Guest essay by Steven Capozzola
Even though declining ozone cooled the stratosphere in the 20th Century, the IPCC says this cooling proves solar variability doesn’t impact surface temperatures.
The climate community has repeatedly dismissed solar variance as a key driver of rising temperatures during the 20th Century. But their reasoning may have a key flaw, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unwittingly supplying the evidence.
A November 2013 statement from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) explains the prevailing sentiment against solar variability: “…if warming had been caused by a more active sun, scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.”
The observation they’re referring to is that, from roughly 1960 to 1995, stratospheric temperatures showed a net cooling. This decline occurred at the same time that surface temperatures were rising (driven, presumably, by increasing concentrations of CO2.) Thus, the absence of a parallel rise in stratospheric temperatures negates the possibility of a solar connection.
But what’s important to note is that ozone is the primary “greenhouse gas” of the stratosphere. As NASA explains it, “Ozone is both a major absorber of incoming ultraviolet in the stratosphere (leading to stratospheric heating) and a strong emitter in the thermal infrared spectrum.” Simply put, stratospheric temperatures are maintained by concentrations of ozone. If ozone levels decline, temperatures fall.
Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”
This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.
The direct relationship between ozone and stratospheric temperature became apparent during the mid-Twentieth Century. Ozone suffered an existential threat as the continued release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) ate away at its concentrations. Stratospheric ozone levels tumbled steadily from the late 1950s onward, creating a serious, and recognized, international problem. It wasn’t until the implementation of the Montréal Protocol in 1989 that real action to reduce CFCs took effect. Revisions to the Protocol subsequently led to a more complete ban on CFC production in 1996.
As NOAA’s Ozone Depleting Gas Index demonstrates, the Montreal Protocol has succeeded in gradually restoring ozone concentrations in the stratosphere. Specifically, CFC levels in the stratosphere continually rose until roughly 1996, the point at which the effects of the Montreal Protocol began to fully register. Starting in 1996, stratospheric CFC levels actually began to decline.
This action to restore ozone shows a remarkable correlation with recent stratospheric temperatures. Whereas cooling in the stratosphere was continually evident from 1960-1996, and tracked closely with falling ozone levels, temperatures have subsequently leveled off. Specifically, net temperatures in the stratosphere have remained essentially unchanged since the late 1990s.
Unfortunately, at the IPCC, one hand seems not to know what the other is doing. And so it’s questionable whether the IPCC has considered the ozone variable when citing stratospheric cooling as an invalidator of the solar activity thesis.
What’s rather striking, though, is that the flat-lining of stratospheric temperatures since roughly 1998 corresponds quite remarkably with the current “pause” in surface temperatures. This prompts a question: Could the stabilization of ozone levels in the stratosphere help to explain the subsequent ‘pause?’
If so, would the IPCC wish to promote this fact? Such a correlation would finally solve a vexing, recent climate mystery. But it would also establish a more concrete solar connection to temperature variability.
The evidence is compelling, and the subject deserves further scrutiny.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just looked at the Wikipedia List of large volcanic eruptions of the 20th and 21st century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century
Will need a specialist to decide what to chart.
The ozone chart goes from 1979 to 2001??
“Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid fuel rocket boosters used on the space shuttle release 187 tons of ozone destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch.
Valery Burdakov, co-designer of the Russian “Energiya” rocket engine, also noted that each shuttle launch produces seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the “greenhouse effect”) and 177 tons of aluminum oxide (thought to be linked to Alzheimer’s Disease) before reaching an altitude of 31 miles. Burdakov also notes that the history of ozone depletion correlates closely with the increase of chlorine discharged by solid fuel rockets since 1981. Soviet rockets employ a fuel combination that is 2000 times less damaging than the shuttle’s but which still destroys 1500 tons of ozone per launch.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/4-nasa-space-shuttles-destroy-the-ozone-shield/
Donald asked:
“Is decrease of the differential between the equator and the poles supposed to make the jets more zonal or more meridional?”
It isn’t solely a matter of the size of the differential.
It is a matter of the size of the equatorial and polar air masses.
The oceans affect the size of the equatorial air masses as they run through their own cyclical processes such as ENSO.
The sun’s effect on ozone above 45km and towards the poles affects the size of the polar air masses.
As each waxes and wanes the interplay results in latitudinal climate zone shifting and jet stream waviness as the system seeks to retain thermal equilibrium.
One could have very zonal equatorward jets during ice ages when the polar air masses greatly expand, push equatorward, and easily resist poleward excursions from the equator.
Interestingly, a recent paper suggested persistent El Nino conditions during ice ages. If that were correct it would be because the expanded polar air masses and the development of ice caps prevented the El Nino conditions from dissipating poleward. There would have been a lot of snow though around the ice cap boundaries.
One could also have very zonal poleward jets during warm times when the equatorial air masses have little resistance from a contracted polar air mass.
Generally though the more meridionality, the more clouds and the more likely is cooling to develop over enough time to overcome the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Lock southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_sh_f00.png
1) Why is L so cold when there is 400ppm CO2? There is no H2O.
2) Why is the coastal area so much warmer? It has CO2 AND H2O.
3) Why is that one spot so red? There is a volcano beneath it. Climate “scientists” claim it is due to CO2. CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, especially in local spots.
4) Antarctica has nothing but sub zero temperatures. How does CO2 cause melting in sub zero temperatures? It doesn’t.
Oooops, that chart is for the stratosphere, or 100 h-PA, or 1/10 the atmosphere at sea level.
Ren, the ice seems to be getting “shredded” off by the winds below New Zealand and elsewhere. It still seems cold. Any comments on what is happening, and the causes, would be appreciated. Brett
Look at the pressure.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
And the forecast.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f120.png
Holes in the Recent Arctic Ozone Hole Story … by Dr. Tim Ball on October 10, 2011
http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the-recent-arctic-ozone-hole-story/
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
It is truly frightening to see an activist press team up with those most able to loot the public treasury. We have so many real issues that must be resolved but these well organized looters have us pouring money down the climate science rat hole. Once people start getting their medical treatment denied because Medicare is out of money, or the Social Security Checks get cut, and people start asking why, and the answer is it went to fund climate research so you can pay higher energy bills and have more black outs, the poop will hit the fan. Unfortunately that may be a way off in the future. This misguided priorities of these greedy climate scientists is of biblical proportions. They act with impunity and waste fortunes of the tax payers money on their own pet projects. Reform had better be coming and coming fast.
http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the-recent-arctic-ozone-hole-story/
Mark
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
That quote from Tim Ball sums up where we are.
We do know something of natural variability.
We do not know all the causes.
We do know some of the causes, but we do not understand their influence, singly, let alone together.
The atmosphere is a complex system.
The atmosphere, the oceans (in their current configuration), solar radiation, plus volcanoes as a sort of wild card, plus – whatever – add up to a very complex system.
And when we do not know which bit does what, nor how it affects other bits [if it does], our predictive ability is not much better than
“Tomorrow will be quite like today”
And, as co2islife notes, there are some criminals trying to steal gazillions from the public purse.
Some are watermelons.
Some are simply opportunists with a high regard for their own comfort, and no morals if, because of high fuel costs [to pay for the subsidies they get] old folk die of malnutrition or hypothermia.
I don’t know how many Congressmen have a degree in any of the hard sciences.
I don’t know how many MPs have a degree in any of the hard sciences.
[Ditto for other legislatures]
( I understand Vladimir Putin has a doctorate in the dark arts . . . /sarc )
A simple presentation – a Janet & John one really [when I was growing up, this was a very simple reading book system for five and six year-olds], never mind 8th grade – as espoused by
co2islife
August 14, 2015 at 7:14 pm
is a very good idea.
Auto
PS
I omitted Fat Boy Kim, the One-man, One-Vote [and he IS the man . . . .], ‘beloved leader” of the Peoples’ democratic republic of North Korea.
He seems to have a professorship in nasty murders.
Auto
Auto, re your remark to Mark
“… The practice is to ignore natural variability and mechanisms and produce “scientific” evidence for the human impact. There are human impacts, but you can only identify them if you know and understand natural variability. …”
That quote from Tim Ball sums up where we are.
I read the rest of your comment as well. but that first one says it all.
The amount of variables are astounding and I think, (unless we can all sit around the table as civilized humans, if there is such a thing), we will never understand the scope of what our planet/solar system/galaxy/universe is all about. And at my age I have a suggestion, live and let live and help your neighbors to do the same.
http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/1666959-20150814-usa-2016-al-gore-peut-contrarier-hillary-clinton#xtor=EPR-182-%5Bwe
what about Al Gore as president ?
ratu, old soul
What about Al Gore as president of – what?
Haiti [a dollar year, plus all the watermelons he wants]?
Watermelon International?
Preening Billionaires Inc.?
Red’n’Greenpeace?
no, sorry, I’m struggling!
Auto
Changes EUV radiation causes changes in temperature and density of the thermosphere.
co2islife August 15, 2015 at 6:43 am
BTW, it is worth noting that O3 is the only greenhouse gas that has its peak absorption between 9µ and 11µ which is earths peak radiation.
Peak wavelength is not the same as the peak of the energy distribution which is more relevant. CO2 is nearer to the peak energy than O3. In fact it is CO2 which is ‘ideally located on the absorption spectrum’.
Mike Crow needs to be redone and focused on the desert and Antarctica region. By doing so you would remove the absolute humidity issue. Unless you control for humidity that study may give misleading results. The deserts and Antarctica are pretty much void of humidity so you can get a better understanding of the role of CO2. IMHO this is a smoking gun way to disprove CO2 driven climate change. If the spread between daytime and nighttime highs and nighttime lows isn’t narrowing you can’t claim CO2 is trapping much heat. If daytime temps reach 100°F and fall to 80°F in 250 ppm CO2 and reach 100°F and fall to 60°F under 400ppm, CO2 can’t be the cause of warming. Using average daytime and average nightime temperatures may also give some insight.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/
BTW, it is worth noting that O3 is the only greenhouse gas that has its peak absorption between 9µ and 11µ which is earths peak radiation. If CO2 can result in warming then why not CO2 which is ideally located on the absorption spectrum? O3 near the surface is also largely limited to urban areas. Climate Scientists only look for data that supports their misguided conclusion that CO2 is the causes and they overlook much more obvious causes.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
The flat Ozone concentration corresponds with the “pause”.
http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/img/activity_pics/12_using_ozone_graph.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/12/06/ast17sep_1_resources/cfcstrip.gif
WUWT needs to host a series of High School Lesson Plans that can be printed off and given to a High School Science teacher. We need to develop a way to get the counter argument into the class rooms.
1) Use ice core data from the Holocene to test the Hypothesis “Man is not causing climate change.”
2) Understanding the IR absorption spectrum for GHGs.
3) Running correlation studies between GHGs and temperature.
4) Why does the temperature drop so much between coastal and inland Antarctica, why do temperatures drop so much in the desert.
5) What is the trend in polar bear populations
etc etcs.
These lesson plans can also be sent to politicians and political activists so that the public in general can start having a conversation instead of name calling like “deniers” and statements like “the science is settled.” We need to provide people willing to argue this issue in public the means and supporting documents to do so. That is why I keep focusing on condensing these arguments down it actionable talking points and 8 grade lesson plans. Simply preaching to the Choir isn’t enough, we all know it is a fraud, we need to convert people to our side and get them to vote. Al Gore is likely running for president on this nonsense. We need to have just an effective way to communicate to the public.
Other lesson plans:
1) What is warming the oceans, it is likely the oceans and atmosphere are warming due to different causes? Can CO2 warm the oceans, if not, what is causing the warming?
2) Why has CO2 never caused CGW in the past 600 million years even when it reached 7000 ppm?
3) How can rising CO2 explain the pause?
4) Why have the temperature data been altered to show more warming and why do they differ from satellite?
5) Review the success of the IPCC models.
6) Detail the smoking guns in the data
Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but the ozone absorption is predominantly in the stratosphere. Consequently it is not a major warming factor on the surface. You can verify this for yourself on MODTRAN, here http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
Set the ‘Strat. Ozone scale to 0’ and notice that the blip in the outgoing radiation spectrum between 9 and 10 microns is much reduced.
More importantly, ozone also blocks some of the solar radiation coming in, taking out most of the ultraviolet, and thus shields the planetary surface from the full intensity of the insolation.
The absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone warms the upper atmosphere and actually causes the stratosphere itself (a region in which the temperature rises as one goes to higher altitudes)
I understand that, but a computer model isn’t reality. That computer model doesn’t account for changes in cloudiness or changes in the zonal jet stream. IMHO all this focus on CO2 and the GHG is pure nonsense, and unlikely the cause of the warming. If we are warming we should be focused on the source of the incoming warming. If we are hitting record high daytime temperatures it is due to more sunlight reaching the earth’s surface. It strikes me that more incoming radiation is far more likely the cause of the warming than trapping outgoing radiation. Also play around with MODTRAN. A 10% change in absolute humidity basically makes any contribution by CO2 insignificant. H2O is an infinitely more potent green house gas and absolute humidity has been increasing thanks to more sunlight reaching the oceans. CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans.
When I first started work on missile guidance systems, some 50 years ago, we used a model called LOWTRAN, a precursor to MODTRAN. LOWTRAN was good then, MODTRAN is even better now. These models are not used to predict winds, jet streams or global warming. They are not General Circulation Models. They simply calculate the transmittance of radiation at various wavelengths through the atmosphere. To do that they rely on an extensive database of many 1000s of empirical measurements. Note MEASURED not modelled. The model simply collates the measured results for a given scenario.
The Mariner and Voyager spacecraft used models to plan their gravitational slingshots through the solar system, relying on rules known since the time of Isaac Newton. Some models are verified. Some models are useful. Don’t confuse them with climate models which are still in their infancy.
MODTRAN is useful. The following shows the results from MODTRAN (in red) compared to actual satellite measurements made by the Nimbus 3 IRIS instrument(Black) Hanel et al., 1972
http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/38/722d8552a9cbc163ecc372b97b57026d6b794ea6.png
I think that’s very good, certainly better than a random guess. The slight deviations are probably due to differences in the actual prevailing conditions and the standardised model atmospheres in the database.
Ozone comes and goes. You would think, in this satellite age, that we have a good handle on how to measure it. We don’t. Measuring the diurnal variation alone is a complex problem. Column ozone is equally a wicked measuring problem. Finally, the overall error bar is massively large. The tiny solar variation effect on ozone is within a very noisy data set. Given the post author’s contention that a case can be suggested that solar variability is a possible cause, me thinks he jumps too quickly off the cliff. Why do armchair solar enthusiasts continue to ignore error bars given a NOISY data set????? My back of the envelope measure of this post? Epic fail.
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/ozonetrend/proposal.pdf
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/611/2005/acp-5-611-2005.pdf
http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/atm/v20n3/v20n3a3.pdf
Distribution of ozone in the stratosphere over the polar circle changes over longer periods of time.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.png
Therefore, the pattern of circulation in winter can be very durable, even many weeks.
Uh oh. My comment did not show up. I had three pdf links in it. Might that be why?
” Stratospheric ozone levels tumbled steadily from the late 1950s onward, creating a serious, and recognized, international problem.”
—————-
Since we did not start measuring ozone until Dobson in the 50’s we only assume the changes are a problem. And as measuring became more sophisticated the holes got bigger. Relationship?
The ozone/freon scam lives on.
Yep, even as a Kid I smelled a rat. Problem is, no one is held accountable for all the wasted costs imposed on society. These sanctimonious misguided environmentalists act with impunity. There is no accountability. Millions have died due to the DDT ban and nothing is said or done. It is an outrage.
MALARIA VICTIMS: HOW ENVIRONMENTALIST BAN ON DDT CAUSED 50 MILLION DEATHS
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/whats-petas-position-on-the-animal-liberation-front-alf/
I wonder if PETA would appreciate the opposition burning down PETA offices? Funny how as long as they don’t bare the costs of their positions they support them. The moment everyone follows PETA’s approach we would have chaos. The hypocritical double standard and tolerance afforded these left-wing groups is an outrage.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/AgainstALF/PETA%20rejects%20claim%20it%20funds%20terror%20groups.htm
Some relevant links for the data and assertions made above…
WMO dismissal of solar variability:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/factsheet/documents/ClimateChangeInfoSheet2013-03final.pdf
Stratospheric Temperatures, 1958-2012:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
NASA fact page on ozone function in the stratosphere:
http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateO3/
Declining ozone, 1961-2013:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/images/ozone_depletion.png
NOAA Ozone Depleting Gas Index:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/
CFC levels in stratosphere, 1970 and beyond:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/
Ozone levels declining after 1996:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html
Stratosphere and troposphere temperatures, 1958-2012:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
IPCC report stating a linkage between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc01.pdf
“Revisions to the Protocol subsequently led to a more complete ban on CFC production in 1996.”
Ok and it appears ozone and stratospheric temps then rose. But soon after returned to nearly 96 levels? Why if the correlation is valid?
Conjecture abounds as we can have very little confidence in the role of CFCs, Ozone, CO2, the sun, water vapor or the oceans.
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_5_1.htm
“Ozone forms a kind of layer in the stratosphere, where it is more concentrated than anywhere else, but even there it is relatively scarce. Its concentrations in the ozone layer are typically only 1 to 10 parts of ozone per 1 million parts of air, compared with about 210,000 parts of oxygen per 1 million parts of air.”
With so many variables and so much unknown how in the heck can alarmists continue clinging to their most ludicrous claim that natural causes cannot explain 20th century warming.
Is it not far more rationale to assume that if we know anything it is that it is overwhelmingly likely the many natural influences are most likely the cause of everything atmospheric and climate?
That is why I keep saying test the ice core data. There is absolutely nothing abnormal about the past 50 and 150 years. Just test the Holocene period in ice cores from around the globe. None will show that the past 50 and 150 years falls outside the norm.
Theory and modelling are good scientific tools. But nothings as good as a experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Highwater .One thing man has become a expert at is blowing sh-t up and destroying it.
“Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”
This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.”
Wrong. Surface temperature initially increases with *decreasing* solar activty, by warming of the AMO and the associated drying of continental interiors, which is what happened from 1995. High solar activity levels do the reverse, particularly by stronger solar wind states as we saw in the mid 1970’s.
Low solar activity causes a blockade of circulation (increase in pressure over the polar circle) and the weakness of the wind (decrease in water vapor).
We must remember that at the beginning of 2015 the solar wind was the strongest in 24 cycle.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2010&starttime=00%3A00&endday=16&endmonth=08&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Specific Humidity levels in the upper troposphere (near stratospheric) have decreased with temperature which could be attributed to excess solar input. I’d expect these erasure in the majority of thestratosphere as well. The % of humidity variability is low in the stratosphere, but the volumes (space volume) at that altitude are much greater than near surface.
This is potentially huge. Definitely one of the more intriguing topics of late.
Yes,
If a warming stratosphere proves to be a consequence of a less active sun then climate scientists have been grossly negligent for decades.
The entire CO2 and CFC narrative would have to be consigned to the trash can.
times will tell.
starting 2016 CAGW will be dead and gone.
spare’s left for real world encounter, stay tuned to Vatican Radio.
/ sarc off /
Fine piece… too bad arrogant turds in charge of Academia, Science Journals.. and the IPCC would never consider promoting anything but CO2 related Apocalyptic Climate Factors… don’t expect any “peer reviewed” scIEnCE on this topic…
Sun, Ozone, Earths wobble orbit, massive human induced water vapor injections.. not relevant according to the horse with blinders on…
Again… fine piece