UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.
Solar Magnetics Movie
The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:
“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”
Zeke the Sneak says:
February 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm
I say this because it would not be the first time Birkeland’s terrella observations were dismissed out of hand, as you are doing, because they did not fit popular assumptions about electricity in space.
I’m a great fan of Kristian Birkeland and a student of his work. But he was also a product of his times and we have learned a lot since. His ideas about aurorae have some truth, but also some errors in the details. E.g. the Birkeland currents do not come from the Sun, but from the Earth’s magnetosphere and half of them flow up rather than down. His ideas about the ‘solar streams’ were totally wrong. You can see some of this thoughts here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Birkeland-1919.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:48 am
“In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”
What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there. In the case of my kitchen sink experiment the vortex broke-down. Also, in this very cool tornado video, it also appears that the tornado breaks-down:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2_czSBSD0&w=480&h=390]
“Ice breaks up, cars break down.”
And relationships break up, whereas people break down. So what? We aren’t discussing ice or cars or people, we’re discussing vortices.
“A google search on ‘polar vortex breakdown’ yields 151,000 hits. On ‘polar vortex breakup’ has only 13,800 hits.”
Since when is Google an accurate representation of standard meteorological lexicon? And double quotes provide for a much more precise search than do single quotes. I did a Google Scholar search for “polar vortex breakdown” resulting in 84 papers and “polar vortex break-down” resulting in 13 more, for a total 97 papers using breakdown. I did the same search for “polar vortex breakup” and got 111 papers and “polar vortex break-up” resulted in 50 more, for a total 161 papers using breakup. Furthermore the breakup papers seem to be published more recently than the breakdown papers. The top 5 papers using “polar vortex breakdown” were published in 1977, 1986, 1998, 2002, 1986, whereas the top 5 using “polar vortex breakup” were published in 2005, 2005, 2002, 1996 and 2005.
I rest my case.
Yeah, it seems really weak, it must need rest…
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
The top 5 papers using “polar vortex breakdown” were published in 1977, 1986, 1998, 2002, 1986
And how many of those papers show that the causation is flowing down, i.e. that the breakdown is caused by effect from above?
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Furthermore the breakup papers seem to be published more recently than the breakdown papers.
So, accepting that they imply a direction these papers agree that the break-up is from below.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am
But I can try to explain [may not succeed].
What is your concern about success? Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts or can you not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?
“The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.”
Can you provide some references to support these statements? Can you also define “coming down”. Is it solar and cosmic, or is it any energy traveling downward in the atmosphere/vortex? For example, this paper found, “Clear signals of gravity waves whose phases propagate upward, suggesting downward energy propagation, are detected in June and October when the polar night jet (PNJ) was present. ”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1
Earlier in this thread you stated that “this is messy business” and now you are making pronouncements about phenomena that we can’t accurately measure, much less analyze and understand.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm
“And how many of those papers show that the causation is flowing down, i.e. that the breakdown is caused by effect from above?”
This is completely irrelevant to the break up versus down lexicon argument. Can I take your redirection as an admission that the “standard meteorological lingo” might not be as standard as you purported it to be?
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts or can you not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?
It was not my ability I was doubting…
this paper found, “Clear signals of gravity waves whose phases propagate upward, suggesting downward energy propagation
Gravity waves are upwards travelling waves, that derive their energy from below. some of is reflected down. Learn about gravity waves here: http://kingfish.coastal.edu/physics/var/research.html
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“standard meteorological lingo” might not be as standard as you purported it to be?
I’ll concede that lingo can change. However in the standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics” ISBN 0-471-72018-6 (2006) it says (page 172): “as the sun returns in September [they were discussing southern hemisphere] at the end of the long polar night, the temperature rises and the vortex weakens, eventually breaking down in November”.
Even the authors of the paper you cherry picked: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1
use the standard lingo [as is proper]:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, D23104, 12 PP., 2004
“the enhancements are especially large when the polar vortex breaks down in spring”
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm
So, accepting that they imply a direction these papers agree that the break-up is from below.
Somewhat, I also see suggestions of breaking-apart. Not much about them breaking-down. The following animation doesn’t address the break up direction up or down, but it does help to visualize the process and its complexity, in this case a split:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 19th 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDyNWiZX2xQ&w=480&h=390]
Here’s the link to the high res download avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110219.avi
What I find particularly interesting in the Feb 19th activity is that Earth’s Magnetic Field (top left box) became splayed out and seemingly very stable as the day progressed. Usually Earth’s Magnetic Field is contorted and highly variable.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm
“Even the authors of the paper you cherry picked: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1
use the standard lingo [as is proper]:”
Cherry picked? I’ve read a number of papers and noticed the discrepancy in lexicon. I pointed it out to you and you claimed it didn’t exist. I demonstrated that it did, and you claimed that it didn’t matter. Then you conceded “that lingo can change”, but argued that your lingo is better than other scientists lingo, because your lingo is in the “standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics””. And somehow all this means I’ve cherry picked something?
Can you explain the basis on which you think the paper I presented was “cherry picked”?
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“It was not my ability I was doubting…”
Maybe you should be. Between your CME impact predictions and that Google search survey, I am beginning to doubt your abilities…
“Gravity waves are upwards travelling waves, that derive their energy from below. some of is reflected down. Learn about gravity waves here: http://kingfish.coastal.edu/physics/var/research.html“
That’s good stuff, I am going to have to invest some time getting to know gravity.
“I’ll concede that lingo can change. However in the standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics” ISBN 0-471-72018-6 (2006) it says (page 172): “as the sun returns in September [they were discussing southern hemisphere] at the end of the long polar night, the temperature rises and the vortex weakens, eventually breaking down in November”.
Great, and I can show you 161 papers that reference vortexes breaking up. My point is that the lexicon is confused and we should establish clear and logical definitions for our discussion. Speaking of confusion, how about this sentence from the paper “EOS Microwave Limb Sounder observations of the Antarctic polar vortex breakup in 2004”:
“Poleward transport at progressively lower levels, filamentation, and mixing are detailed in MLS HCl, N2O, H2O, and O3 as the 2004 Antarctic vortex brokeup from the top down in early October through late December.”
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/ManneyEtAl_2005GL022823.pdf
So it appears that the lexicon is in flux and that sometimes polar vortices do break-down …
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Can you explain the basis on which you think the paper I presented was “cherry picked”?
Because the authors themselves prefer ‘breaking down’ so you quote selectively.
Maybe you should be. Between your CME impact predictions and that Google search survey, I am beginning to doubt your abilities…
My CME prediction was spot on. I predicted that the field would be Northwards and that the storm therefore would be moderate, and it was. Kp only reached 5. The Google search is what it is, not being skewed by the 2002 situation [see below]
we should establish clear and logical definitions for our discussion
The lexicon is but a strawman. In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup, whatever, comes from below [the troposphere], not from outer space. Therefore breakdown, breakup do not say anything about direction of causality as you contended so strongly. The shift from breakdown to breakup [and the flurry of papers] may have a lot to do with the famous case in 2002 when the southern vortex broke up [like ice would] into two before breaking down two months later. So both terms seem logical and clear. Perhaps some people that use break-up too loosely should take note of your admonition.
Speaking of confusion, how about this sentence from the paper “EOS Microwave Limb Sounder observations of the Antarctic polar vortex breakup in 2004″
There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex. In any case the cause is upwards travelling gravity waves from the warming troposphere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am
There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex.
This paper is a good example of this more refined usage:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C1174:VIASMO%3E2.0.CO;2
“For larger amplitude the disruption of the vortex is more severe, and the vortex core breaks up and reforms (Figs. 3b,c). For HB 5 3000 m, the high PV remnants are completely destroyed before a new vortex core rebuilds.
We now examine in more detail the HB 5 3000 m calculation, which shows the clearest and most dramatic vortex breakdown–recovery cycles.”
So the standard lingo ‘breakdown’ can include break ups [perhaps several]. No confusion needed. It is time for you to own up to this. And perhaps to return to the topic from your detour into linguistic confusion. I’m a bit amazed that the mods have been lenient with you so far [not doing their job?]
Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am
“Because the authors themselves prefer ‘breaking down’ so you quote selectively.”
This is absurd. I have been referring to this paper on WUWT since December;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/#comment-557155
and the reason that I call out break-up date is because the title of the table I cite on page 10 is titled VORTEX BREAK-UP DATE:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
When I cited the paper above I wrote that, “Note that there appears to be a bit of disagreement in the literature as to whether the vortices break up or down, but either way, when it occurs, it seems to have a significant impact on Earth’s atmospheric circulation and oscillations.”
I am not purporting that Break-up is “the standard meteorological lingo”, as you seem to be arguing, but rather that there appears to be confusion in the vortex lexicon and that for this argument’s sake we should establish clear definitions so that we don’t waste days on semantics. Obviously it didn’t work out as planned…
“My CME prediction was spot on.”
What? First you said on February 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm that “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with nrothward field.”
Then I pointed out that the magentoshpere was calm on the 17th;
and you corrected yourself by saying that it, “hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.”
and then corrected yourself again, “Sorry, on Feb. 18”
And even the corrected correction I question because it looks to me that the first light gust hit at around 1:00 UT, but that the X-class flare impact began at about 5:20 UT:
High res download of the same: http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110218.avi
“The Google search is what it is, not being skewed by the 2002 situation”
Your Google search is what is, which is garbage. As I pointed out above Google is not representative of “standard meteorological lingo”, but more troubling is you use of single quotes. Go to Google, search for magnetosphere animation with no modifiers you get 51,200 results. If you add in single quotes ‘for magnetosphere animation’ you still get 51,200 results. If you add double quotes “magnetosphere animation” you get the 317 correct results.
“The lexicon is but a strawman.”
Lexicon is simply the language of the debate. There is no straw involved.
“Therefore breakdown, breakup do not say anything about direction of causality as you contended so strongly.
I never said that the name did or should reference causality. Can you point out where I “contended so strongly”? I think the name should reference the location where the break begins, vortices either break-up, break-down or break-apart.
“The shift from breakdown to breakup [and the flurry of papers] may have a lot to do with the famous case in 2002 when the southern vortex broke up [like ice would] into two before breaking down two months later. So both terms seem logical and clear.”
No, in 2002 the southern vortex broke apart (we still aren’t talking about ice). I am not sure which direction the subsequent split vortices broke, but this is extraneous for the moment. I think the goal at the moment is to identify how a single coalesced polar vortex breaks, we can discuss non-formation and split lobe breaks at some point in the future.
“There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex. In any case the cause is upwards travelling gravity waves from the warming troposphere. .”
Yes there is confusion, read your own writing from an objective point of view. In 2004 the Southern vortex broke down, because it broke “from the top down”. How many pieces it breaks into and how they subsequently break, is not yet part of this discussion.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am
In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup,”
This statement is erroneous, I see no agreement in the literature on traveling gravity waves. For example this paper;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/MWR3086.1
found that “a key to understanding the 2002 SH warming is to determine the source of this large upward flux of planetary wave activity in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, which preceded the warming. Observations showed that the 100-hPa poleward eddy heat flux immediately preceding the warming was much larger than that seen in any previous year (Allen et al. 2003; Sinnhuber et al. 2003; Weber et al. 2003; Harnik et al. 2005; Newman and Nash 2005; Scaife et al. 2005).
The source of this wave energy flux may be related to tropospheric blocking. Observational studies have identified a connection between stratospheric warmings and tropospheric blocking events in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (e.g., Quiroz 1986; Mechoso et al. 1988). Niishi and Nakamura (2004, hereinafter NN04) argue that the 2002 SH major warming was forced by large planetary wave fluxes emanating from a tropospheric blocking ridge over the South Atlantic. This ridge formed as part of a Rossby wave train, which NN04 argue originated from enhanced deep convection around the South Pacific convergence zone.”
comes from below [the troposphere], not from outer space.
Thus far I have not come across anything the literature that indicates that vortex breaking can be caused or contributed to by forces from outer space, but there is still much research to be done. Too bad Brian’s not around to point me in the right directions…
Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
This is absurd. I have been referring to this paper on WUWT since December;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/#comment-557155
And there you were even confused about breakup/down:
Just The Facts says:
December 23, 2010 at 7:05 am
“I have been looking into when the vortexes form and when they break up/down. […] This page offers a bit of background on polar vortex breakdown […] when each vortex formed and broke-down? […] proxies for vortex formation and breakdown?
I am not purporting that Break-up is “the standard meteorological lingo”, as you seem to be arguing, but rather that there appears to be confusion in the vortex lexicon and that for this argument’s sake we should establish clear definitions so that we don’t waste days on semantics. Obviously it didn’t work out as planned…
As I have shown nobody is confused, except you. And you are still wasting time on this [and will presumably continue to do so]
“My CME prediction was spot on.”
What? First you said on February 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm that “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with northward field.”
and you corrected yourself by saying that it, “hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.”
and then corrected yourself again, “Sorry, on Feb. 18″
The 17th was just a typo that I instantly corrected and was not a prediction but an observed fact. The real prediction was that the storm would be only moderate because the field was northward. Here you can see when it hit the Earth: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/dimages/magneka/20110218.html this is observation. A geomagnetic storm has three phases: the initial phase where the magnetosphere is compressed [this produces the sharp jump at about 1 UT], a main phase where the ring current has been build up [about 6 UT], and a recovery phase seceral hours later.
If you add double quotes “magnetosphere animation” you get the 317 correct results.
You get what contains exactly those words in that sequence. This is not ‘correct’ as you’ll miss ‘animation of magnetosphere’ and similar.
Lexicon is simply the language of the debate.
It is silly to discuss the lexicon, when one should concentrate on the substance. To wit: your confusion.
I think the name should reference the location where the break begins, vortices either break-up, break-down or break-apart.
The substance was whether the cause and energy would come from below or from above. Where the break occurs is not relevant to this. And, as I showed, even after breaking up or apart, the vortex may still exist for several month before the whole system finally breaks down. You are confusing the temporary break ups with the final breakdown. Or are just being sloppy without giving too much thought to what actually happens.
No, in 2002 the southern vortex broke apart
“Atmospheric angular momentum balance for the southern hemisphere during the polar vortex break-up of September 2002 DIETER PETERS, CHRISTOPH ZÜLICKE Tellus A Volume 58, Issue 4, pages 508–519, August 2006″
That people use sloppy terminology is no excuse for you to do the same. Better to stick with established standards.
How many pieces it breaks into and how they subsequently break, is not yet part of this discussion.
The discussion is [was?] about whether the energy and cause of the breakup/down/apart of the polar vortex comes from above or from below. This has nothing to do with nit-picking about words that you yourself use inconsistently.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 4:10 am
“So the standard lingo ‘breakdown’ can include break ups [perhaps several].
Yes, that’s my point. Both terms are used, and often used interchangably, thus we might as well give them clear and logical definition.
I’m a bit amazed that the mods have been lenient with you so far [not doing their job?]
That’s funny, because I approved a bunch of our comments… Now I have to go develop low bandwidth versions of the Atmosphere and Ocean Reference pages, and add this rotating animation of “the Sun as it currently appears, formed from a combination of the latest STEREO Ahead and Behind beacon images, along with an SDO/AIA image in between.”;
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/beacon/euvi_195_rotated.gif
to our Solar Reference page, but I’ll be back later and would really like to try to get past the rhetoric and get down to the business of accessing whether solar and cosmic forces have any significant impacts on Earth’s atmosphere, its circulation and its vortices.
Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 11:22 am
“In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup,”
This statement is erroneous, I see no agreement in the literature on traveling gravity waves. :
“a key to understanding the 2002 SH warming is to determine the source of this large upward flux of planetary wave activity in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, which preceded the warming.”
You are confusing the issue again. The upward flux of planetary waves are the gravity waves. That they get their energy from heating of the troposphere is clear. That heating can be from the rising sun, but also via Rossby waves from lower latitudes.
You are evading the real point of the discussion [from space or not].
word press is confused about a closing italics mark.
[Where exactly, please? Show me the post and sentence and I’ll fix it. ~dbs]
Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
This is absurd.
————————–
Perhaps this will bring you out of your linguistic misery:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. D5, 8321, doi:10.1029/2002JD002098, 2003
Cumulative mixing inferred from stratospheric tracer relationships
Olaf Morgenstern, Adrian M. Lee, and John A. Pyle
The breakup phases of the polar vortices in the two boreal winters covered by the simulation are studied in some detail. In both winters, before the final warming, separate canonical correlations appear. Mixing manifests itself in a progressive merger of the correlation curves marking the polar vortex and middle latitudes. We introduce a method to quantify the origins of fractions of simulated air masses based on tracer relationships describing the situation prior to the final warming. In both years, several weeks after the final vortex breakdown of the polar vortex, the method retrieves realistic quantities of former polar vortex air.
————–
All you need to realize is that you can have break ups, break aparts, and all that, before the final breakdown. Then you can have your cake and eat it, and satisfy normal standard usage, all at the same time, and have no need to waste any more words on this.
Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 11:45 am
Yes, that’s my point. Both terms are used, and often used interchangably, thus we might as well give them clear and logical definition.
They have a clear and logical definition already: the vortex can break up, re-form, several times, until finally it breaks down and is gone until next year.
That’s funny, because I approved a bunch of our comments…
Based on their merit, no doubt.
Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
I never said that the name did or should reference causality.
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”
What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there.
——————–
Just to set the record straight…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:38 am
“You get what contains exactly those words in that sequence. This is not ‘correct’ as you’ll miss ‘animation of magnetosphere’ and similar.”
Yes, but with such a broad search you also capture results like these;
“Magnetosphere, revisited (from 2007)
Jan 25, 2010 … Animation Cartoons and animation • palette.png Art Videos related to art … Magnetosphere, revisited (from 2007) … cyriak’s animation mix …
http://www.web420.com/…/104-Magnetosphere,+revisited+(from+2007) – Cached”
“Multiscale Processes in the Earth’s Magnetosphere: From Interball …
Jan 28, 2011 … The advantages of these powerful instruments for magnetospheric … for Rigging and Animation in Maya XP 3 windows panda COOKING THE dan …
binhyen.softarchive.net/multiscale_processes_in_the_earths_magnetosphere_from_interball_to_cluster.505362.html – Cached”
neither of which are particularly relevant… Using double quotes is a much more precise search method and certainly the better method for assessing the commonality of a phrase.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:54 am
You are confusing the issue again.
It’s funny how facts can do that…
The upward flux of planetary waves are the gravity waves. That they get their energy from heating of the troposphere is clear. That heating can be from the rising sun, but also via Rossby waves from lower latitudes.
This is a broad generalization and glosses of much nuance. In their paper “Tropospheric influence on the diminished Antarctic ozone hole in September 2002”, Nishii and Nakamura stated that:
“Our diagnosis reveals that the warming was associated with propagation of a Rossby wavepacket from a prominent tropospheric blocking ridge over the South Atlantic into the stratospheric polar-night jet that had already weakened unusually. The blocking developed from anomalies that had formed as a component of another Rossby wavetrain that appeared to be forced in mid-September by anomalous deep cumulus convection in the South Pacific Convergence Zone. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019532.shtml
In “The Role of Cumulus Convection in Hurricanes and its Representation in
Hurricane Models” Roger K. Smith, stated that:
“Thought experiments which idealize a deep convective cloud as a transient
buoyancy source in a stably-strati ed non-rotating environment at rest suggest that the subsidence occurs at the leading edge of a horizontally-propagating internal gravity wave that spreads out from the cloud (Bretherton and Smolarkiewicz, 1989; Nicholls et al., 1991, Bretherton, 1993; Mapes, 1993). This subsidence leads to an adiabatic temperature rise in the cloud environment, which tends to adjust the cloud-free environment towards the moist adiabatic lapse rate found in the cloud (Fig. 3). If the buoyancy source is switched off after a time t*, a gravity wave spreads out from it, this time with ascent at the leading edge, and adjusts the fluid back to its unperturbed state. Thus transient heating leaves no permanent eff ect near the heat source, but produces a pair of outward-moving disturbances separated by a distance proportional to t*, between which the air is warmed through adiabatic subsidence.”
http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~roger/Publications/S2000.pdf
There does seem to be some agreement in terms of the direction that polar vortices break, i.e.
“Hence, although the final warming is a top-down process, with the vortex breaking first at upper levels, these modeling studies suggest that vortex remnants are in fact long-lived higher up, in the westward flow regime.”
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/orsolini2005jas.pdf