Interesting ideas, but I prefer data to models.

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? I want to see the chemistry and photo-chemistry involved.

Besides Chlorine, Fluorine, Bromine, and Iodine (some from sea spray and not man) destroying Ozone, I've also read SO2 from volcanoes effects Ozone. Also Ultraviolet rays from the sun. It would be nice if someone put together a nice over-view of all the factors that go into creating and destroying Ozone. Most papers seem to over-focus on a single factor. Can anyone suggest any good reading?

The jury is still out, concerning what the sun is up to, but if the current minimum turns out to be a long-lasting minimum, a very interesting theory will be tested. This theory suggests that the sun not only effects Ozone directly, with its rays, but indirectly, by changing the speed of the rotation of the earth. The theory states that even a slight change in the speed of the Earth's rotation stresses the crust, and volcanoes blow. This ejects SO2 into the stratosphere, and effects Ozone, (and you can take it from there to differing conclusions.)

The correlation between solar minimums and global cooling may therefore be more due to sun-caused volcanoes than due to any great change in the sun's rays. For example: Many point out the huge eruption of Mount Tamboro as causing the "Year Without A Summer" during the Dalton Minimum.

In any case, Ozone is effected by more than "greenhouse gases."

The counterpoint to this is:
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Updated Report: French Reversal on climate policy? Outspoken Skeptical Scientist Claude Allegre May Be Tapped as Environmental Minister!
Allegre Converted From Warming Believer to Climate Skeptic

http://climatedepot.com/a/278/Update-Report-French-Reversal-on-climate-policy-Outspoken-Skeptical-Scientist-Claude-Allegre-May-Be-Tapped-as-Environmental-Minister

Nonsence, CFC's have no way to get above troposphere, they are too heavy. The noted recovery of the Ozone Layer has been news for a while now, a few years at least. Why? Because there appears to be a new gass layer of mono atomic oxygen and monoatmic hydrogen...Ozone being O3 and monoatomic oxygen O1 , highly reactive agents indeed that seem to be acting upon pollutants including aerosols both manmade and natural. Dr. Alexi Dimetriov , distinguished Russian scientist has written about this at great length. Ozone is heavy and it occurs above the stratosphere because cosmic rays provide the energy required to fuse O1 and O2 into O3...Ground produced ozone also cannot get above the troposphere, like CFC's. By the way the sky has been chemtrailed to death the last two days here in the Catskills. Just horrifying to see .

Hmmm????

I read the article but I couldn't find which 'greenshouse gas' or gases they were referring to????

Dihydrogen monoxide leads to the breakdown of ozone molecules.

i wonder if that is the green house gas they were they were referring to???

"The findings are based on a detailed computer model "

Groan!!!!

What they are really saying is that the ozone hole is correlated to temperature which is correlated to solar activity.

The Lie is bigger than global warming, it goes back to the ozone hole and overpopulation. Perhaps it will fall with one big swoop...

Gary,

Well, duhhhh!! What are you going to believe? Computer models or empirical data?

GeorgeN:Your wrong.
Airborne - Projects involve measuring trace gases in the upper troposphere and stratosphere on balloons and aircraft including Unpiloted Airborne Vehicles (UAVs) to help understanding the chemistry and transport of the upper atmosphere.
Flasks - Research centers on obtaining the maximum science from weekly to monthly flasks samples collected worldwide and analyzed in our Boulder labs. These samples are used to determine current and historical trends, trace gas and OH distributions, emissions, and inventories.
Instrumentation - Custom instrumentation for measuring greenhouse gases, halocarbons, substitute halocarbons, and hydrocarbons have been built for unique platforms. Some instrumentation has been provided to other countries to monitor trace gases.
In Situ Program - Hourly in situ observations at NOAA/ESRL baseline observatories, Niwot Ridge, Colorado and Summit, Greenland provide information on transport, emissions, and trends.
Ocean - The oceans play an important role as sources and sinks for atmospheric trace species. The determination of fluxes between the surface seawater and the marine air require knowledge of the saturation anomaly with air and the gas exchange rate.
Standards - Research is conducted for developing and maintaining standard gas mixtures of atmospheric gases to calibrate instrumentation on the many platforms used in our studies. Custom standards provided as tertiary calibration mixtures are available. kipp

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboratory | Global Monitoring Division
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/index.html Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Disclaimer | USA.gov

Speaking of greenhouse gases, guess what?? It's now offical! WE ARE ALL (CO2 EXHALING) POLLUTERS!!!! At least in the eyes of Ms. Mosley Browner and the Obama supporters in the elitest EPA, who are just starting to swing their hammer and sickle. Take a gander:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/epa-takes-step-regulating-pollution-linked-climate-change/

Nice going, America! Way to vote them in! Nice job, you...you....oh I am so angry, I could SPIT!!!! Honestly, is there anyone out there who voted for these control freak criminals that is regretting doing so? Anybody? Anybody at all??? I'd be really curious to know.

The run your life EPA. One more reason Glo-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!!

Gary | April 17, 2009 12:57 PM --- Computational experimentation is an increasing part of almost every science.

Get used to it.

'The ozone hole over the Antarctic peaks during the month of September'...Does this mean that the Antarctic ice sheet will continue to grow and sea levels will start to fall? Since it contains 90 per cent of our ice and 80 per cent of our fresh water the Antarctic ice sheet is very important to the future of our planet.

Australia's leading Antarctica ice scientist claims that there is no evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap is melting. Ice core drilling near Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

Unfortunately its difficult to know with certainty what causes ANY of the long term fluctuations within the ozone layer because quite frankly, we don't have enough data. We went through a cooling mode of the ocean/wind currents between 1942 and 1978. The ocean/wind currents switched to a cooling mode from 1978 to 2008. Did THAT affect things? Recently we've gone into a deep solar minimum resulting in a significant drop in UV. What affect will THAT have? The minimum has already caused the outer atmosphere to drop by 100 MILES! I think that might be a sign something new is up.

It is far less likely that CO2 has a substantial affect since the earth has had almost twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere in the past.

"The findings are based on a detailed computer model that includes atmospheric chemical effects, wind changes, and solar radiation changes."

What we need is more real world obserations and fewer models. I guess the CFC ban didn't go over as well and the econuts need some more human activities to blame for a natural event.

Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck,

"Dihydrogen monoxide", eh! Penn and Teller, I presume? Nice. They sure took in a lot of environmentalists on that.

Are we in summer rerun season already? Didn't we just hear about this paper a few days ago? -- like on April 12th. As I mentioned in the original thread, the actual paper, "Stratospheric ozone in the post-CFC era," is online at the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics website. Love those computer models -- it's almost like having actual data.

There is hope.

Americans seem to be getting the message.
Belief in AGW is declining steadily.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update

The EPA is accepting submissions regarding their classification of CO2 (the planet's most essential gas) as a polutant.

Here is information on how you can submit your position.

http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/epa-seeks-public-comment-on-greenhouse-gases/

Just Guessing but I would not expect them to even read any actual Science on the subject.
Their collective mind seems made up and Facts don't appear to be relevent to them.

Kipp: Do you realize how silly, comical, ridiculous your reply to george n was? george n wrote about weights of gases and layers of the atmosphere, etc. You told him he's wrong, but then you only listed ways that trace gases are measured. You did not discuss his comment in any way, shape or form. george n contradicted himself, but you failed to see it. It might be a typo on george's part, but...

Thanks for the laugh, Kipp.

"The recovery in the middle and polar latitudes might have some benefits such as lower levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface and correspondingly lower rates of skin cancer. On the other hand, it could have unintended effects, such as increasing ozone levels in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere at Earth's surface."

I'm curious about the term "unintended effects" here. Unintended by who? Is this simply the result of the author using "unintended" instead of "unexpected" or does it mean that the models that they used actually produce the intended results. We routinely did this when I was in school. You could calculate an answer to a problem quite easily, the exercise was to write a computer program that would produce the expected result. Sometimes I wonder if that isn't what computer models are all about.

Gary | April 18, 2009 12:31 PM --- THe physics is solid and nature does not care who believes what.

On the centennial scale, it will continue to warm, globally, on average.

David B. Benson: Gary | April 17, 2009 12:57 PM --- Computational experimentation is an increasing part of almost every science.

Get used to it.

You are, unfortunately, correct on the first point. I can't speak for Gary, but I won't get used to it. I agree with Roger Pielke, Sr. that using the output from unproven computer simulations as if it were data it isn't actual science.

Computer modeling: Dry labbing. Perfected.

MJW

You are, unfortunately, correct on the first point. I can't speak for Gary, but I won't get used to it. I agree with Roger Pielke, Sr. that using the output from unproven computer simulations as if it were data it isn't actual science.

Computer modeling: Dry labbing. Perfected.

Seeing as my current job title is computational scientist working on physics codes, I have a certain perspective on computer simulations. Using a computer code which has not been validated is no different than using measurements from an uncalibrated device. Likewise, a computer code must always be interpreted based on the physics it is modeling and the physics which is not included just as a measurement must be interpreted in the context of the environment.

Performing experiments is not easy and neither is making computer simulations. It is tedious and detailed work and requires constantly questioning and isolating the causes for the output. Errors can show up in both measurements and computer simulations, unfortunately, but results which stand the test of time and are reproducible between isolated groups and especially between different methodologies tend to be robust.

You'll also find that the measured data which you might think is more trustworthy can be based on a scary amount of modeling to eliminate systematic errors. Failure to account for these factors leads to the corrections which we hear about.

just my opinion...

Hey Annon and Kipp, Firstly , Kipp, What am I dead wrong about? You still have not answered my querry to you about the physics of gasses and thier relative wieghts and how they are stratified in the atmosphere. Seccondly, I do not believe anything from any government sponsored agency because they all are required to lie to the public , that is called official policy of denial. Thirdly I have stated and asked and implored all of us to go outside and watch the clouds and what goes on with cirrus clouds specifically. Lastly, Annnon, I am not sure what I contradicted myself with, but I am guessing in a previous thread I did a typo, I meant to say that there is NO PROOF that CFC's actually react with Ozone even IF they could get above the troposphere. As far as the only other statement I may have erred would be how O2 and O1 arrive above the troposphere, I am guessing that O1 fuses with O1 to make O2 which then is available to fuse with more O1 to make Ozone (O3) in the Ozone layer. The energy to fuse provided by cosmic radiation. I stand by my statement that the tropospheric Oxygen Nitrogen mix we call air is the dividing line where hevier gasses fall out and lighter gasses rise above. Very simple.

MJW | April 18, 2009 9:09 PM --- Of course the computer programs are thoroughly tested by a variety of methods. The methods used varies with the particular branch of the particulkar field of science.

Davic B:
On the centennial scale, it will continue to cool, globally, on average.

As it has done since 7500 years ago, heading unstopably toward the next ice age.

Each Climate optimum in the last 8000 yease has been slightly less "optimum" than the previous one.

This one so far, is no different.

Computer modeling: GIGO. It's a nice tool, but wouldn't put much (if any) faith in it past that.

Mr. Benson:

On the centennial scale, it will continue to warm, globally, on average.

Do your models tell you that or do you have some sort of inside knowledge? If it's inside knowledge, how about sharing it with the rest of us?

I wanted to clarify my previous comment a little. In response to Benson's comment that "Computational experimentation is an increasing part of almost every science," I said, "You are, unfortunately, correct on the first point."

I don't think computer experimentation is always bad, and I'm not sure the bad use of computer experimentation -- as exemplified by climate science -- is necessarily an increasing part of most other sciences. A great many climate science papers present the results of simulating future events as if it were equivalent to experimental data, without first establishing that the computer models can accurately ("skillfully" in climate science parlance) forecast the future. I don't recall this being widely done in other sciences, though I invite corrections if that's a false impression.

So, as my second sentence emphasized, it isn't the use of computer experimentation, per se, that's a problem, it's the use of the output of unproven computer model output as a substitute for experimental data. (An example of a completely uncontroversial and unobjectionable use of computer experimentation is employing a computer program to help design a protein with a particular configuration.)

MJW: I also agree with Pielke's comment regarding the use of computer models. All computer models do is supply an outcome that is based on the input assumptions. Since no verification of the input assumptions is being made (nor, in the case of climate studies, is it even possible to establish proof, scientifically, for most of the input assumptions), the results are essentially worthless in most cases.

Never mind the Ozone layer.

Be afraid of the Bozon Layer.

Now some Bozo Pseudo Scientists say you must;

Stay slim to save the planet

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53I2RG20090419?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

And we are supposed to take AGW seriously?

Seriously?

I've often wondered why human impact on the ozone layer and acid rain are widely accepted while climate change is so controversial. Is the scientific evidence on ozone and acid rain just that much more solid? Can anyone shed some light on this?

We seem to be wasting time arguing about predictions made by computer models that have not been shown to work. This is a typical AGW strategy that produces nothing of value for anyone. In the real world of real science what matters are objective observations and data/method transparency. The data so far tells us that the ozone hole is very large in comparison to previous measurements. That happened as the world experienced a cooling over the past decade and in a world where CFC emissions cannot be blamed.

From what I can see this data is an argument in favour of using freon for A/C and refrigeration units. It would be cheaper because there are no patent royalty payments that add to costs and because using freon would save energy.

Gary | April 19, 2009 10:02 PM --- Overwhleming maounts of data show that this global warming is unprecedented. Here is a representaive sample from one region:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtml

Paul | April 19, 2009 10:29 PM --- The GCMs do indeed demonstrate centennial scale global warming, being based on physics. I can use approximate formulae to determine much the same, but with less precision and without the error bars. One hardly needs more than what is found in
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/samples.html
equation 4.1, where the best choice for ΔT2x is about 3 K. However, this is change at equilibrium, which requires over a millenium to (nearly) reach, so multiply by 0.65+ to obtain the fast (centennial scale) response.

"Stay slim to save the planet"

People in this country need to lose weight for more than just the planet. It might be the biggest reason for our skyrocketing health care costs.

"I've often wondered why human impact on the ozone layer and acid rain are widely accepted while climate change is so controversial."

Ranger Chris, right-wingers fought hard against those issues back in the 1980s, as well. Once regulations were passed, and their usual predictions of economic doom-and-gloom didn't come to fruition, they moved to another issue to obstruct.

Many, if not most, Deniers are against government even lifting a finger to do anything. That's the crux of the issue here. They believe wealth, power and influence is best served by a Plutocracy. Fortunately, most of the American People disagree.

David;
I am not overwhelmed in the least by the loose theories and circumstantial evidence supporting AGW.
Sorry. It is just not convincing.

Now the "STAGGERING" amount of data that refutes AGW is impressive.
(My adjective beats yours)

Here is but some:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

David;

Um.... Did you read the article you linked?
7000 year old tree stumps under recently melted glacier?

Pretty much supports what I was saying does it not?

If it was warm enough to grow a forest there 7000 years ago, it was one hell of a lot warmer than today when it can only manage to melt some ice.

Like I said, steady cooling for 8000 years.

David B. Benson | April 21, 2009 7:42 PM

When all 7000 year ice has melted, we can say that we are approaching the 7000 year warm climate. When huge trees are growing where this ice existed, we can say we have warmed to that 7000 year climate. A partial melt has absolutely no meaning other than "Wow! It was hot today".

Since we can assume that you are an intelligent person, we can assume you already knew that. So it must be for ideological reasons you keep repeating trite. Replacing truth with ideology is the act of a despot. Have you just got carried away or is this the image, you really want to project? Try transcending to a truth seeker. The air is clean, with absolutely, no crowds. GK

The recent reports says that the glaciers in antarctic were getting the lubrication to flow from the antarctic as the biosphere were in a dis balance due to the continuous vaporization of the carbonic gases and carbon particles in the Atmosphere causing a threat to the environment.