Climate Change Presentation
Professor David Henderson is the former head of economics and statistics for the OECD. He is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, has written a major critique of the Stern Report and will be giving presentations in both Auckland and Wellington.
The Auckland details are:
Date: Monday 19 February
Time: 1.00pm
Venue: School of Engineering Building, Lecture Theatre 439,
20 Symonds Street, Auckland City
This is a free event and there is no need to RSVP. For further information please contact Sunna Jung at:s.jung@auckland.ac.nz or ph 373 7599 ext. 86026.
Wellington details to follow.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Uncategorized
February 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Al Gore presented his documentary at the same venue late last year. Looking across from the Science building on Symonds St, I noted some government ministers such as David Benson-Pope , David Parker , Trevor Mallard , Steve Maharey and surprisingly, John Key was chatting with them at the foyer just outside the theater.
I hope that those same high-level government officials do attend this presentation and hear the other guy’s (skeptic’s) view. I seriously doubt that our government officials would find time to attend. The minister of science & technology (or one of his rep) was invited to another important event at Auckland University on 10th, Dec, 2006, which was the opening of the Dodd/Walls Photonics & Ultra Cold Atoms Centre, but it was turned down. The event organizer (Dr. Scott Parkins) told me that afternoon, that they wished that one official from the ministry of science & technology had bothered to turn up, since they are looking to collaborate with the government in funding world class research at this centre. It is funny how government officials are very keen to attend psychic’s lecture (Al Gore) and not find time to attend real science event.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Al was really selling his investment vehicle , Generation Investment Management.
The usual Wall St manipulators are behind this one
“Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and a previous chief executive at Goldman Sachs Asset Management have launched an investment firm to seek out companies taking a responsible stance on big global issues like climate change.
London-based Generation Investment Management has been set up to tap growing demand for an investment style which can generate returns by blending traditional equity research with a focus on more intangible non-financial factors such as social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.
“This new approach is designed to serve people who want to integrate sustainable returns with traditional equity analysis,” Gore said in a telephone interview with Reuters.
Gore will be chairman of Generation, with David Blood – previously chief executive at Goldman’s fund arm – as managing partner.
Generation’s other founders include Mark Ferguson, a former co-head of pan-European research also at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, who will be chief operating officer
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28075/story.htm
Their aim is to buy into “Dominant market positions, strong entry barriers, predictable future, pricing power, and secular growth trends ”
Sounds like monopoly providers with small risk and rivers of cash.
The No 1 shrill for this is AL Gore
February 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Falafulu Fisi , I have been told that David Benson-Pope will be tied up at the time of the presentation and will not be able to make it.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Are the presentations funded by the same Exxon-funded think tank that weas offering to pay anyone remotely scientific $10,000 to criticise this report as it was released?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes
Or is it something completely different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
February 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Don’t go…..he’s a witch out to corrupt the true believers.
And he better watch his job.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“It is funny how government officials are very keen to attend psychic’s lecture (Al Gore) and not find time to attend real science event.”
Good, damn good.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Isnt it amazing that if anyone criticises the prevailing dogma (euphamism) that its automatically a (right wing) oil company conspiracy. If anyone criticises left wing conspiracies they are nuttas.
ne thing that will stand the test of time is just wait for the revenue gathering taxation schemes that will be built around global warming, not to mention the compo feeding trough each time a tree gets blown down.
No wonder the (working) tax payers and insurance companies are worried.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Right on falafulu Fisi. This government is rabidly antiscience – thats why its laughable they quote science all the time in the global warming debate. Most of them would be happier with mysticism or cat homeopathy.
You will notice that several other Auckland Scientists have had to begging overseas to develop their ideas when some money from our “precious” could have kept any profits on shore. And all Mallard can say is crap about the quality of NZ scientists but will they put their money where their mouth is?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=140&objectid=10422927
February 9th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“he former head of economics and statistics for the OECD”
I hate to do this David, especially as the usual suspects will accuse me of something or othet, however you missed a bit from his CV.
However Prof Henderson also sits on the board of the Institute of Economic Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs)
he has also been linked to these guys
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/
No offence but he is hardly an independent voice in these matters.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Oh for f**k’s sake! What does it take to convince you people that there is a high probability than human-induced global warming is actually happening? Sure, there’s a small chance it isn’t, but do we want to risk the next x number of generations on that small chance? Sure it’d be nicer if global warming was an evil socialist conspiracy and you could all live in your odd right wing fantasy land, but sorry, it isn’t.
The reason that people accuse climate change deniers of being party to an oil company funded conspiracy is because there is strong evidence that many of them ARE (eg the website junkscience, a favourite of many kiwiblog commentators, is run by a guy that is provably funded by the tobacco and oil lobbies). I’m not talking people like DPF, who advocate what is an understandable, but (in my opinion) irresponsibly slow, response to the problem, but people who flat our deny its happening. Most people posting on this blog are probably significantly older than me (although I was at Vic at the same time as Craig…), so feel free to ignore the problem, die of old age, and leave me and other, even younger people to deal with it. Really, thats a very constructive idea.
I realise this is somewhat ranty, but meh, whatever. The total insanity level of some of the above comments pissed me the hell off.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am
There, there…..worry yourself not, Law.
There is absolutely nothing that NZ can do, including shutting down all its power generation, banning vehicles and praying to the Earth Goddess, that will have any effect at all, in the slightest degree, on the world’s total carbon emissions.
But perhaps the Chinese would like some of your advice.
They have over 500 new coal power stations planned in the next 10 years and their emissions are actually a measurable addition to the total.
Religious enthusiasm is cute, did you catch Al’s film?
February 10th, 2007 at 1:43 am
LawGeek,like so many others will look back in ten years time and blush when they think how they swallowed this GW bullshit with open expectant mouths…
February 10th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Any action that will dampen full-steem-ahead economic growth, and/or require us to think in terms of collective responsability, will terrify the righties posting here – it runs antithetical to their dogma )i.e. the market can and will solve everything, and that the right to acrue the maximum level of personal wealth possible is the holiest liberty of them all. That these people fear taking a responsable attitude to the threat of global warming is evident in the shear hysteria and blindness evident in the posts above. let’s just make sure these market fundamentalists don’t screw it up for the rest of us.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Did anyone notice that Britain has decided that all schools should get to see Al Gore’s nasty picture?
Between indoctrination of all pupils throughout Britain and sacking a teacher for telling the truth, there seems to be a major imbalance between fact and fallacy and truth and religion.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Ah philipjohn, back to educate us some more, you really have no shame do you.
Fred above is spot on the money. Even IF humans are causing some of what may be global warming, there is nothing you can do about it.
sorry old chap. NZ has precisely no swing here. Developing countries aren’t going to stop developing. European countries have cheated so far on their Kyoto obligations and noone else is doing more than platitudes.
When Al Gore and his activist mates stop flying in their private jets, then maybe, just maybe we can believe that they aren’t hypocrites either.
And why is it that every “solution” seems to involve punishing ordinary people with price rises or taxes, coupled with a healthy dose of anti capitalist, anti-consumerist rhetoric. Telling people you despise them is generally not terribly persuasive – y’all hear that pj?
I note also that the biggest IPCC stories are:
a. the scenarios are now a lot less scary than IPCC 3
b why isnt the science to back the advice to policymakers being shown now rather than being massaged til May?
The only solution, if one is needed, and I personally remain deeply sceptical that we can make the blindest bit of difference, is technology. And the only clean, non polluting technology with the slightest chance of making a real difference in the next 20 years is nuclear. You guys must really really hate that…
February 10th, 2007 at 7:31 am
oh and PJ, it’s spelt “sheer”, just trying to be helpful, wouldnt want to risk that A++ with silly spelling mistakes would we?
February 10th, 2007 at 7:37 am
oh yes, and “steam”
still I quite like the idea of “full steem ahead” – must be some part of a self actualisation programme up there on the ol’ Waikato?
“responsability” however, is simply irresponsible!
by the way, not terrified by your deep truthiness yet, sorry you’ll have to come up with better strawmen than that.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:13 am
LawGeek said…
What does it take to convince you people that there is a high probability than human-induced global warming is actually happening?
Let me make it very clear here. Climate science is mathematical modeling, period. The issue of today’s debate is about the validity of those climate mathematical models. The widely adopted Radiative Forcing based model which is widely used today to measure the relative efficacy of climate change mechanisms. The predictive ability of radiative forcing is much worse and unreliable, which clearly stated in this paper. The link only shows the abstract, however you can request a copy from either one of the authors, which is what I did or otherwise buy a copy online. Do you wholeheartedly embrace the mathematics or perhaps it is better for you to throw in some healthy skepticism?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:14 am
“NZ has no swing here”.
The argument that we shouldn’t bother because we can’t make a difference is comletely bogus. Using that logic, there is no point voting either. Are you prepared to give up your vote, the deity formerly known as nigel6888?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Oops, here is the correct link for the paper, that criticized the current GCM based Radiative Forcing as worse or unreliable. The authors had come up with a better proposed model.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Thats a really stupid analogy donkey. New Zealand is a sovereign state and a vote in NZ is within a political and constitutional framework which has meaning. A New Zealand vote has no weight in China, just as a Chinese vote should not influence our sovereign government.
You are confusing a moral argument with a constitutional one. Which I think just reinforces my point. Regardless of what you may want to see happen, reality and realpolitik have a habit of mugging the idealist.
On which point, I am surprised that a NZ labour party supporter still didnt understand the breathtaking cynicism and self interest of politicians. Extrapolate that to the global arena, and be prepared for a small amount of intellectual dissonance. Which is what I was pointing out, and which you have failed to grasp.
Every Government is “managing” the global warming debate for domestic political constituency reasons. They will say anything it takes as long as they don’t have to incur electoral punishment. This year being environmental responsible is fashionable.
What is anyone actually DOING though?
Oh yes, jetting around the world posing as concerned. Excellent. Business as usual.
Personally I don’t think we should bother because the whole issue is beyond the scope of Government to sell, and beyond the hysterical shouting of advocates, the real consequences of global warming, if they are going to happen, seem pretty benign. 3 degrees over 100 years, and maybe 12-17 inches of sea water. Good grief, do you really think humanity can’t cope with a bit of weather?
Hell, 100 years ago our ancestors were walking down to t’mill, using gas lighting if they were lucky enough to live in a town. No radio, mostly no cars, mostly no electricity, no good medical or dental for 90% of the population and generally dying by 50 something, if you were male, or popping off in childbirth with your 12th child if female.
More than half the world’s population is still living in those conditions. Strangely they rather prefer not to, and the only way things are going to change for them is through economic activity. I don’t think rich western liberals are going to be very effective at persuading half the world to stay poor for the “sake of the planet”, when the probability that anything particularly bad is happening is so low and the consequences so minor.
Do you feel confident enough to predict what the world will be like in 100 years time? I don’t, nor do I much care to participate in another Millenarian death cult.
But hey, I know it makes you feel better demonstrating how much you care, so please continue. If you like, I happily accept the labels of neo-liberal, capitalist, sceptic. You can even call me a denialist (whatever that is) if you like. I will wear the badges proudly as I drive my SUV off to the airport for my next international holiday where I intend to oppress the masses of some other dispirited third world economy by buying goods and services from them.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:13 am
If anyone wants to find out more at the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, they should visit their website:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
It starts out with a statement that sounds promising:
Coalition’s mission:
To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change.
However it quickly descends into the following (still on the opening page) “incomprehensible gibberish by some anonymous but obviously demented devotee of ex-Senator Gore’. And then follows up with links to anti global warming articles.
I am not sure what ‘accurately and without prejudice’ means to these people but I wouldn’t hold my breath for a balanced, rigorous and scientific discussion from Professor David Henderson. Pity it is in Auckland, if they speak in Christchurch I would go and give him the opportunity to change my mind.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:43 am
nigel,
Fascinating to see you trot out so much antediluvian dribble. Clearly you are stuck in a totally outdated fantasy that wants to paint all Green/lefties are beardie-weirdie, bean-munching Luddites that want to dismantle the technological progress of the last 200 years…and propel humanity backwards into pre-industrial serfdom.
Sorry but as anyone with the slightest actual understanding realises….it is that 50% or so of humanity who does live in poverty that represents the one of the greatest threats to the planet in terms of habitat destruction, biodiversity loss and local environmental degradation. Clearly any intent to reduce the other developed 50% of humanity to the same level would be deeply counterproductive, and any genuine Green vision for the future must be firmly rooted in smarter more efficient applications of technology, not it’s elimination.
The challenge is not modern technology, but the manner in which it is used, and the purposes it is lent to.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:52 am
So you managed to derive THAT from what I said, and then you have the balls to claim that I’m the one with the active fantasy life there rag?
Glad to see that at least one socialist has an unblinkered view of the poor, disposessed and otherwise dangerously unproductive.
So whats your solution, cull them?
February 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
On the off chance you might have been serious. What the hell does the following mean:
“The challenge is not modern technology, but the manner in which it is used, and the purposes it is lent to.”
In English if you wouldn’t mind.
For most people I know technology is just stuff, it enables me to live my life more easily, it doesnt have a higher “purpose”.
Or perhaps being green really is a religion after all?
A test. If you don’t say the incantation to Gaia properly, will the electricity still make the light come on? Does the Fridge still work if the manner of use isn’t “appropriate”?
This is brilliant, I couldn’t invent someone like you.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:07 am
It’s not getting any smarter out there.
Here’s an idea, let’s spend/lose multi billions of NZ dollars on carbon emission dogma.
Let’s then note not a single one of those NZ dollars had any effect on any measurable outcome in the fundamentalist world of carbon emissions.
Then let’s deny our expenditure is useless.
Sound familiar?
February 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Falu,
The uncertainties in the models that you are so obsessed with cut both ways. …insofar as that the models may be uncertain as to cloud feedback, this could well mean that the actual situation is worse than we are currently projecting.
You continue to sweep under the carpet the simple fact the vast number of successful tests of model processes against field data…and there are no models that predict that unlimited increasing CO2 levels will not ultimately have a catastrophic effect.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:11 am
but at least our greenness will have been “genuine” Fred. Come on, get with the programme, showing how much we care it is more important than having any discernable impact.
Then we can go back to punishing those nasty poor people in the third world for spoiling our nice environment for us.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Yeah nigel, reading the left on carbon emissions gives deep insight into the thought processes that sent the USSR broke.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Sneering arrogance is a commonplace nigel….
Fridge technologies used to use ozone depleting gases and took no precautions against leakage or safe disposal. In response to the newly understood threat we had some choices:
1. Abandon refrigerators and go back to hauling the meat up into high trees.
2. Improve the current technology to using better gases and control leakage.
3. Transition to entirely new refrigerant gases that have no ozone depleting effect (strangely enough CO2 is the best of them) as is happening in Japan.
In simple English terms that you may have the wit to comprehend… the correct solution was to move away from the early primitive version of the technology to a more efficient smarter version. But if you recall the Greens/scientists took a lot of stick for some years while attempting to motivate the refrigeration industry to make positive changes. Eventually it took political action and regulation….capitalist “economic activity” by itself didn’t give a shit.
We didn’t revert to hauling meet into trees, nor were any sacred incarnations to Gaia blasphemously misappropriated.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Nigel…is that like the “sneering arrogance” of the left that plans to cost NZ many billions of carbon dollars merely to satisfy their belief system?
For absolutely no environmental advantage…you reckon it’s that sort of “sneering arrogance”?
February 10th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I’m pleased to see the usual level of attention is being paid to what people actually say… If you actually read my post, the point I was making is that this isn’t a good gamble to take. The oil-company funded scientists MIGHT be right, and the modelling MIGHT be wrong, but is this really a chance we want to take? As RedRag points out, this isn’t necessarily a matter of throwing anything that produces greenhouse gasses away and going back to the bronze age, its a matter of looking at what we can constructively do now, and doing it. I don’t know why that’s a difficult proposition, but it seems that it is for some of you…
February 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
It comes as no suprise the ones that believe in AGW are the very people that will be paying the least, the fucking socialists. I have to listen to the clowns in government claiming my cows are farting the world to it’s doom. I have the same fucking morons telling me that if I cut MY trees down it will probably cost me $13,000 a hectare. I would like to ask Lawgeek, redrag, sonic what costs they expect they will have to pay if we follow down the path of madness. But of course people like yourselfs only distribute wealth, you wouldn’t have a glue on how to generate it. This government signed Kyoto on behave of the people of NZ, I very much fucking doubt the people of NZ will be paying their share, this privilege will be for the chosen few.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
side show bob is absolutely correct. He’s has be treaded appallingly.
Is there any hope for NZ?
February 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Fridge technologies used to use ozone depleting gases and took no precautions against leakage or safe disposal. In response to the newly understood threat we had some choices”
Statistics of energetic particles fluxes emanating from the Sun in the eV–100 MeV range from satellites are readily available because of their important space-weather applications
Varying solar fluxes also modify the neutral atmosphere,and thus ionospheric changes result from two highly coupled processes. Changes in photon flux say due to a flare from far slower changes in the neutral atmosphere, thereby providing a way to constrain or liberate photochemistry. This is particularly important for x-ray photons that carry energy far above that needed to ionize an atom or molecule(around 2.5 magnitudes,a single photon with an energy value of around 36kev can ionize around 200000 molecules.). In such cases, the electron liberated by ionization has so much extra energy that it ionizes other atoms and molecules via collisions. This secondary ionization by photoelectrons has an amplification effect on upper atmosphere chemical genesis (thermo diffusion).
Indeed as an x-ray photon enters a water molecule for example, it severs the chemical bonds,the component parts of the water molecule,which in the presence of O2 form hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals ,super oxide ions, and hydrogen peroxide. The process also releases substantial energy as thermal emissions.
So lets examine precursor components for stratospheric ozone depletion.
Atmosphere is a gaseous envelope – N2 – 78%, O2 21% trace gasesNO2 + O2; O3 + O −> 2O2
Hence, the input of high-energy particles into the atmosphere leads to ozone destruction and generation of NO2.
Note the absence of refrigerators in the thermo-chemical equation,
February 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Something most of you appear to have overlooked.
The Stern report was written by an economist.
Prof Henderson is an economist and has critisised the economics of the Stern Report.
The economic inputs into the IPCC models have just as much influence on the outputs as the scientific inputs.
What we do about these claims is very much an economic issue.
So if you are interested in economics you might enjoy the lecture.
But if expect to hear massive and detailed debates about solar forcings and so on and whether the sea levels round Tuvalu are rising or falling then I suspect you will be disappointed.
But I would suggest that this is a rare opportunity to hear an international expert discuss the economics of the issue rather than the normal focus on climate science.
Prof Henderson has been critical of the IPCC approach to the economics inputs into its models for a long time.
So he is no “johnny come lately” to the issue.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Jesus wept max are you now telling us that freon based gases have nothing to do with catalysing ozone destruction?
Of course high energy particles destroy ozone, that is hardly news…but the presence of long-lived freons catalysed the destruction at much lower UV energies. Still if you are a world class expert on upper atmosphere photochemistry and you knew your stuff for certain, you would be publishing this ground breaking theory of yours that “refrigerators had nothing to do with it” in a proper peer-reviewed journal…not making half-assed blog comments selectively re-quoting some bit of psuedo-science.
Words fail me at the sub-cretinous obduracy being displayed here….for a people that make such a big thing of “personal responsiblity”, it is risible to what lengths you will go to in order to deny that ANYTHING you are doing may turn out to have some bad consequences.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Owen,
I am quite certain that Henderson will simply make stuff up, fake his data and lie like a flatfish in order to make the presentation fit his pre-conceived political agenda. Why should anyone give this brain-washed, posturing fool 5 minutes of their time?
PS Same accusation you level at the IPCC scientists, so what the hell …we may as well toss it back to your people as well.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Yes – how incredible that a politician would attend an event hosted by a former US Vice President and potential future President but not an obscure academic.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Redrag as always you provide definitive proof that your ideologically driven and incapable of analytic thought.An intellgensia cyclops who has never constructed an original thought,or innovative,constructive idea,genetically constructed to be a drone,a transient sub-class from an intellectual desertdwellers poisoning wells as you pass.
First I was demonstrating the aeronomic photochemical coupling the thermosphere-mesophere-stratopause interaction.You failed to read correctly.
Chlorine and halon activators anthropogenic,biogenic and abiotic are predominent at lower alimetry.Here we have papers dealing with availability and quality of observational data for trend studies, observational determination of long-term trends as well as those dealing with simulations and theoretical studies of trends in the mesosphere, thermosphere and ionosphere as well as in the stratosphere A special issue of Annales Geophysicae is focused on the determination of long-term trends and changes and the quantification of the role of anthropogenic changes (primarily greenhouse effect) versus effects from the Sun in the observed trends by the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy a review of 42 papers from 40 scientists will be published in March.
This is the amongst the first of some 50 Tomes to be published this year for International heliophysical year,to coincide with solar minima and the 50th anniversary of sputnik.
The major Tomes from the Russian Academies will be released from June to November,an intersting year.
February 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
First I was demonstrating the aeronomic photochemical coupling the thermosphere-mesophere-stratopause interaction.You failed to read correctly.
So what is your point? Are you telling us that clhoroflourocarbons responsible are NOT for the catalytic destruction of ozone in the stratosphere? Come on make a categorical claim here or quit the blatant disinformation.
And surely you aren’t making the elementary howler of conflating O3 depletion and the CO2/CH4 AGW effect? Or are you still running the thoroughly discredited notion that it all observed temperature changes to date are solely due to the Sun?
You know, if we were discussing the effect on infrared-absobing gases on the climate on Mars, the issue probably would have been settled about 20 years ago – but people tend to get emotional over massive economic changes, which will certainly be difficult, but in reality represent a huge opportunity to transition the global economy to something sanely sustainable.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
My theory is that the left has never recovered from the collapse of the USSR….glorbell worming is the comrades security blanket of choice.
And they say they’re not religious.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Oh my god….another one.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
February 10th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Redrag you sack of shit you have not replied to my question (how much will it cost you to save the world). You seem more confused then us silly farmers, thank God we have someone of your talents to lead us out of the darkness.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
First we are dealing with complex manifestations of phenomena caused by a number of singular or simultaneous events in the upper atmosphere that cause misunderstandings due to ambiguous signals of equal and or opposite signs.
For brevity we will use the example of solar proton events as an example to prevent misunderstandings with other events of equal or greater magnitude. Similar events are seen during energetic electron precipitation.
Among the most striking natural phenomena affecting ozone are solar proton events (SPE), during which high-energy protons precipitate into the middle atmosphere in the polar regions. Ionisation caused by the protons results in changes in the lower ionosphere, and in production of neutral odd nitrogen (NOx ) and odd hydrogen (HOx) species which then destroy ozone in well known catalytic chemical reaction chains. Large SPEs are able to decrease the ozone concentration of upper stratosphere and mesosphere, but are not expected to significantly affect the ozone layer at 15-30 km altitude except during x-class events.
NOx is produced in dissociation of molecular nitrogen by the primary and secondary solar particles and, to a lesser extent, in ion chemical reactions following the ion pair production. Production of HOx is solely due to ion chemistry, involving a rather complex scheme of water cluster ion reactions. The depletion of ozone is due to the increase of NOx and HOx, which accelerates the catalytic ozone loss cycles involving these species. The magnitude and duration of depletion depends on the particle flux, altitude, season
(solar illumination level and atmospheric dynamics), and the chemical state of the atmosphere. The short-term ozone depletion due to HOx increase lasts some hours and can be greater than 90% in the middle mesosphere, while the long-term decrease, several tens of percent, is typically seen in the upper stratosphere and is due to NOx increase. Because of the long chemical lifetime of NOx, the effects on ozone can last for months and the produced NOx can be transported from the location of the precipitation, so that lower altitudes and latitudes may also be affected.
Ultraviolet radiation received by the atmosphere changes by about 7% with the variation of the distance between the Sun and the Earth penetration of UV depends on the species(wavelength) whose pentration is vertically constrained in periods of moderate soalr activity.These kinds of variations may modulate the middle atmospheric ozone. ie here UV below 240 nm interacts with the oxygen molecule (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3. The ozone molecule is also unstable (although, in the stratosphere, long-lived) and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of O2 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, O3 + UV radiation-O2 + O—O + O2— O3 Net: UV is converted to heat. Haigh in her SPARC review calls this the natural healing process, it is also a process of equal but opposite sign.
This is the prime amplifier of polar depletion in high altimetry of the upper atmosphere due to the proton cut off of the geomagnetic field. Measurements of nitrate content in polar ice show that there is a strong correlation of the nitrate content on the solar activity level and other high energy mechanisms and stratospheric temperature gradients.
Chlorine and halon species of both anthropic and abiogenic origins are the precursor mechanism in the mid to lower atmosphere. The total amount of ozone is a balance between production by solar energy and loss by this Cl-ClO and other catalytic reactions. If it were possible to increase the sun’s UV output at wavelengths below 240 nm, ozone levels would rise. Likewise, if the amounts of chlorine, nitrogen, bromine, or hydrogen in the stratosphere increase, the level of ozone will decrease.
There are 6 high energy mechanisms that produce similar phenomena GCR,ACR,SCR EEP, SPE and lightning.
To say that removal of anthropic halons will see significant changes in the polar ozone anomalies is only correct in the absence of extra-terrestrial high energy forcings
With regard to comparative aeronomy viz a viz Mars/Earth I suggest you read Medillo et al Simultaneous ionospheric variability on Earth and Mars J. Geophys. Res., 108(A12), 1432, doi:10.1029/2003JA009961, 2003.
“Using photochemical-equilibrium arguments applicable to the peak electron density layer on Mars and the E-layer on Earth, we find basic agreement in scaling laws between the planets, and in the details of correlations with simultaneous solar flux variations during a period of pronounced solar activity.”
With regard to solar forcing I recommend you look at the CAWSES the sun as a non linear “heat engine” has three states on/off/both.
If we look at the above event we used as an example, during the x-class event of early December 2006 we observed significant changes in the ozone boundary in the primary locality.55-75 South and 140-180 East ,for a period of 2 weeks the Atmospheric temperatures above the SI of NZ were the coldest on the planet outside of the polar circles, with corresponding low December SAT .
The sun also cools the planet in 3 regimes of solar activity.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Guessing there are hardly any fridges in that maksimo?
February 10th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
No, max has simply dissembled, all he has done is run past us a whole bunch of distractions. It is quite old news that stratospheric ozone is subject to a wide variability, but his imputation that anthropic halons have no effect is not even supported by the CAWSES group he quotes. (And if that is NOT what he is saying then I really don’t see what his point is.)
Note carefully that in all of the above he doesn’t actually answer the question, he dodges it with largely jargon laden material intended to be impenetrable to the average reader of this blog. For a readable summary of the issue:
http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/library/rtnf92.htm
February 10th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Oh and the contention that it is “all due to variations in the Sun and solar orbits” gets a bit of spanking here:
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf
February 11th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Can’t imagine too many will be interested … maybe the Flat Earth Society.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
First it was you the postulated the single cause and effect with mitigation mechanisms by your fridge analogy.
What I introduced was additional parameters with explanations for amplification and attenuation, this sets the limitations of what can be attained by “treaty obligations” These are by no means all of the dynamics, the differentials for the thermo-optic mechanisms during changes in say the plasmophere which would add a degree of complexity that would preclude dialogue.
My primary emphasis was the Polar Cap amplification which is what is used as the standard example for crisis salesmen.
In the PCA we will use the UNFCC analysis 2006 and not the 1991 reference you provided.
“Identification of the solar cycle signal in observed ozone has been improved because of
the absence of major volcanic eruptions over the past 15 years. The deduced solar cycle
variation in column ozone has a mean amplitude of 2-3% (from minimum to maximum)previously understated in 2001.”
“Large Antarctic ozone holes continue to occur. The severity of Antarctic ozone
depletion has not continued to increase since the late 1990s and, since 2000, ozone levels
have been higher in some years. These recent changes, evident to different degrees in
different diagnostic measures, result from increased dynamical wave activity ,from thermospheric-Ionospheric intraction and not from decreases in ozone-depleting substances.”
“The models predict levels returning to 1980 levels by around 2065 in the Antarctic zone, but will see no appreciable differences in the zones ozone levels in the upper atmosphere after.”
In summary the antarctic isotopes show high energy polar amplification across wide time scales.This provides boundaries that preclude full mitigation ie ozone hole formation has has been present across the geological record whether it has been larger or smaller at times is the present discussion and a matter of differing opinions on quantification at the UNFCC.
Your gsa reference is challenged by this Tome INTERSTELLAR-TERRESTRIAL RELATIONS: VARIABLE COSMIC ENVIRONMENTS, THE DYNAMIC HELIOSPHERE, AND THEIR IMPRINTS ON TERRESTRIAL ARCHIVES AND CLIMATE
Space Science Reviews (2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9126-6
Um Nick stick to maypole dancing,
February 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Redrag does not seem to realise that many of the IPCC scientists are skeptics too.
It is the policy committee which has written the most recent Summary for Policy Makers and some of the actual reviewing scientists are its severest critics.
YOu might like to note too that the SPM no longer mentions the famous Hockey Stick. “What’s that?” I hear you say, and you are right. The Mann Hockey Stick has been written out of the “history book”.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Owen,
YOu might like to note too that the SPM no longer mentions the famous Hockey Stick
You know perfectly well that this is desperately dishonest. The fact that you make it is an indication of the depths you have stooped to. I am tempted not to even dignify this tosh with an answer because I know you are so morally compromised here that you can never admit to being wrong; but here goes just in case there is anyone tempted to believe your lie:
MYTH #1: The “Hockey Stick” Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Read both pages and Owen’s silly lie is utterly blown out of the water. The original work by Mann et al has been confirmed by a dozen other studies, nor had any of the criticisms made of it undermined in any manner the actual conclusions.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
yet again Rag omits to point out that realscience is an pro global warming advocacy website and that one of the leading members is, whaddaya know, Michael Mann.
colour me surprised.
This is also the site that coined the wonderful label “denialist” as a way of engaging in adult and respectful disagreement with anyone evil enough not to care about the environment.
Soo, lets see now. Everywhere except in Michael Mann’s website the hockeystick is debunked and the IPCC has quietly dropped it – a verifiable fact that not even Rag can wish away. But what the hey, nothing to see here, move along, how dare Owen remind anyone. Clearly this demonstrates that not only is he morally compromised but telling lies. He is probably silly too. So there!
Is this how the mighty rag really thinks arguments are won with grown-ups?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Everywhere except in Michael Mann’s website the hockeystick is debunked and the IPCC has quietly dropped it
More desperate lies.
1. A dozen other independent studies have confirmed the original Mann study. This is the exact opposite of your “debunked” lie.
2. The SPM is a summary, not the science report itself. The imputation that Mann’s hockey-stick has been quietly dropped because it is wrong, is malicious idiocy. APR4 is intended to review the new evidence, there is no requirement that it should depend on or highlight a pioneering study that is now a decade old.
I have linked to a clear cut science case confirming what I am saying. You on the other hand are merely indulging in your usual histrionics. Oh yes… RealClimate is of course a well-known pro-AGW website, and on it Mann makes the case for his defence clearly and lucidly. Either he is right, or he is wrong, but you do it on the basis of the science, nothing else counts.
PS This is why we call you guys “denialists”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=04042006
February 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“we” rag?
oh I see, appeal to group identity, yes that always works. “lies” “desperate lies”, “denialists”
and “histrionics”?
Perhaps you could look up the big words before you use them next time? To save you some time:
his·tri·on·ics (hĭs’trē-ŏn’ĭks)
n.
(used with a pl. verb) Theatrical arts or performances.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Exaggerated emotional behavior calculated for effect.
I suggest we let others form their own opinion about who is indulging in histrionics on this site rag.
Can I suggest a bit of a sit down and a nice cup of tea? Perhaps you could read a few soothing passages from Engels about the historical inevitability of communism, thats always good for a giggle.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 8:57 pm