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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.