Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. This startling discovery was made by a team of scientists from the UK’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science and Universities of York and Leeds. It has particular significance because ozone in the lower atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas and its destruction also leads to the removal of the third most abundant greenhouse gas; methane.
Professor Alastair Lewis, Director of Atmospheric Composition at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science and a lead scientist in this study, said: “At the moment this is a good news story — more ozone and methane being destroyed than we previously thought – but the tropical Atlantic cannot be taken for granted as a permanent ‘sink’ for ozone.
Professor John Plane, University of Leeds said: “This study provides a sharp reminder that to understand how the atmosphere really works, measurement and experiment are irreplaceable. The production of iodine and bromine mid-ocean implies that destruction of ozone over the oceans could be global”.
ScienceDaily: Destruction Of Greenhouse Gases Over Tropical Atlantic May Ease Global Warming
Reference:
Katie A. Read, Anoop S. Mahajan, Lucy J. Carpenter, Mathew J. Evans, Bruno V. E. Faria, Dwayne E. Heard, James R. Hopkins, James D. Lee, Sarah J. Moller, Alastair C. Lewis, Luis Mendes, James B. McQuaid, Hilke Oetjen, Alfonso Saiz-Lopez, Michael J. Pilling, John M.C. Plane. Extensive halogen-mediated ozone destruction over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Nature, 453, 1232-1235 (26 June 2008) DOI: 10.1038/nature07035
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Your headlines are reading more and more like some trashy tabloid Paul! Next we’ll be reading :”Sex! Now that I’ve got your attention read here for the lowdown on the lower atmosphere!!
The headline is accurate – it seems the red-green agenda just doesn’t like it. Tough!
>state-of-the-art climate models…
Paul this is chemistry not climate. The climate models used by the IPCC do not generally include a tropospheric chemistry model.
David,
Well maybe they should?
Either way – the models didn’t predict it.
Paul – “Either way – the models didn’t predict it.”
They also did not predict that Spain would be in this year’s Euro cup final – should they have done this as well?
No, but they should predict that the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.
The only successful predictions the IPCC has ever made is in predicting where the next gathering of spongers and freeloaders will be held. 100% success on this front!
I put Spain’s success down to the fact that AGW is making them drink less;
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=70440
“Either way – the models didn’t predict it.”
Give up, Paul. You know you lost this one.
Descending in silliness again – what has Spain and Euro 2008 got to do with climate or climate models? Nothing. Climate models are used to make projections based on assumptions and the current inadequate understanding of the climate system.
Careful SJT, Paul doesn’t like being told he is wrong! LOL!
“Careful SJT, Paul doesn’t like being told he is wrong! LOL!”
It just goes to show, yet again, people criticising what they don’t understand. I am well aware of my limitations in this area of knowledge, maybe some sceptics should be a more aware of their limitations too.
As a matter of fact Paul is right; this effect has been known about for a while;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~jochen/research/hox/hox.html
What the Read paper does is put some observational teeth into the theory. Prof Lewis (from the linked Science Daily report) says that fossil-fuel sourced nitrogen oxides will upset this delicate balance and convert the Atlantic from an Ozone sink to a source; the reactive halogens facilitate conversion of NO to NO2; since NO concentration is a factor determining photolytic ozone production, extra NO will apparently stretch the effect of the halogens and result in less Ozone being destroyed. Trust an AGW supporter to be -ve; but this still begs the question of why the levels of the halogens are what they are; maybe they increase as a result of Ozone levels.
In any event, the main point from this paper is that, once again, IPCC models are shown to be inadequate and inappropriate as a base for AGW measures. The paper also reminds us that nature still has surprises and that the moral context of AGW has alot of womb envy present in its deference to mother nature.
“The paper also reminds us that nature still has surprises ”
Scientists don’t know that nature still has suprises? Good grief, why do you think they like doing research?
SJT get off the pot or sjt.
There is a huge bloody “hole in the balance sheet of greenhouse gases that needed to be explained.”
“This unexpected discovery implies that the mathematical model for calculating the various sources of global warming could be flawed” Duh.
If John Plane at the University of Leeds is right, then the science ain’t settled, of course, we already knew that. And Johnny is in a heap of trouble with Had/CRU. Poor tacker didn’t know who he was &%*&ing with, now his career is set to go down the memory hole.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ieZJZzkWLLf2ZPP4ytqtD_yXFeZg
You blokes might want to start adjusting your gameboy GCMs, eh? Could take a few years to work out the details though.
Wonder if we should put C-trading on hold until we have the facts sorted? Nah. Go for it. What’s a couple of trillion among mates? If it all turns belly up, we’ll just put on show trials for Hansen, Mann, Briffa, et al. Crimes against humanity, fraud, etc. Heads will roll, as they do.
Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to patch another Pacman flaw in the GCMs: relative humidity seems to be crashing in the UT against the best intentions of the IPCC. Go figure.
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
(reminds me of Ender’s claim that “advance weather forecasting methods” would someday “schedule the wind.” for the UK’s windfarms.)
Seems like modeling complex nonlinear systems the size of the biosphere is still a teenie weenie bit bigger problem than ten trillion butterflies flapping in Canberra can solve just yet. Get Ross on the phone!
Don’t sell those beach front properties yet, mates.
What a beatup – LOL !
Again Wes demonstrates why he’s better at ranting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/more-pr-related-confusion/
RealClimate ??
More science fiction?
Oh, Well, if realclimate says it is all crap then it must be so. My apologies, Luke. Reset your gameboys, mates. No worries. The apocalypse is still on schedule. Thank God.
“This study provides a sharp reminder that to understand how the atmosphere really works, measurement and experiment are irreplaceable.”
Amen!
Now that’s something to print on my next Christmas cards!
Let’s read the paper’s abstract:
“the mean daily observed ozone loss is approx 50 per cent greater than that simulated by a global chemistry model using a classical photochemistry scheme that excludes halogen chemistry.”
“The omission of halogen sources and their chemistry in atmospheric models may lead to significant errors in calculations of global ozone budgets, tropospheric oxidizing capacity and methane oxidation rates, both historically and in the future.”
The pseudanonymous blog pests SJT and Travis really don’t have anything other than snark to offer.
According to
http://www.ji-cdm-austria.at/en/portal/kyotoandclimatechange/ourclimate/greenhouseeffect/
the percentages of the total greenhouse effect are as follows:
67%+ H2O (water)
15% CO2 (carbon dioxide)
10% O3 (ozone)
3% CH4 (methane)
3% N2O (nitrous oxide)
This means that the impact of ozone on “the climate”, as they say, is 2/3 that of CO2.
Take half of the ozone out of the picture–le voila! CO2 is more important than we thought. (Insert sound of retching.)
Wouldn’t the amount of co2 control the amount of phytoplankton in the ocean? It’s sort of a negative feedback loop. More co2 = more phytoplankton = more bromine and iodine oxide = less ozone = more byproducts from the breakdown of ozone = less methane.
Equalibrium achieved.
Um, I don’t suppose these halogens could rise and destroy the ozone layer?
Schiller is that the only source for those percentages? The article does say 15% for CO2 at the beginning but somehow it changes to 50% in the second section. The first section “The natural greenhouse effect” is quite a worry. It has a literal explanation in that the air around us is comparable to glass and the heat is trapped on the surface of the Earth. The air does not get a mention in any heating effect except to reflect heat nor is there any mention of circulation. The article is very short on information and logic. I think it is an unsound source but I have no problem with the thrust of your argument. I am studying Climate Models and find the precepts quite “achievable”. All you have to do is consider an infinite number of inputs many of which you don’t know about and then choose the right ones to incorporate. The ones you choose then require their dynamic properties set to values you are not sure about. All quite simple really! Some above have argued ozone isn’t included in GCMs and so it not being predicted is not a problem, that’s a cop out. If ozone is thought to affect climate then if it is not included the GCMs are still flawed.
DHMO; wes notes the decline in RH, which in the scheme of things is a massive -ve feedback; what this paper is talking about is another -ve feedback through halogen activity; I presume you are familiar with Miskolczi’s model which postulates a controlled GH effect by virtue of real boundary -ve feedbacks? This would seem to be another confirmation of the validity of his model and another failure of the IPCC models which are the opposite.
Cohenite what I was saying to Schiller was that he had quoted information from a doubtful source. No I had not heard of Miskolczi’s model. I am currently studying climate models as a general subject. I have a long experience in software engineering but not in that field. My opinion is that GCMs of any description are not of any worth. If a GCM agrees with your view or contradicts it doesn’t mean anything. The more I learn about them the more I become convinced that that they are a waste of time. An infinite number inputs into an open system is not all that easy. Current GCMs have an output that is quite often hard to distinguish from random output, according to what I am reading.
DHMO
Your comments about modelling climate is refreshing, considering your background in software engineering.
Weather is a non-linear, coupled chaotic (turbulent) system.
In my area of expertise, geology and mineral exploration using geophysics, we have one rule – if the system becomes non-linear, all bets are off.
I use the scientific method to find mineral deposits which involves setting up an hypothesis, based on data, the exploration model, collecting new data (sampling, whether geochemical or geophysical), and testing it by drilling.
While I am adept in geostastics in the Matheron sense, (and my MSc. was on an application of geostats to an orebody) I remain ambivalent over its utility. Geostats is better described as Geomathematics, after Fritz Agterbergen, rather than statistics.
Pure statistics is about summarising physical properties of sampled populations numerically. They cannot be used as factors in mathematical equations, because they are not mathematical factors.
I suspect the computerised global climate models are confusing statistics with measured physical parameters, apart from having no basis in empirical fact (the climate sensitivity fiction).
So why model climate? Why model economies using econometrics? The two disciplines are linked in the IPCC straw man.
As a student of the Von Mises economic theory, one cannot computer model human activity, economics. As a geoscientist I equally assert that one cannot computer model the weather system that is a non-linear, chaotic one.
Combine these two and you end up with a technically sophisticated and complex model of BS.
Correction, Fritz Agterberg, author of the text, Geomathematics.
Commemorating the 20 th anniversary of James Hansen’s historical speech before congress.
Plus, classic, must have, graph from Hansen’s original 1988 presentation.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
“Yes, 2008 has been far colder than 1988. We have seen no warming trend in the last 10 years, and temperatures have undershot every one of Hansen’s forecasts. He thought the world would be a degree C warmer in 20 years, and it is not. Of course, today, he says the world will warm a degree in the next 20 years — the apocalypse never goes away, it just recesses into the future…”
DHMO, I certainly won’t disagree with your view of GCM’s, especially given Koutsoyiannis’s study which, surely, must put at least one stake through AGW; my point about Miskolczi was that his model predicts -ve feedbacks, in fact relies on them; and lately we have had a welter of them,; clouds, reactive halogens, declines in humidity, enlargement of oceanic sink capacity; as they say, it takes a thief to catch a thief; and Miskolczi’s model seems closest to the non-linear nature of climate; Miskolczi’s 2 papers and a review of them may be found here;
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/
Eyrie probably the ozone layer moves down to the halogen’s level, (or at least meets halfway) due to the cold temperature condencing the air over Antarctica, and the centrepidal effect of the Earth’s spin.
Since ozone has been proven to be a menace to civilization, and the planet’s climate in general, and darling pinnipeds and Polar Bears in particular (which have lost their former ability to endure any sort of change) [Travis, 2008 frothing op. cit], it’s time we urgently address this rampant problem.
One nefarious source of ozone is office machines, such as printers and copiers. [1] Since a ban on them would handicap governments and activist groups alike (or do I repeat myself?), other measures are necessary.
To combat the buildup of ozone, we should align ourselves with the valiant efforts of the environment itself, to rid ourselves of this planet-baking gas.
This can be done by encouraging the use of Freon. This industrial gas has widely been outlawed because of its impact on ozone. [2]
If we established Freon factories worldwide simply for purposes of releasing it into the atmosphere, we could work hand-in-hand with Nature to combat this scourge.
Oops! The Freon/”ozone hole” scare is just another fraud, [3] on a par with the Hansen/Gore AGW. [4]
Oh well.
Notes:
[1] http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/OfficeMach/copiers.htm#9
[2] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365o.html
[3] http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/1629
[4] http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
Gee you’re a confused guy aren’t you Schillsbo.
Ozone in the stratosphere is actually BENEFICIAL unless you like melanoma.
Ozone in confined spaces is potentially toxic. Indeed you may even find that ozone is used as a powerful sterilising agent. Good technology in some applications to nuke bacteria in water if you can vent the ozone afterwards.
Do you have any serious evidence that the ozone hole is irrelevant. You know something more definitive than Heartland denialist central.
Here’s a helping hand – the argument you are trying (hopelessly) to pursue is that the ozone hole is “natural” and stratospheric CFCs are not an issue. Try to get over the target eh? Run the Mt Erebus volcano line about NOW !
A little background on organic halogens.
http://www.eurochlor.org/index.asp?page=91
Organic forms of halogens are ubiquitous in rain and snow. Measurements of the group parameter AOX (adsorbable organic halogens) in precipitation collected in both populous and rural areas in central and northern Europe have shown that, over broad areas, the average concentration of such substances is 5-10 mg/L. At more remote sites, such as northern Sweden and Finland and the Russian tundra, the average concentration is 1-5 mg/L.
So Halogens are in water vapor, clouds, where ever their is humidity.
Why couldn’t halogens be responsable for ozone hole depletion?
I see that Luke and his usual alarmists suspects can not answer Paul Biggs post:
“Let’s read the paper’s abstract:
“the mean daily observed ozone loss is approx 50 per cent greater than that simulated by a global chemistry model using a classical photochemistry scheme that excludes halogen chemistry.”
“The omission of halogen sources and their chemistry in atmospheric models may lead to significant errors in calculations of global ozone budgets, tropospheric oxidizing capacity and methane oxidation rates, both historically and in the future.””
What about the modeling errors?
Luke,
Come on, you know better than this. The “ozone hole” was discovered well before the widespread use of Freon, and since then, observations are that it fluctuates regularly.
Indeed, that the “hole” isn’t much different than it was when it was first discovered.
Which means, of course, that restrictions on Freon have had as much effect on “the hole” as the supposed man-made surge in CO2 has led to “global warming.”
Which is to say, no effect at all.
You may, of course, continue to rely on the “Messiah effect”, i.e., that the future is certain, but nobody knows when.
But people who consider curiosity to be a virtue need more than that.
Schiller writes:
>and darling pinnipeds and Polar Bears in particular (which have lost their former ability to endure any sort of change) [Travis, 2008 frothing op. cit],
This is the thread Schiller where I am ‘frothing’
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003060.html#comments
With such pearls as:
‘Nowhere is there an explanation of why bears die for lack of ice.
Nowhere is there an explanation of why neither seals nor bears will refuse to follow the icy habitat which is said to be their preference–however the boundaries of that habitat may change.
Therefore, if we engage in the foolish presupposition that all the ice on the northern pole turns to water, we are left with no explanation of why seals or bears would be “endangered” in such an unlikely circumstance.
Your ridiculous protestations have left open only one alternative, namely, that a hunger strike by the species involved will doom them. This alternative is as absurd as everything else you have claimed on this topic.’ and ‘If bears and seals don’t have ice to sit on, and they don’t want to lead a completely aquatic lifestyle, there’s sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. You know, the stuff other mammals sit on, when they’re not swimming.
So, unless someone says these ice-preferential critters refuse to go to the ice while it’s melting, and refuse to go to land when there isn’t any ice left (which is ludicrous), people who think they’re endangered on account of the ice have a lot of explaining to do.’
Interesting that there is no substantiating data to back up any of Schiller’s claims, he just pulls it out of his bottom as usual. Nice though that on this thread we get DHMO’s comment:
>Cohenite what I was saying to Schiller was that he had quoted information from a doubtful source
Well at least he provided a source this time!!
So Schiller, I repeat my calls for evidence, via scientific debate, that these animals will be able to adapt the way you claim – breeding on sand, dirt, rocks and so forth. The topic of global wrming and ice sheets does not go away from this blog, so although it may not fit into this thread Schiller, go to the ozone one. Kuhn Kat has done some of your homework you have been unable to do yourself. Put up or shut up Schiller, now’s your chance.
Correction, Go to the Fire under the Arctic Ice thread Schiller.
>But people who consider curiosity to be a virtue need more than that.
EXACTLY Schiller! So I expect you to follow your own mantra. Pfftt.
James – might be a bit of difference between the troposphere over the Atlantic and the stratosphere over the South Pole?
Schillsy – so you were just foxing eh? Didn’t think you were that dumb. It will take decades to reduce the hole size. And the annual hole size also depends on temperatures and circulations patterns that vary. The CFC chemistry is well known despite some recent developments in Nature.
The fact that a natural effect might be enhanced by an anthropogenic chemical is obviously a tad much for you – I know holding two concepts at once is hard. Try patting your head and rubbing your stomach simultaneously as training.
And has use of an alternative refrigerant ruined your life. No you seem to have adapted nicely.
Sunset – not saying it’s not a fair research question. Just how important is it? Can you tell me. Is it the utter end for the models as is implied by Paul’s title?
The biofeedbacks from a melting boreal tundra might need some work to. Wonder which direction that will go in? hmmmm
P.S. New rules from Louis – we don’t say denialist and you don’t say alarmist.
“Sunset – not saying it’s not a fair research question. Just how important is it? Can you tell me. Is it the utter end for the models as is implied by Paul’s title?”
I would think that real data exposing serious errors.That are made by models.The reason it is a big deal.
Here is the point:
“The findings come after analysing the first year of measurements from the new Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory, recently set up by British, German and Cape Verdean scientists on the island of São Vicente in the tropical Atlantic. Alerted by these Observatory data, the scientists flew a research aircraft up into the atmosphere to make ozone measurements at different heights and more widely across the tropical Atlantic. The results mirrored those made at the Observatory, indicating major ozone loss in this remote area.”
Real data supported by supplemental aircraft flights.Show that models are way off the mark.
Meaning that the models will have to be scrapped and start over.
Surely that was obvious?
“Paul this is chemistry not climate. The climate models used by the IPCC do not generally include a tropospheric chemistry model.”
This has to be one of the most incredible statements ever made.
Yea – but is it important?
By “incredible” one presumes you mean “freakin stupid” right?
“Yea – but is it important?”
You have chemical reactions that effect the concentrations of two important gases present in the atmosphere, ozone and methane (the former possibly by 50%). Yes, I dare say this is important.
Over what area?
Is that a white-washing machine I can here in the background?
Hang on a sec Luke!
Remember the fuss about the ozone hole?
What area did it cover? (and still covers probably bigger)
Goodness! Could it be the climate tends toward stability (as suggested by so many “deniers”) and not to the rampant instability of AGW?
Stability – Well actually no it doesn’t as I have been reminded of late … http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm
and
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009347.shtml
– err – the STRATOSPHERIC ozone hole? – what’s the issue Marcus ?
Re the Atlantic tropospheric ozone munching, which will lead to also less methane munching – what’s the net effect on world climate – I’m simply asking is it significant. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t.
“Goodness! Could it be the climate tends toward stability (as suggested by so many “deniers”) and not to the rampant instability of AGW?”
If you look at the history, as we are constantly reminded, climate changes. It often flips between the two extremes. We have been fortunate to experience remarkably stable climate in the recent human history, and we have flourished in that time.
SJT
Define “recent human history” please.
Luke –
Let me get this straight. Freon – which is heavier then air can migrate all the way from the Northern Hemisphere into the stratosphere over Antarctica, but halogens, which are present in all waters of the world, and are much lighter then freon, can’t reach the Antarctic ozone layer.
Is that your position?
“Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.”
Tilting at wind turbines. 🙂
As well, black carbon & soot are currently estimated estimated at ~9% (taking co2 as 15%).
UNEP’s 7 billion tree planting prog. and The Nature Conservancy’s 1 billion and all the smaller efforts will make a dent in the co2 volume too. What does it take to get these AGW people off co2’s case? Don’t they get tired of living a lie?
Paul, if you have time could you guesstimate what effect 8 billion trees will have on the ~6% co2 effect.
67%+ H2O (water)
6% CO2 (carbon dioxide)
9% Black carbon
10% O3 (ozone)
3% CH4 (methane)
3% N2O (nitrous oxide)
Luke writes:
Yea – but is it important?
I already explained why it is important:
“Real data supported by supplemental aircraft flights.Show that models are way off the mark.”
I see that Proteus understands why it is important:
“You have chemical reactions that effect the concentrations of two important gases present in the atmosphere, ozone and methane (the former possibly by 50%). Yes, I dare say this is important.”
Why can’t you grasp the obvious?
Luke obtusely writes:
“Over what area?”
From the very first paragraph you never read.That Paul posted.
LOL
“Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. This startling discovery was made by a team of scientists from the UK’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science and Universities of York and Leeds. It has particular significance because ozone in the lower atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas and its destruction also leads to the removal of the third most abundant greenhouse gas; methane.”
Again the relevant quote:
“Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.”
This should hopefully end all your obfusications.
sunsettommy,
Thanks for calling us back to our sheep with the quote, “Large amounts of ozone — around 50% more than predicted by the world’s state-of-the-art climate models — are being destroyed in the lower atmosphere over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.”
If that much is destroyed “over the tropical Atlantic Ocean”, how much might be destroyed over *all* oceans?
One must wonder–if half is destroyed over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, if the other half might not be destroyed over the tropical *Pacific* Ocean, leaving *none* to be destroyed anywhere else.
Perhaps it’s time, once more, to raise the immortal, plaintive cry: “We need more research!”
It’s always good to fund research, of course, but the danger that it will fall into political hands and be exploited by eco-whackos and vote-addicts is problematic.
Look at what happened in Britain with their mounds of Freon-belching, ozone-destroying refrigerators:
“A chilling development: Britain is littered with refrigerators”, Jill Lawless, Associated Press, Feb. 3, 2002.
“Protecting the ozone layer has spawned a new menace to the English countryside abandoned refrigerators. Residents say unsightly dumps of old appliances have sprouted across the land since people began secretly abandoning them in fields after European environmental regulations took effect Jan. 1, making it illegal to discard the ozone-depleting foam insulation from fridges and freezers.”
What a totally crap discussion.
James – sigh – well give that CFCs are chemicals synthesised by humans and that they are found in the stratosphere – well James that’s an intelligence test threshold question for you?- and might the halogens being produced by highly reactive chemicals whereas CFCs are not except in strange circumstances high above the poles in low temperatures?
Should we extrapolate over the world’s oceans – nuh – waters around Cape Verde are highly productive and the reactions are tropical.
And how does all this affect the IPCC models of the future when ZERO of them have this ozone aspect modelled.
A duh !
The whole is issue is a bit of boutique exotica. Good frothing denialist fodder.
“halogens being produced BE highly reactive chemicals”
I see that Luke is reduced to frothing in the wind.After being shown what the area of the study covers.
It is quite a deviation from those models.That you fail to realize is very important.
Hello. Wakey wakey. They aren’t used in the IPCC projections.