Unprecedented Arctic Ozone-Thinning Drifts South

[BethesdaWX]

Perhaps zucker can do some sentence mapping of the subjects, direct objects and verbs in this sentence. Apparently you don't understand it. What it says is that the cooling of the stratosphere is due to GHGs and ozone. The cooling of the stratosphere has affected the NAM.

"the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion"

Holy Moly. Since when is the NAM (north pole influx thru HLB via QBO) the same thing as Global Stratospheric Temperature & emitted energy?

Changes in the emitted planetary waves from the Tropopause to lower stratosphere has not follwed the GHE theory to the last bit.

[skierinvermont]

Indeed, zucker, if you read the whole thing you will find

1) The paper concerns the mesosphere and thermosphere (above the stratosphere) NOT the stratosphere which is affected differently

2) The issue is explained more fully in the actual body of the paper "The upper atmosphere (IE mesosphere and thermosphere) is generally contracting... the dominant driver of these trends is greenhouse gas forcing although there may be some contributions from anthropogenic changes of the ozone layer..."

Stop looking for gotcha moments and read... you obviously read only 1 or two sentences and assumed you had found a blatant error, which is of course highly unlikely in peer-reviewed sources

[Vandy]

Its already been explained by NASA not to be CFC related, and more related to the Solar Minimum I believe.

There was no "arctic ozone hole" until very recently, in times of lower CFC conentration.

Wow you guys go fast.

nzucker brought up what I was trying to say. NASA is saying what the cause of the unusually strong/cold polar vortex is in the Arctic this year. The reason there typically isn't much of an Arctic ozone hole is not because the chlorine/bromine is not there, but because it typically doesn't get cold enough. It does get cold enough over the Antarctic. So while the anomalous cold is the immediate cause, you wouldn't have a hole without anthropogenic CFC emissions. Both are necessary regardless of which pole we are discussing.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier

Stay on topic...We're speaking of the Stratosphere here......temperature alone and the supposed mechanisms invloved.

from the troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales. Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere

Of course the greenhouse effect exists and affects the stratosphere... in a general sense...not that humans are altering it.

[BethesdaWX]

Wow you guys go fast.

nzucker brought up what I was trying to say. NASA is saying what the cause of the unusually strong/cold polar vortex is in the Arctic this year. The reason there typically isn't much of an Arctic ozone hole is not because the chlorine/bromine is not there, but because it typically doesn't get cold enough. It does get cold enough over the Antarctic. So while the anomalous cold is the immediate cause, you wouldn't have a hole without anthropogenic CFC emissions. Both are necessary regardless of which pole we are discussing.

Correct, But for the hole to trigger, you need more cooling at the upper levels than has been seen, which was accomplished by the Solar Minimum.

So what set off the hole was the Sun, and with enough higher solar activity, the hole will close.

[nzucker]

Indeed, zucker, if you read the whole thing you will find

1) The paper concerns the mesosphere and thermosphere (above the stratosphere) NOT the stratosphere which is affected differently

2) The issue is explained more fully in the actual body of the paper "The upper atmosphere (IE mesosphere and thermosphere) is generally contracting... the dominant driver of these trends is greenhouse gas forcing although there may be some contributions from anthropogenic changes of the ozone layer..."

Stop looking for gotcha moments and read... you obviously read only 1 or two sentences and assumed you had found a blatant error, which is of course highly unlikely in peer-reviewed sources

I'm not really interested in reading the paper (and you need to subscribe anyway), I'm just saying there is some support for Bethesda's contention that people assumed more of a stratospheric temp response to AGW. The real test is going to be what happens after the ozone naturally recovers from the CFC damage, which won't be for many years. But I would guess that some of the plateau in stratospheric cooling is related to the plateau in tropospheric warming.

[skierinvermont]

Skier

Stay on topic...We're speaking of the Stratosphere here......temperature alone and the supposed mechanisms invloved.

from the troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales. Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere

Of course the greenhouse effect exists and affects the stratosphere... in a general sense...not that humans are altering it.

This conversation is going nowhere until you learn to read this sentence from the paper YOU posted. To paraphrase it: Changes in NAM are caused by cooling stratosphere which is caused by increasing GHGs and decreasing ozone.

"the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion"

[skierinvermont]

I'm not really interested in reading the paper (and you need to subscribe anyway), I'm just saying there is some support for Bethesda's contention that people assumed more of a stratospheric temp response to AGW. The real test is going to be what happens after the ozone naturally recovers from the CFC damage, which won't be for many years. But I would guess that some of the plateau in stratospheric cooling is related to the plateau in tropospheric warming.

And in support of this contention you cite a paper about the thermosphere and mesosphere. Great job.

Nobody overestimated the stratospheric response to GHGs.. there has not been a shred of evidence for such a claim posted in this thread. Model predictions, including models that have been around for a while using the same physics that has been around for ages, accurately simulate stratospheric temperatures.

You also don't need a subscription. Google is your friend:

http://www.ufa.cas.c...nge_science.pdf

If you're not going to take the basic effort of actually reading for understanding, then you probably shouldn't be making up such reckless accusations. The arrogance of assuming you understand this better than people in the field who have spent their entire lives studying and arguing over these phenomena is unfathomable.

[BethesdaWX]

This conversation is going nowhere until you learn to read this sentence from the paper YOU posted. To paraphrase it: Changes in NAM are caused by cooling stratosphere which is caused by increasing GHGs and decreasing ozone.

"the trends in the winter polar temperature and the NAM index can reasonably be attributed to the radiative cooling of the stratosphere, due possibly to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and ozone depletion"

REGARDING THE POLES YES NOT THE GLOBE

Holy Moly. Since when is the NAM (north pole influx thru HLB via QBO) the same thing as Global Stratospheric Temperature & emitted energy?

[BethesdaWX]

Our results demonstrate that there is no evidence indicating

a decrease of planetary wave activity from the

troposphere into the stratosphere over decadal timescales.

Both E–P flux across the tropopause and planetary

wave amplitudes in the lower stratosphere do not

show significant changes in the past few decades. This

disagrees with the speculation that planetary wave activity

in the stratosphere might have been reduced by

altered climate conditions in the upper troposphere due

to the greenhouse effect.

[skierinvermont]

REGARDING THE POLES YES NOT THE GLOBE

Holy Moly. Since when is the NAM (north pole influx thru HLB via QBO) the same thing as Global Stratospheric Temperature & emitted energy?

You just aren't reading the sentence correctly. It's saying the NAM is caused by the cooling stratosphere. And the COOLING STRATOSPHERE is caused by GHGs AND ozone.

It then SAYS THIS AGAIN later in the paper YOU posted:

"this suggests that the cooling trend in polar temperatures is probably the result of radiative cooling, due possibly to the greenhouse effect and/or ozone depletion"

[nzucker]

And in support of this contention you cite a paper about the thermosphere and mesosphere. Great job.

Nobody overestimated the stratospheric response to GHGs.. there has not been a shred of evidence for such a claim posted in this thread. Model predictions, including models that have been around for a while using the same physics that has been around for ages, accurately simulate stratospheric temperatures.

You also don't need a subscription. Google is your friend:

http://www.ufa.cas.c...nge_science.pdf

If you're not going to take the basic effort of actually reading for understanding, then you probably shouldn't be making up such reckless accusations. The arrogance of assuming you understand this better than people in the field who have spent their entire lives studying and arguing over these phenomena is unfathomable.

I didn't realize it was about the upper levels because it was linked to in a RealClimate article about the stratosphere, so I assumed it was going to be on the same subject...should have read more closely. I'm not really interested in this anyway, and I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying that the trend in stratospheric temperatures since 2002 matches the plateau in global temperatures fairly well...I don't know if this is coincidence or not, they're probably not too related. The trend since 1979 does show a strong AGW signal, not a solar warming signal which would have also warmed the stratosphere. Gavin must mean this long-term trend since it seems that the trend since the mid 90s is fairly negligible. However, perhaps you can extract a stronger global warming signal if you only look at the upper parts of the stratosphere where ozone is less of a factor.

Realclimate does say, "The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion."

[BethesdaWX]

They are referring to CFC's which are greenhouse gases and significantly affected the poles & the coinciding Ozone Depletion. This is why they reference the NAM index at the Poles. So yes the Concentration of CFC's did affect the NAM index.

However, this has NOTHING to do with CO2! Do you understand? Longwaves emitted as in Plantary Waves emitted from the Tropopause to the Stratosphere have not been affected by the supposed increase in CO2.

Do you understand now?

[nzucker]

REGARDING THE POLES YES NOT THE GLOBE

Holy Moly. Since when is the NAM (north pole influx thru HLB via QBO) the same thing as Global Stratospheric Temperature & emitted energy?

No, it's not talking about just the poles...it's talking about how cooling in the stratosphere due to changes in radiative factors like AGW, is ultimately going to affect the NAM, which is part of the stratosphere.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't realize it was about the upper levels because it was linked to in a RealClimate article about the stratosphere, so I assumed it was going to be on the same subject...should have read more closely. I'm not really interested in this anyway, and I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying that the trend in stratospheric temperatures since 2002 matches the plateau in global temperatures fairly well...I don't know if this is coincidence or not, they're probably not too related. The trend since 1979 does show a strong AGW signal, not a solar warming signal which would have also warmed the stratosphere. Gavin must mean this long-term trend since it seems that the trend since the mid 90s is fairly negligible. However, perhaps you can extract a stronger global warming signal if you only look at the upper parts of the stratosphere where ozone is less of a factor.

Realclimate does say, "The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion."

It is pure coincidence. There is no expectation of a short-term correspondence. Plus the zero-trend in stratospheric temperatures has been since 1995 back when TLT and surface were increasing rapidly. It is clearly related to the increasing ozone concentrations, and is occurring in a manner predicted by climate models. If it weren't for increasing greenhouse effect since 1995 (or 2002) then stratospheric temperatures should be increasing in response to the increasing ozone.

[nzucker]

They are referring to CFC's which are greenhouse gases and significantly affected the poles & the coinciding Ozone Depletion. This is why they reference the NAM index at the Poles. So yes the Concentration of CFC's did affect the NAM index.

However, this has NOTHING to do with CO2! Do you understand? Longwaves emitted as in Plantary Waves emitted from the Tropopause to the STratosphere have not been affected by the supposed increase in CO2.

do you understand???

He does say "the greenhouse effect" so I assume he means CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc....I think they are trying to tease out an AGW argument for the cooling of the stratosphere. According to RealClimate, the upper levels of the stratosphere are much better for finding a correlation with greenhouse gases since they aren't influenced as much by ozone.

[skierinvermont]

He does say "the greenhouse effect" so I assume he means CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc....I think they are trying to tease out an AGW argument for the cooling of the stratosphere. According to RealClimate, the upper levels of the stratosphere are much better for finding a correlation with greenhouse gases since they aren't influenced as much by ozone.

Really? that's interesting.. sort of makes sense with the other article about the mesosphere and thermosphere trends being dominantly affected by GHGs and the proximity of the lower stratosphere to the ozone layer. can you link to that post?

[nzucker]

Really? that's interesting.. sort of makes sense with the other article about the mesosphere and thermosphere trends being dominantly affected by GHGs and the proximity of the lower stratosphere to the ozone layer. can you link to that post?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

"The higher up one goes, the more important the CO₂ related cooling is.."

[skierinvermont]

Also the paper Bethesda posted isn't really about AGW at all .. it only incidentally mentions that the cooling stratosphere is caused by ozone depletion and CO2.

It's really just about refuting some old speculation that increasing GHGs would weaken planetary waves in the stratosphere.

[BethesdaWX]

He does say "the greenhouse effect" so I assume he means CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc....I think they are trying to tease out an AGW argument for the cooling of the stratosphere. According to RealClimate, the upper levels of the stratosphere are much better for finding a correlation with greenhouse gases since they aren't influenced as much by ozone.

If ozone was less inflential in the upper stratosphere we should see less cooling, since ozone added to the drop until 1995, but I cannot find any upper stratospheric measurements.

Anyhow,

If they were speaking of anything other than CFC's were causing the issues, they wouldn't contradict themselves by saying there is no change in waves leaving the tropopause,. CFC's alter the greenhouse effect by reducing ozone, not reducing energy leaving the tropopause.

[nzucker]

This is a good page for stratosphere info:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

Here is a chart of expected temperature response from different gases...the gray is warming, the blue/red/green is cooling:

[BethesdaWX]

If ozone was less inflential in the upper stratosphere we should see less cooling, since ozone added to the drop until 1995, but I cannot find any upper stratospheric measurements.

Anyhow,

If they were speaking of anything other than CFC's were causing the issues, they wouldn't contradict themselves by saying there is no change in waves leaving the tropopause,. CFC's alter the greenhouse effect by reducing ozone, not reducing energy leaving the tropopause.

To add onto this, the meat of the issue is the fact that no natural factor supports the leveling of stratospheric temperatures.

And the meat of the issue: The energy budget of the climate system sensitivity wise, and why such a minor impact on stratospheric temperatures will result in even less in the tropopause, and even less in the oceans. The "magnitude" of forced capabilities to change an energy system is reduced the larger the system is.

[skierinvermont]

To add onto this, the meat of the issue is the fact that no natural factor supports the leveling of stratospheric temperatures.

And the meat of the issue: The energy budget of the climate system sensitivity wise, and why such a minor impact on stratospheric temperatures will result in even less in the tropopause, and even less in the oceans. The "magnitude" of forced capabilities to change an energy system is reduced the larger the system is.

ozone is increasing causing lower stratospheric warming, CO2 is increasing causing cooling. The effects approximately cancel. Computer models accurately simulate the observed stratospheric temperature trends.

[nzucker]

Yes it does, ozone is increasing causing lower stratospheric warming, CO2 is increasing causing cooling. The effects approximately cancel. Computer models accurately simulate the observed stratospheric temperature trends.

Yes, you can see on my chart that ozone warms the lower stratosphere and then cools the far upper levels...CO2 has a universal cooling effect.

[nzucker]

ozone is increasing causing lower stratospheric warming, CO2 is increasing causing cooling. The effects approximately cancel. Computer models accurately simulate the observed stratospheric temperature trends.

Where do you get model data for stratospheric temperature trends? What models are you talking about specifically?

[BethesdaWX]

It is pure coincidence. There is no expectation of a short-term correspondence. Plus the zero-trend in stratospheric temperatures has been since 1995 back when TLT and surface were increasing rapidly. It is clearly related to the increasing ozone concentrations, and is occurring in a manner predicted by climate models. If it weren't for increasing greenhouse effect since 1995 (or 2002) then stratospheric temperatures should be increasing in response to the increasing ozone.

Laughable you cannot see the error in your post right here. Do you realize the trend in Stratospheric temps has been slightly up following the ozone trend exactly? The ozone increase hs been slight.

even a slight increase in ozone as we've seen should not overwhelm Co2.

[skierinvermont]

Where do you get model data for stratospheric temperature trends? What models are you talking about specifically?

In the article I have posted 3 times now:

http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf

includes a comparison of simulated and observed stratospheric trends.

graphic on page 1140

[nzucker]

Laughable you cannot see the error in your post right here. Do you realize the trend in Stratospheric temps has been slightly up following the ozone trend exactly?

even a slight increase in ozone as we've seen should not overwhelm Co2

I don't see what you're arguing. CO2 emissions clearly cool the stratosphere....we know carbon dioxide is increasing as per Mauna Loa observatory, and we know via precise physical mechanisms why it cools the stratosphere. Ozone is clearly recovering after the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs globally, this is countering the effects of the GHGs. I think you are just trying to create a controversy out of nothing.

[skierinvermont]

even a slight increase in ozone as we've seen should not overwhelm Co2.

According to climate models the increasing ozone is large enough to cancel out the CO2 effect.

[skierinvermont]

The model predicts about ~.1C of warming of the stratosphere overall from 1995-2004.