Warming in Antarctic?
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 08:08 a.m., April 28, 2008
Updated 08:08 a.m., April 28, 2008
Photo by Courtesy Ted Scambos/ University of Colorado at Boulder
A new study by CU-Boulder, NOAA and NASA shows the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole may amplify warming in the continent's interior.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
The penguins are a bit chilly now, but once the ozone layer heals several decades from now, their Antarctic home is likely to be warmer — and that could spell trouble.
A new study says that when the hole in the stratospheric ozone layer recovers, the interior of the Antarctic will start experiencing the warming that the rest of Earth has experienced over the past 40 years.
Until now, the Antarctic interior has been spared the warming, and actually has been cooler than normal, likely because of the ozone depletion, a Colorado scientist said.
Judith Perlwitz of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, said that when ozone levels return to their pre-1969 levels by the end of this century, the atmospheric patterns that now shield the Antarctic interior from warmer air will begin to break down.
Those seasonal circulation patterns are known as a positive phase in the Southern Annular Mode, or SAM.
As ozone levels recover, Perlwitz added, the lower stratosphere over the polar region will absorb more harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
That could cause air temperatures six to 12 miles above Earth's surface to rise by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit. And that, in turn, would reduce the strong north-to-south variation in temperature that favors the SAM.
Perlwitz's institute, CIRES, is a joint venture of the University of Colorado and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Perlwitz is the lead author of an article on the research that appears in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Co-authors include Steven Pawson and Eric Nielson of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Ryan Fogt and William Neff of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder. The study was supported by NASA's Modeling and Analysis Program.
The ozone protects the Earth from harmful radiation, including skin cancer.
The hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer has been traced to the proliferation of chlorofluorocarbons, used in aerosol sprays and air conditioning, starting in the 1960s.
The CFCs climb into the atmosphere, latching onto the ozone and eating much more of it than their minuscule weights would suggest.
Most of the products that generate the CFCS now have been banned, but the ozone layer won't be healed for almost a century, scientists project.
The authors used a NASA supercomputer model that used interactions between the climate and stratospheric ozone chemistry to examine how changes in the ozone hole influence climate and weather near Earth's surface.
According to NASA's Pawson, ozone recovery over Antarctica would essentially reverse summertime climate and atmospheric circulation changes that have been caused by the presence of the ozone hole.
"It appears that ozone-induced climate change occurred quickly, over 20 to 30 years, in response to the rapid onset of the ozone hole," he said.
"These seasonal changes will decay more slowly than they built up, since it takes longer to cleanse the stratosphere of ozone-depleting gases than it took for them to build up."
The supercomputer also suggested that the ozone hole recovery would weaken the intense westerly winds that whip around Antarctica and block air masses from crossing into the continent's interior.
The seasonal shift in circulation patterns could have repercussions for Australia and South America as well. Australia could get warmer and drier, while southern South America could get wetter.
How big an influence a full recovery of the ozone hole will be on the Southern Hemisphere's climate depends largely on the future rate of greenhouse gas emissions.
"In running our model simulations, we assumed that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would double over the next 40 years and then slowly level off," said Perlwitz. "If human activities cause more rapid increases in greenhouse gases, or if we continue to produce these gases for a longer period of time, then the positive SAM may dominate year-round and dwarf any climatic effects caused by ozone recovery."
Comments
Posted by rightwingnut on April 28, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"In running our model simulations, we assumed that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would double over the next 40 years and then slowly level off," said Perlwitz. "If human activities cause more rapid increases in greenhouse gases, or if we continue to produce these gases for a longer period of time, then the positive SAM may dominate year-round and dwarf any climatic effects caused by ozone recovery."
The key words here are "assumed" and "model simulations" There is no proof for any of this, just theory and assumption. Yet it is taken as fact everywhere. So much for science.
Posted by freethought on April 28, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"There is no proof for any of this, just theory and assumption. Yet it is taken as fact everywhere. So much for"...religion!!!
Posted by jimk on April 28, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just more crap, using models that no one can verify. When will we stop suggesting that this is more than a good guess. Science should be something you can prove over and over again.
Posted by SASQUATCH on April 28, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep the funding coming in by scaring their asses off! The enviro-phobic crowd suffering from terminal eco-hysteria will believe anything and is ripe for the picking--so keep on picking!
This Elmer Gantry enviro-clown from no other than Boulder offers as much proof as "The Coming Ice Age" crowd offered some 35 years ago. Its the very same bunch of moonbats.
Find a new gig, America is getting tired of your B.S.
Posted by glock27 on April 28, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
free"thought":
Look up the meaning of non sequitur and then post a relevant message.
Posted by Michael on April 28, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So....let me get this straight......the hole in the ozone has been GOOD for keeping Antartica colder than it otherwise would have been? Haven't we been told for decades that the ozone hole was incredibly dangerous and that it was growing? Now it is good and it is shrinking? I cannot keep up with this stuff anymore. The story changes weekly.
Posted by CWW on April 28, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, Michael. For how long have we been told the hole in the ozone is BAD---SO BAD we're all going to die. Now it's bad that the ozone hole is healing.
Make up your minds you enviro-wackos.
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The sky is falling and we are all going to die....and supercomputers will rule the world!!
Posted by SheikYurBooty on April 28, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Insert fingers in ears and repeat after me: "LALALALALALA LA LA LA LALALALAL LA LA LA LLLLLLAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a scientist, and I have never met any other scientist who, after examining the scientific data and methods regarding climate change research, believes in man-made global warming. Yet, articles like this still try to tell us that "all scientist agree" on causes of global warming. It gets more inane everyday. There is no longer any sense in refuting or even discussing climate change research. All we can do is fight the "man-made policy change" that comes from all this pseudo-science.
Posted by Ted_in_Vegas on April 28, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So much for the Scientific Method.
Models are useful only for formulating hypotheses. Hypotheses are supposed to then be tested and if found substantiated, a theory can be formed. Theories that stand the test of time and repeated testing can be taken as fact, EXCEPT when speaking about the environment or evolution.
In those cases, please bypass the scientific method and assume everything claimed is fact, regardless of whether the tested hypotheses prove ture or not.
OH, AND,
if the tests prove something different than the assumptions, change the assumed facts to another set of assumed and untested facts.
Posted by Gene on April 28, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What am I supposed to do greenleaf? Pray for penguins and humans, or pass the collection plate again? I think I'll claim I am a scientist. After all I have a Bachelor of Science degree. I'll just bone up on alphabet soup agencies and minuscule chemical formulas so I can argue the politics of this stuff.
Posted by Coco on April 28, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right, stick your head in the sand (exposing you-know-what). Case in point - the last ice age was caused by a mere 5 degrees of cooling - pretty big climate change. By the way, do you believe in the science of antibiotics? Plastics? Food preservation, packaging, & distribution? Viagra? And what has 35 years ago got to do with anything? Would you prefer your heart disease to be cured by a heart surgeon, or a witch doctor using leeches and spells?
Posted by badfrog101 on April 28, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course, what's really important is who will control the money and power to stop global warming. The facts....not so much.
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ted: your point compliments mine perfectly. It is precisely why scientific scrutiny of this body of research leads a scientist to conclude it is all worthless.
Real historians end up with the same conclusions since they know all about climate variability down through the ages and how the climate impacts mankind much more than mankind rules the environment.
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Coco: when was the last ice age and who caused the global warming that ended that ice age?
Posted by jonnyrotten on April 28, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you fischb!
I'll bet the "Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder" couldn't accurately predict the weather in Boulder a week from now yet we are to believe they can predict climate change on a global scale 50 years from now? really...
Posted by Michael on April 28, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The "little Ice Age" that began around 1300 or so obviously had no "man-made" component to it. As we all know, the climate of the earth has been warming and cooling since the earth formed (or was "created"!!) Why are we to believe that now man is the cause - or the accelerant? Why are we to believe that we can impact the change at all? I have heard and read that even if we stopped all carbon use and greenhouse gas emissions TODAY nothing would change. That does not mean we should not alter our behavior for other reasons, but this global warming movement is bordering on hysteria.
Posted by DirtySanchez on April 28, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again a shrill voice calls out from Boulder that the sky is falling. How about real solutions for real problems? When the price of gas is heading toward ten bucks a gallon I don't have much sympathy for a black and white bird and a continent that is occupied only with scientists.
Posted by joggle on April 28, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, what predictable posts. OMG, they learned something new and now have a conflict of interests. What idiots these scientists are!!!
fischb: You don't have to go far to find scientists that believe in primarily man-made global warming. Just take a short drive to Boulder which hosts UCAR, NCAR and other atmospheric research institutes. You'll probably say, "Yea, but that's Boulder." Well, Boulder happens to be where many of the top atmospheric scientists in the world do their research and have been doing their research since the 60s.
The problem with the ozone hole is that it dramatically increases the level of UV radiation at the ground. So while it may make it cooler which is good for the ice, it increases the UV which is bad for the things that live on the ice.
Michael: Because we have instruments all over the world and satellites that have sophisticated instruments that have been observing the entire world for decades! My God, do you think people don't have the innate ability to observe the world and learn?? We have the most sophisticated technology that humanity has ever possessed and yet you act as if it's all worthless because the conclusions reached are contrary to your own personal views. Do some research and get back to me if you want to discuss specifics.
Posted by Justin_Credible on April 28, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These are same folks that predicted a warm and mild winter for Colorado with average to below normal snowfall. I think we all know how that turned out.
And wasn't it "Dr." Gray who predicted an unusually active hurricane season last year and yet not one US landfall?
Climate "scientists" are idiots one and all.
Posted by SASQUATCH on April 28, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since this enviro-phobic crowd can't predict 24 hours into the future, they would be well advised to pile onto to what they do best:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary...
Posted by Joe105 on April 28, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But they're using "supercomputers"...how could they be wrong?
Posted by mwanecek on April 28, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I watched a special recently showing huge ice shelfs melting in Antartica and falling into the ocean. Remember the ice shelf that was the size of Rhode Island that fell into the ocean? Scientists were saying the Artic was melting and now Antartica. They feared that at the rate the melting was taking place it would wipe out coastal areas around the world. Now this article is saying Antartica have been experiencing more colder temperatures than average.
So enviros, which is it? Has Antartica been experiencing global warming or colder temperatures?
Posted by DeimosJB on April 28, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you guys want facts instead of "assumptions" and "models" and nonsense, you might want to look at NASA or Goddard data for 2007. Global temperature fell 0.7C, the largest temperature change ever recorded - even larger than the "year without summer" after Mt. Tambora erupted. This temperature change brought average levels back into line with the temperature in 1930, so apparently 1 year erased the last 80. NASA also revised their data to show that 1934 was the warmest year on record, 1998 was number 2, and temperature hasn't been close since (10 straight years with no global warming, and rather showing global cooling).
By all means, take good care of the environment, but only children believe in the Bogeyman, and only Al Gore believes in global warming (which makes $en$e, as he is making tens of millions on his speeches and investments buoyed by his "global warming" scare tactics.)
Ok, enough facts for today. Feel free to add your spin.
Posted by Steve on April 28, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good thing the geniuses commenting here don't make public policy decisions.
Posted by DeimosJB on April 28, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good thing Steve just throws poo instead of supplying any fact, data, or otherwise noteworthy statement. Huzzah for the courage of Steve!
One more fact. Antarctica has gained .11 Million sq. km of surface ice per decade since 1979 (nearly 30 years of data now).
Posted by joggle on April 28, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DeimosJB: Even though you think you're siting sources, you are not. Where did you get you latest fact about Antarctica?
As far as I can tell you are looking at the monthly mean temperature rather than a 5-year average which is a more accurate measure. According to NASA the monthly global average did drop about .7 degrees during 2007. However, the monthly global temperature is already back up about .6 degrees. Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...
Also, here's NASA official statement about global warming:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_...
An excerpt of an article (with sources) talking about the effects of global warming on Antarctica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarcti...
It states that the interior has thickened while the periphery areas have shown dramatic changes which seems to correlate with this article stating that the ozone whole helps cool that area (and thus, presumably, thicken the ice in the interior).
You also fail to mention how the arctic ice has melted to a point that the entire arctic sea is now navigable by ships during summer.
Posted by MTN_Frank on April 28, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fischb wrote
"I am a scientist, and I have never met any other scientist who, after examining the scientific data and methods regarding climate change research, believes in man-made global warming. Yet, articles like this still try to tell us that "all scientist agree" on causes of global warming. It gets more inane everyday. There is no longer any sense in refuting or even discussing climate change research. All we can do is fight the "man-made policy change" that comes from all this pseudo-science."
Please sign your real name Mr Scientist (fischb) and the names of the other scientists you consulted with so we can review your body of research work. I'm interested in your knowledge of radiative transfer and atmospheric gases, cloud/aerosol interactions, the flow of solar and terrestrial energy to and from the earth, the fluctuations of the earth's orbital plane and tilt, along with and sources and sinks of atmospheric gases.
thanks!
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm interested in your knowledge of radiative transfer and atmospheric gases, cloud/aerosol interactions, the flow of solar and terrestrial energy to and from the earth, the fluctuations of the earth's orbital plane and tilt, along with and sources and sinks of atmospheric gases."
Pick one. These are all predominantly governed by basic thermodynamics, and the combination of such heterogenious oscillatory forces creates a system (the earth) which is beyond our current comprehension, much less verifiably measurable. Someone above said we've been measuring all these things for decades. That accounts for 1/10,000th of 1/100th of 1% of the history of the world. Mathematical modeling therorist almost uniformly concur that modeling based upon such limited data is futile.
Bruce Fisch, Denver
metallurigical engineer, physicist, computer scientist, physician.
Posted by joggle on April 28, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fischb: They aren't necessarily trying to model the climate of the entire history of the world. They often (though not always) qualify their statements by stating that it's the warmest in recent years (by which they mean the last few 10,000 years or the last few 100,000 years). It isn't necessary to model the entire history of the world to make use of increasingly detailed weather observations that we are making.
How does having a limited number of observations prevent you from making predictions? If I feed in current observations from the GFS (US global weather) model into the US NAM model, 9 times out of 10 I will get a pretty accurate 12-hour forecast for any location within the lower 48 states. Both of these models are free so feel free to not believe me but verify it for yourself (you'll need a lot of computing power to do this for the entire lower 48 states, but you can do it for all of Colorado with a normal computer with 2 gigs or more of RAM in about an hour). You can only run the NAM model though as the GFS source code is not available for free (the output of the GFS model is free however).
If you want more information, you really should subscribe to an atmospheric science journal and/or head over to Boulder. You may just learn a thing or two.
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Talking about climate trends in the last 10K or 100K years is silly if you are try to extrapolate meaningful predicition from that data. 100K years represents a fraction of a percent of the history of our environment. Then, applying modeling to that data and calling it science is blasphemous next to the actual scientific method.
It's like me prediction how much you will weight this christmas based upon your calorie intake in the next 45 seconds.
Observing the weather and then predicting the climate thus represents a complete scientific irrelevancy.
It is so abstract and fanciful as to be completely discoutable except to poets.
Posted by freethought on April 28, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When the whole world floods, I'll still be huggin' my tree.
Posted by joggle on April 28, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fischb: My point was that with limited data one can reliably make accurate predictions. We aren't trying to extrapolate the data very far, just 50-100 years. We know how much the mean temperature of the world is increasing each year, we can accurately estimate how much volcanic gas, deforestation, coal seam fires, etc. are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in addition to other sources.
Why should an accurate observation window of 100 years combined with less detailed observations for a much longer period of time prevent scientists from making accurate extrapolations for 50-100 years using sophisticated models?
Or do you think that something that happened 10,000 years ago is somehow affecting the current climate in a way that simply isn't observable?
Basically, you seem to be claiming that nothing less than thousands of years of accurate observations are needed to make worthwhile extrapolations (with the justification that the history of the world is very long--which it is). Is that a fair statement?
BTW, they can test the accuracy of their climate models immediately by simply feeding in older observations and seeing what is predicted for the current climate. This will not prove that they will make perfect predictions, but will give a good estimate of its accuracy (ie, its margin of error).
Posted by fischb on April 28, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see your point. The error comes from ignoring history. The majority of climatic variability is cyclical, in effect, repetative and unalterable. There are also a great number of relatively sudden alterations that can stimulate warming or an ice age in the span a one year. (all natural events)
This all makes the effect of humanity truly puny, and the goal of trying to alter the climate wasteful and potentially destructive.
My latest fav: it appears that biofuels may insight the next wave of mass-starvation by depriving the world's hungry of food, all in the name of cleaner SUVs.
Posted by joggle on April 28, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Corn-based biofuels yes, inedible sugar-based perhaps not (imported from Mexico for example). There's a lot of potential sources for biofuels that would not lead to mass starvation, we must consider those and not use edible food.
There are cyclical changes, everyone grants that. However, there is a cause for these cycles. What, specifically, do you think is the cause of the last 100 years of increasing temperature? We have accurate measurements of everything from amount of solar exposure at the surface (in the form of soil moisture measurements), temperature, various gases in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean, etc. There must be a cause other than "oh, it's cyclical". What, in the last 100 years, has changed so dramatically in nature? Rapid cool downs have been observed in the climate record but not such rapid increases in temperature (at least none that I know of).
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.