This year's Antarctic ozone hole is 5th biggest

“We’ve got our criminals and their names are CO2 and CFC, I’m confident that the forensics will show them guilty beyond a shadow of the doubt”.
Exactly. The media and press-releases are running the world.

Seem that the Montreal Protical has acctualy failed. If the largest, and 5th largest (wich was less than one percent smaller than the largest) ozone holes have occured after the ozone depleating substances have started to drop, looks to me like a compleat faluar.
And to think that I can’t get my trucks airconditioning repaired over this whole fiasco.

Acknowledging any possible effects Cosmic Rays have on the Ozone layer opens the door to other possibilities…such as their effect on increasing cloud cover.
It is then only a matter of time before AGW is questioned..
Don’t expect anything to happen for quite a while but another cold winter and another cold summer should at least kick-start the debate.
Likely clues to the debate starting will be well known AGW’s taking early retirement…or new jobs!

There was an interesting article published in Nature last year-
http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm
“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.”
If these results from NASA JPL are confirmed, then, as some leading atmospheric chemistry scientists have stated publicly-
“If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.”
“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.”
“Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
And the piece de resistance- “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
Unbelievable. We know the answer. We just need to work out the chemical reactions to support what we “know”. Sure sounds familiar.
I wouldn’t put the CFC ban in the same category as the DDT ban, since it resulted in far fewer deaths. The DDT ban has killed millions of Africans, mostly children, due to Malaria outbreaks, whereas the ozone hole nonsense and subsequent CFC ban has only resulted in the loss of one space shuttle and higher refrigeration costs worldwide.

I’ve always wondered when humankind discovered the ozone layer, and when we started measuring its extent. Are there proxies that exist to determine the historical extent of the ozone layer, or is the ozone hole/CFC hysteria based on 50 or so years of measurement? If its only 50 years, how can anyone be sure that the ozone hole isn’t just a natural occurrence? I’m new to all this, so I’d appreciate it if someone could set me straight? Thanks
Nizialek

While debating this with another poster on another forum, I’ve learned a few things I did not know about the ozone hole. It is not permanent. It forms only when atmospheric conditions and temperatures are just right. It forms during the winter months when the stratosphere reaches -80F. There is not a corresponding Arctic ozone hole because it simply does not get that cold there. Furthermore, clouds play a very significant role. I suspect the cloud condition may be influenced by the cosmic ray variable (should that prove itself out). The most important thing I learned is this hole CANNOT extend past 55 degrees latitude (and most commonly will never get north of 65 degrees) because the atmospheric conditions to support the ozone breakdown simply will never exist there. It’s too warm.

the defense would have the forensics tossed out easily.

Not when the judge is the district attorney’s husband. The trial is rigged, don’t cha know..

This new research does not in any way contradict the well-supported theory that CFCs cause ozone depletion- quite the opposite, in fact.
Previously, it was thought the breakdown of CFCs (and the release of ozone-destroying chlorine) was mainly caused by UV light; this research shows that cosmic rays also break down CFCs.
CFCs are still the source of the chlorine.

I follow these debates with an open mind. If the sun stays as relatively inactive as it currently is for a while, we will get our answer, one way or another, about the sun’s influence on climate. It’s too early, yet, to draw conclusions, in my view. The change in Arctic sea ice growth in the last 3 months is very interesting, but we need to see if it continues in that direction, for example. I think it was Bjorn Lomborg who said he wants results to be data driven, not model driven.
I do want to say that DDT was not a hoax. Reason magazine’s Ron Bailey, among many others, made this point. It really did cause a number of birds in the U.S. to have huge declines in populations because their egg shells would break. This was determined in the field as well as in experiments in the lab, which found the biological mechanisms by which DDT caused eggshells to get so thin. It was widespread DDT use on farms which caused it to be so abundant as to have these effects. I for one don’t think we should be cavalier about widespread use of a chemical which had the potential to cause Peregrine Falcons, Bald Eagles, Brown Pelicans, and several other assorted large birds to come close to disappearing in the lower 48.
I also agree that DDT’s limited use on the insides of huts in Africa has saved tens of thousands of lives, at minimum, and could save many, many more. Just the smell of it keeps the mosquito carriers of malaria outside the living quarters. The hostility of environmentalists and governments to such limited life-saving use is as criminal as is defense of its original widespread use. To say that DDT was a hoax in the first place is wrong on the facts.

OT but I think you’ll find this link from the BBC’s Green Room very interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7643883.stm
Is this an early sign that the BBC is beginning to panic and getting ready to open up the AGW debate?

Chris V writes: CFCs are still the source of the chlorine.
What about the millions of tons of chlorine injected into the atmosphere from volcanoes, the oceans, and other natural sources. I read where those sources are much larger than any man-made source. Anybody have the numbers?

The Great Alarmist GORE lays it out in the NYT. The 5 things he says that need to get done, NOW!:
1. Large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants and wind farms.
2. Planning and construction of a unified national smart grid.
3. Convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity.
4. Nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting.
5. Put a price on carbon here at home.
This of course is to “begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.” And concerning coal: “we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.”
Obviously big Al hasn’t seen any temperature data since George snatched the election from under his nose in 2000. My bet is that Obama is gonna try to implement this insanity.
Anyone willing to predict otherwise?

Steve Goddard,
Joe D’Aleo has also posted on sea ice at IceCap (Nov 8).
It’s approaching the 1979-2000 average. You know, during a time when things were “normal”.
So here’s the picture:
Ice and temps are normalising, yet we got Nobel laurates Gore and Pachauri screaming at the top their longs that we’re about to go over the edge.
And now we’re finding out that the ozone hole is not solely caused by humans.

OT – here’s one way to reduce the CO2 emissions from power generation that’s sure to upset a few environmentalists. Article in today’s UK newspapers “Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
We might just need this if we’re all going to go for electric/hybrid cars.

Lance: Start here, at Junkscience.com The part on eggshell thinning reads :

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.
Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild.
Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild.
Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.
Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues.
Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness
Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use.

Citations and conclusion at source.

It is unconscionable that the atmosphere not comply with the Montreal Protocol. Fortunately the next Administration is prepared to deal with this. Al Gore will put it all right when he is Environmental Czar. http://www.aninconvenientblog.org/

Did the DDT taste ok?

EvanJones: How long did you spend in the emergency room getting your stomach pumped?

What I don’t understand is why we see an ozone hole at the South Pole but not at the North Pole?
Most of the CFCs released were released in the Northern Hemisphere, I would estimate ten times as much, because that is were most of the world’s population and industry is. How much of the Northern Hemisphere released CFCs reached the South Pole?

So what does this do for Qing-Bin Lu’s theory that Cosmic Rays are a prime agent in affecting the Ozone layer?

“This year’s Antarctic ozone hole is 5th biggest”
I don’t understand. How can they say it’s the 5th biggest when they don’t know how big it was before they started measuring it in the late fifties?

I think something people can relate to in this country concerning the ddt ban is the return of the bedbug as a major pest in hotels in the US. DDT had them just about knocked out. Now they are returning and people are finding their homes infested with the things. I support the use of DDT for things such as lice, bedbugs, and mosquitoes.

Mike Smith (08:28:45) wrote:
The 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given to Gerhard Ertl in the field of surface chemistry. What he found was the the chemical reaction between ozone and CFC’s believed to cause the ozone hole does not occur in the real atmosphere, only in the lab.
Do you have a cite for that bit about the chemical reaction between ozone and CFCs occurring only in the lab? All the articles discussing his award that I saw implied that his CFC research supported the consensus.

Iam shocked at the size of that hole.
That is just down right scary looking.
If it is going to take 60 years to heal the hole, most of us will have expired from this life.
I am really sorry our planet has been so hurt.
Maybe it is being caused by all the damage the bombs do when there is war.
It is most likely the results of the chemicals they use to make bombs.
See, Mother Earth hurts too, when there is war. Everything hurts from war.

Yaakoba: It’s going to be alright. Obama’s going to be President, there’s going to be no more war, and Mother Earth is going to heal.

General question???
Please – has there ever been a record of “No Hole in the Ozone Layer at the South pole”?
How does anyone know that the Ozone hole isn’t a natural phenomenon?

How does anyone know that the Ozone hole isn’t a natural phenomenon?

Same way we know that it has never before been possible to travel from the pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic.

“Sadly this was the real kick off of JUNKSCIENCE being used to damage society through propaganda.”
Not even close. What about eugenics? And I’m sure there are many more even earlier examples.

I think Wildavsky’s book points out that the birds in the studies got a diet with lots of DDT and below normal amounts of calcium. If you can remember back to when Carl Sagan, et. al. was thrilling us with Nuclear Winter, one of the facets was that since there was little atmospheric transfer between N. Hemis. and S. Hemis. and most of the bombs would be detonated in the N. Hemis. the S. Hemis. would be a refuge. So I have always wondered how the CFCs, mostly released in the N. got down to the south. I womder if any enviro-scare story has any truth to it.

Thanks for the answers.
(RS: I assume that you are being ironic – I must be a bit thick today – I don’t really get it…)
Cheers G

If so much time and money has been spent trying to figure out the damaged ozone hole, then maybe a little more should be done to test the hole for heavy metal damage. Such as lead and zink levels. Along with sodium and radon levels.
All the risidual of explosives go somewhere, usually up.
I bet all the years when there has been heavy war, this hole has grown.
I bet that hole is a result of metal lead particals.
They will figure it out someday that Mother Earth loves all creation. And when we destroy creation we destroy the ozone.

I don’t know about CFC’s though it looks like the mechanism and reasoning for it causing a whole in the antarctic is unlikely.
DDT causing egg shell thinning? That one has failed a lot of experimental tests. If you cherry pick like crazy you can maybe still believe it, but in the real world raptor birds in particular showed their largest increase rates during years of peak DDT use. (per both Hawk Mountain and Audobon counts) It was certainly possible to mess up ecosystems by removing food sources expecially for insect eating birds, starvation is a much better explanation than the egg shell mechanism that doesn’t fit the data.
Millions of innocent human lives is a high price to pay for this myth.

Tom I would like to see those “original” “1960s” DDT studies that support your position. While it was a long time ago, (1980) I did an extensive literature search looking for support of your assertions. Neither I, nor the chemistry departments at 2 major universities were able to find the support that you claim exists. Oddly we had no trouble finding many studies that did not support them.
I tried very hard to prove Rachel Carson had not made up her famous “and no birds sing” out of whole cloth. I, or I should say we, failed.
The issue that destroys a persons youthful idealism is easy to remember.

Tom I would like to see those studies also. Will you please post the links or at least the details so I can read it at my library?
Mike

I do want to say that DDT was not a hoax. Reason magazine’s Ron Bailey, among many others, made this point. It really did cause a number of birds in the U.S. to have huge declines in populations because their egg shells would break. This was determined in the field as well as in experiments in the lab, which found the biological mechanisms by which DDT caused eggshells to get so thin.
—————–
In reality, there was never any evidence that egg shells in the field had thinned. The laboratory experiments were so flawed, that it is reasonable to determine that they had been set up to prove the theory rather than test it.
They fed chickens diets high in DDT. They also fed the chickens diets poor in calcium and put the chickens in a high stress environment. Two conditions that any farmer could tell you would result in eggs with thin shells. Then when the shells were found to be thin, it was blamed on DDT, not the other factors.
Come to think of it. The way these experiments were run does remind me of current climate science.

There was never any argument as to whether CFC’s were capable of putting chlorine into the stratosphere. The argument was about how destructive the chlorine was to the ozone in the stratosphere.

Mike Bryant:

Not even close. What about eugenics? And I’m sure there are many more even earlier examples.

Goes back a long way, like the sun orbiting the earth, heroin and cocaine being good for you, etc..

Mike Bryant says:

“Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision. “-Reason Magazine Ron Bailey 2004
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34742.html
Of course the first part of the comment is speculation, the last, cold hard truth.

I think you have that exactly backwards. The part that is speculation…in fact myth…is that there was ever any worldwide ban of DDT that resulted in millions of deaths for malaria. The fact is that DDT has never been banned worldwide for public health use and has continued to be used in some countries where it is still effective. Alas, it is not effective in many places because mosquitoes developed resistance to DDT after it was used indiscriminately in agriculture, which is precisely one of the things that Rachel Carson warned us about. (There are also other failures in the fight against malaria…including simply a lack of commitment of resources on the part of the industrialized countries.) To the extent that these warnings have stopped such indiscriminate use of DDT, allowing it to remain effective in some regions, one can just as easily speculate that millions of lives may have been saved by such warnings.
It seems to me that many of you self-proclaimed “skeptics” here haven’t been very skeptical when it comes to buying the myths on DDT and its supposed ban propagated by anti-environmental groups (such as JunkScience.com, which lives up to its name). Here are some useful resources:
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/

Alas, it is not effective in many places because mosquitoes developed resistance to DDT after it was used indiscriminately in agriculture, which is precisely one of the things that Rachel Carson warned us about.

Ahhh, yes, your messiah warned you about it.
Can you explain to me precisely the metabolic pathways involved in the resistance to DDT that insects have developed?

Smokey says:

[do a search of “DDT, malaria, deaths” and you’ll get over 272,000 hits]

I have never argued that the right-wing anti-environmentalist movement does a bad job in getting their deceptions out onto the web. Yes, you guys are very good at it. But I find it strange how you and your fellow anti-environmentalist advocates completely ignore the issue of insect resistance. Why is that?
And, the story you gave (which you carefully tried to distance yourself from by denigrating NPR because it is apparently not as fair and balanced as, say, Bill O’Reilly) backs up many of the facts that I have noted: For example, it says, “The WHO previously approved DDT for dealing with malaria, but didn’t actively support it.” (Some have argued that even this statement is an exaggeration of the shift in the WHO position made by Arata Kochi in order to try to look like he was doing something important and big when he was making what was at best a slight shift of emphasis.)
And the story you linked to also notes:

A number of major environmental groups support the limited use of DDT, such as spraying only inside of houses and huts once or twice a year. That type of use is supported by the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, which was originally founded by scientists concerned about DDT.

And, here is the discussion of resistance in that story, a discussion that seems to be almost completely absent from the writings of the anti-environmentalists since it undercuts your whole argument:

The field of malaria control has historically been dogged by problems with resistance. Each time scientists find a way to fight the parasite, the parasite finds a way to fight back. It has become resistant to most treatments, for example. And some mosquitoes have already adapted to tolerate DDT. The WHO’s Kochi says resistance can be limited if DDT is used carefully, and only where it’s likely to be effective

Wondering Aloud — here are three articles to look at (BTW, I’ve read Junkscience.com’s critiques of them and don’t find them convincing):
Porter and Wiemeyer, “Dieldrin and DDT: Effects on Sparrowhawk Egg Shells and Reproduction” Science, V. 165, July 11, 1969 pp. 199-200
Bitman, Cecil, and Fries, “DDT-Induced Inhibition of Avian Shell Gland Carbonic Anhydrase: A Mechanism for Thin Eggshells” Science V. 168, May 1, 1970, pp. 594-596
Peakall, “p,p’-DDT: Effect on Calcium Metabolism and Concentration of Estradiol in the Blood” Science V. 168, May 1, 1970, pp. 592-594
The last of these suggests that DDT inhibits enzymes which utilize calcium “when a bird was otherwise in normal calcium balance.” It also finds that DDT is more effective at eggshell thinning that other pesticides such as dieldrin and PCBs, based on field results.
FYI, for both of us to read, is an article which I just found, and have only read the abstract, which bases findings on DDT levels found in the environment, and related DDT levels in the birds to fewer fledged young:
Science 28 May 1971:
Vol. 172. no. 3986, pp. 955 – 957
DOI: 10.1126/science.172.3986.955
DDE Residues and Eggshell Changes in Alaskan Falcons and Hawks
Tom J. Cade 1, Jeffrey L. Lincer 1, Clayton M. White 1, David G. Roseneau 2, and L. G. Swartz 2
1 Section of Ecology and Systematics, Langmuir Laboratory, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850
2 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska, College 99701
Eggshell thickness after exposure to DDT was reduced by 21.7 percent in Alaskan tundra peregrines, by 16.8 percent in taiga peregrines, by 7.5 percent in Aleutian peregrines, by 3.3 percent in rough-legged hawks, and not at all in gyrfalcons. Tundra peregrine eggs contain an average of 889 parts of DDE per million (lipid basis); taiga peregrine eggs contain 673 parts per million; Aleutian peregrine eggs contain 167 parts per million; rough-legged hawk eggs contain 22.5 parts per million; and gyrfalcon eggs contain 3.88 parts per million. These changes in eggshell thickness and the pesticide residues reflect different degrees of exposure to contamination. There is a highly significant negative correlation between shell thickness and DDE content in peregrine eggs. Tundra and taiga peregrines have fledged progressively fewer young each year since 1966.
I’m trying to get this article today; I’ll make a brief additional entry if the article has anything substantially different from the abstract.

Richard Sharpe says:

Provide me with a cite so I can look at the exact circumstances of the so-called skyrocket. Also, what exactly is meant by “DDT use there was huge and still rapidly increasing?”

The India case is documented in Georgeanne Chapin & Robert Wasserstrom, “Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India”, Nature, Vol. 293, pages 181 to 185 (1981) [ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5829/abs/293181a0.html ]. It looks like you will have to find a library with Nature to get a copy as I did since it doesn’t appear to be available on the web for free.

Strange how the Montreal Protocol coincided with the expiration of important patents using CFC’s!!!

Joel Shore made the comment:
“I have never argued that the right-wing anti-environmentalist movement does a bad job in getting their deceptions out onto the web.”
Question – Is there really such a movement or is it the “environment at all costs” movements’ mis-characterization of the “pragmatic cost benefit” environmental folks as a means of discrediting them?
Partial Response: I think that certain talk radio hosts contribute to the sense that there is such a movement by their somewhat flippant comments where they scoff at protecting this animal or that animal. I could never understand why they do that. I’d like to think it is a poor way of getting at the cost benefit analysis…..
Also, in regards to political party differences, I could never figure out why Republicans seem to have lost the environmental conservation image. Didn’t they start it all?

When I first heard about the research suggesting this years ozone hole will be the largest ever due to cosmic rays, I immediately equated this to the ‘unprecedented’ warming of the Arctic. Of course its only ‘unprecedented’ back to the start of satellite records in 1979- there are lots of records of arctic melt before this date.
Consequently my immediate thought about the ozone hole was that it was going to be the largest since….when? I then thought to myself how do they know whether there hasn’t always been a hole but didn’t discover it until the appropriate technology existed?
I posed this very question to one of the top ozone scientists in the world at Cambridge University. He agreed it was an interesting idea and couldnt deny there had been one before, but that this particular hole was caused by cfc’s although doubt had been thrown on the theory, and research being carried out should yield results either way in a few months-probably end december now,
To my mind the 5th biggest hole- but only 1% behind the biggest- means the theory is close enough to be taken seriously. Incidentally it seems ironic but I understand that the very cold stratosphere accentuates the size of the hole, so the colder than usual antarctic weather has accentuated the hole.
Its said to be too warm at the Arctic for one to form but then we have only had records back to 1979 and if it got colder than during that period who knows that one may form?
TonyB

Smokey says:

The people you routinely denigrate as ’skeptics’ are the ones in the mainstream of science. You are not.
Skepticism is essential to the scientific method. Otherwise, those who put forth verifiably silly hypotheses like “increases in CO2 will cause catastrophic, runaway global warming” would lead us into the realm of witch doctors.

It takes a strong disconnect with the reality-based community to come to the conclusion that it is the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and the like which represent the mainstream of science and it is the peer-reviewed journals, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the corresponding academies in all the other G8+5 nations, the councils of the American Meterological Society, the American Physical Society, and the American Geophysical Union, and even companies ranging from Dupont to Ford to Shell and BP that represent the fringe! I saw Patrick Michaels talk several years ago and at least he was intellectually honest enough and connected to reality enough to admit that his was the minority view in the scientific community, even if he still thought it the correct one.
As for the use of the word “skeptics”, I have NEVER denigrated you guys with the word. What I have tried to say (e.g., when I referred to you as “self-proclaimed ‘skeptics'” is that if you want to use this word, which I agree with you represents an essentially quality of a scientist, then you ought to act like true skeptics…And, in my view most of you do not (with a few notable exceptions, including some like Leif who get attacked here for not holding to your politically-correct viewpoints consistently enough). In that case, I think you are just co-opting a word and using to put a nice label on yourselves which is completely divorced from the reality.

CO2 is vapor and vapor is absorbed back into the atmosphere.
It is something lighter than gravity that cannot evaporiate it’s self.
Helium is lighter than gravity but it evaporiates.

I am pretty sure that I am heavier than gravity.

Joel,
“…we seemed to have him pretty effectively contained from committing the worst of his atrocities…”
You wouldn’t say that if your mother or sister had been at some of his son’s “parties”.
Mike

TonyB,
Well if the Arctic does get colder and another ozone hole does form above it, we all know what will have caused it.
Mike

Mike Bryant says:

Joel,
Is this blurb about you?

No…That’s a different Joel Shore. (There seem to be at least 3 of us floating around.) If you want me, you might try googling “Joel D. Shore”.

Much like real scientists never claim that CO2 is the _only_ driver of climate change, real scientists never claim that CFCs are the _only_ driver of the magnitude of the Antarctic ozone depletion. Given that the loading levels of anthropogenic chlorinated compounds aren’t even 10% less than their peak (which was more than 200% more than natural background chlorine), it isn’t surprising that year to year variability might obscure that trend (due to temperatures, cloud formation, cosmic rays, whatever).
I do recommend the UNEP report, much like I would recommend the IPCC reports: if you actually _read_ them, you will see that scientists are quite upfront about what is and is not consistent with their expectations, and what the sources of natural as well as anthropogenic variability are.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/executivesummary.pdf
Also, check out the figure in Q13 in their twenty questions document to see the fairly dramatic decrease in global ozone (not just the Antarctic hole) that pretty much peaked in the early 1990s, which is when stratospheric chlorine loading also peaked.: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/twentyquestions.pdf

Mike Bryant says:

If that blurb is about you, it makes me wonder if you have been crafting this editorial content for a paying customer. Of course I could be way off base here, but I understand that there is a $300,000,000.00 budget for precisely this type of “content”.

And, if pigs could fly… I told you that it is not about me. And, while it would be great if I actually could get paid for doing this, alas I do it as the scientific equivalent of a lawyer’s “pro bono” work. At any rate, my real job completely unrelated to climate change pays me fine. (By completely unrelated, I mean in the content of what I am studying; I do use a lot of computational modeling techniques and study issues like light scattering that have applications both to my work and to climate science even though what I am studying is very different.)

I also just realized that you and Yaakoba are on the same side of this discussion. Just a couple of “real” skeptics trying to set the record straight.

I won’t touch that one except to say that I have no idea what Yaakoba is saying most of the time. “Helium is lighter than gravity but it evaporates”? Whatever.
[REPLY – Yes, you did make that clear, but it’s quite possible that Mike Bryant hadn’t read your reply because it had yet to be approved when he made his post. I am quite sure we take you at your word. There are a number of Evan Joneses in the internet, including at least one environmentalist whom I sincerely doubt would share ANY of my views. ~ Evan]

On the supposed egg shell thickness measurements, as I recall these were done before people realized that the break down daughter substance that was being tested for, and that could “only” come from DDT was in fact found to come from natural sources in at least 90% of all identified cases prior to about 1980.
The great DDT poisoning of the “Elephant” population being the straw that broke that one.

evanjones says:

However, I know you genuinely believe what you believe, and I respect that even though I do not agree. So I do not accuse you of spin.

Sorry. “Spin” was a poor choice of words as I did not mean to imply that you do not believe what you said. Let’s leave it at that we disagree on a lot of the facts and speculations about what might have happened had different actions occurred or not occurred.

Spencer flatly claims otherwise. He asserts that the bulk of the extra water in the lower trop is going towards to cloud formation, and that this is resulting in negative, not positive feedback. The last decade of the record (flat) would seem to be consistent with that.

Well, yes, Spencer may believe this. However, this is very new work by him, some of which is just beginning to be published in the peer-reviewed literature so there has not been much opportunity for scientists to react to it (although I have seen some blog criticisms of aspects of Spencer’s work, e.g. by RealClimate and tamino) and it contradicts a lot of other work in the field. So, in other words, you are betting a lot on the idea that Spencer is correct and a lot of other science, including some that has withstood a considerably longer period of scrutiny by other scientists, is wrong.
As for the fairly flat temperatures over the last several years, since this is not in contradiction with the global climate models forced with constantly increasing CO2, I don’t really see it as evidence in support of Spencer’s hypothesis.

And the Rev has posted humidity measurements some time back, and they do not conform with any models I ever heard of. Specific humidity is down in all but the lowest altitudes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

So, you accepting the results of data available on the web with little explanation being plotted and interpretted by people who don’t know much about it and not being written up for peer review even though these claims are in contradiction with peer-reviewed work. (See here for some references: http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-on-water-vapor-feedback.html ) Note that the Soden paper explicitly mentions the problem with the radiosonde re-analysis data that I believe Anthony has relied on here.

Furthermore, your assertion baffles me: the climate models are badly off, so how can water vapor feedback be behaving “basically as expected”? I agree that non-cloud water vapor would create feedback, but I am not seeing that vapor. That’s the point.

The peer-reviewed evidence that I am aware of (noted above) demonstrates that the water vapor feedback is indeed behaving basically as expected. And, note that the Soden paper looks not only at the trends over long times but also at the shorter-term fluctuations and how they correlate with temperature fluctuations.

Is it you contention that the PDO, AMO, IPO, NOA, AO and AAO do not have warm and cool phases or that they do not affect global temperatures and that there is nor mechanistic reason to believe they do? Really?

I believe that these result primarily in the redistribution of heat, not in significant global warming or cooling…particularly sustained for decades. (El Nino and La Nina can have an effect on global temperatures but that is for a much shorter period of time, over which exchanges of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere can be significant.)

evanjones says:

Say rather that I would wait until it is proven or disproven before enacting policy. This is an important distinction.

But, there will always be someone around to throw out a new hypothesis, so what you are really calling for is a recipe for never taking action. When you have contentious issues like this, the debate goes on forever…just look at the evolution / intelligent design example.
And, why should the default be to not enact any policy until you know with more certainty? Do you only buy fire insurance once your house is already in flames? We all have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty…and hedge our bets. Here is a good article about that in the case of climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5695/416

Wasn’t it expected that positive feedback would accelerate temperature increase from a rate of c. 0.7C per century to over 3.0C?

Not sure what you are saying here. The general rate of warming seen over the last 30 years is compatible with the climate sensitivity range of the IPCC. (Because of uncertainties in forcings such as manmade aerosols as well as natural forcings and variability, however, this data doesn’t provide very strong constraints on climate sensitivity, which is why it is useful to also look at paleoclimate data and events such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, and to also look at things like the water vapor data that Soden did to test the specific feedback mechanisms in the models.)

But that is what the PDO is said to affect: Duration and intensities of Nino vs. Nina.

Is it? Even so, I’d question how long term El Nino and La Nina can affect the global climate. The heat has to come from somewhere.

Richard Sharpe says:

They system has not run away over 600M years or more, even when CO2 levels were higher than they are today …

I don’t know what your point is. Nobody serious is saying that we are going to have a Venus-like run away here on Earth either. (The folks over at RealClimate have been very clear on this point before.) However, what the paleoclimate record shows (see, e.g., here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 ) is that the climate system is quite sensitive to small perturbations, presumably because of the positive feedbacks which, while insufficient to cause an instability, are large enough to magnify what the effect of the perturbation would be in the absence of feedbacks. (The paleoclimate history also suggests that there are tipping points in the climate system which can lead to quite sudden shifts in climate beyond a certain point…although again, not a runaway Venus-type instability.)

Good idea, Joel, artificially inflate the price of oil by giving the government even more money. Brilliant! Simply brilliant.
Hasn’t the government already inflated the price enough? Did you say your doctorate is in economics?

Smokey. Never try to teach a pig to sing!

Richard Sharpe says:

Smokey. Never try to teach a pig to sing!

You guys might feel somewhat smug and superior since your views are in the majority on this website. However, you might want to think about how you present yourselves to a larger world where you are losing the argument. (Note how both candidates for President have embraced cap-and-trade for greenhouse gas emissions, and as I noted, a growing number of corporations have also expressed support for such an approach.) I am actually doing you folks a favor by trying to prune off some of the most ridiculous and misguided arguments that you make. I think it would actually be healthy to have some intelligent skeptical voices around on the issue of AGW. Alas, these skeptic websites seem to be almost completely dominated by arguments that may look good to your fellow travelers but will be considered laughable by the larger community of scientists (and informed laypeople). It’s rather sad actually.

Mike Bryant says:

Why not just say that you prefer government control of the economy? At least then you don’t have to keep talking around it.

Because a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax to correct an externality is not the government taking control of the economy! It is using the market-based system to correct an externality. Do you realize that exactly the same sort of solution was proposed to regulate traditional pollutants from power plants by the Bush Administration in place of the Clean Air Act. They called it the Clear Skies Initiative and touted the fact that it was such a market-based approach. (It was generally opposed by Democrats and environmentalists, although this opposition was not because they didn’t like the approach but rather because the White House had raised the caps on the original EPA proposal so that the cleanup would be slower than would have occurred under the Clean Air Act. In fact, I think one Democratic senator introduced an alternate proposal that was like the Bush Administration’s but with caps similar to those originally proposed by the EPA but Cheney and company got their hands on it. There was also some concern that a cap-and-trade system could create local area where pollutants were high, which is not an issue for CO2 where only the total emissions matter not where they are emitted.)

Joel,
How I long for the traditional pollutants. Back in the sixties and seventies, we had pollutants that you could really sink your teeth into. These new, fresh pollutants are just so ephemeral. I guess they fit in with the new age music, and the new socialism light. I’m just so old fashioned that I will never be able to get my mind around plant food disguised as pollution.
Now, water vapor, there’s a greenhouse gas that everyone could rally around.

Evanjones, to take each of your objections in turn:

A.) It is very costly (both in terms of direct cost and inhibited growth), and the worst effects will hit the poorest hardest.

Well, no doubt there is a real cost associated with this…but the costs have been exaggerated by those with a vested interest in the status quo. Furthermore, as everyone here…even Smokey…admits, fossil fuels will get more expensive eventually as the supply / demand curves shift. So, not dealing with it now is really just putting off costs that we would have to face eventually…plus adding in the additional costs associated with the environmental damage from climate change and ocean acidification.

B.) The evidence is not good enough and the emergency (stipulating there is an emergency) isn’t dire enough to warrant precipitous action. We can afford to wait and see and the evidence pours in. There is a huge amount more study now than ten years ago. Give it a little time as the pump is primed.

As I noted, you will always find people who will make this argument. The nature of science is such that you are never going to have 100% certainty about anything so if you set the bar high enough, you will not be able to reach it. Ten or fifteen years ago, this argument was being made by most of those with a vested interest in the status quo, such as fossil fuel companies, power companies, and automobile manufacturers. Now, even many…if not most…of them have abandoned this claim as no longer scientifically tenable.
Furthermore, there is not as much time as you think. There is a huge amount of inertia both in the climate system and in our society. If we wait until the negative effects are too obvious, it will be some combination of too late and too costly to prevent further such effects.

C.) If legislation is put in place it is very hard to get rid of, even if it can be proven it was never necessary. This is human nature. Therefore we should be very sure it is necessary before acting.

It is also human nature to put off dealing with problems…particularly ones that do not have a dramatic onset but build up slowly over time. If the science subsequently really does swing the other way, there will be plenty of pressures on legislatures from vested interests to ease up on the goals. In the meantime, we will have done things that we would need to eventually do anyway independent of the issue of climate change.

D.) A technological fix such as (but not limited to) a solarsynchronous pole-to-pole horizonal satellite array could solve the issue at a (relatively) minuscule cost (a mere couple of $tril.). This is not a “green” nor a “behavioral” approach, thus it is unfashionable among many. But it (or some other indirect approach) could be both effective and cheap.

There are lots of good reasons to be skeptical of both the costs of such geoengineering fixes and their effectiveness (and ability not to create other problems). In fact, there is already an emerging understanding among climate scientists of how trying to inject aerosols into the stratosphere to cause cooling would produce some detrimental effects (in terms of rainfall distribution, for example). It seems somewhat ironic to me that the same people who argue that there is too much uncertainty to say, “This is a problem and we need to reduce the perturbation we are making on the climate system” are so quick to suggest counter-perturbations, since such an approach would seem to me to demand a much better understanding of the climate system than the former.
Note, by the way, that technological fixes in general and legislation in particularly are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the reason that we need the legislation is to provide the market signals for the technological fixes to be developed. Technologies are not generally researched, developed, and commercialized when there is no market incentive to do so (unless this is done by governments or out of altruism on the part of people with a lot of money).
A cap-and-trade system will encourage the development of technological solutions, at least on small scales. (It may be harder to create a system that would provide sufficient encouragement for the huge geoengineering solutions that you are thinking of…and perhaps some government research has a role to play here, but again, I think these solutions will prove more problematic anyway.)

E.) In any case, C may not have the desired effect. Even if the IPCC is correct, GW would not be much affected, just delayed by a few years.

Not sure what you are basing this on. This is presumably an argument about Kyoto which, since it only covered emissions over like a 4-year period, could not (in the strict sense that you speak of here) possibly delay the consequences more than 4 years, since reducing emissions to zero for 4 years and then going back up to our previous levels would only delay things by 4 years. The point of such legislation / treaties is to get us on a new trajectory in terms of future greenhouse gas emissions…and this is done by creating the market incentives for the development of the technologies that will get us there. The specific emissions targets for the specific years are not so much the ends in and of themselves but rather the means to the end.

F.) If C happens, D will be put aside. I favor the reverse!

Like I say, I don’t see how someone who truly thinks that we know less about the climate system than we think we do would want to favor solutions that require we understand it much better (in fact, IMHO, better than we actually do) rather than solutions that will still be effective in light of greater uncertainty. (At any rate, I don’t even think that your claim is necessarily true, as C would probably create at least some incentives for investments by the marketplace in researching D…and governments could help with investments in D.)

evanjones: Well, we have each stated our positions. I will just comment on this one thing:

Killing world growth by a third to half is not going to be helpful to either of these things.

The estimates from the IPCC report are reductions in world growth over the next 50 years of <0.12% per year in order to go for the most stringent emissions targets. Since it is reasonable to assume GDP growth rate of around 2 to 3% per year, I don’t see how it will kill the growth by a third to a half. (I am not sure where you are getting the 1% reduction in GDP that you quote from Stern, but you seem to be assuming that they meant 1% lower growth each and every year, which I am quite sure is not what they meant.)

Smokey,
That is a very well reasoned response to the continual obfuscation coming from the AGW camp. It really is as simple as you say, despite attempts by some who believe that complexity somehow adds to the debate. I believe your approach of simplicity and cool logic will win the day.
When we hear a response to the simple points you have made, watch for the subtle denigration of you and your thoughts, the appeal to authority and a scholarly, pompous explanation of why you are wrong.
I believe that this debate will not be won or lost in the hollow halls of academe, but rather in the workplaces of hard-working Americans. Your direct, simple and truthful explanations are meat and potatoes for the masses.