Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift

From Penn State

English: Ozone Depletion comparison in North A...

English: Ozone Depletion comparison in North America from 1984-1997. Contrary to popular belief, the Ozone depletion does not affect exclusively the south pole. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Depletion of Antarctic ozone is a more important factor than increasing greenhouse gases in shifting the Southern Hemisphere jet stream in a southward direction, according to researchers at Penn State.

“Previous research suggests that this southward shift in the jet stream has contributed to changes in ocean circulation patterns and precipitation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, both of which can have important impacts on people’s livelihoods,” said Sukyoung Lee, professor of meteorology.

According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. B, but until now, no one has been able to determine the extent to which each of these two forcings has contributed to the shift using observational data.

“Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said. “The jet stream is expected to shift back toward the north as ozone is replenished, yet the greenhouse-gas effect could negate this.” Lee and her colleague, Steven Feldstein, professor of meteorology, developed a new method to distinguish between the effects of the two forcings. The method uses a cluster analysis to investigate the effects of ozone and greenhouse gas on several different observed wind patterns.

“When most people look at ozone and greenhouse gases, they focus on one wind pattern, but my previous research suggests that, by looking at several different but similar patterns, you can learn more about what is really happening,” said Feldstein.

In their study, the researchers analyzed four wind patterns. The first wind pattern corresponded to an equatorwarda shift of the midlatitude westerlies toward the equator. T; the second pattern also described an equatorward shift, but included a strong tropical component. T; the third pattern corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies toward the South Pole with a weakening in the maximum strength of the jet; and the. The fourth pattern corresponded to a smaller poleward jet shift with a strong tropical component.

In addition to their novel inclusion of more than one wind pattern in their analysis, the scientists investigated the four wind patterns at very short time scales.

“Climate models are usually run for many years; they don’t look at the day-to-day weather,” said Feldstein. “But we learned that the four wind patterns fluctuate over about 10 days, so they change on a time scale that is similar to daily weather. This realization means that by taking into account fluctuations associated with the daily weather, it will be easier to test theories about the mechanism by which ozone and greenhouse gases influence the jet stream.”

The researchers used an algorithm to examine the relationship between daily weather patterns and the four wind patterns. They found that the first wind pattern — which corresponded to an equatorward shift of the midlatitude westerlies — was associated with greenhouse gases. They also found that the third pattern — which corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies — was associated with ozone. The other two wind patterns were unrelated to either of the forcings. The researchers found that a long-term decline in the frequency of the first pattern and a long-term increase in the frequency of the third pattern can explain the changes in the Southern Hemisphere jet stream.

“Ozone had the bigger impact on the change in the position of the jet stream,” said Lee. “The opposite is likely true for the Northern Hemisphere; we think that ozone has a limited influence on the Northern Hemisphere. Understanding which of these forcings is most important in certain locations may help policy makers as they begin to plan for the future.”

In addition to finding that ozone is more important than greenhouse gases in influencing the jet-stream shift, the scientists also found evidence for a mechanism by which greenhouse gases influence the jet-stream shift. They learned that greenhouse gases may not directly influence the jet-stream shift, but rather may indirectly influence the shift by changing tropical convection, or the vertical transfer of heat in large-scale cloud systems, which, in turn, influences the jet shift. The researchers currently are further examining this and other possible mechanisms for how greenhouse gases and ozone influence the jet stream as well as Antarctic sea ice.

The results will appear in the Feb. 1 issue of the journal Science.

“Not only are the results of this paper important for better understanding climate change, but this paper is also important because it uses a new approach to try to better understand climate change; it uses observational data on a short time scale to try to look at cause and effect, which is something that is rarely done in climate research,” said Feldstein. “Also, our results are consistent with climate models, so this paper provides support that climate models are performing well at simulating the atmospheric response to ozone and greenhouse gases.”

###

The National Science Foundation funded this research.

About these ads

98 thoughts on “Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift

  1. The researchers used an algorithm to examine the relationship between daily weather patterns and the four wind patterns. They found that the first wind pattern in their computer model

    I don’t suppose any of these ‘climate computer modelers’ ever stepped outside the computer room to empirically test their hypothesis expressed in algorithms before they rushed out the press release?

    No I thought not.

  2. “finding that ozone is more important than greenhouse gases in influencing the jet-stream shift”

    Is it the ozone or is it solar UV variation?

  3. “according to researchers at Penn State”

    Well, at least they put it at the beginning so that I didn’t waste my time. I don’t care what the folks at Penn State concluded from their research, I am very sure that the study is flawed, and the conclusions will support the needs of whoever paid…

  4. “Important impacts on people’s livelihoods”. I’m guessing that’s not supposed to include getting richer, right?

  5. I think the vertical convection of energy in cloud systems is transporting more CO2 into the upper atmosphere rather than increasing CO2 causing greater vertical convection.

  6. “this paper is also important because it uses a new approach to try to better understand climate change; it uses observational data on a short time scale to try to look at cause and effect, which is something that is rarely done in climate research,” said Feldstein”

    O my gawd!!! Looking at the synoptic reality! What a novel approach… but it was short lived since “The researchers used an algorithm to examine the relationship between daily weather patterns and the four wind patterns. They found that the first wind pattern — which corresponded to an equatorward shift of the midlatitude westerlies — was associated with greenhouse gases.”

    That is truly brilliant: what is the relationship between amount of equatorward shift and amount of greenhouse gas? Does the wind pattern changes when it is CH4 or CO2 since they both have different shelf life in the atmosphere? Cows versus cars… That must be for the next paper… LOL

    And the pearl: “The other two wind patterns were unrelated to either of the forcings.”

    As if patterns of atmospheric circulation were independent from each others… And that guy is a professor of meteorology? Wow. Penn is more like pain…

  7. “According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. ”

    John Bell here: And ozone loss is thought to come from too much CO2 forcing water up higher in the atmosphere, according to some – therefore it is CO2 pushing jet streams around now. So CO2 can do anything in a model, but how can we go to the atmosphere and test this hypothesis, we can not, and that is why it is not science – just speculation.

  8. This is interesting. It’s a side-step from the “Oh my GAWD! We’re all gonna die!” CAGW pablum. This is coming perilously close to sideswiping the scientific method. Stay tuned.

  9. “According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. B, but until now, no one has been able to determine the extent to which each of these two forcings has contributed to the shift using observational data.”

    So many wrong things in this short paragraph……………..

    They made the determination using modeling studies.

    Pathetic.

  10. So what caused the Southern Hemisphere Jet Stream to shift southward at every other cycle in the past?
    Do we have data?
    Do we have any indication that there is anything unusual about the current jet stream behaviour?
    How long have we been tracking the hemisphere jet streams?
    Or do we need proxies of when they hit the Alps and Rockies?
    Maybe everyone in penn state U should be in the state pen.

  11. So much is wrong with this paper I can’t even begin to critique it. Hindcast anyone????? Estimating the amount of energy it takes to shift the JET STREAM? Anyone??? Bueller? Bueller??

  12. Very interesting! They used an AlGoreithm! AlGoreithms are not used in models. And they used a cluster analysis, on high density measurements no doubt from clusters of drones sampling CO2, and well, of course, ozone depletion. Yep, you can take this one to the CAGW bank!

    /sarc off

    PlayStation 4?

  13. TomRude;
    That is truly brilliant: what is the relationship between amount of equatorward shift and amount of greenhouse gas?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And they detected this using observational data based on a ten day fluctuation.

    One has to wonder if:

    a) they didn’t explain themselves properly
    b) they explained themselves properly, they just didn’t stop to think how absurd that is
    c) this is an experiment to see how absurd your science can be and still get published

  14. Who the hell is letting these people get Ph.D.’s ??????? They’re like someone who doesn’t know the difference between Last minus First and linear regression trend calculations!!!!! Today, I just can’t suffer stupid. Had to do it at work all day. Ain’t doin it here. Not today. This little Irish lass is ready to eat nails! Let me out of the stable! Please!

  15. Why does that image show ozone depletion in the *north* pole? Or am I just making a stupid mistake?

  16. The Extreme and Far UV emissions provide the energy to create Ozone in the upper stratosphere, mesosphere and lower thermosphere and the various nitrogen oxides in those locations. Over time the more EUV and FUV emissions there are the greater the depth of the Ozone column. The more Ozone there is the more the jet streams move to the poles and the less depth to the Rossby waves (loopiness of the jet stream). What we are seeing at present is a long term reduction of about 40% in the EUV and FUV emissions and a reduction in Ozone resulting even in a hole in the Ozone layer in the last two Northern Hemisphere springs. So the jet streams are migrating towards the equator and the Rossby waves are getting deeper.
    If you look at today’s map of the jets streams in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere you will see the jet stream that in the summer normally crosses Australia either just below the continent or at least across Melbourne is currently crossing NSW and Southern Queensland. Also the lower polar jet stream is rising almost from Antarctica to partially link up with the jet stream crossing the continent before diving to below the South Island of New Zealand – in other words a rather extreme loop but one which has caused weather forecasters to suggest there may be some summer snow on the alps in northern Victoria and some rather wild weather in NSW. Also there are parts of the Northern Hemisphere jet stream that appear to have crossed the equator into the Southern Hemisphere in the Pacific. You have to look at both the northern and southern hemisphere jet stream maps to see this.
    How the Ozone layer affects the jet streams is not fully understood. But planetary waves and gravity waves are thought to play a part. But it may be as simple as the lower Ozone levels allow more infra-red heat to radiate from Earth into space. This means less is being trapped in the stratosphere and these slightly lower temperatures in the stratosphere then cause a general shift in the jet streams toward the equator where the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere are warmer.
    Until recently climate scientists were blaming increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 for causing the gradual migration of jet streams towards the poles in the last three decades of the 20th Century. Given that atmospheric levels of CO2 are still increasing and the jet streams are now moving towards the equator they have had to revise their theories. Also there is no talk of CFC’s affecting the Ozone layer this time. That 1970’s scare was mostly furphy given that the solar cycle at that time was fairly weak.

  17. I’m not a scientist so bear with me. The computer model that led to their determination is consistent with climate models which have been shown to be seriously flawed. Where does that leave their findings? As an aside does Penn State U ban the reading of material outside the prescribed dogma of the warmists? Apparently so because the plethora of research showing the minor role of CO2 in the overall scheme of things leaves one thinking that AGW was a first stab that didn’t really go anywhere but was the catalyst for some very interesting work in more important climate drivers. Pity no one reads the work as policy makers are currently making fools of themselves and making us poor at the same time.

  18. ‘“When most people look at ozone and greenhouse gases, they focus on one wind pattern, but my previous research suggests that, by looking at several different but similar patterns, you can learn more about what is really happening,” said Feldstein.

    In their study, the researchers analyzed four wind patterns. The first wind pattern corresponded to an equatorwarda shift of the midlatitude westerlies toward the equator. T; the second pattern also described an equatorward shift, but included a strong tropical component. T; the third pattern corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies toward the South Pole with a weakening in the maximum strength of the jet; and the. The fourth pattern corresponded to a smaller poleward jet shift with a strong tropical component.

    In addition to their novel inclusion of more than one wind pattern in their analysis, the scientists investigated the four wind patterns at very short time scales.’

    Novel conclusion in climate science, alright. Looks like an intelligent shift in focus toward empiricism. Eventually, they will have as many patterns as Baskin-Robbins has flavors. Science is hard; always has been and always will be. So-called climate scientists, alarmists, are woefully unaware of this truth and it shows in their work.

  19. Pamela Gray,
    “Who the hell is letting these people get Ph.D.’s ??????? ”

    Didn’t you know that you can get Ph.D.s from a Crackerjack box?

  20. Between the two potential chicken and egg systems, the jet stream affecting oceans, or oceans affecting jet streams, I look at stored energy available. Me thinks the relatively dense sloppy slurpy stuff called water (and there are how many tons of it?) has far more energy available to affect jet stream position and loops (how dense and energy absorbent is that made-of-air ribbon thingy anyway?) than the jet streams have on oceans. I have no Ph.D. after my name, no meteorology course under my belt, yet I can figure that the oceans have my vote. Once again, who the hell let this person do research???? And on my &^%$* dime!

  21. The best bit had to be “……to try to look at cause and effect, which is something that is rarely done in climate research”. So a climate scientist is happy to drop this as a throwaway line in a comment. I love it.

  22. You can get YOUR copy of “4 winds to the sheets” by sending a certified check for $1 zillion to the National Science Foundation, just pay shittin’u and groping charges to Nob Menendez care of the ruling family of oil rich Gutter.

    But WAIT, if you cough-up now, we’ll throw-in, or -up (your choice), an indeterminate number of never before seen (or known) specially modified infinity drones which can cluster in your Playstation 4 atNOsphere for as many years as you select.

    Not available in stores………….

  23. Brent Walker – Thanks for your analysis. You say “Until recently climate scientists were blaming increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 for causing the gradual migration of jet streams towards the poles in the last three decades of the 20th Century.”. Do you have a link for that?

    If correct, then what we have is a set of “scientists” who saw jet streams migrating towards the poles while CO2 was rising, and blamed CO2. Now, they see jet streams migrating away from the poles while CO2 is rising, and quite naturally blame CO2. “Quite naturally”??? Yes, it’s quite natural that if you are using climate models in which the only factor affecting climate is CO2, then quite naturally CO2 is responsible for everything that happens. Could the sun and cosmic rays actually be the cause of jet stream migration? No, because they are not coded into the models. Could ocean oscillations actually be the cause of jet stream migration? No, because they are not coded into the models. Could any other natural cycle actually be the cause of jet stream migration? No, because none are coded into the models. And so on and so on …….

  24. Penn St. Used to have a good Weather Science dept.

    Look at this site. – http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
    Now please, anyone, explain to me how Ozone changes rapidly enough to cause the Jet stream to shift as far as it does in such a short period of time? (Or CO2 for that matter?) I would bet on Solar effects or Magnetic flux changes (which all AGW’sts ignore.) The Sun is an awful big magnet (or source of some form of “magnetic” like influence – can I say Dark Energy?). Look at how far it effects particles in the solar system – out beyond Pluto.

  25. OK….

    Disjointed… no logical path… no provable Cause/Effect relationship… AND PUBLISHED because its a PU scientist…

    One Word….. MODEL

    One Acronym: GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage Out)

    Can anyone get these folks a dose of REALITY?

  26. I fail to believe that a small concentration of ozone at altitude can drive the behavior of the Southern jet stream. It is similar to claiming the trace gas CO2 drives anything. There is simply too little gas to do what they claim.

  27. Penn State… the place that covered up child sex abuse and enabled Michael Mann’s destruction of credible science.

    Oh right… that place…

    So I guess now that there hasn’t been any global warming for 20 years we have to believe in yet another rehashed phony green panic.

    See what happens when you BS the public for 20 years? You get to be known as a BS-er.

    Credible science is the loser. Heck, there could be a catastrophe looming, but I won’t know because I don’t believe the BS anymore.

  28. Appreciate how the little density atmosphere at jet stream level is moving all lower tropospheric denser air masses even sometimes from east to west in northern hemisphere if one cares to check on satellite images… And the faster jet streams also get a more convoluted trajectory in winter… Dust drives landslide and if you blow on the dust, landslide will change direction… tail wags dog too/sarc off.

  29. higley7 says:
    January 31, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    I fail to believe that a small concentration of ozone at altitude can drive the behavior of the Southern jet stream. It is similar to claiming the trace gas CO2 drives anything. There is simply too little gas to do what they claim.

    =============================================

    Physics seems to be something that these folks are short on.. Probably Grant seeking warmers pandering like our politicians do… just my 2 Cents..

  30. Don’t know about you,but if I lived in the Southern hemisphere,I would be more worried about a NORTHERN shift in the jet stream.

  31. As more and more evidence comes out that the ocean currents are affecting weather the alarmists are trying desperately to link to that through atmospheric CO2 aka ‘green house gasses’.

  32. In another life Sukyoung Lee would be seen standing high up on a large tree branch, chainsaw in hand and severing the branch between himself and the tree……….

  33. Look folks, there’s holes at both poles. If you don’t believe me just take any globe out of its stand and have a look.

  34. So what about the Antarctic There’s a series of pictures at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
    I can’t see much sense in them. I’ve never seen much sense in the chemistry, but then as a chemist I have not specialised in any studies that give you reason to believe me. It’s quite unscientific to say this, but there’s something wrong with the “feel” of the data, in the way that you feel when a critical factor has been left out of a series of equations and it’s hard to balance.

    I’d love to see WUWT devote a special page to the ozone layer. Can’t guarantee that it will all fit on the usual sized page, though.

  35. There is nothing in the work that tells us that ozone depletion causes the change rather than the change causes ozone depletion that I can see. Any correlation does not tell us the first thing about which is the cause and which the effect. They taught us that at thirteen in my day but no climate scientist seems to be aware of this any more. When climate scientists were told in 2002 that the effects were zonal not global they rewarded their peers by removing them from the professions by a total removal of all grants. My lack of faith in climate science has reached a new low from a base line I thought could sink no lower.

  36. Anything seems to have a ‘forcing’ these days. Ozone has a very limited half life, in the order of 30 minutes or so. With no sunlight at either pole for several months a ‘hole’ is bound to develop.

  37. “Climate models are usually run for many years; they don’t look at the day-to-day weather,” said Feldstein. “But we learned that the four wind patterns fluctuate over about 10 days, so they change on a time scale that is similar to daily weather. ”

    Who’ld have thunk it??????????????

    And someone needed a grant t come up with that?? Who doles out the grants in America??

  38. In response to Mike Jonas – try the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. But there are many papers on this phenomena

  39. “Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting ……who will get the most funding…..”
    I have to agree with some of the posters here. My belief in the ability of “climate scientists” like these is approaching zero. I now greet almost every one of these sort of papers with a snort of derision from the outset.
    This is not good.

  40. Brent Wrote

    “Also there is no talk of CFC’s affecting the Ozone layer this time. That 1970′s scare was mostly furphy given that the solar cycle at that time was fairly weak.”

    In the industry I am in, we use quite expensive, cascade based ultra-cold refrigeration systems going all the way down to -150 deg C. It has become pretty obvious to many on the service side of the industry that a lot of the systems that use all the newer “environmentally friendly” gases that everyone was forced to go to, just do not last as long. The lifespans seen, across multiple manufacturers, has been cut almost in half in many cases. Considering the amount of energy, resource and cost that goes into manufacturing these instruments one could hardly make a case that it has benefited the environment. Add to that some of the key gas manufacturers have taken the opportunity to develop custom gases to meet the “environmental demand” that are as dear as poison (>> $1000 kg), one can understand their commitment to the CFC phase out and the introduction of expensive newbies.

    As a side, the high cost of gases, regulatory requirements & hence repair costs forces many people now just to buy a new unit and not fix old ones. Again, another completely “environmentally unfriendly” result of a green agenda gone wrong.

  41. Brent Walker says:
    January 31, 2013 at 6:56 pm
    The Extreme and Far UV emissions provide the energy to create Ozone in the upper stratosphere, mesosphere and lower thermosphere and the various nitrogen oxides in those locations. Over time the more EUV and FUV emissions there are the greater the depth of the Ozone column. The more Ozone there is the more the jet streams move to the poles and the less depth to the Rossby waves (loopiness of the jet stream). What we are seeing at present is a long term reduction of about 40% in the EUV and FUV emissions and a reduction in Ozone resulting even in a hole in the Ozone layer in the last two Northern Hemisphere springs. So the jet streams are migrating towards the equator and the Rossby waves are getting deeper.
    If you look at today’s map of the jets streams in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere you will see the jet stream that in the summer normally crosses Australia either just below the continent or at least across Melbourne is currently crossing NSW and Southern Queensland. Also the lower polar jet stream is rising almost from Antarctica to partially link up with the jet stream crossing the continent before diving to below the South Island of New Zealand – in other words a rather extreme loop but one which has caused weather forecasters to suggest there may be some summer snow on the alps in northern Victoria and some rather wild weather in NSW. Also there are parts of the Northern Hemisphere jet stream that appear to have crossed the equator into the Southern Hemisphere in the Pacific. You have to look at both the northern and southern hemisphere jet stream maps to see this.
    How the Ozone layer affects the jet streams is not fully understood. But planetary waves and gravity waves are thought to play a part. But it may be as simple as the lower Ozone levels allow more infra-red heat to radiate from Earth into space. This means less is being trapped in the stratosphere and these slightly lower temperatures in the stratosphere then cause a general shift in the jet streams toward the equator where the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere are warmer.
    Until recently climate scientists were blaming increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 for causing the gradual migration of jet streams towards the poles in the last three decades of the 20th Century. Given that atmospheric levels of CO2 are still increasing and the jet streams are now moving towards the equator they have had to revise their theories. Also there is no talk of CFC’s affecting the Ozone layer this time. That 1970′s scare was mostly furphy given that the solar cycle at that time was fairly weak.

    The answer of course to the question of “How does the ozone hole affect the Jetstream?” is that it doesn’t. The ozone hole is another indication of weak UV and EUV.
    As Pamela Gray says:
    January 31, 2013 at 7:11 pm
    Between the two potential chicken and egg systems, the jet stream affecting oceans, or oceans affecting jet streams, I look at stored energy available. Me thinks the relatively dense sloppy slurpy stuff called water (and there are how many tons of it?) has far more energy available to affect jet stream position and loops (how dense and energy absorbent is that made-of-air ribbon thingy anyway?) than the jet streams have on oceans. I have no Ph.D. after my name, no meteorology course under my belt, yet I can figure that the oceans have my vote. Once again, who the hell let this person do research???? And on my &^%$* dime!

    The place on the Earth where there is the most energy is the equatorial regions between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn as they are receiving direct insolation all year from the Sun. The hot SSTs lead to towering convective storms up to 12 miles or more in the atmosphere lifting the tropopause to 60,000 – 70,000 ft . These are the updrafts of the Hadley cells when the Sun’s energy especially, in the short wave frequencies, is high then the light penetrates deep into the oceans heating them. As the sea surface temperatures increase the convection increases. The Hadley cells grow and push the Ferrel cells the temperate convective bands poleward causing the Jetstreams to become latiduninal and reducing the depth of the Rossby waves. At the same time the increase in the EUV/UV increases the amount of ozone being formed in the upper atmosphere reducing the size of the ozone holes at the poles. When the EUV/UV reduces then the Hadley cells reduce the Ferrel cells move equatorward and the jetstreams become loopy with large Rossby waves making them more meridonal.
    The ozone level and the Jetstream meridonality are effects of the same cause – the lowered level of EUV / UV short wave radiation from the Sun.
    We then see the knock on effects of that in the formation of blocking (omega) highs due to the ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic and Rossby waves in the Jetstream. These blocked Rossby waves lead to areas that are having dry polar air drawn equatorward or wet tropical air drawn poleward resulting in areas of continual rain and storms and areas of continual drought. The increased length of the meridonal Jetstream increases the amount of cloud formation in the frontal systems as their track is longer leading to higher albedo and cooler SSTs. This is just the pattern that can be seen at the moment. It is probable that the same pattern with blocking highs as last year will pertain and in the northern hemisphere the areas that had drought in the mid-west will have more drought and the areas that had lots of rain such as NW Europe. will continue to receive lots of rain Similarly the rather bad weather in the southern hemisphere will repeat although due to the lack of land masses and mountains they tend not to get the same blocking highs but rather unseasonable and extreme weather as loops in the Jetstream pass them.

  42. Uzurbrain says:
    January 31, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Penn St. Used to have a good Weather Science dept.

    Look at this site. – http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
    Now please, anyone, explain to me how Ozone changes rapidly enough to cause the Jet stream to shift as far as it does in such a short period of time?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Changes in Ozone and Stratospheric Temperature graph

    The graph above shows total ozone and stratospheric temperatures over the Arctic since 1979. Changes in ozone amounts are closely linked to temperature, with colder temperatures resulting in more polar stratospheric clouds and lower ozone levels. Atmospheric motions drive the year-to-year temperature changes. The Arctic stratosphere cooled slightly since 1979, but scientists are currently unsure of the cause….

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/

    Ozone is formed when intensive ultra-violet radiation from the Sun breaks down O2 into two oxygen atoms. These highly reactive oxygen atoms can then react with more O2 to form O3 ‘intensive ultra-violet radiation’ = EUV

    Ozone formation
    O2+ hν ( >~6eV) –> O + O
    (EUV starts process)….

    Chapman Equations (cont.)
    Formation and destruction of Ozone
    O2 + hν(EUV) → O + O : J2
    O3 + hν(UV) → O2+ O : J3
    O +O+M
    → O2 + M : k11
    O + O2 + M → O3 + M : k12
    O + O3 → O2 + O2 : k13

    http://people.virginia.edu/~rej/MAE494/Part-2-07.pdf

    So O3 is formed when EUV splits O2 into O + O. Oxygen in this state is highly reactive and gloms onto another O2 molecule to form O3. More on UV link

    The next question is how does UV and EUV vary?
    graph

    Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line). In the visible part of the spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), SIM showed a slight increase in comparison to what was expected. Measurements (red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM

    I can not find the chart I was looking for but this NASA PDF has something similar.

    SUMMARY
    * The Sun is always active in the EUV
    * Current spectral models are lacking.
    * Flares are complicated (and really interesting) in the EUV

    SDO (all instruments) and the relatively simple Sun in the 1st year of operations are helping us unravel the solar EUV spectral irradiance variability.

    The EVE data is held by Colorado.edu link

    the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission blog has done a plot over a couple days time graph from this link.

    The other piece of information everyone ignores is the variation in Total Solar Irradiance on a daily basis graph

    Daily variation in solar output is due to the passage of sunspots across the face of the Sun as the Sun rotates on its axis about once a month. These daily changes can be even larger than the variation during the 11-year solar cycle. However, such short-term variation has little effect on climate. The graph above shows total solar irradiance on a daily basis. The plot is based on data collected by the ACRIM III instrument, which is currently in orbit. (Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from ACRIM III)

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

    Yet we can see in this graph the effect on temperature of the air and sand during a total eclipse graph

    Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered

    NASA’s five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to “load up” the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.

    “At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”

    The magnetosphere is a bubble of magnetism that surrounds Earth and protects us from solar wind. Exploring the bubble is a key goal of the THEMIS mission, launched in February 2007. The big discovery came on June 3, 2007, when the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening. Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance….

    In other words, despite the pronouncements of the solar and atmospheric experts they know diddle squat about the sun and how it effects the climate on earth.

  43. “Not only are the results of this paper important for better understanding climate change, but this paper is also important because it uses a new approach to try to better understand climate change; it uses observational data on a short time scale to try to look at cause and effect, which is something that is rarely done in climate research,” said Feldstein. “Also, our results are consistent with climate models, so this paper provides support that climate models are performing well at simulating the atmospheric response to ozone and greenhouse gases.”
    ————–
    “Use observational data on a short time scale”
    Since “looking for cause and effect on short time scales” is not a new approach to their scientific method, I’d have to say the new approach must be “using observational data” to “better understand climate change”.
    I wonder if the observational data was from the models?

    Dummies…and here you thought the science was settled.

    While these brilliant scientists on their own figured out another “new approach to better understand climate change.”
    Thank goodness someone is finally looking at short time scales.

    One other note they mention: “changes in the Southern Hemisphere jet stream.”
    I thought the SH temp and snow were doing ok.
    cn

  44. They have it ‘exactly backwards’ but not surprising as they have run a model that is exactly wrong.

    Exogenous factors change the stratospheric descending winds, that change both the ozone and the jet streams. Ozone is a symptom, not a cause.

    I agree with the poster who asked “solar UV?”. Yup. Direct modulation of atmospheric height, stratospheric decent / vortex behaviour, and eventually ozone and jet stream. Humans need not apply…

  45. “Previous research suggests…”

    I like to think of a skeptic as an early bird. The alarmists take five to ten years to dismiss a potty theory or climate model, we do it straight away. Both sides are right, but one side gets a lot more funding than the other.

  46. [ davidmhoffer says:
    January 31, 2013 at 10:37 pm
    Look folks, there’s holes at both poles. If you don’t believe me just take any globe out of its stand and have a look. ]

    LOL

  47. Stormy and Wet Across Southern Europe

    Andover, MA, 21 January 2013 — WSI (Weather Services International) expects temperatures for the upcoming period (February-April) to average lower than normal across the Nordic regions, UK, and Iberia, with higher-than-normal temperatures expected across other regions, especially southeast Europe and western Russia.

    “The very volatile European winter continues, with a recent transition back to a colder regime after a brief thaw during the first half of January. Going forward, all of the objective evidence suggests a very cold remainder of winter across the Nordic regions and northwestern Russia as atmospheric blocking re-emerges and allows for very cold Arctic high pressure and dry weather to persist over these areas, including the Scandinavia hydro basins. The easterly flow to the south of this high-pressure area will push transport the very cold air westward into parts of northern mainland Europe and perhaps the UK. To the south of this, a very active storm track will result in very wet and windy conditions across the hydro basins and wind-generation regions of southern Europe,” said Dr. Todd Crawford, WSI Chief Meteorologist. “We expect the lingering impacts of the atmospheric blocking to persist into at least March, with cold temperatures persisting across the Nordic regions. By April, more widespread above-normal temperatures are likely as the pattern relaxes.”

    http://www.wsi.com/9d932f9d-565a-4423-b3b4-68d3d63fedd4/news-scheduled-forecast-release-details.htm

    http://www.noodweercentrale.nl/de/wetter/profiwetter/stroemungsfilm/europa.html

  48. Gail: 2/1/2013 5:18

    Thank you for this information.

    The major problem I have with the AGW models is that they ignore everything about the sun but the Infrared radiation – which I guess – is all they need to support their theory. The sun emits the entire electromagnetic spectrum (several powers of tens of different wave lengths of radiation). Why are all of the other forms of energy given off by the Sun ignored? Radio waves cause heat. I have seen pipes glow white from induced RF energy. Why is this ignored? Other forms of electromagnetic radiation can do the same thing. As a Ham Radio Operator, during periods of high solar activity I have seen the S-Meter (a measure of how strong the signal is) on my radio indicate 10 to 20 dB over 9 S-Units across the entire band! That is equal to 150 – 300 microvolts of signal (into a 50 ohm load) picked up on a piece of wire 20 feet long. More than 5 to 10 microwatts of power. And that energy is hitting the entire side of the earth facing the sun. I have used that energy to make small transistor radios that operate off of the “noise.”

    Then they ignore the Magnetic effects of the Sun, The interactions of the earths magnetic core and the suns magnetic flux. Put a magnet in a drill and spin it in another magnetic flux. They will get warm. I haven’t measured how much but have demonstrated this to my kids years ago.

    Then we have all of the particles the Sun give off. I was told that when you hit something that object gains the energy of the moving object. I have witnessed this in many different ways and know it is a true fact, no theory about it. It gets warm. Go to a shooting range and feel the chunk of steel behind the target after someone unloads a 45 into the target. How much do these particles heat the earth? All I read about is Solar Irradiance and TSI.

    All of the things I mentioned are affected in ways that we do not know and not enough scientists are investigating these things. It has been less than 50 years since most scientists claimed that the Suns gravitational force was so strong that NO particle could escape the gravitational force. Now they claim that the solar wind caused by these particles is stronger than can be scientifically explained, especially at the poles of the Sun, Yet the AGW people still ignore it.

  49. It is quite simple: during a solar cycle, the amount of UV changes ten times more than the change in amount of total solar energy reaching the earth (1% vs. 0.1%), which gives more ozone formation near the equator, as Brent Walker already said. The extra ozone absorbes more UV energy which heats the stratosphere around the equator more during solar maxima than during minima. See
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm (but forget the climate model babble).
    That is what causes the shift of the jet streams poleward and reverse during solar minima. With the current low maximum in solar activity, the jet streams didn’t shift that far poleward as in previous maxima, thus giving different weather patterns.

    The jet stream position is extremely important, as it gives huge differences in clouds and rain patterns and river flows: From the Nile, Po (Italy – Venice) and Portuguese rivers around the Mediterranean to the Mississippi in the US and similar in South Africa. See for the stratosphere-troposphere connection:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024393/abstract

    and for the river flows e.g.:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023787.shtml (Portugal)
    http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/reports/paclim99.html (Mississippi delta)

    Ozone depletion is going on from the equator to the poles (natural and maybe human made), but near the equator more is formed than destroyed. If there is less formation during low solar activity, that will give a larger “hole” near the poles, but largely depending of stratospheric temperatures (preferably below -80°C), reason why the colder Antarctic shows larger depletion than the Arctic.

    Thus the researchers have exchanged cause and effect, not for the first time in the climate field…

  50. The ozone and especially ozone hole over South pole had been decreasing for decades before, but over recent years has started to recover. The ozone hole has been shrinking since the mid 2000’s and ozone levels are rising since 2000.

    [According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. B, but until now, no one has been able to determine the extent to which each of these two forcings has contributed to the shift using observational data.]

    There has been a major shift in the jet stream and therefore while greenhouse gas still increases it has nothing to do with it. The jet stream was slightly moving southwards in the SH during the declining ozone levels, but a sudden shift doesn’t explain a much shorter slight increase in ozone levels if it was the cause.

    [“Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said. “The jet stream is expected to shift back toward the north as ozone is replenished, yet the greenhouse-gas effect could negate this.” Lee and her colleague, Steven Feldstein, professor of meteorology, developed a new method to distinguish between the effects of the two forcings. The method uses a cluster analysis to investigate the effects of ozone and greenhouse gas on several different observed wind patterns.]

    There has already been a significant shift in the jet stream since 2000 and especially since 2007 towards the south (NH) and towards the north (SH). Therefore rises in greenhouse gases are not having any affect now and therefore likely didn’t before. We don’t need assumptions using models to show us this.

    [Ozone had the bigger impact on the change in the position of the jet stream,” said Lee. “The opposite is likely true for the Northern Hemisphere; we think that ozone has a limited influence on the Northern Hemisphere. Understanding which of these forcings is most important in certain locations may help policy makers as they begin to plan for the future.”]

    There is no observed science that backs up these claims, the NH had a significant shift in the jet stream and changing weather patterns since then has been the result of this. There is no evidence shown here to back up whether this is the chicken or the egg regarding ozone. Although observed scientific evidence supports it’s more likely the effect not the cause. The significant shift occurred while very modest increases in ozone over a short period and this is not significant enough to explain this. Why was there no sudden shifts with just modest decreases in ozone level?

  51. Ian W (February 1, 2013 at 4:24 am) wrote:
    “The ozone level and the Jetstream meridonality are effects of the same cause – the lowered level of EUV / UV short wave radiation from the Sun.”

    So you’re suggesting EUV / UV directly modulates equator-pole temperature gradients? If so, how have you ruled out a role for other wavelengths in modulating equator-pole temperature gradients? For example, is it that you agree with the following?

    “Issues in Climate Science Underlying Sun/Climate Research
    Isaac M. Held, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
    [...]
    11-year solar cycle [...] Strengthening the horizontal temperature gradient alters in turn the fluxes of angular momentum by midlatitude eddies. The angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies. [...] ozone.”

    — accessible via: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

  52. digger says:
    February 1, 2013 at 3:29 am
    ….As a side, the high cost of gases, regulatory requirements & hence repair costs forces many people now just to buy a new unit and not fix old ones. Again, another completely “environmentally unfriendly” result of a green agenda gone wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The “Green Agenda” was just the propaganda or sheepskin covering the wolves. Too bad the environuts have never figure that out. SEE: Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bio-fuel from Mother Jones no less!

  53. Uzurbrain says:
    February 1, 2013 at 8:38 am
    ….The major problem I have with the AGW models is that they ignore everything about the sun….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Unfortunately the solar physicists with a few exceptions like Nir Shaviv Sciencebits nod their heads and go right along with the CAGW agenda. All you have to do is read the nauseating kowtowing of NASA to the IPCC agenda of making humans the cause of climate change/CAGW
    The IPCC mandate states:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Now that it is pretty darn obvious the Global Warming has stopped NASA/Hansen jump into the breach to figure out another way of hanging a guilt trip on the human race. You would think Hansen was a Jewish Mother he is so good at dishing out guilt.

    Culprits of Climate Change
    Scientists suggest that climate change in recent decades has been mainly caused by air pollution containing non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.

    Since climate change affects everyone on Earth, scientists have been trying to pinpoint its causes. For many years, researchers agreed that climate change was triggered by what they called “greenhouse gases,” with carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas playing the biggest role. However, new research suggests fossil fuel burning may not be as important in the mechanics of climate change as previously thought.

    NASA funded research by Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and his colleagues, suggests that climate change in recent decades has been mainly caused by air pollution containing non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, particularly tropospheric ozone, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and black carbon (soot) particles….

    [The only mention of the sun in the entire article GC]
    Black carbon particles are generated by burning coal and diesel fuel and cause a semi-direct reduction of cloud cover. This reduction in cloud cover is an important factor in Earth’s radiation balance, because clouds reflect 40 percent to 90 percent of the Sun’s radiation depending on their type and thickness.…..

    Hansen’s research looked at trends in various greenhouse gases and noted that the growth rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled between 1950 and 1970, but leveled off from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.

    The other critical piece of information this research is based on, in addition to greenhouse gas levels, is observed heat storage, or warmer ocean temperatures, over the last century. Heat storage in the ocean provides a consistency check on climate change. The ocean is the only place that energy forms an imbalance. In this case a warming can accumulate, and global ocean data reveals that ocean heat content has increased between the mid-1950s and the mid-1990s.

    Hansen’s paper, “Global Warming in the 21st Century an Alternate Scenario,” will appear in the August 29th version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

  54. Nice to see the matters discussed in my work being more widely discussed.

    I’ve been banging on about jet stream shifts as a result of the interaction between solar and oceanic variations for nearly 6 years.

    I still think they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar effects wrong though.

  55. Ferdinand Engelbeen (February 1, 2013 at 8:57 am) linked to:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm

    Link Between Solar Cycle And Climate Is Blowin’ In The Wind — Apr. 12, 1999

    Important:
    Note that the following is inconsistent (at the fundamental level of universal laws) with the paragraphs preceding it in the article:

    “According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.”

  56. Paul Vaughan says:
    February 1, 2013 at 11:00 am

    According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

    As I said, forget the AGW babble in the article, which indeed contradicts the preceding paragraphs of empirical evidence. But remember, the article is from 1999, when any article must contain some sentence of adherance to the “consensus”, or wasn’t published…

  57. Paul Vaughan says:
    February 1, 2013 at 11:00 am

    “Note that the following is inconsistent (at the fundamental level of universal laws) with the paragraphs preceding it in the article:

    “According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.”

    Not really, Paul. Shindell is saying that its not TSI that’s making a difference, its the spectral composition of TSI. A transparent gas (oxygen) is being converted into a greenhouse gas (ozone) in times of increased solar activity. And as we know the atmosphere is intimately connected and all sorts of other effects follow.

  58. The Arctic had a lot of ozone loss in the 1990’s, that was when there were very few sudden stratospheric warming events:

  59. Stephen Wilde says:
    February 1, 2013 at 10:52 am

    “I still think they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar effects wrong though.”

    As I said to Paul above, the spectral distribution of TSI changes during periods of heightened solar activity which increases stratospheric warming. This causes stratospheric circulation toward the poles to increase and contract the solar vortex, shifting the jets toward the poles as you say. But the overall effect of more greenhouse gas is warming. You have probably seen that the first thing that happens on the upswing of a strong solar cycle is a La Niña. The warming comes later.

  60. pochas.

    The stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and is now warming a little with the less active sun.

    You and they have the sign of the solar effect wrong.

    I am not satisfied that there is any net warming from CO2 since it provides an additional radiative window for energy loss to space which is not supplied by non radiative gases.

  61. “Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said.

    I really don’t understand why they think the area of the ozone hole is important. The ozone hole is a hole because ozone never enters it. It descends to the troposphere and autodecomposes in the eyewall around the hole because of the higher pressure near the surface, whether or not there is anything there to catalyse the autodecomposition reaction. The size of the hole is due to atmospheric dynamics, not ozone chemistry.

  62. @ Ferdinand Engelbeen (February 1, 2013 at 11:15 am)

    Thanks sincerely for the clarification Ferdinand. The clarity of your thinking on this subject is impressive.

  63. Pamela Gray says:

    January 31, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    Who the hell is letting these people get Ph.D.’s ??????? They’re like someone who doesn’t know the difference between Last minus First and linear regression trend calculations!!!!! Today, I just can’t suffer stupid. Had to do it at work all day. Ain’t doin it here.”

    Then she does. :)

    Possibly she is a Capricorn? A walking basket of contradictions… ;)

    I don’t get it, don’t see the claims of massive ozone destruction resulting from Pinatubo, in the untrustworthy data from NASA. They were one of the ones making that claim.
    Was Chaiten and Puyehue Cordón Caulle high enough to noticeably affect ozone?

  64. Well, well, and I thought that the replacement of CFCs was going to fix all that Ozone Hole business! The article looks like its models all the way down if not just speculation. It just prompts the question “Is it the ozone or is it solar UV variation?”

  65. “The National Science Foundation funded this research.”

    Is that the same National Science Foundation that gave more than two million bucks to Michael Mann over the past 4 years? How do I get on this gravy train?

  66. Paul Vaughan says:
    February 1, 2013 at 9:40 am
    Ian W (February 1, 2013 at 4:24 am) wrote:
    “The ozone level and the Jetstream meridonality are effects of the same cause – the lowered level of EUV / UV short wave radiation from the Sun.”
    So you’re suggesting EUV / UV directly modulates equator-pole temperature gradients? If so, how have you ruled out a role for other wavelengths in modulating equator-pole temperature gradients? For example, is it that you agree with the following?
    “Issues in Climate Science Underlying Sun/Climate Research
    Isaac M. Held, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
    [...]
    11-year solar cycle [...] Strengthening the horizontal temperature gradient alters in turn the fluxes of angular momentum by midlatitude eddies. The angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies. [...] ozone.”
    – accessible via: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519

    ==============
    I think that the quote from that paper actually agrees with what I said which was not solely EUV/UV — what I said was:
    “”The place on the Earth where there is the most energy is the equatorial regions between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn as they are receiving direct insolation all year from the Sun. The hot SSTs lead to towering convective storms up to 12 miles or more in the atmosphere lifting the tropopause to 60,000 – 70,000 ft . These are the updrafts of the Hadley cells when the Sun’s energy especially, in the short wave frequencies, is high then the light penetrates deep into the oceans heating them. As the sea surface temperatures increase the convection increases. The Hadley cells grow and push the Ferrel cells the temperate convective bands poleward causing the Jetstreams to become latiduninal and reducing the depth of the Rossby waves. At the same time the increase in the EUV/UV increases the amount of ozone being formed in the upper atmosphere reducing the size of the ozone holes at the poles.””
    —–
    The point is that both the changes in ozone level and the changes in the vigor of the Hadley cell circulation is due to the change in short wave (including UV/EUV) radiation from the Sun. Or as the paper you quote the horizontal temperature gradient is altered – as the oceans are warmed by stronger short wave radiation. The ‘ozone hole’ does not push jetstreams, the jetstreams moves because the Hadley cells enlarge and the Ferrel cells (midlatitude eddies) move. The paper you quote is saying the same thing as I am.

  67. Large particles (IE ash, dust, etc) get washed out rather quickly and really only affect climate for a short cycle. The oceans have that syrupy thing going on that air and land do not. Look to the oceans and their teleconnections with winds and semi-permanent pressure systems creating clear skies or clouds, along with the ability to sluggishly continue the status quo (and building or releasing heat) till the pendulum swings the other way. Nothing else seems to have that kind of potential.

    My dear Goode’nuff, I’m a July baby with red hair and Irish blood. Do the math lol!

  68. Some help with visualization …

    = climatology map animation of (1) hemispheric seasonal extremes & (2) global annual averages of:
    a) 2m Temperature
    b) 200 hPa Wind — (streaks represent average jet streams)
    c) Column Integrated Ozone

    Credit: assembled using JRA-25 Atlas ( http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ) images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).

    Still-Frames:

    1. hemispheric seasonal extremes:
    a) 2m temperature: http://i46.tinypic.com/2prtj5i.png
    b) 200 hPa Wind: http://i45.tinypic.com/fvb9zk.png
    c) column integrated ozone:
    — JRA-25: http://i46.tinypic.com/346aut3.png
    — ERA-40: http://i49.tinypic.com/2cqintu.png (for comparison)

    2. global annual averages:
    a) 2m temperature: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/surface-1/t2m_ANN.png
    b) 200 hPa Wind: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/w200_ANN.png
    c) column integrated ozone:
    — JRA-25: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/column-1/ozone_ANN.png
    — ERA-40: http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/ERA-40_Atlas/images/full/C02_LL_YEA.gif (for comparison)

    Note the steep equator-pole gradients north & south of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) and the more gentle gradients of the East Pacific (off the west coast of the Americas).

    Average jet streams are more stationary where average equator-pole temperature gradients are steep, such as where cold winter continental-east-coasts meet warmer ocean-western-boundaries.

  69. Stephen Wilde says:
    February 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    “I am not satisfied that there is any net warming from CO2 since it provides an additional radiative window for energy loss to space which is not supplied by non radiative gases.”

    Well, you are not without support. Miskolczi thinks the atmosphere has a constant tau, that CO2 displaces water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Another commenter on a different thread says much the same thing you are saying.

  70. Everything she writes is magic…

    God made man and earth then rested. Then he made a red haired Irish woman and nobody’s rested since.

    Wow, a hot July summer baby, wow that’s superb! July 31, me.
    If I were blessed to be half as smart as you… get on me knees every day, Maranatha!

    Is this true? Scientists say kissing started because of a craving for salt. They say a caveman discovered he could cool off on a hot day by licking his neighbors cheeks. Then he found it was much more fun if his neighbor was a female. Then he forgot all about the salt.

  71. Time for a reminder:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

    Which covered much the same ground in November 2010

    and which explains why the sign of the atmospheric response to solar variations must be wrong in light of events during the MWP and LIA and late 20th century.

  72. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 1, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    The Arctic had a lot of ozone loss in the 1990′s, that was when there were very few sudden stratospheric warming events:

    Well actually, there was a SSW every year in the 90s except 1993.
    http://curriculum.pmartineau.webfactional.com/ssw-animations/ may not have been all majors but there was warmings occuring.

    Also The SSWs contribute to the creation of PSCs which leads to the rapid destruction of the O3

    http://www.iap.unibe.ch/publications/download/3178/en

  73. davidmhoffer says: January 31, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    One has to wonder if:
    c) this is an experiment to see how absurd your science can be and still get published.
    _________________________________________

    d) this is an experiment to see how absurd your science can be and still get another grant, most of which will be spent in the Uni bar.

    .

  74. @ Ian W (February 1, 2013 at 4:33 pm)

    I’d say we need to be mindful of longitudinal land-ocean alternations and related western-ocean-boundary gyre spin-up accumulation.

    See for example the illustrations I’ve shared here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/ozone-depletion-trumps-greenhouse-gas-increase-in-jet-stream-shift/#comment-1214445

    Adding more …

    Climatology map animation of:
    a) 2m temperature hemispheric seasonal extremes
    b) 200 hPa wind hemispheric seasonal extremes
    c) mean sea level pressure (MSLP) interannual variability

    MSLP interannual variability still-frame:

    Credit: ERA-40 Atlas: http://www.ecmwf.int/research/era/ERA-40_Atlas/docs/index.html

    Solar-SLP correlations are observed in regions where high interannual MSLP variability reaches equatorward into the midlatitudes (e.g. southeast Pacific & particularly the northeast Pacific — e.g. recent exploration by van Loon & Meehl and Roy & Haigh).

    Average jet streams are less rigidly anchored in these regions of relatively shallow midlatitude equator-pole temperature gradients.

    Conceptually it’s clear what exploration needs to be done to determine which equator-pole gradients (e.g. 200hPa? surface? western boundary? etc.) are driving this meridional circulatory integral …

    … of solar-modulated westerly winds:

    (By universal laws the orange curve is generalizable to all solar-modulated terrestrial processes. In layman’s terms, it measures change in the rate of stirring regardless of how fast individual gears, wheels, & fluid eddies in the system are turning & spinning, so it’s sort of like a tachometer in a car.)

    I have neither the time, the funding, nor even the computing hardware to begin the exercise at present, but I’m eager to proceed should favorable circumstances develop. From universal laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) we already know macroscopically what the aggregate midlatitude westerly circulatory constraints are. That’s by far the most important awareness step.

    However, climatologists don’t come across as generally being well-versed on earth orientation parameter fundamentals, so they’ll want to see the aggregate constraints derived using data they’ve amassed. Plus: Curiosity will naturally lead us to explore details anyway, despite whatever data limitations exist (particularly since we don’t have the law of conservation of angular constraining observations, as in the EOP context).

    Personally, I really want to know which equator-pole gradients. Some think it’s gradients due to ozone up high. Others maintain that it must be the sea surface gradients that matter most. It will be interesting to explore the data to find out using methods that aren’t blinded by ENSO (something I’ve only seen twice in the climate discussion) when time & resources permit.

    Note in some of the leads given by Ferdinand E. that some researchers (e.g. Shindell) appear to believe they already have it all figured out, but they do appear to be relying heavily on modeling. Personally I’ll never be convinced (as Piers Corbyn appears to be) that ozone is the agent and not just a strong symptom until I carefully explore the various equator-pole gradients firsthand using quantitative methods that are not Schwabe-cycle-blinded by ENSO’s statistical irregularities.

    Regards.

  75. A cautionary note:
    Total column ozone (TOZ) is synchronized with the solar Schwabe cycle, but it differs in phase by 1/4 cycle …so the Schwabe cycle’s driving the rate of change of TOZ.
    Compare the following:

  76. Goode’ nuff you are as charming as a meadowlark singing to his girl. When I was managing the family ranch I could count on that wonderful bird to sing to me every morning and evening from its perch high up in a Ponderosa Pine on the hill.

    Back to the topic at hand. I speculate the North Atlantic Current (and its teleconnection with the North Atlantic Oscillation) may have something to do with the ozone hole up there along with the ice extent position retreating from the incoming warm current, preferring the colder Pacific side of the pole.

  77. The tropospheric component of column ozone tracks ENSO:

    http://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/cloud_slice/#oei

    In our study of tropospheric solar-terrestrial relations, how can we isolate decadal latitudinal-gradient effects when interannual longitudinal-gradient effects intensely scramble the signal?

    Here’s an example of the clarity with which aggregate axial constraints can be detected if due care is taken in the design of metrics to ensure that mathematical properties of irregular downscale spatiotemporal turbulence are not allowed to dominate & corrupt macroscopic statistical summaries:

    Solar-Terrestrial Magnetic Polarity Weave

  78. ****
    Stephen Wilde says:
    February 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    “I am not satisfied that there is any net warming from CO2 since it provides an additional radiative window for energy loss to space which is not supplied by non radiative gases.”
    ****

    Stephen, you’re not understanding the effect of GHGs. The radiative cooling of CO2 at a high altitude (cold temps) is exactly why there is surface warming. The earth has to radiate overall the same amount as it receives (in equilibrium). Either it will happen w/CO2, or, if no CO2, it’ll happen from somewhere lower down at a higher temp (greater heat loss). The more there is a “cold”, high-altitude radiative window, the less heat-loss from lower down (like the surface) overall.

  79. The semi-permanent polar atmospheric pressure oscillations create extensive winds or lack thereof that widen (and weaken) or tighten (and strengthen) the pressure systems at the poles. Since stratospheric ozone can get moved around by winds (aka pressure systems), it makes sense that if the pressure system spreads the ozone out, it will look like a widening hole. If the pressure system squeezes the ozone into a tighter and thicker amount at the poles, it will look like the hole has closed. Yes?

  80. beng.

    I am aware of that theory but think it wrong.

    What actually happens is that if anything warms the atmosphere above equilibrium then it simply expands and lets energy out faster with no need for a rise in surface temperature.

    Instead of radiating from a colder height it radiates from a higher level which is at the same temperature as the lower level was previously.

  81. Pamela,

    That doesn’t work because in the late 20th century the polar pressure systems tightened up yet the ozone hole increased.

    That is the opposite of your scenario.

    Now with a quieter sun the polar prssure systems have loosened up but ozone is recovering.

    That is one of the reasons I think that the consensus has the sign of the solar effect wrong.

  82. I almost hate to go there, but do you suppose there are emails somewhere on someone’s server between today’s scientists who contemplated the ozone hole and atmospheric pressure systems? Who thought of reversing the link suggested in 2004 between the Antarctic Oscillation and ozone hole cause and effect in the paper I referenced in order to get today’s grant money for today’s research paper?

    I could envision training a model on the link between the two and then dialing up the ozone hole input (and assuming it is anthropogenic) to produce a change in the Antarctic Oscillation which in turn would probably change the jet stream. Models may not be able to produce cause and effect internally. But the researchers may be saying that SIMPLY because THEY turned up the dial.

    I hope not. We are screwed if that is what they are doing with models and their input dials.

  83. Thanks Pamela.

    Seems to support what I said but adds that CO2 increased along with the decline in ozone and more positive vortex at a time before significant human impact.

    So I would say that an active sun had caused a more positive vortex which involved less ozone (not more) and that the more poleward jets resulted in more solar energy getting into the oceans which outgassed more CO2.

  84. Note that in the above washington paper, CO2 is an artificial ramp value commencing in 1970. Meaning that other influences were not considered. The new and improved calculation in the paper still has the CO2 ramped value but adds NOA calculations to the formula. It’s almost as if CO2 fudge factors are the 11th commandment.

  85. It is much more likely that the ozone layer is influenced by the jet stream rather than the jet stream influenced by a trace gas at altitude. The idea that ozone may influence the jet stream is the same aberrant thinking that allows the idea that a trace gas, CO2, drives the climate.

  86. “It is much more likely that the ozone layer is influenced by the jet stream rather than the jet stream influenced by a trace gas at altitude”

    The temperature inversion at the tropopause is caused by sunlight on ozone in the stratosphere.

    Therefore the jet streams can be affected from above because changes in ozone amounts alter the temperature differential either side of the tropopause so as to cause it to change height.

Comments are closed.