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.
jjfox says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:51 am
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.
Two reasons
1. More UV strikes the atmosphere in the tropics resulting in lower ozone
2. Transport via the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/index.htm
Go to Section 3.
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 …
==========================================================================
The ozone hole was never a “hole” but a thinning of the ozone layer over one or the other of the poles. It was and is a seasonal occurence. The “hole” switches poles depending on which pole is receiving sunlight.
When the ozone hole was being hyped the “horror” of it would switch back and forth.
Re: Eli Rabett says:
August 4, 2012 at 10:41 am
Thanks for the link Eli, but I was already aware of that webpage and Brewer Dobson circulation.
What I wanted to know was why the source Willis cites reports latitudinal ozone concentrations that were so different than the observations I linked to
Since visiting the site for Willis’ source I see that they are reporting modeled ozone concentrations and not observations. No wonder they do not agree. Go figure.
jjfox says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm
What I wanted to know was why the source Willis cites reports latitudinal ozone concentrations that were so different than the observations I linked to
Since visiting the site for Willis’ source I see that they are reporting modeled ozone concentrations and not observations. No wonder they do not agree. Go figure.
It’s not what you think. The figures you pointed to were color coded maps of ozone column density, e.g. the amount of ozone between the ground and the TOMS instrument. The ones that Willis pointed to were the mixing ratio as a function of altitude and latitude. You can get an idea of how that reconciles the two links by looking at Fig 4.18 (looks like Willis) and Fig. 4.20 (looks like jj) at
http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/WEBOPS/eps-pg/GOME-2/GOME2-PG-4ProdOverview.htm
Philip Bradley says:
August 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm
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.
This is not true.
Considerable and successful efforts are being made by the major aircraft and aircraft engine manufacturers to reduce emissions of all types: SOx, NOx and CO2. The emissions are directly related both to fuel burn and the quality of the fuels. Both Airbus and Boeing have reduced emissions considerably. Engines are now more than 20% more efficient even than those available at the turn of the century in 2000 – and far quieter too. This is the reason both Airbus and Boeing order books are so full; airlines need to reduce fuel burn and are replacing their old aircraft at an increasing rate. Per revenue passenger seat the fuel consumption of the modern Airbus and Boeing aircraft is in excess of 120 miles per gallon. Unlike road or rail, this fuel economy requires no infrastructure to be maintained between departure point and destination and air travel is also hugely safer than surface transport. Once the distance is greater than around 300 miles, air travel is far more efficient in fuel than any other kind of transport, and is faster and safer.
Particulate emissions are only one part of the problem. Another is formation of contrails by ice particles, however, this can be minimized by sending the planes on optimized routes
Eli Rabett says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Contrails are a problem for you, Eli? Perhaps you could tell us why contrails are a problem, and why we’d want to minimize them. Serious questions … I’m confused here. I’ve always heard claims that contrails cool the planet. I’d have guessed you’d support that … what am I missing?
w.
A few years ago I presented a lecture about Global Warming that is posted on my friend Dr. Russell Wilcox’s blog. You might want to share it with your readers.
http://forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com/2009/03/best-global-warming-discussion-ever.html
[Moderator’s Note: Thank you, Dr. Wilson. I took the liberty of making a few edits to your comment for clarity. -REP]