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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When I read the title of the original article my first thought was, “Ok, but don’t thunder and lightning pretty much go hand in hand and doesn’t lightning create ozone?” Then I read the comments and I guess that there are just too many individuals that understand chemistry here and we somehow missed the memo that what we know is all wrong.
What we should be researching is how to capture the lightning’s energy for use as electric power. 🙂
AGW is based upon computer models, which mathmatically predict the future. Kids complain that math is hard; computers do, too, so the AGW proponents make it easier by ignoring water vapor in their long term models. Water is a powerful heat-transfer medium. While it takes one calorie of heat energy to warm one gram of water by about one degree, it takes hundreds of calories of heat to evaporate one gram of water. This heat is transferred from the Earf surface to the upper troposphere as water vapor (mass transport, not infrared radiation) thus it bypasses the “blanket” of “greenhouse gases” (whose effects occur mainly in the troposphere, because that is where the most dense gases are, due to gravity; above the troposphere, gases are under lower pressure), in the process, transferring enormous amounts of heat to the stratosphere, where it then can freely radiate as infrared, through the less dense “greenhouse” blanket, to the extreme cold of space.
Now some alarmist says that water gets even higher than the upper troposphere… Likely it always has… So the models of the AGW idiots are even more wrong for improperly accounting for the heat transfer effects of water in the atmosphere… Let alone the fact that water vapor has a significant infrared absorption spectra… Yet this particular ozone alarmist seems miss the true significance of a “wetter” stratosphere: there are even more forces for stabilitiy in the climate of the Earf than the AGW folks have considered.
Frank K. says:
August 3, 2012 at 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….
Check out the last one for some truly wacky geoengineering ideas proposed by supposed “scientists”…yikes!
___________________________
What did you expect? Yale is in Tassachusetts, and as I was proudly told when living in Tassachusetts, “Massachusetts is the home of the foremost Marxist scholars in the world”
We were told very bluntly IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is [About] Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
How come we who are providing that wealth are never asked?
It seems that the Academics have decided they know what is best for all of us.
Well I guess that explains the attack on US Christians by the liberal press for breaking away from the Democratic party. /sarc Chris Hedges has not made the obvious connection between the bankers, transnational corporations and “the Liberal Class” not much of an investigative journalist in MHO. Because it is not as if that connection was not well known. Heck Robert Minor’s cartoon is even in WIKI!
Another description:
“…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference, Baden, Germany link
If that quote is true it explains much doesn’t it?
For anyone who thinks that man’s contribution to water vapor in the atmosphere is siginificant, I suggest looking at Tuvalu on Google Earth, and zooming out.
Gail Combs says: “Yale is in Tassachusetts”
Um, no, Connecticut.
timetochooseagain says:
August 3, 2012 at 9:40 am
Gail Combs says: “Yale is in Tassachusetts”
Um, no, Connecticut.
___________________________
OOPS I was thinking of Haaaavard.
According to ucar.edu lightning produces nitrogen oxides which in the presence of sunlight and other atmospheric compounds PRODUCES ozone which ends up in the troposphere. What am I missing? Is this analysis talking about a supposed net negative due to moisture at high altitudes? But according to Ian W the moisture cannot attain that altitude. So, what’s the story? Seems like thunderstorms woud INCREASE ozone, so the non-existent global warming that is causing (really not) all this is good?
You are the victim of a common misconception regarding the behavior of gas molecules. While it is certainly true that a balloon filled with helium will float to the top of your living room ceiling, this observation conflates the behavior of a mass of molecules (bulk property) with that of an individual molecule. An individual He atom has no more tendency to head for the ceiling than it does for the front door. It’s movement is governed by local temperture and the Boltzmann energy distribution function.
Consider the following. Imagine a room, the size of the vehical assembly building at Kennedy Space Flight Center. Further imagine we could hermetically seal the room and limit heat transfer. Note that O2 is mass number 32 and N2 is mass number 28. For gases at ideal conditions, density is proportional to mass number. One atmosphere at room temperature is close enough to ideal for all practical purposes. If you were to return to the room in a month, or six months, do you imagine that you would find all the O2 at the bottom of the room, and all the N2 at the top? If you had a SCUBA tank sitting on the shelf for a year or so, would you have to shake it to remix the O2 and N2?
As an old Harvard Grad, I am appalled and embarassed by much that comes out of that formerly great university that pretends to be serious science, philosophy, economics, or other intellectual endeavor. Yet the thought that both Harvard and Yale might be in the same state remains beyond tolerable for me. That would be too much self-adulating sophomorism in one place.
Fortunately, Yale is one state to the south, namely in Connecticutt (New Haven).
Hmm … methane or water vapour?
Some agree with Commander Cody & His Lost Planet Airmen who popularized ozone first going back a few decades:
“I’m lost in the ozone again.
I’m lost in the ozone again.
Tell me about it now…
One drink of wine, two drinks of gin…
and I’m lost in the ozone again. ”
? Are some contemporary reports befuddling due to ruminations of scientists who were “down to seeds & stems again” like The Commander once was?
Jim G says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:22 am
According to ucar.edu lightning produces nitrogen oxides which in the presence of sunlight and other atmospheric compounds PRODUCES ozone which ends up in the troposphere. What am I missing? Is this analysis talking about a supposed net negative due to moisture at high altitudes? But according to Ian W the moisture cannot attain that altitude. So, what’s the story? Seems like thunderstorms woud INCREASE ozone, so the non-existent global warming that is causing (really not) all this is good?
Hi Jim, not exactly. Say the storms in the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) reach up to 70,000ft – and this is not uncommon – then 70,000 is the top of the troposphere. The troposphere is the name for the convective layers of the atmosphere. Thunderstorms look not unlike the surface of water boiling over single burner. The stratosphere does not have a precise flat surface. It is a nice concept to have an atmosphere that is in discrete fixed layers but in reality the boundaries are very fuzzy with swirls, dips and troughs, waves and breaking waves.
It apears that from 2004 to 2007 (at least) ozone increased above 45km but decreased below 45km.
That has put quite a spanner in the works since it suggests the possibility that conventional climatology assumes an incorrect temperature response in parts of the atmosphere when the sun is active or inactive.
It may be that the stratosphere and mesosphere cool naturally when the sun is active and warm naturally when the sun is inactive. The reverse of the established view but critical in my opinion to cause the observed effect of zonal jets when the sun is active and meridional jets when the sun is inactive.
As Gail Combs notes, I have gone into that issue in considerable detail previously.
I await updated data for the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere from 2007 to date though the effect may be temporarily less pronounced during the buildup to the max of cycle 24.
We really need to await the next minimum to get more useful data and if cycle 25 is another weak one then that will also help with the diagnosis.
Of course, if I am right, then that stuffs the CFC based ozone theories too 🙂
Speaking of Harvard…
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/11/harvard-to-become-largest-institutional-buyer-of-wind-power-in-new-england/
There are tie in’s with Yale regarding the players mentioned at my earlier post…john says:
August 3, 2012 at 4:42 am
Ian W says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Thanks, Ian. I fear your definition is not correct. The usual distinction between the troposphere and the stratosphere has to do with the temperature lapse rate, and not the turbulence. The tropopause, the area between the troposphere and the stratosphere, is where the temperature of the atmosphere stops dropping with altitude.
From the NSIDC:
Note that there is absolutely nothing in there about turbulence.
w.
“…a possibility that it might happen that there could be a chance of a risk of danger…”
Now that is just plain funny.
But there could be, ya know?
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Ian W says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm
… The troposphere is the name for the convective layers of the atmosphere.
Thanks, Ian. I fear your definition is not correct. The usual distinction between the troposphere and the stratosphere has to do with the temperature lapse rate, and not the turbulence. The tropopause, the area between the troposphere and the stratosphere, is where the temperature of the atmosphere stops dropping with altitude.
From the NSIDC:
TropopauseThe boundary layer between the troposphere and stratosphere, where an abrupt change in temperature lapse rate usually occurs. It is defined as the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2 °C km-1 or less, provided that the average lapse rate between this level and all higher levels within 2 km does not exceed 2 °C km-1.
Note that there is absolutely nothing in there about turbulence.
w.
Willis, there is – but it is indirect almost begging the question. If there is water vapor present the lapse rate will not decrease to 2 °C km-1 or less. So it is another way of saying the top of the convective atmosphere as that is where the water vapor transport has stopped.
😉
While the tropopause is defined by the temperature profile, it is a property of the tropopause that it is convective because temperatures decrease with altitude, and a property of the stratosphere that is is not (very)convective because since temperatures increase with altitude there is a built in inversion. Indeed the name stratosphere comes from the fact that the system is stratified. So yes, Willis is right, but so is Ian.
BTW, does anyone question the fact that a wetter stratosphere will decrease ozone concentrations because of catalytic destruction of ozone by HOx cycles as in
H2O + hn –> HO + HO (photolysis) or
O(1D) + H2O –> HO + HO
HO + O3 –> HO2 + O2
HO2 + O3 –> HO + 2O2
———————————
2O3 –> 3 O2 net
The masthead of WUWT appears to show a strong convective column penetrating, and perhaps damaging the ozone layer.
I suggest that this violent and aggressive act be photoshopped out so that impressionable young folks don’t think that Anthony condones such behavior.
Do it for the protection of the children.
That is nonsense – the amount of water vapor is what defines the stratosphere.
Below the tropopause, water vapor cools the atmosphere. Water vapor is why the atmosphere gets cooler with height.
Above the tropopause, the atmosphere gets warmer with increasing height because there is not enough water vapor to help it loose heat.
It is the amount of water vapor that defines the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The assumption of their paper that anything could change the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere is complete nonsense.
They assume that the base of the tropical stratosphere is 200K at 90 mb. While those are representative values, they are the result of thunder clouds, not a barrier that limits how high thunder clouds rise. Their “conclusion” that
shows a lack of understanding of the processes involved.
Their paper states that,
but they fail to observe that at that temperature and pressure, 18 ppm represents 100%RH over ice (Hyland & Wexler approximation) or that that chlorine catalyzed ozone destruction requires the presence of ice crystals .. which is why 18 ppm is important and why it is a limiting value. At 5ppm and 90mb, 100%RH is at 192K .. but the paper says that the reaction is catalyzed at 198K.
There is another point, and I think this is an error – the paper says
In Alaska, the typical stratosphere temperature is more than 10K warmer “than the mid-latitude lower stratosphere over the US in summer”. Only about 20 days a year are colder. In Antarctica, the winter stratosphere does get quit a bit colder, but the summer stratosphere is also warmer. This is because (or perhaps, proof that) thunderstorms are what make the tropopause so cold.
Willis, I read your response to Ian W. What you are missing is that adding water (either vapor or ice) to the “stratosphere” will cause it to get colder (due to increased radiation losses). Since the local temperature gradient changes from “increasing with height” to “decreases with height”, the height of the tropopause increases according to the definition you quoted. The point is that the change in the number of water molecules is what causes the “abrupt change in temperature lapse rate”.
If any thunderstorm does punch a hole in the ozone layer, it’s simply finding an escape route to avoid the level of stupidity.
Robert Clemenzi said:
“Below the tropopause, water vapor cools the atmosphere. Water vapor is why the atmosphere gets cooler with height.
and:
Above the tropopause, the atmosphere gets warmer with increasing height because there is not enough water vapor to help it lose heat.”
I like those statements because they introduce a new way of looking at the tropopause which helps me to explain how the system works.
The conventional view is that the stratosphere warms with height because of the presence of ozone reacting with incoming solar radiation.
Now Robert suggests that the stratosphere warms with height due to the (relative) absence of water vapour and I think there is a way of looking at the situation that could make both assertions true.
If there were no water vapour then ozone would be in control with little atmospheric overturning / convection. The upward temperature profile would simply follow ozone densities from ground up and since ozone rich air is no lighter than air without ozone there would be relatively little convective overturning.
The vertical temperature profile from the ground up would then depend upon the balance between ozone creation and ozone destruction at any given height and if one were to change ozone densities on the way up the atmosphere would be stratified accordingly in terms of the vertical temperature profile.
As regards water vapour the fact is that water vapour is less dense than the surrounding air (unlike ozone rich air) so convective overturning begins and will reach as high as necessary to enable condensation to remove almost all the water vapour.
So the tropopause height is determined by the height that the water vapour needs to rise in order for it to be stripped out by condensation.
So, tropopause height depends upon the quantity of water vapour in the troposphere AND the amount of ozone in the air immediately above the height that the water vapour can reach.
In effect the buoyancy of water vapour pushes the tropopause upwards against the restraining influence of stratified ozone quantities and the tropopause is at whatever height the thermal effect of ozone overcomes the thermal effect of water vapour.
That fits my New Climate Model perfectly because one needs to vary tropopause height differentially between equator and pole in order to allow the climate zones to shift latitudinally poleward or equatorward beneath the tropopause.
So I say that the tropopause height, being dependent on the outcome of the balance between the thermal effects of ozone above the tropopause and water vapour below the tropopause, is influenced by the oceans from below (which change the rate at which water vapour is released) and the sun from above (which changes the amount of ozone differentially at different levels above the tropopause).
Therefore tropopause heights would vary naturally all the time due to the ever shifting balance between oceanic and solar thermal effects.
Now, the oceans have greatest effect at the equator and the sun has greatest effect at the poles so what we have is a constant variation in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles. It is that constant variation that allows latitudinal climate zone shifting and that in turn controls the rate at which energy flows from surface to space.
There is the thermostatic control of Earth’s equilibrium temperature.
As aircraft emissions has come up. I’ll point out that particulate emissions from aircraft have increased massively since WW2. Particulate emissions from surface sources (classified as aerosols by climate science) are know to have substantial effects on precipitation and temperatures. But we know almost nothing above the effects of particulate emissions from aircraft. What little research that has been done shows aircraft emissions are much more persistent in the atmosphere than those from surface sources, and presumably therefore have a greater effect on the climate.
While we have scrubbed most of the emissions from coal fired power stations, it simple isn’t feasible to do this for aircraft.
Re:Willis Eschenbach says:
August 3, 2012 at 1:06 am
You were taught correctly, which is why there is excess ozone in the tropics.
…………………………………………..
Willis, This source:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/normalozone.htm#gl
shows the highest mean total ozone concentrations to be found at mid and high latitudes for all months of the year. The tropics consistently have low concentrations.
I wonder what accounts for the difference in reporting?