The ‘recovery of ozone’ is related to a reduction in energy driving the atmospheric circulation.

Those who set up the Montreal Protocol will not want to know this. Environmental ’science’ is a self serving industry.

Of course, the high ozone content in the mid latitudes in the upper troposphere is the basis for the strong temperature variations there, variations that are reflected in surface pressure. This is a big element of my theory of climate change.

Sometime life is a funny old thing.Catching up on my reading in Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences a journal of the RSC I find what Erl is telling us is indeed the “Partyline” so to speak.

Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: Progress report, 2008

United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel

“Regional climate and hence tropospheric air quality can be influenced by both changes in stratospheric ozone and the effects of greenhouse gases”

Ozone depleting substances and greenhouse gases can contribute to alterations in global circulation1—see section above Ozone and changes in biologically active UV radiation. Changes in these large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns have been associated with changes in regional climate, for example a reduction in rainfall in SW Australia.Such changes will also affect air quality through changes in local climate.

URL HERE and PDF download available.
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=PP&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b820432m&Iss=1

PS Effects are local and have differnet properties at different latitudes and heights eg fig 1

Interesting read.

And a good portion of the “not much left” should result from the redistribution of subsurface water from the PWP to the surface of the eastern Pacific where surface currents and trade winds cause it to accumulate on the surface of the Western Pacific (and East Indian Ocean).

“Since the 200hPa level is heated from below, one might surmise that there has been an astounding jump in 1978 of surface temperatures. Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.”

We are referring to the south east Pacific at 30-40°S and 240-260°E between 1976 and 1980 when global tropical sea surface temperature between 20°S and 20°N rose by 0.6°, never to return again so far as the record to date is concerned.

Let’s try and keep a sense of proportion and retain some concern for what might be cause and what effect. The “jump” in sea surface temperature in the region of interest between 1976 and 1980 was 0.3°C. The jump in 200hPa temperature in the same area was 2.7°C.

It doesn’t matter what you call it. The important thing is to work out how/why it happened. Standing behind universal curves does not help.

I think that this is the point where I give up. This is a bit too much like talking to three brass monkeys.

Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.”

And then in around 1998 the Pdo/pdv or whatever inverted again.This velocity inversion has the same effect as a time inversion. The ability for a recurrent periodic state such as the PDO or an inverse temperature “state ”is in essence a binary transformation or bifurcation. The classic Lh bifurcation with 2 possible states.As the present phase state cannot remember its future” initial position” it reverts to its past position eg prior to 1978 in this case, a hard stability loss eg Pontryagin
and Andronov 1937.

Hence “much ado about nothing”

My comment: Bob Tisdale should be comforted to know that once you take the ENSO signal out of the warming trend in the Pacific there is not much left.

Just love the enthusiasm from the guys on this team….I can see a time when more evidence comes to light very soon, that us “Planetary Influence” guys will join forces with the ENSO guys and fight the cruel menace that manifests itself as AGW associated with Solar scientists. :)

Chen, J., A.D. Del Genio, B.E. Carlson, and M.G. Bosilovich, 2008: The spatiotemporal structure of twentieth-century climate variations in observations and reanalyses. Part I: Long-term trend. J. Climate, 21, 2611-2633, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2011.1.

The dominant interannual El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and the short length of climate observation records make it difficult to study long-term climate variations in the spatiotemporal domain. Based on the fact that the ENSO signal spreads to remote regions and induces delayed climate variation through atmospheric teleconnections, an ENSO-removal method is developed through which the ENSO signal can be approximately removed at the grid box level from the spatiotemporal field of a climate parameter. After this signal is removed, long-term climate variations are isolated at mid- and low latitudes in the climate parameter fields from observed and reanalysis datasets. This paper addresses the long-term global warming trend (GW); a companion paper concentrates on Pacific pan-decadal variability (PDV).

The warming that occurs in the Pacific basin (approximately 0.4 K in the twentieth century) is much weaker than in surrounding regions and the other two ocean basins (approximately 0.8 K). The modest warming in the Pacific basin is likely due to its dynamic nature on the interannual and decadal time scales and/or the leakage of upper ocean water through the Indonesian Throughflow.

My comment: Bob Tisdale should be comforted to know that once you take the ENSO signal out of the warming trend in the Pacific there is not much left.

On the other hand I think he will have to take into account the Indonesian Throughflow in his computations about re the Warm Pool and its dynamics.

For the authors of this study, a few questions: Why should the Pacific warm less than the other oceans? Does this throw doubt on the process they have used to “remove ENSO from the climate signal? What about the notion that the southern oscillation is the dominant mode of climate variation for the globe? What about the notion that there are ‘teleconnections’ between the Pacific and the rest of the globe driving changes in the latter? If ENSO is so important in the Pacific how important is the anthropogenic influence there, or is it mainly operative outside the Pacific.? Oh dear!

“Fortunately, by combining information about the spatial patterns of the anthropogenic and natural climate variations, it is possible to draw some conclusions. For example, an upward trend in ocean heat content from 1993-2003 has been interpreted by previous workers as a sign of anthropogenic influences that create an imbalance between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and the heat it emits to space. At first glance the PDO shift in the mid-1990s might call such an interpretation into question. However, the spatial pattern of the PDO includes warming in some places and cooling in others; in fact, changes consistent with the PDO can be seen in the geographic pattern of observed ocean heat content changes. But in the global mean these warming and cooling changes nearly offset each other, so the overall upward trend in observed ocean heat content can only be explained by anthropogenic effects, which exhibit warming almost everywhere. On the other hand, satellite-observed changes in absorbed sunlight and emitted heat in the tropics over the period 1985-2000, which appear to have caused a strengthening of the tropical atmospheric circulation, could in principle be either anthropogenic or natural in origin.”

“By examining the spatial pattern of both types of climate variation, the scientists found that the anthropogenic global warming signal was relatively spatially uniform over the tropical oceans and thus would not have a large effect on the atmospheric circulation, whereas the PDO shift in the 1990s consisted of warming in the tropical west Pacific and cooling in the subtropical and east tropical Pacific, which would enhance the existing sea surface temperature difference and thus intensify the circulation. Thus, it can be concluded that the observed 15-year trend in radiative imbalance of the tropics is probably a signature of natural rather than anthropogenic climate variations.”

My comment: At last some recognition of the shift to ‘El Nino dominant’ that is strikingly apparent in the pattern of 200hPa temperature change in figure 8 at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/.

But, they have the date wrong. It starts back in 1948, and takes a leap in 1978 and has been gradually subsiding since 1978.

If this change had an anthropogenic origin it would not leap in 1978 and it would not decline over the the thirty year period since that date.

It’s nice to see a recognition of the “satellite-observed changes in absorbed sunlight and emitted heat in the tropics”.

And how did 200hPa temperature make that astounding jump in 1978 without a little heating from above? All good science starts with observation. When the stuff that is observed is out of kilter with the ‘universal curve’, you have to start asking yourself if the curve reflects reality.

How do you explain the peak in variability in 100hPa, 150hPa and 200hPa in March and September in the historical data. This suggests to me that UV flux is greater at the equinox. That would explain the peak in temperatures at 1hPa at the same time. There can be no argument surely about what is causing that peak. How does your universal curve apply in this situation? Do you just shift it down a bit for these times. How much?
We have covered this ground many times before. I’ll refer you again to the treatment of the semiannual oscillations here http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/81/45/PDF/angeo-24-2131-2006.pdf The equinoctial peaks at the low and high altitudes are not related in the sense you imagine, the phase of the maxima change steadily with altitude, see Figure 16.
The universal curve shows very nicely where the heating occurs. If you double the concentration at any given altitude, you double the heating there, as simple as that.

Instinct and talent and other intangibles, indeed. Was Newton greater than Michelangelo? I doubt it.

What varies is the ozone concentration at 200hPa and no ‘universal curve’ will be valid in this circumstance. The physics is no problem, the quantification is the problem.

How do you explain the peak in variability in 100hPa, 150hPa and 200hPa in March and September in the historical data. This suggests to me that UV flux is greater at the equinox. That would explain the peak in temperatures at 1hPa at the same time. There can be no argument surely about what is causing that peak. How does your universal curve apply in this situation? Do you just shift it down a bit for these times. How much?

Thanks for your analysis of 200hPa temperature in the SE Pacific versus Tropical SST Leif. You are a skilled practitioner. I am no statistician. But I have had a careful look at the data and I look at these things from a practical point of view. I see 11 occasions where the peaks unambiguously belong together. The rest I discard. Of the 11, the timing of peaks matches exactly in five cases. In the other seven cases 200hPa temperature leads TSST.

But, if I am choosing a series to predict ENSO events I would be looking at sea surface pressure in the South East Pacific where the lead is more regular both in the upturn and the downturn.

For the interested reader, you can see the relationship between surface pressure in the south east pacific and tropical sea surface temperature 20N to 20S latitude in figure 6 at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/

Ozone absorbs UVB. Some UVB gets to the surface. I suspect it is being absorbed wherever ozone is present.
You do not understand the simple physics: the heating depends on the product of three factors: the UV flux, the O3 concentration, and the absorption coefficient for UVB. At 200 hPa all these are small, and the product of three small quantities is very small. That is the reason for the UV heating going to near zero below 100 hPa.

Anomalous heating at 200hPa is a fact of life.
It is not ‘anomalous’, it is a natural consequence of the fact that O3 is a very efficient greenhouse gas

local cloud cover and surface pressure with knock on effects in terms of the strength of the easterlies and the location of the convection zones are the essence of the Southern Oscillation.
You mistakenly assume that this is disputed. What I show you is just that your specific mechanism for this is not at work. That is all.

Thanks for sending the email with the temperature data. I had already simply read off the values from your graph [in millimeters without converting to degrees, which is not necessary for correlation analysis]. The result of my analysis is here: http://www.leif.org/research/200%20hPa%20versus%20SST%20in%20tropics.pdf The conclusion is that there is no lag.

“In the cold air above cumulonimbus anvils thin cirrus desiccates the air through the sedimentation of ice particles, similar to polar stratospheric clouds. Transport deeper into the stratosphere occurs in regions where radiative heating becomes dominant, to a large extent in the subtropics.”

Yes, the mount of cirrus is greatest where convective clouds feed moisture into the upper atmosphere. The humidity levels at 300hPa tend to be greater than at 400-500hPa. The surface area to volume in an ice cloud is enormous and that speeds crystallization. The same dynamic affects all crystallization reactions including tartrate in wine, that I am familiar with. So this will dry the atmosphere. But, cut off the supply of moisture as happens above the warm pool in an El Nino event or warm the upper atmosphere by whatever means and the crystallization will not occur.

My comment on that figure is that the diagram specifies no location. The only one of the three diagrams that does specify a location is on page 11. For the heating to be apparent the ozone must be present. There is much more ozone present at 30°-40°S in the troposphere than in ‘the tropics’, location unspecified.

Ozone absorbs UVB. Some UVB gets to the surface. I suspect it is being absorbed wherever ozone is present.

P27 The mechanism is based on a model ’spin up’. When the modelers can explain and predict the southern oscillation, the dynamic that changes global temperature I will (cautiously) start to take notice of them.

Anomalous heating at 200hPa is a fact of life. The consequences in terms of local cloud cover and surface pressure with knock on effects in terms of the strength of the easterlies and the location of the convection zones are the essence of the Southern Oscillation. You can contest whether UV is responsible (and I suggest it is just the initiator with the consequent increase on OLR the reinforcer) but not on the basis of the diagrams that you refer me to.

But next time you take a flight, take a window seat, and take an interest in the cloud layers at various elevations and resist the temptation to drop the shade when you get to 8,000 metes. See how many minutes it takes to get sunburnt.

And I guess that is where we finish up on this occasion. Thank you for your willingness to participate. Thanks to the umpire, the ball boys and the linesmen, few though they may be.

First let us note that the end statement in Joanna Haigh’s presentation is that Solar UV does affect (tropospheric) climate. But, the author is at a loss to suggest how the solar signal is produced in the troposphere.
She gives a detailed mechanism on page 27. And you should not quote out of context and ‘contest’ careful calculations by saying they are ‘handwaving”. Page 12 and 15 should be clear enough to you. They show directly that there is no shortwave heating of the upper troposphere due to absorption by O3. And in the papers I cited there are lots of discussion of O3’s variation with latitude. This has been known and monitored for a long time. But, I give up [without nasty comments of horses that won't drink]. I hope that I have given the general readership the information they need to make up their own mind.