posted 01-02-2004 01:35 PM               

I am launching a more appropriately named thread here to carry on discussion.

To pick up where we left off:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000084-11.html

********************************************

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra states:

"While the conclusion said CFC and chlorine coming from them were depleting the ozone layer all over the world, their paper stated quite clearly that chlorine atoms can only react with ozone molecules on the surface of ice crystals.

"As these crystals are found only in stratospheric polar clouds (sic), and these clouds are not found elsewhere outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex, their conclusions (and worse yet, their recommendations to politics to ban CFCs!) were an outright lie."

Well let's see...just who is "lying"?

This photograph shows polar stratospheric clouds lit from below near Kiruna, Sweden

********************************************

Observations of Polar Stratospheric Clouds by POAM II

Figure 1b. Locations of Northern Hemisphere POAM II occultation events between 1 Nov 1995 and 31 Mar 1996 along with those events which were found to be PSCs.
*********************************************

For someone who claims to be precise and accurate in his analysis of scientific data, we can only assume that Eduardo is making another intentionally patently false statement to support his agenda...one that is so easily disproved.

Case in point, stratospheric polar clouds do occur outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex, and they are being recorded at increasing frequency at lower latitudes and are contributing to ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere as well as in Antarctica.

ARCTIC OZONE DEPLETION LINKED TO LONGEVITY OF POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS
http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2000/00_43AR.html

A significant decline in ozone over the Arctic last winter was due to an increase in the area and longevity of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), according to a group of researchers who participated in a large, international atmospheric science campaign.

The ozone-destroying clouds are made of ice and nitric acid, said University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Owen B. Toon, one of five project scientists heading up NASA's SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment, or SOLVE."

********************************************
Polar Stratospheric Clouds

Danish Meteorological Institute
Division of Middle Atmosphere Research

Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC) form during winter in both polar regions at altitudes between ~ 15 and 28 km when temperatures drop below ~ - 80°C. It has been recognized for several years that PSCs play a key role for strong chemical ozone depletion during late winter and early spring in both polar regions. The influence of the stratospheric particles on ozone depletions is two-fold: 1) the aerosol and cloud particles provide the surfaces where fast heterogeneous chemical reactions convert inactive halogen reservoir species into potentially ozone-destroying radicals, and 2) the cloud particles are composed of nitric acid and water; gravitational sedimentation of the particles may lead to a vertical redistribution of these species with irreversible denitrification and dehydration in the altitude range where the particles form, prolonging chemical ozone destruction by reactive chlorine.

Scientific concern is arising whether increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may cause lower winter temperatures in the stratosphere, a stronger and long-lasting Arctic polar vortex, and more widespread PSC formation. Such conditions may lead to increased ozone depletion, the potential for the formation of Arctic ozone holes, and a longer time for the ozone layer to recover after concentrations of CFC and Halon gases are expected slowly to decrease as a consequence of the Montreal protecol restrictions on the usage of these gases.

*********************************************

Polar Stratospheric Clouds and Ozone Depletion: The Role In Global Climate Change
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/pub/PSC/documents/psc-climate-proposal.pdf

LARGE NITRIC ACID PARTICLES ABOVE ARCTIC STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/13396/EAE03-J-13396.pdf

LIDAR STUDIES OF STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS IN THE ANTARCTIC AND THE ARCTIC
http://ams.confex.com/ams/annual2000/lidar/abstracts/11528.htm

Excerpt: "Lately low stratospheric clouds have been observed also in the tropical region (Indian Ocean), during the APE-THESEO tropical campaign by means of LIDAR and other scatterometers systems installed on board of two aircraft the M-55 Geophysica and Falcon"

*********************************************

Total ozone series in Arosa, Switzerland
The total ozone series of Arosa (1820 m a. s. l.) is the longest in the world. The measurements began in 1926 by F. W. P. Götz and were continued by G. Perl and then H. U. Dütsch from the Federal Institute of Technology from Zürich (ETHZ). Since 1988, the Swiss Meteorological Institute is responsible for operational measurements at Arosa (LKO).

*********************************************

Ozone's Problem with Polar Stratospheric Clouds
http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/ESC440/PSC.html

Excellent summary (excerpt):

CFCs not only spread throughout the troposphere, they also diffuse into the stratosphere. The evidence for the presence of CFCs in the stratosphere is only argued against by people who have a vested interest

a) in suggesting that industrial chemicals are not near as damaging as the peer-reviewed scientific evidence suggests because "industry is the engine for the free enterprise system and what THAT produces is inherently good"; or

b) in suggesting that scientists are dishonest leaches sucking on the government teat and they have fabricated the evidence for the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere so that they can increase the amount of government grant money that would subsequently be applied to a "mythical problem"; or

c) in maintaining the ear of people who trumpet criticisms of the scientific process, the scientific process that has proven that CFCs are a very important component in the anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere.

This final reason is particularly insidious because it is based not on logical reasoning but instead on efforts to try to increase the profits (of, for instance radio stations and syndication networks) that pay nay-sayers salaries. Scientists should speak out against popular press indictments of well carried out scientific investigations and expose the process by which myth, superstition, and AM radio profits are made.

Arguing against the presence of CFCs in the stratosphere is a waste of time: CFCs have been detected in the stratosphere, their chlorine containing decomposition products have also been detected there, and their fluorine containing decomposition products have been detected in the stratosphere. Period. The data are overwhelming.

Arguing about regulating CFCs, however, though that regulation IS presently under way, may be worth the time.

Polar Stratospheric Cloud
http://remus.jpl.nasa.gov/info.htm

Polar Stratospheric Clouds Above Spitsbergen
http://www.awi-potsdam.de/www-pot/atmo/psc/psc.html

*********************************************

The primary question remains...why was it necessary for SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra to make such a patently false statement:

"As these crystals are found only in stratospheric polar clouds, and these clouds are not found elsewhere outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex, their conclusions (and worse yet, their recommendations to politics to ban CFCs!) were an outright lie."

Handlers on vacation? ...or sheer desperation?

Neither are a pretty picture.

Here, however, is a rather pretty picture of a PSC in Sweden:

posted 01-02-2004 02:45 PM               

Is There an Ozone Hole over the Arctic?

Significant reductions in ozone content in the stratosphere above the Arctic have been observed during the late winter and early spring (January-March) in 6 of the last 9 years. However, these reductions, typically 20-25%, are much smaller than those observed currently each spring over the Antarctic (the ozone hole).

The difference between ozone content in the two polar regions (see figure below) is caused by dissimilar weather patterns. The Antarctic continent is a very large land mass surrounded by oceans. This symmetrical condition produces very low stratospheric temperatures within a meteorologically isolated region, the so-called polar vortex, which extends from about 65°S to the pole. The cold temperatures lead in turn to the formation of clouds, known as polar stratospheric clouds. These clouds provide surfaces that promote production of forms of chlorine and bromine that are chemically active and can rapidly destroy ozone. The conditions that maintain elevated levels of chemically active chlorine and bromine persist into September and October in Antarctica, when sunlight returns over the region to initiate ozone depletion.

The winter meteorological conditions in the Northern Hemisphere, just like in the Southern Hemisphere, lead to the formation of an isolated region bounded by strong winds, in which the temperature is also cold enough for polar stratospheric clouds to form. However, the geographic symmetry about the North Pole is less than about the South Pole. As a result, large-scale weather systems disturb the wind flow, making it less stable over the Arctic region than over the Antarctic continent. These disturbances prevent the temperature in the Arctic stratosphere from being as cold as in the Antarctic stratosphere, and fewer polar stratospheric clouds are therefore formed. Nevertheless, chemically active chlorine and bromine compounds are also formed over the Arctic, as they are over Antarctica, from reactions at the surface of the clouds. But the cold conditions rarely persist into March, when sufficient sunlight is available to initiate large ozone depletion.

In recent years, there has been a string of unusually cold winters in the Arctic, compared with those in the preceding 30 years. The cold and persistent conditions have led to enhanced ozone depletion, because the atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting gases have also been relatively large during these years. However, the cause of the observed change in meteorological conditions is not yet understood. Such conditions might persist over the coming years, further enhancing ozone depletion. But it is also possible that, in the next few years, they could revert to conditions characteristic of a decade ago. In the latter case, chemical ozone depletion in the Arctic would be expected to diminish.

Therefore, although there has been significant ozone depletion in the Arctic in recent years, it is difficult to predict what may lie ahead, because the future climate of the Arctic stratosphere cannot be predicted with confidence.

********************************************

Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or Natural Sources?

Most of the chlorine in the stratosphere is there as a result of human activities, as the figure below illustrates.

Many compounds containing chlorine are released at the ground. Those that dissolve in water cannot reach stratospheric altitudes in significant amounts because they are "washed out" of the atmosphere in rain or snow. For example, large quantities of chlorine are released from evaporated ocean spray as sea salt (sodium chloride) particles. However, because sea salt dissolves in water, this chlorine is taken up quickly in clouds or in ice, snow, or rain droplets and does not reach the stratosphere. Another ground-level source of chlorine is from its use in swimming pools and as household bleach. When released, this chlorine is rapidly converted to forms that dissolve in water and therefore are removed from the lower atmosphere. Such chlorine never reaches the stratosphere in significant amounts. Volcanoes can emit large quantities of hydrogen chloride, but this gas is rapidly converted to hydrochloric acid, which dissolves in rain water, ice, and snow and does not reach the stratosphere. Even in explosive volcanic plumes that rise high in the atmosphere, nearly all of the hydrogen chloride is removed by precipitation before reaching stratospheric altitudes. Finally, although the exhaust from the Space Shuttle and from some rockets does inject some chlorine directly into the stratosphere, the quantities are very small (less than 1% of the annual input from halocarbons in the present stratosphere).

In contrast, the major ozone-depleting human-produced halocarbons --such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)-- do not disolve in water, do not react with snow or other natural surfaces, and are not broken down chemically in the lower atmosphere. Therefore, these and other human-produced substances containing chlorine do reach the stratosphere.

Several pieces of evidence combine to establish human-produced halocarbons as the primary source of stratospheric chlorine. First, measurements have shown that the chlorinated species that rise to the stratosphere are primarily manufactured compounds [mainly CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and the hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) substitutes for CFCs], together with small amounts of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and methyl chloride (CH3Cl), which are partly natural in origin. Second, researchers have measured nearly all known gases containing chlorine in the stratosphere. They have found that the emissions of the human-produced halocarbons, plus the much smaller contribution from natural sources, could account for all of the stratospheric chlorine. Third, the increase in total stratospheric chlorine measured between 1980 and 1998 corresponds to the known increases in concentrations of human-produced halocarbons during that time.

*********************************************

An ozone hole did not exist in 1956 (despite suggestions to the contrary)

Another example of where SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra intentionally distorts the truth of the matter...which is not surprising. "such a trifling investment of fact."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/history.html

There is an oft quoted statement that the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered in 1956 and therefore it can't be caused by CFCs. This remark originates from a paper by Professor G M B Dobson, the scientist who designed the ozone spectrophotometer which has been the standard for ozone measurements since the 1930s. The big advantage in standardising on one make of instrument is that we can be certain that changes in ozone amount that are measured, are changes in the atmosphere rather than changes due to observational technique. The following is taken from Dobson's paper in Applied Optics, March 1968, Vol 7, No3.

'One of the more interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out of the IGY (International Geophysical Year) was the discovery of the peculiar annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay (76 south, 26 west). The annual variation of ozone at Spitzbergen was fairly well known at that time, so, assuming a six months difference, we knew what to expect. However, when the monthly telegrams from Halley Bay began to arrive and were plotted alongside the Spitzbergen curve, the values for September and October 1956 were about 150 units lower than was expected. We naturally thought that Evans has made some large mistake or that, in spite of checking just before leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected from the Spitzbergen results. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose.'

This table shows the difference between what Dobson expected from Spitzbergen, the normal values observed at Halley between 1956 and 1975 and the values presently observed. Mean October ozone values have fallen by around 3% per year since 1976, while the amount of chlorine has risen by 3% per year.

Spitz Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
1956 440 470 450 400 350 320 300 280 280

Halley Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
1956 300 300 300 330 350 320 300 280 280
1996 172 155 149 181 260 278 265 245 242

The Antarctic ozone hole is the depletion in the spring over and above that caused by the different atmospheric circulations in the two hemispheres. Signs can be seen in data from 1976 when you know what to look for, but suspicion didn't really arise until the end of the decade and the paper announcing the discovery of ozone loss in the Antarctic was not published until 1985. When American satellite data was reanalysed it became apparent that it was a phenomena that covered the whole of the Antarctic and it was given the name ozone hole. The latest data also show ozone depletion during the summer and autumn months, in addition to the spring- time 'hole'.

posted 01-02-2004 06:10 PM               

What a scorcher - Why 2003 made the record books

2003: Fifth warmest year in Britain
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2003/pr20031216.html

"Despite record-breaking temperatures this summer and a prolonged dry spell, 2003 has only been the fifth warmest in much of Britain since records began in 1659, according to figures released by the Met Office today. The mean Central England Temperature so far this year has been 10.82 °C, 1.09 °C above the long-term average. 1949, 1990, 1999 and 2002 were warmer with a CET between 1.1 and 1.2 °C above average. These comparisons are made with the Central England Temperature Series which covers the past 345 years."

posted 01-03-2004 01:08 PM               

Harries, J.E., Brindley, H.E., Sagoo, P.J. and Bantges R.J., Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature, 410, 355-357, 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1225064.stm

UK scientists see greenhouse evidence

A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real.

Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case.

Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.

The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming.

They compared two sets of data. The more recent was collected over a nine-month period from October 1996 by the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases instrument on the Japanese ADEOS satellite. The earlier data set were collected by Nasa's Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft from April 1970 to January 1971.

Special algorithm

The researchers say they found differences which showed a statistically significant increase in the characteristic spectral bands of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ozone, and two chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for ozone depletion.

Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.

The team took several steps to ensure that their data were reliable, including effectively removing the influence of cloud cover by using a cloud-clearing algorithm.

They used only selected data from the same three-month period, April to June, and to reduce "noise" in the data they chose several regions of the globe and calculated clear-sky average spectra.

The scientists do not produce evidence to show the Earth's surface temperature is rising. The team leader, Dr John Harries, said the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere could produce more clouds that reflected solar radiation and prevented the Sun's heat from reaching the surface.

Cloud feedback

But he is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect.

"We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases."

Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.

He said: "The next step is to assess whether these data can provide information about changes in not only the greenhouse gas forcing, but the cloud feedback, which is a response of the cloud field to that forcing.

"We must also work to test agreement with the general circulation models used in climate change experiments. Since these are the models used to predict future climate and influence policy decisions, it is imperative that they can accurately simulate measurements of what is considered to be the driving mechanism behind climate change.

posted 01-03-2004 01:23 PM               

Here is a link to a PDF file (1.5 Mb) entitled:

Climate change observations and predictions:
Recent research on climate change science from the Hadley Centre, December 2003

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2003/global.pdf

This report attempts to answer three important questions:

Is the climate changing?

What has caused the climate to change?

And how much do we expect the climate to change in future?

An example from this report:

GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES

The gloabl average surface temperature in the year 2002 was approximately 0.8 degree C above the average temperature at the end of the 19th century, making it the second warmest year in the 142-year global instrument temperature record. The average land temperature was almost 1.2 degree C above that at the end of the 19th century. In addition to the underlying warming trend due to greenhouse gas increases, 2002 reflected additional warming from a moderate El Nino event in the Pacific.

These results were derived from air temperature records from more than 1,000 land-based weather stations and sea-surface temperature measurements taken from 8,000 ships and bouys."

ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES

"The temperature in the atmosphere above the ground is also expected to change due to man's activities. Based on our current understanding of the greenhouse effect, the lowest 10 km or so of the atmosphere ( the troposphere) is expected to warm while, above this, increases in carbon dioxide concentration and the depletion of ozone causes the stratosphere to cool.

posted 01-04-2004 12:41 AM               

WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002
http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment02.html

Why there is cause for concern:

*********************************************

Common ozone depletion myths

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are responsible for the Antarctic ozone "hole". And there is strong evidence that the ozone layer elsewhere has been damaged. Three scientists who developed the ozone depletion theory were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry. With so much evidence for an environmental crises, it is little wonder that so many anti-environmental myths have developed about ozone depletion.

Common myths about ozone depletion:
http://info-pollution.com/common.htm

Myth: CFCs cannot reach the stratosphere because they are heavier than air.

Fact: Air in the lower atmosphere (which extends far above the stratosphere) moves in masses, not as individual molecules. A number of studies have found CFCs and the products of their breakdown in the stratosphere (Rowland, EPA).

Myth: Volcanoes and other natural sources contribute much more chlorine than CFCs to the ozone layer.

Fact: Chlorine compounds from natural sources are soluble, and so are washed out of the atmosphere. CFCs, by contrast, are not soluble and so are able to reach the stratosphere. A number of studies have shown that the majority of chlorine in the stratosphere comes from man-made chemicals (Rowland, Taubes, Russell et al, EPA).

Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.

Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20 years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).

Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.

Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of measurement. (Parson, Christie).

Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.

Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

Myth: Spray cans deplete the ozone layer.

Fact: Spray cans (in the United States) have not used CFCs as propellants for about 20 years.

Myth: Of course there is an ozone hole in the winter, there is no sunlight to make new ozone.

Fact: The ozone hole occurs in the spring, after the sunlight returns. There is little destruction or creation of ozone during the winter (Parson)

Myth: DuPont supported the ban on freon because the patent was about to run out.

Fact: The patent for making freon was issued in 1928, it ran out in the 1940s, long before any concern about ozone depletion. (The History of Freon)

References

Christie, Maureen, The Ozone Layer: A Philosophy of Science Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2000

Farman, et al., "Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal ClOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, May 16, 1985, pp 207-210.

Jones & Shanklin, "Continued Decline of Total Ozone over Halley, Antarctica, since 1985", Nature, August 3, 1995 pp 409-411.

Newman, Paul A., "Antarctic Total Ozone in 1958", Science, April 22, 1994, pp 543-546.

Parson, Robert wrote a lengthy FAQ on ozone depletion, the best source of information I have found.

Rowland, Sherwood, "The Need for Scientific Communication with the Public" Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1571-1576.

Russell, et al, "Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget" Nature, February 8, 1996, pp 526-529.

Taubes, Gary, "The Ozone Backlash", Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1580-1583.

********************************************

A more detailed discussion by Robert Parsons(a chemist at the University of Colorado) exposing the outlandish foolishness expounded by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Dixie Ray Lee and other charlatans by can be found at:

http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/dixy_1.txt

A critical analysis of two chapters from:

"Environmental Overkill", by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo. Regnery Gateway Press, 1993.

Chapter 3 - Stratospheric Ozone and the "Hole"
Chapter 4 - The Ozone and Ultraviolet Rays

"These chapters display serious misunderstandings of atmospheric chemistry and dynamics, they either ignore or misrepresent scientific evidence, and they are based upon poor scholarship, in particular the uncritical use of exceedingly unreliable sources. To analyze all of the errors would result in a document considerably longer than the original, since in many cases it takes a paragraph or more to explain why a given brief remark is wrong. Also, I am interested not only in pointing out errors, but also in showing how these errors have arisen. Instead of providing a litany, therefore, I will examine nine points in detail. I have grouped these into four categories:

A. Basic Misconceptions about the atmospheric sciences

These are assertions which could only be made by someone unfamiliar with fundamental principles and procedures, as found in basic textbooks.

This category includes:

1. The claim that CFC's cannot rise to the stratosphere in significant quantities because they are heavier than air.

2. The implication that CFC's are unlikely to be involved in antarctic ozone depletion because most of them are emitted in the northern hemisphere.

3. The claim that salt spray, passively degassing volcanoes, and other sea-level emissions are likely sources of stratospheric chlorine.

4. The claim that soil bacteria consume a major proportion of the CFC's emitted into the atmosphere.

In the second category I put false assertions that require a more detailed knowledge of the technical literature to refute. This category includes:

5. The claim that decay products of CFC's have not been observed in the stratosphere.

6. The claim that the ozone hole was first seen in 1956.

7. The claim that explosive volcanic eruptions are a major source of stratospheric chlorine.

In the third category I include statements that are not wholly false, but which are presented in a misleading context and surrounded with false information. These include:

8. The suggestion that decreases in sulfur dioxide have been interpreted as ozone losses.

9. The assertion that UV-B radiation has not increased.

********************************************

Want some straight answers? ...well worth reading Robert Parson's critical analysis as it will expose some of the massive distortions made throughout in the "Global Warming" thread regarding ozone depletion:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000084.html

posted 01-04-2004 04:26 AM            

....."As for the steadily
warming temperatures reported
throughout the decade, he said
they were based on data
contaminated by recordings
made at airports close to
cities that reflect the
'heat-island' effect that
warms urban areas where
cooling shade trees, lawns,
and meadows are lacking."
[Page A-10, Emphais mine]

Oh, I see, these "unbiased"
scientists of the Federal
Government set their temperature
collecting apparatus right next
to airports, which are among
the hottest places in our
country, because of their
asphalt and cement runways
and roads, their concentration
of huge aircraft that are
always firing up their engines,
and because of the tremendous
numbers of people and vehicles
converging upon the buildings!
They deliberately set their
temperature apparatus next to
this unusually HOT area, and
then told us that this was the
temperature of the world as a
whole?! Yes, that is exactly
what they did. Can you see what
kind of liars we truly have as
national leaders. As Adolf Hitler
once said, "If you are going to
tell a lie, tell a really big
one, and tell it often".....

Wow.

All those scientists willing
to trash their careers
in order to deliberately convey
false data to a poor, unsuspecting
public.

No further comment.

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

....."I once asked a
long-haired maggot-infested
FM-type environmentalist wacko
who he thought was threatening
the owl.".....

-Rush Limbaugh

....."One obvious way to try
to weaken a cause is to discredit
the person who champions it.
So - the masters of invective and
insinuation have been busy: I am
a 'bird lover, a cat lover, a fish
lover,' a priestess of nature, a
devotee of a mystical cult having
to do with laws of the universe
which my critics consider themselves
immune to.".....

posted 01-04-2004 01:50 PM               

Atmospheric Environment
SCISAT (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment):

Update on Canada’s Ozone Layer

Arctic Ozone Loss

The Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) on the new Canadian science satellite (SCISAT) will take measurements of Canada’s ozone layer with a particular focus on the Arctic. Scientists are concerned about ozone depletion in the Canadian Arctic, where significant ozone losses of up to 45% have been observed during the late 1990s.

A recent Environment Canada report*, which reviews the recent findings of Canadian ozone scientists, states that serious thinning of the Arctic ozone layer could become more frequent over the next 10 to 20 years despite international action taken to reduce ozone destroying chemicals. Preliminary studies indicate that climate change may be altering the Arctic atmosphere making it more susceptible to ozone loss. Ozone-depleting industrial chemicals, however, are still considered the major cause of ozone thinning.

Increased ozone depletion in the Arctic could be damaging to sensitive northern life forms. Ozone thinning over the Arctic could also reduce ozone levels over southern Canada as ozone is redistributed to compensate for losses in the far north.

Over the next 10 to 20 years, Arctic ozone depletion could even become as frequent and possibly as severe as that over the Antarctic. The ozone hole in the Antarctic has grown in extent every year since 1979 and has now reached record proportions. It covered nearly 25 million km2 with depletions of up to 70%. In the Arctic, however, weather conditions are more variable than those over the Antarctic, and the ozone layer is not expected to develop a large stationery "hole" each spring.

Other Recent Findings

Ozone thinning is continuing over the rest of Canada, where ozone values have decreased by an average of about 6% since the late 1970s, with greater losses of about 8 to 10% in the springtime.

Ozone depletion is not fully understood. Only about half of the observed ozone loss in the atmosphere can be definitely attributed to known ozone-depleting industrial chemicals; other factors, such as climate change may be also contributing to ozone depletion. Due to these uncertainties, changes in the ozone layer must be carefully tracked to determine the effectiveness of actions taken to reduce ozone-depleting substances. The new Canadian science satellite will contribute by taking measurements of the ozone layer from space.
As a result of the thinning ozone layer, sunburn-inducing UV rays have increased by an average of about 7% in Canada, with levels increasing to 10 to 12% in the springtime. These increased UV levels, which are expected to remain higher than normal for the next 30-40 years, will affect human health, crops, forests and marine and freshwater ecosystems.

Verifying the Satellite’s Arctic Measurements

In 1987, Canada became the first country in the world to focus on the Arctic ozone layer, following the discovery of the ozone hole over the Antarctica. Ozone thinning in the Arctic is greatest during the winter months, when research must be carried out in 24-hour darkness and in temperatures which regularly drop to -40°C. To assist scientists working in this harsh northern environment, Environment Canada built a scientific ozone laboratory at Eureka, on Ellesmere Island, a remote weather station less than 1,000 km from the north pole. Opened in 1993, the observatory has enabled researchers to carry out intensive studies of the Arctic ozone layer and has now become a centre for international research.

As the new Canadian science satellite passes overhead, Environment Canada scientists will take measurements of the upper atmosphere from the Eureka Observatory. They will record ozone levels, as well as other chemicals and the occurrence of polar stratospheric clouds, a form of high level ice clouds which speed up the process of ozone depletion. These measurements will be later compared to data taken by the satellite, to verify the accuracy of the space observations.

Canadian Ozone Research

Canada has made a major contribution to global ozone science, both by monitoring ozone levels, and by conducting research into the causes and impacts of ozone depletion. Canadian research into the ozone layer began in the 1930s and was strengthened in the 1980s when decreases in ozone levels were first observed.

In 1993, Environment Canada scientists completed the first long-term study conclusively showing that the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer has led to an increase in ultraviolet levels at the earth’s surface. As well, Environment Canada scientists developed the Brewer Ozone Spectrophotometer, a state-of-the-art scientific instrument. Recognized as the world’s most accurate ozone-measuring instrument, it is now in use in more than 35 countries.

Environment Canada operates a network of cross-country monitoring stations which has kept continuous watch on Canada’s ozone layer for more than three decades. The early records, which were taken before any major human influence on the ozone layer, are vital to understanding the changes that are occurring today.

Canadian scientists use a variety of techniques to keep tabs on the ozone layer, including high-altitude research balloons, satellite measurements and ground-based instruments. Two Canadian astronauts, Marc Garneau and Steve MacLean, have even used Canadian instruments to take readings of the ozone layer from inside the space shuttle.

Why is the ozone layer not recovering?

Considerable action has already been taken to reduce the industrial chemicals that are depleting the ozone layer. Canada played a key role in the development of the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement to protect the ozone layer signed in 1987. The build up of the most significant CFCs in the lower atmosphere has now been slowed, and in some cases, even reversed. For example, one of the key chemicals (CFC-11) is now decreasing. However, large concentrations of ozone depleting substances still remain in the atmosphere and are expected to persist for many years to come.

If all countries comply with the terms of the Montreal Protocol, scientists eventually expect to see improvements in the ozone layer, and a recovery should occur around the year 2050. However, scientists are uncertain how the rising levels of greenhouse gases and other pollutants may affect ozone loss, particularly in the Arctic. Ozone depletion over the Earth’s poles may well get worse before it gets better.

For further information, please contact:

David Wardle
Environment Canada
Telephone: (416) 739-4632

*The report, titled Arctic Ozone - the Sensitivity of the Ozone Layer to Chemical Depletion and Climate Change, is posted at:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/arctoz_b_e.htm

It is also available at Environment Canada’s Inquiry Centre, at 1-800-668-6767

********************************************

Excerpt:

Deep ozone losses over both the Arctic and Antarctic are the result of special conditions that occur over polar regions in the winter and early spring. As winter arrives in each hemisphere, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. Without milder air flowing in from the lower latitudes and in the absence of sunlight, air within the vortex becomes very cold. At temperatures of -80°C or less, clouds made up of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid begin to form in the stratosphere. These are called polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), and they give rise to a series of chemical reactions that destroy ozone far more effectively than the reactions that take place in warmer air. The destruction of ozone begins with the return of sunlight in the spring and continues rapidly until the vortex dissipates and warmer temperatures prevent the formation of PSCs.

Over the Antarctic, these processes commonly lead to the formation of a massive ozone hole. Over the Arctic, however, ozone amounts have not yet fallen to the very low levels observed in Antarctica. This is partly because the Arctic has more ozone to start with, but it is also a result of the more variable atmospheric circulation of the Northern Hemisphere, which makes the Arctic vortex less stable. As a result, incursions of air from the south often keep the Arctic stratosphere too warm for PSC formation.

Arctic ozone depletion could be further enhanced over the next few decades, however, by increasing accumulations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By trapping more heat near the earth's surface, these gases cause the stratosphere to become cooler. Since temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere often come within a few degrees of the threshold for PSC formation, further cooling of the stratosphere could cause PSCs to form more frequently and increase the severity of ozone losses. Preliminary studies with atmospheric models suggest that this effect could delay the recovery of the Arctic ozone layer by a decade or more.

posted 01-04-2004 02:20 PM               

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/ozone/

Lydia Dotto
CBC NEWS ONLINE

If you ask Canadians what causes global warming, it's likely that one in four will mistakenly identify depletion of the ozone layer as the culprit, according to polls by Environics International. In fact, more than a third of Canadians have made this error at times during the past decade.

Perhaps more significantly, even fewer people-less than one in five-are likely to correctly identify greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels as the primary cause of global warming (although another quarter attribute it more generally to air pollution.)

These widespread misperceptions suggest that the relationship between global warming and ozone loss is poorly understood by the public-and often by the media as well. But perhaps this is not so surprising, since scientists themselves are only beginning to sort out the complex, intertwined links between two of the greatest environmental challenges we face.

Recent research has identified a particularly worrisome cause-and-effect relationship that is precisely opposite to what many people believe: not only does ozone depletion not cause global warming, it now appears that global warming accelerates ozone depletion. According to an Environment Canada report, "Arctic Ozone: The Sensitivity of the Ozone Layer to Chemical Depletion and Climate Change," this process could delay recovery of the ozone layer over the Arctic by a decade or more, despite restrictions on emissions of industrial chemicals known as halocarbons that destroy ozone.

To understand how this process works, it's important to know how the players in the scenario interact. Greenhouse gases cause warming by trapping heat rising from the Earth's surface, preventing it from escaping into space, a process that has been dubbed the "greenhouse effect." There's a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the earth about 33 C warmer than it would otherwise be-on average, about 15 C instead of -18 C. Water vapour is the most important natural greenhouse gas. Ozone, a form of oxygen, is also a naturally-occurring greenhouse gas.

The term global warming refers to additional heating caused by greenhouse gases released by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons, which include the refrigerants CFCs.

The role of ozone in the atmosphere is complex. At ground level, it's a pollutant, a constituent of smog. In the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), it provides an essential barrier to biologically damaging ultraviolet radiation; without it, life on earth could not survive. The destruction of stratospheric ozone by halocarbons has resulted in increases in the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface. UV exposure causes sunburns and skin cancer and is also biologically damaging to plants and animals.

Wherever it is, ozone is a greenhouse gas and thus contributes to global warming. Because of increasing pollution, concentrations of ground-level ozone have grown considerably in the past century. It appears human activities may have "doubled or tripled the amount of ozone in the lower atmosphere," said David Wardle, a senior scientist with Environment Canada and co-author of the report on Arctic ozone. "At ground level, it's the second most important agent of warming, after carbon dioxide."

On the other hand, the loss of stratospheric ozone-including the large ozone holes that appear over the poles each year-does not cause climate warming. Quite the opposite, in fact: it causes cooling at the Earth's surface. Scientists have estimated that this cooling may have counteracted as much as 30 per cent of the global warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gases since 1979.

So far, however, it appears that the direct warming effect of halocarbons has exceeded the indirect cooling they cause by destroying ozone. Wardle explained that some of the halocarbons are very long-lived and cause warming for decades or longer. "Their effect of destroying ozone compensates for this warming, but not completely. Destruction of ozone has reduced their warming effect by about one-third, so the net effect of CFCs is warming."

He said newer halocarbons specifically developed to reduce their impact on the ozone layer generally have less of a climatic effect because they're not around so long, but they're still greenhouse gases and some are not much less effective at warming the climate than the CFCs they're replacing.

The reduction in halocarbon concentrations resulting from the Montreal Protocol is helping the ozone layer to recover. Unfortunately, the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere appear to be undoing much of this progress. What has been not realized until recently is that global warming can accelerate the destruction of stratospheric ozone by creating conditions that make halocarbons more effective at destroying ozone. Ironically, it does this by cooling the stratosphere.

Lydia Dotto is a freelance science writer and author of "Storm Warning: Gambling with the Climate of Our Planet."

posted 01-04-2004 05:24 PM               

On a final post, SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra steted:

"There is no ozone GLOBAL DEPLETION. PERIOD.

You just have to love the pathological condition that makes it impossible for Eduardo to admit that he has made an error...and there have been many. Surprising that he didn't again bombard us with bold red letters, as if shouting would make it true.

All will note that it is apparently impossible for him to admit that he was in error when he stated that polar stratospheric clouds do not form outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex.

An abundance of data proves that he is wrong about this and that PSCs do occur in the northern hemisphere and are contributing to ozone depletion much as they do in Antarctica.

As far as there being no evidence for global ozone depletion, look how conveniently he chooses to totally ignore the data from Arosa, Switzerland.

Total ozone series in Arosa, Switzerland
The total ozone series of Arosa (1820 m a. s. l.) is the longest in the world. The measurements began in 1926 by F. W. P. Götz and were continued by G. Perl and then H. U. Dütsch from the Federal Institute of Technology from Zürich (ETHZ). Since 1988, the Swiss Meteorological Institute is responsible for operational measurements at Arosa (LKO).

Totally ignoring that which completely undermines his unfounded assertions.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/strat.html

http://www.niwa.cri.nz/edu/students/faq/uv-ozone

It sure is easy to find overwhelming evidence of longterm ozone depletion from scientists all over the world.

Have you noticed that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra cannot produce any data to support his contention that:

"There is no ozone GLOBAL DEPLETION. PERIOD."

Let's see the data, not just shouting in big red letters.

posted 01-04-2004 05:41 PM               

"The main contention still stands clear: outside Polar vortices, there are no SPCs, so there is no significant ozone depletion over mid and low latitudes."

Like I said, Eduardo provides the fodder with his own posts...so easy to disprove, and so clearly made with an intentional agenda to distort the reality of the situation.

Confronted with evidence that proves his unsubstantiated assertions wrong, watch him once again wiggle, squirm, and modify his previous statements to conform to the facts presented.

A recurring pattern.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/wa/10-2/global

Predicting the future of global ozone

John Austin, Greg Bodeker, Hamish Struthers

Climate change is one problem, ozone depletion is another. True? Maybe not. New modelling techniques are helping to unravel the links between these two environmental issues, and to assess the implications of changes.

Perhaps the two most debated environmental issues in recent years have been climate change and ozone depletion. In the past these have usually been treated as two different and unconnected phenomena. However, recent research has revealed a range of processes that link them. Assessing the effects of these atmospheric interactions requires the use of sophisticated computer models of chemistry and climate. But, what are the links? How can ozone depletion affect climate change, and vice versa?

Chemistry, climate and ozone loss

The illustration below shows how various climate and chemical processes affect each other. Gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and even water vapour (H2O), trap the infrared radiation being emitted from the Earth’s surface, and warm the troposphere. This so-called greenhouse effect warms the surface to about 35°C more than it would be without these gases.

The concentration of ozone is highest in the stratosphere where it is formed (see Water & Atmosphere 3(1): 19–21) but exists throughout the atmosphere including the lower troposphere where it is a pollutant. (See Ozone highs and lows in Auckland, Water & Atmosphere 10(1).) As well as absorbing ultraviolet radiation, ozone also acts as a greenhouse gas. This means that recent decreases in ozone have partly offset the surface warming caused by increases in other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, increases in greenhouse gases are expected to cause the troposphere to warm further, but because the outgoing radiation is preferentially absorbed in the troposphere, this causes the stratosphere to cool. Stratospheric chemistry and wind patterns are sensitive to temperature changes. For example, it is now known that the processes that destroy polar ozone depend on concentrations of halogens, but are also very temperature-sensitive. Temperature is important because polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) will only form at around 195 K (–78°C) in the lower stratosphere.

Temperatures in Antarctica often fall below 195 K, but in the Arctic are usually close to this threshold. This means that even a very small cooling of the stratosphere caused by greenhouse gas increases could lead to a dramatic increase in the severity of Arctic ozone depletion.

Ozone depletion also occurs in the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres, though less dramatically than over the poles. The processes responsible for mid-latitude ozone depletion are not well understood but may also be sensitive to changes in stratospheric temperatures.

*********************************************

LIDAR STUDIES OF STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS IN THE ANTARCTIC AND THE ARCTIC
http://ams.confex.com/ams/annual2000/lidar/abstracts/11528.htm

Excerpt: "Lately low stratospheric clouds have been observed also in the tropical region (Indian Ocean), during the APE-THESEO tropical campaign by means of LIDAR and other scatterometers systems installed on board of two aircraft the M-55 Geophysica and Falcon"

*********************************************

Mid-latitude stratospheric nitrogen during summer time: comparison of MANTRA baloon campaigns,ORIRIS satellite measurements, climatology and the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model.

http://yjrochon.freeservers.com/Downsview_seminar_files/pdf/25_11_2003.pdf

*********************************************
http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/SPARC2000_new/PosterSess1/SessionP1_2/Fierli/SPA RC_ea.html

Transport of chemically activated air to middle latitudes: Northern hemisphere 1995 to 1997 winters

ABSTRACT:

Transport of air from the Northern Hemisphere polar stratospheric vortex is an important mechanism for ozone reduction at middle latitudes. Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) lidar measurements performed with the ALOMAR R/M/R lidar (69°N, 16°E) show the presence of PSCs outside the polar vortex in the coldest period of the 1994/1995 and 1996/1997 winters. Meteorological analyses confirm that temperatures below PSCs formation point can be reached in the stratosphere outside the polar vortex. This is observed mainly above Northern Europe. This work is aimed to study the transport of the PSC chemically activated. We have used a transport model with high horizontal resolution to quantify the area covered by chemically activated air in the northern hemisphere and to evaluate the potential impact on the middle latitude chemistry. MIMOSAmodel has been adapted for advection of tracers simulating the behavior of activated radicals as ClO, BrO and OH. This approach allow us to analyse the activation outside the vortex and to estimate the timelife of the tracer inside the filaments. The main features of the tropospheric circulation allowing the PSCs formation outside the polar vortex is adressed

Introduction

During last decade, after the discovery of the Antarctic stratospheric ozone hole, the behavior of the stratospheric ozone at middle latitudes has been deeply investigated. Recent analyses (Solomon, 1999 for a complete review) have shown an ozone reduction at middle latitudes of 4 % per decade in the Southern hemisphere and of 3 % per decade in the northern hemisphere. Several works were devoted to the estimate of the relative influence on mid-latitude stratospheric ozone decrease of the processes in the Polar regions and the in-situ processes.

Solomon et al. (1998) have shown that the decrease can be attributed mainly to the heterogeneous chemistry on the in-situ stratospheric aerosols. Polar air transport simulations during 1991 to 1993 winters indicates that inter-annual variability of transport is not correlated with the interannual variability of the middle latitude ozone total column (Norton and Chipperfield, 1995).

Nevertheless, simulations presented by Hadjinicolau et al. indicates that the influence of the chemically activated at high latitudes contributes up to 50 % to the ozone budget at the middle latitudes.

*********************************************

THE TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL EVOLUTION OF THE PSC DISTRIBUTION IN THE ARCTIC WINTER 2002/2003 AS OBSERVED BY MIPAS ON ENVISAT

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/06584/EAE03-J-06584.pdf
*********************************************

What does it take to understand the dynamics of ozone depletion in our atmosphere?

...a lot more than hot air and bold red letters!

Here's an example:
http://www.knmi.nl/goa/workshop_pdf/vintersol.pdf

VINTERSOL

Validation of International Satellites and STudy of Ozone Loss

European Research Coordinating Group

The Northern Hemisphere Stratosphere in the 2002/2003 Winter

Preliminary Results from the Firat Phase of VINTERSOL

http://www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk/EORCU/Reports/wr0203.pdf

********************************************* http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm

WETTER UPPER ATMOSPHERE MAY DELAY GLOBAL OZONE RECOVERY

NASA research has shown that increasing water-vapor in the stratosphere, which results partially from greenhouse gases, may delay ozone recovery and increase the rate of climate change.

Drew Shindell, an atmospheric scientist from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University, NY, used the NASA/GISS global climate model with satellite and other remote sensing data to investigate long-term stratospheric cooling and ozone depletion. This study is the first to link greenhouse gases to increased ozone depletion over populated areas.

Shindell found that he was able to best simulate the behavior of temperature and ozone in the upper atmosphere when he added water vapor data into the climate model.

"Climate models show cooler stratospheric temperatures happen when there is more water vapor present, and water vapor also leads to the breakdown of ozone molecules," Shindell said. According to satellite data, upper atmospheric temperatures around the world (20-35 miles high) have cooled between 5.4-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit over recent decades. The stratosphere is the typically dry layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere, where temperatures increase with height.

According to Shindell there are two driving forces behind the change in stratospheric moisture. "Increased emissions of the greenhouse gas, methane, are transformed into water in the stratosphere," Shindell said, "accounting for about a third of the observed increase in moisture there."

The second cause of change in the upper atmosphere is a greater transport of water from the lower atmosphere, which happens for several reasons. Warmer air holds more water vapor than colder air, so the amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere increases as it is warmed by the greenhouse effect. Climate models also indicate that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane may enhance the transport of water into the stratosphere. Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems likely to have been induced by human activities.

"Rising greenhouse gas emissions account for all or part of the water vapor increase," said Shindell, "which causes stratospheric ozone destruction."

When more water vapor works its way into the stratosphere, the water molecules can be broken down, releasing reactive molecules that can destroy ozone. Shindell noted that his global climate model agrees with satellite observations of the world's stratospheric ozone levels when the water vapor factor is increased in the stratosphere over time. Shindell said, "If the trend of increasing stratospheric water vapor continues, it could increase future global warming and impede ozone stratospheric recovery."

The impact on global warming comes about because both water vapor and ozone are greenhouse gases, which trap heat leaving the Earth. "When they change, the Earth's energy balance changes too, altering the surface climate," said Shindell. Increased water vapor in the stratosphere makes it warmer on the ground by trapping heat, while the ozone loss makes it colder on the ground. Water vapor has a much larger effect, so that overall the changes increase global warming. Shindell stressed that although ozone depletion cools the Earth's surface, repairing stratospheric ozone is very important to block harmful ultraviolet radiation, and other greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced.

Shindell used seven years of data from the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite's (UARS) Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) with ground based data to paint a complete picture of the upper atmosphere. He also used 14 years of lower stratospheric measurements that show large increases in water vapor. Though some studies conflict with lower stratospheric observations of water vapor trends, studies released since Shindell's paper was written, agree with the increases he used, and indicate that they have been taking place for more than four decades already.

Shindell's paper, "Climate and Ozone Response to Increased Stratospheric Water Vapor," appears in the April 15th issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

NASA's HALOE was launched on the UARS spacecraft September 12, 1991 as part of the Earth Science Enterprise Program. Its mission includes improvement of understanding stratospheric ozone depletion by analyzing vertical profiles of ozone, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, methane, water vapor, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and aerosols.

posted 01-05-2004 12:34 AM               

ARCTIC OZONE DEPLETION LINKED TO LONGEVITY OF POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS, SAY STUDIES

Key quotes:

"A significant decline in ozone over the Arctic last winter was due to an increase in the size and longevity of polar stratospheric clouds, according to a group of researchers who participated in a massive, international atmospheric science campaign."

"In some parts of the Arctic stratosphere -- which is located from about 10 miles to 30 miles above Earth -- ozone concentrations declined as much as 60 percent from November 1999 through March 2000. "

"Ozone-depleted air from the Arctic drifts south toward North America, Europe and Russia each spring, increasing the amounts of UV light reaching Earth’s surface in the highly populated mid-latitudes and causing potential increases in several types of cancer."

"The ozone loss over the Arctic has been generaly increasing since the winter of 1995-96, said Toon. If greenhouses gases warming Earth’s atmosphere are shown to be the culprit in lengthening the amount of time the polar stratospheric clouds persist, the recovery of the Arctic ozone layer may be delayed by decades, scientists predict. "

*********************************************

http://www.osearth.com/resources/recall/o3depl.shtml

Global Issues Primer - Ozone Depletion

Key quotes:

"OZONE DEPLETION refers to man-made chemicals rising to the stratosphere to destroy the ozone layer. The ozone layer is a gaseous shield containing ozone molecules which surrounds the Earth and protects humanity from the sun's ultraviolet rays. In 1985 scientists discovered a hole the size of North America in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Roughly 10% of the ozone layer over the Northern Polar Region was destroyed during the winter of 1991-92. The loss is not exclusive to the two pole areas. Satellite monitoring shows that the ozone layer is eroding faster than expected over mid-latitude areas such as Boston and New York. While previous studies suggested ozone losses of 1 to 3% over the United States, recent NASA studies indicate losses of 4 to 5%.

"Mid-latitude Ozone Depletion: In the Spring of 1992, NASA found levels of chlorine monoxide over northern United States, Canada and northern Europe equivalent to levels observed within the Antarctic ozone hole. They also found dangerously low levels of nitrogen oxide because aerosol particles are bonding with the nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxide acts as a brake on ozone loss by tying up active chlorine and bromine. Thus, the atmosphere's ability to suppress active chlorine is weaker than suspected. "

*********************************************

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/05183/EAE03-J-05183.pdf

THE INFLUENCE OF POLAR VORTEX OZONE DEPLETION AT MIDLATITUDES

*********************************************

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/ProgramElements/recent/atmosphererecent.htm

Atmospheric Composition
USGCRP Recent Accomplishments

Arctic Ozone Depletion and Polar Stratospheric Clouds

In one of the Arctic stratosphere’s coldest winters on record, scientists measured depletion of the ozone layer as great as 60 percent during February and March 2000. The findings may be an indication that future cold winters in the Arctic could prolong the depletion of ozone by industrial chlorine compounds, despite the fact that the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is now decreasing in response to international agreements. In addition, an unusual class of large Polar Stratospheric Cloud particles was observed for the first time. The newly discovered class of particles has given scientists a better understanding of the processes that "set the stage" for chlorine-caused ozone depletion in the Arctic stratosphere, and will enable scientists to make better predictions of ozone loss in the Northern Hemisphere in the future. These observations resulted from the SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment (SOLVE), conducted from November 1999 to March 2000, using a suite of space-based, ground-based, balloon and airborne observations. Scientists from NASA, NOAA, other agencies, and academia collaborated in the experiment, which produced a rich data set that scientists are mining to enhance understanding of complex issues associated with chemical reactions occurring on cloud and aerosol particles that play a significant role in high-latitude ozone depletion.

Midlatitude Ozone Layer Change

Trends of stratospheric water vapor over the past half-century were newly characterized in an international study, with the results showing that increases in water vapor have likely made significant contributions to the decline in midlatitude ozone observed over the past 20 years. The increases in water vapor have also played a substantial role in stratospheric cooling. Other analyses have shown that the North Atlantic Oscillation influences ozone changes observed in midlatitudes. The research shows that a combination of long-term dynamical changes and chemical processes will provide a better understanding of the observed ozone behavior and hence a better predictive capability for future changes in the ozone layer. A better understanding of such processes will help identify and evaluate the beginning of the recovery of the ozone layer that is expected over coming decades, as the abundance of ozone-depleting chemicals continues its decline as a result of the implementation of international agreements.

*********************************************

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9819.html

New data on ozone depletion analyzed in GRL papers

Several studies in the June 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union, analyze new data on ozone depletion. The obvious global decline in the ozone layer due to the rise in chlorofluorocarbons is marked by year-to-year and spatial variability. Stanley C. Solomon of the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, et al., analyze satellite data and model the period of ozone depletion from 1979 to 1997. The authors find that northern midlatitude ozone is sensitive not only to chlorine and volcanic aerosols but also to stratospheric temperature fluctuations and inferred circulation changes. The layered structure, always seen in ozonesonde data, makes it difficult to detect trends. R. Bradley Pierce and William B.Grant of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, examine the data for Wallops Island, Virginia, and distinguish between the influences of Rossby waves and gravity waves on the ozone laminae and evaluate the seasonal evolution and trends in ozone. Grant, et al., apply similar wave corrections to sonde data from the tropics and subtropics.

*********************************************

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2000/pr0504en.html

Severe stratospheric ozone depletion in the Arctic

Key quotes:

"Ozone losses of over 60% have occurred in the Arctic stratosphere near 18km altitude during one of the coldest stratospheric winters on record. These losses are likely to affect the ozone levels over Europe during spring. This is one of the most substantial ozone losses at this altitude in the Arctic. Measurements from the largest international campaign ever investigating stratospheric ozone depletion have provided more insight into the processes that control stratospheric ozone. They have also reinforced concerns that the Arctic ozone may continue to decline despite the benefits of reductions in stratospheric chlorine levels (a result of the Montreal Protocol), due to the global climate change. "

"The mixing of polar air into middle latitudes, both during the winter and as the polar vortex broke down in late March, influences ozone levels over the populated middle latitudes. Dilution of ozone-depleted air into middle latitudes is a major contributor to the long-term mid-latitude ozone decline, along with other chemical and dynamical processes. In March 2000, the World Meteorological Organisation Mapping Centre at the University of Thessaloniki reported that the mean column ozone amounts over Europe were 15 % below the pre-1976 average."

*********************************************

*********************************************

*********************************************

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR97/BAPSDFD97/abs/S8050001.html

Ozone Depletion From Pole to Pole
Susan Solomon (NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory)

Significant changes in the abundances of stratospheric ozone were first observed in the Antarctic but now extend over much of the globe. Measurements have established that chlorine chemistry due to human releases of chlorofluorocarbons is responsible for the annual ozone decrease popularly known as the "ozone hole". Significant ozone changes have also been observed in the Arctic and at mid-latitudes. Measurements of ozone changes throughout the world will be discussed, observations of related chemicals will be presented, and the current state of knowledge of present and future ozone depletion will be summarized. New research results relating to the causes of mid-latitude ozone depletion will also be presented, and projections of when the Antarctic ozone hole may 'close' will be described.

*********************************************
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/execsumm-saod2002.pdf

Executive Summary, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002

*********************************************

Starting to see an emerging theme?

Yes, there is GLOBAL OZONE DEPLETION. Period.

And YES, ozone depletion does occur at mid-latitudes as well as at BOTH polar regions.

And no, SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra cannot produce any data to support his claims to the contrary.

He CAN make big red letters however.

How impressive!

posted 01-05-2004 09:31 PM               

While this Cherry Picked data may be true, it does not in anyway eliminate the reality of much larger warming trends over a far greater percentage of the planet.

Decide for yourself. This is a classic example of how SEÑOR Ferreyra uses data to mislead.

The climate of 2002

"The global average surface temperature in the year 2002 was approximately 0.8 °C above the average temperature at the end of the 19th century, making it the second warmest year in the 142-year global instrumental temperature record. The average land temperature was almost 1.2 °C above that at the end of the 19th century. In addition to the underlying warming trend due to greenhouse gas increases, 2002 reflected additional warming from a moderate El Nino event in the Pacific."

"These results were derived from air temperature records from more than 1,000 land-based weather stations and sea-surface temperature measurements taken from 8,000 ships and buoys. Values up to the year 2000 are combined into a global mean using the statistical technique of ‘optimal averaging’."

"The spatial pattern of temperature change for the year 2002, expressed relative to the end of the 19th century, shows warmer than usual conditions across most of the globe, with Eurasia and a sizeable part of the Indian Ocean being particularly warm. However, parts of the north-east Pacific, Canada, southern South America and parts of Australia were cooler than the reference period.

Difference in temperature (°C) between 2002 and the end of the 19th century. Positive values indicate where 2002 was warmer than the reference period."

From:

Climate change observations and predictions:
Recent research on climate change science from the Hadley Centre, December 2003

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2003/global.pdf

Please refer to image 3 of this report, "Difference in temperature between 2002 and the end of the 19th century" in the original PDF file. It is clear from the data presented in this report that there are far fewer areas of the planet that have decreased in temperature (blue) than those which have increased.

If one were to selectively present data FROM JUST THOSE LOCATIONS THAT SHOWED COOLING, a very distorted picture of planetary climate change would be presumed.

It would not, however, be truthful.

We must once again question SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's motivation for the pro-industry slant that he displays in all of his presentations and analysis of data.

We have already seen that many of those "scientists" he chooses to cite are funded by big oil and power companies.

posted 01-07-2004 06:04 PM               

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3370211.stm

Blue-sky thinking about climate

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Scientists are studying possible ways of using engineering to help the world to adapt to increasing climate change.

"Clouds can reflect the Sun's energy back from Earth"

A conference in Cambridge, UK, has been convened to consider possible options while ignoring "political correctness".

The organisers say many options appear at the moment very unlikely to work, with some even appearing to be "crazy", but insist that they must be evaluated.

They say engineering will probably have to play its part in cutting greenhouse gases by the huge amounts necessary.

The conference organisers are the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, based at the University of East Anglia, and the Cambridge-MIT Institute.

No optimists

The meeting, on 8 and 9 January, is entitled Macro-engineering Options For Climate Change Management And Mitigation.

One speaker is Professor James Lovelock, begetter of the Gaia Hypothesis, which holds that the Earth functions as a single organism which maintains the conditions necessary for its survival.

The organisers say reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by around 50%, which may be needed to avoid excessive climate change, will be very difficult, and could require even larger cuts by developed countries.

They say: "Many people feel it is very unlikely that such reductions can be achieved just by improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon intensity by using renewable sources of energy."

So they see a need to evaluate possible macro-engineering options before any can be seriously considered as candidates, even if they prove to be only "an insurance".
So the conference is committed to considering all approaches "without preconceptions" and disregarding "potential pressures in relation to political correctness".

It will look at four main sets of possibilities: "sequestering" (storing) carbon dioxide, for example in the oceans, by removing it from the air for storage, or by improved ways of locking it up in forests "insolation management" - modifying the albedo (reflectivity) of clouds and other surfaces to affect the amount of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth climate design, for example by long-term management of carbon for photosynthesis, or by glaciation control impacts reduction, which includes stabilising ocean currents by river deviation, and providing large-scale migration corridors for wildlife.

The organisers note: "Many of these possible options are highly speculative at present, and some may even appear to be crazy.

Closing the options

"However, that is precisely why they should be evaluated (and if necessary dismissed) as soon as possible.

"Otherwise politicians may seek to use them as 'magic bullets' either to postpone action, or as prospective solutions for actual implementation, once it becomes clear that the mitigation of climate change is going to be a major and very difficult task."

The conference was planned a year ago, long before acute doubts surfaced over the prospects for the eventual entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty.

The US has rejected the protocol, and Russia, whose support is vital, has not yet said whether or not it will ratify it.
Professor John Schellnhuber, of the Tyndall Centre, told BBC News Online: "Kyoto is in a very difficult position, and it may be necessary to find other exit strategies.

Chances slipping away

"We may find we're in a cul-de-sac and have to think of other policies which transcend the protocol.

"But we must think about unconventional strategies in any case, because a back-of-envelope calculation shows we're unlikely to do the job without them.

"We may have missed the best time to intervene to protect the climate. Kyoto will reduce global warming by less than a tenth of a degree anyway.

"If it can be rescued, by then it may mean we've lost another 10 years and are simply running out of time."

********************************************

Tyndall Centre & Cambridge-MIT Institute Symposium

MACRO-ENGINEERING OPTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT & MITIGATION

Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge, England, 7-9 January 2004

Background

Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by the amount (say 50%) which may be necessary to avoid excessive climate change, will be very difficult. If combined with significant convergence internationally, it will moreover require the developed countries to reduce their emissions by much larger proportions, such as 90% (for the USA) and 80% (for Europe). Many people feel that it is very unlikely that such reductions can be achieved just by improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon intensity by using renewable sources of energy. Specifically, conventional approaches may not be sufficient regarding either their magnitude and their time-scale. Because of the urgency of implementing climate-change management, more innovative approaches to the mitigation of climate change are likely to be needed. Indeed, new options may already be needed during the Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol. Any alternatives such as possible macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation therefore need to be widely discussed and properly evaluated, as soon as possible, before they can be seriously considered for implementation.

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute are therefore jointly convening a Symposium in Cambridge, England, on 7-9 January 2004, whose purpose is: To identify, debate, and evaluate possible macro-engineering approaches to the management and mitigation of climate change.

Specific Symposium Objectives

1. to convene and consolidate the relevant research community

2. to provide a panoramic review of the options

3. to evaluate the options using multi-criterion analysis and ranking techniques

4. to contribute to setting the research & development agenda

5. to provide the scientific, engineering and socio-economic basis for policy formation by Governments

...more at:

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/events/macro_options.pdf

posted 01-08-2004 01:18 AM               

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040108/ts_washpost/a6315 3_2004jan7

Warming May Threaten 37% of Species by 2050

By Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer

In the first study of its kind, researchers in a range of habitats including northern Britain, the wet tropics of northeastern Australia and the Mexican desert said yesterday that global warming at currently predicted rates will drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century.

Dismayed by their results, the researchers called for "rapid implementation of technologies" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and warned that the scale of extinctions could climb much higher because of mutually reinforcing interactions between climate change and habitat destruction caused by agriculture, invasive species and other factors.

"The midrange estimate is that 24 percent of plants and animals will be committed to extinction by 2050," said ecologist Chris Thomas of Britain's University of Leeds. "We're not talking about the occasional extinction -- we're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number."

The study marks the first time scientists have produced a global analysis with concrete estimates of the effect of climate change on habitat. Previous work -- much of it by the same researchers -- focused on smaller regions or limited numbers of species.

Thomas led a 19-member international team that surveyed habitat decline for 1,103 plant and animal species in five regions: Europe; Queensland, Australia; Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert; the Brazilian (news - web sites) Amazon; and the Cape Floristic Region at South Africa's southern tip. The study is being published today in the journal Nature.

The five regions encompass 20 percent of Earth's surface and "include a fair range of terrestrial environments," Thomas said in a telephone interview from Leeds. "Obviously, it would be valuable to expand the scope, but there's no reason to think that doing so would change our results tremendously."

Researchers said the wide geographical scope also overcame outside factors that might affect a single region only. "A prolonged drought might cause one instance of a dieback" but be offset by changes elsewhere, acknowledged climate change biologist Lee Hannah, who worked in South Africa. "When you see the broader context, the regional blips drop out."

Although there is little dispute that Earth's temperature is rising, debate over the reasons and speed of change remains contentious. Still, most scientists accept that much of the warming is caused by the cumulative effects of human-produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" -- from power plants and other industries -- that trap and hold heat in the atmosphere.

One skeptic, William O'Keefe, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative science policy organization, criticized the Nature study, saying that the research "ignored species' ability to adapt to higher temperatures" and assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions.

Climatologists have developed models that describe the temperature changes that specific regions have undergone over periods of as long as 30,000 years. The Nature study used U.N. projections that world average temperatures will rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The trick for the study, Thomas said, was to marry the maps of projected climate change in particular regions with maps describing the habitat -- especially the climate needs -- of plants and animals in the same area.

For this, "we needed to get the people together who knew where the species lived," Thomas said. These were the conservationists on the research team -- ecological experts who study extinctions by looking at traditional culprits: destruction of habitat through agriculture, industry or human settlement; invasive species shoving aside native plants and animals; and hunting and extermination of pests.

"Obviously, plants and animals depend on climate for survival, but we figured that if we protect them in place, they would be all right," Hannah said in a telephone interview from his home in California. "But now we realize that we have to take care of them not only where they are now, but where they might have to go."

The team calculated the effects of climate change on extinctions by using what ecologists J. Alan Pounds and Robert Puschendorf, in an article accompanying the study, called "one of ecology's few ironclad laws" -- that shrinking habitat supports fewer species.

The study considered a range of possibilities based on the ability of each species to move to a more congenial habitat to escape warming. If all species were able to move, or "disperse," the study said, only 15 percent would be irrevocably headed for extinction by 2050. If no species were able to disperse, the extinction rate could rise as high as 37 percent.

"Reality, of course, will fall somewhere in between," Thomas said.

As an example, he cited Britain's comma butterfly, a robust flier that hopscotched 160 miles north from 1982 to 1997, feeding all the way -- in its caterpillar phase -- on stinging nettles. By contrast, the silver-studded blue butterfly needs to move north but cannot, because it needs lowland heath to survive, and the gaps between patches of habitat are too large for this weak-winged flier to overcome. As a result, "it has continued to decline," Thomas said.

Pounds, speaking by telephone from his office in Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, called the study's results "ironclad" and "if anything, too conservative." The adverse effects of natural roadblocks would be compounded by "interaction with other changes" such as agriculture, human settlement or invasive species, he said.

"There are different ways you can lose area," Pounds said. "One is to have the habitat directly destroyed. Climate change does the same thing."

posted 01-09-2004 01:22 AM               

CLIMATE CHANGE

Earth is warming, and the environmental changes--largely attributable to greenhouse gases--are dramatic and potentially dangerous in the Arctic

December 15, 2003
Volume 81, Number 50
CENEAR 81 50 pp. 27-37
ISSN 0009-2347

BETTE HILEMAN, C&EN WASHINGTON

A miniature Christmas tree bulb dissipates about 1 watt, mostly as heat. Human-made greenhouse gases provide almost 2 watts of heat per square meter of Earth's surface. So the addition of such gases to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities is equivalent to placing "two tiny bulbs over every square meter of Earth's surface, burning night and day," says James E. Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Much research confirms that something on the order of this amount of heat applied continuously for many years has contributed significantly to the rise in the global average surface air temperature of 0.7–0.8 °C (1.2–1.4 °F) observed since 1900. Study of climate history has shown that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause climate change. Unless huge reductions are made in fossil fuel use, the atmospheric CO2 concentration, now at 370 ppm, is expected to reach 560–1,000 ppm by the end of this century. This will raise heating due to greenhouse gases to at least 3 W per m2 and average global temperatures a further 1.4–5.8 °C (2.5–10.4 °F).

Clearly, Earth is warming. Surface air temperature records, radiosonde (a small instrument package suspended below a balloon) data, and satellite observations all indicate that the planet has heated up over the past century. The 11 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental records have occurred since 1990. The warming observed in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900 has been greater than any other during the past millennium. At the same time, ocean temperatures have risen significantly since the mid-1950s.

Even without temperature records, there is strong evidence the planet is heating up. Mountain glaciers all over the world are retreating. Snow cover is decreasing. Snow is falling later in the season and melting earlier than it did a few decades ago.

Concomitant with the warming have been increases in cloud cover and precipitation at mid to high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, and decreases in precipitation in the subtropics. Droughts are more severe in Asia and Africa and in some parts of the U.S. and Europe. Since 1900, sea levels have risen 10 to 20 cm, from thermal expansion and melting glaciers. El Niño events--the periodic warming of the tropical Pacific that affects weather patterns around the world--have apparently become more intense and more frequent.

AT THE SAME TIME, there have been opposing and neutral trends. For example, most of Antarctica, not including the West Antarctic Peninsula, has grown cooler in the past few decades. So far, there is no evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity or frequency. And data trends for tornadoes are ambiguous.

These developments were announced in 2001 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its third assessment report. The assessment represents the work and review of thousands of leading climate scientists and other specialists from more than 40 countries.
The most striking evidence of climate change has appeared in the Arctic over the past three decades. Perennial or year-round sea ice in the North Polar region has decreased 3% per decade, and the area of the Greenland ice sheet surface that melts during summer has increased dramatically. The extent of tundra, which until recently covered about 24% of land in the Northern Hemisphere, has also declined steeply--15% since the 1970s. As permafrost melts, some of the grayish mosses that typically blanket the tundra are replaced by greener and darker shrubs and trees, says James E. Overland of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

During the past two decades, temperatures have risen faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet. Josefino Comiso, research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, found that temperatures over Arctic summer sea ice increased 1.22 °C per decade beginning in 1980. The Arctic as a whole warmed eight times faster over the past two decades than over the past 100 years, he says.

The changes under way in the Arctic are likely to have profound, mostly negative consequences for the weather and economy in the continental U.S. and Europe, says Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. It cannot be proven that Arctic changes are not solely the consequence of natural variability. But they are totally consistent with the predictions climate scientists made about 20 years ago. "At that time, we said the Arctic would be one of the first places to show noticeable changes from greenhouse gases," he explains.

Because trends in the Arctic are so dramatic and so unsettling in their rapidity, the National Science Foundation is leading a multiagency initiative to understand their full scope. It has established a program called Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH). In this program, scientists are investigating exactly how the observed changes relate to the Arctic's natural variability and if they indicate the start of a major climate shift in the North.

To be sure, there are uncertainties in the science of climate change. But the uncertainties are not about whether Earth has already warmed or whether greenhouse gases are responsible for a large part of this warming, says John P. Holdren, physicist and professor in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. What they do concern "is the precise magnitude of the changes to be expected by 2030, or 2050, or 2100 if civilization does not change course," he explains. "The character, geographic distribution, and timing of damages to human well-being" from greenhouse warming are other uncertainties, he says.

Natural and human influences--called "forcings" in the climate-science community--alter the flow of radiant energy in the atmosphere, cooling and warming Earth by perturbing its energy balance. Positive forcings warm the planet while negative ones cool it.

One of these forcings is greenhouse gases, which alter the planet's energy balance by absorbing infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space. The major greenhouse gases include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and water vapor. With the exception of water vapor, the concentrations of all the greenhouse gases are controlled more or less directly by human activities. (Water vapor levels depend on Earth's temperature and the availability of liquid water, and thus are indirectly affected by humans.)

Other forcings include reflective aerosols (mostly sulfate particles from burning of fossil fuel), black carbon particles (soot), land-cover changes, variations in solar output, and cloud-cover changes resulting from global temperature variations and aerosols.

According to the IPCC third assessment report, the atmospheric concentrations of nearly all greenhouse gases have climbed more or less continuously since preindustrial times. The CO2 concentration increased from 280 ppm in preindustrial times to 368 ppm in 2000, and there are no indications that its rate of increase is slowing greatly or stopping. IPCC projects that the CO2 level will rise to 580 ppm by midcentury and about 840 ppm by 2100, if present trends continue.

The methane level rose from about 700 ppb in preindustrial times to about 1,750 ppb in 2000. The abundance of nitrous oxide grew from 270 ppb to 314 ppb. The average level of tropospheric ozone increased from 25 dobson units to 34 dobson units (one dobson unit equals 2.7X1016 ozone molecules per cm3 of air). In contrast, the atmospheric abundances of most CFCs have been decreasing recently due to production cutbacks agreed to in the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Although none of the greenhouse gases was measured continuously in the atmosphere before 1958, earlier levels have been determined by analyzing tiny air bubbles trapped in ice cores drilled from ice sheets and glaciers, especially those in Greenland and Antarctica. Every year, a new layer of snow accumulates on glaciers, and as the layers are compressed by overlying snow and ice, air bubbles are trapped. Ice cores thus yield stratigraphic information about atmospheric chemicals and particulates for each year of the glacier's existence.

FINE PARTICLES known as aerosols have complex effects on global temperatures that are not well understood or measured. Some aerosols, such as sulfates, are highly reflective and cool Earth, Hansen says. Also, reflective aerosols have indirect effects on clouds, making them brighter and therefore more likely to reflect sunlight, thus causing cooling as well.

But soot from incomplete burning of coal and diesel fuel acts primarily to heat the planet by warming the atmosphere. However, in regions where airborne soot is dense, it cools by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Unlike CO2, which has an atmospheric lifetime of about 100 years and therefore builds up in the atmosphere over long periods, aerosols are generally washed out by precipitation in two weeks or less.

When forests are replaced by cropland, the landscape becomes lighter and thus more reflective, so this has a cooling effect, Hansen says. On timescales of 1,000 years, the sun's irradiance has been fairly steady, varying up and down by a few tenths of a watt per square meter around a constant mean. Over the past century, it increased by a few tenths of a watt per square meter. The net sum of positive and negative forcings--those from greenhouse gases, aerosols, landscape changes, and sun and cloud variations--is 1.6 1 W per m2, Hansen estimates.

Although the uncertainties are great, there is evidence this net forcing is approximately correct, Hansen says. When this figure is used as an input in climate models, the average global temperatures predicted by the models closely match observed temperatures over the past several decades.

The net positive forcing has driven average Northern Hemisphere temperatures to levels not seen for almost 2,000 years, says Michael E. Mann, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Mann used what are called proxy temperature data for eight distinct regions of the globe to construct a graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures spanning nearly two millennia. The proxy indicators consist of tree-ring measurements and pollen records in sediments, as well as ice-core data. In warm years, trees tend to grow faster, so wider tree rings usually indicate higher temperatures.

The isotopic composition of the oxygen from the water in each ice layer also indicates what the global temperature was during the year when the layer was deposited. In warm years, the ratio of 18O to 16O is higher because the heavier isotope is more common in precipitation when temperatures are higher. Some roughly 2,800-meter-long ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica provide climate history for the past 110,000 years.

Mann's graph shows that the late-20th-century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere is unprecedented for almost two millennia. The historical period from 800 to 1400 was moderately warmer than the periods preceding and following it, he concludes, "but this was dwarfed by the late-20th-century warming." For the Southern Hemisphere, however, there are not enough proxy data to make definitive statements about temperatures, he says.

The impacts of higher global temperatures include more precipitation, a larger part of the precipitation coming in extreme events, earlier snow melt, and more drought. As global temperatures rise, more water evaporates, so inevitably greater amounts of rain and snow fall over the planet as a whole. Global warming has already affected hydrological systems in many parts of the world. According to Munich Re, a large reinsurance company that provides insurance to insurance firms, total global monetary losses from weather and flood catastrophes in the 1990s were more than three times what they were in the 1980s.

Analyses conducted in the past decade show that precipitation increased 5–10% over land areas of the Northern Hemisphere during the 20th century. At the same time, droughts have become more frequent and intense in parts of Asia and Africa and in some areas of the U.S. and Europe.

OUT OF BOUNDS In the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature in 2000 was higher than it had been at any time in almost two millennia. The dashed line shows the mean temperature for the period 1961–90. The different colored lines represent various estimates of Northern Hemisphere average temperatures based on slightly different subgroups of proxy data or on different methods of averaging the data. The yellow shading indicates the 95% confidence interval, meaning there is only a 5% probability that the true temperature values lie outside the yellow region. SOURCE: Michael E. Mann [Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820 (2003)]

posted 01-09-2004 01:24 AM               

RECENTLY, Pavel Groisman, a researcher at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, analyzed weather data spanning more than a century for the U.S., excluding Hawaii and Alaska. He reports in an upcoming article in the Journal of Hydrometeorology that since 1895 rainfall increased 7% over the lower 48 states. In most regions, precipitation rose, but it declined in the Southwest. He also finds that heavy rains increased much faster than the total amount of rainfall. Since 1895, the amount of rainfall coming in extreme events rose 14%, but most of the increase occurred during the past three decades.

Droughts have been more intense and frequent in the Southwest, in California in the spring--and surprisingly--in the Northeast, even though the total amount of annual precipitation there has risen, Groisman reports. In the West, spring now comes two to three weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago, he notes.

Outside the U.S., precise trend data for precipitation and drought over the past century are not available for most regions.

According to the IPCC third assessment report, El Niño events became "more frequent, persistent, and intense during the past 20 to 30 years," compared with earlier in the century. Some well-established effects of El Niño are enhanced rainfall over Peru, Ecuador, the southern U.S., and the central Pacific Ocean, and drought in Indonesia, Australia, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil. When El Niños are very intense, floods and droughts in those regions can be catastrophic.

Beginning in the 1980s, some researchers began using computer models to reproduce the physics of the ocean and atmosphere as they evolve during El Niño events. These models are fully coupled mathematical simulations of the physics, chemistry, and biology of the atmosphere, land surface, cryosphere (the frozen part of Earth's surface), and oceans. They have been used to reproduce many of the oceanic and atmospheric effects of El Niños in the tropical Pacific and to predict the onset of such events months in advance.

In 1992, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used computer models to simulate the evolution of an El Niño when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 560 ppm, a level expected long before the end of this century. The results indicate that El Niños may become more intense as CO2 concentrations rise.

From the observational record, "we can say that El Niños have been more intense and more frequent in the past 30 years," says Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the climate analysis group at NCAR. There is evidence they are behaving in unusual ways, he says.

Also, Trenberth notes, there is evidence that the incidence of tornadoes has been increasing over the past few decades. "But it is very hard to tell if this represents a real increase or just that there are more people in more places to find them. You just can't get reliable tornado records to compare with," he explains.

One unambiguous feature of the warming Earth is that alpine (mountain) glaciers are melting all over the world. Lonnie G. Thompson, professor of geological sciences at Ohio State University, has been studying glaciers in Peru, Bolivia, Antarctica, Greenland, China, Africa, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia for the past 25 years. On 45 expeditions, he and his team have drilled ice cores from glaciers in all these areas and taken them back to Ohio State's Byrd Polar Research Center for analysis. The analyses provide many clues to Earth's past climate.

From his expeditions and the work of other glaciologists, Thompson concludes that every tropical glacier on the planet is retreating and that the retreat of lower elevation tropical glaciers is accelerating.

For any individual glacier, "you could argue that the rapid melting is caused by something other than climate change," Thompson says. For example, in the case of Tanzania's Kilimanjaro, which is an ancient volcano, "some have suggested that extra heat is coming from the bedrock beneath, even though measurements show the bedrock is below freezing," he says. But the fact that tropical glacier retreat is so universal "argues for something bigger as a driver," he explains. "For me, it is the weight of the evidence that really makes a compelling case for large-scale human impact from greenhouse gases," he says.

MELTDOWN In September 2003, Arctic sea ice nearly reached the record minimum observed the previous year. The pink line shows the average sea ice cover for September. The colors on the map indicate how much the sea ice concentration deviated from the norm. For example, the concentration of sea ice in the dark blue areas north of Alaska is 30–40% below the norm, while yellow areas show where the ice concentration is above the average value for that time of year. Ice concentration is the percentage of a given area that is covered with ice.
____________________________________________

BY STUDYING MAPS and aerial photos that show the extent of the Kilimanjaro glacier at different times during the 20th century, Thompson estimates it will be gone by 2015–20.

In the Andes of Peru, the Quelccaya Glacier is not just retreating, but "what we see there is a very strong exponential acceleration in the rate of retreat," Thompson says. On the edge of the glacier, he recently found a perfectly preserved nonwoody plant that looked as if it had been put in a freezer yesterday. Carbon-14 analyses at four separate labs dated the plant at about 5,200 years old. "This shows you the ice field has not been smaller than it is today for 5,200 years," he says.

"What you very clearly see from the individual and combined records from glacier cores is that what has happened in the past few decades is unusual, certainly in the context of the past 2,000 years," Thompson says. "What the melting glaciers and the isotopes are telling us is Earth is getting warmer," he says.

Thompson sees the loss of tropical ice as not just a vivid sign of a warming planet, but as a large loss of a way to study past climates. "You are losing the history of Earth as it is recorded in the ice," he says.

DOUBLE TAKE These two photos were taken from a helicopter at exactly the same location on Alaska's North Slope, as part of Sturm's research. The photo on top taken in 1948 shows tundra with virtually no shrubs. The photo on the bottom taken in 2002 shows that the tundra has been invaded by shrubs as air and ground temperatures have increased.
_____________________________________________

THE DISAPPEARANCE of glaciers can also cause severe economic disruption. For example, Kilimanjaro is the number one foreign currency generator for Tanzania. "There is a big debate about how many tourists will still come to this mountain if there is no ice on it," Thompson says. Also, "in Peru during the dry season, many hydroelectric plants depend on meltwater from the glaciers," he says. When the glaciers are gone, they will have to shut down in the dry season.

The changes in the Arctic over the past few decades are so striking and rapid that it would be hard to exaggerate them. Since 1970, temperatures in the Arctic have been increasing about twice as fast as the global average.

In 2002, "we saw sea ice thinning dramatically and retreating to the smallest area it has ever been in summer," says the University of Arizona's Overpeck. The reduction began about 30 years ago. In September 2002, the area covered by sea ice in the Arctic reached an all-time minimum--14% below the long-term average--and in 2003, the area was almost as small.

The extent of sea ice is measured by satellite with passive microwave imagery that detects radiation emitted from Earth's surface. Perennial sea ice has been decreasing 3% per decade since satellite records started in 1979, while summer sea ice has decreased 9% per decade. In summer, Arctic sea ice used to cover an area about the size of the U.S., so a 14% loss represents an area about the size of Colorado and New Hampshire combined.

"In the past, if you had a record-low ice extent in one summer, quite typically it would be followed by a more normal year the next summer," says Mark C. Serreze of the National Snow & Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. The graphs of sea ice extent from year to year used to resemble a sawtooth around a constant mean, he says. This has not been happening recently. A minimum in one year is followed by another low that almost matches it.

At the same time that the extent of Arctic sea ice has shrunk, the ice has also thinned rapidly. Careful measurements taken by U.S. Navy submarines in some areas show the ice is much thinner than in the past. But submarines have not been used to measure ice thickness in all parts of the Arctic, Overland says.

Another dramatic change can be seen in the tundra. There has been a 15% loss of tundra in the Arctic since the 1970s. As tundra warms up, shrubs and trees replace some of the lichen and mosses growing there. Matthew Sturm, geophysicist at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Laboratory, in Alaska, has been comparing photographs of tundra taken about 50 years apart on Alaska's North Slope. Photographs shot from helicopters at precisely the same location in 1948 and 2002, for example, show that some of the tundra has been invaded by shrubs.

Laboratory experiments demonstrate that as tundra warms, some of the mosses and lichens are replaced by shrubs. So this photographic evidence is a clear sign the tundra is warming, Sturm says.

Satellite photos also reveal that the tree line has moved north in the Arctic as tundra heats up and air temperatures increase.

posted 01-09-2004 01:26 AM               

CLIMATE PRODS These bars indicate in watts per square meter natural and human influences--called "forcings" in the climate-science community--that alter the flow of radiant energy in the atmosphere and cool or warm Earth by perturbing its energy balance. Positive forcings warm the planet, whereas negative ones cool it. The largest single positive forcing is CO2. Without major changes in fossil fuel burning, the forcing from CO2 is expected to grow much larger as the century progresses. Reflective aerosols, and the cloud changes that occur when clouds contain reflective aerosols, are negative forcings, but their magnitude is highly uncertain. Reflective aerosols include sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, and soil dust.
_____________________________________________

MANY INVESTIGATORS have detected changes in temperatures in permafrost, the permanently frozen layer below the surface. For example, researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey have been measuring permafrost temperatures from deep holes drilled in northern Alaska since the late 1940s. Through the mid-1980s, permafrost in the region generally warmed 2–4 °C. There were brief periods of cooling in the early 1980s and from 1990–93, but the permafrost has since warmed. The overall trend from 1940 until today is toward warmer temperatures. Similar trends have been reported in Russia.

In most parts of northern Alaska, permafrost has not warmed up enough to melt, but in some Alaskan towns farther south, it has melted. In those places, buildings, roads, electric utility poles, and other structures built on permafrost have fallen over or collapsed as the ground sinks beneath them.

The summer melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1979 is one of the most graphic alterations taking place in the Arctic. Konrad Steffen, professor in the geography department at the University of Colorado, uses passive microwave satellite data to detect the total area of surface melt on the ice sheet. From 1979 to 2003, the melted area as measured in September increased 16%. In 2002, the year of maximum melt, the melted area covered 264,400 sq miles. In 2003, it was almost as large.

One surprising aspect was that the melting extended up to an elevation of 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) on the northern and northeastern parts of the ice sheet, Steffen says. The conditions on the ice sheet are confirmed with 20 automatic weather stations that transmit data hourly via satellite. Using the Internet, anyone can access this weather information (http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/aws/current_GC-Net_plots.html).

Another change is that the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking along the margins, the areas of the ice sheet near the coastline. NASA used an aircraft fitted with a highly sensitive laser altimeter that can measure elevation with an accuracy of 1 cm to detect elevation changes in Greenland. It conducted two missions over Greenland five years apart along the same path. Data from these flights show that the central portion of the ice sheet, which is about 3 km thick, is basically stable, with little or no change in elevation.

But in some places along the margins of the ice sheet, the elevation of the surface is falling by more than 1 meter per year. This means that the margins, which are about 1 km thick, are losing more than 1 meter of thickness per year in some areas. Seventy percent of the ice sheet that has an elevation less than 2,000 meters is thinning significantly, Steffen says.

The loss of thickness cannot be explained by melting alone, Steffen says. There is not enough energy to melt that much ice. However, because there is so much meltwater on the surface of the ice sheet, it penetrates the ice and lubricates the interface between the ice and the bedrock, allowing the ice sheet to flow faster. The increased flow results in higher than normal iceberg production.
Between winter and summer, the flow speed of some Greenland glaciers increases 10–15%, Steffen says, and when winter comes, the flow slows again. Flow speeds fluctuate with available meltwater.

The Jacobshavn Glacier, a major outlet of the ice sheet in western Greenland, flows 10 km per year into the ocean, Steffen says. "You can hear it flowing when you are sleeping [in camp] on the glacier," he says.

The melting in Greenland and increased flow of Greenland glaciers into the sea could cause a dramatic sea-level rise, even in the next 100 years, Overpeck says. "It could be more than a meter by 2100," he explains, "and over the next few centuries, up to 5–6 meters if much of Greenland melts."

Partly as a consequence of surface melting and accelerated ice flow from the Greenland ice sheet, "the North Atlantic Ocean is freshening dramatically around Greenland," Overpeck says. But the primary reason for this freshening is probably increased rainfall in the vicinity of the Arctic Basin, which means that the rivers flowing into Arctic waters have greatly increased flow.

Increased freshwater coming into the Arctic could result in climate change for regions outside the Arctic. Currently, the Gulf Stream, which resembles a large river of warm water on the ocean surface, flows north and warms Northern Europe. As it cools, the atmosphere gains heat, and the water becomes more dense. Then, the river descends to great depths in the Greenland, Iceland, and Norwegian Seas, and returns south.

This deep-water production is not just a function of temperature. It is also a function of salinity. The theory is that "if you could freshen the upper ocean enough, you could potentially shut down this deep-water production," called the thermohaline circulation, Serreze says.

There are several ways that could happen: with increased river discharge to the Arctic Ocean or with more meltwater and icebergs coming from the Greenland ice sheet, Serreze says.

A recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters [30, 1911 (2003)] indicates that by 2080, so much meltwater and icebergs could come off the Greenland ice sheet that they would strongly slow the thermohaline circulation. If this happens, there would be a marked temporary cooling in eastern Greenland and the North Atlantic, which would make parts of northwestern Europe colder. However, if Earth as a whole continued to warm from rising levels of CO2, this regional cooling would eventually be overwhelmed.

The aim of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate. In a presentation to the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality in June, Hansen argued that "we are much closer to dangerous anthropogenic interference than is generally realized."

The IPCC third assessment report assumes that the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will remain stable over this century. Consequently, it estimates that sea level will rise only 20–50cm, on average, by 2100 as Earth warms several degrees Celsius.

Building up a great ice sheet takes a long time, Hansen pointed out. It is limited by the amount of snow that falls each year. In contrast, ice sheet breakup "is driven by highly nonlinear processes and feedbacks," he explained. One feedback is that as ice melts in Greenland, for example, the Arctic region grows darker and is thus able to absorb, rather than reflect, more sunlight. Meltwater absorbs more sunlight than ice.

About 14,000 years ago, as the planet was coming out of the last ice age, Hansen said, 14,000 km3 of ice melted each year for 400 years, which caused sea levels to rise 1 meter every 20 years during those centuries.

GIVEN HOW QUICKLY sea levels rose following the last ice age, when temperatures in Antarctica were only 1 °C higher than those in the mid-20th century, it may be incorrect to assume, as the IPCC report does, that sea levels will rise only moderately by 2100, Hansen said. For this reason, he said, allowing the average global temperature to rise more than 1 °C may constitute dangerous interference with climate.

Research on the stability of the ice sheets deserves high priority, Hansen said. A satellite--IceSat--recently launched by NASA may provide useful data on ice sheet stability, he observed.

Hansen suggested controlling soot, tropospheric ozone, and methane, and stabilizing CO2 emissions rather than trying during the next 50 years to make large reductions in CO2 emissions.

Holdren, on the other hand, says there is no way to avoid controlling CO2 in any strategy seeking to limit global change. "Under anything resembling 'business-as-usual' growth of economic activity and fossil-fuel use, CO2's importance relative to other influences on global climate will increase dramatically through the 21st century," he wrote in a background document in May. Although it is worthwhile to limit emissions of black soot and non-CO2 greenhouse gases, "carbon dioxide is the 800-lb gorilla in the climate-change problem, and any sensible strategy must aim for large reductions" in its emissions, he observed.

Today, health researchers point out that there are 3 million largely preventable deaths from AIDS each year. But by the middle of this century or sooner, that toll may be dwarfed by fatalities from climate change. A large portion of the world's population lives only a few meters above sea level. In India, for example, a 0.88-meter rise in sea level would lead to 20 million to 60 million environmental refugees, said IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri in a speech this year. Much of South Florida is situated only 1 meter above sea level. If melting in Greenland continues to accelerate, tragedies could ensue in many parts of the world by midcentury.

posted 01-09-2004 01:57 AM               

Myths About Past Temperatures In Greenland And England

December 15, 2003
Volume 81, Number 50
CENEAR 81 50 pp. 27-37
ISSN 0009-2347

Several myths create confusion about past global temperatures, says Michael E. Mann, assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. Climate change skeptics use these misconceptions to try to show that there were periods during the past millennium when global temperatures were higher than they have been in recent times.

One myth is that Greenland was much warmer during the so-called medieval warm period than it is today, and that the warmth enabled the Norse to settle there. The truth is that a few hundred Norse settled in the fjord region of southwest Greenland beginning in 986 because it was the warmest part of the island, as it is today, Mann says.

The settlements collapsed totally by 1500, not primarily because of climate change, but because of social factors, Mann argues. Shipping routes changed, and the inhabitants had no way to get supplies or sell their products. The regional cooling in Greenland that set in between 1000 and 1400 was of the order of 1 °C or less--"not the kind of cooling that's going to cause massive upheaval," he explains.

Another myth is that grapes could be grown in England during medieval times but have not been cultivated there recently. "However, there are roughly 10 times as many vineyards in England today than at the height of the so-called medieval warm period," Mann explains. England has never been a major wine-producing region, not in medieval times and not today, he notes. However, "it has been suitable for grape growing for most of the past 1,000 years," he says.

posted 01-09-2004 11:38 AM               

New research from NASA and Columbia University climate scientists shows that more than 25 percent of the increase in average global temperature between 1880 and 2002 may be due to soot contamination of snow and ice worldwide. Pure snow and ice can be blindingly bright, reflecting large amounts of incoming radiation back into space, whereas snow and ice that is contaminated with black carbon absorbs incoming solar radiation. The scientists estimate that a soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) can reduce snow’s ability to reflect incoming radiation by 1 percent. In North American, soot has reduced snow’s reflectivity by 3 percent.

This image shows the results of computer models of the impact of soot on global temperatures between 1880 and 2002. Soot has caused the greatest increase in temperature in the high northern latitudes, as shown by the large swaths of red, orange, and gold across the top of this image.

In addition to its contribution to global warming, soot also speeds up melting of snow and ice, meaning it is probably partly responsible for the rapid decline in the world’s glaciers. Soot in the atmosphere causes regional haze that depresses plant (including crop) productivity, and it is a significant health hazard. For more on this story, read the GSFC press release here:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1223blacksoot.html

posted 01-10-2004 01:39 PM               

BLACK SOOT AND SNOW: A WARMER COMBINATION

New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.

posted 01-10-2004 02:23 PM               

Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.

Full document available at:

ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/mannjones03.pdf

*********************************************
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth,Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.

Full document available at:

ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/eos03.pdf

********************************************* http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003/mann2003.html

Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions Using Terrestrial Borehole Data

J. Geophys. Res. - Atmospheres
Vol. 108 No. D7, 03 April 2003
doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532

Comparisons between different Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions and instrumental record. Shown are smoothed (40 year lowpassed) reconstructions and, in the case of the Mann et al reconstruction, the associated 95% confidence interval. Shown for comparison are the HPS00 reconstruction, and the areally-weighted mean of gridded HPS00 borehole reconstructions.

*********************************************

Here is a detail rebuttal to the claim that "urban heat islands" significantly distort the conclusions of these trends:

Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J. T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., Response to Comment on 'On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth', Eos, 84, 473, 2003.

posted 01-10-2004 11:37 PM               

Global warming 'biggest threat'

Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, the UK Government's chief scientific adviser has said.

Sir David King said the US had failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And without immediate action flooding, drought, hunger and debilitating diseases such as malaria would hit millions of people around the world.

US President George Bush says more research is needed before he introduces punitive carbon taxes on industry.

But Sir David criticised the Bush administration for relying too exclusively on market-based incentives and voluntary actions.

He told Science, the "house magazine" of the US scientific establishment: "As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action.

"But at present the US Government is failing to take up the challenge of global warming."

Flood risk

In Britain, the number of people at high risk of flooding was expected to more than double to nearly 3.5 million by 2080, Sir David said.

And damage to properties could run to tens of billions of pounds every year.

Britain was trying to show leadership by cutting energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable sources, Sir David added.

But the UK was responsible for only about 2% of the world's emissions while the US, with just 4% of the world's population, produced more than 20%.

The UK was asking the world's developed economies to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by about 2050, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Sir David said.

Severe problem

But despite declaring support for the UNFCC's objectives, the US had failed to ratify the Kyoto accord for emission reductions and "refused to countenance any remedial action now or in the future".

Sir David added: "We can only overcome this challenge by facing it together, shoulder to shoulder.

"We in the rest of the world are now looking to the USA to play its leading part."

Sir David said climate change was the most severe problem faced by the world.

"The United States is already in the forefront of the science and technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle emissions control too," he said.

"If we do not begin now, more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be needed later on."

Population growth

Levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen steeply since the industrial revolution.

Concentrations have increased mainly because of the use of fossil fuels, deforestation and other human activities, spurred on by economic and population growth.

Greenhouse gases stop energy escaping from the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

If levels rise too high, excessive warming can distort natural patterns of climate, researchers say.

posted 01-10-2004 11:43 PM               

Doom warnings sound more loudly

By Alex Kirby

Our environment correspondent considers why warnings about the state of the planet are becoming more insistent

For the doom merchants amongst us, 2004 showed its fearsome teeth in a cracking start before it was even 10 days old.
On 7 January a report in the journal Nature said climate change could speed a million land-based species towards extinction within the next 50 years.

The next day the Worldwatch Institute declared modern lifestyles were bad for us and unsustainable for the planet.

The UK Government's chief scientist now says climate change is a far worse danger than international terrorism.

A triple onslaught like that defies anyone to head into the new year feeling even slightly positive about the human condition.

Yet life goes on, and most of us worry more about paying the Christmas bills than about a world bereft of a quarter of its animals and plants.

Devout sceptics

We believe the scientists: we simply do not connect their findings to our lives, our families, ourselves even.

Some of us just refuse to react, blaming the messengers for their message and accusing the scientists of scaremongering.
But (at the risk of tempting fate) my inbox has been blessedly much freer recently of flat-earthers and foam-flecked contrarians.

Most of us are convinced by the message - yet still we go on as if we had not a care in the world.

But whether because of climate change or not, we are already losing species so fast that biologists talk of the Earth undergoing its sixth great extinction since the Big Bang. We are losing species we do not know exist, which could be vital to our survival.

A few years ago, when the world's gross national product was worth about $18 trillion, the value of Nature's goods and services to us was estimated at $33 trillion.

Similarly, the evidence that human activities are intensifying natural climate change is impressive, and hardening. The world really is changing, almost imperceptibly, but in line with what science says will happen.

Slow to show

I know there are sincere people who regard both the global extinction rate and the changing climate as entirely natural developments which need not concern us.

But I met a man recently who told me how he could see the effects of the warmer climate in his local park in Birkenhead, in the north of England.

I talked to another whose research has convinced him there may be only 20,000 lions left in the whole of Africa.
The trouble with imperceptible change is that for a long time it has virtually no impact, certainly not on the political timescale of four or five years. And politicians respond (often) to what they think matters to voters.

Yet the record preserved in cores drilled out of the Greenland icecap shows climate change can be very rapid indeed, flipping from one stable state to another in a few decades.

It is not fanciful to envisage our children living in a Britain where the Gulf Stream has ceased to flow, and where climate change means winters as cold as northern Canada's.

Unstoppable force

Perhaps it will take some sudden, savage reversal of Nature to make us sit up and take notice.

But we can change just as unpredictably as Nature can. Who predicted the peaceful end of apartheid South Africa, the melting of the Soviet Union?

When enough of us have changed imperceptibly enough to start acting on the warnings we are hearing, the resulting critical mass will cause some very rapid change of its own.

posted 01-10-2004 11:45 PM               

Sore Throat's position as been arguing from what's known as The Invincible Ignorant Fallacy: that is defined by: The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In fact, the argument says, "If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound." This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended.

Then the other fallacy of circularity used by Sore Throat when defending the IPCC is:

Non Causa Pro Causa
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. There may actually be a causal connection between the two events, but the hypothesis mis-locates it, either getting it backwards, or treating as cause-and-effect two events that are really independent results of a common cause.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Description: The argument offers an explanation by citing one event as the cause of another, but the required connection between the two events would need laws of nature that are not generally accepted. The argument turns on the temporal ordering of the events: A comes before B, so A causes B. In fact, the temporal ordering of the two events is likely to have been merely coincidental, or the result of some further causal factor.

This applies to the general activities of the IPCC gang claiming that the CO2 increase causes temperature to increase, ignoring studies that have proved the contrary (Monnin, et al, remember, and some others too).

Over-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an explanation for a "fact" whose existence is doubtful. The arguer uncritically accepts as true the occurrence of events that are legendary or mythological, mere rumors or exaggerations, and, in any case, uncorroborated and unrepeatable.

When accepting uncritically graphs and studies from “scientists” that call for a press conference rather than wait for other scientists to review their work.

Under-reporting the Facts
Description: The argument proposes an arcane explanation for a fact that appears surprising or mysterious only because not all of the relevant accompanying facts have been reported. Usually the additional facts suggest a perfectly ordinary explanation, or that the "surprising" event was due to fraud or trickery, or that  it was the predictable result of ordinary statistical frequencies.

When refuting claims by skeptics = they have been paid by the oil companies, etc. but the main fallacies committed by Sore, is that he tries to prove the IPCC and its cohort are right, by showing graphs and studies by the IPCC and its accomplices. It is like saying, my client is not guilty of murder, because he told me so!. It can be enclosed in these definitions:

Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Description: The words and phrases used to express the premisses are synonymous with the words and phrases used to express the conclusion. That is, the conclusion merely restates the premisses, with minor changes.

Vicious Circle
Description: The conclusion of the argument is appealed to as one of the truths or principles upon which the argument itself rests.

Example: "Everything the IPCC says is great science. By great science I mean, of course, whatever is done by a great scientific organization; and the IPCC is a great scientific organization. It is a great scientific organization because everything it does is great science."

So, there is nothing I can do, but just watch the Niagara Falls of press releases, colorful and misleading graphs, and sarcastic remarks about how stupid I am -- that proves nothing.

Your insistence on my “error” or “false statement” that stratospheric polar clouds do not form outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex, is misleading and in bad milk. I was telling about a critic I did of one paper in Science by S. Solomon, back in 1988, where she stated that SPC were found in the South Pole, and sometimes in the North Pole (she was studying ozone above Thule and Greenland) and I repeated what she said (but we already knew) that back in 1988 SPC were seldom seen in the Arctic, because temperatures were not as low as in Antarctica.

But my critic was that in her paper she did not prove that CFC were being split by UV rays in the stratosphere, she did not prove that chlorine was attacking ozone outside the ice crystals, but she was, nonetheless, recommending the ban of CFCs! She had not the slightest proof for her recommendation, and she was being untruthful and dishonest. She was lying! Because even she admitted in her study that ozone was not being attacked by chlorine outside the ozone Hole. And that was what I claimed, after her: there is no ozone depletion outside the Polar Vortex, beyond the natural variations induced by the Sun, the Quasi Biennial Oscillation, and other natural causes.

But you didn't like that part and instead of discussing Solomon's lack of honesty, and flawed study, you chose to shoot the messenger, ME. By cutting my head and showing it to the mob, you claimed victory. Unfortunately for you, I still have my head intact. You were showing the head of the strawman you were attacking.

So, I see no object to keep posting replies to fallacies here, because you NEVER answer or comment any of my documented studies and references, and just dismiss them as coming from the oil industry. With such a tunnel vision, is impossible to argue. But, if you insist, I can fill your entire thread with studies, full of graphs, charts and photos showing the ozone layer is not being depleted, (you showed ozone measurements over Glantz, Switzerland, but laughed at Hohenpeissenberg temperature data – that's the kind of hypocrite you are!).

I have refrained to do so for respect to the readers of this forum that were interested in the subject of GLOBAL WARMING, but seems to be bored by your NIAGARA FALLS of copy & pastes, and have gone to other more interesting places.

Keep your eye on the "Hockeystick"controversy. Nature is now investigating whether the data of a crucial 1998 paper by Mann et al were "manhandled." Since it forms a major support for the IPCC conclusion about Global warming, this may have consequences. After all, I have not been so wrong when doubting of Mann´s Hockey Stick, and the IPCC mantra built on top of it.