My morning double take: "Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss"

OMG, this is just so unbelievably pathetic. So lets summarise.
1.Rapid depletion in recent days? How has this, can this have anything to do with CFC`s that have been in the atmosphere for tens of years and are now fading away?
2. Sorry missed that, it seems that chemical reactions happen faster in cold conditions, my bad.
3. Its getting colder because of warming, silly me, how did I miss that.
This is magnitudes worse than the maize post earlier.

The process is not completely understood according to Markus Rex and consequently I am having trouble understanding his explanation of the process. Send more money.

OK, to synopsize:
1. Ozone at arctic “heading for” record low levels; half of all arctic ozone “gone” in a week
2. Stratospheric temps lower than “avg”; looks to continue
3. Ozone “IS” depleted due to anthropogenic CFCs (?)
4. Coldest winters “seem” to be colder(?); and “may” be connected to global warming
5. Interactions between ozone layer and “climate change” not “completely understood”
6. Much money thrown at this incomplete understanding, across a number of nations
7. Long-term everything will be OK thanks to UN’s Montreal Protocol (whew)
8. Old CFCs still floating around killing Ozone willy-nilly, will continue for “years”; in mean time, Ozone’s fate tied to stratospheric temps, thus tied to climate change.
9. Invest in Coppertone; we’ll need LOTS of it
10. I’m sure it’s worse than we thought.
Bottom line: It’s modern man’s fault, those horrible bastards! Well…. it might be….. we’re just not “completely understanding” how it all works…. but the UN rode to our rescue… we’re saved!!! Well… not for an undetermined number of years while those nasty anthropogenic CFCs continue to gobble up poor little Ozone, or until it’s convenient for the UN to forget it.
I hope this helps cut through all the fluff.
By the way, has there been a study to determine the actual PPM(or whatever metric) of CFCs in the “ozone layer” and whether they’re increasing, declining, or staying the same. Seems to me that as these CFCs interact with ozone, they’d be decomposed in that process. Not being a chemist or atmospheric scientist I haven’t a clue, I’m really asking if someone knows this chemical process that the UN got all up in arms about.

@Bushy – you beat me to the Post button. 😉

All the stratospheric temperature charts I have seen show that the drop in stratospheric temperatures stopped after the last major volcanic eruption in the early mid 1990s. Since 1994, stratopheric temperatures have been mostly stable with a slight increase.
(I would appreciate a link to stratospheric temperature graph / chart that is updated on monthly basis.)

Yet another reason not to live north of the Arctic circle! What with the frigid cold, the polar bears, the junk ice, open waters, and now ozone hole, it’s just not the same vacation wonderland that it used to be.

Why just now this news of these new things done by cold.
A cold strawman?
Back to the future?
This mis-information, just why, why now, and keep an eye on this. We know it is a group project this CO2 or something else tax deal. They may be about changeing the evil doer that needs big taxing.

So the Arctic conditions are in no way tied to the sun, and the fact that the greatest flux of solar particles impacts the earth at the poles……..
Sure, what ever you say………
These people have gone bonkers…. What has happened to society? It weird, like they dont know how to think and cant speak the facts…

“However, the complicated details of the interactions between the ozone layer and climate change haven’t been completely understood yet and are the subject of current research projects,”
But don’t worry because ALL the climate computer models to date have fully factored in these “complicated details” and that is how they have been able to predict, with amazing accuracry, the temperature in 100 year’s time.
/sarc off, if needed.

Whether it is energy or the enviorment it is always about depletion and not supply.
Do you think with the solar wind declining by 30% since 1996 the supply of ozone could be affected? Was the decline in charged particles being funneled to the poles even mentioned in this arcticle? What about a decline in UV over the same period?

I guess this means that nobody who lives or works in the arctic should go outside without a heavy coat, to protect themselves from all that UV, don’t ya know.

CFC’s were banned 30 years ago, most of them are out of the atmosphere by now.

I can’t believe “Scientists” penned a signature to this. They must be getting really desperate for a new “smoking gun” for funding.

Stupid and pointless research has been done as long as grants have been available.
It just so happens that lots of research money has been made available, by vested interests, to ensure that loads of cockamamie, doom-saying conclusions get produced so that all kinds of legislation and taxation can be enacted to “help out” the altruistic purveyors of green energy and energy conservation “solutions”.

Am I they only one who feels the authors are engaging in panicked babble?

Joanna Haigh recently pointed out that from 2004 to 2007 whilst the sun was decreasing in activity ozone amounts decreased below 45km (as expected) but increased above 45km (unexpected).
Presumably the increase above 45km warmed the entire atmospheric column thereby causing the strongly negative AO.
Now with the sun recovering somewhat I would expect to find that ozone amounts have increased below 45km and decreased above 45km for a net reduction in total column ozone and indeed the AO is less negative than it was.
Is there any data supporting or rebutting that conjecture?

Well I don’t really know about “Long Waves”. Back when I was in high school, I was a tech in the Elec & Mag lab, and once in a while if we got a new kid become a tech too, we would ask him to go up to the Mechanics Lab (other side of the campus), and ask for the “Long Weight”. They’d sit him down, and keep messing around with what they were doing. Eventually the kid would ask; :”When am I going to get that Long Weight ?” Hasn’t been long enough yet ? would be the response.
So maybe long waves are about like that; like a “long wave goodbye”. Waves are ususally in a medium or a field of some sort; so what the blazes are these “waves” in. “Energy” we are told. Well I understand “energy” a bit. It comes in a variety of forms, so just what form is it in in these “Long Waves” ?
Is it stored chemical energy; like fossil fuels; is it “heat” energy, which would manifest itself as a Temperature field. How about wind energy; could we tap into it with a wind mill ?
I’m sorry; “energy long waves”, just is not very informative if you ask me.

But…it’s a, quote, travesty they can’t account for 12 years of NO global warming, so how is this connected to warming?

Ozone is caused by radiation from sun.
Ozone is unstable and breaks down.
When the arctic is in the shade (NH winter) radiation from the sun can not make Ozone.
If Ozone did not break down, all of the Oxygen whould now be Ozone, and we would not be here.
This kind of reporting is intended to distract us from something else.
(“Ignore the man behind the curtain”)

Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions.
Seems I recall that volcanic activity produces some CFC’s. None from iceland recently?

This does raise an interesting question, did they recalibrate the satellites when the earth shifted its axis to avoid the data overlaps and what are they using to gather this data for the “past 22+ years”?
Also, the blackout areas over the Arctic are extensive.
http://sacs.aeronomie.be/nrt/index.php?Year=2011&Month=03&Day=12&InstruGOME2=4&InstruOMI=1&InstruSCIA=0&InstruIASI=3&InstruAIRS=2&obsVCD=1&obsAAI=2&obsCCF=3&modeONE=0&modeADD=1&horaireIASI=1&horaireAIRS=1&Region=001

A warmer troposphere and a colder stratosphere are expected from a greenhouse gas forcing – that’s actually one of the major differences between GHG’s and other forcing distributions, which can be seen here.
CFC’s degrade ozone, and degrade it a lot more quickly at low temperatures. Hence increasing temperature stratification above the Arctic, with the heat trapped low in the atmosphere, looks to lead to a really cold stratosphere.
So it’s both CFC’s (slowly decreasing over time) and a really cold stratosphere involved in this.

And they seem to be able to utter this nonsense with a straight face…

Gavin says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
Cold in the Arctic during Winter? Why, yes, it is cold in the Arctic, even when the sun is shining. Sounds like a good description of a natural cycle, especially with the Sun putting out less UV this cycle and this minimum.
Oops, the Sun did it.
It all ends up coming from the Sun.
The Sun puts out the UV, shines where it falls, provided the energy that went into fossil fuels that man burns and the food that man eats.
Fusion, darn it. We need to douse the Sun.

“the strength of “long waves,” bands of atmospheric energy that circle the Earth, regulate the temperatures in the upper atmosphere of the Arctic, and play a role in controlling ozone losses in the stratosphere”
“For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change…”
Says exactly the same thing to me,
Strength of long waves change, temperature…er whoops I meant that Climate Change results in ozone loss
It’s called marketing, just unlucky, whoops did it again …lucky that an “extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection”/grant is needed.

I find following statement rather ridiculous and apparently no one has mentioned it so far:
“The changes observed at present may also have an impact outside the thinly populated Arctic. Air masses exposed to ozone loss above the Arctic tend to drift southwards later. Hence, due to reduced UV protection by the severely thinned ozone layer, episodes of high UV intensity may also occur in middle latitudes. “Special attention should thus be devoted to sufficient UV protection in spring this year,” recommends Rex.”
Well, yes, those air masses do tend to drift south but they end up under areas with much higher ozone concentrations. How on earth could an Arctic outbreak lead to high uv intensity in mid latitudes? Am I missing something here or is this statement just absurd?
BTW, is the Gavin who posted above none other than the Gavin from Real Climate fame (or shame)?
Also, for those who may not appreciate this fact, when the troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools. If you have followed any of Joe Bastardi’s posts in the past, he actually uses this as a forecast tool, namely, the temperature anomalies at 10 mb.

“In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection.” – I hope they don’t break an arm patting themselves on the back. Never mistake correlation for causation. I was playing around at the Green building at MIT when they first came up with the idea. I am still agnostic on CFCs. I will accept it as a hypothesis whose validity remains to be proven. I suppose we can also see the size of the Antarctic hole and make some deductions. If that hole is growing too, even though the temperatures are not heading into 30 year lows, then it is likely not the temperature.

Mike says:
March 15, 2011 at 10:01 am
From the article/press release: “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion.
+++++++++++++
The fact the greenhouse effect warms the surface while cooling the stratosphere has long been known and is a major reason we know that recent warming is not part of a natural cycle or caused by changes in solar output.
So why is the troposphere at a lower temperature than the 1979-2010 average?
The heat is gone and it’s a travesty you can’t account for it.

Another shifting pile of sand by the looks out of it. Born out of looking at moving patterns in the grains from day to day instead of standing back and seeing how it all comes and goes over much long timescales.

Quote: “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.”
?? UAH temperatures for jan. en feb. 2011 were zero. So no warming in 30 years and no heated up layers then. This research is some of the worst of CAGW-science imho.

Let’s take it from the beginning. The argument for the Montreal Protocol was that prohibiting CFC-s like Freon would get rid of the very dangerous ozone hole. Their replacements, the HCFC-s would also be prohibited from 2013. But now we find that the original ozone hole over the south pole is still here and has a twin over the north pole as well. All the prohibitions and disruptions to the economy have not worked as the framers of that Montreal Protocol promised to us. Some science projects are just plain wrong just like some bridges built by engineers collapse because a mistake was made. It is time to admit that a mistake was made with the Montreal Protocol. It should be nullified and all its subsidiary projects closed down.

Thanks, Gavin, (@ March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am). It was good to look at the NASA charts, but the charts make the article’s claims even more puzzling. Yes, Feb & March 2011 stratospheric temperatures are significantly below the 30 year average. BUT Feb and March 2010 stratospheric temperatures were significantly above the 30 year average. Somehow, this year’s dip in Arctic stratospheric temperatures is due to a 100 year build up in CO2, but last year’s bump is not?

I think the announcement was being prepared for April first, and got released prematurely. Or that it is intended to pave the way for an even more brazen April first hoax. We’re all taking this too seriously. Hook, line and sinker, just because it is two weeks early.

@Rick K
I had meant to include this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-intermediate.htm
“Another human fingerprint can be found by looking at temperature trends in the different layers of the atmosphere. Climate models predict that more carbon dioxide should cause warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. This is because the increased “blanketing” effect in the troposphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the stratosphere. This is in contrast to the expected effect if global warming was caused by the sun which would cause warming both in the troposphere and stratosphere. What we observe from both satellites and weather balloons is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere, consistent with carbon dioxide warming:”

Weren’t the boys in Potsdam telling us that, warming in the Arctic was causing cooling in lower NH latitudes and therefore cooler winters in Europe and N. America?
Now it’s getting colder in the Arctic, LO! See the Ozone layer depletion!?
Are we going to have a whip round/collection for Sun cream – factor 60!! For those brave boys in the Caitlin [Arctic Survey] team??
God we know it’s warming up…………….
Send donations to:
“Sun cream for those brave lads”,
Costa Arctic Caitlin expedition,
Club Med – new Arctic resort,
Chilloutville,
+/-80 degs N.

As for those saying that ‘warming is causing the cooling’, the claim is that because of that eeeeviiiil CO2 trapping all that eeeeviiiil heat ‘down here’ the upper layers are getting cooler.

“The current winter is a continuation of this development, which may indeed be connected to global warming,” atmosphere researcher Rex explains the connection that appears paradoxical only at first glance. “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion.

You see, what we have here is a suspension of the laws of physics as we know them, probably caused by that eeeeviiiil CO2, in fact. Although if that eeeeviiiil CO2 does retain more heat as it passes through, if that heat does not pass through eventually (thus retaining the temperature above it), then we would be cooking really, really quickly.
All a ‘blanket’ can do is reduce the rate at which heat radiates, it does NOT make the air above it colder once equilibrium has been reached. Essentially the same amount of radiation gets out as comes in, it just takes slightly longer because of that eeeeviiiil CO2.
So I call BS on the whole thing.

@Henry P
I read your article. There are no references to the scientific literature in it. This might explain why YOU were unable to find the mountains of evidence that CO2 (+ the H2O feedback) causes warming. You state that warming leads to more H2O vapor which is correct, but than assume this will increase cloud cover. That would hold if the temperature was constant which of course it is not since it is warming. There is a lot of uncertainty in cloud feedback. The small amount of direct evidence points toward the cloud feedback being positive – that is warming is amplified by warming induced cloud cover changes. There is no evidence that cloud cover will save us. So, do we just roll the dice and cross our figures?
You also state that warming won’t be a big problem if it does occur and that the current warming we have had is still small at 0.7C. But we are headed for much more than that. See: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/217.full
(You may need a sub for full access.)

@Smokey
No, I will not ignore sources you do not like. You have no training in the sciences. Sk Sc has a point of view but its material has links to the peer reviewed lit. You of course provided no linked references to backup your claim!
The troposphere “hot spot” is a real issue, but it has nothing to do with whether the current warming is GHG caused. The issue has as much to do with measurement methods and as modelling.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
And if you are skeptical, as we all should be, read the references provided. That’s what they are there for.
No one claims climate models are without weaknesses. But there are no plausible models that would allow us to double or triple CO2 levels without warming the climate. No one has been able to explain recent warming without the greenhouse effect.
Physics does not care whether or not you like big government. (Conservatives don’t seem to mind big gov when it comes to national defence.) This issue of how to deal with climate change is separate from whether or not is it happening. If you don’t like current ideas about how to deal with the reality that we are changing our climate in dangerous ways, come up with better ideas.

For all those CFC fans
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Its that old ‘hot = cold’ thing again – gets you every time if you dont watch

The “scientists” behind this propaganda fail to understand the basic climate mechanisms in place.
The colder conditions experienced during the early and mid stages of the northern hemisphere winter were due to a warmer stratosphere which was a result of a weakened arctic vortex that was caused by planetary waves and the QBO. This situation causes a strongly neg AO/NAO with associated jet stream changes. (Mr Wilde might notice the different anomalies around 45km)
Lately we have seen a stronger northern vortex and a positive AO which cools the stratosphere aiding in ozone loss, winter conditions also improved during this time.
Low EUV is a double edged sword, some think EUV is a factor in the fluctuations of the planetary waves that destroy the arctic vortex along with the reduced capacity to build ozone. This is the area where the money should be spent.

Gavin says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
So, Gavin, how’s the Model E documentation coming along??? Sorry to interrupt your government-sponsored blogging…

“”””” Mike says:
March 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm
@Henry P
I read your article. There are no references to the scientific literature in it. This might explain why YOU were unable to find the mountains of evidence that CO2 (+ the H2O feedback) causes warming. You state that warming leads to more H2O vapor which is correct, but than assume this will increase cloud cover. That would hold if the temperature was constant which of course it is not since it is warming. There is a lot of uncertainty in cloud feedback. The small amount of direct evidence points toward the cloud feedback being positive – that is warming is amplified by warming induced cloud cover changes. There is no evidence that cloud cover will save us. So, do we just roll the dice and cross our figures? “””””
Mike, just think, you cloud be the first; excuse me, make that “could” be the first. The first that is, to actually observe the Temperature to rise in the shadow zone of a cloud when it passes in front of the sun. It ain’t happened yet; but it might. Just think, Carl Sagan went to meet his maker, having never found so much as one single binary digit of scientific observational data about any form of exta-terrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise. What a great waste of one’s life.
So you might be the first to witness a cloud warming the ground.
So if you had pole to pole total cloud cover from the surface to say 20 km or so; hell go for 50 km, just how hot would you expect it to get on the surface.
We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. that in the long run shoulkd lead to a cooler earth.
Yes I know that a tall cloud near the limb of the earth can scatter, some incoming sunlight, that would have totally missed the surface as it scooted on by, and have that energy reach the surface. OOoops, I almost forgot, it is also likely that that very same cloud could scatter light that WAS going to hit the surface, and have it head on back out into space instead. I’d put my money on no net gain due to that cloud side scatter.
I’ve actually been under a midwestern thunderstorm, (inside) where it was quite dark even at mid day; and experienced the cooling due to that cloud blocking sunlight from the ground. Yes I did say inside, so I was not feeling the air Temperature of some external air mass associated with the storm; just the attenuation of the solar energy that was coming in my window, before the storm went through.
But it’s the high clouds that cause the surface warming isn’t it; you know the higher the better; because when they are high and very low density, they don’t block as much sunlight from the ground. Of course they also don’t block much in the way of outgoing LWIR radiation for precisely the same reason (sparseness). Those noctilucent clouds can really cook you if you get outside when they are around.
Does the inverse square law not operate in the optics of the earth’s cloud system. A 100 square km dense cloud casts about a 100 square km shadow on the surface, because the sun is a near point source (half a degree angular diameter), so there is a bit of a penumbral edge to the shadow. On the other hand, the surface emitted LWIR radiation from that cooler shadow zone, radiates in at least a Lambertian (cosine) radiation pattern and maybe, even closer to isotropic, so only a fraction of that surface LWIR is actually intercepted by the 100 square km cloud. And you have an inverse 4th power of cloud height operating, not to mention a cosine ^8 possible obliquity factor as well. Yeah that cloud is going to be a real blow torch.

Could we please introduce a little basic science here? First, there are no “holes in the ozone layer” for the very simple reason that there is no “ozone layer”, except as a mathematical construct.
Ozone concentrations in the atmosphere are measured in Dobson Units, which measure the total amount of ozone in a column of air from ground level up to the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
This total measure is then ASSUMED to exist as a “layer” at sea level to produce a figure that can be used to compare ozone concentrations from one place to another. This totally man-made mathematical construct is the ONLY place where an actual “ozone layer” exists.
Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen, O3 instead of O2. It is formed when O2 is subject to an input of energy. Lightning creates ozone, as do electric motors. The bulk of ozone is formed from sunlight striking O2 molecules. Obviously this happens most where the two first meet – way out in the upper reaches of the atmosphere – but it also occurs all the way down to sea level.
The truth is, if we could build a giant space vacuum-cleaner and vacuum up all the ozone in the upper atmosphere, it would be instantly replaced by more ozone being formed by more sunlight hitting more oxygen (O2) molecules. This process will continue for as long as there are O2 molecules rising up from the earth, meeting light coming from the sun.
Ozone concentrations are measured in Dobson Units, because they are measured on a Dobson Spectrophotometer, invented by Professor Gordon Dobson. Professor Dobson believed there were high-level wind-currents and wanted to test his theory by tracking the large scale movement of air in the upper atmosphere.
Since it is very hard to actually “tag” air to see where it goes, Professor Dobson decided to make use of a known, observable fact at the time (1957). Back then, in pre “post-modern” science days, it was fully understood that ozone was caused by sunlight striking O2, and that there was less of it at the poles during winter. In fact, there shouldn’t have been any. (I’ll let the reader figure out why).
However, there was some, when there should have been none, so Professor Dobson theorised that the ozone was being carried in from “elsewhere” by his theorised upper-atmospheric wind currents. Professor Dobson theorised that if he could “map” the pattern of this incoming ozone he could establish the existence of these upper atmospheric wind systems.
And that is exactly what he did. In 1957 – The International Geophysical Year – he mapped the patterns of ozone depletion over Antarctica, and established the existence and general movements of the upper-atmosphere air currents. For this he was awarded the “International Geophysical Man of the Year” award (sorry ladies, but that is what it was called).
Professor Dobson wrote a book about this – “Exploring the Atmosphere” – which was one of my science textbooks at high school back in the Sixties. Regrettably, since Professor Dobson’s work did not fit the required “post-modern” paradigm of man-made “holes” in the “ozone layer” he has largely been “disappeared” from history, despite being one of the giants of modern meteorology.
This started in the late Sixties when the greenies were campaigning to stop the development of supersonic transport aircraft (SST) – namely the Lockheed L2000 and the Boeing 2707, which they succeeded in doing in 1971. It was claimed at the time that these kinds of aircraft would “burn holes in the ozone layer” and all our atmosphere would “leak out”. Or something like that.
Anyway, that’s how I remember it. Forgive me any minor scientific or historical errors, for I am a simple man with nary but a high school education on the subject of “climate science” and a failing memory to work with.

Gavin says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
A clue:
Minimum temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere
http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/ann_data.html
are below the levels for PSC formation (and halogen-related catalytic ozone depletion via heterogeneous chemistry), which allows for very confident predictions of large springtime ozone loss. See 2005 for similar conditions and predictions:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/will-spring-2005-be-a-bad-one-for-arctic-ozone/
and validation:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/2005-arctic-ozone-loss/
but please carry on…
===========
Thanks for the link and I hate it when I’m so wrong and need to correct a post.
I did search all of NASA using advanced search and got 5 results for Arctic Ozone Hole (3 from 1997). However, there is a truckload on Antarctica.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/advSearch.jsp?start=&filter=0&spell=&nasaInclude=Arctic+Ozone+Hole&qt=all&qx=&qm=title&dtype=on&dn1=&dn=nasa.gov&dt=at&recPerPg=200&displayFormat=detail
Ozone Monitoring Instrument [Satellite] Names 1978 – present:
OMI
(Aura) Ozone Monitoring Instrument
2004 – present
TOMS
Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer
• Nimbus-7 (11/1/1978 – 5/6/1993)
• Meteor-3 (8/22/1991 – 11/24/1994)
• Earth Probe (7/25/1996 – 12/31/2005)
SBUV
(See also NOAA’s stratospheric ozone page on SBUV/2, NASA Goddard’s page on Nimbus 7 SBUV, and NOAA’s SBUV/2 web site.)
Solar Backscatter UltraViolet
1978 – present
GOME
Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment
1995 – present
GOME-2
Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment
2006 – present
Data is available for 1978-2005
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftpimage_v8.html
Also see, Spaced Based Measurements of Ozone — 2004 to present
http://macuv.gsfc.nasa.gov/OMIOzone.md
Other related links:
NASA [Antarctica] Ozone Hole Watch
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Ozone and Air Quality
http://macuv.gsfc.nasa.gov/
What is the Ozone Hole?
Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”.
The area of the ozone hole is determined from a map of total column ozone. It is calculated from the area on the Earth that is enclosed by a line with a constant value of 220 Dobson Units. The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979. Also, from direct measurements over Antarctica, a column ozone level of less than 220 Dobson Units is a result of the ozone loss from chlorine and bromine compounds.
Based on this, its actually curious that it doesn’t routinely occur in the Northern Hemisphere spring s well.

memoryvault. Good to see Gordon Dobson’s name mentioned and some straight common sense info.
I’d add that the instability of O3 makes it particularly prone to break-down by Cl. High latitude, cool climate volcanoes like Mt Erebus or the 4 recent Kamchatka ones, sometimes send hot gasses straight up to the stratosphere where they decompress/expand and hang around for a fair while. This might be an obvious avenue to investigate.
From memory they found precious little CFC in the Antarctic atmosphere which is hardly surprizing given its high density. However, they did find plenty of Cl in the stratosphere.

Well let’s see. Solomon, ozone, ghgs, Schmidt, so much going on at once, maybe we can sort it out some.
In this paper by Thompson and Solomon (T&S), some considerable effort is made to separate the effect of ozone recovery (should cause stratospheric warming) from ghgs (stratospheric cooling).
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonSolomon2_JClimate2009.pdf
In order to do so best, it was found necessary to look at stratospheric trends by lattitude, and this comment was made:

The stratosphere is cooling at all latitudes, but the cooling is most significant at tropical latitudes and is obscured by a string of relatively warm years since 2000 at polar latitudes (Fig. 3b; Fig. 5, middle; Fig. 6) [see also Thompson and Solomon (2005)].

We’ll leave aside for the moment the fact that Figs 3b, 5, and 6 appear to actually show the higher lattitudes (i.e. the Arctic) warming. albeit with huge error bars that extend into cooling, but I can only deal with so much climate science at a time.
Rather, I’d like to focus on this additional quote from T&S:

The most obvious physical explanation for the pattern of ozone-residual temperature trends in Fig. 7 (bottom) is that the radiative cooling due to ozone depletion is being attenuated by anomalous sinking motion in the polar regions and is being enhanced by anomalous rising motion in the tropics, subtropics, and even midlatitudes of both hemispheres.

Their explanation required them to account for the fact that the polar regions weren’t cooling enough. They had a perfect explanation…in 2009…to explain why polar stratospheric temperatures weren’t cooling according to plan.
I guess it would be interesting to know why one year now proves the arctic stratosphere is cooling because of ghgs, just as the all models say!
Maybe the actual data will clear things up?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tls_anomalies_land_and_ocean.txt
Here’s the trend for the high lattitudes.
First, year round
http://img824.imageshack.us/i/arctictlsstatospheremon.jpg/
then for feb only, which presumably indicates how likely ozone depletion will be in the Northern spring.
http://img843.imageshack.us/i/arctictlsstatospherefeb.jpg/
There’s that pesky warming again.
Maybe Gavin can come back and explain these trends to us.

JPA Knowles
Yes, the relative density of CFC’s to air is about the same as that of a house brick to water. One doesn’t often see house bricks floating to the surface of pools.
The entire “CFC’s are destroying the (non-existent) ozone layer” construct was the brainchild of one Edgar Bronfman Sr who picked up the entire bill for that little shindig in Canada from where we got the Montreal Protocol.
It’s actually quite entertaining sitting here reading all this.
119 comments (so far) on “holes” that don’t exist, in a “layer” that doesn’t exist, and a mountain of quotes from and links to “published, peer-reviewed scientific papers”, all debating the “causes” of a purely natural phenomenon that occurs over the Poles every (local) winter because the sun doesn’t shine at the time – hence no formation of ozone.
It really IS that simple.

Stratosphere temperatures are clearly controlled by stratospheric volcanic eruptions.
When a large volcano goes off, within 2 weeks, stratospheric temperatures spike as the sulfate aerosols rise up and then capture more solar radiation in the stratospheric layer. (Surface solar radiation falls in concert of course).
After the sulfate aerosols dissappate, they leave behind in their wake, reduced Ozone levels as the sulfate aerosols destroy Ozone. Temperatures in the stratosphere then decline to a new lower level about 0.5C to 1.0C lower than prior to the eruption.
Afterward, it takes 30 to 50 years for the Ozone to rebuild and the temperature in the stratosphere slowly rebuilds as the Ozone level rebuilds.
This can be seen in the daily UAH lower stratosphere temperatures since 1979 and are evident in all the stratospheric volcanoes that we have been able to measure.
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/29/lowerstratospheretemps.png
For the Arctic, there seems to be not too much happening except in the Winter, between December to February, the stratosphere temperatures can either spike up a large amount or spike down a large amount. All the spikes in the following chart occur in December to March, with the most common centre point of the spike in February.
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1954/uahnorthpolesstrat.png
So, there is NO explanation of these events required that involve CO2 at all (and the pro-AGW movement is taking advantage of volcano influences an normal Arctic stratosphere variability to bolster their case – which they seem to do consistently with everything that happens).

Jon says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm
2003 was the 2nd Solar Max of Cycle 23 (it had an earlier Max in 2001).
When the Deep Solar Minimum hit, the UV output of the Sun slacked off in favor of longer bands of light. So, no mystery as to why there should be a big hole in the Arctic ozone.
The Sun is responsible.
We didn’t do it.

memoryvault says:
March 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm
JPA Knowles
119 comments (so far) on “holes” that don’t exist, in a “layer” that doesn’t exist, and a mountain of quotes from and links to “published, peer-reviewed scientific papers”, all debating the “causes” of a purely natural phenomenon that occurs over the Poles every (local) winter because the sun doesn’t shine at the time – hence no formation of ozone.
It really IS that simple.
=======
from the post
“Our measurements show that at the relevant altitudes about half of the ozone that was present above the Arctic has been destroyed over the past weeks,” says AWI researcher Markus Rex, describing the current situation. “Since the conditions leading to this unusually rapid ozone depletion continue to prevail, we expect further depletion to occur.”
Can anyone point to a single satellite image from the past few weeks that supports 50% depletion at “relevant altitudes”? I can buy into the recent sun spot / auroras over the Arctic as a trigger but where is the proof?

[Snip. We don’t appreciate being called “deniers” here. ~dbs, mod.]

memoryvault – beat me to it.
There isn’t any hole, just a region where O3 concentrations are almost nearly zero instead of just almost zero. The concentration dropped over the last few weeks? You mean like EVERY year during that time period? When the arctic is in almost 24 hour darkness and so there’s very little UV busting up O2 and sticking it back together as O3? So this year is more than usual? Yeah? By how much? I didn’t see how much MORE than usual, they just lumped the increment together with the natural variation and screamed about the total. So how much more? 1%? 5%? How much and why didn’t they say?
And…oh no! Some of that arctic air with almost no ozone instead of almost nearly no ozone his headed south, over the temperate zones…OHMIGOD! Its looming over us as it comes south…hmmm…came out of the arctic shadow into sunshine and PING ozone left right and centre and up and down. Not to mention us poor souls who live in the supposed at risk north temperate zones have cottoned onto something that the clown fish pseudo PNS ChickenWarmingLittle dweebs seem to have missed. The sunshine comes in at an ANGLE. From the SOUTH. YOU MORONS! Even in mid summer (you know, long after the ozone pretend hole has long since recovered from spring sunshine?) the sun at high noon STILL has a soutward slant. Not only does it have to got through the air mass SOUTH of us where the Ozone is…what the heck is the opposite of a hole that isn’t a hole just a lower concentration of almost zero? …where the Ozone is inflated? engorged? mountainized? humped? what ever some sort of maximum anyway…so it has to come through the MAXIMUM concentration of Ozone and…oh yeah GEOMETRY WORKS! At the equator the sunshine would got almost straight down, but in the north temperate zone it is going through the atmosphere at an angle (FROM THE SOUTH!) so it has to travel through MORE Ozone than if it was going straight down at the equator and the angle takes it UNDER the almost nearly not there not a hole just a low concentration gets destroyed and rebuilt every year thingamjig.
Not to mention that when cold air from the arctic moves south where it gets pretty much instantly Ozonized, did they perhaps wonder why a vacuum hole doesn’t get left behind? No, I’m kidding, there is no VACUUM HOLE forming in the arctic! Air from..you know…SOUTH of the arctic where there’s a mountain that isn’t a mountain just a higher concentration of ozone moves North to replace it.
I can go on ranting for about five more pages on this good GRIEF! there are so many holes in this story that the only holes in the story to be concerned about are the ones in the researcher’s…hey! THAT’S where the vacuum is! What keeps their heads from imploding? Oh…its not really a vacuum or a hole its just a region of almost nearly zero grey matter.

davidmhoffer says:
March 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm
==============================
rotfl
Thank you David, you saved me a blood pressure pill………
excellent rant btw

George E. Smith says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm “We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. that in the long run shoulkd lead to a cooler earth.”
George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. You have no evidence for this claim. The claim is patently false. H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; indeed they even use this to falsely argue the CO2 level does not matter. H2O in clouds is either liquid droplets or ice crystals. Clouds may have a cooling effect or net warming effect depending on several factors.
See: here.
~dbs: Apologies. Hope this is better.

Mike says:
March 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm
[Snip. We don’t appreciate being called “deniers” here. ~dbs, mod.]
Don’t cuss the data. Refute the cooler troposphere.

@Smokey.
No one denies the existence of significant natural climate variability or of uncertainties in climate science. But the human caused temperature increase has now risen above the natural noise level as scientists expected. The is no basis to even suspect we can double or triple the CO2 level as we are on track to do this century and not profoundly impact our climate and oceans.

@Tim Clark,
That’s only part of the troposphere. From the graph it looks like there is a lot of variability and the the red curve has been above the mean at times and is below the mean now. So what? You seem to be responding to something James C said. Perhaps he will get back to you.

Reed Coray
When you find the address for getting grants, please let me know. I’m chasing funding for my pet theory too.
As everyone knows, there is something called the “carbon cycle”. Plants absorb CO2 from the air and turn into more plant. The plants die and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere, or the plant gets eaten by something which, in turn releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Then it gets absorbed by plants and the whole cycle starts again.
However, when the coal beds of the earth were formed, a lot of this CO2 was taken out of the cycle by plants being submerged under water before they decomposed. This upset the “balance of nature” by vastly reducing the amount of carbon available for the cycle and locking it up as coal.
My theory is that Mother Nature / Gaia / God / Aliens or whatever then evolved humans expressly to discover coal, dig it out of the ground and burn it, as a means of restoring the balance in the carbon cycle.
I call this the “George Carlin Theory of Planned Evolution”. (sarc)

I like this web site. Brings a lot of data to the table.
from http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Ozone.htm
* “For the “coldest” Arctic winters, the volume of air with temperatures low enough to support polar stratospheric clouds (called “VPSC”) has increased significantly since the late 1960s. This change is much larger than expected from the direct radiative effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The reason for the change is not clear, and it could be due to long-term natural variability or an unknown dynamical mechanism.”

AusieDan – asks for it simple.
There is element called Oxygen, its symbol is “O”.
Like many humans, “O” doesn’t like being alone and usually finds a mate. They pair up in a reasonably stable, monogamous relationship. A bit like a human marriage. This is also called “Oxygen” and its symbol is “O2”.
Now, as happens in human relationships, sometimes the O2’s get a bit too excited. When this happens they split up and reform as a threesome – what the French call a ménage a trois, but the rest of us call “Ozone”. The symbol for Ozone is O3.
As in human relationships, the Ozone threesome is highly unstable, and very quickly dissipates its extra energy and breaks down and reforms as O2.
“O”, as “O2” is mostly created by plants on the earth’s surface. Being slightly less heavy than Nitrogen the O2 couple rise up in the atmosphere. Up and up they go until they sometimes get hit by a little ray of sunshine coming the other way. That’s what gets them excited and causes them to split up and form a ménage a trois as Ozone. You might say sunlight is the equivalent of porn for O2 couples.
Anyway, this process has gone on for as long as O2 couples have been getting together, rising up, and sometimes getting hit by sunlight coming the other way. And it will continue for as long as there is O2 and sunlight.
Now, there are some places where the sun don’t shine, and I’m not talking about where the climate alarmists seem to have their heads stuck most of the time. I mean in the Arctic Circle during the NH winter, and the Antarctic Circle during the SH winter.
No sunlight = no Ozone. Simple as that.
Unfortunately over the last forty years there are some people who have made a lot of money out of pretending that what is written above is not the case, and that instead Ozone is a magical mystical layer at the very edge of the atmosphere, that has been there since the beginning of time and has only recently become threatened by terrible man/bear/pig and his nefarious activities.
I understand some version of this “man/bear/pig threat to the fragile ozone layer” what is now taught as “science” in our schools and universities.
The article we are commenting on here is just one such example of attributing Ozone “depletion” to some activity of man/bear/pig for profit.
Not sure I can make it simpler than that.

Mike came through. Very testable as to his statement. He used the word “confirmed”. I read the article. No such confirmation found as to the human footprint on Earth rotation due to AGW temperature change.
“Since scientists know air temperature can’t affect movements of Earth’s core or Earth’s length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.”

Mike;
NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights>>>
Ya know, I actually done read that there article. Let me see if I can walk you through it. These here scientists noticed a 60 to 85 year long fluctuation in earth temperature. Yup, its really evident if you gots a good temperature record, like one what was printed out before Hansen adjusted most of them fluctuators down the swirly bowl. Oh wait, that was NH that matched so good, the SH not so much, longer cycle…but I digress.
Anyhoo, these totaly bright scientists done come up with a way to indirectly measure fluctuators in the earth’s molten core. Then they compared that to the earth’s temperature record and said Gaaaalllllleeeee gee willikers, they’s about the same. Now I got me a problem with “about” but let’s ignore that for about 4 milliseconds. Why 4 mS? Glad ya done asked. Cuz that’s the variation in the length of the day supposedly caused by there here fluctuators in the earth’s core. Now gimme a second….I mean 4 mS and I’ll grab me a calculamator. Letsee, that’s a change of about .000004% give or take an order of magnitude. If we round off to say 4 decimal places, that’s zero.
Now, if they’d included some explanation of how that causes a natural 0.2 C change, I’d at least listen. But all they said was, it couldn’t be the oceans or the atmosphere, so it must be the molten core causing it. Maybe by messing with magnetic fields and cosmic rays…or somethin’ else maybe that molten cores mess with. Now I got some problems already with “about” correlates, and I got more with a whole 4mS change in the length of the day rounded to 4 decimal places = 0, but there’s a lot of cosmic ray data what’s been collected from all sorts of places, mostly by NASA…. hey wait, don’t this bunch work for NASA? Yup, says so right there on their web site. So you woulda thought how much work would it have been to go take a quick peek and see if that “about” correlates too? Cause if it did, ya gotta be thinkin’ Nobel. But they didn’t, they just said can’t be nothin’ else, maybe its doin’ something to cosmic rays or somethin’ else.
OK, so here’s where I gotta say to that young lady what done the study, sorry dear, you gots none of them thar credibility chips so far, and now you and your buddy Mikey are gonna lose a few more which will kinda put you in a deficit position. See, correlation ain’t causation, and cause and effect gets tangled up plenty too. Don’t suppose you asked if hmmm…maybe what ever causes the motlen core fluctuation ALSO causes the temperature fluctuation? So let’ see if there be any clues what points us in that direction.
Now one thing I noticed kinda peculiar like is how the temperature record started to diverge in about 1930 from them thar models what’s they got, and so they figured ha! About correlates, so what’s left over must be human’s spreadin’ their evil across the planet and doing things like building houses and growing food and shipping it places where there ain’t no food and having fun in 4×4’s and we all know havin’ ANY kind of fun is bad for the planet, just like raising food is. Like I said though “about” doesn’t cut it for me, not to mention…phase delay. You would think such a teeny thing would correlate but run maybe a few years or decades behind? Never mind that too.
So, what happened in 1930 what we know about that could be big enough to slop that good old molten core around a slightly different way. They already said it ain’t the oceans or the atmosphere, they ain’t got the mass, and on that, I kinda gotta agree. But that’s the nature of human beings, we got tunnel vision. Once we start peering down into the depths of the earth, we forget to maybe look over our shoulder a bit. Let’s have a looksee.
Well, there’s that big yella thing, but folks been studying the heck out of that, don’t remember anything special about that time frame. What else? Oh hey…whats that other orb in the sky? The moon? How big is it? 1/6 mass of earth? Huh. Pretty darn big, and you know, it ain’t spread out like oceans and atmosphere it only pulls from one side at a time. But its in orbit, just a big circle, right. Nah! Its got a perhelion and an inclination and a bunch of other fluctuators of different lengths. They kinda hit mins and maxes around 60 to 85 years or so, funny that almost correlating? Let’s see, when was the last time they coincidentalized? Gosh darn it, right toward the end of 1929. ya suppose the moon might changes how the oceans slosh around too? YA THINK? Maybe?
Now that ain’t no proof. Stock market crashed in 1929 too. Can’t rule these things out, all them stock brokers plummeting from the windas and hitting the dirt mighta stirred things up.
Personaly, frankly, I don’t think its the moon either. But its a pretty freakin’ more plausible explanation than cosmic rays nobody measured against the flucuations in the molten core that changed the length of a day by 0.0000 %.

@Alan the Brit
Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO,
Shouldn’t that be Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO2? (or CO3)
/Mango
I don’t deny climate changes, I know climate changes

Mike;
Thus, rational people go with the preponderance of the evidence.>>>
You read my rant and focus on a minor detail which you figure discredits the rest of what I said? Then have the moxey to complain that rational people go with the preponderance of the evidence? Well let’s just be rational for a moment then, shall we?
The link you provided is to science that present an effect and assumes a cause in the absence of any other explanation, provides not a single bit of evidence to that could be easily obtained to show that their theory correlates to the suggested physical cause (cosmic rays) nor do they present any other rational that would provide for sufficient physics to suggest that the changes observed in the magnetic field could result in at least some sort of process affecting temperature within the right order of magnitude. Shoddy science on a good day. Assuming correlation is causation should be embarrasing enough, but they go right one yipping about cause and effect without bothering to even try and show any evidence of cause and effect nor looking for alternate possibilities. Then you jump right in and accuse me of having blinders on because I misread one tiny thing? Go read it again, then read what I wrote, paying attention to all the things I got exactly right. Talk about wilfully blind!
But since you are on the topic, let me straighten you out on something. I have no problem at all saying that CO2 increases the temperature of the planet. I even have an article on own blog explaining how that works, and I’m frequently on this site dueling with skeptics screaming about perpetual motion and how the laws of thermodynamics are being broken. I tell them I’m a skeptic, and they are wrong.
Now here’s where you are wrong. That science you pointed to is in fact shoddy. They present as being possible something they have no evidence to support, do nothing to find supporting evidence, and fail to consider, let alone eliminate alternate possibilities. As for your prescious GHG’s and human finger prints, sorry, CO2 is logarythmic. It is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and if you bother to take a look at the IPCC scenarios and work them backwards, you’ll discover that the amount of oil we’d need to burn to get anywhere near the scenarios they present as “likely” would make Saudi Arabia look like just a pile of sand.
Its one thing to claim that GHG’s can warm the planet. It is another entirely to to claim that the order of magnitude is significant, or ignore that the rapid decline in the effect of any additional CO2 makes the whole discussion moot anyway. THAT’s what the preponderance of the science says if you get off your high horse and read the fine print right in the IPCC reports. No, don’t start with me about feebacks either, that’s even easier to debunk.

Dan
All I can say as an Aussie is that if my taxes are paying for you, then I have even more cause to weep.
As I posted much earlier Professor Gordon Dobson’s book “Exploring the Atmosphere” was my textbook on atmospheric science at high school in the mid- Sixties. Unlike the fairy stories on the internet (and I presume in textbooks today) Professor Dobson’s main interest in ozone was to only allow him to prove the existence of, and plot the direction of upper atmospheric air currents.
Professor Dobson set up his Dobson Spectrophotometer down in Antarctica NOT because he had some passing interest in ozone, but because he KNEW that there should not be any ozone there at the end of the winter season (no sunlight = no ozone), and yet there was. He postulated it was being brought in from elsewhere.
So, far from “no ozone holes prior to the Seventies” as you claim, back then ozone depletion at the poles at the end of winter was a known and fully understood fact: the natural result of a lack of sunlight to elevate O2 to the point where it could dissociate and reform as the more energetic, albeit unstable O3.
The “ozone holes” were suddenly “discovered” as such, despite formerly being a perfectly natural and predicted and observed phenomena, in the 1980’s when it became politically expedient (and highly profitable) to do so.
Let me put it to you another way Dan:
If the bulk of global ozone forms when sunlight hits oxygen how on earth do you explain its formation when the sun is absent for several months during the Polar winters?
And if it can’t form in the first place how on earth can it get “depleted” by CFC’s – or anything else?
To summarise:
O2 + sunlight = ozone
NO O2 or NO sunlight = NO ozone. It really is that simple.
So, despite your alleged qualifications and alleged work experience, let me finish by saying:
You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Oops sorry. Corrected:
“ozone in the stratosphere absorbs infrared ultraviolet radiation from the sun and heats the stratosphere”

Yes Tonyb, of course. Charge a humungous fee, some dumb bureaucrat will pay, of course it won’t be my money, it’ll be taxpayers money. OT, ever noticed how when governments want to impress the people & claim credit, they say “they” are spending millions on a project, but when they don’t want to spend money on something, they call it “taxpayers” money, not theirs? Interesting!

Good heavens Mike (Mike says: March 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm), you just scored one for the opposition. Do you not realize that when you got the ball again, you ran down the court and slam dunked a two-pointer for skeptics?
But just to be sure (because I am gobsmacked here and I may have misunderstood your confirmation statement made earlier), please state again whether or not you believe the article states that atmospheric temperature change can affect rotation.

I guess I fell for the ‘CFC’s causes ozone loss’ fraud, when in reality it’s been cold air all along.
Here’s what James Lovelock (the Gaia guy) said recently about the ozone thing:
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
And we continue to pay today.

Ah, but of course.
1. ALARMA!!!
2. It’s worse then we thought.
3. It’s is very complicated, in fact it is so complicated even we don’t fully understand it.
4. Therefor we need to conduct further research to find out whats what.
5. Got spare change?

Pamela Gray says:
March 16, 2011 at 5:07 am
Good heavens Mike (Mike says: March 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm), you just scored one for the opposition.
++++++++++
Mike often opens his mouth to change feet. This is one of those days.
Having got to the end of the crazy posts today I am no longer sure what Mike believes, other than CO2 causes global warming, which exists, and which we caused, and that is just how it is.
My neighbour in Waterloo, Prof Lu, is onto something and so was Dobson. Seek more and ye shall find.
I appreciated the debunking of the origin date of ‘the hole’. The scam re overproduction of chemicals the Chinese are being paid to destroy is true, to the tune of $2.7 billion. The communists are thanking God for the Montreal Protocol. At least Montreal got famous for something other than Olympean debt.

It is all our fault. We are all going to die.

“”””” Mike says:
March 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm
George E. Smith says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm “We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. that in the long run shoulkd lead to a cooler earth.”
George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. You have no evidence for this claim. The claim is patently false. H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; indeed they even use this to falsely argue the CO2 level does not matter. “””””
Mike, given YOUR response to MY post, I am ; lacking evidence to the contrary (which you have not presented), going to presume that you are an ESL person, writing under a pseudonym. I’m also going to presume, that you are a new visitor to WUWT, so you have not read other things I have posted here. So please excuse me, if my response here is addressed to the level of those ten year olds, who do such a wonderful job, on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader ?” Even my ESL wife can keep up with those students.
So let’s start here with this assertion of yours:- “”””” George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. You have no evidence for this claim. “””””
For the first part of this incorrect statement, I will simply let you search the archives of WUWT, where you will find, on numerous occasions, that I have indeed presented evidence for this claim. That fact; and it is a fact, is prima facie evidence that your second assertion; that I have no evidence for this claim, must also be incorrect.
As to what I asserted; that you claim is “patently false.” , to whit:- “”””” “We have pretty good evidence, that any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface to get stored in either the deep oceans, or the rocks or urban heat islands, or even in the interstices of snow covered ice. “””””
Note we are discussing :- “”””” solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “””””
I draw your attention to “The Infrared Handbook.” ISBN: 0-9603590-1-x , or Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 77-90786 published by the Infrared Information Analysis Center (ERIM), of the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, for the Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Washington DC. That should be enough information for you to retrieve that “Evidence” so often cited by me at WUWT.
Specifically in Chapter (3) on Natural Sources (of Radiation) (3.4) The Sun. On page 3-34 you will find their fig 3-6; “Spectral Distribution curves related to the sun”; note the plurality of curve(s).
One of those curves is the extra-terrestrial spectrum of the sun’s Electro-magnetifc radiation energy, as it arrives at earth’s orbit; the so-called “air-mass zero” solar spectrum; that being the major energy input to the earth weather/climate system.
A second curve gives the sea level solar energy spectrum with the sun at Zenith; the so-called “air mass one” solar spectrum. It clearly indicates, that less solar energy reaches the earth’s sea level surface, than arrives at the top of earth’s extreme atmosphere.
Prominent among the discrepancies as to why the air mass one energy is less than the air mass zero energy are a number of spectral absorption bands that are specifically due to H2O molecules that are in the earth’s atmosphere, somewhere from pole to pole, and somewhere in altitude; “”””” anywhere on earth, at any altitude “””””, as I previously stated.
Those spectral absorption bands commence at around 700 nm wavelength, and proceed (on this graph) out to 3.2 microns wavelength; but other such plots can be found that continue on to and beyond 4.0 microns. Only 1% of the total solar spectrum energy (the subject of this discussion) lies at wavelengths longer than 4.0 microns, and about 46.897% of the total (standard) solar air mass zero spectrum energy falls at shorter wavelengths than 700 nm. Using standard subtractive arithmatic; it can be deduced that 52.103% of the solar spectrum air mass zero energy lies between 700 nm and 4.0 microns; and the second curve cited shows that approximately half of that total spectral range, is covered by H2O (aka “water”) molecular absorption bands; so one can reasoanbly expect that something like 20% of the total solar spectrum energy can be absorbed by H2O molecules (aka water) in the average atmosphere.
Moreover, a detailed examination of the graphed water absorption bands; or you can generate your own from Spectralcalc; shows that not all of these H2O molecular absorption bands, are fully saturated for a global average atmospheric H2O abundance. At this point to be conservative, and not overstate the case, I would put a +/-50% possible error guard band around that 52.103 % of solar energy absorbed by atmospheric H2O.
Now since these H2O molecular absorption bands, are not all saturated, it is a consequence of Beer’s Law, that the injection of any further H2O molecules:- “”””” any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere “”””” as previously stated would INCREASE the amount of that solar spectrum energy that is removed from the incoming energy supplied by the sun, and DOES NOT reach the ground:- “”””” must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “””””
Beer’s Law does not provide for a decrease in the amount of absorption, when MORE of an absorbing species, is added; nor does it provide for no change at all, when the amount of an absorbing species is added.
Well Mike (or whatever your real name is), I think I have already disproved your assertion that:- “”””” George: You have presented no evidence for this claim. “”””” ; check the archives for yourself, or simply use the above as a reasonable facsimile of what I have prevbiously, on may occasions, posted.
I also have disproved your second assertion:- “”””” You have no evidence for this claim. “””””, which is, and always has been falsified by the above; and now it is UP TO YOU to prove YOUR ASSERTION :- “”””” The claim is patently false. “””””
You yourself, are guilty of providing no evidence for your assertion; you even offered us this:- “”””” H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; “””””
Perhaps “Mike” you can enlighten all of us by forming a logical link between this:- “”””” any and every single molecule of H2O that is added to the earth’s atmosphere, anywhere on earth, at any altitude must result in a reduction of the amount of solar spectrum energy that reaches the earth surface “”””” Which was my statement that you objected to; and this:- “”””” The claim is patently false. H2O in vapor form is a major greenhouse gas as even the most adamant skeptics admit; “””””
Which is ALL that YOU provided to support your assertion of the “patent falsity” of my statement.
What on earth do green house gases have to do with solar spectrum energy from the sun ?
So Mike, it is up to you to provide evidence to justify your simply indefensible assertion that my statement is “”””” Patently false “””””
But I suggest first an intensive course in Remedial English; so that you can properly understand that which you are reading; and not assign incorrect meanings to that which others (including me) have written here at WUWT.
I rest my case.
English is a quite disticntive language. It draws on the richness of many other languages; and as a result, it is possible to state quite definitively in English, things we may not even be communicable in some other languages.
For example:- most languages would be able to say something that means about the same as:-
“He had a reason for saying that.”
What about this:- “He had to have had a reason for saying that. ”
So if your first language allows you to state both of those ideas, and clearly distinguish between them;l then count yourself lucky as having a flexible language.
I go to great pains in what I write (here at WUWT or anywhere else); so I susually mean exactly what I write; hey give me a break Chasmod, I do occasionally make typeos.
So if readers choose of their own volition to substitute OTHER WORDS in place of MY WORDS, then I can only caution; IN OTHER WORDS, LIE OTHER MEANINGS.
So do yourselves a favor; use MY words, if you want to understand what I said. What I SAID, may NOT always be correct; but it almost always will be WHAT I MEANT TO SAY. That is by far the safest default assumption.

Thanks Carla. I am aware of those bits of data and lots more that may be relevant.
At the moment I am just setting out what appears to happen. There are many possibilities (perhaps in combination) that would explain HOW it can happen but I am not in a position to choose between them at present.
Various contributors to this site have expressed ideas that would fit nicely. Some others are on a similar track but may need to make some adjustments.
Indeed I may have to make adjustments when new data comes to light but I don’t think I am far out.

onion2, that last statement…
“wow all I see is hundreds of ignorant commenters above me who don’t understand the science one bit but feel qualified to assume the paper must be wrong.”
…is somewhat lacking in content related to the topic, as well as debate technique, but I give you props for using the word “commenters”. For some reason, when I use that word, that little squiggly line shows up underneath. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Snip. Calling people here “deniers” gets your comments deleted. ~dbs, mod.]

No Larry you can’t tell the difference between “making sense” and baloney. You are doing it wrong. You might all think you have some kind of genetic trait that makes you able to determine if a scientific study is valid, but trust me you don’t.
You just all arrogantly wade into the study as if it’s “obviously wrong”.
Oh look they say arctic stratospheric cooling facilitated the ozone loss. Yes for baloney droids that doesn’t make sense. But for anyone whose bothered to understand the mechanism for CFC ozone depletion that makes 100% sense.
The “Best Science Blog”, by popular vote, cannot even muster someone qualified to comment on this paper, but feels it must give a snide opinion anyway. The quality of the commenters is a measure of the quality of the blog.

mod
[Snip. Calling people here “deniers” gets your comments deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
So the whole comment is removed, I guess that’s easier than addressing the points !
I note such rules don’t apply the other way the phase “alarmist” appears in about every second post. I also note a much shorter and empty answer used this word and was not deleted, was what I stated so difficult to answer that you had to use such a weak excuse to remove it.
[Reply: Yes, the whole comment was removed. Read the site Policy. That’s how I moderate anyone who calls people here “deniers,” “denialists,” or anything related to Holocaust deniers. Other moderators may just snip the pejorative, it’s their call. I snip the entire comment to make a point. Once is usually sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]

memoryvault: not a problem what I said with the offending word changed to the word Horseradish (I trust there is no connection between Horseradishes and the Holocaust) I kept it because it’s not the first time my replies here have been removed.
Start—
To paraphrase the opening line of the story
Say what? There isn’t much that surprises me anymore in the rarefied air that is Horseradish
Polar ozone depletion is complicated by the extreme cold over the polar regions where the average temp at 20km is -90c, at certain periods through the year colder, the claim that this is a record I also find odd, given the number of times I’ve seen the temperature data referenced to with statements such as “there isn’t enough data” that is a record that goes back 130 years. The “record loss” here relates to a record that only goes back to the 80s when the British Antarctic Survey data shows the first holes forming.
(their full data set goes back to the 50s when they first installed the Dobson instrument that measure ozone, their data shows no holes prior to the 70s over Antarctica)
(strange you don’t seem to have mentioned that either)
I really don’t get this sad attempt to try and discredit this science, it is solid cause and effect (No hole, add CFC’s ozone drops, reduce CFC’s ozone recovers) pretty simple.
and the recovery is a documented fact
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/111ozone-20060830-graph-browse.jpg
I also note you fail to mention global ozone levels that are not affected by polar cold, they have been recovering steadily since the late 90’s i.e. after the Madrid protocol came into effect. (see graph above)
But I guess mentioning that would ruin the anti science point you are trying to push here.
End—
As to the offending word I make no connection to the Holocaust, I connect the word to it’s meaning as a psychological condition, a term brought in long before the Holocaust, by Freud. What I see in the comments above is not what I would call skepticism I see insults, rudeness and hostility and frankly the ‘offending’ word is a far better fit.

Memoryvault: Sorry I sometime forget the pedantic nature of Horseradish
The term hole is a generic one used even by scientists, it is in fact a thinning which not meaning to be rude, is clearly shown in the graph (or the ozone % would be zero) the worst of this is the Antarctic hole which gets down to a little above 30%.
As to what the graph shows yes the top panel does show chlorine, but the bottom panel shows the percentage of ozone and it shows the slow recovery of global ozone.
2) Sorry but again the term ozone layer is widely used, you are correct on the measurement using a Dobson, (some ozone can even be found at ground level) but the main effect is around 20km (although it is still very thin) and much below this ozone is for all intense purposes zero.
“However, we now have two generations; our young adults (possibly even you)”
Thanks, but I’m in my late 40s and have worked for the AAP climate research section since late 80s we were involved in the early research into this and regardless of the nonsense on blogs there is nothing wrong with the science.
That ozones values fell over both Halley and Faraday is a fact supported by the data.
As to Dobson, sorry he didn’t go to Antarctica, as I said above he was around 70 in 1956 when the instrument was installed. His instrument was no longer linked to him but had become used around the world for research into the then little understood region of the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._R._Ramanathan
In the same way a contempory of his, Fabry’s instrument the Fabry Pérot spectrometer is used today
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/ice-ocean-atmosphere-and-climate/space-and-atmospheric-research/space-environment-and-weather/studying-the-thermosphere-with-fabry-perot-spectrometers
4) “Your claims of “no holes prior to the 70’s””
Sorry again they are not my claims they are the claims of BAS (British Antarctic Survey) supported by the data from the two Dobson units
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/ozone.php
The Aus Govt still also monitor ozone as part of WMO data set.
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/oeb/atmoswatch/aboutozone.shtml
Your claims about the textbook are your own, as I said in the last comment you claim to have had this as a high school textbook, yet it is a university entry level textbook.
Then there’s this:
“Professor Dobson wrote extensively about Polar ozone depletion (what you erroneously call a “hole”) in the winter at Antarctica”
For info the ozone ‘hole’ forms in spring not winter, you can check that anywhere.
That says as much about your comments as anything!
5) Your downward spiral continues
“International Geophysical Man of the Year” (feel free to post any real reference to such an award and Dobson winning it, but I think I will be waiting a long time.)
Sorry never heard of such an award, the only hit I got from Google on the name was this forum, and as I said Dobson was not on that expedition, as stated above. by 1956 he was near 70 (he was born in 1889), and for info as someone who actually does know about Antarctica, Halley (then called Halley Bay) was founded in 1956 for the IGY, so the station itself had to be built, even today it is doubtful someone of that age would be allowed to go as even with modern ships and aircraft and a modern air conditioned station life there is difficult, in 1956 it would have been far more basic. So please stop making up your details, it’s painful to watch.
As to why the instrument was run: Science ‘pure’ science gathers basic data instruments once set up can run for years or decades to increase data sets, as these were at the time little understood areas, there are similar instruments that also monitor magnetic field and other aspects of the atmosphere they cost little to run and add to a global data set of other instruments. We, (Australia) have several instruments of this type Magnetometers and Riometers for instance and Cosmic Ray data sets, that date back to the 50s as well, our Muon telescope (2 in fact) were in operation from 1955 onwards, at Mawson station, which opened in 1954)