Another Look At Polar Amplification

Posted by invitation, from Bob Tisdale’s website – original here. Photo/caption below added by Anthony.

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Graphic added by Anthony

On two occasions I’ve attempted to leave a comment at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress. I discussed the first try back in July 2008 in my post Climate Progress Posts My Comment, Returns It To Awaiting-Moderation Limbo, Then Deletes It. Yesterday, I posted a comment on the Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat thread at Climate Progress, but was thwarted again by the moderator.

Note: The original Climate Progress title included a misspelling “breathaking” that made the quoted “breathaking ignorance” quite comical.

In the recent Climate Progress post, Joe Romm wrote, “Humans are cranking up the Arctic heat by pouring steadily increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which in turn cranks up warming in the Arctic, a very well documented phenomenon (see “What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?“). The linked Climate Progress explanation of Polar Amplification pertains primarily to positive feedbacks from albedo changes caused by the retreat of ice and snow, and to contradict Romm’s statement in his recent post, the term “Greenhouse gases” does not appear in Joe’s earlier explanation of Polar Amplification, nor does CO2, methane, GHG, etc.

The comment I tried to post yesterday at Climate Progress contained the quotes and illustrations from RealClimate that I used in my July 28, 2008 post on Polar Amplification and Arctic Warming. It also included an annotated RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plot and Time-Series Graph from my post “RSS MSU TLT Time-Latitude Plots… …Show Climate Responses That Cannot Be Easily Illustrated With Time-Series Graphs Alone”.

There was nothing earth shattering in my comment, no reason for it to be deleted. Here take a look. It simply illustrated cause (El Nino events) and effect (poleward heat redistribution).

THE DELETED COMMENT

Regarding the well-documented Polar Amplification, refer to RealClimate thread here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends

Real Climate writes, “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):”

#

The following are two illustrations from the RealClimate thread. The first shows the tropical enhancement and polar amplification for a doubling of CO2 and the second illustrates the same effects for a 2% increase in solar irradiance.

http://i33.tinypic.com/10fu8p2.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/w8l4c0.jpg

RealClimate continues: “The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.

If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.” [My Emphasis]

#####

To create the polar amplification profile illustrated in the above figures in the GCMs, there had to be a doubling of CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Neither happened in the last 3 to 4 decades, so what created the polar amplification profile? Real Climate provides the answer. El Nino events.

Since 1976, did we endure a string of El Nino events whose frequency and magnitude greatly outweighed La Nina events? Most assuredly.

And when did polar amplification become evident in the Northern high latitudes? Immediately after the 1997/98 El Nino. It’s very visible in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude plot. I’ll make it easier to see with a time-series graph along side.

http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg

Regards

UPDATE

And for those looking for papers describing the poleward transport of heat resulting from El Nino events, the following paper can serve as a starting point. It’s Jevrejeva et al (2004) “Oceanic and atmospheric transport of multiyear El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signatures to the polar regions” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L24210, doi:10.1029/2004GL020871, 2004):

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_grl04_-_enso_to_polar.pdf?attredirects=0

Their Conclusion reads:

“We provide evidence of ENSO influence on the winter climate variability in NH during the last 150 years via signals in the 2.2, 3.5, 5.7 and 13.9 year bands. The contribution from the signals to the total variance is relatively weak, varies considerably with time, but is statistically significant. Phase relationships for the different frequency signals suggest that there are different mechanisms for distribution of the 2.2–5.7 year and the 13.9 year signals. The 2.2–5.7 year signals are most likely transmitted via the stratosphere, and the AO mediating propagation of the signals, through coupled stratospheric and tropospheric circulation variability that accounts for vertical planetary wave propagation.

“The delay of about two years in the 13.9 year signals detected in polar region can be explained by the transit time of the 13.9 year signal associated with ECW (0.13– 0.17 ms_1) propagation in the Pacific ocean, KBW (1–3 ms_1) propagation along the western margins of the Americas and by poleward-propagating of atmospheric angular momentum [Dickey et al., 2003]. This mechanism is supported by similar features in the Pacific sector of the Antarctic SST field.

“Our results highlight the importance of tropical variations for the Arctic and NA climate and probably at least the Pacific sector of the Antarctic, suggesting a global mode of interaction between atmosphere and ocean and consistent with GCM experiments of a proposed ENSO-NA link [e.g., Trenberth et al., 1998; Dong et al., 2000; Merkel and Latif, 2002].”

Posted by Bob Tisdale at 5:50 AM

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Aelric
June 6, 2009 2:28 pm

Caption:
SSN ### to COMSUBLANT STOP HAVE BEEN SIGHTED BY THREE RUSSIAN BEARS STOP THEY LOOK HUNGRY STOP PLEASE ADVISE STOP

E.M.Smith
Editor
June 6, 2009 2:31 pm

Joel Shore (12:47:46) : Adolfo, all your link shows is what you can already read many places, including the Wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect
Unfortunately, since wikipedia has become a politicized advocacy group dominated site, postings there can not be trusted to either contain the truth or remain a stable reference. What one refers to today can be trashed tomorrow. For example, here is my commentary on what the AGW Langoliers did to the Jevons Paradox page:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/jevons-paradox-coal-oil-conservation/
It was turned from a simple statement that increased individual efficiency of use results in more total uses such that energy efficiency improvements raised aggregate consumption rather than lowering it; into a Green Tax advocacy misdirection.
Consequently, I can no longer use Wiki for anything other than immediate quotes (i.e. cut / paste the text) or as a basis on which to build my own pages. I no longer use a link to wiki as a reference if there is any alternative and I can no longer trust wiki to be fair, balanced, have a neutral point of view, or be stable at all. Wiki is not a good reference. Period.
(What was done to the Bond Event, Roman Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc pages amounts to criminal fraud, IMHO.)
I saved some of the prior text, but a lot was lost. It is now a stub that I need to expand over time to preserve the actual history of extreme temperature variation in our past.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
So, what you are essentially arguing about is a pedagogical issue.
No, it isn’t. The presentation of “how it works” to the lay public by the AGW side clearly exploits the idea that it is IR trapping “like a greenhouse”. This is fundamentally a lie, not a “pedagogical issue”, and Adolfo does a great service by pointing out this, I’ll be charitable, “error” in the AGW thesis.
It is not a particularly fine line between a necessary simplification for explanation and a deception. One leaves out detail that does not add to the basic understanding while keeping the basic truth; the other misleads into an understanding that is broken.
For example: Newtonian mechanics are incomplete. To omit Relativity is a reasonable simplification for a new learner and does not impair either the understanding of the student or their ability to get correct answers to many decimal places.
In contrast: No “greenhouse effect” on IR exists at all. Greenhouses work by preventing air movement and providing some physical insulation (especially double wall polycarbonate panels) To term whatever mechanism you believe is driving AGW “greenhouse gasses” or “greenhouse effect” is to either 1) Deliberately lie about how a greenhouse works or 2) Assert that CO2 somehow prevents convection and conduction. That is, it is decent propaganda, but lousy science. The student is left with a broken understanding that does not lead to correct answers.
You could, of course, always come up with some other term that is a physically correct description of what you think is going on. But that would require that there be something else going on to describe. The deliberate decision to continue using a known broken metaphor is either profound laziness or deliberate deception; neither of which is welcome in Real Science …
Adofo: Keep it up! It is essential that folks come to understand that the term “Greenhouse gas” is a completely broken term devoid of physical merit.

June 6, 2009 2:37 pm

Basil: Thanks for posting the unmarked RSS TLT Time-Latitude plot. It is an eye-opener. Brett Anderson posted it at the Accuweather GW blog about a week ago. The transport of heat from the tropics to the NH high latitudes after the 1997/98 El Nino stood out above all else.
As noted in my reply to Adam From Kansas, I have searched for and have been unable to find the anticipated time for heat from El Nino events to be radiated into space from high latitudes. I guess we’ll find out………eventually.

E.M.Smith
Editor
June 6, 2009 2:56 pm

James Allison (13:41:06) : Perhaps Joe Romm deleted your post because he feels threatened by what he doesn’t umderstand.
My, admittedly brief, experience there (early on, when I blankly believed the AGW thesis and just wanted to find out how it worked) was that contrary statements or questions are only allowed through if they provide a basis for an AGW rant. Anything that disrupts the tranquility of the fantasy inside the bubble gets deleted. Things that can’t be answered, things that point out loose ends, things that point out errors, etc. etc. get a slap down or vaporize.
Having worked on a psych ward for a few years, it reminded me of how some folks respond to anything that disrupts their “perfect” world view; with vehement rejection. I’ve also seen a similar behavior in contexts where the Powers That Be were trying to indoctrinate (be it military induction or “sales jobs”) where anything that deviates from The Script is very strongly rejected. (Partly to prevent further “disruption” and partly to show the “marks” that discipline is rewarded and deviance is punished.) Now, I have no way of knowing if this is a fair description of their actual motives; all I can do is say what I experienced and what it looked like to me as an outsider.
If you are reasonable “fodder” for the mill, the post gets through. If you are an irritant in any way to any degree that threatens the indoctrination process, your post is deleted, often with derision. I bailed within a couple of days and went on to other sites, eventually landing here.
Why I love it here:
1) I can ask a question and see both sides. No propaganda filter.
2) I can post links to things that can then be either shot down or explained.
3) The folks here have clue, and know how to use it. There is an atmosphere of ‘learning together’ that is now, sadly, missing from many college campuses.
4) The depth of understanding is great, including the depth of understanding of what we do not understand. One of my basic steps it to outline the limits of understanding. When someone says “It is settled and All Is Known” my BS-O-Meter pegs high / red …
5) The sporadic playfulness and humor. The OT sporadic richness of the experience
6) The generally polite and professional ambiance.
100% of those things are missing elsewhere…

pkatt
June 6, 2009 3:04 pm

Ive never been to the other site.. seems to me by going there and even reading you become a hit on their total number of visits. Personally I dont want to be a source of funding for them especially if they are one sided. If you write a blog and no one comes to read it, wouldnt you think about changing it? Well thats just my way of dealing with them. I do the same with news agencys like papers and news stations. The bottom line in all of this is money, not science for them… let THEM eat cake:P

Klausb
June 6, 2009 3:08 pm

E.M.Smith (14:31:06)
Dear E.M.
unfortunately, that’s was wikipedia did become – hypepedia – and purge what’s
inconvenient. And it’s increasing by the year.
I even had to notice that they totally erased some items I wrote about
five years on the Maxwell equasion s- complex equasions vs. quaternion equasions.
Hence, originally Maxwell did write his equasions in the quaternion algebra.
Most of the stuff I wrote is simply gone.

June 6, 2009 3:11 pm

Glenncz: You wrote, “This paper goes into further detail about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and what happened in 1976.”
Also investigate the Pacific Climate Shift of 1976. Here an early post of mine that illustrated the basin-wide and sub-basin shifts in the Pacific in 1976.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/10/1976-pacific-climate-shift.html
There are also a number of papers on the subject.

Bruce Foutch
June 6, 2009 3:21 pm

Sorry, this is OT. Didn’t see a current thread where it fit.
June 3rd – “Bituminous coal is now West Virginia’s official state rock”
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200906030410
Way to go West Virginia and Gov. Joe Manchin!
I wonder if Gov. Joe Manchin and other state governors are brushing up on state nullification rights when it comes to Federal cap-and trade regulations.

June 6, 2009 3:25 pm

pkatt (15:04:07) :

I’ve never been to the other site [realclimate]. seems to me by going there and even reading you become a hit on their total number of visits. Personally I don’t want to be a source of funding for them especially if they are one sided…

Agree completely. RealClimate is thoroughly dishonest.
I wouldn’t give them the parsley off my fish.

Robert Wood
June 6, 2009 3:34 pm

Basil @14:05:47,
Some graphs display data, some, like this one, display information.

Robert Wood
June 6, 2009 3:44 pm

E.M.Smith @14:56:05,
Agreed. I have had many preconceptions disabused right here, not by the AGWERS. Your discription of this site as being a place of ‘learning together’ is quite on the spot.
Now, onto another pet issue:
I find there is a lack of reliable albedo tracking; it appears that the Moonshine Project is showing up some interesting stuff. Can we lobby NASA, in any way, to put up an Albedo Monitoring satellite.
Perhaps Canada could do it; I’ll check. It is a good science project; maybe some high school could get an experiment onto the space station.

JamesA
June 6, 2009 3:44 pm

I visited the site Climate Progress for the first time and they seem very fond of acting like they never make any ad hominem attacks, while doing just that about this site and other “deniers” in the very article itself. Pure hypocrisy. Sure there are some on this site from time to time, but certainly not by the authors or moderators as seems so common on their blog. Typical of their movement, may cooler times bring an end to all of this.

Alan D. McIntire
June 6, 2009 3:58 pm

Regarding changes in the moist adiabetic lapse rate with temperature, here are a couple of free online programs you all
might find interesting:
Two Lifting Condensation Level calculators
http://www.csgnetwork.com/lclcalc.html
http://www.shodor.org/metweb/session3/lcl1calc.html
and a humidity calculator
http://www.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/vaisala_humidity_calculator.html?lang=eng

hunter
June 6, 2009 3:58 pm

Jame Allison,
I was one of the ones threatened over at climate progress or the accuweather blog- I cannot remember which, nor do I care.
The only other time I was ever threatened on line was by the late, unlamented, William Cooper, a conspiracy nut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper
I enjoyed flaming him online back in the early days of internet communications. Busting him was not really different from dealing with the AGW true believers of today.
I am still here, and still busting popular myths at every opportunity. From UFOologists, to basically any sort of apocalyptic belief system, to conspiracy wack jobs of any sort.
They are all about the same. And there is always a true believer who, when the meme of the moment starts falling apart, resorts to threats.
I laughed at Cooper. I see much in common between him and Gore, except Gore and the rest of the AGW promoters have a better vocabulary.

stumpy
June 6, 2009 4:04 pm

Joe Romm is also having a dig at Pielke Sr now aswell, Pielke Sr reponds below:
http://climatesci.org/2009/06/05/comment-on-joe-romms-weblog-on-el-nino-and-global-warming/
Apparently the next El Nino will demonstrate anthropogenic global warming continues making this decade the warmest on record, forgetting that El Nino is a natural internal variation unrelated to Co2 levels.

Mike Bryant
June 6, 2009 4:18 pm

Hunter,
“I was one of the ones threatened over at climate progress or the accuweather blog- I cannot remember which, nor do I care.”
But have you been accused of mass murder, then threatened with the death penalty and then invited to a picnic all in the same breath? I am exaggerating but not much…
Mike Bryant

June 6, 2009 4:32 pm

[snip]

DaveF
June 6, 2009 4:35 pm

E. M. Smith:
Same reasons why I, as a layman, follow this site. I wasn’t impressed with Climate Progress at all. I always think that if your argument is any good you wouldn’t need to be quite so murderous towards your opponent. Now can you (or anyone) enlighten me as to how (or if) water vapour acts as a “greenhouse gas”? Does it absorb Infra-red, or prevent warm air rising? If it’s the latter it wouldn’t add to the atmosphere’s total warmth at all, would it? Or am I being incredibly silly here?

kim
June 6, 2009 4:40 pm

Dave F. 16:35:91
You are not being the least bit silly. That is a good question for a newbie, one who I notice understands the morbid rhetoric at Climate Progress. CO2 acts by absorbing infrared that would otherwise be radiated to space. Were it to act to halt convection it would be acting as the glass in greenhouses does, but this gaseous greenhouse phenomenon is all about the absorption of rays and energy.
=========================================

RoyFOMR
June 6, 2009 4:47 pm

ubuntu-various star-dates
A Googlong produced this:
Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers
Further research came up with this:
“Ubuntu” – in the WUWT context (What’s Up with Trolls) was close but replaced community, laptops and servers with “hockey-team”, “lapdogs” and “self-servers”
Am I romm?

DaveF
June 6, 2009 4:56 pm

Thanks, Kim – but I was askimg about water vapour, not CO2.

June 6, 2009 5:08 pm

Thanks Bob T and Basil. I’d always felt the recent Arctic warming must be a delayed effect – had to be the big El Nino.
Like others inspired by a disturbing reference, I too visited Romm’s blog for the first time today. I was gasping for air.. it seems he accuses the skeptics of precisely the things of which he himself is most guilty. Very little science, very much rudeness. His update maintains that Watts has said he agrees with anyone not deleted after three hours when clearly this is not the case! it’s those who are rude, thoughtless and unpleasant who get stopped. And that’s what makes this blog good, and opens the way for real science, and makes that blog worthless, to me. Funny thing is, Romm could practice courtesy too, and get satisfaction as well as real science.

kim
June 6, 2009 5:23 pm

DaveF. 16:56:35
Oh, I see. Yes, water vapor also absorbs infrared, and re-emits some of it, but water vapor, when it clouds up, works its magic on visible light, too.
======================================

DaveF
June 6, 2009 5:39 pm

Thanks, Kim.

June 6, 2009 5:46 pm

Robert Wood (15:44:17) :
E.M.Smith @14:56:05,
I find there is a lack of reliable albedo tracking; it appears that the Moonshine Project is showing up some interesting stuff. Can we lobby NASA, in any way, to put up an Albedo Monitoring satellite.
Perhaps Canada could do it; I’ll check. It is a good science project; maybe some high school could get an experiment onto the space station.

The satellite has been designed and built to do this however it was mothballed by the Bush administration in 2001. Rumor has it that Cheney was responsible which given the reluctance of anyone in NASA to talk about DSCOVR seems plausible. It’s a pity since we could have about 8 years of data by now.