Oh, Canada!

Global Ozone Trends - Image: Wikipedia

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.

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bob alou
February 14, 2012 10:37 am

Neo
February 14, 2012 11:32 am

Of course, they always invoke “Prop 13 revenge” .. that is, they highlight the worse possible outcomes (of course with Prop 13, they invoked the worst possible outcomes just to piss off folks the most).

3x2
February 14, 2012 12:03 pm

Ach mein Gott! Take their current funding away and they may fail to find more reasons for future funding. Shocked I tell ye. Why it’s almost as though they live like any other parasitic organism.

Al Gored
February 14, 2012 12:36 pm

Andrew30 says:
February 14, 2012 at 7:15 am
“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…”
You missed a big one. “Conservation Biology.” This new pseudoscience is “mission oriented” and based on the false “Mass Extinction” assumption that everything is doomed. Thus they are missionaries, and the so-called science they use is based on models and the same tricks that the AGW Team uses. Thus they make a perfect partner for them. This was the “science’ that conveniently ‘determined’ that polar bears were doomed and as the UN gang switches to the ‘Biodiversity Crisis’ the depths of this garbage will become more prominent.

Nick Davis
February 14, 2012 1:19 pm

Amazing. At the very least, I would think “skeptics” would support the preservation of long-term recording stations.
Brandon C.
“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.”
If only you took the time to look into the actual science…
Ozone destruction is enhanced in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds, which provide a surface for chlorine-catalyzed ozone loss (the reactions occur much faster than in the gas phase). Photolysis of chlorine reservoir species on the clouds during spring releases the chlorine radical, which goes on to destroy ozone.
The clouds only form at VERY cold temperatures, which primarily occur only in Antarctica, see: http://www.theozonehole.com/images/ozoned36.jpg
This is why the ozone hole was so significant in the Antarctic but not the Arctic – it normally does not get cold enough on a large enough scale in the Arctic stratosphere for PSC’s to form in any great concentration. However, (I believe it was) last year’s unusually cold Arctic stratosphere was cold enough to form a large number of PSC’s and, in effect, create an ozone hole similar in magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic.
As far as “ozone hole causes cool”, it would make intuitive sense that a negative ozone anomaly would cause a local cooling – ozone is a UV-absorber, and it is the absorption of solar radiation by ozone in the stratosphere that gives it its temperature structure.

clipe
February 14, 2012 1:26 pm

“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.
Not sustainable in the truest sense of the word.
Because they are publicly funded and heavily subsidized by their government, Canadian universities are generally less expensive than American private schools and some public universities, even for international students who pay more than their Canadian counterparts.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/12/25/canada_passport_to_higher_ed_lower_cost/?page=full

sky
February 14, 2012 2:51 pm

From what I’ve seen of Canadian station data, the problem lies not in cessation of collection, but in the lack of diligence in reporting data in readily useful form. Far too many of their station records only seem terminate by the 1980’s or 1990’s, while those that are brought current in the GHCN data base have been arbitrarily adjusted beyond resemblence to actual measurements. If one makes the effort to bring Canadian non-urban records up to date, few show any significant warming over the 20th century. Contrary to Anne Thompson’s lamentations, that may be the real reason for record curtailments.

February 14, 2012 4:42 pm

Urederra says in part at February 14, 2012 at 3:59 am:
> 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 not organic Cl compounds and stratospheric clouds being the problem)
If this was the explanation, then polar ozone holes would worsen most rapidly
no later than winter solstice and peak before the sunny half of the year starts.
Meanwhile, the Antarctic ozone hole last Antarctic winter had hardly started
forming until 5-6 weeks after winter solstice, grew most rapidly around and
shortly before spring equinox, and bottomed out about 2.5 weeks after spring
equinox. In most years, the Antarctic ozone hole is greatest shortly after spring
equinox, and grows most rapidly well after winter solstice. Polar stratospheric
clouds, especially also with sunlight, is a major factor in ozone depletion.
> 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
This basic primer on clouds does not mention nacreous clouds, which form
in the stratosphere, almost entirely in polar areas in winter and early spring.
>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.
When there is a major volcanic explosion, dust particles get into the
stratosphere. Ones weighing millions of times more than ozone molecules
stay there for a year or two. Even stratiform clouds at the tropopause with
wind mainly horizontal and only slight updraft have no problem lifting ice
crystals weighing trillions of times as much as ozone molecules. Nacreous
clouds at 15-25 km don’t fall out of the sky. Radon does not get far in large
part because its halflife is about 5 days.
> And by the way, and that is for everybody, stop saying ozone layer There
> is no such thing. … 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.
I am well aware of the ozone layer is only a small fraction of 1% ozone. I am
also aware of the ozone layer being called such at least as far back in the
1950’s, when there was low concern about protecting it from manmade pollution.

anticlimactic
February 14, 2012 7:48 pm

There is an interesting article describing how rich American charities and foundations fund/influence/control green groups in Canada [link below]. If this research is important then these organisations are certainly rich enough to fund it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/opinion/charities%20fund%20Greens/6031047/story.html

TRM
February 14, 2012 7:50 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.”
One step ahead of you already as the U of Sask has been doing very cool stuff with haskap berries that can grow right up in climage zone 2 conditions! They have a whole orchard of different crops that grow in adverse conditions.
http://prairietechpropagation.com/
Way lower glycemic load and way higher nutritional density than grains and taste better to boot.

Mac the Knife
February 14, 2012 10:06 pm

Climatology budget cuts, coming to a Pennsylvania university near you!
Back to you, Anne Thompson….

UK John
February 15, 2012 12:11 pm

The Montreal Protocol has done what it set out to do, control and cease manmade emmissions of ozone depleting gases. I would ask why do we need to continue any more research than an overall skeleton survey via satellites? The problem as originally outlined by the scientists has been solved.
The latest reports from UNEP don’t show any surprises or anything worth investigating further in my view.
Nevertheless one or two things do cause me to wonder what it was all about.
1. As far as I can tell ozone depletion is much the same as when the Montreal Protocol came into being. In 1987 when it was brought into operation the scientists said we needed to stop ozone depletion or this would lead to global destruction. Should I be dead by now?
2. Within the UNEP report comes the facinating admission from the scientists “that the natural processes that cause ozone depletion are not well understood” , quite amazing as the experts have been for 25 years of looking at the issue with no pressure on funding.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 15, 2012 2:49 pm

Well…
Maybe a vacation to Canada is in order… They seem to have gotten a bit of reality awareness lately.
I also suspect that some of The Team may be seeing a bit of “writing on the walls”. As we accelerate our slide to the cold side (pretty much ‘baked into the cake’ given the solar cycle lag time and the PDO et.al. shifts) for the next 20 years, it will only get “worse” for them…
I’m sure the folks in Venice dealing with ice on the canals and the folks looking at snow in Tunesia are NOT going to be thinking “Global Warming”… Ukrainians getting relief by helicopter too…
This is only the beginning… but a welcome one.

evilincandescentbulb
February 15, 2012 9:27 pm

So, a bunch of Leftists were aborted?

DennisA
February 16, 2012 6:04 am

Seems to be some money for this:
Environment Canada – Minister Kent Announces International Climate Funding:
http://tinyurl.com/7r2pgnc
Canada’s contribution is for three years. An initial contribution of $400 million is already starting to produce results and today, the Government is announcing further investments of almost $600 million for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
Here’s where the money went in 2010-11:
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F50D3E9-1
“As part of our commitment to provide our fair share of fast-start financing, Canada is contributing $1.2 billion in new and additional climate change financing for the fiscal years 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/2013. This is Canada’s largest ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change. It is focused on three priority areas – adaptation, clean energy, and forests and agriculture.”

Christie
March 4, 2012 9:07 am

Data collecting is surely useful in some cases. However, I’m getting the feeling that we are concentrating on measurements more than on the actual solutions to enviromental problems. Just have a look at Syncrude Tailings Dam, one of the vastest structures in Canada, and all the toxic dangers it imposes on the town of Fort McMurray, the surrounding wildlife, the pedosphere and the atmosphere. It is said that it causes as much greenhouse gas per day as 1.3 million cars. The number is alarming, it tells us we should do something to change the condition but are we really trying to make a difference? Now there we are with our global warming and ozone depletion. At least the people who did the measurement got some money for it…

1 4 5 6
Verified by MonsterInsights