From Penn State:
Environment Canada cuts threaten science, international agreements
Recent cuts to the scientific workforce of Environment Canada, a government agency responsible for meteorological services and environmental research, threaten scientific research related to the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere and pollution in the lower atmosphere, according to environmental scientists in the U.S. These reductions in personnel and projected budget cuts also threaten existing international agreements.
“Canada is a bellwether for environmental change, not only for Arctic ozone depletion but for pollutants that stream to North America from other continents, ” said Anne Thompson, professor of meteorology, Penn State. “It is unthinkable that data collection is beginning to shut down in this vast country, in some cases at stations that started decades ago.”
The researchers, commenting in the current (Feb. 14) issue of the American Geophysical Unions Eos newspaper, state that since August when the cuts went into effect, ozone soundings have ceased at several Canadian stations. Lidar network measurements of particle pollution layers from five Canadian stations no longer occur, and the website that was distributing this data has disappeared.
Environment Canada conducts many programs in support of international agreements including the UN framework for Climate Change Convention, the Montreal Protocol and U.S. bilateral agreements. The Canadian government signed all these agreements, but their ability to fulfil their obligations is now in question.
“Research conducted by scientists in Canada has been instrumental for the success of the Montreal Protocol, the international legislation that has successfully reduced atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances,” said Ross Salawitch, professor in the atmospheric and oceanic science department, University of Maryland, College Park. “The ozone layer, particularly in the Arctic, is still sensitive because of the long atmospheric lifetime of pollutants that cause ozone depletion.”
Binational agreements between Canada and the U.S. are also of concern to scientists and policy makers.
“A number of research areas in which Canada has shown past leadership now face a questionable future,” said Ray Hoff, professor of physics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “These include deposition of toxic organic chemicals from the air onto the Great Lakes and vertical profiling of aerosols using laser radar.”
Franco Einaudi, retired, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, adds, “Recent comments by Canada at the Durban Climate Change Summit have added to the concern that Canada’s environmental commitment may be changing.”
With Canada’s vast Northern Territory, tracking climatic sensitivities as well as ozone depletion and arctic pollution are concerns of scientists and policymakers alike. Environment Canada’s programs have long been a gold standard. With personnel losses and further decisions on reductions in force or re-assignment of personnel pending, the researchers are concerned that they and the international community can no longer rely on the exceptional efforts and past leadership that Canada exhibited.
“Canada stands to lose an entire community of highly respected scientists who are experts on ozone and climate if further proposed budget cuts go through,” said Jennifer Logan, senior research fellow in atmospheric chemistry, Harvard University.
Future budget cuts at Environment Canada appear certain. Until the community is given specifics about the long-term environmental program, the ability for Canada to maintain its key role in support of science and the international agreements like the Montreal Protocol is compromised. The world stands to lose an enormous amount of data necessary for our understanding of the environment in these cold reaches and around the globe if these programs end.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And that is exactly where the CFC theory fails. Since it is more stable at lower temperatures the so-called ozone hole should be formed over the equator, because it is warmer in there. Empirically that does not happen, because ozone concentration is in dynamic equilibrium, the concentration depends on the formation rate and on the decomposition rate. Formation rate is high at the equator but 0 at the poles during the winter because there is not ozone forming UV radiation during the 6 months nights at the poles. That is why the so-called ozone hole grows during the winter, and has always been growing during the winter since the Earth had O2 in the atmosphere.
There are two reasons ozone is more stable at lower temperatures, the same two reasons any chemical compound is more stable and does not react at lower temperates, First, because at lower temperatures molecules travel at slower speeds and therefore less collisions per unit of time happen. And second, since gas molecules travel at slower speeds, the collisions are less energetic, and there will be less collisions with enough energy to produce a reaction. That is basic chemical kinetics. And it leads to more collisions and more energetic collisions over the equator than over the poles because of the temperature difference. Again, ozone deplection by collision should happen faster over the equatior than ofer the poles because of the temperature difference.
Besides, the so-called ozone layer is between 15 km and 55 km over sea level, Clouds and cloud ice crystals cannot to that far up. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/home.rxml
Moreover, a molecule of CCl4 weights 12+35*4 = 152, It is way heavier than N2 =28 or O2 = 32 It does not go up, it remains down, just like the infamous radon = 222 remains in the ground. H2 = 2 or He = 4 go up, it is gravity at work.
The fact that Chlorine oxide has been found in polar areas does not demonstrate each and every process you have described above, Chlorine oxide can be the product of many chemical reactions, You have to demonstrate that the ozone molecules actually collide with ice crystals that contain CFCs 15 Km or more above the poles. Hard thing to do since neither water nor CFCs can travel that far, specially at the poles during the winter where evaporation is close to zero.
And by the way, and that is for everybody, stop saying ozone layer There is no such thing.
If you have 1 liter of water and you add 10 mL or oil, you will get a layer of oil. But if you add 10 mL of ethanol instead of oil, you will NOT get a layer of Ethanol. That is because Ethanol is miscible in water, it mixes it up.
Same happens with ozone, it is a gas, a bit heavier than air and it is formed in the upper atmosphere, it gets mixed with the rest of the molecules and its concentration in the upper atmosphere is very, very low. There is not such thing as a layer made of ozone.
It is a convenient figure for those who support the CFCs ban, since without layer, there cannot be a hole.
@Keith. Minto
“..Oh Canada !………..not thinking of Oh Calcutta are you ?
Saw this in London, long ago, glad my memory has faded.”
Probably not – I suspect Sam Butler’s poem with the refrain ‘Oh God! Oh Montreal!.
http://diaspora.gen.nz/~maire/Philyra/poetry/anthology/poems/Butler_Montreal.html
In other news, they probably cut the climate science budget because otherwise they would have some embarrassing findings to explain away. So much easier to say ‘The science is settled’. Cheaper, too…
American professors, especially those in the State Penn, should butt out of Canadian affairs.Our government is sensibly rationalising a bloated bureaucracy.
First: message from Canada to interfering Americans: STFU and GTFO. We’re sick of hearing from sanctimonious idiots, blocking our industry (pipelines), complaining about “dirty oil” when they know nothing about it, whining about our water pollution (some of the cleanest lakes and rivers in the world, and STILL that idiot kennedy boy (RFK Jr.) is always ranting about it)… but they have no problems coming here to ski.
Second, you can’t really blame Canada for the Montreal Protocol, since Montreal is only vaguely a part of Canada anyway.
Third, there is so much waste and dishonesty in anything the government has touched for the last few decades that it can only be a good thing when unnecessary crap is cut out (ie. climate change research, the CBC in general, long-gun registry alone is $2Billion in waste). Stephen Harper is easily the best Prime Minister in my lifetime (and I was born in 1963) if only because he is a practical man, attempting to rein in waste and unneeded spending in a time of recession. Canadians have barely felt the “crash”, especially when compared to our unfortunate neighbors to the south.
Environment Canada has a specific mission, and are adequately financed to accomplish that mission. As others have pointed out, millions in upgrades to the equipment required to do their job is forthcoming. Climate change research is waste. EVEN IF the climapocalypse was upon us, daily weather forecasts and extreme weather warnings are primary, and where the money should be going.
Canada is a smaller population base than the US, it’s harder to fool everyone with giant government programs. The liberals have been buying votes in vote-rich areas with stuff that can easily be done without, and I for one am glad to see that ending as rapidly as reasonably possible. The best part is, the only way to demonize this particular conservative is to lie, and even the younger people I know are able to see through the lies these days.
Oh sure, I hit “Post Comment” and see that Robert of Ottawa summed up my rant in two sentences… lol
If they stop supporting policy based science and instead support science as a basis for political solution. I support that.
The policy based science is not science, just a political agenda. That’s what WWF and Greenpeace wants to radical change the world.
So why not leave the policy based science for them alone?
Aah – Anne Thompson. H/T to Junkscience.com for this link to information about Thompson’s program:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/noble_lecture_thompson011_1.pdf
It seems that Thompson’s own program is being fed by this data, up till now paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Her concern is a bit less altruistic than she admits.
BTW, if anyone can make sense of this presentation, help would be appreciated. It looks like gibberish to me.
“Canada’s vast Northern Territory”? No such entity. There’s Yukon Territory, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. Maybe the ignoramuses at Penn State are confusing our great nation with Australia — after all, they’re so alike.
johanna says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am
Aah – Anne Thompson. H/T to Junkscience.com for this link to information about Thompson’s program:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/noble_lecture_thompson011_1.pdf
It seems that Thompson’s own program is being fed by this data, up till now paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Her concern is a bit less altruistic than she admits.
—
Thanks for the link. I suspected that Penn State really had no interest in Canadian government budgetary matters other than a financial interest. (Of course, most all of climate science is about getting and retaining the taxpayer-funded Climate Ca$h). Another great example of the modern truism – “Green Greed is Good”.
The Climate Liars don’t need Canadian data. The Climate Liars don’t use real world data to begin with. They adjust the truth out of it. So let Canada lay off its global warming con men and save themselves some money.
Two really, really tired headline cliches on stories about Canada:
Oh, Canada!
Eh?
Let’s retire these exhausted relics.
“Canada is a bellwether for environmental change,”
Click … switch off.
Everything is alleged to be a bellwether; except actual bellwether; castrated sheep.
On second thoughts …
There are too many clowns here who think that cutting back on scientific research is a good thing … scary!
Canadas position on Carbon Dioxide:
Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.
Carbon Dioxide is what the plants convert in to all of the food you eat.
Carbon Dioxide is what the plants convert in to all of the oxygen you breathe.
Carbon Dioxide is what you exhale.
Carbon Dioxide is the basis for all life on the surface of the Earth.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpers position on Kyoto:
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harpers position on Climate Scientists:
“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle”
Jon says: February 14, 2012 at 7:00 am
[There are too many clowns here who think that cutting back on scientific research is a good thing]
Jon, they are not cutting spending on science, just ‘Climate Science’.
Sometimes you can tell something is not science if you see the work ‘science’ tacked on to the end. For example, these are science:
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, Geology, Meteorology, Zoology…
Whereas these are not:
Political Science, Environmental Science, Climate Science…
@ur momisugly RockyRoad
@ur momisugly dp
February 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm
dp says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Hopefully they will use the savings for GM studies to find grains that will grow north of the 49th.
Snow peas is the only thing that comes to mind.”
Guys…this is an easy fix…you just plant winter wheat…in May…no problem.
Franco Einaudi, retired, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, adds, “Recent comments by Canada at the Durban Climate Change Summit have added to the concern that Canada’s environmental commitment may be changing.”
This guy is really, really sharp. Obviously he reads the parlimentary output of Canada on a regular basis. /sarc off
Jon says:
February 14, 2012 at 7:00 am
There are too many clowns here who think that cutting back on scientific research is a good thing … scary!
Yep, one clown too many, eh Jon 😉
wayne Job says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:55 am
What a terrible shame that these “scientists and researchers” at cutting edge computer games are about to be asked to find new employment. Canada I am jealous, we still have an idiot in charge in OZ.
and the rest of the western world. I cannot remember a period in history when so many half-witted idiots managed to take power. Well done Mr Harper and all Canadians.
Second, you can’t really blame Canada for the Montreal Protocol, since Montreal is only vaguely a part of Canada anyway
Montréal, c’est Canada ! Mais elle n’est jamais Américain. Dont, americans butt out of their business. Hopefully the american people will come to their senses in this year’s election and turn back to the american dream rather than the african nightmare.
I still love the disconnect between the climate scientists that claim the arctic ozone hole is caused by cold temperatures…….and the CFC ozone people who swear the Antarctic ozone hole could only be caused by man, and even more funny that the climate changers claim “it causes the cooling” in antarctica. Got that, cold causes ozone hole, but the opposite happens at the other pole and ozone hole causes cool. But there is no other explanation for the ozone hole in antarctica than man. Somebody has to be wrong.
Urederra says:
February 14, 2012 at 3:59 am
The fact that Chlorine oxide has been found in polar areas does not demonstrate each and every process you have described above,
Correct. People forget there is a volcano on the west pennisula of Antarctica that puts out chlorine gas. There was a volcano erupting in Alaska recently too.
Environmental Defence Canada, and the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy have posted that data pollution emissions in Canada have risen, while the US EPA reports the US pollutants have substantially declined.
Example:Oh Canada flushes some 200 billion liters of raw sewage directly into natural waterways every year, from the St. Lawrence River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean.
People seem to have blinders on when it comes to Canadian pollution. They want to cut environmental science because it is economically a plus.
Stephen Richards says:
Yep, one clown too many, eh Jon 😉
Are you saying you’re a clown Stephen?
Andrew30 says:
Jon, they are not cutting spending on science, just ‘Climate Science’.
Unfortunately, this is not the case … cut backs also involve research on pesticide use, aquatic pollutants etc. See here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/10/23/ns-environment-canada-dartmouth-cuts.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/04/hundreds-of-environment-canada-jobs-to-be-cut/