Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” George Orwell
There it was in reality! The headline I had tongue-in-cheek considered writing for a national newspaper.
Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.
This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. Besides, the variability is wide as a 2011 Journal of Geophysical Research article explains,
“The perennial (September) Arctic sea ice cover exhibits large interannual variability, with changes of over a million square kilometers from one year to the next. Here we explore the role of changes in Arctic cyclone activity, and related factors, in driving these pronounced year-to-year changes in perennial sea ice cover.”
In addition, determination of full ice cover is problematic (Figure 1) so different analysts get different results. It is further complicated by meltwater on the ice surface that the satellite reads as open water (Figure 2). Alarmists claim these are a sign of warming, but they ignore the fact the satellite readings of ice cover are compromised.
Figure 1 What percentage would you assign?
Figure 2 Meltwater on the ice, called freshets on river ice.
It is another example of alarmists and uninformed media reporting a natural situation as unnatural. It is a lie of omission because they only presented facts that suited their story, but lying and deception are now standard and condoned practice for some people. Apparently for them the end justifies the means.
With the introduction of the new paradigm of environmentalism and the subset global warming, natural events were presented as unnatural. The strategy provided a ‘no lose’ situation. People were easily misled because they don’t know what is normal. The few with some knowledge were easily marginalized as skeptics or conspiracy theorists. The sequence is to announce the imaginary problem, produce false science to make it ‘real’, introduce political strategies that do nothing except cost jobs and inconvenience people, and wait. When conditions return to “normal,” you claim victory for your science, policies, and wisdom. It is like the ice hockey defender who was considered good when he was so slow he missed the attacker’s feint and caught him coming back.
Recent political events in Washington, Britain, and Europe remind us of Orwell’s insightful novel Animal Farm. Lying is a constant of politics, but it is now legally endorsed by the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), more appropriately the Department of Injustice. These political traits became standard for environmentalists and global warming advocates with the introduction of claims that humans were the cause of most environmental and climate change.
The characteristics of politics described by Orwell were manifest in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) beginning in November 2009. On the cover of their 2010 book Climategate, Mosher and Fuller wrote that,
“The Team led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy:
· Actively worked to evade McIntyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”
Those descriptions fit Orwell’s observations. There is no doubt what was done and who did it. The problem was compounded and the practices condoned in the cover-up that followed. The Atlantic editor Clive Crook wrote,
“I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”
Unfortunately, Crook’s remarks are similar to those made about the testimony given by FBI Director James Comey before the US Congress hearing on July 7, 2016. The Director listed all the lies, deceptions, misdirection’s, abuse of procedures, and attacks on people and groups who questioned or challenged Hillary Clinton. He then concluded there was no criminality nor requirement for accountability or punishment. He condoned the behavior just like the groups set up to investigate Climategate. The behavior condoned by Comey will continue because it is now ‘officially’ justified. We know it will continue because it has in the environmentalist and AGW communities about global warming and ozone.
The CRU debacle was not the first application of “lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” to advance a false narrative for a political agenda. It began with the “hole-in-the-ozone” issue. It was the first global-scale environmental deception. It was the first deliberately orchestrated misuse of science by a small group of people (cabal) using bureaucracies and the media for a political agenda. The public still doesn’t know there is no scientific basis for what was claimed. AGW proponents can’t let that truth emerge because it would undermine the larger ongoing global warming issue.
The revelation that the so-called “ozone hole” was recovering and almost back to “normal” was predictable. Not surprisingly, the ozone recovery story appeared under the name of Susan Solomon, a principal architect of the original ozone story and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee, described by Wikipedia as follows;
Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Solomon served the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She was a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report. She was also Co-Chair of Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report.
The ozone story reappears now because the climate change story is losing momentum; Paris COP 21 commitments are failing; polls show little or no public concern; and the public attitude to lying politicians is spreading. The ozone story reinvigorates the climate deception by claiming the originators were correct. We were correct and saved the planet with the Montreal Protocol so you must listen to us on the climate issue.
In December 2015 I explained the purpose of the Ozone scare as a trial run for the CO2 scare and the deception to follow. It had all the components; a false claim of change being due to human activity, it was false because it assumed incorrectly that UV radiation, which creates ozone, was constant; use of the claim for a political agenda; and manufactured scientific evidence to support demands for political action.
The Ozone Issue Template
The Montreal Protocol is a template, but not for pushing the need for a Climate Protocol. It is a template
· For how ozone destruction by human produced Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was a test run for the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming.
· Not because it worked, but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created a multitude of other problems.
· Because humans were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence, while natural processes were ignored.
· For using a global environmental issue as justification for establishing a world government.
· For establishing the efficacy of claiming natural events as unnatural.
· For allowing bureaucrats to create and control the entire process outside of normal scientific methods, codes of conduct, and accountability.
· For establishing how bureaucrats could control the political agenda on environmental and climate issues.
The Montreal Protocol appeared to work because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural. If they don’t know this, they are scientifically incompetent. But that doesn’t matter because they need its false success for political reasons.
Nurtured by environmental hysteria and the determination to show all changes in the natural world are due to human activity, the claim that CFCs were destroying ozone changed from an unproven hypothesis to a scientific fact. All the other ingredients were at hand; the big corporation; the dangerous manufactured product; the luxury of refrigeration improving the quality of life for rich people at the expense of the poor and the environment; and the fear of increased skin cancer, especially among children. The political juggernaut was underway as fearful people demanded political action. As H. L. Mencken said,
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Most actions did not and could not deal with the problem. One geo-engineering solution proposed to produce ozone at ground level and pump it into the ozone layer. Then someone pointed out that this required more energy than humans produce in total.
There are still no “holes in the ozone”, but the area of thinning over Antarctica continues to vary due to natural conditions. As the climate change deception falters, the counterattack builds. Out of desperation, they fall back on the illusionary “success” of the Montreal Protocol, thus risking the exposure of that charade. Orwell knew the fate of those who expose or even question the charade. He wrote,
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
The ozone hole CFC theory is all crap. First, there’s half the amount of ozone in the South Pole than global average because the thickness of the stratosphere at the poles is half the global average. Generally there’s half the number of gas molecules whether they are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide or ozone. Now our hairsprays didn’t cause the thinner polar stratosphere, that would mean our hairsprays also deformed earth from being a perfect sphere.
Second, why is CFC selectively destroying the ozone in the South Pole but not the North Pole? Because the stratospheric winds in the southern hemisphere are less effective in transporting ozone from the mid latitudes. Our hairsprays didn’t alter the southern hemisphere wind patterns.
Third, South Pole has half the ozone but also gets less than half solar radiation than the equator. So you get more UV radiation at the equator than the South Pole. 250 million Indonesians don’t mind the UV but environmentalists are scared the ice sheet in Antarctica might get sunburn or skin cancer.
Dr. Strangelove July 10, 2016 at 8:10 pm
The ozone hole CFC theory Your post is all crap.
Fixed it for you.
Dr. Strangelove July 10, 2016 at 8:10 pm
The ozone hole CFC theoryYour post is all crap.Fixed it for you.
Sorry strike didn’t work first time.
Isn’t ozone created in the stratosphere by the action of UV rays on O2? If so, it is a perfectly normal situation for the ozone level above the poles to drop each winter/spring, because we all know the sun does not shine there for almost six months at a time.
UV rays break the ozone into O2. Less ozone on summer. But ozone hole theory isn’t seasonal but geographic. They focus is on the imaginary ozone hole in Antarctica. There’s no hole, the ozone there is 1.5 mm thick
The area where the ozone column drops below an arbitrary level (the hole) reminds me of the movie The Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain
The film is set in 1917 (with World War I in the background), and revolves around two English cartographers, the pompous Garrad and his junior, Anson. They arrive at the fictional Welsh village of Ffynnon Garw (“Rough Fountain” or “Rough Spring” in Welsh) to measure its “mountain” – only to cause outrage when they conclude that it is only a hill because it is slightly short of the required 1000 feet in height. The villagers, aided and abetted by the wily Morgan the Goat and the Reverend Mr Jones (who after initially opposing the scheme, grasps its symbolism in restoring the community’s war-damaged self-esteem), conspire with Morgan to delay the cartographers’ departure while they build an earth cairn on top of the hill to make it high enough to be considered a mountain.
I remember in Chemistry class being taught that Ozone (O3) was formed in the upper atmosphere by Cosmic Rays1 or Alpha Particles from the Sun, bumping into Oxygen molecules (O2) according to the equation 3O2⇋ 2O3, a reversible reaction.
Reactive and unstable, Ozone decays pretty soon, back into O2 or an oxide of Nitrogen (NOx), there being plenty of Nitrogen around up there.
So imagine my surprise when I learned that in America Ozone is believed to come from automobile exhaust pipes in places like Los Angeles.
When, in the ‘80s a sharp eyed New York Times reporter first spotted the ‘Ozone Hole’ lurking over Patagonia in late October, I was curious. When, every year thereafter, the ‘Ozone Hole’ re- appeared at the same time and place as reported in the NYT, I became suspicious.
Now it was common knowledge among my classmates that our schoolmasters were Neanderthals, nevertheless to avoid being caned we paid attention, A.D.D. having not yet been invented.
We also knew from paying attention that the Antarctic, being a continent was 30 degrees C or more colder than the Arctic which is an ocean.
With no sunlight for six months there are no ‘Cosmic Rays’ to generate fresh ozone over Antarctica. In addition the cold dense polar air mass descends over the South Pole and heads North in every direction creating the hurricane force katabatic winds. The Earth’s rotation or Coriolis effect , take your pick, gives the Northbound wind an Easterly kick and voila! the South Polar vortex is born, giving rise to the roaring forties, or screaming fifties depending how far south you go. All of this sucks more of the remaining ozone out of the upper atmosphere.
When, in September, spring in the antipodes, the Sun pops its smiling face over the horizon to warm things up again, relatively speaking, the polar vortex weakens and the ozone depleted winter air mass spirals Northward to show up in Patagonia on cue for the annual October/November Ozone hole spotting! Apparently they couldn’t find one in the Northern Hemisphere.
To panic about the disappearing ozone, our shield against cancer causing UV radiation, seems strange given that UV radiation by creating the Ozone layer is absorbed in the process.
Apparently the energy needed to create the highly reactive Ozone molecule from the standard O2 Oxygen molecule reduces the high energy UV to a lower energy state with a corresponding longer and less harmful wavelength according to the formula E= H/λ, where E is ‘Energy’, λ (lamda) is wavelength, and H is Plank’s constant. At least that’s what they told us!
I was quite happy with this explanation for a quarter of a century until the folks in Montreal came out with their version, and being a bit of a skeptic myself, I couldn’t help but wonder if perhaps they were upset at not having a Northern Ozone hole of their own and didn’t want the Patagonians to have the only one!?
What say ye?
Mike, you say
I remember in Chemistry class being taught that Ozone (O3) was formed in the upper atmosphere by Cosmic Rays1 or Alpha Particles from the Sun, bumping into Oxygen molecules (O2) according to the equation 3O2⇋ 2O3, a reversible reaction.
Henry says
This is largely correct, but not reversible once formed in this way by the sun’s rays… and ozone is not the only chemical formed. This is the way our atmosphere is protecting us against the most energetic rays from the sun. During a time such as now, with very low solar activity, i.e. lower solar polar magnetic field strengths, more of the most energetic particles can escape from the sun and hence more ozone, peroxides and N-oxides are being formed TOA. I have a strong suspicion that peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone if more OH radicals are present, such as above the SH oceans. Hence, I think you will probably find more H2O2 in the middle of the “ozone hole”.
So we are both in agreement that there never was a “ozone hole”.
Now, looking at the absorption spectra of peroxide and ozone I was stunned about the similarities. They both show absorption in certain UV regions. What does this mean? Once the product is formed, and once the sun’s rays of this specific UV band occurs hit on the molecule, it starts re-radiating here. You can compare this process with putting on bright lights in misty conditions: The light is reflected back to you, blinding you.
[this is because water vapor has absorption in the “visible’ region]
In the case of these chemicals TOA, we speak of back radiation.
Once hit by that specific UV radiation, in the absorptive range, about 50% of the light is deflected back into the direction where it came from. In the case of more ozone and peroxide being formed TOA, it means that less UV will come through and therefore the oceans will receive less heat. Hence we are cooling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2255467
Thanks Henryp,
I doubt I will ever catch up with the 21st century but that was a nice boost and should keep me a step or two ahead of the mindless masses.
Cheers
Kind of muddled, though. The point is that UV photons can split an oxygen molecule into two independent atoms of oxygen, which is a highly unfavored state. These oxygen atoms can do all of three things: combine with an oxygen molecule (O2) to form ozone (O3); combine with a nitrogen molecule (N2) to form nitrous oxide (N2O), or combine with another oxygen atom to form an energetic molecule of oxygen. (I don’t know whether and to what extent UV can similarly split nitrogen molecules. Since nitrogen cannot form N3, the question may be moot.) These reactions are proportional to the chemical affinity and the relative population of dance partners. At the altitudes where this occurs, hardly any water (H2O) is present, so I wouldn’t be expecting much hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to be observable.
Oh, the utility of ozone is that it absorbs the REST of the UV coming down from the sun. Ozone formation only absorbs part of the UV.
About half the UV gets sent back into space anyway from Rayleigh scattering.
Michael J. Dunn says
(I don’t know whether and to what extent UV can similarly split nitrogen molecules. Since nitrogen cannot form N3, the question may be moot.) These reactions are proportional to the chemical affinity and the relative population of dance partners. At the altitudes where this occurs, hardly any water (H2O) is present, so I wouldn’t be expecting much hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to be observable.
Oh, the utility of ozone is that it absorbs the REST of the UV coming down from the sun. Ozone formation only absorbs part of the UV.
About half the UV gets sent back into space anyway from Rayleigh scattering.
Henry says
Your comments at this time are a bit suspicious and somewhat dubious, at best. Are you out here to sow confusion?
I have explained [to Phil.] that the big solar flares can produce particles that are so bad for you that they would kill you. Don’t go to Mars….[Anyway, I am not sure why anyone would go to Mars. Starting something in the middle of the Sahara desert has a much more reasonable chance of success?]
I am pretty sure those most energetic solar particles can split up nitrogen. How would you know for sure that they cannot? I have read several papers showing that peroxides HxOx are formed TOA but I am too tired and too lazy to look it up now. I will wait for you to prove to me that it would not be reasonable for me to think that water vapor molecules can travel up TOA and be split up into OH radicals due to the extreme vacuum encountered.
You don’t expect to see peroxides TOA? How would you know for sure if you have not measured?
Like I said
go measure
go figure
come back to me when you have actually measured something….
[reading all my graphs of results published on this blog would be a beginning]
Raleigh scattering is a term used by people for radiation returned to space of which the origin is not exactly certain….. unfortunately it includes back radiation caused by the O3, HxOx, NxOx,
so bringing that up does not help much, except sow confusion….
Dear HenryP,
1) Oxygen has a double-bond energy of 119 kcal/mole. A UV photon has to have this energy (or greater) to split an oxygen molecule into atomic oxygen. Nitrogen has a triple-bond energy of 226 kcal/mole, so there will be far less UV capable of dissociating the nitrogen molecule. The bond energy of a hydrogen attached to an oxygen is 111 kcal/mole, so it is very expectable that water would be dissociated by UV…but will probably recombine into water, hydrogen, and oxygen. HO2 is not a stable configuration, and a hydroxyl (OH) would have to meet another hydroxyl in order to beautiful music together. As it turns out, OH (and other radicals) mainly serve to reduce ozone back into oxygen.
2) The ozone layer occurs at 20 to 30 km above the earth (mid stratosphere). At 25 km, the atmospheric pressure is 2.5 kPa (19 mmHg) and the temperature is about 221.65 K. The triple point of water occurs at 0.611 kPa and 273.16 K. Ice clouds can form at these altitudes, yes, but they are very thin. Cold air is very dry. I think I am justified in NOT EXPECTING MUCH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (note the difference between “much” and “any”).
3) Rayleigh scattering is an atmospheric light-propagation phenomenon proportional to the inverse fourth power of the wavelength, which is why the sky is blue. UV is scattered thoroughly, which means half of the photons will not reach the surface of the Earth. Infrared radiation is not affected by this. (It is scattered by other processes.)
Suspect all you want; I can’t control your paranoia. Anything I have mentioned is based on scientific fact, as I have known and practiced it. What you have explained to Phil about solar particles (protons and electrons) is nonsense, as they have nothing to do with UV dissociation of atmospheric molecules. They are intercepted by the Van Allen belts and shielded by the ionosphere, far above the ozone layer. There is no point in arguing over facts.
So, what are we left with, Hank? It is abundantly clear to me (if not to you) that you don’t know what I am talking about. And you haven’t done your homework in being knowledgeable about UV dissociation and Rayleigh scattering. Based on this encounter, reading all your graphs of all your results is not a prospect I would regard as being worth my time. There is nothing I need prove to you, If you find factual information “confusing,” you have a problem.
blah, blah ,blah
blah, blah, blah
you sound exactly like Phil.
….
and what exactly did you measure yourself???
HenryP July 14, 2016 at 9:37 am
I am pretty sure those most energetic solar particles can split up nitrogen.
Yes they do, but up in the upper thermosphere well above the stratosphere where the atmosphere is mainly composed of N atoms, O atoms and helium.
How would you know for sure that they cannot? I have read several papers showing that peroxides HxOx are formed TOA but I am too tired and too lazy to look it up now. I will wait for you to prove to me that it would not be reasonable for me to think that water vapor molecules can travel up TOA and be split up into OH radicals due to the extreme vacuum encountered.
Water molecules have a hard time passing through the temperature minimum at the tropopause, water is formed ‘in situ’ by reactions with methane which is able to pass through the tropopause.
You don’t expect to see peroxides TOA? How would you know for sure if you have not measured?
Generally H2O2 is so unstable that it would only have a very short lifetime, measurements made in the stratosphere are about 100 ppt volume fraction. Compared with O3 at about 10ppm.
Raleigh scattering is a term used by people for radiation returned to space of which the origin is not exactly certain….. unfortunately it includes back radiation caused by the O3, HxOx, NxOx,
so bringing that up does not help much, except sow confusion….
Wrong, Rayleigh scattering is the scattering by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. Because of the inverse dependence of Rayleigh scattering on the fourth power of the wavelength a substantial fraction of the incident UV light is scattered, approximately equal amounts forward and back scattered.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
clearly, they are talking about the back radiation caused by molecules in the air.
we know that a number of components, like nitrogen have no absorption in their spectra, hence they allow all sunlight through. Some components, like O3 and H2O2 have absorption in the UV region. Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]
Hence, ozone and H2O2 & others give you an anti-greenhouse effect. In fact, that effect is big. Much bigger than the actual GH effect caused by CO2….[think of the wavelengths involved]
hence what is happening -to explain the Gleissberg cycle:
=> we have very low solar polar magnetic field strengths
=> we have more of the most energetic particles being released from the sun\
=> we have more ozone, peroxide and N-oxides being formed TOA
= > we have more UV being back radiated to space
= > we have less heat into the oceans
= > hence we now are globally cooling.
You, Phil. and Dunn, have this wonderful book knowledge but it seems to me you never actually measured anything yourself. I want to challenge you to go to Alaska and see if you can repeat my results on falling maximum temperatures, here:
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
@Phil. and dunn
I refer to Tables II and III http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
I challenge you to come up with an acceptable explanation for the Gleissberg cycle
HenryP July 16, 2016 at 5:28 am
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
clearly, they are talking about the back radiation caused by molecules in the air.
No clearly they are talking about Rayleigh scattering by molecules in the air which is elastic and occurs in all directions! Actually as you’ll see in the link below it is scattered in a figure 8 manner, with two equal lobes, one forward and one reverse with a minimum of ~50% at 90º to the line of illumination. Because of the inverse dependence on wavelength to the 4th power this is a very strong effect in the UV (~16X that at red wavelengths). This is responsible for the blue color of the sky (blue scatters ~4X red).
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/scattering_lecture_slides.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00260.1
At high zenith angles almost all the UV is scattered by the time it reaches the surface. (See figure 1).
Note because of the high cross section at those wavelengths there will be multiple scattering of the UV.
One consequence of this scattering is that at the surface UV casts virtually no shadows! This is beautifully illustrated in that paper, (the UV lens they used is excellent, it’s the one I used in my lab for UV imaging measurements).
we know that a number of components, like nitrogen have no absorption in their spectra, hence they allow all sunlight through.
No, Rayleigh scattering has nothing to do with absorption, most of the R scattering in our atmosphere is by N2 and O2.
Some components, like O3 and H2O2 have absorption in the UV region. Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]
No, absorption of UV by O3 and H2O2 caused their photodissociation and therefore the absorbed energy is used in bond breaking and isn’t re-emitted!
O3+uv -> O2 + O, H2O2 + uv -> 2OH also H2O2 + uv -> HO2 + H and H2O2 + uv -> H2O + O
Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere.
Hence, ozone and H2O2 & others give you an anti-greenhouse effect. In fact, that effect is big. Much bigger than the actual GH effect caused by CO2….[think of the wavelengths involved]
Clearly not, this is based on your misunderstanding of the processes involved.
You, Phil. and Dunn, have this wonderful book knowledge but it seems to me you never actually measured anything yourself.
You, Henry, have very little of the required ‘book knowledge’ to discuss this matter, I suggest you read the two links above as a start.
Contrary to your assumptions my career has been based on making measurements, including ~20 years as lead researcher in a world class research lab. involving inter alia developing laser diagnostic techniques for those measurements. Forty years ago I was responsible for the development of a novel light scattering instrument which was commercialized and revolutionized the industry. The method I developed in conjunction with an instrument manufacturer is now referred to as the ‘traditional’ technique, I’m getting old!
One of the many places I’ve lectured on my research is Stellenbosch, perhaps you’ve heard of it Henry, did some wine tasting and whale watching while there as well.
I want to challenge you to go to Alaska and see if you can repeat my results on falling maximum temperatures, here:
If I go to Alaska it will most likely be to do some salmon fishing, did you actually make those measurements Henry?
Phil. says
Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere.
Henry says
That is in fact the main big misunderstanding. Heating up the atmosphere is of no consequence because it has no mass…
the oceans have great mass. Water has [some] absorption in the UV and all UV entering would eventually have to end up as heat. The variation of heat [UV] entering the oceans is what causes the Gleissberg cycle.
I am a chemist and a statistician. As such, my main concern was to find an explanation for my own results….not those of others.
Here is the one from southern Africa [Stellenbosch….etc…]
all original data [including Elmendorff/Alaska] come from tutiempo.net as I don’t trust any Anglo Saxon data anymore after finding some considerable deviation in results between those of Gibraltar [UK] and three stations around it; two in Spain and one in Morocco….
As you can see, the data show that there never has been any warming here in southern Africa, never mind the AGW….
How do I explain all the curves as published on the current blog fyi?
I have always found that 4 points are sufficient to define function/relationship
I started looking at AGW about 6 or 7 years ago as a hobby, starting out as a firm believer of agw
At the end of all of my investigations – where I have to explain to myself what is happening…it is that a tiny amount of ozone and peroxides and N-oxides is what changes the amount of UV entering the oceans…
it would be nice to meet you one day, though, because I enjoyed our conversations that gave me some directions in how to find an explanation for my own results. May be you have to go back to the very first graph that started off the whole discussion about the GH effect and the principle of re-radiation?
At the end of the day [our lives] all our love for God and men and all our knowledge goes back into the box. But even, for those who know the Way, I am sure we will be able to discuss our disagreements as well, even beyond our life.
HenryP July 18, 2016 at 10:56 am
Phil. says
“Subsequently that energy would end up heating the atmosphere”.
Henry says
That is in fact the main big misunderstanding. Heating up the atmosphere is of no consequence because it has no mass…
That wasn’t the issue Henry, what you said was:
“Hence, when UV falls on those molecules, approximately 50% of that light [absorptive region] is returned in the direction where it came from [some say 62.5%]”
As I pointed out above that isn’t true, that energy remains in the earth’s system, also the atmosphere has a heat capacity equivalent to the top 2.5m of ocean, it is not negligible (most of the deep ocean doesn’t mix with the upper ocean so doesn’t come into play on our short timescale).
\phil. says
the atmosphere has a heat capacity equivalent to the top 2.5m of ocean, it is not negligible (most of the deep ocean doesn’t mix with the upper ocean so doesn’t come into play on our short timescale
/henry says
well, surely this is where we disagree most
the heat getting into the oceans is what determines T on earth
the UV going into the oceans is what determines Tglobal
like I said
go measure
go figure
as I said
Tglobal is influenced up an down by the amount of UV reaching the oceans
there is no other way to explain Gleissberg…..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2259196
HenryP July 19, 2016 at 11:35 am
\phil. says
the atmosphere has a heat capacity equivalent to the top 2.5m of ocean, it is not negligible (most of the deep ocean doesn’t mix with the upper ocean so doesn’t come into play on our short timescale
/henry says
well, surely this is where we disagree most
the heat getting into the oceans is what determines T on earth
the UV going into the oceans is what determines Tglobal
Sorry Henry, most of the UV doesn’t make it to the surface (and only constitutes ~8% of the total insolation anyway), that’s what we’ve been talking about! The visible and near IR is what heats up the oceans.
You state
“Orwell knew the fate of those who expose or even question the charade. He wrote,
‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.’ ”
Doesn’t look like Orwell actually wrote that
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/24/truth-revolutionary/
The Montreal Protocol was one of the most important decisions of our time. As I explained in an earlier post, chlorine depletes the ozone layer, and chlorine is abundantly present in chlorofluorocarbons, which were freely emitted to the atmosphere as CFC propellants in spray cans during the last third of the 20th century. CFCs are broken down on polar stratigraphic clouds, and my colleague, Peter Ward, and I have shown that the dramatic warming during that particular time interval was most likely caused by CFCs from spray cans, and other anthropogenic sources of CFCs, mundane though it may seem (https://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Causes-Global-Warming/dp/1630477982). Putting an end to global warming was not the reason for the Montreal Protocol, but it was its unintended consequence, hence the “hiatus” from 1998 to 2014. Under natural conditions, we show that destructive chlorine is supplied to Earth’s ozone layer by hydrogen chloride released from non-explosive (basaltic) volcanoes, which do not erupt ash and SO2 high in the stratosphere to form cooling aerosols, as explosive (andesitic) volcanoes do, hence the sudden uptick in warming in 2015 (Iceland’s Bardarbunga volcano). Warming is now returning to “normal.” Earth is a complex system, indeed the most complex we know, and simplistic and unproven views or assumptions, such as are expressed in this post, and “CO2 causes global warming,” are not helpful. We must therefore never forget that the release of chlorine to the atmosphere is likely the true cause of global warming, and we must do everything in our power to avoid it.
you have it sort of half right…. more ozone, peroxides and N-oxides TOA mean less UV into the oceans…
causing natural cooling and warming cycles.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2255467
davidbennettlaing,
Could you please give a brief explanation of how your proposed ozone based global warming mechanism works?
It does not make sense
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/comment-page-1/#comment-2256722
Chlorine is released to the atmosphere, by spray cans (CFCs) or non-explosive, basaltic volcanoes (HCl). It propagates upward to polar stratospheric clouds, where it is photodissociated in late-winter. Released chlorine depletes the ozone layer, which allows more solar UV-B to penetrate to Earth’s surface, causing global warming. For more information, see our book (url in first post).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/comment-page-1/#comment-2256722
See our book.
You guys are on the right track by noticing that decreasing ozone corresponds with warming periods. Increasing ozone corresponds with cooling.
Everything that happens TOA by the solar radiation influences the weather, not only the ozone being formed but other components as well….
it follows the Hale cycles
For example global T and rainfall, here
The weather just works like a clock. God is good. Man is arrogant to think he can ‘change’ the weather….
unfortunately, all of this does not change the fact that the next big [dust bowl] drought is on its way to the great plains of America….
H. L. Mencken understood it: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. ”
ANY controversy is a lever that can be used to divide people, demonize one side (usually the rational side), and induce the other side (usually the more gullible) to support whomever screams loudest from the podium.
This article is a good example of simplistic thinking. It ignores the presence and function of Earth’s massive Moon and the lack of an equivalent in the case of Venus or Mars. Moon stabilizes Earth’s axis, such that it’s inclination from a vertical to the plane of the ecliptic has never deviated more than a degree from its present 23½ degrees. Had Moon not been there, the axis would have been able to swing freely, allowing such inclinations around 90 degrees, which would have presented Earth’s polar regions to direct insolation for significant periods during the solstices. Earth’s oceans would not have survived the ensuing 24/7 insolation and would have first evaporated and then photodissociated, leaving Earth with a much-diminished hydrogen-to-deuterium ratio, such as is found on both Mars and Venus, both of which have lost their oceans due to insolation made possible by uncontrolled swings of their rotational axes. Interestingly, the hydrogen-to-deuterium ratio is lower on Venus than it is on Mars, indicating its more comprehensive loss of water. The “Godlilocks” model of life formation with simple distance from the primary star is obsolete, and should be discarded.
The above comment should have been posted to the article on comparison between life on Earth and its absence on Venus, q.v.
Does anyone have a source for data showing how UVA and UVB radiation hitting the earth’s surface in the antarctic has changed over time? You know, how it must have increased as the “hole” enlarged? /sarc
Good question!
As per the Hale solar cycles, warming was from 1951-1994 and the cooling cycle started in 1995
so I predict that the results will show that UV (at sea level) ) was decreasing from 1951 and increasing again from 1995.
Indeed, amongst a number of other factors, ozone in Arosa has been going down from the 1950’s and is going up from 1995.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2255467
Climategate was a blessing for warmists. After the embarrassing quality of data keeping was revealed, clistrologists went over it with extreme diligence and found it was in fact worse than CRU thought.
Turning a negative into a positive is how you survive in the modern world. They are role models for all with ambition to succeed.
Tim Ball ; have you read this article from WUWT ?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/02/scientists-claim-they-have-observed-first-signs-of-healing-in-the-antarctic-ozone-layer/
Dear Tim, begging your pardon, but my observation of the Ozone Hole issue started before the science got to it. What I suspected was a program for private commercial gain.
The greatest lurk in business comes in three grades. #1. Persuade a government to mandate the use of your product, #2. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your competitor’s product, and #3. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your less profitable product, thereby mandating the use of your more profitable product.
I strongly suspected #3 above at work. I have read since stories supporting that, indicating that the Science was bought. No doubt the success of the ozone hole program led the AGW push to follow the model, but I saw that as post facto.