A full recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole could modify climate change in the Southern Hemisphere and even amplify Antarctic warming, according to scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
ScienceDaily.com: ‘Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change And Amplify Antarctic Warming’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“The authors used a NASA supercomputer model”
says it all, really.
I have read six related articles, (follow the links) and all give a different explanation, to either the cause of the recovery, or the effect the recovery will have.
A veritable smorgashboard.
Jonothan – “”The authors used a NASA supercomputer model”
says it all, really.'”
That right computer models are no good unless they support the skeptic position.
This sounds at least as speculative as Peter Harris ice age onset theory.
Did the NASA guys use the latest experimental findings that one critical intermediate reaction in the CFC ozone depletion theory runs an order of magnitude too slow?
Or that NASA once had a great atmospheric chemistry model for the CFC ozone depletion and went looking for the intermediate products and found no more than 5% of the predicted levels, then buried the results.
It might have to be described as “Hemispheric Warming” rather than global.
And Ender, you simply cannot computer model climate, because climate is a qualitative assessment of a physical state.
The operative phenomenon is WEATHER. Climate is averaged weather over an arbitrary period of time.
Empirically weather forecasts are famous for their errors – suggesting that the paradigms used for weather forecasting might be problematical.
So when climate science partitions weather on a hemispherical basis, the clearly we are reading the announcements of climate priests, not scientists.
Apologies for the previous post – we have some problems Houston.
Important work studying the influences of zone depletion on Antarctic climate. Of side note is the probable influence of SAM on droughts in Australia. Surprised this paper would surface on this blog …
What — is Big Brother finished already?
Which computer models support the ‘sceptic position?’ If you refer to Emanuel/Hurricanes – that story was about him reconsidering his position based on his own work, which involved computer models.
I think of models as being diagnostic tools limited by the factors incorporated into them.
Problems arise when models are regarded as being equivalent to the much more complex real world, and its future.
Ender!
“That right computer models are no good unless they support the skeptic position.”
Ender you don’t know me very well do you?
Why do you and specially some other prominent bloggers here, always make the assumption, that because we ask!!! only ask! mind you! we are despicable “skeptics” (sic)?
I am trying to make some sense out of all this, and the more I read the more I am confused, it would be nice to be either a simple “believer” or a simple “denier”, because then, I would read one side with more tolerance than the other.
It might not make me any wiser but sure would make me happier, knowing that I’m on the “right” side, whichever that would be!
Now a geo-engineering story and ozone:
Climate ‘fix’ could deplete ozone
Research has cast new doubt on the wisdom of using Sun-blocking sulphate particles to cool the planet.
Sulphate injections are one of several “geo-engineering” solutions to climate change being discussed by scientists.
But data published in Science journal suggests the strategy would lead to drastic thinning of the ozone layer.
This would delay the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by decades, and cause significant ozone loss over the Arctic, say US researchers.
The idea of pumping sulphur into the upper atmosphere ito counteract global warming comes from nature.
Major volcanic eruptions emit vast quantities of sulphur particles that can cool the planet significantly.
This was observed following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
But one potential drawback is that sulphates provide a surface on which chlorine gases in polar clouds can become activated, causing chemical reactions that lead to the destruction of ozone molecules.
Ozone loss
Dr Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCar) in Boulder, Colorado, and colleagues used a combination of measurements and computer simulations to estimate future ozone loss if sulphate injections were carried out.
Quantities capable of mitigating climate change would destroy as much as three-quarters of the ozone layer over the Arctic, if carried out in the next few decades, they said.
This would also delay the expected recovery of the ozone layer over the Antarctic by about 30 to 70 years, they concluded.
Ozone depletion was enhanced in the Antarctic in the Mt Pinatubo aftermath.
Dr Tilmes said more research was needed before society attempted global geo-engineering solutions in the future.
However, she said the study should not rule out the approach altogether.
She told BBC News: “Politicians have to decide what is most important – if you have climate change you might have catastrophic conditions – they might decide to do this anyway.
“If you have to make decisions you need to know what is good about it and what is bad about it. With this scheme the bad side is definitely the ozone depletion, but you can cool the climate.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7365793.stm
Ender
Computer models are worthwhile in aiding understanding of specific relations between factors, but they cannot be used as predictive tools because that assumes that the modellers are omnscient.
Computer modelling has it place, but not knowing the limitations of those models causes those, drunk with goodwill, to hope that utopia is a clear and present fact.
As one with considerable computing experience I must disagree with you Louis slightly about using the word omnscient in relation to modellers. You see Ender and his ilk believe they are! From previous discussions with Ender I have found the arguments put forward are that GCM are the word of God. There is no provable whole mathematical model of the climate. Without that any model created that purports to predict the future is a nonsense. What comes out of such models is driven by politics, greed and personal bias not fact. There are many other areas where models are used, climate is by no means the only application. The public has not connected the role of computer models in the many failures of human endeavour in the world. I wonder if a climate model has been produced that predicted instead the second coming of Jesus Christ?
To address the subject of the article more directly. I see it as a faith driven attempt to explain away the fact that Antarctica is not behaving and getting colder. It is a hypothesis no more no less. They should test it by enlarging the hole with a lot of CFC. It has no more reality than a childrens cartoon, also produced by a computer. What is amazing is we are arguing on this blog about things that do not exist. Lets argue about the after life instead!