Anthony,

This article may be useful regarding the Sudden Stratospheric Warming discussion. [Source and Abstract below] The emphasis is not the same and it is of a “minor SSW” event and it is only of a sample of one. But, it claims showing the cause of the anomaly to be within the atmosphere and to have initiated in the midlatitudes.

The Minor Stratospheric Warming of January 1989: Results from STRATAN, a Stratospheric-Tropospheric Data Assimilation System

In NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE (January 1992) Monthly Weather Review, Volume 120, Issue 1, January 1992, pp. 221-229.

Find here: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/120/1/pdf/i1520-0493-120-1-221.pdf

ABSTRACT: [lead author: Stephen D. Steenrod]

Using a stratospheric-tropospheric data assimilation system, referred to as STRATAN, a minor sudden stratospheric warming that occurred in January 1989 is investigated. The event had a maximum influence on the stratospheric circulation near 2 hPa. The zonal mean circulation reversed briefly in the polar region as the temperature increased 34 K in 3 days. The cause of the warming is shown to be the rapid development and subsequent movement of a warm anomaly, which initially developed in the midlatitudes. The development of the warm anomaly is caused by adiabatic descent, and the dissipation by radiative cooling. A brief comparison with the NMC analysis and temperature sounding data is also presented.

A few readings on statistical thermodynamics:

Engel, Thomas and Reid, Philip J. Thermodynamics, Statistical, Thermodynamics, & Kinetics. 1st. edition. 2007. Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 14 and subsequent chapters.

Hutchenson, John S. (2005). Quantum Energy Levels in Atoms, Connexions, Module.

Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill.

Glaser, Roland. (2005). Biophysics. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 5-80

Again, and for the last time, not including macrophysical parameters doesn’t mean that molecules and supramolecules are not thermodynamic systems. The confusion resides on believing that the molecular thermal processes are not stochastic. Would you say that the laws of thermodynamics do not work on single molecules, atoms, supramolecules or subnuclear particles, and that these are not thermodynamic systems? Perhaps you are referring to an impossibility of single molecules to absorb and emit energy or don’t make work (W)?

Is there somewhere to get an aurora map to see if there is some correlation of it to ozone? This thing is just buggin’ me…

The easiest no-nonsense page I use is http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html I’m mainly interested when there’s a chance of an aurora in New Hamsphire, so I haven’t used that page much lately. Lessee, you’ll want the SH version too, yep, that’s at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapS.html . Perhaps the best starting point is http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html

There will be a lot of variation in the estimates, depending on what factors folks choose to emphasize. Short term effects ought to show up in one season (this winter very cold!). Longer term effects, like the PDO flip, can have a 30 year period of impact (so a 30 yr. period of ‘rebound’ until some new more stable point is reached). Solar cycles have many ‘rates’ but many observers have found periodicities in the 172 to 200+ range and cycles from 1500 years to 2400 years are hypothesized. IFF the sun is a significant driver, then we could have a few hundred years of ‘rebound’ like the Little Ice Age. Then there is the ‘thermal inertia’ of the oceans that some folks estimate at 800 years and others at low thousands.

But the short form is simpler: Snow can start falling fast from one cold winter. Ice can start forming faster in a single year. As soon as several meters of ice forms, it is more about snowfall than ocean temperatures under the ice (unless some volcanos let loose!); and snowfall has the ability to respond fairly quickly. Longer term, all those cycles start messing with the outcome…

So expect to see something on the scale of a few years. On the decades scale it could get ‘very interesting’…

Sorry, my error. I was reading the ‘Cosmic ray exposure age of meteorites’ as cosmic ray flux (exposure). It’s not, it’s somewhat anti-correlated. Correcting that error and taking Figure 5:

“close to 440″ Million Years Ago. Yes, in geologic scales. Fig.5 shows it about 450-460 MYA, but what’s 10 to 20 million years among friends? Notice also that the CRF had been rising since about 510 MYA (as temperatures dropped) and then proceeds to drop until about 380 MYA (as temperatures rise) etc.

So what do we have here? A very nice negative correlation.

We enter the Silurian with almost all the land at the South pole & equator and with glaciation at about 444 MYA, leave it with fewer glaciers about 415 MYA, all while the CRF is dropping. Yes, there is a brief cool spot toward the end, then it resume warming (as CRF continues dropping). I have no problem with the idea that maybe little things, like, oh, the sun and orbital mechanics might have still had an influence on about the same time scales that they do now…

BTW, the complete lack of any land at or near the North Pole is all that is needed to explain why this particular period has minor glaciation overall and a generally warm climate. Nothing to hold an ice cap at the pole, ergo mostly tropical most of the time most of the earth. The large number of very shallow seas near the equator would also ‘help’.

The CRF induces an oscillation in temperatures (inversely correlated) but the continents still have to be in the right places for a decent ice age to get going.

Pretty simple, really.

Well yes. As you Nature journalclub link shows, Veizer considers that CO2 has a strong contribution to paleotemperature variation. He could hardly say otherwise since that’s what his paper shows. Nobody publishes a paper that makes conclusions that one doesn’t actually believe in! I’m not sure why you might think your link suggest otherwise.

If the CRF hypothesis of Shaviv and Veizer requires a correlation between recosnstructed putative CRF and temperature, and a reassessment of the temperature by one of the proposers himself destroys the correlation during a significant part of the period under study, then one might question the reliability of the “correlation”, let alone the hypothesis! Of course no-one would suggest that these are “all-or-nothing” situations. Obviously all of the contributions to temperature variation always apply. Perhaps the putative CRF-temperature does make some contribution. However Veizer has shown that during a major part of the period studied the temperature change is in entirely in the wrong direction for a significant CRF contribution, and seems to match the CO2 levels. Veizer proposes that there is a “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era”

Is a blog entitled “JunkScience” of any interest whatsoever to science, scientists or policymakers?

Really? Maybe we should let Veizer speak for himself:
http://blogs.nature.com/nature/journalclub/2007/10/francis_albarede.html
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070913.html

The putative CRF reconstruction published by Shaviv and Veizer indicates that the CRF flux is at its peak close to 440 MYA (million years ago).

see Figure 2 of:

N.J. Shaviv and J. Veizer (2003) Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today 13, 4-10.

In fact if you look on Shaviv’s web site that you linked to, that’s pretty clearly illustrated in Figure 5 there. Since the point of Shaviv’s model is to infer a link between CRF and global temperature, and since Veizer himself has reassesed the very temperature data use to show a correlation, and now finds that it doesn’t correlate at all during this part of the Silurian, clearly there’s a problem with the hypothesis. Veizer himself now considers that CO2 is a dominant driver of temperature changes in the deep past:

R.E. Carne, J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer et al (2007) “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era” Nature 449, 198-202

Statistical Thermodynamics is the solution for molecular systems. Point.

Statistical thermodynamics can be applied to a collection of molecules. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that obvious point. But we should also agree that that it is meaningless in relation to single molecules. Otherwise how can one deal with the “statistical” element of “statistical thermodynamics”? Answer me that Nasif….

so your assertion:

The laws of thermodynamics apply to single molecules as well as to massive collections of molecules. is clearly wrong.

Anyway, perhaps at some point you might explain what you consider the relevance of your “argument” is in relation to the subject of this thread!

Perhaps you’re dismissing statistical thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics apply to single molecules as well as to massive collections of molecules.

No they don’t Nasif. And how can one possibly apply statistical thermodynamics to a single molecule? That’s exactly the case where one assuredly cannot apply statistical therodynamics. The “statistical” element of “statistical thermodynamics” or “statistical mechanics” relates explicitly to populations of particles.

One of the main confusions that I have detected in your posts is that it seems you think that heat is a substance.

I don’t think so Nasif. Please point out where I have stated, inferred or hinted that weird notion.

One thing is to say that thermodynamics is easier to apply and understood in macroscopic systems than in microscopic systems, and another very different thing is to think that single molecules have not thermal properties. For example, one single molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energy. The path between the initial state and the final state of that single molecule absorbing or emitting energy is thermodynamics.

No it’s not thermodynamics. Thermodynamics, like statistical mechanics applies to collections of molecules or particles. When a molecule absorbs a photon (say having the energy in the UV region of the EM spectrum equivalent to that of an electronic transition in the molecule) the molecule shifts to an excited state. That’s quantum mechanics, not thermodynamics. If the molecular transition is a vibrational one, the molecule may re-emit a photon that can be captured by another molecule with appropriate molecular characteristics…more quantum mechanics…or it might lose some of its vibrational energy by molecular collisions with other molecules in its surrounds increasing the kinetic energy of these molecules and thus raising the temperature of that local region of the atmosphere. Of course if we were to analyze the distribution of kinetic energy amongst the population of molecules in a region of the atmosphere we can certainly apply principles of statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics….

Interesting, its certainly not UV, or visible light levels. Could the compacted Ionosphere be a possible cause? I’m making no concessions to Optical Depth.

Perhaps you’re dismissing statistical thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics apply to single molecules as well as to massive collections of molecules. The point is that statistical thermodynamics doesn’t consider macroscopic variables, like P, V, T, etc., but microscopic dimensions. If you wish to understand macroscopic thermodynamics, you must to understand first statistical thermodynamics.

One thing is to say that thermodynamics is easier to apply and understood in macroscopic systems than in microscopic systems, and another very different thing is to think that single molecules have not thermal properties. For example, one single molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energy. The path between the initial state and the final state of that single molecule absorbing or emitting energy is thermodynamics. The difference is that you have to adjust your observations to the micro-canonical sets. Set provides a concept by which the microscopic properties of the matter can be related to the corresponding macroscopic thermodynamic properties of the complex system.

One of the main confusions that I have detected in your posts is that it seems you think that heat is a substance. Heat is not a substance but energy which flows through the limits between the system and the surroundings . Molecules collide and exchange energy, and every exchange of energy implies a thermal process. I don’t know how you got the conclusion that single molecules have not thermal properties.

With this commentary I give for finished my interventions in this theme, given that we are absolutely out of topic and I won’t waste my time discussing quantum mechanics. There are many books on statistical thermodynamics which clarify the concepts which I have managed in my interventions.

Don’t mind it on my account, tho I was eager to kill the ‘chicken little tone’, I apologized on an adjacent thread(Vista is cramping my look ups).

We are not worthy of the ‘big guns’.