Unprecedented Arctic Ozone-Thinning Drifts South

[meteorologist]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/arctic-ozone-thinning/

[salbers]

Wonder if that's part of the reason I've been getting some sunburns lately?

Here is a further link:

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/record_depletion_of_arctic_ozone_layer_caused_increased_uv_radiation_in_scandinavia/?cHash=d1e47412e17142c25c7a361a4229653b

[Snow_Miser]

Once again, it appears this is the dirty work of something natural known as Cosmic Rays.

The cosmic ray-induced freezing

(CRIF) appears to be consistent with the observed, highly selective

formation of NAT particles. We suggest a possible physical process

behind the CRIF mechanism: the reorientation of polar solution

molecules into the crystalline configuration in the strong electrical

fields of moving secondary ions generated by passing cosmic rays. A

simple formula connecting the CRIF rate to cosmic ray flux is derived

with an undefined parameter constrained by observed NAT formation

rates. Our simulations indicate that strong solar proton events (SPEs)

may significantly enhance the formation of large NAT particles and

denitrification.

Yu, F. 2004. Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar

stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity.

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 4:2273-2283.

[salbers]

I think there are quite a few papers demonstrating CFCs as the cause of ozone holes (at least in the Antarctic)

[BethesdaWX]

This one most likely has nothing to do with CFC's at this point, the Earth's upper atmosphere cooled and collapsed as a result of the Solar Minimum. Now I don't know if that is the cause of this, but CFC's can be ruled out. The Antarctic Ozone hole in the 1980's/90's may be another story regarding CFCs, but there is still some unknown there

And "unprecedented" would require it to be "the biggest in history", which is likely untrue, or at east unknown.

bad journalism to claim something unprecedented with no proof, its a feed of bad information to the public, causing panic,and doing more harm than good just for more viewers attention.

[salbers]

It would be nice if they could state how long the history of measurements is. Let's remember though that CFC's are still near their peak, and effects from GHGs are starting to add in as well, helping to cool the stratosphere.

[BethesdaWX]

It would be nice if they could state how long the history of measurements is. Let's remember though that CFC's are still near their peak, and effects from GHGs are starting to add in as well, helping to cool the stratosphere.

The Stratospheric Temperature has been flat since 1995, and actually is beginning to warm in recent years. Climate sensitivty and a net energy balance is the issue here.....miscalculations will need to be handled if things continue this way for another 10-15yrs.

Pinatubo & other eruptions earlier on contributed to massive drops in stratospheric temperature that take a long time to recover.

Previous decline until 1995 can be attributed to

1) Ozone depletion

2) Solar Activity

3) Volcanism.

There really is no Co2 cooling evident right now

[skierinvermont]

So exactly how many trillion years do you think it will take for the stratosphere to recover from two relatively small high-frequency volcanoes? With all the volcanoes our in-house volcanologist zucker is predicting over the coming decades the stratosphere will probably cool into oblivion.

Did it ever occur to you that although the short-term cooling appears to coincide with the volcanoes, especially when you draw pretty lines on the graph like that, that the long-term trend might still be attributable to Co2? And that without CO2 the stratosphere would have recovered following each of those volcanoes?

[BethesdaWX]

So exactly how many trillion years do you think it will take for the stratosphere to recover from two relatively small high-frequency volcanoes? With all the volcanoes our in-house volcanologist zucker is predicting over the coming decades the stratosphere will probably cool into oblivion.

Did it ever occur to you that although the short-term cooling appears to coincide with the volcanoes, especially when you draw pretty lines on the graph like that, that the long-term trend might still be attributable to Co2? And that without CO2 the stratosphere would have recovered following each of those volcanoes?

Have you heard of Ozone depletion?.......and what it does to the Stratospheric temperature profile? Thats what takes time to recover. Also take into account CFC's and their effect on the Ozone Layer, which was responsible for global ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere.

Volcanism isn't something that will have long term stratospheric impacts, all the Ash is long gone. The Flat trend since 1995 has nothing to do with Pinatubo. As in, we'd see a cooling through CO2 after pinatubo since the forcing would be an increasing constant.

This is the whole point on the climate's sensitivity to CO2 emissions. There is no "recovery" driven through Ozone,we should still see cooling.

[skierinvermont]

My point is that volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo occur quite frequently and if it really took decades or centuries for the stratosphere to recover, then the stratosphere would be in a perpetual state of cooling, given the frequency of such volcanoes. We would expect that the stratopshere would warm back up within 5,10,20 years of such volcanoes. It hasn't. Why?

CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

My point is that volcanoes like El Chichon and Pinatubo occur quite frequently and if it really took decades or centuries for the stratosphere to recover, then the stratosphere would be in a perpetual state of cooling, given the frequency of such volcanoes.

I never argued contrary to that. My point was 100% related to ozone depletion related to CFC's.

Point really is there is no reason the stratosphere shouldn't be cooling right now with massive CO2 emissions...unless of course, we have over-estimated the climate system's sensitivity to CO2.

its not a "secondary forcings" to a natural recovery THROUGH Ozone.

[BethesdaWX]

We would expect that the stratopshere would warm back up within 5,10,20 years of such volcanoes. It hasn't. Why?

CO2.

What does ozone depletion have to do with CO2?

No, we would not "expect" the Stratosphere to warm up when Ozone levels stabilized/flatlined in the Early 1990's....we would expect a Flat-line...thts exactly what we have.

Its not like it will take 20 years to resume cooling after a volcano as you seem to believe...CO2 cooling should have shown up over a decade ago.

[skierinvermont]

I never argued contrary to that. My point was 100% related to ozone depletion related to CFC's.

Point really is there is no reason the stratosphere shouldn't be cooling right now with massive CO2 emissions...unless of course, we have over-estimated the climate system's sensitivity to CO2.

its not a "secondary forcings" to a natural recovery THROUGH Ozone.

Ozone depletion is, according to models, the primary cause of the cooling. The CO2 caused cooling is quite small and would be hard to detect given the inaccuracies of and discrepancies between the various observation networks, and all the other factors involved which cover up the CO2 induced cooling.

Stratospheric temperature trends are in good agreement with IPCC models because these models take into account ozone, volcanoes and CO2 among other things.

[BethesdaWX]

Ozone depletion is, according to models, the primary cause of the cooling. The CO2 caused cooling is quite small and would be hard to detect given the inaccuracies of and discrepancies between the various observation networks, and all the other factors involved which cover up the CO2 induced cooling.

Stratospheric temperature trends are in good agreement with IPCC models because these models take into account ozone, volcanoes and CO2 among other things.

Can you show exactly where the IPCC says this? I'd call BS on them if they claim its too small to see, becuse the AGW theory is all about energy imbalances & positive feedbacks.

So if CO2 cannot physically alter the energy balance between the tropopause * stratosphere, then there is no way it can effect the Troposphere & oceans, which contain 1000000X the energy budget contained in the stratosphere. The GHE simply doesn't work that way.

So, lets see it. I highly doubt the IPCC said anything like that...but I'm open to discuss this.

[nzucker]

So exactly how many trillion years do you think it will take for the stratosphere to recover from two relatively small high-frequency volcanoes? With all the volcanoes our in-house volcanologist zucker is predicting over the coming decades the stratosphere will probably cool into oblivion.

It is not my prediction, it is the Icelandic volcanologist who has been studying the cyclical nature of volcanic activity there. He seemed to think it was due to pick up...who really knows though?

Ozone depletion is, according to models, the primary cause of the cooling. The CO2 caused cooling is quite small and would be hard to detect given the inaccuracies of and discrepancies between the various observation networks, and all the other factors involved which cover up the CO2 induced cooling.

Stratospheric temperature trends are in good agreement with IPCC models because these models take into account ozone, volcanoes and CO2 among other things.

Why are you saying it's CO2, then, if the attribution to emissions is small? It seems more likely that CFCs emitted before the Montreal Protocol have destroyed ozone and caused the stratosphere to cool; the La Niña/+QBO would have enhanced this cooling this winter and caused the issue.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah, I'm sorry Skier, but that is a load of crap.

If CO2 is preventing energy from escaping the troposphere, the stratosphere would cool significantly...it has a much lower energy budget than the troposphere, and would plummet more damatically than the troposphere would rise.

The only way this would Not be true is if the warming was caused the Sun and/or loss of Cloud cover...since a loss of cloud cover does not prohibit significant amounts of IR from actually escapting the troposphere.

[skierinvermont]

It is not my prediction, it is the Icelandic volcanologist who has been studying the cyclical nature of volcanic activity there. He seemed to think it was due to pick up...who really knows though?

Why are you saying it's CO2, then, if the attribution to emissions is small? It seems more likely that CFCs emitted before the Montreal Protocol have destroyed ozone and caused the stratosphere to cool; the La Niña/+QBO would have enhanced this cooling this winter and caused the issue.

Because it's both. The theoretical cooling effect of GHGs on the atmosphere is a little less than -.1C/decade, while the effect of the rising O3 concentrations has been a little more than -.3C/decade. The O3 effect is much larger.

These anthropogenic factors have been modulated by natural factors, primarily volcanoes. Climate models accurately reproduce these effects. Bethesda's claim that there is missing stratospheric cooling is, as usual, complete nonsense. Stratospheric temperature trends are well re-produced by existing understandings of the effect of GHGs, volcanoes, and O3, as evidenced in the following paper published in 2006 in Science.

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah, I'm sorry Skier, but that is a load of crap.

If CO2 is preventing energy from escaping the troposphere, the stratosphere would cool significantly...it has a much lower energy budget than the troposphere, and would plummet more damatically than the troposphere would rise.

The only way this would Not be true is if the warming was caused the Sun and/or loss of Cloud cover...since a loss of cloud cover does not prohibit significant amounts of IR from actually escapting the troposphere.

1) Skier you haven't aswered my question regarding the IPCC. Are we suddenly changing the laws of physics?

2) Stratospheric WV, Ozone depletion due to Volcanism and the Output of CFC's do show the intended variation.

[skierinvermont]

1) Skier you haven't aswered my question regarding the IPCC. Are we suddenly changing the laws of physics?

2) Stratospheric WV, Ozone depletion due to Volcanism and the Output of CFC's do show the intended variation.

No. The laws of physics, as represented in IPCC models, accurately reproduce stratospheric temperature trends. The GHG cooling effect from CO2 is much smaller than you think and can be dwarfed by other factors. It is not possible to explain stratospheric temperature trends over the last 30+ years without CO2. The ozone induced cooling is not large enough. When we include ALL factors (O3, CO2, volcanoes) only then are we able to accurately simulate stratospheric temperature.

Because it's both. The theoretical cooling effect of GHGs on the atmosphere is a little less than -.1C/decade, while the effect of the rising O3 concentrations has been a little more than -.3C/decade. The O3 effect is much larger.

These anthropogenic factors have been modulated by natural factors, primarily volcanoes. Climate models accurately reproduce these effects. Bethesda's claim that there is missing stratospheric cooling is, as usual, complete nonsense. Stratospheric temperature trends are well re-produced by existing understandings of the effect of GHGs, volcanoes, and O3, as evidenced in the following paper published in 2006 in Science.

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Because it's both. The theoretical cooling effect of GHGs on the atmosphere is a little less than -.1C/decade, while the effect of the rising O3 concentrations has been a little more than -.3C/decade. The O3 effect is much larger.

These anthropogenic factors have been modulated by natural factors, primarily volcanoes. Climate models accurately reproduce these effects. Bethesda's claim that there is missing stratospheric cooling is, as usual, complete nonsense. Stratospheric temperature trends are well re-produced by existing understandings of the effect of GHGs, volcanoes, and O3, as evidenced in the following paper published in 2006 in Science.

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

Dude you are so clueless. Direct your little insults to my face or stfu and leave. Don't hide behind a conversation with Nate and rip little Jabs at me that are full of BS.

It would have helped for you to check the date on your paper! ...to this day, and since 1995, there has been no "Natural Factor" that would have led to the slight increase in Stratospheric Temperatures!

In fact, do you know what a Solar Minimum does to the Stratospheric Temperature profile?

[BethesdaWX]

Post the IPCC's explanation.

This is going to get bad for you in a minute.

[skierinvermont]

Stratospheric temperature has not increased since 1995. It has remained nearly exactly constant, perhaps ever so slight decrease depending on your source.

Ozone on the other hand has been increasing slowly since the mid 90s. due to the banning of CFCs. Stratospheric temperature has not increased as a result. The divergence can only be explained by the incorporation of Co2.

[skierinvermont]

Post the IPCC's explanation.

This is going to get bad for you in a minute.

As I already explained, stratospheric temperature trends can only be accurately explained using both ozone and CO2.

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

Less huffing and puffing, more reading.

[BethesdaWX]

Have you read the paper by Yongyun Hu and Ka Kit Tung?....peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Scienc? Its a full debunk of the issues presented.

It explains the issues with these theories you keep repeating.

[skierinvermont]

Have you read the paper by Yongyun Hu and Ka Kit Tung?....peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Scienc? Its a full debunk of the issues presented.

It explains the issues with these theories you keep repeating.

No, please do share. Glad to see you are finally using peer reviewed sources instead of cut and pasting garbage from skeptic blogs.

[BethesdaWX]

No, please do share.

http://journals.amet...OP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Note: The paper goes into depth on alot of things, so you may need to read a little.

Note #2: The conclusions are not directed at the GHE theory, but the mechanisms & correlations onvlived with stratospheric cooling are explainsed an the fact that they have not changed since 1995 is the point here.

Conclusion

Using 51-yr NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, we have

studied the interannual and long-term variations of planetary

wave activity, stratospheric cooling, and NAM.

Our results demonstrate that there is no evidence indicating

a decrease of planetary wave activity from the

troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales.

Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary

wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere do not

show significant changes in the past few decades. This

disagrees with the speculation that planetary wave activity

in the stratosphere might have been reduced by

altered climate conditions in the upper troposphere due

to the greenhouse effect.

Our results show that on interannual timescales the

variation of the Jan-mean polar mean temperature is

strongly driven by poleward heat flux. On timescales of

decades, however, the two are not coupled. The temperature

has a significant cooling trend in the recent 30

yr, while both the poleward heat flux and the upward

E–P flux across 100 mb do not have any significant

trend. This suggests that the cooling trend in the polar

temperatures is probably a result of radiative cooling,

due possibly to the greenhouse effect and/or ozone depletion,

and not as a result of declining planetary wave

activity.

Similarly, on interannual timescales the variabilities

of the NAM index and angular momentum are all

strongly anticorrelated with the interannual variability

of the upward E–P flux across 100 mb. For longer timescales,

the significant, positive trends in the NAM index

and angular momentum are not accompanied by a decrease

of the upward E–P flux from the troposphere.

Therefore, these positive trends can also be attributed

to radiative cooling. An evidence supporting this argument

is that the NAM trend is most significant in the

lower stratosphere (Hartmann et al. 2000), where the

cooling trend in the polar mean temperature is largest

and most significant.

In the present paper, we have mainly focused on the

variations of planetary waves, polar mean temperature,

and NAM in early and middle winter. We have not

1 JULY 2002 H U A N D T U N G 1673

touched upon the issue of stratospheric cooling in late

winter and spring. As briefly mentioned above, stratospheric

cooling trends in early versus late winter are

very different due to the radiative effect of ozone, which

becomes more important during and after the final

warming, when the sun returns. It has also been suggested

that recent stratospheric cooling in late winter

and early spring might be partly attributed to less ozone

transport from the Tropics to the Arctic polar region due

to a decrease of planetary wave activity (Coy et al. 1997;

Shindell et al. 1998). Whether or not this speculation

is true remains to be addressed.

[Vandy]

This one most likely has nothing to do with CFC's at this point, the Earth's upper atmosphere cooled and collapsed as a result of the Solar Minimum. Now I don't know if that is the cause of this, but CFC's can be ruled out. The Antarctic Ozone hole in the 1980's/90's may be another story regarding CFCs, but there is still some unknown there

While the cause of the cooling itself can be debated, it's relationship to the depletion of ozone concentrations in the cold vortex is most certainly due to increased levels of chlorine from CFC chemistry. It has everything to do with CFCs. Just as the Antarctic Ozone hole of the present (yes it's still there!) does. This is about as close to proven without a doubt as anything in science gets.

[nzucker]

Because it's both. The theoretical cooling effect of GHGs on the atmosphere is a little less than -.1C/decade, while the effect of the rising O3 concentrations has been a little more than -.3C/decade. The O3 effect is much larger.

These anthropogenic factors have been modulated by natural factors, primarily volcanoes. Climate models accurately reproduce these effects. Bethesda's claim that there is missing stratospheric cooling is, as usual, complete nonsense. Stratospheric temperature trends are well re-produced by existing understandings of the effect of GHGs, volcanoes, and O3, as evidenced in the following paper published in 2006 in Science.

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

Then why does UAH show stratospheric temperatures to be stable since 1995? Shouldn't they be falling due to carbon emissions blocking heat from being radiated from the troposphere?

[BethesdaWX]

While the cause of the cooling itself can be debated, it's relationship to the depletion of ozone concentrations in the cold vortex is most certainly due to increased levels of chlorine from CFC chemistry. It has everything to do with CFCs. Just as the Antarctic Ozone hole of the present (yes it's still there!) does. This is about as close to proven without a doubt as anything in science gets.

Its already been explained by NASA not to be CFC related, and more related to the Solar Minimum I believe.

There was no "arctic ozone hole" until very recently, in times of lower CFC conentration.

[skierinvermont]

http://journals.amet...OP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Note: The paper goes into depth on alot of things, so you may need to read a little

Just like you posting from Garbage Warmist Blogs. What goes around comes around.

I guess you didn't read what you posted. Direct quote from the study you just posted:

"the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion"

It reaffirms exactly what I have said.. trends in stratospheric temperature are due to a combination of CO2 and Ozone.

This is actually a pretty early study (2001) and advances have been made since then. Such as the 2006 study I posted.

Also, this was not posted in Science. This was published in the journal of Climate. The authors are well established mainstream climatologists that have published other articles relating to AGW, including coauthoring articles with RealClimate author Gavin Schmidt.