There might possibly could be a chance of danger! Thunderstorms!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Thunderstorms are one of my main interests, so I read up on a study by some Harvard researchers that has been receiving all kinds of attention in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, it’s another “could, might, possibly, chance of” study. The YaleGlobal Online blog of the venerable Yale University quotes the Christian Science Monitor as saying:

Summer Thunderstorms Could Be Punching New Holes in Ozone Layer

Harvard study looking at conditions in the lower stratosphere, where the ozone layer resides, suggests a link between climate change and amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth’s surface

“Could be” punching new holes in the ozone layer? “Suggests a link”??

The paper is called “UV Dosage Levels in Summer: Increased Risk of Ozone Loss from Convectively Injected Water Vapor”, by James G. Anderson et al. (Paywalled here, hereinafter Anderson 2012). Here’s their money graph, showing the how high the water vapor reaches into the atmosphere over the US.

Figure 1, from Anderson2012. Original caption says:  Fig. 1(B) Observations of water vapor in the summertime over the US show numerous occurrences in the range of 10 to 18 ppmv reaching pressure altitudes deep into the stratosphere.

So why is there a possibility that it might happen that there could be a chance of a risk of danger from thunderstorms injecting water into the stratosphere as they’ve been doing since forever? Or as they trumpet it in the title of their study, why are they sure that there is an “Increased Risk of Ozone Loss”?

Well, here’s their claim:

Were the intensity and frequency of convective injection to increase as a result of climate forcing by the continued addition of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, increased risk of ozone loss and associated increases in UV dosage would follow.

Yes, and were I to win the lottery as a result of increasing good luck caused by the continued addition of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, increased risk of money wastage and associated increases in hangovers would follow …

I can’t tell you just how much I despise this kind of fear-mongering. At one time, this kind of scientific investigation of the atmosphere would have been presented honestly, but these days, any finding is justification for alarmism.

But wait, hold it. In this case, the alarmism may be justified by the large increase in the dampness of the stratosphere due to warming. After all, their calculations say that when water hits the stratosphere, all kinds of terrible things happen And they say that the stratosphere will get wetter as the world warms. And since the world has been warming over the last century or two, there must be evidence of the increase in dangerous stratospheric water vapor due to the warming … and in fact, their paper says:

There are a number of important considerations associated with the issue of convective injection of water vapor inducing chlorine activation and catalytic removal of ozone over mid-latitudes of the NH in summer. First is the fact that a remarkably dry stratosphere characterizes the current climate state.

Wait … what?

The world has been warming for centuries, and yet the stratosphere is “remarkably dry”?

Go figure, the climate is a mysterious beast. But it’s not nearly as mysterious as the logic of AGW alarmists. Despite a couple of centuries of warming having left the stratosphere “remarkably dry”, they claim warming might could possibly suddenly reverse course and cause the stratosphere to get wetter instead, and in turn that has the opportunity of maybe increasing the chances of making ozone holes, and thus it just might/could/conceivably/chance of/possibly cause an increase in skin cancer. And the best part is that, like a Hollywood movie, their contestant for the Booker Prize is “based on a true story”!

Yeah, I’m terrified. I think I’ll go out and invest in sunscreen futures right now … can’t be too careful, you know.

w.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
108 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peridot
August 3, 2012 4:09 am

What I wonder is why it took so long to think of a way to link ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Holes in the Ozone Laye” since the CFCs tale has died.

hell_is_like_newark
August 3, 2012 4:12 am

Doesn’t lightning create ozone? So wouldn’t more thunderstorms increase the ozone layer?

Nerd
August 3, 2012 4:24 am

“Yeah, I’m terrified. I think I’ll go out and invest in sunscreen futures right now … can’t be too careful, you know.”
—-
Do that and you get severe vitamin D deficiency… which greatly increases risk of getting any one of about 18 different types of cancers including melanoma…
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
Oops.

R Barker
August 3, 2012 4:27 am

Quoting the Harvard Gazette article:
Although they had worked since the mid-1980s to investigate ozone depletion in the Arctic and Antarctic, by the early 2000s, Anderson’s team had turned its attention to climate studies, ……..
Gotta go where the money is! And with only one data point (cluster) there is plenty of room to speculate.

john
August 3, 2012 4:42 am

Yale Endowment Invests in Maine Wind Power Project
http://news.yale.edu/2011/03/03/endowment-invests-maine-wind-power-project
This is the project:
http://www.themainewire.com/2012/03/developing-king-wind-project-cited-congressional-investigation/
Note: Angus King is now running for retiring Olympia Snowe’s seat. More on King and Cashman later.
John M.

Just an engineer
August 3, 2012 5:02 am

Wow! Based on this “new” discovery, it’s really fortuitous the space shuttle was eliminated before it drove mankind into extinction!
/sarc (for the clueless)

anarchist hate machine
August 3, 2012 5:06 am

Can someone explain to me *how* CFCs actually get into the atmosphere? They’re heavier-than-air molecules that don’t rise.

Rogelio Diaz
August 3, 2012 5:08 am

This is a milestone! The Brisbane Times would normally NEVER publish a skeptic view. Well apparently they have done a complete turnaround
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html
This paper is distributed for free during the afternoon in the city.. a lot of people will read this
The Weather in Eastern Australia has been way way cooler than normal for months now. Not due to “global cooling” but normal southern angle of winds from Antartctica which happens from time to time.. totally normal

Twodogs
August 3, 2012 5:10 am

My grandfather’s dog, Fred, used to shiver before the onset of storms, however i now realise that it was the implication of global warming that was really make him shake like a snivelling coward. My bad!

August 3, 2012 5:10 am

Stephen Richards says:
August 3, 2012 at 1:11 am

… O radicals can be very dangerous for us useless humans and so the UN may later choose to inject lots of radicals into the troposphere to reduce this pollution/contamination. /sarc off

Do they have any left? I thought they had already injected all their radicals into the IPCC.
/rim-shot

Michael Schaefer
August 3, 2012 5:19 am

Food for thought:
a. Every barrel of jet fuel produces three (!) barrels of water when burned.
b. World’s daily jet fuel consumption in 2008 (last year availlable) was 5269 THOUSAND barrels a day.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption
c. 5, 269,000 barrels of jet fuel translate into 15,888,000 barrels of water daily.
d. Discounting 15 percent for start and climb to cruising altitude will leave 13,504,000 barrels of water per day.
e. Calculated in tonnes this gives 2,200,000 tonnes of water per day – EVERY DAY – only by burning jet fuel in the upper troposphere.
f. 2,200,000 tonnes x 365 =803,000,000 Tonnes of Water / Water vapor per year.
g. 803,000,000 Tonnes of Water – that’s 803 MILLION TONNES of water vapour EVERY YEAR from burning Jet fuel injected into the upper Tropopause – and it’s STILL very dry up there.
g. How dry would it be up there with all the water vapour from burning Jet fuel removed?
Bon Appetit!

Steve in SC
August 3, 2012 5:32 am

Penn and Teller were right.
Ban DHMO!!!!!!

commieBob
August 3, 2012 5:36 am

Most blue sky research will be worthless. That’s the price we have to pay to get the good stuff which then becomes engineering or medicine.
People, especially scientists, should not take science so seriously.

August 3, 2012 5:48 am

“..injection of water vapor inducing chlorine activation and catalytic removal of ozone over mid-latitudes of the NH in summer.”
You notice that they are careful to not upset their confreres in the “halogenated-carbon kills ozone” folks of yesteryear by making a token hat tip to chlorine. We can’t have ozone holes being created naturally. Hey, and the convective lifting of water vapor is going to lift something else, too… you guessed it, lightning-produced ozone, probably in much greater concentration than chlorine!
Also, the medical use of ozone that may have some benefits in small doses has been killed by the same crowd- even though the refreshing feel to the air after a thunderstorm is partly the coolness of the air and partly the ozone. Cheez…it’s natural stuff, lighten up.

Gail Combs
August 3, 2012 5:52 am

Eric H. says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:16 am
A little off comment but the ozone hole scare related to CFCs has always confused me. Usually just a south pole phenom., this last year we saw a hole open up over the Arctic which if I remember correctly can be explained by unusually low temps causing ozone to interact with chlorine and destroy the ozone. The chlorine, per the reports that I read, was left over CFCs which are still present in the atmosphere. My questions: 1) Were the ozone holes ever observed prior to the introduction of CFCs in the atmosphere? 2) Can we determine the source of the chlorine that causes ozone destruction and holes? (man made or naturally occurring)
From where I sit, the ozone hole scare of the 70′s and 80′s and the resulting ban of CFCs was the catalyst for the current call to regulate CO2.
_______________________________
The ozone scare was another HOAX designed to ban CFCs. Dupont’s patent was running out and the replacement chemical (new patent) was not as good.
What no one in the MSM ever mentioned was the active volcanoes in the Antarctic and Arctic also pump out Chlorine. link

…. for the sake of argument, let’s assume that CFCs do contribute 7,500 tons of chlorine to the stratosphere annually. How does this compare with natural sources? Ocean biota inject 5 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere annually; biomass burning, 8.4 million tons; volcanoes, 36 million tons; and evaporation of seawater, 600 million tons – for a total of almost 650 million tons per year. The amount of chlorine injected into the atmosphere from natural sources is hundreds of thousands of times greater than the amount of chlorine allegedly released by the breakdown of CFCs in the stratosphere!
However, Rowland et al. claim that almost none of this natural chlorine reaches the stratosphere be-cause it is “rained out.” This is a preposterous claim. As readers can attest, it doesn’t rain all the time in all places, and, as a matter of fact, there are many places on Earth where it barely rains at all. How is the chlorine washed out of the atmosphere in these regions?….
The ozone depletion theorists allege that Mt. Erebus, an active volcano in Antarctica, does not now spew out as much chlorine as stated in The Holes in the Ozone Scare and that its emissions do not reach the stratosphere. This ignores two basic facts pointed out by the French volcanologist Haroun Tazieff: In Antarctica the stratosphere is very low (5,000 meters) and Mt. Erebus reaches a very high altitude (4,000 meters) so that its volcanic emissions indeed reach the stratosphere….
…..as Polish scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski showed definitively, based on studies of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident, chlorine and other heavy elements do reach the stratosphere.(6)

An interesting fact is that CO2 in the atmosphere also combines with water to form Carbonic Acid aka Acid Rain. link
Also from that website All Aboard the Climate Gravy Train – the pay scale for Climate Scientists vs the rest of us.

wilt
August 3, 2012 5:58 am

Michael Schaefer wrote: 803 MILLION TONNES of water vapour EVERY YEAR from burning Jet fuel injected into the upper Tropopause.
I don’t know in a quantitative respect how this translates into an increase of stratospheric water vapour, but if it is a significant contribution we should perhaps start to subsidize long-distance flights. Fly away – and global warming flies away as well!

tckev
August 3, 2012 5:59 am

So to summarize –
THE SKY IS FALLING!

Frank K.
August 3, 2012 5:59 am

” The YaleGlobal Online blog of the venerable Yale University…”
Willis – at your link to YaleGlobal, you’ll find many more bizarre alarmist articles. Here are some of the “headlines” at the site:
– Huge Arctic Fire Hints at New Climate Cue
– Multitude of Species Face Climate Threat
– World’s Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
– Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods
– A Quick Fix for Climate Change?
Check out the last one for some truly wacky geoengineering ideas proposed by supposed “scientists”…yikes!

adolfogiurfa
August 3, 2012 6:00 am

Wasn´t it the other way around?. Those gadgets for producing ozone in our homes & offices work with electricity…More “Hollywood science”, as Prof.Abdusamatov said abot GW?

Tamara
August 3, 2012 6:14 am

A Harvard study appearing in a Yale blog!!!! Global warming really is the end of the world as we know it.

August 3, 2012 6:25 am

Hmmm … no one poster has interjected on the possible influence a ‘quiet’ sun may/can have on the creation or rate of creation of ozone … consider then this the first such interjection …
.

Gail Combs
August 3, 2012 6:29 am

PaddikJ says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:48 am
…..hilarious summation of warmer confusion & contradictions makes this one one for the scrapbook.
I do have one semi-technical question: Their “money graph” seems to show no change in stratospheric hole-punching from 2001-2007 (although some colors obscure others and it’s hard to be sure). If that is indeed the case, how would they know those conditions are/are not normal?
________________________________
Another case of lying by omission.
Think. What happen in 2007 to 2009? Why the solar minimum between cycle 23 and 24. Graph

New Scientist: What’s wrong with the sun?
….So why does solar activity have these effects? …
Since 2003, spaceborne instruments have been measuring the intensity of the sun’s output at various wavelengths and looking for correlations with solar activity. The results point to the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet light. “The ultraviolet is varying much, much, much more than we expected,” says Lockwood.
Ultraviolet light is strongly linked to solar activity: solar flares shine brightly in the ultraviolet, and it helps carry the explosive energy of the flares away into space. <b?It could be particularly significant for the Earth's climate as ultraviolet light is absorbed by the ozone layer in the stratosphere, the region of atmosphere that sits directly above the weather-bearing troposphere.
More ultraviolet light reaching the stratosphere means more ozone is formed. And more ozone leads to the stratosphere absorbing more ultraviolet light. So in times of heightened solar activity, the stratosphere heats up and this influences the winds in that layer. “The heat input into the stratosphere is much more variable than we thought,” says Lockwood….
We used to think that the sun’s output was unwavering….

(Enter Steven Wilde)
And another article this time from NASA.

NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
“The solar wind isn’t inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to,” says McComas. “That means less shielding against cosmic rays.”
In addition to weakened solar wind, “Ulysses also finds that the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”
Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.

Physics Review: Focus: Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays
Cosmic rays may be enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, according to a study appearing in the 13 August print issue of PRL. Researchers analyzed data from several sources, and found a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Back in the lab they demonstrated a mechanism by which cosmic rays could cause a buildup of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds. Their results suggest that the damage done by cosmic rays could be millions of times larger than anyone previous believed and may force atmospheric scientists to reexamine their models of the antarctic ozone hole…
Atmospheric scientists have proposed that ultraviolet light breaks down CFCs, releasing active chlorine, which tears apart ozone molecules. But during the months when ozone depletion is greatest, giant clouds of ice particles–so-called polar stratospheric clouds–block the ultraviolet rays. Experts have not completely solved this piece of the ozone destruction puzzle…

SIGHHhhh perhaps they have not managed to link evil mankinds CFCs to the Cosmic Ray/ ozone destruction correlation because they are barking up the wrong tree. (better make sure it is not the tree is not struck by lightening)

imoira
August 3, 2012 7:16 am

I don’t know whether this is cause for alarm but I’ve just eaten a scrambled egg and I fear that it might have come from an ozone layer. It looked vaguely like the graph.

Gail Combs
August 3, 2012 7:21 am

Michael Schaefer says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:19 am
Food for thought:….
g. How dry would it be up there with all the water vapour from burning Jet fuel removed?
___________________________
The Relative Humidity has been falling since 1978: RH GRAPH vs (height in mb)
Ain’t it a pain when the real world data shoots the heck out of your nice mankind bashing theory?

Ian W
August 3, 2012 7:36 am

To be totally picky about this. The thunderstorms cannot penetrate the stratosphere. It is impossible by definition.
The troposphere (Wiki: “The word troposphere derives from the Greek: tropos for “turning” or “mixing,”) is the part of the atmosphere that is affected by convection and mixing.
The tropopause is the boundary between the convective mixing lower atmosphere and the stratosphere.
It follows that if the thunderstorms go higher then the top of their mixing becomes the tropopause.
Indeed this is what happens. In mid latitudes the tropopause is around 30,000 ft at the poles it is sometimes below 20,000ft and at the equator with the extreme convection in the Hadley cells it can reach above 60,000ft. (A good diagram here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AtmosphCirc2.png ) Anyone who believes that the various layers of the Earth’s atmosphere are dead flat immutable surfaces at fixed altitudes does not understand meteorology. There can be large Rossby waves form in these surfaces usually propagated from below in the troposphere leading to the wave ‘breaking’ and causing a ‘Sudden Stratospheric Warming’ event as the polar vortex is forced to a halt or even reverse.
Perhaps Harvard is a little overrated?