Comments on: The climate engine

By: Bob Tisdale

Bob Tisdale — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:29:44 +0000

Erl: You replied, “These are figures 16 through to 18. If there is no direct data on ice crystal density one must infer on the basis of other evidence.”

Then this is speculation. That’s all I wanted to confirm.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:29:46 +0000

supercritical (11:36:21) :
Thanks for the very kind remarks.

My comment about noctilucent cloud was designed to emphasize the fact that water vapor forms reflective ice crystals throughout the bulk of the atmosphere upwards from the point where air temperature falls below zero which is between two and four kilometers in elevation. Cirrus cloud is sometimes observed in the stratosphere. We think of regular water droplet clouds as providing the obvious albedo effect but there is evidence in the strong relationship between the temperature of the upper atmosphere and that at the surface that it is ice cloud that is the critical factor. Not such an outlandish idea really.

Now, as to how one observes the density or reflectivity of these ice crystals I don’t know. But, I have certainly witnessed dense formations reminiscent of thin fog at high elevations while traveling in aircraft in the tropics.

But really, having observed the relationship between upper atmosphere temperature and that at the surface, we know what is going on so, why bother. Surface temperature relates to changing albedo. That’s the message pure and simple.

By: supercritical

supercritical — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:36:21 +0000

erlhapp;

It is a great privilege to see a creative work of the mind taking shape in ‘real-time’ as it were. Thanks for your breadth of mind and generosity of spirit.

And, is there a finally a role for noctilucent cloud data in your concept?

And anyway, would it be possible to observe proposed high-latitude high-altitude ice-crystal formations that may otherwise be invisible, from spacecraft looking laterally?

By: Antonio San

Antonio San — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:42:13 +0000

“Antonio San (15:05:28) :
C Lucy, you should certainly get familiar with the work by the late Professor Marcel Leroux, a real climatologist
R I am familiar with his work and endorse your recommendation. His description of the role of mobile polar highs is revelatory. But his knowledge of ENSO, upper atmosphere dynamics and tropical warming leaves a bit to be desired.”
Oh my… obviously Leroux did not have your experience and climatological knowledge… especially in the tropics… LOL (his WMO published PhD. thesis on the Meteorology and Climatology of Tropical Africa is a reference… how about yours?).
His knowledge of ENSO is enough to explain why ENSO is a mind construction that doesn’t reflect the physical reality, in particular that the indice draws on statistical centers belonging to two different aerological spaces! You may still believe in Santa Claus while Leroux has demonstrated it’s a commercial hoax.
Had you undertood his work, you could not possibly write a response that this. Enough time wasted!

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:58:19 +0000

Lucy Skywalker (12:58:25) :
Q After perusal, I still think this work looks stunning. But Erl has to answer Phil’s challenge before I can turn “stunning” into “credible”.
R Lucy, Phil offers no information as to why the polar atmosphere behaves as it does or why the temperature of the southern stratosphere increased so strongly up to 1978. I am not a chemist but I understand that there are plenty of atmospheric constituents within the stratosphere including carbon dioxide and water that have geometry that will cause them to align themselves with a magnetic field. As such, they will be affected when that magnetic field changes. We also know that there is a marked expansion of the volume of constituents that align themselves with the ever changing magnetic field when the level of energetic short wave energy changes.
In relation to the modulation of ozone levels by nitrogen oxides of various forms there is plenty of literature on the subject and even the UN panels are acknowledging that the source of natural variation in ozone levels is playing havoc with their predictions based on their inadequate understanding of the upper atmosphere.
The basic thesis is unaffected by speculation as to what has caused the change in the atmosphere. The fact is, it has happened and there has been a marked warming in the southern hemisphere in Spring that enhances the El Nino tendency. We now have a climate system that was different to that prior to 1980.The warming after 1978 is explicable in terms of changes that have a natural origin. We don’t have to be able to explain the ultimate origins of the change to know that it is real.
At the same time, we can see that the bias to El Nino activity is gradually decaying. So, we have an explanation for the cooling after the El Nino of 1978. We have an explanation for the warming that will come with the new solar cycle if and when short wave radiation surges.
And, of course there is a good reason to look closely at the stratosphere and the mesosphere and try and work out what is going on there.
Lastly, we can look at El Nino activity with new eyes and recognize that it is climate change in action and a lot of stuff that is written about it is just plain guff.
C On the other hand, figs 12 and 13 are not “astonishing symmetry” but mathematical necessity, as has been pointed out.
R That’s nonsense. The biggest change is that we have a marked increase in stratospheric temperature in southern spring. We move from one situation to the other and these graphs document the move.
C But figs 16 and 19 show me something Erl has not commented on, namely a fairly strong cycle of approximately 2 years. What’s that?
R That’s the Quasi Biennial Oscillation and it manifests most strongly at 10N to 10S latitude and appears also in the atmosphere of other planets. It reflects changing ozone concentration in the equatorial stratosphere. The QBO reinforces the tendency to strong sea surface temperature increase in the tropics in the odd numbered years. i.e. 2003,5,7,9. While the cooler years are 2004,6,8. The SOI when calculated as a five month average of an anomaly tends to rise to its annual peak in September. But in the even numbered years it falls short producing warming in the Southern Ocean that is expressed as a strong increase in sea surface temperature in southern winter and strong maximum at the equator in March-April when equatorial waters hit their maximum temperature for the year. That’s when it shows up in ENSO 3.4. This comment applies to the climate system post 1978, not the prior climate system.
Paul Vaughan (14:13:04) :
Q I will agree with those who have suggested partisan-shots should be left out of presentations & articles that are meant to be considered scientifically.
R I am a partisan. No apologies for that. People have got to know why this arcane stuff is relevant to the way they vote. Too many people have too little confidence in their own ability to reach valid conclusions on the basis of information at hand. A blog is a good place to blow the whistle and blow it hard.
What do you say about Mr Rudd as PM whose comments are thoroughly partisan? He studiously avoids any comment about the science of the matter? Is that OK?
Q This is important not just for the author but also for organizations funding the author’s work.
R I am self funded. And, I run the risk of people like Antonio saying my wine is sour when they read what I have to say.
Antonio San (15:05:28) :
C Lucy, you should certainly get familiar with the work by the late Professor Marcel Leroux, a real climatologist
R I am familiar with his work and endorse your recommendation. His description of the role of mobile polar highs is revelatory. But his knowledge of ENSO, upper atmosphere dynamics and tropical warming leaves a bit to be desired.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:54:33 +0000

Phil. (07:55:01) :
R Phil: Your comments slate my understanding of chemistry but add nothing to our understanding of the phenomena of interest. Can you be more useful? What could account for the shift in the atmosphere?

Bob Tisdale (09:25:56) :
C Erl: From what I can gather, your hypothesis is grounded in ice crystals, yet I find:
1. no ice crystal data in your graphs,
2. no links to ice crystal data,
3. no supporting papers regarding the impacts of ice crystals.
R Bob, I presuppose that it is the reflective capacity of ice crystals that accounts for the symmetry in the flux of temperature above 200hpa with that at the surface. It’s a hypothesis. Have you got a more plausible one? You and I know that there is no literature on this relationship.
For me, the ice crystal idea gains credibility as I observe changes in related variables like surface pressure and upper atmosphere temperature at the poles. Quite some time ago I looked at the relationship between the aa index and the SOI. The timing of El Nino warming events follows a pattern dictated by the solar cycle. I had a long discussion with Leif Svalgaard on climate audit on this subject. It looks like I am out on a limb here but it’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.
There is a lot of data on atmospheric moisture levels that backs up the ice crystal hypothesis. There are times when the relationship between stratosphere and 200hpa temperature on the one hand and surface temperature on the other, breaks down. That is after a strong El Nino which puts so much moisture into the atmosphere that it ultimately generates a self reinforcing precipitation event. That’s when low level cloud comes into play. That little wrinkle gives me confidence in the ice crystal hypothesis.
If one does the correlations one finds a very strong relationship between 200hpa temperature and skin temperature but the correlation falls away very quickly when atmospheric relative humidity falls to a low level. That also gives me confidence in this hypothesis.
The paper is already 6000 words long. Another day perhaps.

Bob Tisdale (09:45:10) :
C Erl: You wrote, “The warming mode:
“1.There is a shift of the atmosphere from the poles towards mid and low latitudes under electromagnetic forcing of ionized air.
“2.Weakening of the polar vortexes curtails the flow of ionized nitrogen into the upper stratosphere allowing the survival of oxygen ions and increased ozone formation.
“3.Intermixing of ozone into the upper troposphere raises temperature in the ice cloud zone. Ice crystals evaporate.”
Yet I find no data to support any of this. I could say the same for much of this post. It appears to be speculation about your imaginary planet.
R Re your point no 1 please see figure 1 that shows the shift in the atmosphere as reflected in surface pressure. The relationship to electromagnetic forcing is suggested in figure 11.
Re point 2: See figures7 through 13 which show related phenomena. See also http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/the-atmosphere-dancing-in-the-solar-wind-el-nino-shows-his-face/
The increase in ozone at the time of the sudden stratospheric warming in February 2009 is carefully documented in that post.
Re 3: see figures which show the relationship between the temperature of the stratosphere and the surface. These are figures 16 through to 18. If there is no direct data on ice crystal density one must infer on the basis of other evidence.
Bob, what I am doing here is offering data and an explanation for the rather extraordinary changes that are seen. There is nothing speculative about the data and you are welcome to offer alternative explanations for the changes that are observed. You seem to be saying that the changes are not real and the explanations are therefore of no interest. If that’s your point of view so be it. If you reckon that the data in the NCEP/NCAR database is all about my imaginary planet, well, it will be a bit of a stretch, but I can accept that too.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:52:50 +0000

Juraj V. (06:58:32) :
C According to UAH for lower troposphere, most of the warming occurred in northern extratropics, which I can confirm as Central European citizen:
R Can we distinguish between warming activity (absorbing more solar radiation) and temperature increase? In cool relatively clear waters much sunlight can be absorbed without raising the temperature of the sea very much. If the water so warmed is diverted to the northern hemisphere and there is very little circulation of those same waters to high latitudes and these high latitudes are in any case not terribly cool, the temperature increase will manifest more strongly there.
Northern hemisphere sea surface temperature in latitudes between 20 and 70°N declined to a minimum about 1978 and increased thereafter to reach the sort of level that existed in the forties. See these skin temperatures from the NCEP/NCAR database at:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/SSTglobal.jpg
From memory these are 12 month moving averages of raw data centered on seventh month.

Dr. Lurtz (07:39:35) :
C Note that the Solar Wind is at the lowest levels in decades (perhaps centuries). Check the proton flux at Spaceweather.com, at times, it is zero!!!
R Re the solar wind. I know the flux is very low. The solar effect on the atmosphere is in part a product of ionizing radiation and the solar wind. I don’t think we know enough about either to understand why the atmosphere does what it does. We need to know a lot more about the fluctuation in the very short wave spectrum and I suspect that no two solar cycles are alike in this respect.
By the way, the dependence of the flux in nitrous oxides in the mesosphere on solar activity is now well documented with good correlation with both irradiance and geomagnetic activity. Solar effects are perceptible on a solar rotation timescale. There is also documentation of the depleting effect of nitrous oxides on ozone in the stratosphere over the poles. See for instance:
http://www.athena-spu.gr/~upperatmosphere/index.php/Nitric_Oxides_in_the_Mesosphere
“Once NO reaches the lower mesosphere, its lifetime becomes longer because of less photodissociation, due to absorption in the O2 Schumann-Runge band, and self-absorption in the δ band [Minschwaner and Siskind, 1993]; therefore in the lower mesosphere there is sufficient time for the NOx to descend to the stratosphere, where it has a lifetime as long as a year [Solomon et al., 1982]. Once in the stratosphere, NOx can participate in the catalytic processes controlling ozone. This mechanism for coupling the upper and lower atmosphere has been referred to as the EPP Indirect Effect [Randall et al., 2007]: it was first proposed through modeling using a 2D model [Solomon et al., 1982; Brasseur et al., 1984], and has since been observed many times in connection to Solar Proton Events (SPEs) [e.g., Callis et al., 1996, 1998; Siskind et al., 2000a; Jackman et al., 2001; Randall et al., 2001; Randall et al., 2005]. However the degree to which NOx descent depends on varying EPP and/or varying solar UV flux is still a controversial issue [e.g., Rozanov et al., 2005], which needs satellite measurements of NOy, O3, and related parameters covering the high latitude stratosphere to the thermosphere throughout the polar winter in order to be conclusively resolved.
(iv) SME Measurements of NOx: The hypothesis that the variation in the density of low latitude nitric oxide at 110 km is caused by the variation in the solar output of soft X-rays in the wavelength range 2–10 nm and that the solar soft X-rays vary with a greater amplitude than does the solar extreme ultraviolet radiation was first proposed by Siskind et al. [1990] and the evidence for this hypothesis came from three years of observations of thermospheric nitric oxide from the Solar Mesosphere Explorer [Barth et al., 1998]. The SME observations showed that the nitric oxide density at low latitudes varies with the 27-day solar rotation period and with the 11-year solar cycle. The variation of nitric oxide correlates with the solar 10.7 cm radio flux which is a solar index measured from the ground. The correlation is due to the partial ability of the 10.7 cm flux to track solar EUV and soft X-rays. As shown in Figure 1.47, Nitric oxide (NO) has a maximum density of about 3×107 cm-3 near 110 km whereas in the polar region the mean density is several times greater and highly variable, sometimes as much as 10 times larger. However, Figure 1.48 shows that the solar 10.7 cm flux is an imperfect index of the solar radiation that is causing the changes in nitric oxide density.”

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:51:21 +0000

Bob Tisdale (01:45:19) :
C Erl: Speaking of the Chilean waters, the coordinates you have listed for Chilean waters in Figure 5 are ~770 to ~3450 km away from the coast of Chile at 30 S and ~500 to ~3000 km from the coast of Chile at 40S. Most of the area you’ve listed is well outside of the Humboldt Current, so I’m not sure how much of it serves as the “intake region for Nino 1 and Nino 2″. The coordinates you’ve used are capturing little to no of the upwelling that occurs along the Chilean and Peruvian Coasts. Here’s a graph of the SST anomalies for the area you’ve listed versus those for the area 55S to 20S, 80W-70W, which better captures the Humboldt Current off the Chilean Coast.
http://i36.tinypic.com/28lz9sl.png
The two curves show little resemblance.
R Bob, I have deliberately stayed away from the Humboldt Current. I am looking at the influence of the atmosphere on the temperature of the sea not the influence of the trade winds on the temperature of the coastal waters off Chile.
The Humboldt current is not the only bus traveling to the equator. The trades blow the surface waters north.
The point is that a broad area of the south Pacific warms up prior to the increase in temperature in the Nino regions. These same waters are driven north towards the equator by the trades. I am amazed that people studying this phenomenon place so much reliance on studying an east-west rather than a north-south temperature gradient.
Skin temperature changes much more at higher than at lower latitudes. One reason for this is that ozone change is initiated at the poles. Another reason is that tropical waters tend to respond with increased evaporation rather than change in the temperature of the skin. Evaporation cools the skin. The real measure of the extent of the change in the tropics presents at 850hpa where temperature reflects the release of latent heat of condensation. Here, the rate of increase in temperature is three times that at the surface (from memory).
Paul Vaughan (02:13:15) :
C Erl, in light of your comments on downdrafts, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the following:
Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Watanabe, E.; Ikeda, M.; Mizobata, K.; Walsh, J.E.; Bai, X.; & Wu, B. (2009). Is the Dipole Anomaly a major driver to record lows in Arctic summer sea ice extent? Geophysical Research Letters 36, L05706. doi:10.1029/2008GL036706.
ftp://ftp.glerl.noaa.gov/wang/Related_Papers/Wang_paper63_2009_GRL.pdf
R Some pretty complex geometry apparently influences sea Ice extent in the Arctic. Too much for me to get into right now. But, I would suggest that if September-October surface pressure is important to wind direction one should look to the Antarctic vortex to see how that is influencing pressure change.
Tenuc (02:23:36) :
C To fully establish the link between formation of small ice at crystals at high altitude and solar / ozone effects needs more work to be done before the physics and chemistry which could be behind it are fully understood. There seem to be many differing and sometimes conflicting views about what’s going on in this remote area of our atmosphere.
R This research effort will continue into the distant future. But you don’t have to understand all the ins and outs in order to develop useful rules of thumb and work out which way the wind is blowing. When the stratosphere cools, so does the surface. The cooling and warming of the stratosphere is clearly associated with vortex phenomena and atmospheric shifts. The important thing is to acknowledge that these interesting links exist. You then have an entirely new explanation for the process of climate change and a new area for purposeful investigation.
dearieme (03:48:18) :
C Point of detail: “nitrogen (76%), oxygen (23%) and trace gases (1%)”. Usually the rounded composition of the atmosphere is given as N2 79%, O2 21%, with the trace gases having been added into the N2. Your figures are different: is that because you are using mass fractions instead of mole fractions? If so, why?
R Not sure if this question is addressed to me. The micro-measurement of quantities is of little interest to me. I took the data out of a fusty corner of my head and forgot to check it. I admit my error. But, it’s immaterial to the argument.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:49:09 +0000

Bob Tisdale (19:01:35) :
C Erl: Isn’t your Figure 5 and the discussion of it simply a rehashing of the SOI, but instead of using SLP of Tahiti and Darwin, you’re using the SLP of Indonesia and Chilean coastal waters?
R Yes Bob, it is one way of looking at the difference in pressure that drives the trades. But I am also building on the relationship between SLP in the tropics and tropical temperature and the loss of pressure in Antarctica as the atmosphere shifts in order to build that extra pressure over Indonesia. And I am also asking why, if pressure rises generally at 30-40° south latitude when it falls at the pole why it should FALL in the south east Pacific at that same latitude. That is an anachronism.
Above all I want to suggest that El Nino activity is a product of the forces that shift the atmosphere. Now, Theodore Landscheidt actually suggested that, and it’s nice to confirm it. And of course, I want to go on to make the point that El Nino activity is climate change in action rather than an internal oscillation that balances out over some indeterminate period. By the way, figure 22 shows that the period that it balances out over may be a solar cycle or two. But it could also be ten or more. Remember that the SOI only captures the ratio between pressures at Darwin and Tahiti. It tells us nothing about the long term shifts in absolute pressure in these places.
C Also, you wrote, “Figure 6 shows that when atmospheric pressure falls off Chile (in figure 6 pressure is inverted so that a rise in the pressure line actually represents falling pressure) sea surface temperature in the intake region for Nino 1 and Nino 2 warms. ”
Have you plotted the SST anomalies off the Chilean Coast versus NINO1 and 2 or NINO3.4 SST anomalies?
R Yes, and the southern waters warm before the northern waters in a very high proportion of cases.
Ozzie John (20:44:53) :
C It’s always good to see a new theory put forward. I will need to read a few more times. One Issue I have that needs more explaining….
If in the cool phase we need a stronger polar vortex to limit the level of Ozone in the stratosphere then we should have just completed 30 years of the cool phase. It’s well documented that after 1980 the southern vortex increased noticeably in strength and during this period we have had most of the warming take place.
R I have covered the temperature/ozone relationship in the post http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/the-atmosphere-dancing-in-the-solar-wind-el-nino-shows-his-face/
I would agree that after the marked collapse that culminated in the shift of 1976-8 there is a slow and continuous recovery in the vortex between 1978 and the present time. It is evident in gradually deepening minima in 10hPa temperature over Antarctica since the winter of 1979. That is what is pulling the climate system away from El Nino dominance to La Nina dominance. But, disregarding the short term changes of the ENSO cycle, we are still in a warm phase by comparison with the nineteen seventies.
Antonio San (20:56:32) : There is no doubt about it, you are a well practiced critic.
Rhys Jaggar (01:24:41)
C The key components which you highlight, which need to be placed before policy makers for critical cogitation, are:
1. The clearly different predictions of latitude-related warming using greenhouse gas theories or solar forcing.
2. The link between antarctic pressure regimes and alternating cycles of the PDO (and possibly the AMO as well?).
3. The trigger for regime change in antarctic pressure characteristics being solar/magnetic in nature.
R Thanks, you have given this post a close read, understood it and realize the implications for climate science. The foolishness of our geo-engineers is par for the course in this area. As an Australian I am amazed that my government is calling carbon a ‘pollutant’ and trying to lead the charge to Copenhagen. Sadly, the leader of the opposition is backing the Prime Minister. I am pinning my hopes on a rebellion in the back bench of the Liberal party.
Bob Tisdale has made the point elsewhere that the PDO is a creature of ENSO and I agree.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:46:09 +0000

Antonio San (17:45:59) :
C Yet another gem from Mr. Happ, from April 2009:
“Manifestly, the engine of climate change is in the tropics. Here, energy gain from solar radiation exceeds emission via radiation. The energy gain, more at some times than others, is transferred to high latitudes by the ocean and the atmosphere. To understand climate change we have to understand the Southern Oscillation that governs the warming and cooling of the tropics and also how that oscillation changes over time.”
I hope his wine tastes better.
R Antonio: an observer may changes his opinion when he looks a little closer or sees new evidence. Look at figure 22 and see if I have changed my mind to such a degree as to produce an obvious inconsistency. I still maintain that “To understand climate change we have to understand the Southern Oscillation that governs the warming and cooling of the tropics and also how that oscillation changes over time.”
Since you are reading so diligently go back a little further and you see the origins of today’s work in a post called ‘The atmosphere dances in the solar wind El Nino shows his face’. The sudden stratospheric warming in the Arctic in February 2009 was associated a marked increase in stratospheric ozone and warming in the south east Pacific.
You are right in one respect: I would not say today that ‘the engine of climate change is in the tropics’. The effects manifest in the tropics, but the causes lie elsewhere.
And I find your tone unmannerly.

Bob Tisdale (17:48:53) :
C Erl: I wrote in an earlier comment, “And the same problem exists with your illustration of SLP for 10S-10N in Figure 4. There are some significant differences between the NCEP/NCAR data in your Figure 4 and the HADSLP2 data…”
Did you use the same 5-month smoothing as your other graphs in this post? Because, on a second look, the HADSLP2 and ICOADS data would agree with you graph if I’d smooth them with a 12- or 13-month filter.
The other SLP dataset (40N-50N) though continues to have significant differences.
Regards
R Bob, I always begin by calculating average monthly temperatures for the entire period up to the most recent month for which I have data. I then calculate the divergence from the average monthly temperature (the anomaly) and then, to cut out some of the noise (not always a good idea) I frequently calculate a five month moving average OF THE ANOMALY centered on the third month. I always cross check with a straight 12 month moving average centered on the seventh month. In figure 2, I show the five month moving average of the divergence from the monthly average (the anomaly).
In respect of SST at 40-50N the difference will be between a skin temperature and what is called a surface temperature both relating to the sea. I am using five month moving averages of the anomaly in figures 16, 17 and 18.
Bob if you really want to criticize this post you need to justify why I should be using some other dataset than the one I am using. I trust it more than the others, it is internally consistent. It is the result of a complex system of checking to remove spurious variations. Skin temperature represents today’s response today, not next month.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:41:57 +0000

Antonio San (16:39:43) :
R Your point is obscure.
Bob Tisdale (17:22:36) :
C Erl: Also, did you ever contact the ESRL and ask why their website spits out SST data for the Sahara? We discussed this at the end of your prior thread here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/a-different-view-of-enso-and-systematic-climate-change/
There I wrote, To illustrate one of the problems with the ESRL website you’re using as a source of data, here’s the ESRL SST anomalies graph of 15N-25N, 0-30E:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2ltn7gi.png
Unfortunately, there’s no ocean there. The ESRL is providing SST anomaly data for the Sahara Desert, Erl.
This would make all of the data in your SST anomaly graphs suspect, since it appears, based on the above Sahara SST data, that the ESRL website has an unknown bias in their SST data.
R Bob, I did contact them after your query. I know that it was put together as a best effort reanalysis in order to weed out inconsistencies between and across datasets. Now, for my purposes skin is skin whether its land or sea and its temperature reflects the amount of sunlight that falls upon it. Skin is not half a metre or a metre below sea level, beneath the ice or beneath the surface soil. And, I am very interested in skin temperature in icy regions. If one is interested in the response at the surface to changes in the atmosphere, skin is the way to go.
Bob, for your own research I suggest you satisfy yourself as to what NCEP/NCAR is doing. I have seen you complain about discontinuities in datasets. Using NCEP/NCAR data is one sure way to overcome this problem. Reanalysis makes a lot of sense.
R One last question, why have you separated the two periods in Figure 4? The SLP data shows a gradual increase from the late 1950s to the mid 1980S and the SST anomaly data shows a multiyear rise from the end of the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina to the 1982/83 El Nino. Just curious. The Pacific climate shift is accepted to have taken place in 1976/77, at the end of that multiyear La Nina, but your Figure 4 separates the data in 1978.
R Bob, you can look in different places and find different dates for this change. Looking at figure 4, it manifested fully in pressure in 1978 and in temperature in 1984. The point of this post is this: Pre 1978 September 30hPa Antarctic anomalies tended to be negative and post 1978 they were positive. My graphs present the result of subtracting monthly means for the prior from monthly means for the post 1976 period. That is true of figures 2,3,8,9,10,14 and 15. It wouldn’t have made a great difference if I had split the database two or three years either way, so great are the seasonal changes in the atmosphere after 1978. My interest is in analyzing why there was such a change in late winter conditions in the southern hemisphere. Not one person who has read this post has addressed this question or suggested an alternative reason for the change in place of the one I have proposed.
The change is observed much more readily in the atmosphere than in the surface of the sea. Do you have problems with the data for the atmosphere too?
If you want to see when/where this climate shift actually occurred you must observe the upper troposphere, See this graph:
http://s249.photobucket.com/albums/gg220/erlandlong/?action=view&current=200hPaandSST.jpg
Consider these questions:
1. Where does change begin?
2. Why does the 200hpa anomaly line lie below the SST line and then it moves above the SST anomaly line?
3. Why does 200hpa temperature have more structure to its variation than does sea surface temperature? Is SST a dampened version of change in the upper atmosphere or is it the other way round?
4. What could be the causative factor that accounts for the relationship between 200hpa temperature and SST that so obviously exists?
5. Is 1978 a point of transition or is some other point more appropriate?
If you are interested in these questions you must then have a detailed look at the atmosphere and relate that to change in surface pressure, the temperature of the stratosphere work out why it has changed so much.
Does the IPCC concern itself with the relationship between the temperature of the stratosphere and the surface? Or why there has been such a marked increase in the temperature of the southern stratosphere and upper troposphere in recent times? No, because they cannot conceive of the possibility that climate change proceeds from causes other than change in greenhouse gases.
But you can conceive that climate change can be due to other factors and I thank you for your many questions and comments.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:41:13 +0000

Paul Vaughan (15:04:07) :
C Erl Happ “There is no process internal to the Earth itself that could account for this shift in the atmosphere.”
I’m not so sure about this; I see confounding, but …
R Paul, that’s a useful point. I should have said ‘There is no process that is generated at the surface or in the troposphere that could account for this shift in the atmosphere’.
George E. Smith (15:06:37) :
C Erl,
And the water thingy, is sort of a pet peeve of mine. Given that water is the only GHG of note that occurs in; and is a permanent part of the earth’s atmosphere, that exists in ALL THREE PHASES; and that while a vapor, is largely positive feedback warming (without any help or encouragement from CO2 needed) but when in liquid or solid phase as clouds leads to negative feedback cooling.
Which is why my bumper sticker would read;- “It’s the Water, stupid !” if I had a bumper sticker. That 104 degreee angle in the H2O molecule is why there is life on earth at all; let alone living at a comfortable temperature that is entirely regulated by the physical properties of H2O; along with the TSI range of the sun, and the orbital parameters.
But I’ll have to read further into your paper Erl, before I can come back and say something intelligent
R George, what you say is profoundly intelligent. By the way, it’s interesting to look at the declining levels of specific humidity at all levels of the atmosphere over time as shown in the NCEP/NCAR database. A less humid atmosphere means less cloud. A warmer atmosphere means less cloud. Less cloud means increased radiation at the surface.
Bob Tisdale (15:57:42) :
C Erl: You wrote, “The NCEP/NCAR data reflecs skin temperatures that respond to atmospheric change. Winter minima are lower while summer maxima are similar. Change is faster in the skin data with earlier seasonal maxima and minima.”
Do you have a link to the NCEP/NCAR paper or webpage that describes this?
R Bob, that comment is based on my observation of the difference in downloaded data between the sources that you suggested and the NCEP/ NCAR.
C You wrote, “Sea surface temperature data incorporates ice and land surface temperature at high latitudes.”
Then it’s not sea surface temperature.
R Exactly, but if you wanted to verify my figures you will have to download the data that is described as Sea Surface Temperature in that particular database. You don’t cut the mustard for me if you download data from a different database and say it’s different.
C You wrote, “Some sources of SST data relate more to a near surface rather than a skin temperature reflecting the origin of data in the measurement of water temperature from engine intake, bucket or floating buoy. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE NCEP/NCAR DATASET.” [My caps]
R Exactly. NCEP/NCAR is skin temperature including ice at high latitudes.
C Same question as my first: Do you have a link to the NCEP/NCAR paper or webpage that describes this? And, what SST database does the NCEP/NCAR dataset use? HADSST2, HADISST, ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, and Kaplan all use the ICOADS SST database as their starting point. Does NCEP/NCAR have its own SST observation dataset that measured skin temperature before satellites?
R Bob, I don’t know. What I do know is that the NCEP/NCAR dataset is one of the most carefully constructed datasets that we have. It addresses a fundamental problem and that is discontinuity. For example, temperature data for Darwin Australia unfortunately reflects the fact that the recording station has been moved on three occasions. I presume they kept shifting it out of town as the town grew. As it is, the Darwin temperature data useless for long term climate study. The NCEP/NCAR data is called a reanalysis dataset. That means they have taken conflicting data from all possible sources and tried to make sense of it in a very analytical and exhaustive fashion. It represents a major effort to provide a view of the entire atmosphere and the surface to assist climate change studies. Obviously there are parts of the earth where there are very few observations to go on. I believe the model (understanding of relationships between variables) that they use enables them to fill in the gaps in a rational fashion.
C Also, I did a quick check of a few of your NCEP/NCAR SLP graphs, since they looked different from the data that I’m used to seeing. Your Figure 18 illustrates SLP for 40N-50N from 1948 to present, smoothed with a 5-month filter. Here’s a graph of HADSLP2 and Trenberth SLP data for the same latitudes, since 1948, with the same smoothing. The wiggles in these two datasets do not resemble the wiggles in your illustration.
http://i34.tinypic.com/egv4lx.png
R Bob, I am not using a five month filter on the raw data. That sort of smoothing will produce a very different result to mine. I calculate a five month average of the anomalies where the anomalies relate to average monthly data for the entire period. I will send you a spreadsheet. Look after it because it represents a lot of laborious work. We can then talk the same language.
C Same thing for the ICOADS SLP data, though the ICOADS data appears to match the HADSLP2 and Trenberth data, with the HADSLP2 and Trenberth data appearing to be scaled or smoothed, thus decreasing the amplitude of their variations:
http://i38.tinypic.com/34g62yw.png
And the same problem exists with your illustration of SLP for 10S-10N in Figure 4. There are some significant differences between the NCEP/NCAR data in your Figure 4 and the HADSLP2 data…
http://i36.tinypic.com/29du15k.png
…and the ICOADS SLP data for the same latitudes…
http://i34.tinypic.com/10qi1yd.png
…but the HADSLP2 and ICOADS data appear to agree, though the HADSLP2 data appears to be scaled or smoothed, decreasing the amplitude of its wiggles.
Do you have any ideas why there are such major differences between the NCEP/NCAR SLP data and the others?
R Bob, I haven’t done the comparisons but I reckon it might be to do with the reanalysis process to take out the discontinuities. The aim with the NCEP/NCAR data was to create a dataset that was internally consistent according to known relationships between atmospheric variables. I know that they took in as many sources of data as they possibly could.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:39:35 +0000

Alan S. Blue (13:08:19) :
C Guys, sounds like engineer talk. I can’t quantify these variables or their influences. There are too many. Look at figure 22. What is causing the oscillation to expand like that? When will it begin to contract? We need to know a lot more about the operation of the upper atmosphere to predict the local weather. How much do we really know about the sun?
R Good solid common sense.
Paul Murphy (13:28:57) :
C does the basic idea that variations in solar wind drive variations in atmospheric distribution and thus the ground level temperature response to incoming radiation, yield an immediate explanation for the faint young sun paradox?
R Sorry can’t help.
Mike Borgelt (13:53:18) :
C Nitpick:
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around half of POINT ONE of a percent not half of ONE percent.
R I was a factor of ten out. Yes, it’s so damn small as to be insignificant and that would still be the case even if I had been correct.

D MacKenzie (14:37:09) :
C does any of this theory tie in with the ‘ozone hole’ appearing in the mid-70’s (about same time as the above shift)?
R The UN organization charged with studying the ozone hole phenomenon acknowledged in their last report that ‘natural factors’ were far more important than hitherto realized.
Roger Knights (14:42:05) :
C PS: Happ’s article needs copy-editing. Most notably, there should be more commas and hyphens used.
R Thanks for volunteering. And thanks for the detail. Do you also comment on ideas?
Mark Nodine (14:45:34) :
C Actually, the symmetry in Figures 12 and 13 is not at all remarkable..……
R I say think again more carefully.
There is a shift from one state to another very different state. It involves a negative anomaly in September-October turning into a positive anomaly after 1978.
I suggest you download the monthly data. Calculate the divergence of each month from the average monthly temperature for the entire period. Then, put aside the anomalies so calculated for the years up to 1976 and the years after 1976 and calculate the mean of the anomalies for each month for the earlier years and compare to the later years. You will find that I am correct. If you can’t do it, then give me an email address and I will send you my spreadsheet. Just run a small comment on my blog and I can contact you directly.
Jon Jewett (14:46:25) :
C In the above:
“Because (the ionized) nitrogen from the mesosphere enters the stratosphere primarily over the Antarctic continent there is less ozone in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere.”
This seems to imply that the “hole in the ozone” is due to natural processes and not chlorofluorocarbons. That in turn means all of the money spent on removing R-12 et.al., and it amounted to billions, was wasted.
R Not necessarily. The chlorofluorocarbons may be an independent influence. But, if and when the atmosphere moves back to increase surface pressure over Antarctica we will see what a decent sort of ozone hole actually looks like.

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:34:18 +0000

Vincent (12:54:36) :
C Excellent article – I need to put a week aside to digest it. One criticism however – after detailing the science, it goes all political, with statements such as “The introduction of market distorting incentives and disincentives destroys rather than creates wealth. This is the tool of the central planner, the social activist, the miscreant.”
All true, no doubt, but completely out of place in a science article as it could be, and no doubt will be, construed as author bias.
R Vincent, I was trained in economics. Perhaps economics doesn’t rate as ‘science’ in the sense that you use the term. But to me the word science can apply to many disciplines not only in the physical sciences. This article links surface temperature change to change in the upper atmosphere. I have been brought to task because my description of upper air chemistry is deficient. The physics of electromagnetism is involved. Should I draw boundaries at the end of the physical sciences? Do the physical sciences exist in a moral and ethical vacuum?
You may see a sort of ideological bias here. But, I cannot sit idly by while people suggest that gross distortion of markets is a means of improving the sum of human happiness. I can’t sit idly by while the progress of society is hampered by people whose pretend their morality is of the highest order while generating an agenda that is ultimately very destructive.
One of our problems is a lack of generalists, whose interests cross boundaries enough to enable them to synthesize the big picture. Chemists are excellent value in their field but that field of interest is frequently too narrow to enable them to comprehend the linkages to other areas of study. Witness the comments on the chemistry of the ionosphere above. These guys get so tied up with the detail that they miss the big picture. The atmosphere shifts and as it shifts the surface warms. Better that they offered an opinion as to why the temperature rises at 30hpa over the pole when surface pressure falls. Better they offer an opinion on why the upper troposphere at 200hpa has warmed so dramatically in the southern hemisphere. Better they offer an opinion on why the surface warms when the stratosphere and upper troposphere warms. Better they provide an explanation for the fact that post 1978 there is a strong recurrent anomaly in upper atmosphere temperature in southern spring that wasn’t there before 1978 and ask themselves why that has produced a warming of the upper troposphere and the surface.
When I read Roy Spencer on climate I am impressed by his grasp of economics.
If the economic consequences of the warmist’s agenda were not so dire perhaps I could be quite happy fishing or playing bowls.
As a teacher I was dismayed as climatology and geomorphology ceased to be studied as disciplines and were replaced by something that might be described as ‘issues education’.
I would call myself a social rather than a physical scientist. My interest is the big picture. Big picture stories do not find their way into the sort of journals that publish ‘climate science’
And I love the freedom of the net. And who says that an article of this sort cannot range far and wide given the medium. This is not a scientific journal. The article was not written for a scientific journal It was written for a blog. Comments questioning statements of a social /political nature belong with the criticism of spelling or grammar. They are not appropriate. It reveals a person who wants to have a cheap shot and it’s fundamentally an ego building exercise. Do me a favour. Look at the ideas. Look at the documented observations and look at the argument in the broad. End of the day there is a lot at issue. This is very much a social and political issue. There will be no apology from me and I don’t think I am getting my hands dirty at all. I am being responsible in calling it like it is.
Ever had a teacher mark your assignment and his only comment was by way of a red line through the spelling mistakes? Think he was a phony?

By: erlhapp

erlhapp — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:30:26 +0000

Thanks to all who have contributed comments Apologies for the late reply. I have responsibilities that take me away from the net during the week. To avoid confusion I identify the text that was a comment with the letter ‘C’ and my response with the letter ‘R’.

Tamara (12:20:12) :
R I know of your expertise re the Arctic stratosphere and I am very happy that you approve of what I write.

Adam from Kansas (12:27:18) :
C what will be the climate outlook for the next year or so?
R I Let’s look at some indicators. Firstly there is the long established trend, starting in 1978 for falling atmospheric pressure over Indonesia and rising pressure in the south east Pacific. That indicates strengthening trades and a cooler Pacific. Secondly a projection of figure 22 provides another indication of a trend to strengthening La Nina tendencies. Right now I see a lot of cold ocean at high latitudes. That will find its way to the tropics. The southern hemisphere has been through a cloudy, cold and extended winter. Sea level pressure fell periodically at 30-40s as Antarctic air found its way more regularly to higher latitudes. Sea levels are rising as air pressure falls. Coastal erosion increases, driven by high sea levels and strong winds. Rainfall is recovering winter by winter in the south west of WA as I expect it is in other Mediterranean climates at 20-40 ° of latitude. The high pressure cells that dominate these latitudes in summer shrink and travel a little closer to the equator.
However, the increasing irradiance of a new solar cycle normally promotes a strong El Nino and that may be initiated in late 2010.
If there is a sudden stratospheric warming in the Arctic in the next few months it will start the warming process in the southern hemisphere in February-March.
I don’t pretend to know how the solar wind impacts the atmosphere. I have observed when studying the relationship between the aa index of geomagnetic activity and the southern oscillation index that a small change in the former promotes a large change in the latter at solar minimum when the episodic component of the wind is least influential and the component that comes from the suns poles as a strong steady stream is most influential.

Ian (12:50:09) :
C since when did ionised gasses become magnetic?
R I maintain is that that any particle that is electrically unbalanced or has a geometry that locates a positive charge at one end and a negative at the other, will align itself to the local magnetic field. That does not imply that these particles are in themselves magnetic. No doubt the composition of that part of the atmosphere that is subject to bombardment by energetic short wave radiation is exceedingly complex. I would imagine it is a subject of continuing theoretical speculation. In this respect Phil comes across as a man who is overplaying his hand in a histrionic fashion in relation to a subject of incidental interest while ignoring the thrust of the paper. What matters is that, in the energized state, particles are electrically unbalanced and begin to behave like plasma. As such they will be impacted by the solar wind. The amount of impact depends upon the type and amount of energetic radiation. When they move they bump the neutrals along with them.
The UN panel on ozone depletion are saying that ‘natural variation’, (that they cannot explain) plays a large part in the variation in the ozone content of the polar atmosphere.
What is observed in the atmosphere during a sudden stratospheric warming is
1. Reduction of surface pressure
2. Increase in temperature of the stratosphere from the top down.
3. Increase of ozone in the high latitude atmosphere.
These are the phenomena of interest. Nitrogen oxides of various descriptions that originate in the mesosphere apparently play a strong role in the dynamics of polar vortexes. Pity Phil couldn’t add any information on this subject.
My post deals with many linked phenomena and has been criticized as being too long. Necessarily the introductory page tries to set the scene for a discussion of atmospheric shifts that are ultimately linked to the warming of the surface of the sea, i.e ENSO. If there is one part that I wished could be more complete it is this introductory section. But its purpose is really just to set people thinking. The meat of the paper is the observations of the change in the atmosphere that pivots about 1976-8 and what that has meant for the temperature of the Earth.