THE Ozone Thread (merged)

[Cid_Yama]

Here is the EGU press conference video

Press Conference 2 Polar Ozone – What's going on in the Arctic? by EGU2011

Assigning causality between the polar vortex and cold stratospheric temperatures is simplistic and incorrect.

Darkness over the pole in winter lowers the stratospheric temperatures. The colder stratospheric temperatures initiate the formation of the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere which then extends lower into the atmosphere as it forms throughout the winter. The vortex can then reinforce colder temperatures by isolating the air mass.

This does not explain the progressively colder stratospheric temperatures. This must be attributed to the increase in greenhouse gasses which insulate the stratosphere from radiating heat from the surface, increasing the differential at the tropopause.

Water vapor in the colder stratosphere below -70 C forms polar stratospheric clouds which through chemical reactions degrade the ozone layer.

The primary way that water vapor enters the stratosphere is through the breakdown of methane in the stratosphere into water vapor and CO2.

The polar vortex enhances the transport of methane into the stratosphere.

Transport of methane in the stratosphere associated with the breakdown of the Antarctic polar vortex

High concentrations of methane observed inside the vortex show mixing of lower-latitude air into the vortex. An RDF calculation confirms the behavior of methane transport into the vortex.

link

[kiwichick]

umm



this doesn't sound good chaps

[kiwichick]

does this have an effect on sea ice melt or permafrost ?

[M_B_S]

does this have an effect on sea ice melt or permafrost ?

Yes, it cannot be ruled out because more energy (UVA ~ UVB) hits the earth or the ocean surface.

High UV radiation has a destructive effect on life for example phytoplankton and zooplancton in the arctic ocean.

Link
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 5.abstract
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 5.full.pdf
http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UIB/A ... lc1de1.pdf

M_B_S

[dorlomin]

If you google ‘methane’ and ‘polar vortex’, guess whats the first link that comes up.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=polar+ ... =firefox-a
Ah, some people are such a laugh.
Anyway the paper is about the Southern Hemisphere. Who knows, perhaps the same mechanisms apply to the Arctic, but perhaps not. What we do know is Cid is clueless about this other than a bit of googling and simply doing his usual ululations of joy over the prospect of millions dying. Hopefully though him or one of his followers will treat us to a keyboard chewing response.
We may even be lucky enough for the response to be about the right half of the earth.

[dohboi]

So let me get this straight, dor. Are you suggesting that chemistry may operate on fundamentally different principles above the Arctic than above the Antarctic?

And is there something wrong about researching topics before discussing them? Are we all supposed to know absolutely everything about every topic before we even get to this site? What kind of a site do you consider this to be?

You admitted that you were not an atmospheric chemist, so presumably you did some googling around before posting? Should you be embarrassed about that activity?

Your bile seems a bit...misdirected in this case.

[dorlomin]

So let me get this straight, dor. Are you suggesting that chemistry may operate on fundamentally different principles above the Arctic than above the Antarctic?

Not unless it will make you feel better.

And is there something wrong about researching topics before discussing them?

. Researching would be a very very good idea. One day people might pick up the habit.

so presumably you did some googling around before posting?

None other than the link it was from memory Im afraid.

[Cid_Yama]

dor is upset because I corrected her misconception. She was again trying to play 'expert', but didn't quite get it right.

As for atmospheric chemistry in the stratosphere with regards to methane, I am well versed from years of researching the topic of the ESAS methane.

I was already long aware of that article on the polar vortex enhancing methane transport to the stratosphere, as it was published in 2001.

Knowing to look for it comes from knowing it was there to find.

Obviously she was 'googling' trying to prove me wrong, and found I was right, so had to be satifsfied with attacking me personally again.

If you watch the EGU press conference you will find they were saying the same thing I just did. The extension of the existence of the polar vortex, cold stratospheric temperatures and polar stratospheric clouds into April has led to a longer period of ozone destruction. They also explain that the cooling of the stratosphere was the result of the polar night and greenhouse gas induced global warming in the Arctic.

The increase of polar stratospheric clouds(PSCs), is not only dependent on low stratospheric temperatures but also an abundance of water vapor in the stratosphere. The primary source of that water vapor being methane oxidation in the stratosphere.

Such a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of this, does not come from a few moments of googling. It takes understanding of the diverse elements and how they relate.

dor needs to set her ego aside. This isn't about her. It's about ensuring that the information being posted is accurate and as complete as possible.

This is about educating, not a pissing contest.

[dorlomin]

Such a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of this, does not come from a few moments of googling. It takes understanding of the diverse elements and how they relate.

I think I would pay money to keep watching you post. Busted for posting the first abstract your google search revealed, never even noticed it was about the Antarctic and now bluffing it out. You amuse me like meemoe does.

dor needs to set here ego aside. This isn't about her

I love the psuedo religious patronising tone, you can almost hear it in a David Koresh or Jim Jones type eco messiah type way, belittling the criticisms of Gods messenger.

Cid you are a phoney old prophet. If you were 'all that' youd have had guest posts on SkepticalScience or Climate Progress by now. Instead you hide out here where no one will call your bluff.

Assigning causality between the polar vortex and cold stratospheric temperatures is simplistic and incorrect.

Lovely stuff. So self important. Hope to see your flock jump in with some keyboard chewing as well.

[Cid_Yama]

The mechanisms of the polar vortex are the same at either pole. The only difference is that the one in Antarctica is more intense as it is over land.

Your post mearly demonstrates your own ignorance and vindictiveness.

[mos6507]

Does Cid come across a little extreme and leaping to premature conclusions? Yes. Does it mean the status of the environment is A OK? Hardly. We're kind of quibbling over whether our goose will be slow-roasted, toasted, or stir-fried.

I would like all of these research papers to filter their way down to the MSM before I let it really assimilates in my doom-o-meter. And don't tell me the MSM doesn't post about climate doom. They do it all the day. Just read Desdemona Despair to confirm that. So there's no real need to be on as much of a bleeding edge as Cid is, considering that these papers are written in such a techno-geek way that hardly anybody here is really qualified to interpret them.

[Puchica]

My problem about the MSM is that in the one subject I do know somewhat about (paleolithic & neolithic art and culture) university and research findings are so mangled and misinterpreted that sometimes the MSM headline is the opposite of the conclusion of the research. If that carries over to climate research, MSM isn't very reliable, I'm afraid

[scas]

Apparently there are 22 000 methane craters in the Arctic, the largest one 750 km squared. Abrupt release has been going on for years now, and the reports on tundra and lake-bed methane have been near constant. At some point, enough methane must be released to have a significant effect on the climate. That time is now, apparently.

As for the methane bomb, it has been known for decades. David Archer was writing about it back in 1992. John Nissen too has been saying 2011 will be the year that methane really kicks up. Governments just prefer to wait for catastrophe before responding; at that point, homo Sapiens have been naturally selected against and what might emerge might be a form of ultra-tough tribal cannibal. Like the New Guineans. Maybe Cid is wrong that everyone will be dead in a decade - it won't make a difference if the average temperature is 15 degrees C anomoly by 2050 or 2100. And that is ignoring any serious methane ignitions and world ozone depletion.

[kiwichick]

as we have seen from recent events in MENA linear trends can rapidly and abruptly become nonlinear

are we approaching the point of nonlinear climate change?
even as peak oil kicks in , along with possible demand destruction, the emphasis seems to be to swap to gas and to ramp up unconventional oil or coal

total emissions keep growing along with the constant population growth

population stabilisation seems to be almost more taboo than peak growth/resources

[mos6507]

My problem about the MSM is that in the one subject I do know somewhat about (paleolithic & neolithic art and culture) university and research findings are so mangled and misinterpreted that sometimes the MSM headline is the opposite of the conclusion of the research. If that carries over to climate research, MSM isn't very reliable, I'm afraid

MSM to me includes scientific periodicals like National Geographic and Scientific American that don't have to talk down to its readers. That's what I'm expecting to see next.

[dorlomin]

Does Cid come across a little extreme and leaping to premature conclusions?

Cid turned up here tripping out on an anti American hate fest on the Geopolitics forum. Then he discovered Global Warming and now its his little means of punishing the US for not adopting the politics he likes. He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them. Mankind is to die because they are not liberal enough for our little munchkin.

Yes. Does it mean the status of the environment is A OK? Hardly. We're kind of quibbling over whether our goose will be slow-roasted, toasted, or stir-fried.

The current level of methane in the atmosphere is below that used for the climate sensitivity calculations in IPCC TAR in 2001. The Arctic is still believed to be about 1.5C cooler than it was only 120 000 years ago. It takes staggering amounts of energy to heat up water, and there is a lot of water up in the Arctic.
It maybe that we are already 'doomed', who knows. But these cheese eating surrender monkies are about as usefull as a chocolate teapot.

[dorlomin]

Too many people round here are basically yellow cowards. No spine, no hope, no balls. Even if we were doomed, we will go down fighting and trying to save what we can.

Gutless jessies like Cid and the keyboard chewers are as bad as the deniers.

[mos6507]

He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them.

Which makes him the same as just about everybody else on this forum.

[sjn]

He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them.

Which makes him the same as just about everybody else on this forum.

Generally, people form an intuitive conclusion or belief on a given subject based upon their aquired knowledge and biases (or filters) whether through social conditioning, or more often than we would like to admit through our own genetic preponderance and sensitivity. We all exhibit behaviours that fall into particular strageties which have been selected for though survival our ancestors at some time in the past, of course this doesn't mean success in the present or future is assured, our sensitivy to different information and our abilty to filter out what we consider important is an major factor in survival and reproductive sucess. This includes scientists as much as anybody, although a good scientist will be conscious of the pitfalls and aware of their failings thus compensate, even so they're still driven to prove the validity of their beliefs.

This certainly doesn't mean intuition is wrong or unhelpful, few would dig into difficult subjects if alarm bells were ringing in their minds, we here shoud all be testament to that! We can be wrong, but through the process of discovery and by maintaining awareness ideas themselves are not facts we may build a body of evidence around an an idea while alowing our beliefs to be proven false.

[sjn]

Too many people round here are basically yellow cowards. No spine, no hope, no balls. Even if we were doomed, we will go down fighting and trying to save what we can.

Gutless jessies like Cid and the keyboard chewers are as bad as the deniers.

Dor, please cut out the ad homs. or I'll have to do it for you.