Guest Post by Erl Happ
This article investigates the sources of natural climate variation. This is a long post but it’s a big subject. Before you get half way through, your perception of the way things are, will have changed. You might even begin to smile inwardly, as if a burden had been removed from your shoulders.
I begin with a description of the critical features of the atmosphere as I perceive them, and it is different to what you will find in Wikipedia or an IPCC report.
Figure 1 shows the major wind systems, the location of the jet streams in the upper troposphere and the polar front. Were the vertical scale to be in strict accord with the horizontal, the atmosphere would be embodied in the line drawn to represent the perimeter of the Earth’s surface. About 75% of the mass of the atmosphere is held within 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the surface. Figure 1 is in that respect, a spectacular fiction. Suggesting that the composition of that skin, when change is reckoned in just parts per million, can change the temperature of the surface of the earth, is not good science. Were the atmosphere completely static, yes, but only to a very small degree. Still air is a fair insulator; moving air is no insulator at all.
The greenhouse idea is too simple, too unsophisticated and too easy. It is a disabling thought pattern that climatologists must discard if they are to understand the system. Understanding the system is a pre-requisite to modeling it.
Figure 1 The surface winds
Beyond an altitude of about 10km, the atmosphere changes in its composition according to the variable flow of nitrogen compounds from the mesosphere via the polar night jets and also the intensity of short wave radiation from the sun that splits the oxygen molecule, allowing the formation of ozone, but only to the extent to which the presence of oxides of nitrogen will allow. The ozone rich layer from 10 to 50km in elevation is called the stratosphere. The ability of ozone to trap long wave radiation from the Earth delivers increasing air temperature all the way to 45 km in elevation. At the equator the temperature that is reached is sufficient to melt ice but at the poles it is 10-20°C more. Increased ozone concentration at the poles increases stratospheric air temperatures despite a decline in the incidence of short wave radiation with latitude. The flux in ozone concentration is the prime agent of change in the temperature of the stratosphere and the upper troposphere.
The stratosphere is Earth’s natural greenhouse umbrella. In that role it has the advantage over the troposphere that it is relatively non convective. But only where there is a downward transport of ozone into the troposphere do we see an impact of ozone on surface temperature. This impact on surface temperature is not due to back radiation, unphysical due to strongly countervailing processes within the troposphere, but flux in cloud cover that is a direct result of flux of ozone into the cloud bearing troposphere.
In the context of the forces described above, the issue as to whether the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million or 550 parts per million is inconsequential (so far as ‘climate’ is concerned), but to the extent that it would enhance the productivity of photosynthesizing plants and marine organisms, enhancing evaporation, thereby cooling the near surface air and sustaining life, a little more rather than a little less would be desirable. CO2, along with nitrogen, is the fertilizer in the air. From the point of view of a plant, these are scarce building blocks and none more so than CO2 at just 380 parts per million. Can you appreciate the difficulty attached to finding a unique vehicle in a parking lot with 2,600 others. In order to survive a plant must select from the molecular parade, a molecule that is supplied in that ratio. The efficiency of plants in assimilating CO2, so rendering it a ‘trace gas’, is plainly evident in the savaging of the CO2 content of the global atmosphere in northern summer when the great bulk of the global plant life on land benefits from temperature that is warm enough to sustain photosynthesis.
While there is water and carbon dioxide on Earth there will be plant life and CO2 will always be a trace gas. Paradoxically, as the CO2 content of the air rises, a plant uses less water and is capable of living in a drier environment.
This has been a preamble. I hope you are ready to look at the climate system with new and inquiring eyes.
The first part of my story is about atmospheric pressure and the winds. The second, to come at a later date, the clouds, and the third the sun and its influence on the distribution of the atmosphere and its circulations.
All data presented here is from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
THE WIND
Figure 2 Average sea level pressure by latitude in mb.
Figure 2 shows the average air pressure at the surface between 1948 and October 2010 as it varies with latitude. Air moves from zones of high to low pressure and we call it wind. It can be seen that pressure relations define a climate system where:
- Sea level pressure is higher in winter than summer, especially over Antarctica.
- Apart from Antarctica in winter, pressure is highest at about 20-40° of latitude in both hemispheres. This is the region of the traveling high pressure cells where air descends, warming via compression, promoting relatively cloud free conditions. The trades and the westerly’s originate here.
- Globally the lowest sea level pressure is experienced at 60-70°south latitude. This limits the southward travel of the humid north westerly winds and the northward travel of the cold and dry polar easterlies in the southern hemisphere. By contrast there is no such pressure trough in the northern hemisphere. That hemisphere will accordingly freeze or fry according to whether the easterlies or the westerlies prevail. Whether the prevailing wind is from the north or the south depends upon the balance of atmospheric pressure between the Arctic and 30-40°N. Because pressure relations change in a systematic fashion over time (will be documented below) this dynamic dictates the direction of temperature change in the northern hemisphere.
The average character of the wind according to latitude
By subtracting the sea level pressure at destination latitude from that at source latitude, the average pressure differential driving the surface winds can be calculated.
Figure 3 The differential pressure between key latitudes driving the surface winds in mb
Abbreviations: PENH (Polar Easterlies Northern Hemisphere), PESH (Polar Easterlies Southern Hemisphere), SW (South Westerlies), NET (North East Trades), SET (South East Trades), NW (North Westerlies).
The strongest winds are found in Antarctica in winter. The differential pressure driving the surface winds falls away from south to north. Figures 2 and 3 taken together suggest that there is fundamental difference between the hemispheres, a theme that will run throughout this post and an understanding that is essential if one is to appreciate the source of change in surface temperature over time.
With the exception of the Trades and the Westerlies in the southern hemisphere (where there is little difference between the seasons) the differential pressure is noticeably higher in winter.
In the Arctic the differential driving the surface polar easterlies is only weakly positive, a marked contrast to conditions in the southern hemisphere. Consequently the dominant wind from 30°N latitude to the Arctic is the South Westerly, bringing warm moist air to the highest latitudes, rendering land masses that are to the north of the Arctic circle marginally useful to man, at least in summer, a situation very different to that which prevails in the Antarctic where the warmest locations may thaw for just one month in a year. The hemispheres are so different that it is really like two planets in one.
It is the roaring forties that brought the clipper ships via the Cape of Good Hope to Australia to disembark settlers and load grain on a round trip of about 200 days. Clippers, the Formula 1 of sailing ships, continued in an easterly direction via Cape Horn, braving giant swells, ice floes, and extreme wind chill. This is the latitude of Spain and Portugal in the northern hemisphere but the climate is different there. The Westerlies in the northern hemisphere are Arcadian zephyrs when compared to the Westerlies of the roaring forties. For an interesting perspective on the Roaring Forties see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_route
The Trade winds of the northern hemisphere are much stronger in winter, and stronger than the southern Trades in any season, but the southern trades are more constant. In northern summer the north east trades are weak.
Variations in surface pressure over time, the key to climate change
The average tells us little about the habitability of a place. We need to appreciate the extremes.
Figure 4 Range in atmospheric pressure experienced since 1948 according to latitude in mb
Figure 4 records the difference between the highest and lowest monthly average sea level pressure for the four summer and the four winter months taken as a group. It is plain that variability increases with latitude. Variability is greater in the southern hemisphere and greater in winter than summer. In the northern hemisphere winter variability in is almost twice as great as summer variability. The flux in pressure at the highest latitude of the northern hemisphere is almost as great as it is in the southern hemisphere. This has important implications for the variability in climate in the entire hemisphere because the north lacks the stabilizer of the low pressure trough at 60-70° south latitude that is apparent in figure 2 and also in the map that heads this post. The northern hemisphere might be characterized as ‘an accident that is waiting to happen’.
Figure 5 Difference between sea level pressure extremes for winter and summer, a measure of the swing between the seasons.
Figure 5 shows the extent of change in the extremes of the pressure differentials between summer and winter. This statistic is simply the difference between the curves in figure 4. Latitudes pole-wards of 60°north and 80° south see the most extreme shift between summer and winter. This diagram gives us a measure of the extent to which the atmosphere can shift about, affecting wind direction and strength, within the space of a year. The ‘lumps and bumps’ at 30-60°north and 40-70°south relate to the ‘annular mode’ or ‘ring like mode’ associated with the flux in ozone from the winter pole and associated geopotential height anomalies, the atmospheric heating via the absorption of long wave radiation from the earth by ozone. This generates change in cloud cover with associated flux in sea surface temperature. This is the essence of the Northern Annular Mode (the Arctic Oscillation) and the Southern Annular Mode (The Antarctic Oscillation). Describing this mode, and the origin of its locomotion, will be the subject of the second post in this series.
What figure 5 does not reveal is the extent to which the atmosphere can shift between one hemisphere and the other, something that changes the dynamic in the annular modes over time. Flux within just a single hemisphere is something that never actually occurs and yet you would think, from our reliance on the AO and the AAO that it is of no importance whatsoever. Wrong.
Change in the distribution of the atmosphere
Figure 6 evolution of sea level pressure at high latitudes in mb
Figure 6 shows that there has been a systematic loss of atmospheric pressure at the poles since 1948 and a partial recovery. Trend lines are second order polynomials. Notice the upward trend in Arctic pressure in winter after 1989 (black line). The loss in pressure in both polar jurisdictions up to 1989 indicates external forces at work. Antarctic winter pressure is yet to bottom. Otherwise pressure appears to have bottomed in the 1990’s. As Antarctic summer pressure has increased just a little, Arctic pressure has increased a great deal. As we shall see this will change the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Change in distribution of atmospheric mass affects the differential pressure driving the winds. Figures 7 and 8 show the changing distribution of atmospheric mass over time in two key latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
Figure 7 Sea Level Pressure at 80-90°N and 30-40°N in June July August and September. mb
In summer, the increasing atmospheric mass at latitude 30-40°north and diminishing atmospheric mass at 80-90°north increases the domain of the south westerly winds warming the high latitudes. The trend lines suggest that a reversal of this process is underway.
Figure 8. Pressure at 80-90°north and 30-40°north in December, January, February and March. Mb.
In winter (figure 8), atmospheric pressure at 30-40°north latitude has been slowly increasing since 1948 and mass over the Arctic fell away till 1990 favoring the Westerlies over the Polar Easterlies. But pressure has recovered in the Arctic since 1990. When the brown line rises above the blue, the easterlies dominate and a cold winter is experienced in the northern hemisphere. The latest data in figure 8 relates to the winter of 2009-10.
A falling AO indicates a change in pressure relativity favoring the Polar Easterlies. A rule of thumb is that surface atmospheric pressure in the Arctic is inversely related to the Arctic Oscillation Index. When the AO falls, pressure is rising in the Arctic.
In all the following diagrams except the last monthly data is reported. The statistic is the anomaly. I calculate the monthly average for the entire period 1948 to November 2010 and the anomaly represents the departure from that average. The changing pressure differential driving the surface winds indicates the nature of monthly weather and to the extent that it departs from the average in a systematic fashion over long periods of time represents climate change in action.
Figure 9 Anomalies in differential pressure between 30-40°N and 50-60°N (differential Westerlies North) and 50-60°N and 80-90°N (differential Easterlies North) Monthly data. Mb.
The data in figure 9 relates to the northern hemisphere. The monthly anomalies reveal a flux in the differential pressure driving the Polar Easterlies (right hand axis) that is about three times the flux in the differential driving the Westerlies. Weak easterlies are sometimes associated with strong Westerlies, but for much of the time, surprise, surprise, the two move together. For both the Easterlies and the Westerlies to advance at the same time an inter-hemispheric redistribution of atmospheric mass is required allied with an intensification of the low pressure cells where the two converge (polar cyclones). This generates weather extremes. Rest easy. These are naturally generated extremes. Records tend to be broken at both ends of the spectrum. More heat and more cold.
The paradigm of the Arctic Oscillation takes no cognizance of this inter-hemispheric shift in pressure and cannot therefore fully account for the change in weather and climate that occurs. The second order polynomials in figure 9 suggest a cyclical pattern of change. The dominance of the Westerlies after 1978 is associated with warming winter temperatures and melting ice sheets in the Arctic a reversal of the circumstance that caused the Arctic to cool for thirty years up to the late 1970’s.
When the pressure differential is negative the wind ceases to exist and another takes its place blowing from the opposite direction. If you cover the bottom part of the graph below the zero point and inspect the curves above that point you get an idea of how the wind direction and temperature has changed over the course of time.
Figure 10 Anomalies in differential pressure between 30-40°N and 0-10°N (differential Trades North), 30-40°N and 50-60°N (differential Westerlies North) Monthly data. Mb.
Figure 10 reveals that the Trades and the Westerlies of the northern hemisphere vary together. Again, the polynomial (3d order) suggests reversible phenomena. This diagram is a representation of a climate system oscillating about a mean state in a fashion that makes it very difficult to model unless the forces moving the system away from the mean state are recognized, are quantifiable and predictable. If you cannot do this forget about modeling.
Cloud cover and ENSO
Figures 11 and 12 break new ground in understanding climate science. The connection between cloud cover and ENSO is apparent.
Figure 11 1948-1977
dWN (differential pressure between latitude 30-40°north and 50-60° north, the pressure driving the South Westerly winds in the Northern Hemisphere). SST (Sea Surface Temperature).
Figure 12 1978-2010
Figures 11 and 12 show us that the temperature of the sea in the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere varies directly with the differential pressure driving the Westerly winds. When the wind blows harder we expect the sea to cool. But it warms. One infers a loss of cloud cover. The cooling of the sea between 1948 and warming thereafter are entirely accounted for in the shift in the mass of the atmosphere that lies behind the change in wind strength and the flux in ozone that causes the cloud cover to change. The explanation of the ozone dynamic must await the next post. The warming of the sea in the northern hemisphere in winter is the distinctive feature of climate change as it has been experienced over the last thirty years. The cooling of the sea in the northern hemisphere between 1950 and 1978, under the influence of changes in the distribution of atmospheric mass, provides the key to an explanation of climate change.
Figure 13 Evolution of sea surface temperature in mid and low latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
Figure 13 shows that the temperature of the sea between the equator and 30°north follows the temperature of the sea at 30-50° north but in a less agitated fashion. It appears that the cloud cover response in tropical waters is less energetic than it is in the mid latitudes. I suggest, no I insist, that the ENSO phenomenon in the Pacific, and climate change on all time scales, is ultimately due to changes in cloud albedo. ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is not a driver of climate change. It reflects climate change as it happens just as the ripples on the sea reflect change in the wind. Global temperature trends are not confounded by ENSO dynamics. ENSO is part of the whole, integrating the effects of change that occurs in latitudes where the cloud dynamic is more sensitive than it is in the tropics.
Figure 14 dWS (differential pressure between latitude 30-40° south and 60-70° south) SST (the temperature of the surface of the sea between 30-50°south latitude).
Figure 14 shows that the temperature of the sea in the southern hemisphere moves with the strength of the westerly winds in a very similar fashion to that seen in the northern hemisphere.
I repeat that the dynamic behind this phenomenon is the flux of ozone from the winter pole as atmospheric mass moves to and from the pole, enhancing or limiting the flow through the night jet thereby metering the flow of nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere. When NOx flow is reduced ozone concentration rises. Ozone finds its way into the upper troposphere as can be seen in any map of 200hpa height anomalies. Sea surface temperature responds precisely in accord with this spatial pattern. As the upper troposphere warms the cloud evaporates.
At the root of the increasing temperature of the sea is the long term shift in atmospheric mass away from the Antarctic, and the consequent increase in the temperature of the stratosphere in the southern hemisphere prior to 1978. The slow build of pressure at 30-40° south and the increase in the strength of the westerlies is just collateral damage. The decline in rainfall in my part of the world (South West Australia) is part of this phenomenon. High pressure cells are relatively cloud free and have dry air. As the Antarctic regains the atmospheric mass that it has lost, the high pressure cells of 30-40° south will shrink and the frontal action that brings the rainfall will move north again.
Figure 15 Changing atmospheric pressure at the poles
Figure 15 shows a 12 month moving average of polar pressure. It suggests that polar pressure is currently increasing at both poles with the Arctic leading the way. Frequently both poles experience a loss or gain of mass at the same time. This suggests a dynamic where the interchange of atmospheric mass is primarily between high and low latitudes. Something attracts the atmosphere away from the poles, weakening the polar easterlies and strengthening the Trades and the Westerlies. This is plainly associated with loss of cloud and surface heating. Inversely as surface pressure increases at the poles the flow of NOx from the mesosphere will increase, ozone concentration in the stratosphere will fall and surface temperature will fall. Atmospheric mass is returning to the poles especially in the northern hemisphere, particularly in winter when it matters most.
The second post will trace the flux in ozone from the polar stratosphere that erodes cloud cover in the mid and low latitudes.
The third post will describe a force that shifts the atmosphere between the poles and the equator and between the hemispheres causing the winds to wax and wane, the clouds to come and go and the sea to warm and cool. This is a force that is external to the Earth. So I see the Climate System as responding to external stimuli. It is an open system with ever changing parameters.
I want to give thanks to Leif Svalgaard whose continuing presence at this venue stimulates so much interest. We cannot agree on everything but that’s entirely healthy. To argue is human. At the end of the day its the integrity of the author that is important. Leif said to me once, when highly provoked: ‘I don’t do red herrings’. And I believe him.
Now Ian w. writes: “The air temperature rises as air descends due to the same lapse rate that has air decrease in temperature as it rises. This is not hot air going down – it is air going down getting warmer.”
yeah the compression… fine. BUT
Ian W, Let me quote from the other post by Erl
“Here is my best shot:
There are four factors contributing
1. Warm air descends from the stratosphere. …”
And this air getting warmer that never reaches the surface -see circulation. And to boot the velocity of this movement is only cm per seconds from an air mass of low pressure and it would hardly create any sub tropical anticylonic cell.
As for Heatbursts you are talking about rare phenomena of very limited area, not large scale movements.
You’re free to find Erlhapp stuff groundbreaking but please do not associate me or the work of a rational guy like Leroux with this. eom.
O man and now the anti-subduction crowd… fitting!
Tim Folkerts wrote: “And I get this from non-mathematicians/non-scientist all the time … the regression analysis for 80-90N DJFM … blah-blah ”
And I get this from logical formalists and “computing scientist” all the time. Let me ask you, when you insist on formal regression analysis of a short climatological data set, what are your assumptions about PDF of datapoints that you forgot to spell out for us and for yourself?
Dave Springer wrote, “The thickness of the atmosphere has nothing to do with its ability to change surface temperature.”
If this is the case, then why is Kevin Trenberth writing papers like this?
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/massEteleconnJC.pdf
I can suggest that you familiarize yourself with earth orientation parameters. Ignoring global constraints is not sensible.
Re: jakers & Tim Folkerts
Erl is thinking nonlinearly. The implicit assumption of linearity made by many absolutely cannot be substantiated. Elaboration here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/something-topical-2/#comment-572144
The recent technical thread on Judith Curry’s blog is highly worthy of attention.
Enneagram asked, “Could it be related with Vukcevic dropping magnetic field in the southern hemisphere? http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm “
Addressed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/something-topical-2/#comment-571911
“Air moves from zones of high to low pressure and we call it wind.”
Fluids accelerate in the direction of high to low pressure and decelerate in the direction of low to high pressure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_equations note the dv/dt =…del P…. equation) Pressure gradients cause acceleration.
Wind is a fluid that is moving (a velocity, not acceleration). It can be moving in a region where there is no pressure gradient.
The eye of a hurricane is an excellent example of a region with a high pressure gradient and little wind.
Tim Folkerts says
January 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm
And I get this from non-mathematicians/non-scientist all the time.
That’s the best you are going to get with a chaotic system like the climate. There is too much randomness and cycles of forcings to get the definative trends you want. Do you apply the same criteria to the chart from the AGW side likes to display of the anomaly of the yearly mean temperatures? A totally useless measure of what is going on, yet we see this perfect increasing trend. We never get the full range of numbers that is used to calculate those yearly means. No correlation coefficient, no R2, no confidence, no ranges, just that perfect graph and told this represents the planet getting hotter. It’s pure BS, tells us nothing what is physically going on. What *IS* going on is summer TMax is either flat or dropping since 1900. It is not increasing as AGW claims it should. What is driving up the mean is winters are getting less cold in the lowest TMin. Not only that, the mean is just the daily (TMax+Tmin)/2. If in instead you average the hourly temps you get an average that is generally LESS than Tmean.
So where is your demand for more stats from the AGW side?
When the entire envelope around an object is air it is a great insulator, assumption one in this post fails and the rest follow.
You missed the note that air is an insulator ONLY when static. In a moving system it’s terrible as an insulator. The sun is only heating a small portion of the planet at any given time. That warmed air then rises and the heat tries to get to colder areas distributing that heat around.
I own a greenhouse. If I keep the vents closed, even in the depths of winter, that static air heats up very quickly when the sun shines. Soon a I open a vent and allow the air to circulate, it loses all that heat fast. At night if I want to keep it warm as long as possible I have to close it all down and keep any cold air from getting in.
The point is, the theme of the post is that the air is NOT static, and hence heat is continuously circulated redistributing the heat to colder areas.
Louis Hissink said:
“The same graphing technique is used in geology – vertical exaggeration of scale, and the late Lance Endersbee stressed this point a couple of years ago when discussing groundwater theories. As an engineer Endersbee knew that the real gradients that water had to flow down to recharge artesian basins was impossible, yet hydrologists, using these exaggerated cross sections, argued otherwise. One arguing from the desktop, the other from real world experience.”
Vertical exaggeration is sometimes needed to graphically depict relationships that would otherwise be obscurred by the thickness of the lines on the cross section when considering conditions which extend over large horizontal distances. That said, the technique should be used carefully. Many have got into trouble making interpretations based on cross sections with exaggerated vertical scales! By the way, what makes the basins artesian then?
Also you said “A similar problem is plate tectonic theory exists – put the subduction zones into proper perspective and the mechanism becomes laughable – and in any case modern seismic tomography has shown that the subduction zones are fiction.”
Don’t you mean: “…and in any case interpretation of modern seismic tomography data has shown….” After all, you’re just advocating a different theory on the basis of a different type of indirect observational data! If subduction zones are fiction, then what are the facts?
Well I can’t say that I am competent to either understand or criticize Erl’s paper, so I am sure I will have to read it may times to try and understand.
I’m not a great fan of applying “curve fitting” mathematical processes to what purports to be real world actual measured data.
It is one thing to have experimental data for some relationship that is already known from theory to have some particular mathematical form; where that experimental data is “noisy” because of random variations due to experimental limitations.
If the data is NOT noisy; but simply reflects a variable that actually takes on those observed values; I see no value in statistical prestidigitation whatsoever. That amount to simply replacing real but fluctuating data, with calculated but entirely fictional pseudo data. Any sort of smoothing process, simply throws away real data that was already obtained at often significant (and maybe taxpayer supported) expense.
Statistics, is a mathematics of recurring events; and there really isn’t any statistical significance to any event which only happens once. Oh you can do the statistical analysis of the probability of throwing snake eyes with two ordinary dice; but don’t expect that to tell you anything about the next toss of those dice.
Yes if you do a million trials; or these days perhaps a trillion; then statistics should tell you what fraction of all trials, you should get snake eyes. But that won’t alter your chances of not seeing that roll in the first 1000 trials.
The problem is that you can do statistical calculations on any random set of data; even quite unrelated data, that has no cause and effect connection between one trial and another.
For example, we could make up a set of quite arbitrary icons; say 366 of them. A snake, a toothpick, blackboard eraser, …. and so on; all related to each other in no way. We then randomly (as we pick them out of a hat) assign each icon, as a proxy for one of the calendar days of the year from January 1 through Dec 31, and including Feb 29.
Since the icons are quite arbitrary; they are unrelated to each other in any way; they simply are incognito proxies for actual calendar dates.
A random drawing of all 366 icons from a bin, will yield factorial 366 different possible sequences of icons; which is near enough to infinity for rough work; and each one of those drawings will have the same probability of occurrence; namely 1/366!
If we now perform such a single drawing to produce an order of the 366 icons; no possible rigorous mathematical study could prove that the drawing process had been biassed, and that the resultant sequence of icons was non random.
But a decoder of the proxy order, might reveal that the number equivalents, went:- 1,2,3,4…..364,365,366 or equivalently Jan 1 through Dec 31st in calendar order. That eventuality is no more unlikely than any other order of the icons or number equivalents that could occur.
Yet when an equivalent process was carried out in the 1960s, in something called a “Draft Lottery”, on the basis of a single drawing out of 366! equally probable drawings resulted in an immediate claim by otherwise intelligent so-called mathematicians, that the selection was not random
So I think you have to be careful when performing mathematical operations on presumably experimentally observed data; especially in the absence of some reasonably well founded theoretical cause and effect relationship between that data; and as Dr Roy Spencer found out when he tried a polynomial (4th order I think) fit to some Temperature data; the fit came out rather good between the data end points; but it totally sucked as a predictor of as yet unobserved results beyond that data set.
I believe Dr Roy was sufficiently apologetic after the fact. Well we forgave him anyway; for who among us has not done the very same thing.
Tim Folkerts
Do you use statistical analysis when deciding to buy or sell shares?
If so, how?
I have some knowledge of statistics, but have not thought to apply it to share trend analysis.
I would have thought that by the time a significant trend had emerged in a share chart, that the best time to buy would have been long gone.
“WTF says:
January 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
When the entire envelope around an object is air it is a great insulator, assumption one in this post fails and the rest follow.”
Get thee off to a college with a science besides political science.
FWIW, I say, again…
What is missing in the debate about “greenhouse gases” is ANY empirical data that demonstrates a “greenhouse effect.” Earl is correct. There is NONE, whatsoever, anywhere, except in the dreams and cartoons of the “warmers.” In fact the empirical data now show absolutely NO EFFECT of increasing OCO in the atmosphere–for at least 15 years (how long do I wait to see some effect???). I know that the radiation cartoons are appealing, because they look very logical, BUT they are wrong–because they ignore everything else that is going on in the atmosphere (like convection!). The nonsense becomes very clear when one simply compares areas with the most “greenhouse gases” (water vapor) with those with low volumes of GHGs. They are no warmer on average (in fact colder most of the time) than the areas with far less greenhouse gases. High noon in Atlanta in July is MUCH cooler than high noon in Phoenix (same latitude and elevation). (At night, too, for anyone that still believes in the “cold desert night” myth). Yeah, yeah, it’s due to heat lost to evaporation, BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE GAME ON THIS PLANET!
George E. Smith, I would caution you not to conflate data analysis with statistical inference (the latter of which is based on a lot of assumptions that simply don’t hold in many fields in practice, even though mainstream convention is often to pretend otherwise [a foolhardy custom]).
You do make a good point about assumed functional forms. Smoothing operators are needed to develop multiscale vision. For example, no one would suggest not adjusting the magnification & focal length on a microscope if their true intent was to see clearly. However, Erl won’t be able to successfully defend his choice of functional forms in some of his graphs if pressed; nonetheless we can still get his general points, appreciating that he’s on volunteer hours and not professing to be an expert on multiscale cognition.
Even if one filters off debatable aspects of Erl’s presentation, politics, &/or whatever, one is left with a primary point that is not radical: we should be thinking about dynamic mass distribution. The earth orientation parameter experts have known this all along. It’s not sensible for modelers to ignore known, real, global constraints.
Interesting article. The forecasted high in Oslo is 48F for Sunday (about 60N) and for Base Orcades in Antartica the forecasted high is 39F for Sunday (about 60S). There will be a little over 18 hours of daylight in Base Orcades but only 6.5 hours of daylight in Oslo. I woulda never thunk it. I did cherry pick a bit because today Oslo is colder by about 20F (13F vs 33F) but still it is winter in the NH…
Erl Happ.
This could form part of an excellent educational piece. The most important thing that’s missing from the first instalment that, IMHO, would explain things more clearly is the effect of Earth’s centrifuge.
Many years ago, Earth was struck by Thea (so the legend goes). Apart from the devastation that this caused, Earth was given an extra rotational energy (spin) and Earth’s moon appeared from the debris of the collision. Ever since Earth’s moon became formed it’s gravitational force has slowed Earth’s rotation via the teleconnection force of tidal influence and also flung the moon into a higher orbit (a couple of years ago we took a second off the annual record to correct temporal accountancy with the seasonal temporal record). Thus, Earth’s rotational periodicity is slowing (days are slowly becoming longer on a geological time scale).
Earth’s ‘spin’ is interesting in that an ‘over-spin’ condition provides a scenario where Earth’s centrifuge provides energy to the atmosphere that would otherwise not be there. Earth’s ‘over spin’ characteristic provides the Hadley, Polar and Ferrel cell configuration that just wouldn’t be there if Earth’s centrifuge was at equilibrium, or rather ‘static’.
The radial (Hadley) centrifuge develops more pressure than the planar (polar) centrifuge, thus the Brewer-Dobson flow exists as a balance between the two.
Your “fig 0”, incredibly, depicts the disparity between Earth’s polar centrifuges. Being ‘planar’ centrifuges it’s important that there are plenty of ‘bumps’ near the periphery of the cell to improve the ‘pumping efficiency’ of the centrifuge. Protrusions into the atmosphere help the Earth to impart a kinetic for the boundary atmosphere to keep up with Earth’s increasing linear rotational speed with decreasing latitudes.
Thus, your “roaring 40s” in the ‘SH’ (southern hemisphere), with the calmer westerly in the ‘NH’ (northern hemisphere). Ocean in the SH just doesn’t get to grip with the atmosphere as well as the land masses in the NH. The resultant slower rotational speed of boundary atmosphere in the SH polar cell is also responsible for the reduced static pressure that the cell generates at sea level, but it’s great that “fig. 0” shows this so plainly, irrespective of the season.
Enough said for now, I look forward to future posts from you.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
David A. Evans says:
January 12, 2011 at 12:15 pm
I really need a print option. I find extreme difficulty reading from screens, always have & even my program coding was done largely on paper, then entered in small, easily assimilated chunks, later to be merged.
Copy and paste to word and print from there.
A brilliant article thanks Erl. I wonder how you would see recent changes on Jupiter and Mercury ? I’m looking froward to your next article and how you see the sun or specific sun behaviour influencing our climate. Also, do you believe that Earth sends energy back towards the sun (think 2 knights jousting), as a response to geomagnetic activity that is coming from the sun and that in turn influences wind and sea currents. an extension of this is the interplanetary energy exchanges that might happen between all planets.
Nice to see your acknowledgement of Leif Svalgaard.
Cheers, Bright Garlick.
http://otherworldyencounters.wordpress.com/
Al Tekhasski says: “And I get this from logical formalists and “computing scientist” all the time. Let me ask you, when you insist on formal regression analysis….”
I am actually an experimentalist. My preference when discussing science is (ranked in order):
* accurate data
* theoretical predictions
* statistical analysis
* eyeball analysis
Earl Happ’s writing provides no new data. He provides no theoretical analysis (and frankly a full theoretical prediction is probably impossible given how complex and chaotic the system is). The next best thing is statistics.
I *do* credit him for going beyond the “eyeball analysis” to do some actual curve fitting. I also credit him for the initiate and insight to even consider these issues. There could well be some interesting and useful results. But to get beyond “there might be something here”, more detailed analysis should be performed.
Until then, I consider this just “interesting musings”.
jrwakefield says: So where is your demand for more stats from the AGW side?
Well, not many people from the AGW side post articles on this site. When they do, I will most likely question their statistics too. 🙂
(But more seriously, that is an important issue. Every one should be held to a high standard in data analysis — ESPECIALLY professional scientists. One challenge is that not every detail can be given in every report — especially when information is intended for the general public. The level of detail will be too much for some and too little for others.)
AusieDan says: January 12, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Tim Folkerts
Do you use statistical analysis when deciding to buy or sell shares?
If so, how?
I have actually tried, and that is one reason I am very wary of apparent trends in data. It was easy to find correlations in historical data that led to marvelous returns. Unfortunately, more often than not the warning that “past performance is no guarantee of future results” reared its ugly head. Many of the apparent correlations were mostly luck. A system that significantly outperformed the markets using historical data suddenly failed when projected into the future.
I see a bit of the same challenges here. The trends are barely above the noise in the past. Without theoretical support, what reason is there to expect any continuation in the future?
suricat says: January 12, 2011 at 7:58 pm
“The most important thing that’s missing from the first instalment that, IMHO, would explain things more clearly is the effect of Earth’s centrifuge.”
There is a lot there. In addition to the atmospheric implications, there are also the Oceanic Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre
which are influenced by the Coriolis Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_Effect
And the associated Ocean Surface Currents;
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/wind-driven-surface.htm
which descend into absurd complexity when you begin to isolate them e.g. Atlantic Ocean surface currents:
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/atlantic.html
There is so much to be learned… Erl, your contributions to the process are most appreciated.
Must say…one thing I love here at WUWT is the fountain of new ideas that come from the public…can’t possibly imagine how this isn’t influencing scientists and their theories (including Svaalgard, OK, maybe not!). Keep it up, wiggle matching is not a bad thing at ‘tall! Where there is correlation, there could be causation to be gleaned. Just saying…you think the scientific community isn’t reading all of these ideas, noticed correlations and not scrambling to figure it all out! Love it…it will be fun to look back 10-20 years from now and see how it all played out, this riddle of climate…meanwhile…we’ll observe the sun, CRs, negative ocean cycles, and perhaps correlate the drivers into causation.
Figure 15 suggests an extremely long cycle in hundreds of years.
Will,
just in case you weren’t being sarcastic, the Arctic has no ozone hole, and the Antarctic only has one during the winter. The so called ozone hole over the Antarctica is a severe lowering of the ozone concentration, not total absence of ozone.