Guest post by Erl Happ
Here’s a hypothetical:
Let’s imagine that we have an atmosphere of two parts. The first 10 km of the atmosphere has no greenhouse gas. The second 40 km has a greenhouse gas incorporated.
In the lower layer there is water vapor and clouds that come and go according to the temperature of the air.
Let’s consider that there is an impermeable membrane over the surface preventing the interchange of moisture with the atmosphere. No precipitation of moisture from the atmosphere falls to the surface.
Now, set this planet spinning in space around a sun in such a way that the polar sections experienced permanent night for part of the year so that the entire depth of the atmosphere (both layers) within the polar night region cool down and a gradient of ever diminishing temperature occurs all the way from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, the entire 50 kilometers.
Parts of the planet would be warm and parts would be cold. Ascent and descent of the atmosphere is forced by these thermal differences but the ascent is usually confined to just a few kilometers in elevation.
Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.
That greenhouse gas absorbs long wave radiation from the planet. This sets up a convective circulation within the polar night that spins the greenhouse gas rich air away from the pole towards the margins of the polar night. Remember that temperature descends all the way from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere within the polar night and this promotes convection throughout the entire profile. In fact the two layers act as a coupled circulation.
So, greenhouse gas descends into the near surface layer on the margins of the polar night that hitherto was entirely free of greenhouse gas. This causes the air on the margins of the polar night to warm as it descends. Surface pressure falls away in this region.
Now, if this circulation came and went, we would see clouds come and go on the margins of the polar night as the air alternatively cooled and warmed.
Now, let us imagine that there is a wind that blows from the polar night towards the equator that carries greenhouse gas towards the equator warming the air and causing cloud to disappear.
Now, let us introduce land and sea in the winter hemisphere and assume that the air on the margins of the polar night descends preferentially over the sea. We would then expect the greenhouse gas to be concentrated in the atmosphere over the sea. This would give rise to a pattern of warm and cool air, clouds in the cool zone and none in the warm zone. A cloud free path would be set up that ran from the warmer margins of the night zone towards the equator. The cloud would come and go as the coupled circulation waxed and waned.
The lower of the two layers would show zones of warmed air like the map below.
Figure 1
And under the influence of the wind that blows towards the equator we might see a pattern of sea surface temperature like this:
Figure 2
Now, let’s imagine that there is an insidious chemical generated in the rarefied atmosphere above both layers that has an affinity for the greenhouse gas and this chemical is intermittently trickled into the top of the layer containing the greenhouse gas and this occurs over the pole. This is accomplished by a thing we call the ‘night jet’. Accordingly, the greenhouse gas content of the night zone would wax and wane causing a fluctuation in cloud and the temperature of the sea.
If we wished to know what was changing the weather and the climate we would have to look at what changes the trickle rate and what causes the polar circulation to wax and wane.
We look closely and find the ‘night jet’ is active when surface pressure is high.
We discover that the pressure is high when the sun is less active.
When the sun is active pressure is low and the night jet is less active, the greenhouse gas content builds up, the temperature of the column increases and the convective circulation goes into overdrive. And the clouds disappear.
And the temperature of the polar stratosphere might look like this:
Figure 3
So, in this circumstance the planet warms. Does anyone recognize the origin of the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-8?
This has been a heavy discussion. I love it! I had to read the article twice to fully (well almost fully) grasp what Erl was trying to convey. After reading the discussions I will now have to read it all again, as inquiring minds need to know!
From what I seem to understand, Erl has presented a hypothesis for global variations in weather/wind patterns emanating from the polar region as a result of pressure/temp differentials. I’ll leave the details to others to sort, but the hypothesis seems to be supported. I myself often break out / isolate certain concepts from a complex set of variables only to show a possible effect that one could have.
But the truth is, this discussion is above my pay grade. I will now once again meet with a representative of BEER.
[The moderators quickly note that no BEER has been harmed in the moderation of this thread. Unfortunately. Robt]
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:50 am
correction:
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:07 am
I would suspect that the fall of temperature with altitude through the stratosphere would also assist.
Except that the temperature does NOT fall with altitude through the stratosphere, not even during the polar night:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_p_t90s.png
From 20 km and up, the temperature increases.
The white line indicates where [rare] clouds may form.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:50 am
I say: I would suspect that the fall of temperature with altitude through the stratosphere would also assist.
You say: Except that the temperature does NOT fall with altitude through the stratosphere, not even during the polar night:
1. The current year is exceptional. It reflects a negative AO and AAO, high surface pressure at the poles
2. If one averages data for the entire period 1948-2011 you see figure 8 in the document at: http://www.happs.com.au/images/stories/PDFarticles/TheCommonSenseOfClimateChange.pdf where the temperature falls with altitude through to 10hPa. (30km)
3. An average tells us nothing about the extremes that occur within the most active period in winter.
4. The essence of the circulation is that it varies on daily and monthly time scales so, if you reallay want to assess its variability you need to look at daily time scales.
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm
1. The current year is exceptional. It reflects a negative AO and AAO, high surface pressure at the poles
No, every year shows the same thing. Here are the last 11 years:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_p_t90s_2000.png
[…]
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/time_p_t90s_2011.png
4. The essence of the circulation is that it varies on daily and monthly time scales so, if you reallay want to assess its variability you need to look at daily time scales
The plots shown are daily values.
benfrommo says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:24 am
“This is typically referred to as the Arctic Osciliation. I would look at whether ozone concentrations in the arctic regions correspond to the AO index and how. This would be a verifiable method to see if your theory is sound in any fashion. The graphs you show are basically causes of various levels of the AO and how it pulses. It is curious that recent cool phases of the AO and the lower ozone concentration in the arctic seem to correlate so to speak.
And even if there is a correlation there, remember causation is so much more difficult. I think you hinted at this earlier, but does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail? I think until you figure that part out, the thought experiment is really besides the point.”
Exactly.
So, here is how it works. When the AO is positive we have a regime of low pressure at the pole and relatively high pressure in the mid latitudes. What happens?
Observation 1 from the historical record: Stratospheric temperature at 10hPa varies inversely with sea level pressure in the Arctic. Pressure rises, temperature falls.
Observation 2. It can be observed that in the Arctic stratosphere, locations that have enhanced ozone content are warmer and exhibit increased geopotential height.
Observation 3. This relates to the troposphere. When surface pressure falls in the Arctic or the Antarctic the atmosphere warms at the top of the stratosphere and cools in the troposphere. When surface pressure rises, the top of the stratosphere cools and the troposphere warms. It seems that increasing pressure is aligned with a tendency for the atmospheric column to descend bringing ozone rich air down below 100hPa. In the polar regions the surface is the source of outgoing long wave radiation therefore increasing the density of the net of ozone molecules that intercept this radiation. In other parts of the globe the upper troposphere tends to be the source of most outgoing long wave radiation, the implications of that seeming to be lost on greenhouse theorists.(just an aside, couldn’t help myself).
Observation 4. When surface pressure falls at 80-90S it falls almost as strongly at 60-70° south.
Why is it so?
1. The night jet depends directly upon polar surface pressure. As pressure falls less erosive nitrogen oxide descends into the top of the stratosphere. Consequently ozone levels increase. The coupled circulation carries more ozone into the troposphere at the margins of the circulation, and it warms causing cloud cover to diminish. More solar radiation gets to the surface which warms.
2. The polar easterlies collapse.
3. The south westerlies prevail all the way from 30°north latitude to the pole.
It appears that the coupled circulation is enhanced as soon as the upper stratosphere warms. This provokes a strong sea surface temperature response. You can see this for yourself if you plot the AO index against sea surface temperature at 50-60° north latitude. Data source for Sea surface temperature here:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Is this plain?
Benfromo,
You will notice that there is no reference to water vapour in the stratosphere in that reply. So, if that particular point of confusion is still of concern, take it up with Leif .
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm
You will notice that there is no reference to water vapour in the stratosphere in that reply.
So you retract:
“Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 7:46 pm
So you retract:
Good morning Leif
That statement relates to a phenomenon that may or may not be real. It is not necessary to the argument so feel free to ignore it.
The chemistry that you describe for depletion of ozone in the high latitude stratosphere is not the complete story either. Do you want to retract that? I am referring to your post at :
August 21, 2011 at 9:09 am
The process that you refer to may participate in spring in the Antarctic but it has no bearing on the ozone depletion that we see here in the middle of Northern Hemisphere summer that is evident here:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_30_nh_f00.gif
And the process that results in this sort of depletion when polar pressure is high is of far greater importance than the chemistry that you describe.
This sort of debating technique is unproductive. Can we rise above it?
“”””” Richard S Courtney says:
August 21, 2011 at 5:43 am
Friends:
I do not like “thought experiments” because they are usually so divorced from reality that they are often misleading in ways that cannot be known. However, I interject at this point in this discussion in hope of helping by asking all sides to consider a point raised by Crispin in Waterloo at August 20, 2011 at 11:06 pm . “””””
So Crispin in Waterloo suggest that micro-water droplets are possible even at the low pressures of the Stratosphere, and they might not freeze either.
This begs the question, is either of these things possible ? May I suggest that each of them may be possible.
Well Leif raised the spectre of 1000 deg (izzat K or deg C) temperatures in the thermosphere. So at what altitude, does the Temperature rise to around zero deg C again, so that freezing need not occur ?
So what about that evaporation at such altitudes. Enter (possibly) the surface tension of water, and the resulting excess internal pressure. As every Physics 101 student knows, the internal excess presure inside a water droplet, or inside a bubble in water, is 2t/r, where t is the surface tension in Newtons per metre, and r is the bubble radius. So at some small droplet radius, the surface tension can provide enough inward pressure to stop evaporation from occurring.
Surface tension arises, because at the surface there no longer are molecules above to provide an outward attractive force, so the intermolecular inward forces, seek to minimize the surface area, and at a small enough radius, can presumably raise the required escape velocity to the point where evaporation is either absent or greatly reduced.
So I believe that the existence of liquid water micro-droplets, as described by Crispin in Waterloo seems entirely plausible. I am sure that some enterprising young Physics student can research the value for the surface Tension of water, and investigate the escape velocity at above zero (non-freezing) temperature, and determine the critical droplet radius that could avoid evaporation as well.
George,
Since we are following this red herring, here is a genuine query from a person with no pretension to understand the stuff you are talking about:
How does the relationship between surface pressure and boiling point fit into that analysis. When using an Ebulliometer to measure alcohol one must know the boiling point of water and the boiling point of the fluid containing the alcohol. The temperature at which water boils varies with atmospheric pressure that depends on altitude and the day of the week.
Put the question another way: At what atmospheric pressure will ice sublimate directly into the atmosphere and how do we describe that “particle” that it sublimates to. Will that “particle” interact with either the oxygen atom or the ozone molecule.
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm
That statement relates to a phenomenon that may or may not be real. It is not necessary to the argument so feel free to ignore it.
If it is not necessary, you shouldn’t waste the reader’s time with irrelevant nonsense.
The chemistry that you describe for depletion of ozone in the high latitude stratosphere is not the complete story either.
It is not my story. It is the accepted explanation for the depletion.
The process that you refer to may participate in spring in the Antarctic but it has no bearing on the ozone depletion that we see here in the middle of Northern Hemisphere summer that is evident here […]
And the process that results in this sort of depletion when polar pressure is high is of far greater importance than the chemistry that you describe.
You ascribed the depletion to ozone being dissolved in water. That was what I objected to.
This sort of debating technique is unproductive. Can we rise above it?
Sure: remove the statements that are not necessary or dead wrong. Then you have risen above being unproductive. I have suggested that already:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 7:06 am
Your way out is to remove the statements I just cited, then as you now claim “it would make not the slightest jot of difference were there no water in any form in the stratosphere”. That is all.
George and Erl,
I am not sure the presence of water is what bothers me in the stratosphere. I am simply doubting whether ozone can and will dissolve in water as you say to a large enough extent to make a difference as stated.
Is the theory possible? I am not going to debate that without more data. The correlation study would be the first thing I would do as I hinted at in my first post….you have shown that the process follows certain other known processes. This is rather well done and I do note that the next step you should do is a correlation study between ozone concent in the deep arctic (80N+) and the actual AO. I don’t think I was clear on what I meant there, but your reply was very detailed and actually cleared up the issues I thought of there.
As far as the AO goes, the correlation between AO and “the other greenhouse gas” or ozone is crucial as a starting point. I don’t think that is the only thing you have to chart against, I just think its probably the most important at this time.
But having said that, I have book-marked your blog and will be looking forward to further reading on this subject. Just haven’t had time to do much more then look into detail on ozone. You learn something new everyday especially how ozone dissolves in higher quantities for longer periods of time the lower the temperature of water gets….Interesting stuff to say the least.
But that is probably why it seems like I am being so nit-picking. In reality, I think the truth of your thought experiment is based on that paragraph about water solubility of the greenhouse gas. There are just too many assumption you make in that paragraph that are not written out. That paragraph in other words is the cornerstone of your thought experiment. Without that paragraph and without it being beyond reproach, its rather weak.
I think you misunderstood the second part of my post: I will go to into this on my next post. Please do not take it as nit-picking. As I said, I found this article very interesting and its only the most interesting articles I check references and do my own research to figure out the issues. I have been tough on other authors as well, and its because I either enjoy their work or the article just grabs my attention. This article is one of those probably because I am so interested in the AO.
Reposting the paragraph for reference:
“Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.”
The problem goes back to the fact that I think someone pointed out that this particular paragraph is the cornerstone of the thought process here. If you take that out, every single statement after that is rather irrelevant by itself. That is why it might seem like a very nasty game of semantics, but in the end, this is the key to your cornerstone so to speak. In a thought experiment, the individual details which you simplify are not as important (such as you stating that water is not a greenhouse gas in this thought experiment.) That part is irrelevant. But the key parts of the reasoning are very important, and as the cornerstone, this paragraph is crucial to get right.
I will admit: I think you are onto something, but I also think there is more to it then you think here and that this paragraph might be slightly wrong to what is going on. This correlation is interesting, but I wonder if the cause and effect is really there or if you just found a correlation. This is the problem as I see it.
Let me play Devil’s advocate and explain a little more clearly what I was talking about in reference to the AO and issues with the correlation…..
If you look at ozone, the answer is probably there, but from what I can tell we obviously we all know that ozone goes back and forth from O2 to O3 (and vice versas) everytime its struck by UV. During the winter at the arctic, this process stops and so the ozone is kept in a constant state where it does not break down nor does it create more of itself. So therefore, even if dissolved in water (or not as the case may be), there is only so much ozone at any particular time at the arctic and this is the result of UV being the catalyst so to speak. But what if this correlation you seemed to have found is just part of another process? The ozone would be transferred to other parts of the globe farther to the south in this same process and although your data with the stratosphere seems correct, the correlation is nothing more then a coincidence and has nothing to do with cause and effect.
As I said, if you move ozone out of the arctic regions during the night, there is no way for it to reform until the next Spring/Summer. So lower concentrations of ozone which result from “big pulses of the Arctic Oscilliation” might just be a small part of this. Or perhaps ozone is moved farther North as is the case when the AO is rather weak….and this is what causes this correlation as the pressure ridges impact areas farther north.
This means that during the winter the arctic loses a portion of its ozone layer when the AO pulses strongly and loses not a lot when it pulses weakly. The fact that you found this stratosphere connection is interesting, so look into that if the ozone connection does not work out.
Having said all that, I want to add this: It is a very interesting theory and I for one am looking forward to more discussion on a subject such as this. Please don’t take this personally. This is one of the most interesting things I have thought about in awhile. The connection between the AO and Ozone is something I never even considered, and even if it turns out to be false, you at least advanced science by coming up with a theory that can either be proven or disproven, and once its disproven (or not) science will be that much better off for it.
The other issue is that we will understand ozone much better once we understand the exact process of how ozone moves around. I hope that helps to put this into perspective. I wanted to be clear that I am not trying to be difficult, but rather that the paragraph that is the cornerstone of your work needs some attention.
This paragraph is key to everything after it, so that is why it might seem like I am nit-picking it (And I think Leif is doing the same for similar reasons.) The thesis as you put it is based on this paragraph. Not sure how else to explain why its so important, but that is it.
One thing I do want to add while I think about it:
For the purpose of this thought experiment, the greenhouse gas properties of water can be ignorred for it. This is not as crucial as say the solubility statement which is important to get right.
benfrommo says:
August 21, 2011 at 10:21 pm AND August 21, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Thank you for your careful effort to explain your approach to this phenomenon. I have just posted the briefest possible explanation of what I have to contribute on the no 4 thread and I will do it here as well because I think it will help to explain the dynamics as I see them. You will see no mention of water vapour.
The phenomenon called the annular mode of inter-annual variability in climate is observed to relate to cloud cover via its effect on the temperature of the troposphere.
The annular mode depends upon the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere at high latitudes.
The strength of the coupled circulation as it relates to the loss of surface pressure at 60-70° south latitude is observed to vary with atmospheric pressure over Antarctica that affects the ozone content and the temperature of the stratosphere.
The interchange of atmospheric mass between Antarctica and the rest of the globe depends upon external influences including the solar wind.
Prediction: As atmospheric mass returns to Antarctica stratospheric ozone levels will fall, the coupled circulation will weaken, atmospheric pressure will rise at 60-70°south, cloud cover will increase in the southern hemisphere and it will cool. If the same phenomenon is observed in the Arctic, the northern hemisphere will also cool.
As is ever the case when one attempts the briefest of possible explanations that something gets missed out. And so far as you are concerned it is the most important bit. The variation in ozone content of the stratosphere at both poles is known to depend upon the rate of ingress of nitrogen compounds from the mesosphere via the night jet. When surface pressure at the pole increases the night jet is more active, and ozone gets depleted.
So, the whole mechanism of the Arctic Oscillation is based on the relationship between surface pressure at the pole vis a vis the mid latitudes ( 50-60°north). In practice it is polar pressure that is important. High AO means low polar atmospheric surface pressure. That involves reduced night jet activity, less nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere, more ozone in the stratosphere, a warmer stratosphere, reduced pressure at 50-60°north and more ozone entering the troposphere reducing cloud cover.
The important thing to note is that the entire thing depends upon polar pressure. That in turn is externally driven vy the solar wind….see part 4.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“This sort of debating technique is unproductive. Can we rise above it?
Sure: remove the statements that are not necessary or dead wrong. Then you have risen above being unproductive. I have suggested that already:”
As I have already said the following paragraph could be removed and it would not affect the exposition one jot.
“Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.”
But as to whether it is true or not, that is another question entirely and on present evidence I reckon it might well have more than a grain of truth in it. H2O has many forms.
For the record: The ozone content of the polar stratosphere is primarily a function of polar atmospheric pressure as it affects the influx of oxides of nitrogen from the mesosphere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm
1. The current year is exceptional. It reflects a negative AO and AAO, high surface pressure at the poles
No, every year shows the same thing. Here are the last 11 years:
The graphs you relay on show no detail. What they confirm is that temperature does fall into the stratosphere to more than 25Km in elevation.
If you want a better resolution you get better data as I did for my figure 8. The point is that to all intents and purposes there is no tropopause. The profile favours convection and the profile varies over time.
Nit picking.
Leif,
Just a thought. What is it that depletes ozone above the equator right up to 16-18km in elevation. Presumably the H2O there is in the form of ice? If the ice can deplete ozone at a temperature of minus 80°C in the troposphere why can it not do the same in the stratosphere at the same temperature?
erl happ says:
August 21, 2011 at 11:36 pm
As I have already said the following paragraph could be removed and it would not affect the exposition one jot.
“Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.”
Yet you resist removing it and keep trying to defend it.
erl happ says:
August 22, 2011 at 12:23 am
The graphs you relay on show no detail. What they confirm is that temperature does fall into the stratosphere to more than 25Km in elevation.
They show the data at every height and every day. All the detail you need. And they show that temperature increases from 25 km up contrary to your claim that the temperature falls all the way to the top of the atmosphere.
Nit picking.
Necessary to remove the chaff and get to the wheat [if there is any].
erl happ says:
August 22, 2011 at 6:09 am
What is it that depletes ozone above the equator right up to 16-18km in elevation. Presumably the H2O there is in the form of ice?
for the zillionth time: it is not H2O that depletes ozone anywhere. Here is the current understanding of ozone depletion:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2006/
I do not think he was saying that H20 depletes ozone. I think the assertion was that H2 O holds onto the ozone in a dissolved state and that this is why levels are lower around the equater (or even just farther south) where there is theoritically more H2O in the water state due to higher temperatures. The issues with this are very relevant though and this is my issue with the dissolved and/or solubility question.
benfrommo says:
August 22, 2011 at 10:54 am
I do not think he was saying that H20 depletes ozone. I think the assertion was that H2 O holds onto the ozone in a dissolved state and that this is why levels are lower around the equater (or even just farther south) where there is theoritically more H2O in the water state due to higher temperatures. The issues with this are very relevant though and this is my issue with the dissolved and/or solubility question.
The reason ozone is lower in the equatorial lower troposphere is that ozone is destroyed by solar UV which is stronger in the tropics. This whole water thing is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with ozone depletion or concentration.
The reason ozone is lower in the equatorial lower troposphere is that ozone is destroyed by solar UV which is stronger in the tropics. This whole water thing is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with ozone depletion or concentration.
? Doesn’t UV create ozone?
It’s the chlorine that destroys it, isn’t it?
Which according to this http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5497/1756.abstract is enhanced by the presence of nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) particles in the polar stratospheric clouds.
Here ozone creation:
“In the stratosphere, ozone is created primarily by ultraviolet radiation. When high-energy ultraviolet rays strike ordinary oxygen molecules (O2), they split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms, known as atomic oxygen. A freed oxygen atom then combines with another oxygen molecule to form a molecule of ozone. There is so much oxygen in our atmosphere, that these high-energy ultraviolet rays are completely absorbed in the stratosphere.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ozone/ozone_2.php
Leif, you say
“The reason ozone is lower in the equatorial lower troposphere is that ozone is destroyed by solar UV which is stronger in the tropics. This whole water thing is pure nonsense and has nothing to do with ozone depletion or concentration.”
The tropopause is where temperature stops falling with increasing altitude. The mid latitude tropopause is about 10km up. The equatorial tropopause can be seen here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2009.gif
As you can see its about 15km up.
As I understand it temperature stops falling with altitude in the 10-15km range because of the absorption of outgoing radiation from the atmosphere by ozone.
Now, what’s this stuff about solar UV destroying ozone between 10km and 15km in the tropical upper troposphere? I assume that reference to the ‘lower’ troposphere was just a typo.
Leif,
I wonder what is destroying the ozone here, and at this time of he year, middle of summer?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_20_nh_f00.gif
Does your UN report cover this phenomenon?
Leif,
The substance of this post resides in the three diagrams. Why not address the substance of the post.
Here is the essence of it:
1. 200hPa temperature and GPH dynamics reflect the activity of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere.
2. Sea surface temperature anomalies reflect the same dynamics.
3. The increase in the temperature of the polar stratosphere, higher at the highest levels. How will this affect the coupled circulation, the evolution of surface pressure at the margins of Antarctica and sea surface temperature?
Is this a no-go area for you?
Myrrh says:
August 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm
? Doesn’t UV create ozone?
It’s the chlorine that destroys it, isn’t it?
UV both creates and destroys ozone, see Figure 5 of
http://www.ozonedepletion.info/education/ozone.html#C
erl happ says:
August 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm
As I understand it temperature stops falling with altitude in the 10-15km range because of the absorption of outgoing radiation from the atmosphere by ozone.
And yet you claim the temperature decreases all the way to the top of the atmosphere…
I assume that reference to the ‘lower’ troposphere was just a typo.
Yeah, should be ‘higher’
erl happ says:
August 22, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Does your UN report cover this phenomenon?
I linked to that report for your education, so go study it carefully.
erl happ says:
August 22, 2011 at 6:38 pm
The substance of this post resides in the three diagrams. Why not address the substance of the post.
the whole post is build on the assumption that ozone is depleted by being dissolved in water.
1. 200hPa temperature and GPH dynamics reflect the activity of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere.
Trivial point, such has been known for decades, e,g, the the Brewer-Dobson circulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation. Can you point us to links that dispute that are such couplings?
2. Sea surface temperature anomalies reflect the same dynamics.
another trivial point. Can you point us to links that dispute this?
3. The increase in the temperature of the polar stratosphere, higher at the highest levels. How will this affect the coupled circulation, the evolution of surface pressure at the margins of Antarctica and sea surface temperature?
I’m sure the atmospheric circulation models have answers for that. Can you point us to links that dispute that is such an effect?
In short, the only things that are ‘original’ [but wrong] are
1) ozone depletion is caused by it being dissolved in water
2) the temperature falls all the way to the top of the atmosphere
3) geomagnetic activity controls the pressure at the surface