Elevated from a comment Theodore White says: March 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Let’s clarify a few things on another of Anthony’s excellent posts, like this one ‘Hey Hansen! Where’s the Beef !?’ –
It’s lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s – years before the AGW mania took off.
I worked as a journalist in the late 1980s in Colorado, home state of Senator Tim Wirth. I had interviewed him several times on other topics. As part of my general assignment beat, I also covered science, climate and weather, regularly at NOAA, NCAR and other federal science agencies headquarted in Colorado.
I clearly remember the tone of articles on global warming during the 1980s. Most of the concern came out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the ozone layer. By the way, this was during the new era of climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling.
The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts – not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.
When news editors assigned stories on the climate back then it was usually spurred by press releases out of places like NCAR, NWS, NOAA, etc., which usually featured a talk, lecture, or findings that were sent to the media. Global warming, in the mid-to-late 1980s was not the AGW ideological era that it is today.
In fact, climate scientists were not in any agreement if the earth was ‘warming’ in the 1980s – though it was true. Many scientists would roll their eyes at the mention of ‘global warming’ but many changed their tune in the 1990s just as major federal dollars were being directed to ‘man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.
But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.
NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.
There is no other source of radiation that can effectively destroy the earth’s ozone layer. But what was curious (and unbelievable) is that there were obvious determined efforts (in the mid-to-late 1980s) to blame mankind for something it could not do on a planetary level – and that is to change the climate.
Only the Sun can do that.
What I noticed about Sen. Wirth and Hansen back in the late 1980s, is that there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy. This was a prepatory assault that was planned out.
When Al Gore rose to the vice-presidency by 1993 – Wirth and Hansen were already well out in front of the ‘man-made’ global warming pack – extending the ‘man-made’ ideology to other federal agencies and the university-level climate community – with federal dollars.
Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.
Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.
But the media was not on board. Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science. I was fortunate in that I was not, so my editors passed on to me the great amount of work – and I was busy enough as it was a police reporter as it was! Since my beat included covering the climate science community in the heart of it in Colorado, I was well-attuned to how events were shaping up by 1989.
Since the mid-1980s, what I saw were articles like the one Anthony posted from 1986 were becoming more common. What I observed as professional reporter was that the ozone-layer press releases from NOAA and NCAR and other climate centers were beginning to use the same talking points in their different releases to news desks. Sometimes, these went out on the wire which were then placed into newspapers across the country without the resources to assign reporters to cover the climate.
I did not have that problem since this was part of my beat. In interviews with the particular scientists (including Hansen) what I observed was that they were heavy on the ideology, yet not sure if it was strong enough because the global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.
Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.
Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.
Events have since proven that I was right.
All this – while AGW ideologists reaped untold profits convincing populations that carbon (the very stuff we are made of) is bad and so we all have to pay for carbon to a global mafia.
In short, the careerist climate AGW scientists and their political insiders conspired to convince the world that humans had to pay dearly for exhaling the carbon gases that the natural world and our trees inhales to flourish.
Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.
Why?
Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.
Theodore White says: March 10, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one. A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation. This applies to radiation as well.”
That reminds me – I must throw out my microwave oven, since it violates the second law of thermodynamics, it being impossible for microwaves from a cold cavity magnetron to make a hot liquid even hotter. Or something.
Urederra says
With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?
——————–
Simple mixing. In other words diffusion and convection. Its true that if you put it into a balloon it will not mix and the ballon will sink due to buoancy.
If it’s mixed simple bouancy considerations don’t apply. However there is some degree of vertical segregation due to gravity acting on the heavier halons vs N2. This can be calculated and verified by experiment for static atmospheres. But the effect is very small and largely trumped by winds and convection.
Conclusion. There is nothing stopping CFCs being transported around the world and into the upper atmosphere.
@Doug Cotton says: March 10, 2012 at 4:38 am
“Phil says “” energy .. arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light,”
Sorry, Phil – not quite right. Radiation with WL in the visible light spectrum is certainly not more than 50% of solar radiation. And radiation itself is neither light nor heat.”
Electromagnetic radiation is energy. A very tiny amount of the incoming Solar radiation ENERGY arrives as microwave or infra-red, most arrives at shorter wavelengths, compared with black body radiation energy emitted by the Earth, which is mostly microwave and IR. Check the Stefan-Bolzmann curves for different temperatures, 280K for the Earth, 6000K for the Sun.
“Then he says “Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter”. Yeah – like when we pump ourselves up into a sweat on a tread mill – So the Earth pumps more energy out of itself, does it Phil? And at the same time pumps energy into itself in order to be “hotter” does it? I hope it eats all its corn flakes for breakfast.”
The Earth’s surface has to be at a higher temperature to maintain a radiative energy balance of incoming and outgoing energy, than in the absence of greenhouse gases.
“Oh, then we have Phil telling us there is “energy feedback from the atmosphere.” – violating the Second Law of Thermodynmaics – eh?”
No it doesn’t however you spell it.
“Oh, but you think rain does the trick? ““the transfer of the latent heat of water vaporisation from the atmosphere to the surface.””
Surface condensation is a factor. At night especially the surface will be cooler than the atmosphere. Back radiation is a factor too.
“Actually you might be right there – so long as the rain is warmer than the surface which can happen when it rains on snow I guess. Just perhaps not quite the average sort of situation we see 24/7 worldwide.
You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.”
I’m on the side of Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton. I’m not prepared to accept gibberish interpretations of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Theodore says
The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
————
True. But the kicker is you have to understand these things properly. Theodore does not.
There are a bunch of undergraduate misconceptions wandering around with mass confusion about the distinctions between heat and radiation. You cannot criticism AGW while being embarrassingly confused about this kind of stuff.
1. AGW does NOT violate any laws of thermodynamics.
2. The understanding of why the earth has the temperature it does, a question independent of AGW, does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.
3. Downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.
Let’s look at the process components:
1. Does the atmosphere emit IR radiation. YES.
2. Is this radiation emitted in all directions both up and down and sideways. YES.
3. Is this radiation absorbed by vegetation, soil, snow, rocks and water. YES.
4. Will this absorbed radiation be converted into heat. YES.
5. Will this additional heat cause the temperature of the surface to be higher than otherwise. YES.
Conclusion 1.
Therefore logically if the atmosphere is warm and contains constituents that emit IR radiation the surface will be warmer than otherwise.
Conclusion 2.
There is something wrong with Theodore’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Urederra says:
March 10, 2012 at 9:51 am
LazyTeenager says:
March 10, 2012 at 3:58 am
Urederra says
People parroting the CFC theory.
———–
But that is not what I said, what I said that the formation of halogen radicals IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE is something that remains to be proven.
I suggest you read some of the series of papers by Zander in the 90’s.
He shows Chlorine is in the form of organic molecules in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, as you move further higher in the stratosphere the organic form decreases while the inorganic form increases (total Cl conserved) indicating formation by photolysis rather than upward transport. Also he shows the corresponding Fluorine compounds following the same pattern, both increased with time in parallel with the increase in atmospheric CFC concentration.
The presence of the intermediates COF2 and COFCl indicate clearly the origin of the halogen compounds in the stratosphere as the photolysis products of CFCs. So it does not remain to be proven, as you put it.
The point is not that ultraviolet light can break CFCs, the point is that CFCs are not the cause of the so-called ozone hole because they cannot reach the zone of the stratosphere where ozone is formed.
Of course they can, and their presence there has been well documented.
The lightest CFC, chlorofluoromethane has a molecular weight (m.w.) of 68, and it is liquid below -9 C. dichloromethane, the next in line, has a m.w. = 84 and is liquid at room temperature. Halon 2311 has a m.w. = 196 and it is also a liquid. Just for comparison, He m.w. = 4 Ar m.w.= 40, Rn m.w. = 222. If you fill a balloon with helium it goes up, if you fill it with argon it remains down and everybody knows that radon levels build up in basements and lower floors of contaminated houses. With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?
Turbulent transport and diffusion, you’ll be telling us next that it’s impossible for gliders to fly!
That they are liquid at room temperature is not relevant since in the atmosphere at partial pressures of less than a mPa I guarantee they’re gases.
I have tried to find a CFCs global distribution map in the atmosphere and I couldn´t.
SteveSadlov says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:13 am
During the first half of the 1980s I was a hard core deep green.
—————
I have never been a hard core deep green. I am immune to bad storytelling of all colors. Left wing, right wing it does not matter, if it’s BS I know.
I have seen rabid communists nearly drink themselves to death and then turn into rabid religious nuts. So it’s my view that there is no real difference between left wingers and right wingers, it’s all just a desperate desire to imagine that they are wiser than they really are.
I can deal with the uncertainty of not knowing everything, most people cannot. They are weak and cowardly.
Doug Cotton says:
March 10, 2012 at 4:38 am
You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.
The fact I said nothing about any anthropogenic component. So any IPCC allegations are absurd on your part.
Let’s take a look at why some people use ideology over basic climate fundamentals. Our example comes from “Lazy Teenager” – who lallygags on the earth’s climate with unsubstantiated comments which are ideological, wrong and proves the ‘non-science’ and total lack of understanding of his own planet’s climate.
“Theodore says The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
————
Lazy Teenager says, “True. But the kicker is you have to understand these things properly. Theodore does not.”
Theo Questions: You contradict yourself. First you say that what I said was true; then you insult and say, in the same sentence mind you, that ‘Theodore’ does not understand the truth of what he said?
Then you, Lazy Teenager continue: “There are a bunch of undergraduate misconceptions wandering around with mass confusion about the distinctions between heat and radiation. You cannot criticism AGW while being embarrassingly confused about this kind of stuff.”
Theo Questions: What does, as you say,” ‘a bunch’ of undergraduate misconceptions” have to do with the laws that regulate the Earth’s climate? AGW cannot exist on Earth, our planet. It is impossible according to the laws of physics. The confusion and embarrassment, son, is wholly yours.
Lazy Teenager then says –
1. AGW does NOT violate any laws of thermodynamics.
Theo Questions: Prove it. You have not done so. The laws of thermodynamics are always in operation. You have not proven that they are not. And, the fact that you can actually say this proves my point that AGW ideology has no place in science (or anywhere else.) You need to take the red pill and wake up Lazy Teen. You’ve consumed AGW propaganda and all its fuzzy math that could not forecast a bowl of soup on a cold day.
Lazy Teenager then says –
“Conclusion 1. Therefore logically if the atmosphere is warm and contains constituents that emit IR radiation the surface will be warmer than otherwise. Conclusion 2. There is something wrong with Theodore’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.”
Theo Says – The laws of thermodynamics speaks openly all around us, and you too kiddo. If you only open your eyes and mind. Nature requires no understanding – just your keen observation and attention. Mother Nature works just fine on her own. If it isn’t broke then don’t fix it. That is your problem Lazy Teenager. Learn to pay attention. I didn’t create the laws of physics, but I do know and respect them. So should you. I just work here kiddo.
Theo’s Conclusion: “All Truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
For Joanna, the reference. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow then the total would only reduce by 3-6%, hardly significant.
“Humans produce between 3 and 6% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Natural carbon sources produce much larger quantities than mankind, but this is offset by the vast natural carbon sinks that remove CO2 from the air. The current imbalance is due to human activity.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_increases_the_amount_of_carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere
Theodore, do you have any copies of the reports you made in the 80’s? The only Theodore White I can find with Google with any connection with climate is an astrologer. I’m sure that is not you. This should be an easy thing for you to produce, Yes?
Theodore: Instead of insults and repeating essentially the same material multiple times, perhaps you could clearly explain to us exactly how the concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Feel free to use as much math as you need, but avoid the word ‘heat’ if you possibly can as thinking in terms of energy clarifies things no end.
@ur momisugly Richard Simons, – study for yourself what should be self-evident to you since I assume you live on the Earth and should already know the laws of thermodynamics – it speaks for itself. I don’t take part in ideological ping-pong head games (useless and a cover for those who cannot forecast nor accept climate truths) as I am too busy actually working forecasting the climate and weather using the laws of physics.
I repost again what I’ve already said – The math stinks on AGW from every single conceivable angle – none more important than the laws of physics.
Two physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner say the same thing. Why don’t you actually READ the scientific paper which is self-explanatory rather than talk?
If you do not already know why it is impossible for AGW to exist on Earth due to the laws of physics then I suggest you read the math yourself, i.e., why man-made global warming is impossible on earth. You cannot get around the physical laws with your opinions, and presumed predetermined AGW ideology – they are useless against the laws of physics. You should know better.
“…1) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.
2) There are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.
(3) The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly.
(4) The formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately.
(5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.
(6) Thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero – the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”
Those who want to understand why AGW is a lie because of the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth’s climate and weather should take the time to read the paper linked below that was published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper.
Both German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%.
They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.
So for those still clinging to the bald face lie of ‘man-made global warming’ by means of tons and tons and tons of AGW kool-aid (the real ‘climate change’ threat to the world) also know that you are effectively denying the mathematical laws that govern your own physical existence and entire climate of your own planet.
Free Your Mind, Take The Red Pill -> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
– Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci
@Theodore White
“(5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.”
No idea what you mean by “unphysical” but there has to be a radiative balance between electromagnetic radiation energy arriving at the Earth from the Sun, and electromagnetic radiation energy leaving the Earth into space, otherwise the Earth would keep warming (or cooling) until the balance became established.
What do you mean?
Theodore. First, I doubt that anyone trying to open your mind here believes that greenhouse heating has anything to do with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of “greenhouse gases”. So we would all be much happier without the word “greenhouse” used at all.
Second, we know about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and are unconvinced. For a start it contradicts the known historic changes in global temperature which do not correlate smoothly with solar radiation.
Third, it is plain experience that insulating materials (even clouds) can change the temperature of an object subject to heat sources and fluxes. Your attempts to apply the laws of thermodynamics to inapplicable subsystem elements are invalid.
Sadly this thread is a train-wreck.
@AnotherPhilC,
What I mean about the assumption of a radiative balance being unphysical is that the Earth does not have a ‘balanced’ climate. This is the serious error anyone who drinks the AGW kool-aid makes.
This is key to get this – especially for anyone who seeks to know and forecast the earth’s climate – that the earth has a highly-variable water vapor gaseous climate that is always in motion. We live on a rotating globe with a primary star that causes our climate to change.
The Earth, I remind one and all, is a planet and lives in space. That is where our climate and subsequent weather is forced from because of the laws of physics.
The entire fallacy of man-made global warming is built on violations of the laws of physics, and specifically violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Anyone who believes in the lies and propaganda of AGW needs to have their heads checked.
The assumption of Earth’s radiative balance is core to AGW ideology and all of their so-called ‘scientific’ literature and propaganda. The assumption is physically impossible by the laws of nature itself – and cannot occur on earth. Game over. It’s a no-brainer.
But the fact that some actually believe the AGW propaganda – despite the laws of physics – tells you just how far IQs have fallen of late.
This notion of radiative forcing by the IPCC is based on their assumption of climate equilibrium on earth – meaning – IPCC/AGW scientists claimed that, ” A change in average net radiation at the top of the troposphere (known as the tropopause), because of a change in either solar or infrared radiation, is de fined for the purpose of this report as a radiative forcing. A radiative forcing perturbs the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over time climate responds to the perturbation to re-establish the radiative balance. A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface; a negative radiative forcing on average tends to cool the surface. As defined here, the incoming solar radiation is not considered a radiative forcing, but a change in the amount of incoming solar radiation would be a radiative forcing. For example, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation and a positive radiative forcing….”
Now, that mish-mash of AGW fuzzy wuzzy thinking and piss poor knowledge of the earth’s climate proves why AGW proponents are in total denial in the real world where we live.
The laws of physics state that the earth cannot become a man-made greenhouse or ever have this kind of so-called ‘climate change’ forced on it by man.
The SUN forces the Earth’s climate – not humanity.
The AGW ideology even on Wikipedia even gets it totally wrong as they claim this about the second law of thermodynamics. Climate science is in such terrible shape because of these Gupervilles who cannot count and obviously are not playing with all 52 cards in their deck –
They say that – ” Some have problems with the energy that is radiated by the greenhouse gases towards the surface of the Earth (150 W=m2) because this energy flows from a colder body apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics. This is a wrong interpretation, since it ignores the radiation of the Sun (even 6000 K). With respect to the total balance the second law is obeyed indeed…”
Did anyone notice anything?
The AGW ideologue who wrote that confuses ENERGY with heat.
That dog does not hunt.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out that, “Furthermore, the system in question here is the atmospheric system of the Earth including the Earth’s ground. Since this system is assumed to be in radiative balance with its environment, and any other forms of energy and mass exchange with its environment are strictly prohibited; it de fines a system in the sense of thermodynamics for which the second law holds strictly.”
A map of CFC distribution in the atmosphere.
Oh yeah, just to nail it down a good place to start learning about ozone depletion and the Antarctic ozone hole, remains Robert Parson’s Ozone FAQ. Since the mechanism of the hole formation is not trivially simple, a long quote will be useful (the . . . mean that Eli has not included the more technical/somewhat digressive material. Interested bunnies are invited to RTFR)
—————————–
a.) The Polar Vortex
As the air in the antarctic stratosphere cools and descends during the winter, the Coriolis effect sets up a strong westerly circulation around the pole. When the sun returns in the spring the winds weaken, but the vortex remains stable until November. The air over antarctica is largely isolated from the rest of the atmosphere, forming a gigantic reaction vessel. The vortex is not circular, it has an oblong shape with the long axis extending out over Patagonia. . . .
b.) Polar Stratospheric Clouds (“PSC”)
The Polar vortex is extremely cold; temperatures in the lower stratosphere drop below -80 C. Under these conditions large numbers of clouds appear in the stratosphere. These clouds are composed largely of nitric acid and water, probably in the form of crystals of nitric acid trihydrate (“NAT”), HNO3.3(H2O). . . . .
c.) Reactions On Stratospheric Clouds
Most of the chlorine in the stratosphere ends up in one of the reservoir compounds, Chlorine Nitrate (ClONO2) or Hydrogen Chloride (HCl). Laboratory experiments have shown, however, that these compounds, ordinarily inert in the stratosphere, do react on the surfaces of polar stratospheric cloud particles. HCl dissolves into the particles as they grow, and when a ClONO2 molecule becomes adsorbed the following reactions take place:
ClONO2 + HCl -> Cl2 + HNO3
ClONO2 + H2O -> HOCl + HNO3
The Nitric acid, HNO3, stays in the cloud particle.. . . . .
d.) Sedimentation and Denitrification
The clouds may [may is too weak this happening is the prelude to forming an ozone hole- E.R.] eventually grow big enough so that they settle out of the stratosphere, carrying the nitric acid with them (“denitrification”). . . . .
e.) Photolysis of active chlorine compounds
The Cl2 and HOCl produced by the heterogeneous reactions are easily photolyzed, even in the antarctic winter when there is little UV present. The sun is always very low in the polar winter, so the light takes a long path through the atmosphere and the short-wave UV is selectively absorbed. Molecular chlorine, however, absorbs _visible_ and near-UV light:
Cl2 + hv -> 2 Cl
Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
The effect is to produce large amounts of ClO. This ClO would ordinarily be captured by NO2 and returned to the ClONO2 reservoir, but “denoxification” and “denitrification” prevent this by removing NO2.
f.) Catalytic destruction of ozone by active chlorine
As discussed in Part I, Cl and ClO can form a catalytic cycle that efficiently destroys ozone. That cycle used free oxygen atoms, however, which are only abundant in the upper stratosphere; it cannot explain the ozone hole which forms in the lower stratosphere. Instead, the principal mechanism involves chlorine peroxide, ClOOCl (often referred to as the “ClO dimer”) [Molina and Molina]:
ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl
ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
ClOO -> Cl + O2
2 Cl + 2 O3 -> 2 ClO + 2 O2
——————————-
Net: 2 O3 -> 3 O2
At polar stratospheric temperatures this sequence is extremely fast and it dominates the ozone-destruction process. The second step, photolysis of chlorine peroxide, requires UV light which only becomes abundant in the lower stratosphere in the spring. Thus one has a long buildup of ClO and ClOOCl during the winter, followed by massive ozone destruction in the spring. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for about 70% of the antarctic ozone loss.
The theory described above (often called the “PSC theory”) was developed during the years 1985-87. At the same time, others proposed completely different mechanisms, making no use of chlorine chemistry. The two most prominent alternative explanations were one that postulated large increases in nitrogen oxides arising from enhanced solar activity, and one that postulated an upwelling of ozone-poor air from the troposphere into the cold stratospheric vortex. Each hypothesis made definite predictions, and a program of measurements was carried out to test these. The solar activity hypothesis predicted enhanced levels of Nitrogen oxides (NOx), whereas the measurements show unusually _low_ NOx, in accordance with the PSC hypothesis. The “upwelling” hypothesis predicted upward air motion in the lower stratosphere, which is inconsistent with measurements of atmospheric tracers such as N2O which show that the motion is primarily downwards.
Positive evidence for the PSC theory comes from ground-based and airborne observations of the various chlorine-containing compounds. These show that the reservoir species HCl and ClONO2 are extensively depleted in the antarctic winter and spring, while the concentration of the active, ozone-depleting species ClO is strongly enhanced. Measurements also show enormously enhanced concentrations of the molecule OClO. This is formed by a side-reaction in the BrO/ClO mechanism described above.
Further evidence comes from laboratory studies. The gas-phase reactions have been reproduced in the laboratory, and shown to proceed at the rates required in order for them to be important in the polar stratosphere. . . . .
The “smoking gun” is usually considered to be the simultaneous in-situ measurements of a variety of trace gases from an ER-2 stratospheric aircraft (a converted U2 spy plane) in August-October 1987. [Tuck et al.] These measurements demonstrated a striking “anticorrelation” between local ozone concentrations and ClO concentrations. Upon entering the ozone hole, ClO concentrations suddenly jump by a factor of 20 or more, while ozone concentrations drop by more than 50%. Even local fluctuations in the concentrations of the two species are tightly correlated. [Anderson et al.] The correlation is quantitatively accurate: from the measured local ClO concentrations together with reaction rate constants measured in the laboratory, one can calculate ozone destruction rates which agree well with the measured ozone concentrations.
————————
References provided in the FAQ
Robert Murphy,
The clue lies in how Theodore signs some of his posts here: Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci. If you look at his empty website accumetweather.blogspot.com you will see that the proprietor of that site signs himself in the same manner. You will also note that in his bio he claims to have been a crime, but not a science or environment reporter. I suspect the blogger and our poster are one and the same.
@Rattus Norvegicus, there is no clue. Why don’t you simply ask rather than to presume? What is wrong with that? And what does me being a polymath – journalist and forecaster have to do with the topic of AGW violating the laws of thermodynamics?
These laws will not change for anyone, so I find it curious that as usual, some bozo who claims ‘knowledge’ of the earth’s climate while pushing AGW goes on to make low brow comments without being able to prove and back up the false claims of man-made global warming.
There are journalists who specialize in more than one beat, or fields, which is typical of some skilled journalists who have to cover many topics while on deadline. Reporters who are restricted to one field, or beat are seen by editors as liabilities simply because they are not well-rounded.
I worked as a police reporter and general assignment journalist and investigative reporter and have written professionally on a wide variety of topics – including meteorology, the environment, nuclear power, energy, transportation, climatology, astrophysics, geology, biology, geophysics, space weather and general science among other subjects. I’ve interviewed thousands of experts in a wide range of fields and am versed in the scientific discipline. Excuse me for being myself.
What is your excuse?
Theodore White wrote:
“But the fact that some actually believe the AGW propaganda – despite the laws of physics – tells you just how far IQs have fallen of late.”
I was joking about throwing the microwave oven away. LOL.
Rattus Norvegicus,
So this *is* the Theodore White who lists himself as an astrologer? The one who says this on his website:
“Told I’m clairvoyant, I can only describe myself as a polymath who learned Natural Astrology as a child. I advanced to Judicial Astrology, interpreting Natal Horoscopes & Secondary Progressions. My expertise ranges from long-range climate/weather forecasting to economics to personal horoscope readings to the astrological world prophecies of Michel Nostradamus – all based on the principles of Mundane Astrology.”
?
This is someone who is to be taken seriously about science?
LazyTeenager says:
“I use the “point the electronic IR thermometer you can buy at your local electronic store at the sky” counter example. ”
LOL, I just used that one on the Monckton thread! I think a lot of the problem is that there’s been to many bad analogies made trying to explain the GHE (including the name itself).
Urederra says:
March 10, 2012 at 9:51 am
The cause of low ozone levels over the poles is something very easy to explain, Gordon Dobson already knew that ozone is unstable and will decompose over time. It is replenished when UV radiation splits O2 molecules into O radicals that react with more O2 rendering O3. Since there is little UV radiation over the poles during the winter, O3 levels cannot be replenished until summer.
;—————————————————————————–
During the summer when there’s UV present, and the ozone at the poles is lower than in the winter.
During the winter, there is a longitudinal movement of ozone to the pole and the destruction of ozone takes place in the polar vortex.
See
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap
and compare January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2011. The ozone concentrations are higher in the winter.
errr… nope.
See…
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm
Look at the graph, southern hemisphere, the so-called hole is larger in September, at the end of the austral winter.
@Alan Wilkinson says:Theodore. First, I doubt that anyone trying to open your mind here believes that greenhouse heating has anything to do with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of “greenhouse gases”. So we would all be much happier without the word “greenhouse” used at all.
Second, we know about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and are unconvinced. For a start it contradicts the known historic changes in global temperature which do not correlate smoothly with solar radiation.
Third, it is plain experience that insulating materials (even clouds) can change the temperature of an object subject to heat sources and fluxes. Your attempts to apply the laws of thermodynamics to inapplicable subsystem elements are invalid.
_________________________
Alan, AGW is built directly upon the earth becoming a ‘man-made greenhouse’ which the earth can never become according to the laws of physics that govern our climate.
Second, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper states clearly that there is no way to state what a planet’s global temperature is – much less historic changes in a planet’s world temperature.
Third, you are better served to study what you already should know and that are the laws of thermodynamics that rule the Earth’s climate.
Another thing –
One of the worst things to come out of the worldwide AGW lie-and-pony-show is the fact that its proponents are anti-science, anti-social and anti-anything that does not subscribe to its sick propaganda that denies the laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate and weather.
The rudeness, lack of scientific & observation methods along with common sense and professionalism has long been widely endemic among those who are clueless about their own planet’s weather. Ideology has no place in Science.
guess as to why they form over Antarctica but very much less over the Arctic?
William M. Connolley says:
March 10, 2012 at 6:51 am
> The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by… (etc etc)
Even Monckton knows you’re wrong:
Lord Monckton then startled his audience by saying it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result.
======================
See my post to him: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#comment-919500
There is no The Greenhouse Effect– why not? Because etc.