Say what? There isn’t much that surprises me anymore in the rarefied air that is climate science today. This headline made me do a double take, and the sentence that followed, blaming “unusually low temperatures”, even more so. Here’s a NASA satellite derived image in a science story from 2001 on the Arctic ozone:
And the mechanism, it seems “weather” has a major role:
NASA researchers using 22 years of satellite-derived data have confirmed a theory that 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. These findings will also help scientists predict stratospheric ozone loss in the future.
There’s no hint of this in the press release. Instead they say:
For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change…
Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss – Arctic-wide measurements verify rapid depletion in recent days
Potsdam/Bremerhaven, March 14th, 2011.
Unusually low temperatures in the Arctic ozone layer have recently initiated massive ozone depletion. The Arctic appears to be heading for a record loss of this trace gas that protects the Earth’s surface against ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This result has been found by measurements carried out by an international network of over 30 ozone sounding stations spread all over the Arctic and Subarctic and coordinated by the Potsdam Research Unit of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) in Germany.
“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.”
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.
Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions. For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change, and particularly to the fact that in the Arctic stratosphere at about 20km altitude, where the ozone layer is, the coldest winters seem to have been getting colder and leading to larger ozone losses. “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. “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,” states Rex. The European Union finances this work in the RECONCILE project, a research programme supported with 3.5 million euros in which 16 research institutions from eight European countries are working towards improved understanding of the Arctic ozone layer.
In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection. This winter’s likely record-breaking ozone loss does not alter this expectation. “By virtue of the long-term effect of the Montreal Protocol, significant ozone destruction will no longer occur during the second half of this century,” explains Rex. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted under the UN umbrella in 1987 to protect the ozone layer and for all practical purposes bans the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) worldwide today. CFCs released during prior decades however, will not vanish from the atmosphere until many decades from now. Until that time the fate of the Arctic ozone layer essentially depends on the temperature in the stratosphere at an altitude of around 20 km and is thus linked to the development of earth’s climate.
This is a joint statement of the following institutions. The persons mentioned in each case are also at your disposal as contacts.
Belgium
Hugo De Backer, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, +32 2 3730594, Hugo.DeBacker@meteo.be
Canada
Tom McElroy, Environment Canada, +1 416 739 4630, Tom.McElroy(at)ec.gc.ca
David W. Tarasick, Air Quality Res. Div., Environ. Canada, +1 416 739-4623, david.tarasick(at)ec.gc.ca
Kaley A. Walker, Univ. Toronto, Dep. of Physics, +1 416 978 8218, kwalker(at)atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
Czech Republic
Karel Vanicek, Solar and Ozone Observatory, Czech Hydromet. Inst., +420 495260352, vanicek(at)chmi.cz
Denmark
Niels Larsen, Danish Climate Center, Danish Meteorological Institute, +45-3915-7414, nl(at)dmi.dk
Finland
Rigel Kivi, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405424543, rigel.kivi(at)fmi.fi
Esko Kyrö, Arctic Research Center, Finnish Meteorological Institute, +358 405527438, esko.kyro(at)fmi.fi
France
Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Gerard Ancellet, LATMOS CNRS-UPMC, +33 1442747 67 / 62, sophie.godin-beekmann@latmos.ipsl.fr, gerard.ancellet(at)latmos.ipsl.fr
Germany
Hans Claude, Wolfgang Steinbrecht, Deutscher Wetterdienst Hohenpeißenberg, +49 8805 954 170 / 172, hans.claude(at)dwd.de, wolfgang.steinbrecht(at)dwd.de
Franz-Josef Lübken, Leibniz-Institut für Atmosphärenphysik, +49 38293 68 100, luebken(at)iap-kborn.de
Greece
Dimitris Balis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, +30 2310 998192, balis@auth.gr
Costas Varotsos, University of Athens, +30 210 7276838, covar(at)phys.uoa.gr
Christos Zerefos, Academy of Athens, +30 210 8832048, zerefos(at)academyofathens.gr
Great Britain
Neil Harris, European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit, University of Cambridge, +44 1223 311797, Neil.Harris(at)ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk
Norway
Cathrine Lund Myhre, NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, +47-63898042, clm(at)nilu.no
Russia
Valery Dorokhov, Central Aerological Observatory , +7 499 206 9370, vdor(at)starlink.ru
Vladimir Yushkov, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, vladimir(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Natalya Tsvetkova, Central Aerological Observatory +7 495 408-6150, nat(at)caomsk.mipt.ru
Spain
Concepción Parrondo, Manuel Gil , INTA, +34 91 5201564, parrondosc@inta.es, gilm(at)inta.es
Switzerland
René Stübi, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, MeteoSwiss, +41 26 662 62 29, rene.stubi(at)meteoswiss.ch
Geir O. Braathen, World Meteorological Organization, +41 22 730 82 35, GBraathen(at)wmo.int
USA
Ross J. Salawitch, Univ. of Maryland, MD, +1 626 487 5643, rjs(at)atmos.umd.edu
Francis J. Schmidlin, NASA/GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, +1 757 824 1618, francis.j.schmidlin(at)nasa.gov
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What really scares me is that NASA, NOAA, and the EPA will lose funding, warming/cooling will cause the Van Allen Belt to catch on fire because of CO2 emissions, and we won’t know how to put it out.
Couple that with the loss years ago of our most revered climate scientist, Dr. Irwin Allen, who had the foresight to build the submarine Seaview, now lost to antiquity.
I’m calling this story Science-Spin-Fact. Spin it and call it fact.
MarkW says:
March 15, 2011 at 8:36 am
> CFC’s were banned 30 years ago, most of them are out of the atmosphere by now.
Perhaps the dilution has reached homeopathic levels – the molecules are gone, but the essence of the CFCs remain.
N.B. – I don’t think Anthony has banned homeopathy from discussion here. Yet. 🙂
For penance, here are some links that mention various natural sources of chlorides. The most important i methyl chloride. Chloride in the stratosphere likely predates CFCs.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad28.htm#_28ci1B20
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=stBDsTVmILUC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=“methyl+chloride”+ocean+ozone&source=bl&ots=exnnE2KqNb&sig=kC-46GDjcl3mGFsNmJrAL1pEHGE&hl=en&ei=Erh_Te-lOsbCceLjyfQG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=”methyl chloride” ocean ozone&f=false
In the press release, it says
“Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions”
Is there a temperature where CFC’s no longer destroy ozone? If so, what is it?
Is there some kind of relationship between colder temps and more ozone destruction that an equation can describe?
Amazing! Is this a falsifiable prediction? Verrry dicey! I thought all cAGW scientific toadies had been trained not to make any of those by now!
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.
First the arctic is melting because temperatures are exceptionally high …
….then the Arctic ozone is being destroyed because temperatures are exceptionally low
but it’s all fine and nothing to worry about, because it will fully recover…
…because of government and laws
What would we do without these scientists?
I supposed we would just carry on, like nothing unusual is happening, in our ignorant bliss……………..
…are their any grants for the scientists to do nothing, just shut up
What kind of idiots would actually pay people to invent this garbage?
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.
Gavin says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/metdata/annual/t60_90n_10_2010.pdf
So is the troposphere. In fact, it’s just darn cold up there.
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.
And you have an F in chemistry.
Chemical reactions go faster when heated and slower when cooled. Why this one is the other way around?
And I thought that the CFCs were turned into aggressive ozone destroying RADICALS when CFCs were broken by sun light. Then, how this is happening during the arctic winter when there is no sun light?
This people have no clue, or no shame.
There is less ozone in the arctic now because less ozone has been formed, not because more ozone has been destroyed.
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.
Latitude says:
“First the arctic is melting because temperatures are exceptionally high …
….then the Arctic ozone is being destroyed because temperatures are exceptionally low”.
You are confusing the stratosphere with the troposphere. When the stratosphere cools the troposphere warms, it’s a fact. Many posts on this thread are making the same mistake.
Thanks, Gavin, (@ur momisugly 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?
C James @ur momisugly (March 15, 2011 at 11:56 am) says “When the stratosphere cools the troposphere warms, it’s a fact.”
I am not sure that you are correct in your claim of an inverse relationship. Many times we see the two moving in the same direction. Sometimes they move in opposite directions. At times they move quite independently of each other. Your claim is a key part of the CO2-induced GW theory, but that does not make it a fact.
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.
Should we not look at the figures for ozone averaged over the earth\ and compare that to previous dates and solarcycles/global temperatures?
More carbon dioxide is fine. It is good for the environment! It does not cause an increase in temps. I could not find it.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
@Richard Dupuis 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:”
“The Sky Is Falling!”
What – Again??!!!
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”,
CostaArctic Caitlin expedition,Club Med – new Arctic resort,
Chilloutville,
+/-80 degs N.
Mike,
The models predicted the “Fingerprint of AGW” – the heating of the troposphere as CO2 rises.
That heating did not happen. As usual, Skeptical Pseudo-Science is misrepresenting the situation. Prof Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph recently published a paper proving that the observational data falsified the models. Once again climate models made a failed prediction. There is no “tropospheric hot spot.”
You are spreading disinformation. Please link to credible sites if you want to have any credibility here. Skeptical Anti-Science is pushing a catastrophic AGW agenda. Avoid them if you want honest science.
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.
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.
Anthony, you wrote:
And the mechanism, it seems “weather” has a major role:
Yeah… And weather is cause by global warming!!! When will you stupid deniers ever learn!!!! 🙂
@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.)
Stratospheric cooling has stopped more than decade ago, good morning government scientists.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/252537/stratocool.jpg
@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.