Yet another prediction using nothing but models. Do these guys actually collect real data? I'm beginning to wonder as it appears that everything they do is based on a model which they are able to manipulate.

Reply: Real data is collected, then it is modeled. The models save a lot of time and money in coming up with possible answers.

So basically, this is in direct contrast to the prediction of the IPCC/AR4 model.
And this could be important for SH climate since the acceleration (westerly jet in the SH troposphere is accelerating on the poleward side) directly affects:

- the surface temperatures
- the extent of sea ice
- the variability of storm tracks
- the location of arid regions
- the strength of the wind-driven oceanic circulation
- the exchange of CO2 and heat between atmosphere and ocean

In the original report, it indicates that the model shows that ozone hole recovery will increase global warming in that region, so by man helping to decrease the ozone hole man is even causing more global warming. Law of Unintended Consequences.

Apparently, more work needs to be done on the climate models and we need to be a little skeptical of the IPCC report, before we implement drastic global warming �solutions� that may have the opposite effect.

Southern Ocean SST increased 0.15 deg C from the late 1960s to the mid 80s. Prior to that, 1854 to 1960S, it was relatively flat. Since the early 1990s, it has been dropping like a rock and is now lower than levels in the 1950s and 1960s. The timing coincides nicely. And, with luck, Southern Ocean SSTs will continue to pull down mid-latitude Southern Hemisphere SSTs.

Brett, I've got a graph of ERSST.v2 data of the Southern Ocean and mid-latitude SH SST that would reinforce this, but it's a tinypic link. Is there any way your filter could be adjusted to allow tinypics, while still blocking the trash you don't want? Or is there another picture posting website that makes its way past your filters?

Reply: We cannot adjust it since we do not host it. I will look for it in the Junk Bob and post it myself.

From USA Today:

A new study finds that natural variations in how clouds form could actually be causing temperature changes, rather than the other way around, and could also lead to overestimates of how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gas emissions.

"Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Ni�o and La Ni�a, some, or even most, of the global warming seen in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system," says lead author Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

"This is because stratospheric ozone has not been considered a major player in the climate system."
Another Columbia University group, with the overarching goal behind their research is to achieve environmental sustainability…” getting in on the great green gravy grant train of AGW.
One interesting note of interest in this article is the conflict between what they are saying and what Dr, Hanson’s minions have said earlier this year. Hansenonian temperature readings have been adjusted to say that Antarctica is getting warmer. This study says closing of the ozone hole will reverse the weather in the Southern hemisphere and warm up Antarctica! So which way are the temps going to go up or down? (In this computer age can’t somebody on the AGW side get their stories straight?) It probably doesn’t matter because all weather and temps in any direction have probably been definitely linked to or maybe caused by AGW.
Climate studies is too young a field to even think they can predict 10 years into the future much less fifty or a hundred years. This field just doesn’t know enough or have an accurate baseline for predictions much less a coherent idea of what actually drives climate.(and CO2 continues to look less and less like the Devil.)

Just what other discoveries and climate system modulators don’t we yet know about much less understand?

How about we start with basic science research collecting and using real data and establishing a legitimate baseline first before we just waste money and resources!

It sounds like a (disingenuous) way to wiggle out of the overstated predicitions of the AGW mantra. This way the AGW modellers can say they were blindsided by an unforeseen event ... and furthemore that the closing of the ozone hole is proof that man can affect the climate (in this case by the reduction of cfc emissions).

Thus acknowledging a change in the direction of GW without actually stating they can't predict the climate, while being able to continue arguing 'man overpowers mother nature' with a straight face.

So, if this is true, then isn't the opposite true as well? I.e., that the ozone hole has exacerbated climate change (warming) in the 80s-90s?

the ozone hole is not a hole...ozone thinning is a cyclic natural phenomenon...it is not recovering because of the cfc ban...the cfc scam was an earlier version of the AGW SCAM...before that was the acid rain scam...followed by the ethanol scam...invoking AGW into a future predicting variable ozone climate model will do what?...concluding paragraph says it all "more research needs to be conducted to validate our computer invented claims that the antarctic will boil over because of ozone recovery"...these dudes havent one ounce of credability or conscience...first we hated the ozone hole, now we hate a perceived abundance of it...and guess what, they admit they dont have a clue whats going on, didnt know what was going on in the first models of the AGW scam, but now, with more taxpayer money they will figure it all out? you have got to be kidding me...all this hysteria and taxpayer skimming brought to you courtesy of yet another, computer generated fairytale...

Yet another possibility. It seems more and more scenarios lean towards cooler weather but out of all of these how many will you here reported on the liberal news {a.k.a N.B.C, A.B.C, C.B.S, CNN, etc,etc..} the answer will be none because they are there to raise the Gore power and try to brainwash as many airheads as possible, thats why they only show and tell one view. At one time I thought the ozone hole was something expanding, irreversable and it was told as such, why, to scare. Why, for the power of the left, there only method of support.

Brett, above you wrote: Real data is collected, then it is modeled. The models save alot of time and money coming up with possible answers. Couldn't you virtually use the models to come up with every scenario possible? Just wondering.

Brett,

You said, Real data is collected, then it is modeled.

However, from the article, they say, Observations in the last few years indicate that ozone depletion has largely halted and is expected to fully reverse. As a consequence, the new study finds, the Southern Hemisphere climate change may also reverse.

This indicates to me that although they have collected data showing slowing, if not a complete halt to the ozone depletion, there is no data showing a reversal of the trend. (Reply: The reversal is related to the ozone hole closing. It is not even close to closing yet, so current data will not tell you much.)Therefore, my original statement stands. This is a model (with no calibration) that has been used as a basis for another model. They then used this model to come up with this major announcement.

Another reason why I don't trust the AGW crowd. (Reply: How do you know that this particular group of researchers are part of the "AGW crowd.?" I did not see AGW mentioned in the article.) Their consistent overuse of models.

I think Bob Tisdale has the scent. Southern Ocean receives nearly 7% more irradiance than NH, all other factors being equal. Eighty Five percent of irradiance falls between the Tropics.

The oceans heat capacity is greater than land.

Dr. Spencer's F-test on the Mauna Loa CO2 curve indicates one CO2 fluence is responsible for the seasonal signal and the long-term trend:

Southern Ocean heating.

Go Bob.

Here is an interesting article on ozone depletion. According to this 2001 article "Bromine is approximately 40-100 times more effective, atom for atom, at destroying ozone than chlorine. For instance, Br coupled reactions are responsible for 30 to 50% of the total ozone loss in the polar vortex." The article also states that "The largest source of bromine to the stratosphere is methyl bromide (CH3Br)." Approximately 58% of the methyl bromide emitted to the atmosphere is from natural sources, the remainder supposedly being anthropogenic.

Naturally-occurring bromoform, methyl chloride, methyl iodide, and chloroform also are major contributers to atmospheric organohalide concentrations. In fact, these naturally-occurring compounds were found to be the major contributer to near-surface ozone depletion. Hence, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to transport the compounds into the upper atmosphere via strong updrafts.

What this all boils down to is that there is a fairly good chance that the dreaded ozone depletion over the Antarctic is dominantly a naturally-occurring phenomenon and this study fails to this into account.

Mary:
Here is a direct quote from the IPCC. This is a summary from SAFEGUARDING THE OZONE LAYER."Observations and Model calculations suggest that the global average has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability of ozone is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ODS concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol. There are several brochures from the IPCC, and below is the place where you can get them for free. Your right about the replacements of Halo-carbons as they will also be a strong radiative forcing as GHGs. But the good news is that they have a shorter life span than CO2, and even the IPCC concludes that the scenarios could change as other chemicals like ammonia and other technological processes will become available. So even the IPCC can adapt to the latest findings. And then you have to take it with a grain of salt. Now that I think about it someday they may find a way to make CO2, C and O2.
KIPP

https://www.gcrio.org/orders/login.php

Their is a tendency for people ( scientists and university PR depts are people) to exaggerate the importance & originality of their work. The conclusions of Dr Polvani hold little surprise to the climate science community, despite the wording in the news release. The issues have long been recognized -

"Also human-caused depletion of stratospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas, has reduced warming over most of Antarctica. This ozone depletion and CO2 increase have cooled the stratosphere, increased zonal winds around Antarctica, and thus warmed the Antarctic Peninsula while limiting warming of most of the Antarctic continent (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004). "
- - James Hansen, testimony to Iowa Utility Board. '07

and
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Shindell_Schmidt.pdf

We see the effects of a healing Antarctic ozone hole were examined several years ago.

They have not been overlooked, the way this blog's coterie of confusionists overlook the reality and risk of global warming.

Thanks, Brett. Here's the link to the graph.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2we9jli.jpg
To reinforce what I wrote earlier: Southern Ocean SST increased 0.15 deg C from the late 1960s to the mid 80s. Prior to that, 1854 to 1960S, it was relatively flat. Since the early 1990s, it has been dropping like a rock and is now lower than levels in the 1950s and 1960s. The timing coincides nicely with the ozone problem/correction, though I have yet to run a graph comparing ozone hole area and Southern Ocean SST.

Looking again at the SST data, with luck, Southern Ocean SSTs will continue to pull down mid-latitude Southern Hemisphere SSTs.

Thanks again.

About the source: There's all sorts of valuable information hidden away on the NOAA NOMADS. I finally figured out how to retrieve the time series data for Smith and Reynolds SST (actually, I found the instructions) and I'm working on about a dozen posts for my blogspot that I'll post as a group once they're done. I've been studying climate change as a layman for more than 15 years, but some of the SST data just blew me away.

Brett:
I think what you mean by the article title is that since the global ozone is back in place, it would mean less warming in areas that reflect sunlight and the infrared spectrum back through the atmosphere and into space. It is correct that the IPCC never considered ozone. What they did say is this. "Ammonia and those Hydrocarbons used as halocarbon substitutes have atmospheric lifetimes ranging from days to months, and the direct and indirect radiative forcings with there use as substitutes are very likely to have a negligible effect on global climate. HFCs,CFCs, and halons, already in the atmosphere, will exist decades, to centuries,in their lifetimes as a radiative gas. It depends on which HFC or HCFC you are talking about.There are many different ones. All break down eventually from oxygen. AGW,is the problem. The ice, she melts.
KIPP

I think first it was that we were going to freeze to death. Then it was the ozone hole that was going to end it for all of us. I remember the acid rain scare because I did a speech about it when I was in college. I had first hand experience having seen the results of acid rain on the trees at the summit of Mt. Mitchell, NC. It is significant at that elevation.

While I appreciate the efforts of many of the environmental groups, finding balance regarding man 's place on the planet seems to be at the crux of climate change. The environmental activists and their followers seem to loathe the idea that man exists at all and is thus screwing up what would be a perfect world. It really is easy to put all the blame on man if you believe that man has the power to right the evils that cause global change which at this point there is no proof of. The problem with this POV is that even though man is a slob and does screw with nature by our very existence, the size of populations today make it impossible for man to live on this planet in such a manner as to leave barely a footprint.

It is the technology today that is driving this climate change debate, but then technology is not friendly to the environment either. As an example, how many fab structures need to be built to produce wafers and then how long do these facilities last? As I recall, 5 years maybe and then the technology that went into building that facility is considered too antiquated and thus more fabs houses are constructed leaving the old ones obsolete. Maybe that industry is more environmentally friendly than when I worked in it some years ago.

It would be interesting to compare personnel involved with the Montreal Protocol, with people working for the IPCC.
Bet there is plenty of overlap in those two pools.
Mug shots might be appropriate.

A little off topic...

I've long thought the Associated Press would hype anything that's supposedly evidence for AGW and the direness of its consequences. Apparently, I was correct. Here, by way of the CBS News website, is an AP story titled Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In Past that claims climate change has caused a five-fold increase in seismic activity.

The author is a crackpot, the "journal" is edited by the author, himself, and the associated university is phony. Good job, AP and CBS News. At least Steve Bloom hasn't gotten around to cutting-and-pasting the entire article onto this blog.

You know, this would be funny if it weren't so darned hilarious.

(I suspect the story will soon vanish from the CBS website.)

I agree with Mary that we have to do more work refining climate models (and rest assured, that work goes on every day). For all the talk on this forum about failures of science to be able to predict weather accurately, we are doing better than we were without science. The same is true for climate. As far as Mary's concern that we should be cautious about implementing "solutions" to global warming for fear of doing unintended harm, do we have a similar fear about the vast experiment we are conducting on the planet by injecting billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere that are known to increase solar heat retention; changing land use patterns that release carbon and change albedo; etc? My guess for the majority of the group in this echo chamber the answer is "No".

Actually, Brett, their article is full of references to global warming (aka, climate change) such as ...may significantly affect climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, and therefore, the global climate...; and ...the new study finds, the Southern Hemisphere climate change may also reverse...; and "Our results suggest that stratospheric ozone is important for the Southern Hemisphere climate change, and ought to be more carefully considered in the next set of IPCC model integrations,"...; and ...chemistry-climate models used for the 2006 Ozone Assessment, however, predict that the Antarctic ozone hole will achieve full recovery in the second half of this century, and that this may have profound impacts on the surface winds and, likely, on other aspects of the Earth's climate, including surface temperatures, locations of storm tracks, extent of dry zones, amount of sea ice, and ocean circulation...; and ...the tropospheric winds in the Southern Hemisphere have been accelerating closer to the planet's pole as a result of increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing ozone...; and ...potentially reversing the direction of climate change in that hemisphere... ;and ...shows significant effects on the global climate...; and ...to fully understand how complete ozone recovery will impact the planet's changing climate...; and finally ...interactions between a recovering ozone hole, increasing greenhouse gases, ocean currents, and other components of the climate system must still be explored in order to better understand how the Earth's climate will change in the future.

Sounds to me as though they have bought into the AGW theory.

Reply: Maybe, but I still do not see references to "man-made" global warming. Global warming in general, yes.

Brett,

Reply: How do you know that this particular group of researchers are part of the "AGW crowd.?" I did not see AGW mentioned in the article.)

Not mentioned in the article but if you go to their website their goal is:
“The overarching goal behind the research of the Earth Institute is to achieve environmental sustainability in the context of a world of environmental challenges—from rapid population growth and climate change....”

When they say Climate Change that the context is AGW!
Climate change is the new buzzword for AGW as they just got tired of so many people laughing at them and are trying to cover every base.

Reply: I was just focusing on the study.