Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1
A guest post by Bob Tisdale
UPDATE 1 (January 12, 2009):
In my extremely brief description of an El Nino event, I wrote, “…and a subsurface oceanic temperature boundary layer called the thermocline pushes the warm subsurface water to the surface.” My oversimplification may be misleading, and while it does not undermine the intent of this post, a better explanation is available in the following video from NASA Scientific Visualization Studio video titled “Visualizing El Nino”: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000200/a000287/a000287.mpg
If I rewrite that sentence in the future, it would read something to the effect, “During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions cause the warm water that was ‘contained’ by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator. The warm subsurface water rises to the surface.”
h/t Gary for noting the poor wording.
NOTE: For those who are new to the subjects of El Nino events and sea surface temperatures, I’ve tried to make the following discussion as non-technical as possible without overlooking too many aspects critical to the discussion. It includes detailed descriptions of many of the processes that take place before, during, and after El Nino events. The period after an El Nino event is often neglected, but it holds the oceanic responses that are the most significant over multiyear periods.
INTRODUCTION
Two things have always stood out for me in a graph of Global Sea Surface Temperature (SST). The first was the Dip and Rebound in the ERSST.v2 version of the Extended Reconstructed SST data from the 1800s to the 1940s. The link above discussed it in detail.
In Figure 1, I’ve boxed SST anomaly data for the period from 1854 to 1976 to indicate that, other than the dip and rebound and the temporary rise in the early 1940s caused by a multiyear El Nino, there really wasn’t a rise of any note in SST between the late 1800s and the period from the mid-1940s to mid-1970s. The ERSST.v2 data used in this post illustrates little to no change in SST anomalies from the one period (late 1800s) to the other (mid-1940s to mid-1970s).
http://i42.tinypic.com/2ibc87o.jpg
Figure 1
Second: After 1976, Global SST anomalies appear to rise in three steps. It’s very visible if monthly SST anomaly data has been smoothed with a 37-month filter, Figure 2, or if annual data has been smoothed with a 3-year filter. Many people try to correlate those steps with variations in TSI, because they seem to coincide with solar cycles. They don’t, so those trying to make the correlation fail in their efforts.
http://i41.tinypic.com/29omma1.jpg
Figure 2
Zooming in on the period from January 1976 to present, Figure 3, and changing the filtering from 37-months to 12-months do not eliminate the appearance of steps. Why did Global SST rise in steps after 1976?
http://i41.tinypic.com/71mbd3.jpg
Figure 3
Based on the title of this post, the rising step changes were caused by El Nino events, three in particular. The NINO3.4 SST anomalies from January 1976 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 4. Most people familiar with the recent El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) record could guess correctly that the 1997/98 El Nino event was one of the El Ninos that caused a step change. If the magnitude of El Ninos was the only factor, the second logical choice would be the 1982/83 El Nino, since it ranks a close second in terms of peak NINO3.4 SST anomaly. Yet that El Nino event did not create a rising step change in global SST anomalies, because another natural event had a greater impact on global climate.
http://i44.tinypic.com/s46yhe.jpg
Figure 4
A volcanic eruption. The El Chichon eruption of 1982 interrupted the normal heat distribution processes of the 1982/83 El Nino. Many persons understand and cite this on blogs. Few realize, though, that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo also interrupted a significant series of El Nino events. The Mount Pinatubo eruption didn’t occur at the same time as a singular El Nino event with monstrously high SST anomalies, but the string of El Ninos it influenced was significant in its length. “Full-fledged” El Nino events occurred in 1991/92 and 1994/95, with a minor El Nino occurring during 1993. At minimum, two of the early-to-mid 1990s El Ninos had their heat distribution processes altered.
REFERENCE ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 5 is a comparative graph of East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies, scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies, and inverted Sato Index of Stratospheric Mean Optical Thickness data (used as a reference of volcanic eruption timing and intensity). The data in Figure 5 have been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter. The step changes in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies are quite obvious. The graphs included in the following discussions are edited versions of Figure 5. In the latter graphs, I have simply limited the years in view to the periods being discussed. The three periods (January 1976 to December 1981, January 1981 to December 1995, and January 1996 to November 2008) are also shown in Figure 5. The periods were divided in this way because, working backwards in time, the first period discussed (1996 to 2008) has been covered in an earlier post and is, therefore, easiest to explain, the second period (1981 to 1995) includes the two volcanic eruptions, and the third period (1976 to 1981) is what was left over. Note that the NINO3.4 and Sato Index data are provided to illustrate timing and timing only; they have not been scaled to suggest magnitude of cause and effect. I did not want to get into a debate about scaling.
http://i44.tinypic.com/10oe6uo.jpg
Figure 5
In Figure 6, I’ve blocked off the area of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans illustrated by the black curve in Figure 5 and in illustrations that follow. The coordinates are 60S to 65N, 80E to 180. It represents a significant portion of the world oceans, in the range of 25 to 30% of global sea surface from 60S to 65N.
http://i39.tinypic.com/5n55as.jpg
Figure 6
Figure 7 is a comparative graph of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, inverted Sato Index, and the SST anomalies for the oceans segments not included in the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomaly dataset above. These include the East Pacific, the Atlantic, and the West Indian Oceans contained by the coordinates 60S-65N, 180-80E. The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean data (red curve) is overlaid onto the East Indian-West Pacific data (the black curve in Figure 5) during the discussions that follow to show the interactions between datasets.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2ljgxon.jpg
Figure 7
A final preliminary note: The filtering is used to reduce the visual impact of the noise within the datasets. It also affects (smoothes) the abruptness of the change in the Sato Index data when the volcanoes erupted. It has a minor visual impact, but it is something to consider when viewing the graphs that include the volcanic eruptions (Part 2). The impacts of the smoothing are shown in Figure 8.
http://i39.tinypic.com/be5x6a.jpg
Figure 8
A VIDEO
I illustrated the cause of the step change AFTER the 1997/98 El Nino in a video posted on the thread titled The Lingering Effects of the 1997/98 El Nino. The YouTube link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uv4Xc4D0Dk
Take five minutes and watch the video. It will help to illustrate the phenomena taking place and the causes.
Note: In the graphs for the video, I used the Optimally Interpolated SST anomaly data (OI.v2). The monthly time-series data for it starts in November 1981, and since I wanted to cover the period starting in 1976 in this post, I had to switch datasets. The SST anomaly data used in the following discussion is from the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 2 (ERSST.v2), available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). It runs from January 1854 to present.
THE STEP CHANGE FROM 1996 TO PRESENT – A RECAP AND EXPANSION OF DISCUSSION
The SST anomalies for the West Indian-East Pacific Oceans from January 1996 to November 2008 are shown in Figure 9, along with scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the final few years of the inverted Sato Index data. The Sato Index ends in 1999, but because there has not been an explosive volcanic eruption capable of lowering global temperatures significantly since 1991, its end in 1999 has no affect on the discussion.
Note: You may wish to click on the TinyPic link (While holding the “Control” key) to open Figure 9 in a separate window. That would eliminate the need to scroll back and forth. This discussion goes on for a full page of single-spaced text in MSWord form.
http://i43.tinypic.com/zxr6vc.jpg
Figure 9
The Pacific Warm Pool, also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, is an area in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean where huge volumes of warm water collect due to a number of natural processes (normally attributed to ocean currents and trade winds). The Pacific Warm Pool is visible in SST data and in subsurface ocean temperature data; the warm pool reaches down to depths of 300 meters. Figure 10 illustrates its location. Over decadal periods of time, it expands and contracts in area and increases and decreases in volume.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hdqydy.jpg
Figure 10
During El Nino events, natural changes in atmospheric conditions cause the warm water that was “contained” by the Pacific Warm Pool to shift east along the equator, and a subsurface oceanic temperature boundary layer called the thermocline pushes the warm subsurface water to the surface. The high SST anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific are known as an El Nino. It is a natural process that occurs at irregular intervals and magnitudes. The eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomaly data is divided into areas for monitoring purposes. Refer to Figure 11. These areas are known as NINO1, 2, 3 and 4. Global temperature responses to El Nino events correlate best with the SST anomalies of an area that overlaps NINO3&4 areas. That area is called NINO3.4. That’s the data set used in the following discussions.
http://i44.tinypic.com/97qt08.jpg
Figure 11
Back to the discussion of Figure 9: The purple curve in Figure 9 shows the SST anomalies for the NINO3.4 area [5S-5N, 170W-120W] in the eastern Pacific. The data has been reduced in scale by a factor of 0.2 so that it doesn’t overwhelm the graph. During the 1997/98 El Nino event, NINO3.4 SST anomalies rose to their highest levels during the 20th century. Its impact is visible in the long-term and short-term Global SST anomaly data shown in Figures 2 and 3. It affected global and regional temperature and precipitation patterns in the short term afterwards.
That’s usually about the end of a discussion of the 1997/98 El Nino. The video showed, however, that other processes continue long after an El Nino event. Much of the heat that rises to the surface during the El Nino is then transported west by the equatorial ocean currents, recharging the Pacific Warm Pool for the next El Nino and heating the surface of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans. It’s important to keep in mind that before the El Nino most of the warm water was below the surface, contained by the Pacific Warm Pool. Since it’s below the surface to depths of 300 meters, it is not a part of the calculation of global SST, or global temperature, for that matter. Then, after the El Nino, much of it is on the surface and included in the SST data. The resulting rise in the SST anomalies of the East Indian-West Pacific Oceans (the black curve in Figure 9) lags the change in NINO3.4 SST anomaly by a few months. As shown, East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies reached their peak in 1998, but by that time, NINO3.4 SST anomalies had already dropped back to “normal” levels. Then the NINO3.4 SST anomalies dropped further, into the subsequent La Nina (Negative) levels, but the East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies only dropped a portion of the amount they had risen, about one-half of it. And before the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies can slowly decrease fully to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, NINO3.4 SST anomalies increase in 2000 and cause the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to rise again. That’s the step change.
In summary, a large volume of warm water that was once below the surface of the Pacific Warm Pool was raised to the surface by the El Nino and distributed across the surface of the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, causing SST anomalies to rise in that region. East Indian-West Pacific Ocean SST anomalies began to drop but had not had enough time to return to “normal” before the start of the next El Nino event, which swept them upwards again.
They are slowly returning to the levels they were at before the 1997/98 El Nino, but because they were “pushed” higher again and again by the El Nino events of 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07, the return has taken more than a decade.
In Figure 12, I’ve added the SST anomalies for the East Pacific, Atlantic, and West Indian Oceans to the comparative graph. (It’s another graph you may want to open in a separate window.) The East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies mimic the rise and fall of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies during the 1997/98 El Nino—to a point. Note how, during the La Nina that followed it, the NINO3.4 SST anomalies have dropped well below the levels they had been at before the start of the 1997/98 El Nino (highlighted with the blue line and arrows), yet the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies don’t follow the NINO3.4 SST anomalies below the level they had been at before the 1997/98 El Nino to any great extent; that’s another (but smaller) cause of the step change in Global SST anomalies after the 1997/98 El Nino. Then the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies follow the rise in NINO3.4 SST anomalies from 2000 to late 2002, the peak of the next El Nino. And, from 2003 to present, the SST anomalies for both of the major portions of the global oceans (red and black curves) “normalized” to levels near to one another, modulating back and forth as each area, at different time lags, responds to variations in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. These include the additional El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07, and finally a substantial La Nina in 2007/08. Because of that La Nina, the East Pacific-Atlantic-West Indian Ocean SST anomalies (red curve) have dropped down close to the levels they had been at prior to the 1997/98 El Nino, but it has taken more than 10 years.
http://i40.tinypic.com/21o6a0z.jpg
Figure 12
In Figure 13, the Global SST anomaly curve from January 1976 to November 2008 (same graph as Figure 3) has been annotated to indicate the causes of the step change. As illustrated and discussed in the preceding, the temperature rise resulted from the significant step response of the East Indian-West Pacific SST anomalies to the 1997/98 El Nino event–that was compounded by a similar response (but of lesser magnitude) to the 2002/03 El Nino—that was then “maintained” by the El Nino events of 2004/05 and 2006/07.
http://i44.tinypic.com/hunip3.jpg
Figure 13
CLOSING TO PART 1
That’s enough for one post. In the second part, I’ll cover the two earlier periods. For a preview, simply scroll back up to Figure 5 and note the step changes during those two periods and the effects of the two volcanic eruptions. (Remember that the Sato Index data is only there to illustrate the timing of the volcanic eruptions.) I’ll also add another phenomenon that confirms the step changes caused by the El Nino events are drivers of global temperature anomalies.
SOURCES
Smith and Reynolds Extended Reconstructed SST Sea Surface Temperature Data (ERSST.v2) and the Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OI.v2) are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive & Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/#climatencdc
The Sato Index Data is available from GISS at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Specifically:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Erl Happ (05:57:02) :
What varies is the ozone concentration at 200hPa and no ‘universal curve’ will be valid in this circumstance. The physics is no problem, the quantification is the problem.
The universal curve is valid because the laws of Physics are universal. And it is precisely the ‘quantification’ that you get wrong. There is no doubt that UV directly heats at 200hPa. The universal curve shows that. In fact, the heating is something like 0.0000001K, give or take a few zeroes.
How do you explain the peak in variability in 100hPa, 150hPa and 200hPa in March and September in the historical data. This suggests to me that UV flux is greater at the equinox. That would explain the peak in temperatures at 1hPa at the same time. There can be no argument surely about what is causing that peak. How does your universal curve apply in this situation? Do you just shift it down a bit for these times. How much?
We have covered this ground many times before. I’ll refer you again to the treatment of the semiannual oscillations here http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/81/45/PDF/angeo-24-2131-2006.pdf The equinoctial peaks at the low and high altitudes are not related in the sense you imagine, the phase of the maxima change steadily with altitude, see Figure 16.
The universal curve shows very nicely where the heating occurs. If you double the concentration at any given altitude, you double the heating there, as simple as that.
Here is is a little ray of sunshine from NASA’s Dr. Anthony Del Genio at http://buildeco.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/latest-info-from-nasas-dr-anthony-del-genio/
I quote directly: two paragraphs.
“Fortunately, by combining information about the spatial patterns of the anthropogenic and natural climate variations, it is possible to draw some conclusions. For example, an upward trend in ocean heat content from 1993-2003 has been interpreted by previous workers as a sign of anthropogenic influences that create an imbalance between the sunlight absorbed by the Earth and the heat it emits to space. At first glance the PDO shift in the mid-1990s might call such an interpretation into question. However, the spatial pattern of the PDO includes warming in some places and cooling in others; in fact, changes consistent with the PDO can be seen in the geographic pattern of observed ocean heat content changes. But in the global mean these warming and cooling changes nearly offset each other, so the overall upward trend in observed ocean heat content can only be explained by anthropogenic effects, which exhibit warming almost everywhere. On the other hand, satellite-observed changes in absorbed sunlight and emitted heat in the tropics over the period 1985-2000, which appear to have caused a strengthening of the tropical atmospheric circulation, could in principle be either anthropogenic or natural in origin.”
“By examining the spatial pattern of both types of climate variation, the scientists found that the anthropogenic global warming signal was relatively spatially uniform over the tropical oceans and thus would not have a large effect on the atmospheric circulation, whereas the PDO shift in the 1990s consisted of warming in the tropical west Pacific and cooling in the subtropical and east tropical Pacific, which would enhance the existing sea surface temperature difference and thus intensify the circulation. Thus, it can be concluded that the observed 15-year trend in radiative imbalance of the tropics is probably a signature of natural rather than anthropogenic climate variations.”
My comment: At last some recognition of the shift to ‘El Nino dominant’ that is strikingly apparent in the pattern of 200hPa temperature change in figure 8 at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/.
But, they have the date wrong. It starts back in 1948, and takes a leap in 1978 and has been gradually subsiding since 1978.
If this change had an anthropogenic origin it would not leap in 1978 and it would not decline over the the thirty year period since that date.
It’s nice to see a recognition of the “satellite-observed changes in absorbed sunlight and emitted heat in the tropics”.
And how did 200hPa temperature make that astounding jump in 1978 without a little heating from above? All good science starts with observation. When the stuff that is observed is out of kilter with the ‘universal curve’, you have to start asking yourself if the curve reflects reality.
at: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Chen_etal_1.html
Chen et al. 2008
Chen, J., A.D. Del Genio, B.E. Carlson, and M.G. Bosilovich, 2008: The spatiotemporal structure of twentieth-century climate variations in observations and reanalyses. Part I: Long-term trend. J. Climate, 21, 2611-2633, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2011.1.
The dominant interannual El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and the short length of climate observation records make it difficult to study long-term climate variations in the spatiotemporal domain. Based on the fact that the ENSO signal spreads to remote regions and induces delayed climate variation through atmospheric teleconnections, an ENSO-removal method is developed through which the ENSO signal can be approximately removed at the grid box level from the spatiotemporal field of a climate parameter. After this signal is removed, long-term climate variations are isolated at mid- and low latitudes in the climate parameter fields from observed and reanalysis datasets. This paper addresses the long-term global warming trend (GW); a companion paper concentrates on Pacific pan-decadal variability (PDV).
The warming that occurs in the Pacific basin (approximately 0.4 K in the twentieth century) is much weaker than in surrounding regions and the other two ocean basins (approximately 0.8 K). The modest warming in the Pacific basin is likely due to its dynamic nature on the interannual and decadal time scales and/or the leakage of upper ocean water through the Indonesian Throughflow.
My comment: Bob Tisdale should be comforted to know that once you take the ENSO signal out of the warming trend in the Pacific there is not much left.
On the other hand I think he will have to take into account the Indonesian Throughflow in his computations about re the Warm Pool and its dynamics.
For the authors of this study, a few questions: Why should the Pacific warm less than the other oceans? Does this throw doubt on the process they have used to “remove ENSO from the climate signal? What about the notion that the southern oscillation is the dominant mode of climate variation for the globe? What about the notion that there are ‘teleconnections’ between the Pacific and the rest of the globe driving changes in the latter? If ENSO is so important in the Pacific how important is the anthropogenic influence there, or is it mainly operative outside the Pacific.? Oh dear!
erlhapp (18:40:30) :
My comment: Bob Tisdale should be comforted to know that once you take the ENSO signal out of the warming trend in the Pacific there is not much left.
Just love the enthusiasm from the guys on this team….I can see a time when more evidence comes to light very soon, that us “Planetary Influence” guys will join forces with the ENSO guys and fight the cruel menace that manifests itself as AGW associated with Solar scientists. 🙂
erlhapp (17:01:39) :
And how did 200hPa temperature make that astounding jump in 1978 without a little heating from above?
Since the 200hPa level is heated from below, one might surmise that there has been an astounding jump in 1978 of surface temperatures. Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.
Leif, when people talk about a temperature shift in climate I think they should more accurately call that a weather change. Climate, to me, is dependent on physical factors that then strongly influence weather patterns. Temperate climates will always be 4-seasonal climates (as long as the physical factors remain the same ) with seasonal weather patterns that are predictable, as in Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. Yes, with warming, the warm could be a little warmer, and the rain could be a bit wetter, etc. But the underlying nature of a temperate climate will not change. Just the weather patterns will change. Why do they call it climate change? Greenhouse gases cannot move a continent, or cause a mountain to grow, or a desert plain to appear. They cannot change climate. They can change weather patterns. As can ENSO, etc. I think the word “climate” is misapplied in the context of warming or cooling, whatever the cause. A change in weather patterns is, in my opinion, the more accurate phrase in all of these discussions of Earth bound climates (which are stable), and weather patterns (which are more variable).
Pamela Gray (10:17:35) :
“Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.”
Leif, when people talk about a temperature shift in climate I think they should more accurately call that a weather change.
I think my ‘or some such’ in a nutshell expresses my opinion. Go tell them 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:57)
Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.”
And then in around 1998 the Pdo/pdv or whatever inverted again.This velocity inversion has the same effect as a time inversion. The ability for a recurrent periodic state such as the PDO or an inverse temperature “state ”is in essence a binary transformation or bifurcation. The classic Lh bifurcation with 2 possible states.As the present phase state cannot remember its future” initial position” it reverts to its past position eg prior to 1978 in this case, a hard stability loss eg Pontryagin
and Andronov 1937.
Hence “much ado about nothing”
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:57) :
“Since the 200hPa level is heated from below, one might surmise that there has been an astounding jump in 1978 of surface temperatures. Some people call that ‘global warming’, or ‘the great climate shift’ or some such.”
We are referring to the south east Pacific at 30-40°S and 240-260°E between 1976 and 1980 when global tropical sea surface temperature between 20°S and 20°N rose by 0.6°, never to return again so far as the record to date is concerned.
Let’s try and keep a sense of proportion and retain some concern for what might be cause and what effect. The “jump” in sea surface temperature in the region of interest between 1976 and 1980 was 0.3°C. The jump in 200hPa temperature in the same area was 2.7°C.
It doesn’t matter what you call it. The important thing is to work out how/why it happened. Standing behind universal curves does not help.
I think that this is the point where I give up. This is a bit too much like talking to three brass monkeys.
Erl, you wrote, “Bob Tisdale should be comforted to know that once you take the ENSO signal out of the warming trend in the Pacific there is not much left.”
And a good portion of the “not much left” should result from the redistribution of subsurface water from the PWP to the surface of the eastern Pacific where surface currents and trade winds cause it to accumulate on the surface of the Western Pacific (and East Indian Ocean).
Courage erl; there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere. It’s just extremely well-wrapped. A Gordian Knot indeed.
=============================================
erlhapp
Sometime life is a funny old thing.Catching up on my reading in Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences a journal of the RSC I find what Erl is telling us is indeed the “Partyline” so to speak.
Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: Progress report, 2008
United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
“Regional climate and hence tropospheric air quality can be influenced by both changes in stratospheric ozone and the effects of greenhouse gases”
Ozone depleting substances and greenhouse gases can contribute to alterations in global circulation1—see section above Ozone and changes in biologically active UV radiation. Changes in these large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns have been associated with changes in regional climate, for example a reduction in rainfall in SW Australia.Such changes will also affect air quality through changes in local climate.
URL HERE and PDF download available.
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=PP&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b820432m&Iss=1
PS Effects are local and have differnet properties at different latitudes and heights eg fig 1
Interesting read.
Maksimovich
My own opinion of the cause of loss of ozone and its subsequent recovery is that much is related to the change in water distribution in the atmosphere and the increased speed of the major atmospheric circulations. Since 1948 we have seen a strong increase in 850hPa temperature, a proxy for the energy driving the overturning circulation. Ozone content of the stratosphere (indeed the entire upper atmosphere) depends upon moisture content there and moisture levels have been increasing. It is no accident that the southern hemisphere has less ozone than the North. It is the Southern hemisphere that has the stronger circulation driven by the extreme cold of Antarctica in all seasons. The downdraft at mid latitudes brings ozone into the upper troposphere. You can’t keep adding moisture to the stratosphere and bringing stratospheric air into the troposphere without losing ozone. Its highly soluble.
The ‘recovery of ozone’ is related to a reduction in energy driving the atmospheric circulation.
Those who set up the Montreal Protocol will not want to know this. Environmental ‘science’ is a self serving industry.
Of course, the high ozone content in the mid latitudes in the upper troposphere is the basis for the strong temperature variations there, variations that are reflected in surface pressure. This is a big element of my theory of climate change.