet stream moves in a more North to South flow which is caused by all of the land masses the northern hemisphere has. Our jet stream dips deep down toward the equator at some points where there is a lot of ozone (because there is a lot of sunlight). It then transports that ozone into the north preventing it from developing a hole.
The southern jet stream moves in a basic East to West direction since there is little land masses in the south to affect it. Because of this, the southern pole does not get the boost of ozone from the equator like the north does.
I hope that this explanation helps some of you out there. We did not see a hole in the ozone develop. We “discovered” that a hole was there. I can assure you that man did not create it. Saying man is responsible for this hole would be like the first explorers to discover the Grand Canyon coming to the conclusion that it must have been something man did. The only other reason I can think of for this myth being perpetuated is that politicians like to use it to incite the public. Please feel free to look up these scientific claims for yourself.
To Retired Engineer (09:57:00),
I’d also like to know how CFC’s drifted to the south pole. I recall Anthony had some global CO2 maps here a few weeks ago and you could see from the maps where the CO2 was blowing… The CO2 was spreading from west to east.
I’d also like to know why the northern hole isn’t bigger than the southern pole.
And I’d like to see what the CFC distribution was by altitude. Seems to me that NASA would have sent balloons or other measuring devices into the atmosphere in order to measure the CFCs drifting high into it.
I just thought of something in response to my 12:27:14 post. Are CO2 levels measured in the southern hemisphere? If they are and they are the same as they are in the northern hemisphere, then I guess there is a way for the molecules to spread to the southern hemisphere.
Leif
Had you seen this?
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
Hadley already did what you asked Giss to do. I popped the reference on JeffID’s blog too.
A nice reminder of unintended consequences is that those nasty CFC’s were replaced by HFC’s – a highly potent (and very leaky) greenhouse gas which is now banned in Europe. We will be returning to propane (labeled greenfreeze) and CO2 based refrigeration systems from now on apparently.
JamesG (14:26:40) :
Hadley already did what you asked Giss to do. I popped the reference on JeffID’s blog too.
The reference starts out with this:
“Reconstructions of solar irradiance are uncertain and based on differing assumptions about how solar observations can be used as proxies for long-term solar irradiance variations. They are supported by observations of the aa geomagnetic activity index (Lockwood et al. 1999) and of the cosmogenic isotopes 10Be and 14C that show an inverse correlation with reconstructions of solar
irradiance, as would be expected if increasing solar activity is coupled with increases in the interplanetary magnetic field that shields the earth from cosmic rays. Although a variety of reconstructions employing different assumptions (Lean 2000; Hoyt and Schatten 1993; Solanki and Fligge 2002) all show long-term secular changes in solar irradiance, a recent solar model indicates that solar irradiance might be decoupled from the interplanetary magnetic field and that total solar irradiance might have increased very little since the Maunder minimum (Lean et al. 2002).”
Note that Judith Lean [2002 and 2008] is agreeing with me that TSI hasn’t changed significantly over time. Nevertheless, the model-paper you reference, uses the old Lean [1995] and Hoyt and Schatten [1993] TSI-reconstructions that are simply wrong. Therefore the result is spurious and cannot be trusted. I have asked Gavin to use modern TSI series but to no avail, so far. My colleague Ed Cliver is going into the Lion’s den this November to give a seminar on the modern TSI, sunspot numbers, and interplanetary magnetic field data, and will urge them to use the latest and greatest. We shall see.
According to a retired JPL engineer over at Jerry Pournelle’s website http://www.jerrypournelle.com NASA did a large project to find the CFCs and intermediate compounds in the atmosphere and never found levels higher than 5% of the expected concentrations due to computer modelling. So the study got buried by the sponsor.
I can’t immediately find the correspondence, maybe someone with more time can. It was in the last 2 years IIRC in Mail.
JamesG (14:26:40) :
Hadley already did what you asked Giss to do.
Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?
PETER A. STOTT, GARETH S. JONES, AND JOHN F. B. MITCHELL
10 June 2003)
ABSTRACT
“It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings.[…]”
They find this because they use obsolete TSIs that have a built-in artificial increase of TSI in the first half of the 20th century, making it look like the temps [that were also increasing] were following TSI in its increase.
Leif Svalgaard :
The sunspot number, magnetic field, and cosmic ray level all revert to closely the same values at EVERY sunspot minimum [even the Maunder minimum] so today’s values are not unusual in themselves.
But the amount of time the sun stays at minimum and the very low level of SSN’s at maximums in the Maunder vary greatly to the last 100 years even allowing for “tiny tims” would seem unusual?
Now, wait just a goldang minute! Cosmic rays — NOT CFCs — puncture the ozone??
For at least 10 years environmental pseudoscience has been claiming a CFC victory! Could these frauds actually be wrong? Oh my!
One of the things I love about this site is that sometimes a real gem pops up. In this case it’s the post by Rob @11:21:54.
Thanks for that post! It answered several questions I had been wondering about. [I think it answered some of Mark’s questions too.]
nobwainer (18:11:54) :
But the amount of time the sun stays at minimum and the very low level of SSN’s at maximums in the Maunder vary greatly to the last 100 years even allowing for “tiny tims” would seem unusual?
Seen from the perspective of someone during the Maunder minimum, our time may be the unusual one. I guess the bottom line is that we have been there, done that, and so on. This is qualitatively a different situation from the claim that recent solar activity is the highest in 11,000 years, which would be unusual.
Even in Antarctica, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface at the height of the ozone hole is still a tiny fraction of the amount that falls per acre in the tropics every day.
—————
The height of the ozone hole occurrs during the antarctic winter, when there is little, if any sunlight, to begin with.
Jim Clarke wrote:
Even in Antarctica, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface at the height of the ozone hole is still a tiny fraction of the amount that falls per acre in the tropics every day.
Huh. I got the impression that the tropics received less UV radiation because of all the sunlight that creates UV-blocking ozone.
Anecdotally, I used to wear one of those photochromic lenses. In the tropics (the Philippines), my glasses would barely darken when I went outdoors even at high noon under full sun. I thought I’d been ripped off…until I went to a more northern latitude (Hillsboro, OR, for those wondering). The first day I stepped outdoors into full sun–almost instant darkening of my lenses. It was the same wherever I went in the states. I figured that meant there was less UV to react to in the tropics. After that, I didn’t bother with photochromic lenses when it came time to replace my glasses.
so if we factor in that even tho the solar cycle only has a modest diff in Wm2 but can vary by long troughs and higher peaks…during the 80’s and 90’s with a modest peak cycle coupled with short 10-11 yr durations the oceans can store that extra energy like it did in the last warm PDO thereby increasing global temps…..and if we discover we also had lower loud cover in that period we can see a plausible explanation for our temp increase, and also the reason we are seeing lower temps now.
I might not be old enough to remember the global cooling scare but i remember well being told how we are destroying the ozone layer and killing the forests with acid rain. Spotted this story today, more evidence that acid rain is good for forests.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021214850.htm
Thing is about the ozone and acid rain is that it was expensive but not that hard to stop using CFCs and clean the combustion process but fixing AGW cannot be done without restructuring out whole world. So while most people will not know that we were lied to about ozone and acid rain everybody will know they were lied to if global warming does not live up to promises. The scientists will blame the media and the media will blame the scientists and they will all blame Gore and Hansen.
“Mark (08:40:18) :
Regarding CFC’s, does anybody know if NASA or any other organization has ever measured the amount of CFC’s in the atmosphere by altitude? I’ve searched and searched for this information and have never found anything. This to me is odd because somebody must have measured CFC concentration by altitude at some point in the past and shown the data to governments to help get the CFC ban into place.”
Maybe it is because it was killed before it got off the ground?
“Bill Clinton and Al Gore had an honest scientist fired for wanting to properly research global warming
William Happer, then of the Department of Energy, wanted to perform a proper survey of how much ultraviolet radiation was reaching the Earth, to see if the ozone hole was really a problem. Nobody had yet performed such a study, and claims of increased ultraviolet radiation were based on theory. At this suggestion, he was fired by Katie McGintey.
Katherine wrote
Huh. I got the impression that the tropics received less UV radiation because of all the sunlight that creates UV-blocking ozone.
Anecdotally, I used to wear one of those photochromic lenses. In the tropics (the Philippines), my glasses would barely darken when I went outdoors even at high noon under full sun. I thought I’d been ripped off…until I went to a more northern latitude (Hillsboro, OR, for those wondering). The first day I stepped outdoors into full sun–almost instant darkening of my lenses. It was the same wherever I went in the states. I figured that meant there was less UV to react to in the tropics. After that, I didn’t bother with photochromic lenses when it came time to replace my glasses.
Ever had a tropical tan? Stay out in the sun and try and achieve a a ” golden glow” in the equatorial regions. The tan you get virtually washes off in the shower after just a day – as opposed to the ” deeper” tans you get a higher or lower latitudes.
John M,
Thanks for the link. Of interest to me was this chemistry:
“chemical reactions on the surface of volcanically produced particles increase ozone destruction by increasing the amounts of the highly reactive chlorine gas, chlorine monoxide (ClO).”
At this link:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/unger_01/
I found this chemistry:
“Many of the reactions and molecules involved in the formation of sulfate and ozone overlap. Sulfate is generated by the oxidation of sulfur dioxide by the hydroxyl radical or by hydrogen peroxide, both of which can be derived from ozone. Likewise, ozone production requires the presence of nitrogen oxides, which sulfate can remove by conversion to nitric acid.”
At this link (debunking the effect of volcanoes):
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.phpdisplay_article=vn504ozoneed
I read, “Volcanic eruptions do emit hydrogen chloride…”
And then of course there is the bromine in sea spray.
Each study seems to be done with a sort of tunnel vision, focusing in on a single chemical reaction. If someone funnels a grant or two my way, I’d gladly produce an overview which puts all the chemical reactions together into one paper. (If the person paying me wants Alarmism, I could always insinuate “if this trend continues” the sky will turn brown, and mountain climbers will need gas masks.)
But perhaps an overview of upper atmosphere chemistry has already been written. Does anyone know of one?
Of interest to me is the effect volcanoes have after their SO2 has ceased to exist in the upper atmosphere. It seems possible that at first SO2 cools the surface by dimming the sunlight, but if it destroys ozone then a secondary effect would seem to be increased ultraviolet radiation at the surface, and possibly warming. In other words, a volcano would first jerk climate towards cooling, and later jerk it towards warming.
If you can elude the quicksand of politics, this subject is a wonder.
Richard (02:03:15) :
” So while most people will not know that we were lied to about ozone and acid rain everybody will know they were lied to if global warming does not live up to promises. The scientists will blame the media and the media will blame the scientists and they will all blame Gore and Hansen.”
Actually, I don’t think this is true. We’ve already seen the beginings of the diversionary explanations. “Well of COURSE it’s cooling right now…we KNEW that would happen. But in 30yrs, when your CHILDREN grow up, it will be hotter than ever before, NY City will cease to exist…” and so on. The change from Global Warming to Climate Change. This will all get fuzzed out so that the average citizen will just start to ignore it as background noise and accept the loudest voices as true.
Jim
[…] the ozone hole is bigger than ever (LINK). New studies suggest that the hole is created by cosmic rays which originate in […]
Ozone depletion from gcr is relatively well understood through two photochemical mechanisms.
CGR produce odd nitrogen nox that has produces a catalytic effect on ozone.NOx is produced in dissociation of molecular nitrogen by the primary and secondary solar particles and, to a lesser extent, in ion chemical reactions following the ion pair production. Production of HOx is solely due to ion chemistry,involving a rather complex scheme of water cluster ion reactions. The depletion of ozone is due to the increase of NOx and HOx, which accelerates the catalytic ozone loss cycles involving these species.The magnitude and duration of depletion depends on the particle flux, altitude,season(solar illumination level and atmospheric dynamics),and the chemical state of the atmosphere. The short-term ozone depletion due to HOx increase lasts some hours and can be greater than 90% in the middle mesosphere, while the long-term decrease, several tens of percent, is typically seen in the upper stratosphere and is due to NOx increase. Because of the long chemical lifetime of NOx, the effects on ozone can last for months and the produced NOx can be transported from the location of the precipitation, so that lower altitudes and latitudes may also be affected.
An additional autocatalytic reaction is the production of NO2,this blocks incoming solar irriadiance in the blue and green spectrums and COOLS surface temperatures.
So we have a number of cooling mechanisms operating in parallel so to speak.
M. G. OGURTSOV et al explain the causal mechanisms.
Optical mechanism, which takes into account changes of atmospheric transparency
caused by changes in fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar cosmic rays (SCR), consisting mainly of energetic protons (energies up to few GeV), can reach even the Earth’s surface. Their fluxes change substantially with solar activity and can influence atmospheric opacity in two ways. The first is connected with the changes in atmospheric chemistry. The SCR and GCR particles react with N2 and O2, which lead to their dissociation and ionization. Ions of N+2 ,O+2 , N+, O+ are formed and they are involved in a complex of photochemical reactions, which produce nitrogen oxide, NO. NO and atomic oxygen O effectively destroy ozone. Hence, the input of high-energy particles into the atmosphere causes destruction of ozone and the generation of NO2 (Pudovkin and Raspopov, 1992). Such changes are particularly strong during proton events. For example, on 4 August of 1972, at 30–35 km altitude, the concentration of ozone decreased ten times and the concentration of NO2 increased by factor 2. Inasmuch as NO2 absorbs intensively solar radiation in the green and blue part of the spectrum, the irradiance at the Earth’s surface decreases. Ultraviolet flux increases, due to ozone depletion of the stratosphere, and the radiation balance of the atmosphere changes, which may result in changes in atmospheric circulation. It should be noted that ozone depletion probably leads to the cooling of the Earth’s surface, because the greenhouse effect of ozone exceeds the effect of UV heating (Larin, 2002). Thus, besides changes in the circulation pattern, variation in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, caused by input of energetic particles, can cool the lower troposphere. A change of the temperature altitude profile in the atmosphere, caused by high-energy particles, is described by Pudovkin and Dementeeva (1997).
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen has the photochemical reactions.
Mass extinctions and supernova explosions
PAUL J. CRUTZEN AND CHRISTOPH BRUHL
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, P.O. Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany
ABSTRACT In a recent contribution to this journal Ellis
and Schramm [Ellis, J. & Schramm, D. N. (1995) Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 92, 235-238] claim that supernova explosions
can cause massive biological extinctions as a result of strongly
enhanced stratospheric NO. (NO + NO2) production by
accompanying galactic cosmic rays. They suggested that these
NOX productions which would last over several centuries and
occur once every few hundred million years would result in
ozone depletions of about 95%, leading to vastly increased
levels of biologically damaging solar ultraviolet radiation. Our
detailed model calculations show, however, substantially
smaller ozone depletions ranging from at most 60% at high
latitudes to below 20%o at the equator.
There a a number of errors in the Crutzen model ,but these do not affect the PCR
Rob (16:28:31) :
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
I have a major concern about this. It may be a leading indicator of early impacts of the heliosphere decline.
Richard (02:03:15) :
but fixing AGW cannot be done without restructuring out whole world
Restructuring our whole world? Aren’t you exaggerating? Isn’t that alarmism of the other kind?
You can find various comments in Optics Handbooks; on the subject of the
Sun as a natural light source. There you will find information about the varying “color temperature” of the sun both seasonally, and at other irreglualr time intervals. These obsevations date from long before there were CFCs, and long before someone looked for an ozone hole, and discovered; “gee there’s an ozone hole”.
The color temperature citations said the variations were due to differences in the UV and other short wavelength end of the solar spectrum, from it’s normally presumed black body spectrum. They were of course largely ground level color temperature obeservation.
I submit, that these particularly seasonal color temperature changes, attributable to changes in the UV end of the solar spectrum are early evidence that Ozone holes have always been with us; long before there were CFCs to blame.
Once a year, in the Antarctic winter night, there is no solar radiation over the South Pole, including no charged particle flux from the sun, and those high energy radiations are necessary for dissociating O2 into atomic Oxygen which immediately leads to ozone formation.
No sunlight, no ozone. Ozone also absorbs solar radiation out to the green .yellow regions of the spectrum, being a major reason why the air mass one spectrum is quite different from the AM-0 solar spectrum.
I’m not a fan of the CFC thesis.
SteveSadlov (11:49:41) :
I have a major concern about this. It may be a leading indicator of early impacts of the heliosphere decline.
Don;t worry, the sky is not falling, neither is the Heliosphere in decline. The overhyped NASA press release that Ulysses found a weaker solar wind during it latest polar passes compared to the ones 13 years prior, is disingenuous because they are not comparing apples with apples. The passes in 1994-1995 were two years before minimum, while the most recent passes were during [a drawn out] solar minimum. It is quite normal for the solar wind to come down from its high like this. It’s like making a big deal out of [for boreals] “it is colder today in October than last year in August”.
Leif Svalgaard (18:35:16) :
In January we receive 90 W/m2 more TSI than in July, or 7%. That should translate into a 7%/4 = 1.7% of 300K = 5K temperature difference. Because of the uneven land/sea distribution the effect is a bit smaller, but easily discernible.
I think that requires some explanation. Doesn’t your back-of-the-envelope calculation of temperature difference ignore the heat capacity of the oceans, landmasses and atmosphere? Wouldn’t an extra 90 W/m2 need much, much more time than 6 months to heat up the Earth by 5K?
Leif Svalgaard (19:17:20) :
I have often asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Schmidt] to see if their model could handle the 90 W/m2 and what would be computed differently if you changed the 90 to 0 or to 180, …
As far as I know, climate models use time steps in the order of minutes. So any seasonal, even daily change in solar radiation can be accounted for.
Anne (12:39:45) :
Doesn’t your back-of-the-envelope calculation of temperature difference ignore the heat capacity of the oceans, landmasses and atmosphere? Wouldn’t an extra 90 W/m2 need much, much more time than 6 months to heat up the Earth by 5K?
Summer is not phase-lagged much, much more than 6 months [except, of course, any multiple of 12 months would work 🙂 ]
I used to live by the coast and the lag was perhaps a month or two.
“I have often asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Schmidt] to see if their model could handle the 90 W/m2 and what would be computed differently if you changed the 90 to 0 or to 180, ”
As far as I know, climate models use time steps in the order of minutes. So any seasonal, even daily change in solar radiation can be accounted for.
I agree, except that they don’t want to try.
If I understood Gavin correctly, they also use an average TSI curve for all solar cycles [especially when trying to forecast the climate, when they don’t have any data]. I have also tried to get them to vary TSI a lot and see what happens. To no avail.
The interesting part about the CFC’s theory is the timing.
Dupont was the company that had controlled the patent on most of the refrigerants at the time that used CFC’s. For those of you unfamiliar with the patent system in the US, you control the patent for a set number of years, after which any company can copy the product without any fees or fines. The patent was running out for Dupont, and they had CFC free refrigerants conveniently waiting in the wings.
Dupont was the company that was the biggest backer of the CFC theory.
Coincidence?
Anthony Isgar (14:12:07):
I used to think that was the underlying cause, but it is a lot more complicated. Obtain a copy of “The Holes in the Ozone Scare” by Maduro and Schauerhammer. Their science is a little shaky, but the investigation of corporate shenanigans has never been refuted.
Richard (02:03:15) :
I might not be old enough to remember the global cooling scare but i remember well being told how we are destroying the ozone layer and killing the forests with acid rain. Spotted this story today, more evidence that acid rain is good for forests.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021214850.htm
The article, while interesting, only mentions nitrate. It’s been long regarded that nitric acid is a fertilizer, albeit acidic. Sulfates and sulphuric acid from buring high-sulphur coal wern’t mentioned. Perhaps power plants have shifted to low sulphur coal, use scrubbers, or the Michigan forests are less susceptible to acid than the Adirondacks and New England.
Some of the concerns about acid rain killing spruce trees was misplaced – winds in winter storms would stress and break the root hairs on taller spruce. I saw many areas in the White Mountains here in NH where the tall spruce (only 15-25 feet) near the treeline would be dead, but the low spruce was doing just fine, at least as well as can be expected in that environment. It’s tough to be a tree in the White Mountains.
Other concerns, e.g. acid rain leaching aluminum from clay and other minerals, or the poor buffering of alpine lakes remained a concern until acid rain dropped off the radar here. Politics, fires, and murders get so much more air time….
Anne: Dr. Roy Spencer left this trap for you. (And Vitamino’s)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
900 mb
90 mb
look at the yellow line. (note the axis of temperature is not real) and (curve is asymmetrical) as an ellipse.
FM
[…] may vanish by 2015. William Livingston,1 Matthew Penn1 New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month – cosmic rays at fa… __________________ ~Paradox "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible […]
Reply “Anne (11:55:38) :
Richard (02:03:15) :
but fixing AGW cannot be done without restructuring out whole world
Restructuring our whole world? Aren’t you exaggerating? Isn’t that alarmism of the other kind?”
To be clear i am referring to what the alarmists are calling for and how if we do not do what they say and the world does not warm as promised then they will be shown to be wrong. I think its fair to say what Gore and the like are calling for would require a restructuring of the world. Think the credit crunch is bad then try a natural resources crunch.
Reply: JimB (05:07:12) :
“..the average citizen will just start to ignore it as background noise and accept the loudest voices as true.”
Think you are right about the loudest voices but as the voices get louder and the claims get more extreme then the sooner these claims can be tested with real events. Take the claims of a ice free north pole this year, what will the papers print next year?
Reply: Ric Werme (17:02:15) :
Thanks for your taughts on acid rain. End of the day can’t complain about clean air. One of the biggest cause’s of confusion i think is people mixing up dirty air with CO2.
Has anyone been following the ozone hole at the nasa web site ? It doesn’t look like it’s growing crazy… It actually looks like it’s quite close to the average value.
” Leif Svalgaard (19:17:20) :
>>deleted<<
As far as I know, climate models use time steps in the order of minutes. So any seasonal, even daily change in solar radiation can be accounted for. ”
So in a climate models, you can use time increments of nanoseconds if you have enough computer power, and spatial increments of mm too.
But how does that help, if the real world actual measured physical data is taken at any old time they feel like it and reported for maybe twice a day (min/max), for some time some place, and with spatial increments that may be hundreds of km.
The point is that those computer climate models are not able to replicate the output of say the GISStemp ritual, let alone replicate the raw data input to it from actual places and actual times, where and when it was measured.
If they are supposed to be models of this actual planet that we live on, with its diverse geography, they at least shopuld be able to compute a rough picture of what we actually see however poor that view is.
[…] 2. “New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month – cosmic rays at fa…“ […]
Its well known that proton events from the Sun (large increase in high energy particles during solar storms) leads to large reductions in Ozone:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17240126
Richard (02:11:12) :
Reread your own post, you were expressing your own opinion. How cheap to hide behind the (exaggerated) opinions of others at the first sign of opposition.
Ok, so its them. Can you point me to any plan of Al Gore or any serious environmental organisation that requires a restructuring of our whole world? Prove it.
Leif Svalgaard (13:28:04) :
Summer is not phase-lagged much, much more than 6 months [except, of course, any multiple of 12 months would work 🙂 ]
I used to live by the coast and the lag was perhaps a month or two.
Ok, but weren’t you only talking about distance from the sun? The summer/winter difference is much greater than 7%. You have the longer days and larger angle the solar radiation strikes the earth.
Leif,
What do you think about these findings?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list1276594
“What do you think about these findings?”
Working…..
Ron de Haan (18:25:54) :
What do you think about these findings?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list1276594
This is just NASA’s usual hype. They have to justify their existence by announcing ‘discoveries’ and ‘breakthroughs’ [we have seen several examples of this lately – even discussed on this blog].
What they have ‘discovered’ is “We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active,” says Sibeck. “We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic.”
This is old hat. Thirty years ago I wrote [in a chapter paper http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf (page 32ff) for the
Skylab Workshop that established coronal holes]:
“The implication seems to be that the coupling to the solar wind due to magnetic field connection is very weak unless the geometry is very favorable, i.e. the external field is almost anti-parallel to the dayside geomagnetic field. Due to ever-present fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection occur often enough at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the [false] impression that reconnection and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”
So, nothing new there. Nice though that they have actually been able to observe some of those events.
Anne (11:10:50) :
Ok, but weren’t you only talking about distance from the sun?
Anne, I have forgotten what this was all about. What is the issue and what is your problem? and where did I go wrong? 🙂
NOAA: “2008 Sees Fifth Largest Ozone Hole”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081103_ozone.html
I was wondering if anyone had picked up the NOAA story, and see that John-X did. Notice how NOAA can’t quite explain the size of the ozone hole.
[…] mention of the possibility of cosmic rays then, but in the face of a reversal, I wonder if maybe they’ll consider alternate suspects. […]
In the little time that I’ve looked at the O3 depletion scenario, one thing that jumps out at me is that during normal summer months the stratosphere above Antarctica is very dry. After a cold dark winter, stratospheric clouds are ormed and a source of water become available. Water is what allows these reactions to proceed rapidly. There is enough natural chlorine from naturally ocurring methyl chloride to facilitate these reactions. The key to this ozone delpetion scene is availability of water. Once it warms up the water is gone and the reaction stops. Has anybody looked into this?