Guest post by Erl Happ
The Southern Oscillation Index is a reference point for the strength of the Trade winds. It represents the difference in atmospheric pressure between Tahiti and Darwin. In figure 1 the SOI is the red line with its values on the right axis. A negative SOI reflects slack trade winds and a warming ocean. A positive index relates to a cooling globe. Note that the right axis in figure 1 is inverted.
How is it that change in surface atmospheric pressure is so closely associated with a change in the temperature of the tropical ocean? This is the major unsolved riddle in climate science. If temperature is so obviously associated with pressure on an inter-annual basis why not in the long-term? In this article I show that pressure and temperature are intimately related on all time scales. In other words, ENSO is not an ‘internal oscillation of the climate system‘ that can be considered to be climate neutral. ENSO is climate change in action. You can’t rule it out. You must rule it in. Once you do so, the IPCC assertion that the recent increase in surface temperature is more than likely due to the works of man is not just ‘in doubt’, it is insupportable.
If the IPPC can’t explain ENSO it can not explain climate change. It is not in a position to predict surface temperature. Its efforts to quantify the rise in temperature must be seen to be nothing more than wild imaginings. Its prescriptions for ‘saving the planet’ must be viewed as ridiculous.
Surface pressure data: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/soidatafiles/index.php. Monthly temperature data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Temperature change is linked to change in surface atmospheric pressure
Figure 1 Left axis Temperature in °C. Right axis three month moving average of the monthly southern Oscillation Index
The Southern Oscillation Index leads surface temperature on the upswing and also on the downswing. Some factor associated with change in surface pressure is plainly responsible for temperature change.
How and why does atmospheric pressure change?
The evolution of surface pressure throughout the globe depends upon the activity of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere in Antarctica and in the Arctic. These circulations have become more aggressive over time resulting in a loss of atmospheric mass in high latitudes and gain at low latitudes. The gain at low latitudes reflects the seasonal pattern of increased intensity in the respective polar circulations. The stratosphere and the troposphere couple most intensely in February in the Arctic and in June through to September in the Antarctic. The pattern of enhanced activity at particular times of the year is reflected in the timing of the increase in sea surface pressure in equatorial latitudes, as seen in figure 2.
Figure 2 Gain in average monthly sea level pressure between the decade 1948-1957 and the decade 2001-2010. hPa
The coupled circulation in the southern hemisphere produces a deep zone of low pressure on the margins of Antarctica that encircles the entire globe as is clearly evident in figures 3 and 4. In previous posts I have documented the change in high latitude pressure since 1948 and the associated change in wind strength, sea surface temperature and by inference, since the atmosphere is warmed by the descent of ozone into the troposphere, a change in cloud cover.
Figure 3 Mean sea level pressure January
The pressure deficit on margins of Antarctica is deepest in July (winter).
Figure 4 Mean sea level pressure July
It is of interest therefore to look at the evolution of the pressure relationship between Tahiti and Darwin (that is the essence of the SOI) over time.
Bear in mind that as atmospheric mass moves from high latitudes to the equator atmospheric pressure increases at Darwin more than it does at Tahiti and the trade winds slacken. The increase in pressure at Darwin is well correlated with the increase in atmospheric pressure in equatorial latitudes globally. The plunge is atmospheric pressure at high latitudes that enables the increase in pressure at the equator is associated with cloud loss and increased sea surface temperature in mid and low latitudes. The most abbreviated explanation of mechanism behind the loss of cloud can be found here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/20/the-character-of-climate-change-part-3/
Figure 5 Thirty day moving average of the difference in daily sea level pressure between Tahiti and Darwin hPa.
The excess of pressure in Tahiti with respect to Darwin over the period 1999-2011 is shown in figure 5. The differential plainly evolves over time and an indication of the direction of change is given by the fitted polynomial curve.
Secondly, we can see that the pressure differential exhibits a pattern of seasonal variation. In general the pressure differential is high at the turn of the year and low in mid year.
The pattern of the average daily differential for the entire period for which daily data is available (1992 -2011) is shown in figure 6.
Figure 6 Average daily sea level pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin over period 1992-2011. hPa
We observe that the pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin:
• Reflects strong variability even when averaged over a period of twenty years.
• Is greatest between late December and the end of February (strong Trade winds)
• Is least between April and September (weak Trade winds).
• Shows a pattern of enhancement in February- March and also in September- October that plainly relates to the pattern of pressure increase in near equatorial latitudes evident in figure 2. The shift in the atmosphere away from Antarctica tends to enhance the pressure differential driving the trade winds all year, but in particular in September and October. So far as the Arctic is concerned the pressure loss is centered on February and March.
Why do the trades tend to fail in mid year?
Figure 7 Sea level pressure hPa. Seasonal pattern in Tahiti and Darwin.
The erosion of the pressure differential in southern winter relates to the establishment of a high pressure zone over the Australian continent. Compare figures 3 and 4 noting the difference in atmospheric pressure over Australia in summer and winter.
Change in the pressure differential (and the trade winds) over time.
In figures 8-11 the evolution of the pressure differential between 1997 and 2000 is compared with its evolution between the years 2009-2011.
Figure 8 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
The first and largest El Nino of solar cycle 23 began in early 1997. The first El Nino in Cycle 24 started in late 2009. The pattern of the differential is shown in figure 8. Plainly, the reduction in the pressure differential was more extreme in 1997 than in 2009.
Figure 9 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
The reduced differential persisted till March in 2010 and May in 1998. The last half of the year saw a strong recovery.
Figure 10 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
In 1999 and 2011 we see a strong pressure differential (La Nina) in the early part of the year, and in the case of 1999 this enhanced differential persisted through to the end of the year. The differential in early 2011 was much stronger than it had been in 1999.
It is noticeable that week to week variability is enhanced in 2011. I suggest that this relates to increased plasma density in an atmosphere due to reduced ionizing short wave radiation in solar cycle 24 by comparison with 23. Under these circumstances El Nino and La Nina produce a relatively ‘wild ride’.
We note the extension of La Nina into a second year.
Figure 11 Daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
2000 was a La Nina year coinciding with solar maximum. A coincidence of La Nina with solar maximum is more usual than not. On that basis one expects the current La Nina to continue into 2012. However, given the relative deficiency in short wave ionizing radiation in cycle 24 with respect to cycle 23 this time around might be different. The likely lack of a well-defined peak in cycle 24 will make a difference. If the cycle goes in fits and starts, so to will the ENSO experience.
Is the climate swinging towards El Nino as it warms?
It is a favorite meme of those who suggest that the globe is warming ‘due to change in trace gas composition’ that the climate is likely to progress towards a more of less permanent El Nino existence. Does recent history support this assetion? Is a warming globe associated with increased incidence of El Nino?
Figure 12 Average daily pressure differential Tahiti less Darwin hPa
In the six year period 1992-1997 the average daily pressure differential reveals an El Nino bias in relation to average for the entire period 1992-2011. In this period the globe warmed, but the degree of warming was subdued by the eruption of Pinatub0 in 1991.
Figure 12 Average daily pressure differential Tahiti less Darwin hPa
A cooling bias is evident over the last seven years from 2005 through to 2011.
Figure 13 Average daily pressure differential. Tahiti less Darwin. hPa
Plainly there has been a progression away from an El Nino towards a La Nina state over the twenty years since 1992. In the period to 1998 the globe plainly warmed. In the period since 1998 warming seems to have ceased. There have been a suggestion that some heat that ‘should be there’ has gone missing. Can this be read as an admission that warming has either slowed down or has actually ceased?
Conclusion:
ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is the reality of climate change in action. The progression towards cooling that is evident in the increasing pressure differential between Tahiti and Darwin shows no sign of abating. The ENSO state changes not only on an inter-annual time scale but on very much longer time scales. ENSO is plainly not ‘climate neutral’.
If we look back at figure 1 we will see that the Southern Oscillation Index leads the change in tropical sea surface temperature on the upswing and the downswing. The SOI is more positive (cooling) in 2011 than it has been at any time over the last sixty years.
Until the IPPC can properly account for ENSO cycles they can not attribute climate change to ‘change in trace gas composition due to the works of man’. We see an excellent correlation between surface pressure and surface temperature and no correlation at all between trace gas concentration and surface temperature.
Where is Science?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jorgekafkazar,
Of course we know that. How stupid do you think people are here. I was just pointing out that there necessarily must be a relationship between temperature and pressure. Of course the latent heat effects will modify things but it does not change the inherent strong interrelationship existing between temperature and pressure for a gas (even a non-ideal gas)
Yawn!
It is quite funny, as in funny peculiar and not funny ha, ha, but atmospheric pressure comes in two forms.
1) We measure the weight of the (or a) column of air sitting statically above the earth’s surface with a “Barometer” and the pressure/weight of that air-column is around one bar, or 1Kg/m². That includes clouds, rain and the poxiest weather you can ever imagine.
Even with tons of rain pelting down, your barometer will only record some 9 hundred + milli-bars, up to maybe 1 Bar of pressure at the surface. — Now then, if the rain, the clouds and all the heavy stuff has had enough and goes away – you would expect the pressure to decrease, but it does not, – it increases. – Why is that?
You may very well ask and the answer is that as the energy from the Sun warms the “Earth’s Surface” which, in turn, warms the atmosphere (a point which is lost on today’s “Climate Scientists”)The air warms and clouds vanish and the Sun’s Rays have “free accsess” to the surface, warming it even more. Above this “Heated Surface” an air pocket is now created, inside which the pressure is bound to be greater than that at the outside as the, inside, warm air (never mind its temperature) is pushing against the cold air at the outside. So yes, Temperature and pressure are linked very closely. But what came first?
My assumption is that the Sun Rules.
Is it really possible that those here can be surprised by the discovery that pressure and temperature are strongly related? Have some forgotten that the barometer is a time tested proven useful tool to predict weather.
A “high pressure” system is indicative of good weather and higher temperatures. A “low pressure” system is associated with cooler air, higher moisture and often bringing precipitation.
jorgekafkazar says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Sorry to rain (ha-ha!) on your parade, you who cite the Ideal Gas Law as if holy writ, ………
======================================================================
jorge…….not as a holy writ, but as an ignored part of the climate discussion. I don’t recall seeing any scientific paper regard these gas laws relating to CAGW, yet, the central theme of CAGW is regarding a gas! And, whether Erl wants to venture down this path or not, his figure 1 clearly demonstrates the relationship, and he ties it quit nicely to how it effects ENSO. I don’t view it as the “end all” of the climate discussion, but I do view it as necessary to seriously address if the general knowledge of our climate is to progress.
Indeed, it must be addressed, the ideal gas law, PV=nRT, or, PV=NkT where k is Boltzmann’s constant, and where do we see a derivative of Boltzmann’s constant? The Arrhenius equation.
The IGL seems to be some crazy uncle to climatology that’s kept in the attic that no one wishes to talk about for fear that he’d start telling all of the family secrets. I simply see it as a different perspective. Seeing that climatology hasn’t made any significant advances in the last 20-30 years, I think it time to view it from a different angle.
Just my thoughts,
James
O H Dahlsveen says:
September 23, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“Now then, if the rain, the clouds and all the heavy stuff has had enough and goes away – you would expect the pressure to decrease, but it does not, – it increases. – Why is that?”
Clear, calm weather is associated with high pressure because the air sinks suppressing cloud formation. Low pressure is associated with stormy weather because the heated air rises, clouds form, condensation occurs and rain falls.. When you say the bad weather “goes away” it has simply been displaced by a high pressure air mass and nice weather.
James Sexton says regarding the Ideal Gas Law: “jorge…….not as a holy writ, but as an ignored part of the climate discussion. I don’t recall seeing any scientific paper regard these gas laws relating to CAGW, yet, the central theme of CAGW is regarding a gas!”
True, there’s not a lot of “ideal gas” behavior discussion in CAGW. Why is this? (Beyond the obvious fact that the atmosphere is not an ideal gas) (1) As has been pointed out before, measurement of “Global Temperature” is problematic because it ignores heat flow, humidity change, etc. (2) The thermal mass of the ocean is about 1100 times the corresponding heat-carrying capability of the atmosphere.
Thus there are many much more important issues than behavior of gases, ideal or not. If I was designing, say, a car, do you suppose I’d have reams and reams of calculations focusing on “F=mA?” No, despite the underlying relevance of Newton’s Second Law of Motion:to every machine, It’s not the scientific area of interest for automotive design. Similarly, the area of greatest relevance for CAGW is not ideal gas law, but Marxist dialectic materialism.
There-science? O_0
jorgekafkazar says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm
James Sexton says regarding the Ideal Gas Law: “jorge…….not as a holy writ, but as an ignored part of the climate discussion. ………… a car, do you suppose I’d have reams and reams of calculations focusing on “F=mA?” No, despite the underlying relevance of Newton’s Second Law of Motion:to every machine, It’s not the scientific area of interest for automotive design. Similarly, the area of greatest relevance for CAGW is not ideal gas law, but Marxist dialectic materialism.
==============================================================
And we wonder why we can’t get our MPG up. 🙂 …….. Kidding aside, Jorge, I don’t disagree with your last statement. Nor do I disagree with the general thrust and posits of your comment. It is just that I believe we are limiting our ability to respond to the alarmists by ignore established physical and chemical laws. For instance, much as been stated about the second law of thermodynamics and how the alarmism seems to contradict it……. but when we inspect the law, “The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.” There’s those silly references to temps and pressure……….. again. And, no, the gases in the collective are not ideal. But, I’ve yet to see a credible argument as to how the principles won’t apply in this case.
Well, if you want something done, ………. I’m working on tidal gauge measurements right now, after I’m done with that, I guess I’ll have to address this stuff……. BTW, other than viscosity, is there much difference in applying physical laws to space occupied by gas vs liquid?
James
TomRude says: September 23, 2011 at 10:52 am
Some quotes from Leroux:
It is obvious that the notion of “permanence” relative to action centers represents only a convenience for discussion, because in the meteorological reality nothing is “stable”, everything is always moving. To analyse the actual dynamics of climate, and particularly the actual processes of circulation, one must take into account that
meridlonal air and energy exchanges are chiefly made under the form of large migratory airmasses.
what physical process can clearly explain that low levels cold air outbreaks are stronger and more numerous in winter? In short, there is not yet an unanimity on the genesis of lows. Theories emphasize the intensification of an Initial low, but “they do not really explain the actual cyclogenesis process, namely the formation of the initial low” (Thepenier, 1983).
The relationship, strong MPH/deep low (or inversely: weak MPH/less deep low), observed at the synoptic scale as at the seasonal scale (Leroux, 1986, 1990, 1991), has been verified (indirectly, through the SSTs) on a statlstical scale m the northern Atlantic Ocean by Kushnir (1991) who noted that “the years with warm SSTs were charactenzed
by lower than normal pressure south of the mean position of the Icelandic low, while the opposite situation tended to prevail in the years with cold SSTs” Trenberth (1990) has also observed “pressures 7-9 mb lower in the Aleutian Low”, and “about 6 mb higher” in the Northern Atlantic at the place where is located the so-called Azores high, in January, on northern hemisphere pressure maps for the 1945-1977 and 1980-1986 periods, the latter period corresponding to a cooling trend. The analyse by Flohn et al. (1990) of the 1961/1962-1987/1988 period pressure trends over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, highlights the “rise of kinetic energy” and for example In winter over the Atlantic area, shows that “the 26-year trend is remarkable”, with a large area of pressure fall up to -6 hPa at the SE coast of Greenland, which contrasts with a “rising pressure in the Atlantic south of 47°N.. “. This relationship is also observed in the Northern Pacific area where, “during the cold season, the Aleutian Low. deepens remarkably, by 9 hpa, during the 22-year period” (Flohn et al., 1990) This relationship has also been empirically revealed in China in the past 2200 years, from 250 BC to 1900 AD by Wang (1980) who, even if for him “the exact cause for this is not known”, remarked that “the high frequency of winter thunders tends to be associated with colder climates”. As a result, at the statistical scale, a deeper “Icelandic” or “Aleutian” low signifies that the MPHs, which governed the depth of the lows, were themselves stronger during the according period.
In summary, high latitudes are still considerably more important than supposed by Weller (1990), and are undoubtedly the “key to world climate” (Abelson, 1989), if we consider the formation of cold airmasses, and their propagation as far as into the heart of the tropical zone. Such a process incite us to integrate the MPH in present and past troposphere circulation models.
The polar latitudes appear as the key control of the earth climate, in the past as in the present: they observe the highest variations of insolation, they store the captured water potential, they give the MPHs their initial power, and thus they govern the Intensity of the general circulation, at the seasonal scale as at the palaeoclmatic scale The MPH concept, founded on the real observation of meteorological phenomena, offers a coherent and comprehensive explanation, on all space and time scales, from local weather to the general circulation, from the present climatic features to the global past climates. It appears therefore impossible to remain ignorant of the actual importance of the Mobile Polar High still, the key factor of climate and of its evolution.
My comment: Great work for 1992. But while Leroux is aware of some aspects of the phenomena his work seems to take no advantage of the observations of Thompson, Dunkerton and others in relation to the annular modes that arise from the coupling of the stratosphere and the troposphere at high latitudes.Seems to me that you need to do some reading in that area.This is a great place to start: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/introduction.html
Here is how I understand the Harry Huffman PV=NRT hypothesis regarding atmospheric temperature.
The Sun is some millions of degrees at its core, but how do we say that the Sun is at about 6000K? That temperature is of the radiating photosphere. Below the photosphere, the gas is more or less opaque; above the photosphere, more or less transparent, and the temperature of the Sun we “see” is of this region where the gases become transparent.
The Earth too has a photosphere, or what I would like to call a “radiative thermosphere”, where below it the atmosphere is more or less opaque to infra-red and above is more or less transparent. Down on the ground, the average temperature is about 15 C, at the thermosphere it is about -15 C, which is the mean blackbody radiative temperature of the Earth, much as 6000K is the radiative temperature of the Sun — think of the outgoing blackbody radiation of the Earth as that of a really cool, dim star.
The 30 C temperature difference between surface and radiative thermosphere has two complementary explanations — it is the baseline “greenhouse” atmospheric thermal blanket that keeps the oceans from freezing solid; it is the PV=NRT compression heating (more precisely, the adiabatic lapse rate) between surface and thermosphere.
Now the lapse rate is a bit more complicated than that — it changes with humidity — and the atmospheric thermal transparency is wavelength dependent. Although perhaps an oversimplification, Harry Huffman has it right, that even after correcting for being closer to the Sun, Venus is hellishly hot because of compression heating of the atmospheric blanket below the thermosphere, which he claims to be at the same pressure level on Earth and Venus, which places it in mid-troposphere for Earth.
This provides a simpler explanation of the Spencer and Braselton results. The surface temperature of the Earth is what it is, and it doesn’t matter how it gets to be that way with ENSO and albedo variation with cloud cover or whatever. If the surface changes .1 K, the atmosphere appears to reequilibrate after a 3 month lag, the thermosphere changes by .1 K, and (to quote John Madden) boom! The heat radiated by the thermosphere goes up by the Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 relation.
Tropospheric clouds may change albedo and radiation incoming from the Sun, but tropospheric clouds are irrelevant to the “climate sensitivity parameter” because the troposphere is largely opaque to the long wavelengths the Earth radiates at. The climate sensitivity is essentially the Stefan-Boltzman law for radiation from the thermosphere, with the thermosphere linked to the surface through the lapse rate and the apparent 3-month equilibration time constant, and the Spencer-Brazelton data indicate that the lapse rate is not varying with changes in surface temperature, contradicting the climate-model assumption of positive feedback.
A. C. Osborn says: September 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
Erl, have you any idea why the switch in relative positions occurs around 1997.1998?
I take it you are referring to figure 1. We see the SOI (inverted) rise faster than SST between 1976-8. Atmospheric pressure rose at the equator and fell at the southern pole. The trades fell away as the differential pressure driving the Trades between Tahiti and Darwin evaporated.
Why did atmospheric pressure increase at the equator? A strong increase in the ozone concentration and the temperature of the stratosphere over Antarctica led to a big fall in surface pressure at 60-70°south latitude. The loss at high latitudes is balanced by gain elsewhere. Specific and relative humidity fell away as the upper troposphere warmed due to the addition of trace amounts of ozone. So, cloud evaporated. More sunlight reached the ocean. But the ocean absorbs energy to depth and warms only slowly.
Why more ozone in the stratosphere? The night jet that brings NOx from the mesosphere is very sensitive to change in surface pressure. The distribution of the atmosphere between high and low latitudes is in the first instance sensitive to the solar wind as conditioned by the level of irradiance which in turn affects plasma density. 1976-8 saw the transition between the weak solar cycle 20 and the strong cycle 21. We have high plasma density and a sudden increase in geomagnetic activity. The atmosphere shifted equator-ward. The night jet collapsed. Over the period since 1978 the night jet has gradually recovered its influence, in part because the concentration of NOx in the mesosphere increases with solar activity, just one illustration of the checks and balances that keeps the Earth’s climate relatively stable.
Paul Milenkovic says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Here is how I understand the Harry Huffman PV=NRT hypothesis regarding atmospheric temperature…….
=========================================================
Hmm……. I wasn’t aware Huffman was credited with the equation, but, you gave an excellent primer. So, I’m wondering, how does the addition of CO2 enter into the equation? Volume? Moles? At what ratio?
As I alluded to earlier, I haven’t explored this thought as much as I would wish because I’m off on a different excursion, so I’m limited more to questions than I am answers.
Earl Happ writes: “My comment: Great work for 1992. But while Leroux is aware of some aspects of the phenomena his work seems to take no advantage of the observations of Thompson, Dunkerton and others in relation to the annular modes that arise from the coupling of the stratosphere and the troposphere at high latitudes.”
I suggested Doug S. start with this available, seminal paper of 1993, establishing the importance of lower tropospheric circulation and its geometry. I did also offer the reference to his final text book, finished in 2008 and published in 2010. In the latest, section 14.5 is dedicated to El Nino and the ENSO in relation to aerological dynamics, in particular that during EN, “Darwin is subject to the northern winter dynamic while Tahiti experiences the southern summer dynamic” and that “there is no direct physical link between them”. He then went on putting ENSO in a general circulation context and how these indexes are merely obsolete.
Leroux’s work is extremely coherent and based on observations, hardly on models. His affirmations are demonstrated by data so following his reasoning is a very didactic process. Last but not least, he was quite a modest man and he would surely blush from knowing that Mr. Earl Happ gave him a nice pat on the back for 30 years of climatology, including a comprehensive meteorology and climate of Tropical Africa and the precise reconstruction of tropospheric circulation geometry and dynamics…
TomRude says: September 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm
If your tone were more civil and your offerings more generous in content it would help all of us. I do hate to be misleading in what I write. You don’t say enough to enable me to judge whether I am right or wrong or just plain silly….which is what you seem to be keen to assert.
My edition of Leroux’s work is not to hand but I think it is three or four years old. I agree with you. He is an original thinker, a close observer and his work is great.
I would appreciate it if you could expand on this comment: “Darwin is subject to the northern winter dynamic while Tahiti experiences the southern summer dynamic” and that “there is no direct physical link between them”. He then went on putting ENSO in a general circulation context and how these indexes are merely obsolete.
Assertions are one thing. Convincing argument is another. So, lets know how Leroux reaches that conclusion.
Earl I’ll indeed expand as it seems logical to me but probably obtuse to many who are not familiar with his work. Needless to say that if you have read one of his books, it ties logically with the description of circulation.
Basically despite his geographical position below the geographical equator, during the boreal winter, Darwin is affected by the Australian monsoon, by definition an Ekman circulation that is an extension of the north hemisphere Asian/west Pacific aerological space, as it crosses the geographical equator. Thus its pressure evolution is consistent with this unit of circulation, in contrast with Tahiti, which pressure evolution is reflecting a different aerological space, separated by the meteorological equator, itself controlled by the austral summer during that season.
Through pressure and temperature observations, he demonstrates that it is the dilatation of the northern hemisphere circulation that shifts the Inclined Meteorological Equator and its associated Australian Monsoon affecting Darwin and Vertical Meteorological Equator over the Pacific ocean to an eastward position, a consequence of which is the strengthening of the Equatorial Counter-Current and the generation of the El Nino current. To complicate matters, central Pacific high pressure agglutination and the North Atlantic circulation, through the Panamean isthmus, also have an influence on the southward shift of the VME along the south American coast. The variations of these different components account for the variability in time and space of the EN event.
This dilatation is a sign that more powerful MPHs are created during a colder northern hemisphere winter.
Therefore establishing the cause/effect link of the synoptic reality is much more important than the statistical entities (such as the Azores anticyclone for the NAO) that have been used to define these indexes when satellites did not exist.
Hope I summed it up well.
Thanks Tom,
Erl is short for Erland, nothing to do with Earl.
The fact that Darwin and Tahiti tend to belong to different circulations is no doubt part of the explanation as to why the SOI behaves as it does. Note however that strong gyrations happen on a daily/weekly basis in southern winter when these two locations are on the same side of the meteorological equator.
What you describe is all valid stuff but my perception that Leroux and your own ideas of the origin of ENSO might be enhanced if you took into account the work that I pointed to is unchanged. I see nothing in the above that explains the rise and fall in sea surface temperature, the change in cloud cover and the shifts in the atmosphere between high and low latitudes that are all part of the ENSO variation.
How is it that change in surface atmospheric pressure is so closely associated with a change in the temperature of the tropical ocean?
Erl,
The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
http://virakkraft.com/wind-latent-heat.png
lgl the wind carries all sorts of stuff including BS. You have got to be a less enigmatic if you want to be persuasive.
Philip Bradley says:
September 23, 2011 at 2:57 am
////////////////////////////////////
In addition, there is also the change in albedo. In January (notwithstanding the mantra that snow will be a thing of the past rarely seen) there is a lot of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.
I consider that the temperature of the Earth is almost exclusively governed by the energy in and out of the oceans (ocean currents and winds distrubute this energy around the globe).
Erl, please direct me to a knowledgeable source regarding the polar night jet. You have gotten my attention yet again. Maybe very elementary question, but I don’t want to miss anything.
Your atmospheric theories are extremely thought provoking. Needs to be evaluated in depth by those without an axe to grind or an agenda.
Thanks
Yes, how many links must we give Erl Happ
Before he sees less wind > lower heat flux > higher SST?
The answer my friend …
Energy is added to a gas when you compress it. (work = force x distance and all that.) If the container is poorly insulated, then more thermal energy is released from the warmed gas than would be had it not been compressed.
Thanks. Eric.
I realize I did a poor job of explaining.
Atmospheric pressure changes in the Earth atmosphere do not add energy to the system because the mass of the atmosphere does not change nor is there an external force at the top of the atmosphere compressing it.
All atmospheric pressure changes do is transfer energy around and release some of it as heat in high pressure areas.
To get back to the main topic.
I wouldn’t assume we are dealing with multi-decadal cycles here. Equally possible IMO is an external non-forcing driver, such as GCR fluctuations affecting clouds.
eyesonu says: September 24, 2011 at 3:08 am
The current orthodoxy via a recent paper, as yet unpublished but from the right place:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
But you must also work it out for yourself because the orthodoxy takes no account of the dependency of the vortex on surface pressure. It does not tell you that surface pressure depends upon the solar wind. It does not tell you that the coupling of the stratosphere and the troposphere is responsible for surface pressure variations, change in the wind and the cloud.
So:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp30anim.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
Take one excel spreadsheet. Copy diagrams and pictures. Compare GPG, Ozone and temperature at all levels between 1hPa and 100hPa.
Ignore all talk of planetary waves, heat flux, zonal winds and Rossby waves.
lgl says: September 24, 2011 at 3:19 am
The faster the westerlies blow the more the ocean warms See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/
Philip Bradley says: September 24, 2011 at 3:27 am
I wouldn’t assume we are dealing with multi-decadal cycles here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/