From Frontiers
A team of researchers in the U.S. and Germany has measured the highest level of ultraviolet radiation ever recorded on the Earth’s surface. The extraordinary UV fluxes, observed in the Bolivian Andes only 1,500 miles from the equator, are far above those normally considered to be harmful to both terrestrial and aquatic life. The results are being published in the open-access journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.
“These record-setting levels were not measured in Antarctica, where ozone holes have been a recurring problem for decades,” says team leader Nathalie A. Cabrol of the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center. “This is in the tropics, in an area where there are small towns and villages.”
The measurements were made in the southern hemisphere summer of 2003 and 2004, using instruments developed for the European Light Dosimeter Network (Eldonet). They were undertaken as Cabrol’s team was investigating high altitude Andean lakes as part of an astrobiology study of Mars-like environments. Dosimeters were deployed on the summit of the towering Licancabur volcano (altitude: 5,917 meters) and at nearby Laguna Blanca (altitude 4,340 meters). The combination of a midday sun near the zenith, as well as the high elevation of these sites, produces higher irradiance levels because of naturally low ozone in such locations. But these intensities of short-wavelength UV-B radiation (280 – 315 nm) are unprecedented.
“A UV index of 11 is considered extreme, and has reached up to 26 in nearby locations in recent years,” notes Cabrol. “But on December 29, 2003, we measured an index of 43. If you’re at a beach in the U.S., you might experience an index of 8 or 9 during the summer, intense enough to warrant protection. You simply do not want to be outside when the index reaches 30 or 40.”
The intense radiation coincided with other circumstances that may have increased the UV flux, including ozone depletion by increased aerosols from both seasonal storms and fires in the area. In addition, a large solar flare occurred just two weeks before the highest UV fluxes were registered. Ultraviolet spikes continued to occur – albeit at lower intensity – throughout the period of solar instability, and stopped thereafter. While the evidence linking the solar event to the record-breaking radiation is only circumstantial, particles from such flares are known to affect atmospheric chemistry and may have increased ozone depletion.
“While these events are not directly tied to climate change, they are sentinels of what could occur if ozone thins globally,” Cabrol says. “The thinner and more unstable the ozone, the more prone we will be to this kind of event.”
High UV-B exposure negatively affects the entire biosphere, not just humans. It damages DNA, affects photosynthesis, and decreases the viability of eggs and larvae. For these reasons, it is important to keep a close watch on UV flux levels.
“While this unsettling record might be the result of a ‘perfect storm’ of events, it could happen again,” says Cabrol, “because the factors that caused it are not rare. What we need is more monitoring of the ozone changes in these areas. These fluxes, which are comparable to those of early Mars, are occurring in a populated area.”
David Black, president and CEO of the SETI Institute, notes that “this is an excellent example of how astrobiology – which includes understanding the atmospheres of other planets – is germane to contemporary concerns here on Earth.”
Note to editors
Article title: Record Solar UV Irradiance in the Tropical Andes
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00019
Journal: Frontiers in Environmental Science
For a copy of the embargoed paper, please contact Gozde Zorlu: press@frontiersin.org
For online articles, please link to the paper which will become freely available at the following: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00019/abstract
Ok, seriously, WTF?
I mean, we all just read an article which really should have been saying “everyone, it is EXTREMELY important you know it is not safe to go outside in this area… well, 10 years ago at least”
I cant help but think of Chris Elliot being put on iceberg lookout duty… “okay, you hit one”
noaaprogrammer says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Awaiting the results of my skin cancer biopsy:
http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/uva-and-uvb/understanding-uva-and-uvb
Maybe too many parameters in humans, but biological effects of UV-a & b have been studied in other organisms, as I commented upon for phytoplankton.
I saw no mention of the effects of the rarified atmosphere of 19,526 feet and 14,322 feet for the two peaks. I learned during my backpacking days that at 10,000 feet you were above 1/2 of the atmosphere. Wouldn’t that account for the high levels of UV? As I understand the shape of mountains, ‘nearby’ might be 10,000 ft. lower in altitude.
“While these events are not directly tied to climate change…”
The stunt: single out an event and use it in conjunction with the (meaningless) term climate change, even while denying a link. The result: effective subliminal advertising.
Oh, and while Brazil’s shocking defeat and Australia’s unexpected snowfalls and Ukrainian unrest are not directly linked to climate change…
Give them credit, quite lots of credit
They actually went there into some darn inhospitable country and way up into the mountains at the end of the world lugging their instruments up to those mountain tops to get those direct UV measurements first hand.
Thats doing science.
Completely unlike our Uni of NSW tax payer rip off “experts” on Antarctic ice melts [ previous thread on WUWT ] and an almost infinite number of like “expert “researchers, all sucking furiously on the public teat, who don’t appear to have ever left the Air conditioned premises and the coffee machines of university academia to actually get their hands dirty and do some genuine on ground field research.
This seems to be the defining characteristic of every self labelled “expert climate scientist” we have ever come across.
Their quite noted characteristic of doing all their research into the climate of the furtherest flung and most isolated parts of the planet without ever getting more than a few metres from their university academia’s’ “hallowed halls”, it’s coffee machines and a bank of computers loaded with highly suspect climate models that have never been verified. validated or quality controlled and have never produced a climate prediction that has actually come to pass.
At least these researchers went and did the hard yards of measuring UV and the outcome is that suddenly what has been known for decades became seriously unknown and they suddenly realised that they were far more ignorant about solar UV, just how strong it can be at near ground level and just when and where it might show up and for how long.
Their’s and no doubt other researchers surprise is expressed here but they still could not refrain from tossing in the “we’ll all be rooned” and it will be mankind’s fault all over again.
When will these scientific yobbo’s realise that they should just report the science as it is and as they measured it then shut their over size yap traps right up and thereby try and retain a modicum of respect for their science.
bionicuss says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Funny handle.
The meaning of ‘unprecedented’
Climate Science – First time we have measured something
24hour News Service – We googled the last 7 days of news and couldn’t find anything like it
Teenager – This has, like, nevah happened to anyone else (usually love related)
The Real World – In recorded history this is the first time it has happened
The article says…
> Dosimeters were deployed on the summit of the towering Licancabur volcano
> (altitude: 5,917 meters) and at nearby Laguna Blanca (altitude 4,340 meters).
Well, like, dohhhh. The higher you go, the less atmosphere there is above you to stop UV, X-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, etc, etc. E.g. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html
> While it may not be commonly known, airline flight crews are currently
> classified as “radiation workers,” a federal designation that means they
> are consistently exposed to radiation. Flight crews on high-latitude routes,
> in fact, are exposed to more radiation on an annual basis than nuclear
> plant workers.
Stick the search term…
pilots radiation exposure
…into Google, and you get “About 111,000 results (0.28 seconds)”. Increased exposure to all sorts of ionizing radiation is a consequence of living at higher elevations, just like increased lung problems are a consequence of living in Beijing’s polluted air.
Interesting that they mention that an X45 class flare is possibly involved in the paper?
A flare twice as large as anything ever recorded happened just prior to the time of these measurements?
It would be interesting to see the whole data set for this papers comparative references.
Flare reference.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072425.htm
Question, does the conflict of interest disclaimer at the end of the paper cover the 40 referenced papers too?
Paper》
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00019/full
Oh, solar Ultraviolet, not Andy Warhol’s friend, Ultra Violet. Now I’m not the least bit interested in this article.
R.I.P. Isabelle Dufresne, 14 June, 2014
Actually, 18,000 feet is about .5 bar
Cucumbernews?
Brazil’s loss to Germany this morning wouldn’t by any chance be responsible,hmmm ??????? <:o)
I’m sorry, but that is not correct.
Your problem is, you are using the raw score. When the proper pairwise homogenization algorithm is applied, comparison to similar soccer games played within a 1500 km radius flags the score 7-1 as a soccer score discontinuity. To correct this obvious error, the anomalous values are replaced with regional average scores. After adjustment, Brazil won 3-2.
From the research about record levels of recorded UV recorded in the Bolivian Andes…
“a large solar flare occurred just two weeks before the highest UV fluxes were registered. Ultraviolet spikes continued to occur – albeit at lower intensity – throughout the period of solar instability, and stopped thereafter.”
It appears that NASA has already provided much info from SDO regarding the relationship between solar flares and UV (and X-Rays).
For example:
“NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), launched in February 2010, made the finding: About 1 in 7 flares experience an “aftershock.” About ninety minutes after the flare dies down, it springs to life again, producing an extra surge of extreme ultraviolet radiation.
“We call it the ‘late phase flare,’” says Woods. “The energy in the late phase can exceed the energy of the primary flare by as much as a factor of four.”
From: The Secret Lives of Solar Flares:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/19sep_secretlives/
Big flares produce big UV events that can be measured high up in the atmosphere. I think we already knew that from stratospheric balloon measurements even before SDO.
People living high up in the Andes have adapted well to their environment. They can assimilate oxygen into their red blood cells better than folks living at sea level. Their dark skin pigmentation protects them from both UVA and UVB better than folks living in low UV flux environments.
From what I just read, the light skinned Americans and Germans who conducted the UV testing had best get down off the mountain! “Skin cancers are mostly a consequence of modern human migrations and resulting mismatches between skin pigmentation and geography or lifestyle.”
From: Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024016/
Doesn’t UV penetrate the ocean to a greater depth causing more warming.
I wonder what UV levels were in the 20s/30s/40s.
Kip: “I’ll have to check the paper to see why this is “news” today.”
Because (like Ocean Heat Content) the AGW cult is looking for proxies for which there is little or no data in the 30s.
Hmmmm….I would like to see a really good calibration test.
JJ says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:31 pm
We have a winner!
Hilarious …
w.
I don’t understand this claim:
First off, the time scale for the ozone data only goes up to January 18th, while the UVB/UVA ratio has the same start date, but it goes all the way to November 4th.
Next, although they claim that “The highest values were consistently associated with increased cloud fraction”, they show no correlation or other data to back that up. I’m sorry, but simply squinting at a graph and making claims of correlation without doing the math doesn’t cut it.
Next, they don’t show the UVB levels for the period, only for a few single days … not sure what that is supposed to show.
Finally they do some plain and fancy tapdancing when they say:
If they are claiming that reduced ozone caused by the solar flare has a part in the game, it seems incumbent on them to compare the ozone levels over the period and show that in fact this solar flare did actually affect ozone levels.
Does this invalidate the study? By no means … but it makes me suspicious. If the claimed relationships are there, why not show the math?
w.
I second that Willis E.
I nearly fell off the chair laughing
With his grasp of the in fashion phraseology and the politically correct climate temperature adjustments verbiage, JJ could write a climate paper anytime and get it accepted by the journals without even bothering about any letters after his name.
Loss of stratospheric ozone is a likely cause of the drop in stratospheric air temperature seen after El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
This lead to about 2 W/m^2 extra SW entering the lower climate system.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
That extra short wave energy will penetrate deep into the oceans and probably won’t be nullified by the strong negative feedbacks occurring at the surface which effectively negate any changes in incident LW radiation.
Here’s the take-home:
When you’re hiking in the tropical Andes, forget about the sunscreen. Barbecue sauce is more to the point.
JJ writes “To correct this obvious error, the anomalous values are replaced with regional average scores. After adjustment, Brazil won 3-2.”
That might not be an accurate representation of the true score but statistically its a better score to be using. Dont you think Mosh?
Willis, JJ and Richard
Your 3:2 Brazil win was correct as at 10:55pm but as part of the realignment of the Index to account for some late reporting vuvuzelas – the score has now been updated is is much more realistically described as Brazil 3.012 Germany 1.994
Thank you
But these intensities of short-wavelength UV-B radiation (280 – 315 nm) are unprecedented.
How did they know? Have they measured in that same place in previous centuries?