Guest post by Erl Happ

What follows is a general theory of natural climate variation supported by observation of the changing temperature of the atmosphere and the sea between 1948 and September 2009. This work suggests that strong warming after 1978 is an entirely natural phenomenon.
Imagine a small planet about the size of the Earth orbiting a sun just like our own. The planet has an atmosphere composed of nitrogen (76%), oxygen (23%) and trace gases (1%) of which argon makes up half of that one percent.
Let us further imagine that the sun bombards the Earth with radiation so energetic as to destroy the integrity of nitrogen and oxygen in the planet’s upper atmosphere. The region where this occurs may be called the ‘ionosphere’. When superheated at the highest elevations it can be known as the ‘thermosphere’. The electrically unbalanced particles of the ionosphere possess negative or a positive polarity. Like iron filings scattered across a piece of paper atop a magnetized iron bar, atmospheric ions orient themselves according to the lines of the planets magnetic field. Rotating with the planet, the ionosphere is a place of constant flux. Particles are energized on the dayside and dragged into a long tail on the night-side by the pressure of the solar wind, a highly magnetized stream of helium and hydrogen emanating from the sun. There is an exchange of energy between the wind and the ionosphere and particles are accelerated in one direction or the other and re-distributed according to the tension imposed by the constantly changing electromagnetic medium.
As ionized particles radiate energy and cool they will join up with particles of opposite polarity. The junction of one with the other moves the union closer to a ‘neutral’ state. The orgy of irradiation, excitement, and reorientation, begins anew each day as the sun appears above the horizon. Recombination occurs mainly at night.
Nitrogen requires the most energetic short wave radiation to achieve the ionic state. This energy is available at a higher altitude. Oxygen ions are scarce at altitudes where nitrogen ions are formed because when the music stops, ions of nitrogen grab oxygen partners just as happily as nitrogen partners and there are many more nitrogen partners than oxygen partners.
Where free oxygen ions exist, they do so at a lower level where there is insufficient very short wave radiation to ionize nitrogen.
So, we have two regions of an ionosphere, the lower oxygen rich and the upper oxygen poor and nitrogen rich, ‘ionically’ speaking.
Ions of oxygen will hold hands in groups of three in a molecule called ozone. Although this happens only to a limited extent, it nevertheless creates an ozone rich layer. We call it the stratosphere.
The cumbersome ozone molecule has an ability to trap the relatively long wave radiation of the planet and also some radiation from the sun at the long end of the short wave spectrum. Consequently this ozone rich layer is warmer than the atmosphere above and below it.
The depth of the atmosphere beneath the ozone rich layer is, in the context of the size of the earth, hardly skin deep (only 10Km at mid latitudes and 15Km at the equator) but nevertheless sufficient to effectively cool the Earth. In dry air the lapse rate is 10°C per kilometer. The upper troposphere is very much colder than the surface of the planet. So we must (reluctantly perhaps) conclude that the atmosphere is a very effective vent for surface heat.
Though about three quarters of the atmosphere is below the stratosphere and free of the influence of an electromagnetic field, the remaining portion of the atmosphere is very much under its influence. That part is much more than half of one percent, the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The tropical troposphere tends to lose energy by decompression associated with uplift whereas the subtropical latitudes is a place of descending, compressing air where long wave radiation is the chief means of energy removal. Where decompression is vigorous, the upper troposphere cools to minus 85°C. Elsewhere it reaches a temperature of about minus 55°C. As the equatorial region has warmed the quantum of long wave radiation from the near equatorial zone has diminished while in the subtropics where the air is descending, it has increased.
The surface of the planet is 70% water and the atmosphere near the surface is water vapor rich. Because the air at 1000 meters elevation is already between 6 and 10°C cooler than the surface, clouds of moisture form in rising air. At an elevation of two to four kilometers condensing moisture forms, not water droplets, but ice crystals of many and varied patterns and considerable surface area. Ice crystals populate the atmosphere at a density so low as to make them virtually invisible. But, the ice crystal zone stretches from about 2km to 25km in elevation and it is therefore very much deeper and potentially more reflective than the water droplet zone.
Sensibly therefore, we might expect the temperature at the surface of the planet to relate strongly to the extent of ice crystal formation. Since the upper atmosphere tends to have much the same level of moisture all the time, the population of ice crystals varies inversely with air temperature.
How could the temperature of the ice cloud region change?
The concentration of ozone in the stratosphere and upper troposphere depends upon the rate of mixing of oxygen hungry, mesospheric nitrogen ions into the stratosphere. Where does this mixing occur?
Most of the land is in the northern hemisphere but there is none at the northern pole. Strangely there is a massive landmass at the southern pole. Here the surface is very cold all the year round and particularly so in winter.
The temperature of the Antarctic ice mound is always below the freezing point of water. Any precipitation that falls upon it is trapped. Ice surface area doubles in winter by virtue of the freezing of the sea on its margin. A downdraft is present at all times and it is particularly powerful in winter.
The circulation of the atmosphere is driven by differences in surface temperature and the release of latent heat giving rise to columns of rising air particularly over the tropical rain forests. Air descends over the cold oceans in the subtropics and also over the Polar Regions especially in their winter season when the pole is dark and the surface is at its coldest.
The column of descending air over the Antarctic continent stretches into the mesosphere.
Because nitrogen from the mesosphere enters the stratosphere primarily over the Antarctic continent there is less ozone in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere. But when the downward flow of air within the vortex stalls, ozone builds up throughout the stratosphere and to a more limited but very influential extent in the upper troposphere. The mixing rate of ozone into the upper troposphere varies with latitude.
As the ozone content of the ice cloud region rises, so does its temperature. This depletes ice cloud allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface.
Can a reorientation in the direction, mass density or speed of the ‘solar wind’ or perhaps a change in the intensity of ionizing radiation or a change in the Earth’s magnetic field or a mix of all three shift air from high to low latitudes, lowering surface pressure there and raising it somewhere else? Unambiguously, the answer is yes. There is no process internal to the Earth itself that could account for this shift in the atmosphere. It depends wholly upon the magnetic fields in the ionosphere and the exchange of energy between the solar wind and the ionized atmsophere. So, the distribution of the atmosphere by latitude is determined by the sun and the earth together.
Figure 1 shows the loss of atmospheric pressure at 70-90° south latitude after 1948. Most of the depletion occurred before 1976. However, the forces that created this changed state have continued to maintain it. Not only can the atmosphere move, it can be held in position by the electromagnetic force and it will stay in place until that force relaxes.
Figure 1
Change in surface atmsopheric pressure
Where and when did surface pressure change?
Figure 2 compares the period of global warming after 1977 to the period of relatively stable or cooling temperature prior to 1977. After 1977 we see much lower pressure in winter and spring with the loss of pressure increasing with latitude between 40° and 90° south latitude.
Between the equator and 30° south latitude surface atmospheric pressure has increased. At 40-50° south, which may be a transition zone, surface pressure increased in summer and fell in winter with greatest loss in September. Very similar dynamics manifest at 30-40° south but by and large this latitude has been once of increasing atmospheric pressure.
Figure 2

Looking now at the northern hemisphere as represented in figure 3, we observe a loss of pressure in the winter months at high latitudes with losses also in June, August and September. However, the loss of pressure is no more than 1mb, much less than in the southern hemisphere where pressure fell by 2 to 8mb south of 50° south latitude.
After 1977 atmospheric pressure increased in mid year between the equator and 50° north latitude. There is obviously a tendency for pressure to increase at high latitudes in the northern summer at the same time as pressure falls in the southern hemisphere. This represents an atmospheric shift from high latitudes of the southern hemisphere into the entirety of the northern hemisphere in northern summer. This should tend to increase northern vortex activity in the wing months of the northern winter.
Peak months for loss of pressure in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere are November through to February. At this time pressure rises at 40-50° south latitude (aqua line in figure 2). This represents an atmospheric shift from the northern to the southern hemisphere in northern winter. However, there is another contributing factor. It is probable that the Arctic vortex suffers from competitive downdraft activity over the very cold Siberian and North American land masses. It is noticeable that pressure loss in midwinter is greater at 60-70°N (olive green) than at 80-90°N (red).
The ‘Arctic Oscillation Index’ records change in the relationship between surface pressure close to the northern pole and that at mid latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Change in the index goes along with change in the nature of western European weather. It is apparent that there are complex influences driving the Arctic Oscillation and paradoxically the most important of these influences is the state of the competing downdrafts over Antarctica, continental Asia and North America. But in physical terms, the real driving force is electromagnetic.
Figure 3

The relationship between pressure and surface temperature in the tropics
Figure 4 shows the relationship between atmospheric pressure near the equator and sea surface temperature at 20° north to 20° south globally. Warming of the tropics goes hand in hand with increased surface atmospheric pressure. This is a key understanding. It is counter-intuitive because hot air is less dense and will rise in the middle of a low pressure area. But here we have hot air under increased pressure. We are accustomed to observing high pressure air that is associated with subsidence and cloud free skies in the subtropics. This is different. This pressure regime is determined by a shift in the atmosphere from high to low latitudes.
The relationship between these variables is mediated by the change in atmospheric moisture levels. An illustration of this relationship is the failure of the tropics to warm when pressure increased in the year 1999-2000. The precipitation event that followed the marked increase in atmospheric moisture during the El Nino event of 1997-8 created its own momentum (increased atmospheric moisture and cloud cover) and overwhelmed the possibility of a response to the increase in pressure a year later, itself a response to electromagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere. If one appreciates this, we can dispense with the usual statistical tests, proceeding according to logic and the eye. Many a baby has been thrown out with the bathwater after the application of an inappropriate statistical test.
Figure 4

We know that El Nino activity in the Pacific is accompanied by a slackening of the Trades as the pressure difference between the south east Pacific (high pressure) and Indonesia (low pressure) falls away. Figure 5shows that, when pressure rises in the Indonesian region, it falls very strongly in the waters off the coast of Chile. The weakening of the trade winds is a marker for El Nino activity in the Pacific. The change in pressure relations driving the trade winds is due to the movement of the atmosphere. That movement has its origin in electromagnetic activity in the upper atmosphere.
A glance at figure 5 reveals that the globe cools when surface atmospheric pressure in the Indonesian region falls below its long term mean. There is much greater activity in terms of pressure change in the waters off Chile than in the Indonesian theatre. Change in Chilean waters appears to precede change in Indonesia.
A shift in the atmosphere from high to low latitudes increases pressure at 30-40° south latitude. However, in the waters off Chile, we see a loss of pressure as pressure builds at the equator and this is particularly noticeable in March and September when geomagnetic activity peaks due to the favorable orientation of the Earth to the sun at the equinoxes. Surface pressure off Chile at 30-40° south behaves atypically for the latitude. It moves with polar pressure rather than low latitude pressure. This makes the Pacific particularly susceptible to influence from shifts in the atmosphere.
Figure 5

Figure 6 shows that when atmospheric pressure falls off Chile (in figure 6 pressure is inverted so that a rise in the pressure line actually represents falling pressure) sea surface temperature in the intake region for Nino 1 and Nino 2 warms. An increase in the temperature of tropical waters follows as a matter of course. The thing that controls the atmospheric pressure controls the temperature of tropical waters and ultimately the globe. That ‘thing’ is the electromagnetic force in the upper atmosphere. The change in surface temperature is due to a change in the ratio between radiation received at the limits of the atmosphere (almost a constant) and radiation reflected by ice crystals. Variation in reflection is responsible for change in the intensity of radiation received at the surface.
Figure 6

The temperature of the polar stratosphere increases at the time of the year when atmospheric pressure falls.
Figure 7 indicates a marked increase in stratospheric temperature at 10hPa post 1977 that is coincident with the fall in atmospheric pressure illustrated in figure 2.
There can be no shadow of doubt that the increase in the temperature of the upper stratosphere over Antarctica is associated with falling atmospheric pressure, the collapse of the vortex and a diminution of the flow of mesospheric nitrogen ions into the stratosphere. This allows an increase in ozone concentration which accounts for the increase in temperature both in the stratosphere and at the surface.
Ozone absorbs long wave radiation from the earth and UVB from the sun and this energy is rapidly transmitted to adjacent molecules. The upper atmosphere warms and as ice crystal population falls in southern winter and spring, the temperature of the sea increases in the intake zones for the equatorial currents. In the Pacific this is called El Nino. The conventional explanation of this warming is at odds with reality. Most of the warming activity occurs outside the tropics. It is most pronounced in late winter and spring in the southern hemisphere and it is patently a phenomenon that shows up with greater intensity after the climate shift of 1978. Indeed, the increased frequency and intensity of southern hemisphere warming in spring lies at the heart of the warming of the globe after 1978.
Figure 7

Figure 8 shows that the warming of the northern stratosphere at 10hpa in the middle of northern winter is insignificant if compared to the warming of the southern stratosphere. Stratospheric warming and cooling is just as lopsided as the distribution of the land between the hemispheres.
Some observers attribute sudden stratospheric warming in the polar night to ‘planetary waves’. But planetary waves are more evident in the northern than the southern hemisphere. These observers maintain that the Earthly climate system is free of external influences. Copernicus feared the response of the keepers of the conventional wisdom when he suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system rather than the Earth. He kept his opinions to himself until his theories were published close to his death in 1543. Galileo supported the Copernican viewpoint in a forthright fashion in 1632, was tried by his peers in the ‘Inquisition’ and spent the rest of his life in detention. Geo-centrism is alive and well to this day and it thrives in the field of climate science. Trial by ones peers can be a harrowing affair. As Galileo would no doubt observe, if he were here to tell us: ‘Most of them are a bunch of ignorant ******.
Figure 8

The extent of warming of the polar stratosphere in winter increases with elevation
Figure 9 reveals that temperature gain in the Antarctic stratosphere after 1977 increases with elevation. This is in conformity with the notion that a mesospheric influence on stratospheric ozone is the driver of stratospheric temperature at the poles and it acts via a variation in vortex activity brought on by change in the weight of the atmospheric column as expressed in changing surface pressure.
Figure 9

Figure 10, relating to the northern hemisphere shows temperature gain increasing with altitude as is the case in the southern hemisphere. Peak temperature gain is in February when surface pressure loss after 1977 is maximal (see figure 3).
Figure 10

Figure 11 shows the relationship between surface atmospheric pressure in the tropics and the aa index of geomagnetic activity. Anomalies are calculated with respect to mean monthly data for the period 1948-2009. The trend lines are third order polynomials selected for best fit. It appears that this cycle may be about 80 years from trough to trough. A cycle of about this length has been called the Gleissburg cycle. The currently falling pressure at the equator heralds cooling. A simple projection of trend indicates perhaps thirty years of cooling ahead.
In considering figure 11 one must bear in mind that the atmosphere must first be ionized before it comes under the influence of the solar wind. We know little about the cycles in very short wave ionizing radiation. Nor, it seems do we know much about the driving force behind the change in the Earth’s magnetic field. The electromagnetic movement of the atmosphere is a multi-factorial phenomenon. Figure 11 deals with a single contributing factor and compares its oscillation with surface pressure near the equator. The field of change is much wider than the equator. The dynamics of pressure change are driven by many factors including the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the distribution of the land and the sea, the variation in the temperature of the sea at the same latitude, variations in the magnetic emanations from the Sun and variations in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field from place to place. At times surface pressure at both poles moves in the same direction and at other times pressure increases at one pole and decreases at the other. The atmosphere behaves quite differently when the earth is warm to when it is cool. The pressure systems move at quite different latitudes along with the jet stream.
Accordingly, one cannot say that geomagnetic activity drives surface temperature. It contributes as one element of a complex matrix in a constantly changing climate system. Do the climate modelers realize this?
Figure 11

Figure 12 is astonishing in its symmetry. Prior to 1977 peak anomalies in 30hpa temperature at 80-90°S latitude occurred in April-May. After 1977 peak anomalies occur in October. After 1977 October anomalies are as strongly positive as they were negative prior to 1977. This change relates directly to the warming of the southern oceans in southern winter-spring that is expressed in El Nino activity in the Pacific. But the Pacific is only one of the theatres of action in the global tropics. All theatres of action are affected by change in atmospheric pressure in Antarctica.
Figure 12

Figure 13 shows 30hpa temperature anomalies at 80-90°north in the Arctic. Again the symmetry is astonishing. Let there be no mistake. Here is evidence that the climate system is alternating between two very different modes of activity. One is a cooling mode and the other a warming mode. Temperature anomalies are positive only for a period of time, and they move to the negative. When October anomalies are positive in Antarctica they are negative in the Arctic and vice versa.
Figure 13

Consequences of the warming mode of 1977-2009 for the temperature in the ice cloud zone of the upper troposphere
Figure 14 shows the character of the warming mode that prevailed after 1977 in the northern upper troposphere at 200hPa. There is sufficient ozone at this level for temperature to be driven by vortex phenomena rather than surface phenomena. At 200hPa, temperature change seems to be an amplified version of what happens at the surface. Of course this is nonsense. Changes at the surface reflect in miniature the more exaggerated and independently determined change that occurs above. But I diverge, and must return to the narrative.
In relation to the northern hemisphere: After 1977, at latitudes greater than 50° north, the upper troposphere warmed slightly in summer between June and November but is actually cooler during the winter months. At low latitudes the troposphere is warmer all year but particularly so in northern winter. I hope some greenhouse theorists read this. Perhaps they can explain how the upper troposphere can warm when outgoing long wave radiation is at its annual minimum.
Figure 14

Figure 15 illustrates the dramatic influence of the warm mode on temperature in the southern hemisphere upper troposphere. Strong warming occurs between 20 and 70° south latitude. Peak warming occurs about the time of the equinoxes when the coupling of the solar wind with the Earth’s atmosphere is strongest.
When the polar vortex stalls, it allows ozone levels to rise at high altitudes above the pole. A strong peak in 200hpa temperature occurs in September at 80-90° south latitude and this peak appears at mid latitudes within a month, testifying to the speedy rate of mixing of ozone into the upper troposphere at 200hpa.
Figure 15

Surface temperature follows the lead of the stratosphere via change in ice cloud density
Figure 16 shows the relationship between the 20hpa temperature anomaly at 10° north to 10° south latitude on the one hand and sea surface temperature in the in-feed zone in the south east Pacific near Chile on the other. The obvious way that the stratosphere and upper troposphere can affect surface temperature is via change in ice cloud density affecting the reflectivity of the atmosphere. An increase in temperature reduces ice cloud density allowing more radiation to reach the surface.
High amplitude variation in 20hPa temperature is seen between 1950 and 1976 when geomagnetic activity, stratospheric and surface temperature was depressed. This phenomenon might be interpreted this way: When stratospheric temperature is low due to low ozone content (high surface pressure at the pole and strong vortex) a small reduction in the inflow of nitrogen ions from the mesosphere can produce a large change in ozone and 20hpa temperature. The law of diminishing returns applies. In periods where ozone levels are already high (low atmospheric pressure and collapsed vortex), the extent of change in 20hpa temperature from further collapse in the vortex is small.
After the year 2000 the flux in 20hpa temperature is large as it was during the cooling period prior to 1977.
Sea surface temperature in the south east Pacific follows 20hpa temperature with more fidelity and vigour after 1978 when change in southern hemisphere 200hpa temperature became the dominant mode of ENSO variation. Patently, the heating trend between 1977 and 2000 is due to a marked increase in the temperature of the ice cloud zone.
Figure 16

Figure 17 shows the relationship between 200 hPa (upper troposphere ice cloud zone) temperature and sea surface temperature at 40-50° north.
When the upper troposphere warms strongly, relative humidity must fall and the surface temperature response to high amplitude change in upper troposphere temperature then lacks coherence and vigour. Compare the cooling period after 1998 with the warming period ten years earlier. This observation suggests there is little increase in atmospheric moisture content as the troposphere warms. Moisture content, if it increases at all, lags the temperature increase. There is no amplifier here for a greenhouse effect.
Figure 17

Figure 18 shows the increase in surface pressure that accompanies warming at 40-50° north latitude. The increase in pressure relates to falling pressure at the poles and an increase in the temperature of the stratosphere as ozone content builds.
Figure 18

Figure 19 shows the repeating pattern of positive anomalies in 20hpa temperature in southern spring at 70-90° south and the frequent symmetry in the rise in sea surface temperature at 40-50° north. The relationship between these two variables will never be absolutely deterministic because of the other influences that impinge. Firstly, there is the independent activity in the northern vortex as it becomes more or less active leading into northern winter. Secondly, the flux in high altitude specific humidity determines the response rate. Thirdly, the atmosphere is never homogeneous consisting as it does of a series of traveling pressure cells responding to forces that move them as a band either towards or away from the poles.
Repeating positive anomalies in southern spring is the essence of the change that occurred in the climate system after 1978. When these anomalies disappear, the earth will cool. This can only happen as the atmospheric shift away from Antarctica goes into reverse.
Figure 19

There is great interest in the driver of sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. Enormous store is put in the notion that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is capable of influencing global temperatures and potentially reversing the trend in global warming. However, the actual forces determining sea surface and global temperature lie in the upper atmosphere rather than in the oceans themselves. There is no mystery as to where warm water appears or does not appear. It is always at the surface and it is always dissipating into the atmosphere via evaporative transfer, surface contact and radiation. There is only one thing that can warm the surface of the sea on a large scale and that is solar radiation.
The temperature of the southern stratosphere increased much more than the northern stratosphere after 1977
In line with the dominance of the southern vortex in determining stratospheric temperature we would expect a strong increase in temperature in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere over the period of study. Figure 20 shows a 12 month moving average of 30hpa temperature in selected latitude bands of the southern hemisphere. It is apparent that the last great rise in 30hpa temperature at 80-90° south occurred just prior to the climate shift of 1978. Can planetary wave theorists explain this warming of the stratosphere above Antarctica at this time?
What theory explains why the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere have warmed so strongly while in low latitudes the stratosphere has cooled? Changes in gas composition will not suffice. Planetary waves will not suffice.
As the atmosphere shifts to mid and low latitudes the zone of heaviest ozone concentration in the stratosphere moves a little further away from the earth. This produces cooling. There has been a continuous fall in 30hpa temperature at 0-10° south latitude over the period. This may be due in part to the reduction in outgoing long wave radiation as cooling via decompression has become more important close to the equator. But, between 20° and 40° south the cooling of the stratosphere is likely related to the local thickening of the atmosphere.
Figure 20

Figure 21 shows that, as the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere has ‘thickened’, due to the atmospheric shift, 30hpa temperature has declined slightly at all latitudes. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gas activity in the troposphere. Greenhouse theorists who maintain that the stratosphere cools while the troposphere increases in temperature may care to comment on the rise in the temperature of the rctic stratosphere between 1948 and 1978!
Figure 21

Two climate modes
“Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. The sun is much too sultry and one must avoid its ultry violet rays”. Noel Coward 1932.
Perhaps Noel Coward’s observation is particularly pertinent in the southern hemispherewhere there is less ozone to absorb UVB. During the warming mode, protective ice crystals evaporate, allowing the surface to warm. Most of the warming activity post 1978 has been in the southern hemisphere in late winter and spring. This warming activity is plainly driven by shifts in atmospheric pressure affecting vortex activity.
The warming mode:
- There is a shift of the atmosphere from the poles towards mid and low latitudes under electromagnetic forcing of ionized air.
- Weakening of the polar vortexes curtails the flow of ionized nitrogen into the upper stratosphere allowing the survival of oxygen ions and increased ozone formation.
- Intermixing of ozone into the upper troposphere raises temperature in the ice cloud zone. Ice crystals evaporate.
- More solar radiation reaches the surface which warms.
- In the southern hemisphere 200hpa temperature rises much more than in the northern hemisphere exhibiting strong equinoctial maxima.
- Peak anomalies in stratospheric temperature occur in September-October rather than March.
- A southern spring deficit in ice cloud density promotes warming across all southern latitudes which promotes the El Nino pattern of sea surface temperature at the equator.
The Cooling Mode
- Surface atmospheric pressure increases at the poles as the electromagnetic force in the ionosphere/thermosphere relaxes. This happens at solar minimum as the quantum of ionizing radiation falls to its lowest levels. It also tends to happen at solar maximum as the suns magnetic polarity reverses and magnetic fields emanating from the sun tend to be self cancelling. The manifestation in the Pacific Ocean is La Nina cooling.
- Strengthening of the polar vortexes introduces ionized nitrogen into the stratosphere reducing the population of oxygen ions and ozone.
- A loss of ozone in the ice cloud zone reduces temperature enhancing the formation of reflective ice crystals.
- Less solar radiation reaches the surface which cools.
- A generally low ozone level in the stratosphere results in high amplitude change in stratospheric temperature during the ENSO cycle. This is expressed in high amplitude variation in 20hpa temperature at the equator. At the surface the swing from El Nino warming to La Nina cooling is more violent and extreme.
- Change is more extreme in the southern hemisphere where the polar vortex is generally cooler especially at the highest altitudes. In the cool mode stratospheric temperature exhibits a March maximum probably in line with enhancement of orbital rather than geomagnetic influences on stratospheric temperature. The earth is closest to the sun in January.
- A cooler stratosphere and upper troposphere in southern spring promotes ice cloud formation reducing the flux of solar radiation to the surface establishing a La Nina dominant regime in the Pacific Ocean.
The pattern of change from the cool to the warm mode and back again is well expressed in figure 22 showing the pattern of change of the (Darwin –Tahiti) Southern Oscillation Index when compartmentalized according to solar cycle time intervals. A fall in this index represents warming. A dramatic fall in the index occurred about 1978. With the end of solar cycle 23 the globe is emerging from the strongest period of warming in the period of the instrumental record. The Southern Oscillation Index, based on barometric pressure, is not affected by the distortions present in the temperature record.
Figure 22

The smoking gun for natural climate variation is an increase in the temperature of the southern stratosphere and troposphere increasing with latitude all the way to the southern pole with a marked variation in southern hemisphere temperature in winter/spring between cool and warm episodes. This determines the strength of El Nino warming events across the tropics.
The smoking gun for greenhouse effects should be a generalized warming at all latitudes without any marked seasonal bias. If there were to be a seasonal bias it should be present as an increase in temperature above the norm when outgoing long wave radiation is maximal in the summer season. There should be no great difference between the hemispheres. That is far from what is actually observed. The evidence suggests that natural variation rather than anthropogenic influences drives climate change.
Conclusion
Between 1948 and 1976 the tropics and the globe as a whole was fairly stable in temperature with obvious cooling discernable in the decade prior to 1976. From 1977 through to 2000 the tropics and the globe warmed. By comparing data from the earlier period with that for the later period one can discern change in the atmosphere that resulted in more solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth causing it to warm.
Atmospheric conditions in the near earth environment are strongly influenced by the sun. The observed warming of the last decades of the twentieth century can be attributed to natural influences. There is no evidence of any warming signature due to the increased presence of so called ‘greenhouses gases’. It is suggested that the greenhouse hypothesis takes little cognizance of the manner in which the atmosphere actually functions. The atmosphere cools the planet but a change in its temperature causes a change in ice crystal density and the quantum of radiation reaching the surface.
Climatic models suggest that any greenhouse effect should be strongest in the tropical upper troposphere where water vapor is in higher concentration. In point of fact warming of the upper troposphere at the equator is less likely as the globe warms because the quantum of outgoing radiation diminishes as convection and de-compressive cooling is enhanced. It is in the subtropics that outgoing long wave radiation increases and in particular in the high pressure cells where the air is descending and warming and the sky tends to be cloud -free both in terms of liquid and ice crystal density. A water vapor feedback mechanism would require an increase in specific humidity levels in these high pressure areas. The reverse is observed. If a greenhouse effect were present it would be unamplified and tiny. Any warming tendency in these areas is more likely to be due to a loss of ice cloud density than a greenhouse effect.
If the Earth enters a period of cooling, as it has since 1998, it suggests that the natural factor is pre-eminent. If there is a strong relationship between ice cloud density and surface temperature it confirms the point that moisture in the upper troposphere cools rather than warms the planet and the basis of the greenhouse feedback mechanism is negated. Without a water vapor amplifier a change in so called ‘greenhouse gas’ levels can have little or no effect upon surface temperature.
If we can rid ourselves of the foolish mantra that surface temperature is governed by so called greenhouse gas, much unnecessary pain can be avoided. We are threatened by zealous governments keen to interfere in markets, raise taxation and redistribute incomes. The absurd notion that carbon is a pollutant is daily promoted. ‘Will of the wisp’ schemes to generate renewable energy burden the public purse. Nothing is to be gained by these stratagems. Innovation has its own rewards and investment in all forms of innovation is already well enough subsidized and feverishly exploited. Man needs no urging to innovate and will do so quite happily in the absence of artificially inflated monetary incentives. The introduction of market distorting incentives and disincentives destroys rather than creates wealth. This is the tool of the central planner, the social activist, the miscreant.
Distraction and absurdity are our unhappy lot, parading as morality and virtue. Snake oil salesmen multiply by the minute. These are unfortunate times.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The authority of ‘Science’ and the United Nations organization has been subverted to the activists cause. This is a sorry time for mankind. It is a time when belief is substituted for science and the two are irretrievably tangled and confused.
DATA
The data used in this study can be downloaded from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
As I understand it the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis project uses a computer model to cross check the validity of data from many sources with the aim of representing the surface and the atmosphere of the entire globe. Data for one atmospheric parameter is related to other parameters that vary together in a known fashion. When a temperature recording station shifts site there is a discontinuity in the data. The reanalysis project is designed to overcome this sort of problem. This dataset is particularly valuable for research on climate change.
The sea surface data from the NCEP/NCAR dataset exhibits much greater variability than other datasets. The NCEP/NCAR data reflecs skin temperatures that respond to atmospheric change. Winter minima are lower while summer maxima are similar. Change is faster in the skin data with earlier seasonal maxima and minima. Sea surface temperature data incorporates ice and land surface temperature at high latitudes.
I understand that satellite derived sea surface temperature data for areas beyond about 60° latitude requires an adjustment for the extent of floating ice. Some SST datasets do not extend to higher latitudes. Because the NCEP/NCAR dataset provides skin temperature it covers all latitudes.
Some sources of SST data relate more to a near surface rather than a skin temperature reflecting the origin of data in the measurement of water temperature from engine intake, bucket or floating buoy. This is not the case with the NCEP/NCAR dataset.
Wow. High pressure = less moisture = less ice crystals = more TSI reaching Earth.
Low pressure= more moisture = more ice crystals = less TSI reacing Earth.
Upper Atmospheric changes are top dog in the climate food chain. They don’t obey greenhouse gas laws, they obey ionization processes.
We don’t need no stinking S02 injections to save the Planet.
We are going to need all the energy sources we can get to cope with the opposite end of the sine that was the Modern Maximum. Looks like that Maximum was hot, heavy and short-lived.
Brrrrr.
Erl Happ “If one appreciates this, we can dispense with the usual statistical tests, proceeding according to logic and the eye. Many a baby has been thrown out with the bathwater after the application of an inappropriate statistical test.”
Wise words of profound significance.
I was responsible for “indoctrinating” students for 3 years. Shivers of unyielding resistance fill my nerves & veins when I pause in lucid awareness of the consequences of the severely misleading dogma.
Statistical inference is what you do when you are too lazy to investigate a problem further.
Data analysis (& descriptive statistics), by contrast, may be a road to deepening insight.
It is important to note the fundamental difference between statistical *inference, which rests on a foundation of _abstract assumptions, and *descriptive statistics, which are based on observation (not mental abstraction).
Immunity to the algebraically-elaborate brainwashing is on the rise.
“That part is much more than half of one percent, the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Not the earth perhaps since the quantity of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is mere 0.038%.
George E. Smith (13:39:42) : You are right. From Wikipedia
“Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.”
George, you can’t make ice crystals without water in the atmosphere.Have you heard of Noctilucent clouds. Water exists at the highest levels.
And that error shows that I can not rely on my memory for little details. I write this stuff in a rural shed where there is no access to the net. Thanks for the correction. It makes not one jot of difference however.
Sorry, but it is there that I have to go at the moment and I will be back Saturday.
Thanks all for the endorsements and I look forward to picking up your comments Saturday.
Whatever is said please remember that the atmosphere shifts and temperature with it, with a marked seasonal bias that appears in Southern Hemisphere Spring (in the heating mode). That heats the Southern Ocean and the heat is transported to the equatorial region. What happens at the equator is a derivative. But what happens at the equator (and elsewhere at the highest latitudes) is climate change in action.
This paper is fataly flawed. It does not use CO2, GCM’s churned out by supercomputers, huge grants and the AGW religion.
More ice clouds, more cooling and less, more warming. These ice clouds change by easily explained natural explanations that dont even take us into account? How ridiculuous.
Everyone knows the science is settled. All we have to do is keep paying the high priests in order to save the world.
Learning by holding onto others coattails here, but does any of this theory tie in with the ‘ozone hole’ appearing in the mid-70’s (about same time as the above shift)?
Very interesting analysis, as many above I will need to re-read it several times before commenting, there is so many interactions that I need to make sense of. It does however on first reading appear to be a valuable contribution to the mechanisms that might influence out atmosphere and sea temperatures.
Larry
This is a natural forcing the IPCC didn’t account for. But, just because they didn’t think of it, they should have allowed for the possibility of their not thinking of it. They should have left more room for an X-factor related to the sun, given the intriguing correlations between temperatures and solar cycles. Therefore, they should not have attributed a “very likely / 90%” causative weight to CO2, but only a 50% weight (at most).
Their lack of circumspection betrays a strain of self-deluding arrogance in establishment science.
PS: Happ’s article needs copy-editing. Most notably, there should be more commas and hyphens used.
Actually, the symmetry in Figures 12 and 13 is not at all remarkable. You have two curves with only one independent variable. Since you are dealing with anomalies, the sum of which must always be zero, the two curves will just be the negative of the weighted average of the number of years each represents. Since the (1948-1976) curve represents 28 years and the (1977-2009) is 32 years (more or less), you expect the curves to have the relation (1977-2009) = -(32/28) (1948-1976), which is what it appears to be.
My head hurts. “Calling Bishop Hill, come right away!”
Hey, it worked for Samantha on Bewitched!
Actually, I’d like Roy Spencer to take a swing at this one too, as I have a strong sense this is on a parrallel and sympathetic path to what he’s been feeling his way towards.
In the above:
“Because (the ionized) nitrogen from the mesosphere enters the stratosphere primarily over the Antarctic continent there is less ozone in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere.”
This seems to imply that the “hole in the ozone” is due to natural processes and not chlorofluorocarbons. That in turn means all of the money spent on removing R-12 et.al., and it amounted to billions, was wasted.
As George Santayana has oft been quoted:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner’s, 1905, p. 284
Vincent (12:54:36) : and Jimbo (13:12:14) :
“…. it goes all political, with statements such as ……All true, no doubt, but completely out of place in a science article …….”
If the hole in the Ionosphere is a natural process, then junk science was politicized and used to completely change one aspect of our industrial life. I was an operating engineer back in those days and it really was a big expensive deal.
Like the hole in the ozone, AGW also appears to also be highly politicized junk science. Except this time compliance will completely gut the economy of these United States.
Due to the politicization of this “science” by Al Gore et.al., it is very appropriate, especially in this venue. It is too late to remain non politicized when researchers are threatened with “war crimes trials” for having the “wrong” results, government researchers are forced out of their jobs, and the revocation of credentials is proposed for rogue weathermen.
I don’t read “peer reviewed scientific journals” but from the comments on this blog, I get the feeling that an absence of pro AGW political statements will insure that a researcher is NOT published. I would like to be corrected from the scientist types if my impression is wrong.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
erlhapp (14:26:11) :
Sorry, but it is there that I have to go at the moment and I will be back Saturday.
Erl, quick before you go…Do you have an abstract, maybe 100 words or so? ;~P
Erl Happ “There is no process internal to the Earth itself that could account for this shift in the atmosphere.”
I’m not so sure about this; I see confounding, but …
Erl Happ “So, the distribution of the atmosphere by latitude is determined by the sun and the earth together.”
… I’m not objecting here.
Erl,
Say Mate, you need to up the positive feedback gain on your tongue in cheek detector !
I had to find something to be nitpicky about, while I knuckled down (gorilla style) and started digesting all the hard work you put into this effort.
And the water thingy, is sort of a pet peeve of mine. Given that water is the only GHG of note that occurs in; and is a permanent part of the earth’s atmosphere, that exists in ALL THREE PHASES; and that while a vapor, is largely positive feedback warming (without any help or encouragement from CO2 needed) but when in liquid or solid phase as clouds leads to negative feedback cooling.
Which is why my bumper sticker would read;- “It’s the Water, stupid !” if I had a bumper sticker. That 104 degreee angle in the H2O molecule is why there is life on earth at all; let alone living at a comfortable temperature that is entirely regulated by the physical properties of H2O; along with the TSI range of the sun, and the orbital parameters.
But I’ll have to read further into your paper Erl, before I can come back and say something intelligent
I found the word “quantum” several times in the article. Should that have been “quantity” instead ?
Kim,
“This is remarkable stuff, Erl. I’m going to have to read it about ten more times.”
Quit bragging!! ;>)
Erl: You wrote, “The NCEP/NCAR data reflecs skin temperatures that respond to atmospheric change. Winter minima are lower while summer maxima are similar. Change is faster in the skin data with earlier seasonal maxima and minima.”
Do you have a link to the NCEP/NCAR paper or webpage that describes this? I’ve looked through their website but must have missed it.
You wrote, “Sea surface temperature data incorporates ice and land surface temperature at high latitudes.”
Then it’s not sea surface temperature.
You wrote, “Some sources of SST data relate more to a near surface rather than a skin temperature reflecting the origin of data in the measurement of water temperature from engine intake, bucket or floating buoy. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE NCEP/NCAR DATASET.” [My caps]
Same question as my first: Do you have a link to the NCEP/NCAR paper or webpage that describes this? And, what SST database does the NCEP/NCAR dataset use? HADSST2, HADISST, ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, and Kaplan all use the ICOADS SST database as their starting point. Does NCEP/NCAR have its own SST observation dataset that measured skin temperature before satellites?
Also, I did a quick check of a few of your NCEP/NCAR SLP graphs, since they looked different from the data that I’m used to seeing. Your Figure 18 illustrates SLP for 40N-50N from 1948 to present, smoothed with a 5-month filter. Here’s a graph of HADSLP2 and Trenberth SLP data for the same latitudes, since 1948, with the same smoothing. The wiggles in these two datasets do not resemble the wiggles in your illustration.
http://i34.tinypic.com/egv4lx.png
Same thing for the ICOADS SLP data, though the ICOADS data appears to match the HADSLP2 and Trenberth data, with the HADSLP2 and Trenberth data appearing to be scaled or smoothed, thus decreasing the amplitude of their variations:
http://i38.tinypic.com/34g62yw.png
And the same problem exists with your illustration of SLP for 10S-10N in Figure 4. There are some significant differences between the NCEP/NCAR data in your Figure 4 and the HADSLP2 data…
http://i36.tinypic.com/29du15k.png
…and the ICOADS SLP data for the same latitudes…
http://i34.tinypic.com/10qi1yd.png
…but the HADSLP2 and ICOADS data appear to agree, though the HADSLP2 data appears to be scaled or smoothed, decreasing the amplitude of its wiggles.
Do you have any ideas why there are such major differences between the NCEP/NCAR SLP data and the others?
It is fortunate that we have entered a cool period and hopefully it will continue as Erl suggests. No amount of good science would be enough to influence politicians but temperatures are easier for them to comprehend.
If one starts with the conclusion that Earth’s absolute global temperature is a zero-sum game, then yes, anomalies are all one should be concerned with.
Glacier and Polar Cap melting or growing would only be temporal conditions. If, however, the Earth’s absolute global temperature is a cumulative game of how much actually gets through to warm the surface, then anomalies are the diagnostic of Earth’s albedo index. That would not be a zero-sum game. The Minimums and Maximums have erratic timespans, indicating change far beyond simple PDO’s and AMO’s.
It would then follow that the Maximums of the past were the times where most of the Earth’s climate optimum was where the center of gravity of the largest landmasses are.
The Minimums are the opposite, imposing a reduction of arable lands by moving the optimum climactic conditions away from the center of the largest landmasses.
Accepting the nonsense of today’s climactic model predictions at face value, one would have to assume that man never noticed the weather until 1980.
This looks like a stunning piece of work but as my head tonight is full of another stunning piece of work (Klyashtorin for FAO on fish populations, length-of-day cycles and global temperatures) this has to wait until tomorrow…
“The ‘Arctic Oscillation Index’ records change in the relationship between surface pressure close to the northern pole and that at mid latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Change in the index goes along with change in the nature of western European weather. It is apparent that there are complex influences driving the Arctic Oscillation and paradoxically the most important of these influences is the state of the competing downdrafts over Antarctica, continental Asia and North America. But in physical terms, the real driving force is electromagnetic.”
Have a glass of wine, or two or few bottles… and it’ll become even clearer!
Mixing red and white wines is no “rosé” you should know that Mr Happ…
Next!
So you made me dig out my 1960’s Physics and Geology (Geophysics) text to confirm that Erl’s not blowing smoke.
I can follow most of his argument.
If his “unified theory of climate – part 1” stands up to the intense screening it will get on this site we will have the feedback mechanism that explains why small changes in the suns total energy reaching earth have such a large impact on climate.
The governments of India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Canada will be pleased.
Washington not so.
Aha…. So it WAS those dastardly CFC’s wot dun it!…..;-) In 1978 the CFC’s caused by Anthropogenic activity changed the dynamic of the Polar atmospheric pressures by the mechanism you have mentioned and we proceeded into warming!
This proves an Anthropogenic effect and is WORSE than we could have ever imagined…. We must all immediately proceed to living in bark huts while patting the Earth in a soothing manner.
That will be the argument of the Warm-mongers if Antarctic ozone is mentioned.
…. Anyway, my general cynicism of AGW proponents and tactics aside, your article is an interesting read. I look forward to reading what the more learned among us determine from your method and conclusions.
Very well written and thought provoking.
I’d tend to agree with a couple of others here about the political comments though.
Although I agree with your views entirely, they do nail your colours to the mast.
It would be a shame if some dismissed this as somehow biased as I am sure it is not.
Nice one.
Erl: Also, did you ever contact the ESRL and ask why their website spits out SST data for the Sahara? We discussed this at the end of your prior thread here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/a-different-view-of-enso-and-systematic-climate-change/
There I wrote, To illustrate one of the problems with the ESRL website you’re using as a source of data, here’s the ESRL SST anomalies graph of 15N-25N, 0-30E:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2ltn7gi.png
Unfortunately, there’s no ocean there. The ESRL is providing SST anomaly data for the Sahara Desert, Erl.
This would make all of the data in your SST anomaly graphs suspect, since it appears, based on the above Sahara SST data, that the ESRL website has an unknown bias in their SST data.
One last question, why have you separated the two periods in Figure 4? The SLP data shows a gradual increase from the late 1950s to the mid 1980S and the SST anomaly data shows a multiyear rise from the end of the 1973/74/75/76 La Nina to the 1982/83 El Nino. Just curious. The Pacific climate shift is accepted to have taken place in 1976/77, at the end of that multiyear La Nina, but your Figure 4 separates the data in 1978.