Posted by invitation, from Bob Tisdale’s website – original here. Photo/caption below added by Anthony.
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Note: The original Climate Progress title included a misspelling “breathaking” that made the quoted “breathaking ignorance” quite comical.
In the recent Climate Progress post, Joe Romm wrote, “Humans are cranking up the Arctic heat by pouring steadily increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which in turn cranks up warming in the Arctic, a very well documented phenomenon (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“). The linked Climate Progress explanation of Polar Amplification pertains primarily to positive feedbacks from albedo changes caused by the retreat of ice and snow, and to contradict Romm’s statement in his recent post, the term “Greenhouse gases” does not appear in Joe’s earlier explanation of Polar Amplification, nor does CO2, methane, GHG, etc.
The comment I tried to post yesterday at Climate Progress contained the quotes and illustrations from RealClimate that I used in my July 28, 2008 post on Polar Amplification and Arctic Warming. It also included an annotated RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plot and Time-Series Graph from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots… …Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone”.
There was nothing earth shattering in my comment, no reason for it to be deleted. Here take a look. It simply illustrated cause (El Nino events) and effect (poleward heat redistribution).
THE DELETED COMMENT
Regarding the well-documented Polar Amplification, refer to RealClimate thread here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends
Real Climate writes, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”
#
The following are two illustrations from the RealClimate thread. The first shows the tropical enhancement and polar amplification for a doubling of CO2 and the second illustrates the same effects for a 2% increase in solar irradiance.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10fu8p2.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/w8l4c0.jpg
RealClimate continues: “The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.
“If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.” [My Emphasis]
#####
To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile? Real Climate provides the answer. El Nino events.
Since 1976, did we endure a string of El Nino events whose frequency and magnitude greatly outweighed La Nina events? Most assuredly.
And when did polar amplification become evident in the Northern high latitudes? Immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s very visible in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude plot. I’ll make it easier to see with a time-series graph along side.
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
Regards
UPDATE
And for those looking for papers describing the poleward transport of heat resulting from El Nino events, the following paper can serve as a starting point. It’s Jevrejeva et al (2004) “Oceanic and atmospheric transport of multiyear El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signatures to the polar regions” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L24210, doi:10.1029/2004GL020871, 2004):
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_grl04_-_enso_to_polar.pdf?attredirects=0
Their Conclusion reads:
“We provide evidence of ENSO influence on the winter climate variability in NH during the last 150 years via signals in the 2.2, 3.5, 5.7 and 13.9 year bands. The contribution from the signals to the total variance is relatively weak, varies considerably with time, but is statistically significant. Phase relationships for the different frequency signals suggest that there are different mechanisms for distribution of the 2.2–5.7 year and the 13.9 year signals. The 2.2–5.7 year signals are most likely transmitted via the stratosphere, and the AO mediating propagation of the signals, through coupled stratospheric and tropospheric circulation variability that accounts for vertical planetary wave propagation.
“The delay of about two years in the 13.9 year signals detected in polar region can be explained by the transit time of the 13.9 year signal associated with ECW (0.13– 0.17 ms_1) propagation in the Pacific ocean, KBW (1–3 ms_1) propagation along the western margins of the Americas and by poleward-propagating of atmospheric angular momentum [Dickey et al., 2003]. This mechanism is supported by similar features in the Pacific sector of the Antarctic SST field.
“Our results highlight the importance of tropical variations for the Arctic and NA climate and probably at least the Pacific sector of the Antarctic, suggesting a global mode of interaction between atmosphere and ocean and consistent with GCM experiments of a proposed ENSO-NA link [e.g., Trenberth et al., 1998; Dong et al., 2000; Merkel and Latif, 2002].”
Posted by Bob Tisdale at 5:50 AM
New caption for the polar bear pic: “I CAN HAZ WALRUS?”
^LOL
Look at how thin that ice is!
Ubuntu
“To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile?”
You seem to think that polar amplification wouldn’t be predicted for forcings of less that 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in TSI. This is a horrible misunderstanding. I advise you to go to this web page, where you can find the figures you refer to and many others. Please check the 1.2xCO2 and 1.5xCO2 graphs, and the “sol.irrad. 1880-2000,Lean” graphs. Lat-Hgt is what you want.
Are you implying that “Climate Progress” cherry picks their research papers and comments?
Possible alternate bear caption, “I love these things, crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside!”
Bob, this is what a NASA article said about the big 2006 & 2007 Arctic summer ice melts:
“[Dr.] Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
(From: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html.)
The term “El Nino” is not mentioned in the article, but is that what he is talking about? Is NASA’s Dr. Nghiem, in effect, corroborating your proposition?
So we are still seeing the effects of the El-Nino of the century 11 years later? It does make sense that way, also it seems from the recent dropping of temps that the effects of 1998 are starting to wear off, you can also use the trends spotted here
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
To look at perhaps where SST’s, temps. and perhaps ice as a result will go, notice the telltale horseshoe shaped cool area surrounding a warm area of the cool PDO phase and what seems to be a continued dropping of the AMO. About the cooling of the North Atlantic as seen from buoy readings one could spin it by saying melting arctic ice is causing the cooling, but wouldn’t that be a negative feedback then? Plus I’d take buoy readings over SurfaceStation readings any day because you usually don’t have heatsinks or heat sources in the middle of the ocean.
Also a number of people here will likely tell you why they don’t expect another El-Nino this year to maintain or increase the amplification effect.
And below this article, a big advert telling us to find out about funding carbon offsets in China, to replace emissions generated.
With sincere affection for those who have been deceived with the tale of green house gases: The famous danish physicist Niels Bohr demonstrated almost a hundred years ago that such a “green house effect” does not exist at all.
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
That sub is the SSN Honolulu.
Adolfo Giurfa says:
Adolfo, all your link shows is what you can already read many places, including the Wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect , which is that the term is somewhat of a misnomer because the mechanism by which greenhouses heat is primarily by preventing convection. Thus, the analogy to greenhouses is at the level of both of them trapping radiation (although some atmospheric scientists like Alistair Fraser http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html would quibble with the terminology of “trapping radiation” to describe the atmospheric greenhouse effect), but they do so by different mechanisms.
So, what you are essentially arguing about is a pedagogical issue.
Evidently THEY do not pay those colour ink cartridges with THEIR money but with YOUR money. What an expenditure of reds and oranges!. It is plainly stupid, now everybody realizes that whatever paper they get in their hands they just wet it red and orange in order to cheat their peers (these kids should be punished).
There are two immutable truths that I have found. The first applies to many people and especially establish organizations with a lot to lose. The first: The quickest way to make someone really angry is to be right. The second is related to the first: Facts are a climate change/global warming advocate’s worst nightmare.
The AGW crowd is threatened by the truth. They have HUGE influence and a veritable cash cow. If their sheep learn the truth, there goes the influence and the money. Not everyone in the AGW camp is like this, of course. You also have the Gaia worshipers. Humans are religious by nature and they don’t much like you questioning their beliefs. It has been said before: “Jesus, save me from your followers.” Well, “Mother Earth, save me from your followers.”
RW, you wrote, “You seem to think that polar amplification wouldn’t be predicted for forcings of less that 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in TSI. This is a horrible misunderstanding. I advise you to go to this web page, where you can find the figures you refer to and many others. Please check the 1.2xCO2 and 1.5xCO2 graphs, and the ‘sol.irrad. 1880-2000,Lean’ graphs. Lat-Hgt is what you want”
First, the Lean et al 1995 and 2000 data is obsolete. Its misuse by climate modelers was discussed in this thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
Second, apparently you stopped reading when you found something you disagreed with. If you had continued reading this post and if you had read the linked posts, you would have discovered that the majority of the high-latitude warming in the Northern Hemisphere since 1979 occurred immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s difficult to miss it in the last graphic I provided above. There was also a smaller upward step change that happened after the 1986/87/88 El Nino.
Climate Progress:
WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”
June 6th, 2009
Ubuntu (NIMBY you GWers!)
Perhaps Joe Romm deleted your post because he feels threatened by what he doesn’t umderstand.
OT:
the model temperature over latitude/pressure pictures also indicate, that global temperatures should increase must faster for satellite data (e.g. UAH at 600 mbar) than on the ground (GISS, HadCRUT).
However, measured (and”corrected”) data show no difference and even the opposite, thus implying
– the models are wrong
or
– correctionsare wrong, especially for UHI
or
– both.
How can Climate Progess call itself a science blog when it allows posters to make life threatening statements against those who dare disagree with their agenda. As a layman I have been happy to read both sides of the debate however the display of arrogance and personal attacks on Climate Progress, RC and other AGW science bloggs is a huge put off. Cheers Mr Watts your blog is oustanding.
I’m glad to see this get posted here, Bob. And thanks for the article reference.
While not to minimize the work you’ve done, I think the unedited TLT time-latitude plot is an eyeopener, so I’ll post a direct link to it here for the interested readers:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hfukjm.jpg
I was blown away by the obvious “regime shift” in the northern latitudes after the 1997-98 El Nino. What remains unclear to me is what is the normal time lapse of poleward heat transfer, and when we would normally expect for the effect of a super El Nino to dissipate and high latitude temperatures to return to something typical of normal climatological conditions.
In our discussion of PDO and ENSO, I stated that 50% more tropical heat is transported poleward by atmospheric circulation than by ocean currents. I recently came across the source of that figure:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3sj.html
My “50% more” is based on 60% of the energy being transported by atmospheric circulation, and 40% of it by ocean currents.
I have a reasonable understanding of the three-cell atmospheric circulation model. What is not clear to me is what is the normal time horizon for this process. Does it take years? Does anybody (here) know?
Mike Abbott: You wrote, “Bob, this is what a NASA article said about the big 2006 & 2007 Arctic summer ice melts…”
The link you provided didn’t work for me, but I presume it’s the same as this redOrbit story:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1085491/nasa_examines_arctic_sea_ice_changes/index.html
You continued, “The term ‘El Nino’ is not mentioned in the article, but is that what he is talking about? Is NASA’s Dr. Nghiem, in effect, corroborating your proposition?
It would have been nice if they’d referenced a dataset. But I would have to say he’s not referring to ENSO. Normally I think of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in those circumstances. Unfortunately, I believe the anomalous behavior of the AO occurred in the late-1980s/early-1990s, so that disagrees with the timing mentioned in the article. Hopefully someone else can fill in the blanks for you.
Daddy Greenbucks is giving me $1500 to put in a wood stove? I can trash the albedo in my yard this winter -and- further starve the emaciated treasury? Ummkay.
Stupidity is the new patriotism…
Pssst James….
Actually the threatening comments were from a WUWT poser – Adolfo Giurfa. I won’t repeat the threatening statements he made or his intolerance of conflicting views, either. Peace be with you.
Ubuntu
REPLY: By the way, why did you switch from the name “Dill Weed” to “Ubuntu” Prior to that you were “John Boy” and “Darth” and originally “Dill Weed”. We frown on the fake persona switcheroo here, especially when it is used for snark. Stick with one, or bug off, I don’t have time for the shenanigans.- Anthony
“Indeed, his website and writing goes beyond that. He, like Morano, is actually shouting “The firemen are liars and are trying to hurt you.” Shame on him. Rational people have every right to be very angry with such disinformers.
climateprogress
The lies grow and accusations fly. It says the two of you are actually shouting this
The most antiscientific news last week was when a plane was lost, the fearmongering greenies claimed it was global warming. Who needs data or recorders. The answer is forced before the question is asked. Not the “observible” part of real science I studied.
Adam from Kansas: You wrote, “So we are still seeing the effects of the El-Nino of the century 11 years later?”
I have yet to find a paper that discusses the time required to dissipate El Nino heat that’s been transported to high latitudes, regardless of whether or not it’s a “normal” El Nino or the “El Nino of the Century”.
But I would be more apt to say that we had been seeing the effects of the 1997/98 El Nino with additional boosts from the El Nino events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07. The La Nina of 2007/08 was the break in the pattern.
This is a very interesting site for temperature in Alaska.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Look at the graph. It is plotted on the mean temp from 1949-2008.
In 1976 something very strange happend, the temp increased by almost 3 degrees throughout Alaska. It happened in One Year! Due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
This graph shows temp. since the big increase in 1976. It is from 1977-2008.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7708Change.html
Temperature have been stable since 1977 but about 3 degrees higher than 1949-2008.
This paper goes into further detail about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and what happened in 1976.
http://nofreewind.com/alaska_pdo.pdf
This paper reviews historical artic temperature:
http://nofreewind.com/artic_temps.pdf
“It is concluded that climate changes the last decade are dramatic but that similar
changes in air temperatures have occurred previous within the last 130 years.”
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/