
Guest post by Erl Happ
The orbit of the Earth’s around the sun is slightly eccentric. The closest point is called the perihelion. On January 4th the Earth is just 147,098,291 km away from the sun. Aphelion occurs July 4th when the Earth is 152,098,233 km away from the sun, a difference of +3.3%. Naturally the power of the sun falls away with distance. Its radiation is 7% weaker in July than in January. Strangely, near surface air temperature for the Earth as a whole is 3.3°C warmer in July than in January. Yes, the surface is warmest when the Earth is furthest from the sun!
On a hemispherical basis total cloud cover increases as the surface warms but the loss of cloud in the southern hemisphere as the south cools and the north warms is much greater than the gain of cloud in the northern hemisphere. So, on a global basis cloud cover falls in mid year. Total cloud cover tells us nothing about global albedo because different types of clouds vary in their albedo and the mix of cloud types changes. Some cloud is actually supposed to trap radiation and warm the surface and this type changes a lot.
On the face of it, the warming process that occurs in mid year is only limited by the fact that the Earth moves about the sun on its tilted axis allowing cloud cover to recover between November and March.
This post explores where, why and what sort of cloud is lost as the global atmosphere warms in mid year. It turns out that there is a heavy loss of high level cloud in the southern hemisphere. The manner in which this loss occurs informs us as to the role of outgoing radiation in the climate system, the artificiality of our notions of what constitutes the troposphere and the stratosphere and the dynamics of the system that determines surface temperature and its variability from year to year and over time. It tells us about the impact of high cloud on surface temperature. The ‘natural’ dynamics described in this post are currently unrecognized in climate science as it is represented in UNIPCC reports.
All data for the graphs from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Figure 1 Surface air temperature (°C) and precipitable water (kg/m^2). Percentage change between minimum and maximum is indicated.
The increase in precipitable water lags the temperature increase by a couple of months. There is plainly more variability in the land rich northern hemisphere.
The maps below come from the invaluable JRA-25 Atlas at: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm
Figure 2 Total cloud cover January
Figure 3 Total cloud cover July
It is evident that all the driest parts of the land in both hemsipheres have less cloud in July than they do in January. These dry locations are sources of potent surface radiation. There is less cloud as a whole in July (more dark blue) than in January. There is more dark blue between the equator and 30° south in southern winter (July) than in summer. But what type of cloud is lost?
Cloud is classified according to elevation:
High cloud 7.6km to 12 km (300hPa to 150hPa)
Medium level cloud 2.4 to 5.5km (700 to 400hPa)
Low cloud below 2.4km. Below 700hPa.
Figure 4 Annual cycle of relative humidity at 10-30°south and 10-30°north at 925hPa (near surface) and at 300hPa (8km)
In the topmost figure we see a marked reduction in relative humidity at 300hPa at 10-30° south in mid year. The same latitudes in the northern hemisphere experience an increase in relative humidity in mid year.
In the lowest figure we see only a slight reduction in relative humidity at 925hPa affecting the last half of the year. However there is a loss of humidity in the middle of the year that increases with altitude. Notice that humidity at 300hPa generally exceeds that at 700hPa and 500hPa.
Figure 6 Relative humidity between 50°north latitude to 50° south latitude
Figure 6 aggregates data for all latitudes between 50° north and 50° south. There is a gradual but small decline in relative humidity in the low cloud zone at 850hPa towards a low point in mid year. We see a marked trough in relative humidity at 300hPa between April and November. This establishes that the main inter-seasonal dynamic occurs in the upper troposphere. But at what latitude?
Figure 7 Relative Humidity by latitude
Figure 7 reveals that the slight loss of relative humidity at 850hPa between 50°north and south latitude is a product of diverse trends.
It is plain that the mid year loss of humidity at 300hPa that characterizes the latitude 50°north to 50° south as a whole is is driven by marked change in the southern hemisphere.
Why is it so?
Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the point that the great high pressure cells of the Hadley circulation produce copious amounts of thermal (infrared) radiation colored red. This is particularly the case in the winter hemisphere. Here is a conundrum. Why do the subtropical latitudes of the winter hemisphere give off more radiation when the surface is cooler than when it is warmer?
First, what’s a Hadley cell? At the equator the air ascends. As it ascends latent heat is released, the air becomes less dense is driven upwards and in the process it cools via decompression. Hence the paucity of outgoing radiation in near equatorial latitudes. The warm waters between India and New Guinea give off little radiation but they deliver much evaporation. Air that ascends at the equator ultimately returns to the surface at 10-40° of latitude. It descends over cool surfaces that support the process of descent by cooling the surface air. The sea is cooler, and the land is much cooler in winter. Extensive high pressure cells circulate anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere and clockwise in the northern hemisphere giving rise to the trades and the westerlies. These cells are largely free of low and middle troposphere cloud. The air in these cells warms via compression, the bike pump effect. So, as these high pressure cells occupy more space in the winter hemisphere the surface must receive more direct sunlight and the winter hemisphere at these latitudes must be warmer than it otherwise would be.
Figure 8 July outgoing long wave radiation
Figure 9 January outgoing long wave radiation
It is apparent that atmospheric processes determine where thermal radiation is released by the Earth system. It is released from the atmosphere rather than directly from the surface. The area of cloud free sky tends to be enhanced in winter. This must be considered a positive. We like to be warmer in winter. If this is what the greenhouse effect is all about I am all for it. But hang on, the greenhouse effect must be quite weak because there is little chance of water vapor amplification in dry air. What a bummer.
Figure 10 Air temperature at various elevations at 20-30°south
Figure 3 shows that the temperature of the upper troposphere at 20-30° south responds to enhanced radiation in winter just like the stratosphere at 50hPa. The response depends upon the ability of ozone to trap long wave radiation at a quite specific wave length, 9.6 micrometers. Infrared spans 4-28 micrometers. We see a strong response to just a small part of the total spectrum by a mass of tiny little radiators that populate this part of the atmosphere in the parts per billion range but sufficient to invert the seasonal temperature profile. Hang on, this is not in the rule book, the troposphere is supposed to be warmed from the surface and should move with surface temperature! But here we see the upper troposphere acting like the stratosphere in that it responds to long wave radiation. Do we need to alter our ideas of what the stratosphere starts? Where is the ozone tropopause?
A winter warming response at 250hPa, involving a marked loss of relative humidity in the ice cloud zone, tells us that the moisture supply to the upper troposphere is disconnected from the temperature dynamic at this altitude. Quite possibly, the supply of moisture to the upper troposphere in the southern hemisphere depends upon the temperature of the tropical ocean that falls to its annual minimum in mid year. Quite possibly, that moisture is moving north rather than south in mid year.
Climatologists have long wondered why a 1°C increase in temperature at the sea surface relates to as much as a 3° increase in temperature of the upper troposphere. They call this phenomenon ‘amplification’ as if the temperature of the upper troposphere in some way depended on the temperature at the surface and there was a transistor circuit between the two. Hey guys, its the other way round. Turn the telescope round. The presence of a long wave absorber namely ozone, is responsible for this phenomenon. The warming of the upper troposphere results in cloud loss and then, after a little time lag, the surface temperature increases.
In the mid and high zone, cloud is present as highly reflective interlacing micro-crystals of ice that we describe as cirrus and stratus. When the air warms these crystals sublimate. Ice cloud is the dominant cloud of the subtropical region. In IPCC climate science high altitude ice cloud is supposed to warm the surface by enhancing back radiation. But when radiation from the atmosphere increases in winter relative humidity falls. This radiation it is not bounced back by the cloud, the cloud disappears and lets the sun shine through. The surface temperature response is due to the disappearance of the cloud, not back radiation. Oops.
Figure 11 Southern Hemisphere locations exhibiting high altitude ice cloud on 26th September 2011
The evolution of surface temperature is intimately related to the coming and going of clouds. The animation at http://www.intelliweather.com/imagesuite_specialty.htm
reveals that the circulation of the air in the high cloud zone is independent of and quite contrary to the low cloud zone.
Figure 12 High cloud cover in January and July Source JRA-25 Atlas at http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm
Figure 12 shows the latitudes of the southern hemisphere where high cloud is evaporated in July. There is a marked expansion in the area that has less high cloud by comparison with January.
Figure 13 The advance of global temperature in January and July
Figure 13 indicates that there is more year to year variability in the minimum global temperature (January) than the maximum (July).
The minimum is experienced when the Earth is closest to the sun. The Earth is coolest at this time because the atmosphere is cloudier in January. January is characterized by a relative abundance of high ice cloud in the southern hemisphere. Relative humidity peaks in April (figure 6) when tropical waters are warmest. I suggest the variation in the minimum global temperature is due to change in high altitude cloud. The southern hemisphere experiences the largest flux in ice cloud.That flux in high cloud is likely to be due to change in ozone content of the upper troposphere.
Variation in cloud cover should be the first hypothesis to explore when the Earth warms or cools over time. You would have to be very naive to think that the inter-annual change in temperature that is most obvious between November and March could be due to something other than a change in cloud cover.
Figure 14 Temperature of the sea and the upper troposphere at 250hPa at 20-30° south in January.
Figure 15 Temperature of the sea and the upper troposphere at 250hPa at 20-30° south in July.
In January we observe a close relationship between the temperature of the upper troposphere at 20-30°south and the temperature of the sea. The so called ‘amplification factor’ is plainly there.
In July we see a decline in 200hPa temperature between 1948 and 1978 in line with the decline in the temperature of the northern hemisphere during that interval and a strong increase in 200hPa temperature after 1978 as the northern hemisphere warmed strongly. We know that the temperature of the stratosphere at 20-30°south is linked to the extent of warming in the northern hemisphere in mid year. The greater the convectional updraft that occurs north of the equator in mid year, the more voluminous is the stream of air that descends in the winter hemisphere. So, as the north warms the greater will be the outgoing radiation and the warmer will be the stratosphere and the upper troposphere in the southern hemisphere. The warmer it is, the less extensive must be the reflective ice cloud.
Figure 16 Anomalies in temperature at 200hPa, 300hPa and at the sea surface 20-30° south. Three month moving averages of monthly data.
Looking now at departures from the 1948-2011 monthly average the dependance of surface temperature upon upper troposphere temperature is plain to see. In a warming cycle we see 200hPa temperature rising above 300hPa and sea surface temperature and falling below it in a cooling cycle. The shift of in 200hPa temperature between 1976-1980 had its origins in the increase in the temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere at that time and the commencement of the warming in the northern hemisphere.
The $64,000 question is what causes the change in the ozone content of the high cloud zone between November and March when the greatest variability in global surface temperature is seen.
The $164,000 question is what is causing cloud cover to rise and fall on decadal and centennial time scales.
The answer to both questions lies in the activity of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere at the poles that feeds ozone into the troposphere. The upper troposphere warms or cools depending upon the feed rate of ozone. The feed rate changes over time.
The ozone content and temperature of the upper stratosphere depends in the first instance upon the activity of the night jet at the poles that introduces NOx from the mesosphere. Less NOx means more ozone. The activity of the night jet depends upon surface pressure and the concentration of NOx in the jet depends upon solar activity. In Antarctica, surface pressure has been falling for sixty years indicating a continuous increase in the ozone feed into the troposphere, the second major influence upon the ozone content of the polar stratosphere.
In that the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere over Antarctica changes surface pressure at 60-70° south it changes the strength of the westerly winds in the southern hemisphere, cloud cover and surface temperature on all time scales. Stratospheric ozone is wasted above and below the stratosphere, processes referred to as ‘unknown dynamical influences’ in the more respectable polar ozone studies.
These phenomena are the very essence of the Southern Annular Mode, arguably the fundamental mode of global climate variation on all time scales.
One thing is plain. High altitude ice cloud in the southern hemisphere is plainly a reflector of solar radiation. It does not promote warming (positive feedback). It promotes cooling (negative feedback). It’s presence depends upon the flux in ozone in the upper troposphere as governed by processes in the stratosphere. So the UNIPCC climate models are 180° out of whack.
If your brain is starting to hurt, just rest it for a moment while you consider the following.
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.
The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:—
A poet could not but be gay
In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought.
For oft when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude,
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils…
When we were in the woods beyond Gowbarrow park we saw a few daffodils close to the water side, we fancied that the lake had floated the seeds ashore & that the little colony had so sprung up— But as we went along there were more & yet more & at last under the boughs of the trees, we saw that there was a long belt of them along the shore, about the breadth of a country turnpike road . . . [S]ome rested their heads on [mossy] stones as on a pillow for weariness & the rest tossed & reeled & danced & seemed as if they verily laughed with the wind that blew upon them over the Lake, they looked so gay ever glancing ever changing. This wind blew directly over the lake to them. There was here & there a little knot & a few stragglers a few yards higher up but they were so few as not to disturb the simplicity & unity & life of that one busy highway… —Rain came on, we were wet. William Wordsworth 1815
Now that you have rested you might devise a mathematical model that mimics the behavior of the climate system as described in this post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.











Lest we forget, UV varies a lot, stratospheric ozone varies a lot, pressures vary a lot, explanations vary even more. Salud to Antnee’s curiosity.
============
Hear! Hear! Forgive my ‘correction’.
________
Paul;
Yes, re: “thickness”; I wasn’t thinking of altitude. But what do you claim are the consequences? # of molecules surface to space or within a layer is not altered by density changes. Only air flows (winds) can do that.
@Brian H (October 8, 2011 at 9:25 am)
Your question isn’t clear.
Erl & Dave seem to be having some sort of disagreement about the climatology reversal ~200hPa depicted here [ http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/t-at-20-30s1.jpg ].
I want to suggest that _circulation not be ignored. Note the reversals near that pressure level for both the vertical & the horizontal:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/zm_wwind_AUG.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/zm_uwind_AUG.png
Looking at slices further clarifies opposing flows:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/w200_AUG.png
vs.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/surface-1/w10m_AUG.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/w850_AUG.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/column-1/wvflux_AUG.png
Note that the latter supports Dave’s point about water flux.
The JRA-25 Atlas sure is raising the level of discussion of natural climate variability here. Thanks again to Erl for drawing our attention to it.
Agnostic says: “Dave and Bob what on earth is the matter with you?”
I assume the question is directed at me. In reply, there’s nothing wrong. I asked reasonable questions and made simple requests of Erl (for example: “Please provide an illustration to show that the SST response at, I assume, 30S-20S often precede ENSO. Please note which longitudes and dataset you’re using as well.”) and did not get replies. In response to Erl’s rely, I noted that I did not get answers. Or in the case of the example, I got the run around. My request was simple. The reply was bogus.
Any debate that includes repeated ad hominems is no longer a debate but petty bickering. I’m left with two impressions: Erl’s presentation has flaws, and Tisdale is prone to petty bickering and because of that it does not matter that he may be right. Erl can correct his errors and I look forward to those corrections. Tisdale needs additional parenting – I suppose I should look forward to that, too.
@Brian H (October 8, 2011 at 9:25 am)
Even though I’m not 100% clear on what you’re asking, I’ll link to a few images to see if that helps pinpoint the nature of the clarification you seek.
The atmosphere is thinner (vertical distance between pressure levels) at the poles:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/zw200_ANN.png
The annual thermal insolation tide alternately puffs up opposite poles:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/zw200_JAN.png
vs.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isobar-1/zw200_JUL.png
Animation: http://i52.tinypic.com/cuqyt.png
Where the GPH isolines are tightly packed, there’s a strong jet stream. Gradient steepness is a function of absolute temperature contrast (NOT to be confused with anomalies). Near the surface, friction shapes the pattern [ http://i54.tinypic.com/29vlc0x.png ].
I’m still hoping Erl will be able to find time to address my question on these basic fundamentals which he has not yet emphasized [or even acknowledged, which leaves me wondering if, like the mainstream, he has fallen victim to the spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox].
Regards.
I, for one, do not get the impression that Erl claims to know or understand everything. I see an inquiring mind that has gone to a lot of effort. His post illustrates how very complicated it all is and he is not afraid to suggest answers and ask questions. This is not my field at all, but I nevertheless appreciated the effort and marvelled at the extent thereof. In that light, I found the attitude of certain contributers to the discussion distasteful. It reeked of selfimportant hubris and was not in the spirit that I have come to expect from this blog, and believe me, I spend hours here every day attempting to broaden my understanding. For that, thank you Anthony, and also thank you Erl for your courage.
Erl, looking at your tropo O3 charts provided in the links to Dave, they are for the vertical column of the troposphere, and really don’t reflect the upper pressure levels you are working with. Even if they do, you have noticed, I hope, that ozone is still increasing and peaking in Oct.(between 20-30S) when temps between 150 and 50 hpa(figure 10) start to decrease by Sept.
What would be really helpful is if you took the lat and long of this area in the Atlantic over into the Indian Ocean where ozone is highest and along with temps for this same area to somehow show what you are saying is truly happening. Is stratosphere ozone higher in this region as well?
@Dave
“Some of us are concerned about the credibility of WUWT and prefer that original work posted here be vetted to some extent before publishing rather than afterward.”
Sorry, but that really isn’t good enough. What did he run off your wife or something? The credibility of WUWT is undermined by YOUR attitude and approach to taking on Erl Happs ideas. He may well be wrong, but the ideas are worth exploring, and the process of eliminating them as valid hypotheses is very much to my mind what science is about and is what is personally very interesting to me, and I imagine to many other denizens.
We have only just had a Nobel prize winner whose ideas initially made him a laughing stock. There is absolutely nothing crazy about what he is proposing. It is interesting, and in explaining why he is wrong we may ALL learn something.
@Bob
I have no axe to grind here, I am marginally familiar with your work and have found it interesting when I have encountered it. Likewise I have read a couple of interesting posts from Erl, whose perspective has been intriguing. I have no dog in this fight other than I do not believe a fight is justified! From my neutral perspective it looks very much to me that:
” In response to Erl’s rely, I noted that I did not get answers. Or in the case of the example, I got the run around. My request was simple. The reply was bogus.”
…is nonsense. I understand perfectly what he is trying to say and also your objections. His reply was not bogus and there is no justification for saying that.
No I am really dissappointed. There is just as much to learn from an incorrect supposition as there is for a correct one. You have wasted an opportunity it seems to me, maybe not for yourself but certainly for myself and others who are interested.
One other thing to mention; Erls post here is not a peer reviewed, prime time, A list White paper. It’s an exploration of an interesting set of issues. It’s purpose I would have thought is to stimulate discussion, and further explortation. If it reduced some or all of the ideas put forward to nothing it would not have been a wasted effort. Science is full of dead ends and blind alleys.
Brian D says: October 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm
you have noticed, I hope, that ozone is still increasing and peaking in Oct.(between 20-30S) when temps between 150 and 50 hpa(figure 10) start to decrease by Sept.
I did note that ozone concentration was increasing till October in the climatology. I have not given that data the inspection that it needs. Unfortunately I had little time to do that yesterday and less today.
A couple of things occur to me.
1. The climatology is based on a very few years and as you note its the atmospheric column rather than the upper troposphere. The notion that ozone in the upper troposphere could be important and the effort and ability to monitor it is very new.
2. Ozone concentration in the upper troposphere shows strong variation by latitude and appears to relate to meteorological dynamics. It shows strong variation over time.
3. The annual cycle of temperature will depend upon water vapor amplification as well as ozone.
4. In line with the relative strength of ozone concentration in the Arctic it shows a strong variation in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Is this related to the coupled circulation in the Arctic? I need to check.
5. The coupled circulation at both poles is active in determining tropospheric ozone concentration all year depending upon the flux in surface pressure and night jet activity so there is a dual driver with the Arctic tending to be much more influential as far as 50° south between November and March.
6. It is my observation that the temperature of the lower stratosphere relates much more to OLR than to any other factor like the absorption of UVB. We have this thing called ozone that has the ability to change local temperature at one fortieth the concentration of CO2. The existence of absolutely tiny amounts can change thermal, pressure, wind and cloud dynamics in the interaction zone between the stratosphere and the troposphere. And don’t think for a moment that there is no interaction, Recent studies reports pockets of ozone well below the tropical tropopause.
7. Ozone in the upper troposphere is difficult to measure. But if you are aware of what it does in changing local temperature you can infer its presence. And it seems we have the ability to measure temperature at all levels quite well.
I can’t at this moment look at sub sets of data for oceans and land by latitude but I have done it in the past in relation to the South East Pacific and had acrimonious arguments with Leif Svalgaard as to how a high pressure cells of descending air would react if the top of the atmospheric column in the troposphere were independently heated. I used the analogy of a chimney at that time. In a downdraft potters kiln you get the circulation moving by heating the air in the chimney. If you simply light the fire in the kiln the smoke comes back in your face.
Gotta Go. Back tomorrow. Meanwhile thanks for the support from courageous contributors with a true sense of decorum.
By the way, here is the annual cycle in specific humidity at 300hPa: http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sh-20-30s1.jpg
And Bob can do those land and sea masks just as easily as I can. If he does them he might actually take some notice of what they say.
Paul, the basic fundamentals that you speak of can also be inferred from temperature at level, surface pressure and sea surface temperature data. How are you going with the vortex animations? Do you understand that vortex dynamics are a function of surface pressure? Have you worked out that the coupled circulation itself modifies surface pressure, air temperature and the dynamics in your animations.
Erl, I’m not so sure that your conceptions of what other contributors know & do not know are anywhere near being accurate. I encourage a rethink and advise more openness to learning. Best Regards.
Erl, is this what you’re hoping to animate?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/prs_w_550_JAN.png
vs.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/prs_w_550_AUG.png
=
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/zm_u_isentrop_JAN.png
vs.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/zm_u_isentrop_AUG.png
Polar Night Jet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Polar_night_jet
Polar Vortex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
Agnostic says: “I have no dog in this fight other than I do not believe a fight is justified!”
There is no fight.
Many parts of Erl’s post have no basis in data, He’s admitted that in this thread, and he admitted it in the thread of his preceding post. The recent history of Erl’s posts indicates he misrepresents what data he actually does present and misrepresents the studies he cites as reference. In other words, his posts are based on conjecture and misrepresentations. You may be interested in reading posts based on conjecture and misrepresentation. There are other WUWT visitors who are not. Erl’s posts add confusion to already complex subjects. His conjecture and misrepresentations are not helping those who are attempting to learn.
erl happ says:
October 8, 2011 at 6:35 am
“So, lets be perfectly clear about this. Are suggesting that extra water vapor in the upper troposphere at 20-30° south is responsible for the warming of that region in winter sufficient to invert what would be a winter minimum, just as it is at the surface?”
I’m not suggesting I’m informing.
This has been an interesting and intense discussion.
To fully evaluate the differences in opinions/facts requires following a lot of links and understanding many other related concepts. I would need a few months of research to prove or disprove any of the arguments presented here. Should I choose to do so, my not having a ‘title’ would only leave me with a vast wealth of knowledge that would be useless as I would not get paid for it. Thus I would have a vast wealth of useless knowledge!
It has been a challenge to follow this and has left me confused, but I have enjoyed it.
Paul Re Polar Night Jet: and your links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Polar_night_jet
Polar Vortex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
Same phenomenon but the explanation of the origin and importance of the phenomena is abysmally deficient and will not help you.
Bob Tisdale says: October 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm
That smells and looks like vitriol to me.
Dave Springer says: October 8, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“I’m not suggesting I’m informing.”
So an annual minimum in specific humidity can give rise to an annual maximum in temperature at 300hPa. Fine Dave, if that’s what you believe we will all respect it. It’s your reality.
eyesonu, Agnostic, GabrielHBay, Paul Vaughan, Brian D, dp, kim, Eric Barnes, Bob Kutz
You all get a mention in dispatches for sticking around and trying to insist on equity and fair play.
It’s time for a wrap up from my point of view.
Today’s climate science gives us no satisfying explanation as to why surface temperature varies as it does on inter-annual, let alone longer time scales. In responsible rather than evangelical circles it is acknowledged that we do not have a satisfying answer as to the origins of the change in sea surface temperature in the Pacific Ocean that is described as the El Nino Southern Oscillation or related phenomena in other parts of the tropical oceans. Bob Tisdale has done an excellent job of tracking the change in sea surface temperature in the various ocean basins and pointing to the patterns of variability that he sees.
If you study the patterns of temperature variability by latitude and by season (as I have) you soon realize that trends vary by hemisphere, by latitude and by season and there is no way that a so called atmospheric forcing like Carbon Dioxide, that is well mixed and pretty uniform within the global troposphere can produce the patterns of change that are observed. For instance, we see the Antarctic warming in winter but cooling in summer. In the Arctic summer temperatures are stable and winter temperatures increase. The warming in the northern hemisphere is most uneven depending upon latitude and is mainly in winter. In the southern hemisphere most of the warming occurred prior to 1978 while the northern hemisphere cooled at that time. The cooling of the northern hemisphere at that time had nothing to do with aerosols it was the low AO regime. High polar pressure strong polar easterlies weak westerlies considered as meridional flows.
Cloud albedo is estimated to account for a 30% loss in the solar energy that reaches the surface globally. Observably the surface at any particular place warms and cools according to the strength of radiation that is received (if we ignore transfers of energy by the ocean and the moving atmosphere). So, it is plain that the intermediary, the variable sunshade if you like, is cloud cover.
Ozone is not distributed in a homogenous fashion within the atmosphere. Ozone absorbs powerfully at 9-10 μm (micrometers) towards the shorter end of the infrared spectrum. Water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb in various parts of the infrared spectrum between 4 μm and 25 μm but most effectively at longer wave lengths. Much of the infrared spectrum is not absorbed at all because the atmosphere does not have a molecule that absorbs at the particular wave length that is moving through. An absorber at one wave length emits at a higher wave length so an absorber at a short wave length much enhances the ability of the atmosphere to absorb in general. Take away half the absorbers at the shorter wave end (4-10μm) and the total absorption must fall away by much more than half. Put ozone into a part of the atmosphere that is devoid of ozone and absorbance suddenly increases in a wholly disproportionate fashion. How much ozone is necessary? Well, the lower stratosphere at 100hpa shows warming sufficient to reverse the decline of temperature with altitude (that is about 6 degrees C per kilometer in elevation) and it possesses less than 1 pm ozone (less than molecule for every 400 molecules of CO2). So, the rate that is effective must be accounted for in the parts per billion range. (If we were chemists we would be talking catalysts)
So, you see the potential for the addition of very small amounts of ozone to the upper troposphere to account for a radical change in temperature and therefore a change in high cloud cover. This notion is new to climate science. What happens at 20-30° south in terms of a reversal of the winter minimum to become a winter maximum in temperature is strong evidence that this process is influential. This, and the fact that the upper cloud zone varies in temperature by two or three times the amount at surface tells you what is doing the driving and its not surface temperature. I repeat, the temperature of the upper troposphere is not driven by surface temperature change. It is driven by greenhouse gas content and ozone content in particular. I thought greenhouse theorists like Dave would love that idea. Apparently not, because he behaves like a baby who has just had his lolly snatched out of his hands.
But the entry of ozone into the upper troposphere at 20-30° south is not half as interesting as the impact of the coupled circulation of the stratosphere and the troposphere at the poles that injects ozone into the troposphere heating it in a wholesale fashion, reducing the weight of the atmospheric column and therefore lowering surface pressure over the ocean on the margins of Antarctica at 60-70° south and also in the northern hemisphere over the North Pacific and the North Atlantic at 50-60° north.
When pressure falls in these zones sea surface temperature increases in mid and low latitudes and to a diminishing into the other hemisphere. The most spectacular instance is in the northern hemisphere where stratospheric ozone concentrations are higher and the response of the winds (and evaporation) to change in pressure is much less than in the southern hemisphere. If you can use a spreadsheet and calculate anomalies you can check this for yourself using the data at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
The high latitude mechanism for surface temperature change is described as the Northern Annular Mode and the Southern Annular Mode after the ring like (hence annular) pattern of surface pressure and wind response that is characteristic. The penny has yet to drop that these annular modes relate to sea surface temperature change. That will come in time.
The very nice thing about the annular modes is that they can and do explain the diverse patterns of surface temperature change by hemisphere, latitude and season. At the tropics the trade winds aggregate and mix the waters that show the thumbprint of the processes that are influential where those waters originate.
My next post will be at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
I made a bad mistake in assuming that the satellite photos were showing me high cloud when apparently that cloud is not high cloud. I have no answer yet as to whether satellite imagery can identify high cloud. I suspect it lacks the density to show up. The mistake did not affect the veracity of what came before figure 11 or after it because there was plenty of data to support what I was saying anyway.
My second mistake was to suggest that any typos of mine (there were none in that particular comment but plenty in those of an opponent) might have been due to wine, two finger typing or senility. The jest misfired and I got burnt.
The course of the commenting was much affected by the choice of the wolves to harry me about things that were unrelated to the central theme, my observations and theories as to the relationship between ozone, cloud cover and surface temperature.
For those of you with an interest in the sort of comments and techniques that can be used to cast doubt on credibility, divert the argument and win debates, you can learn a lot by examining the ebb and flow of comments in this thread.
Let me commend Dave Springer for his admission that he was wrong when he wrote: “I need to correct myself where I said ozone has no absorption bands in atmospheric emission range.” He had to swallow his tongue to do that. It’s a big tongue.
I look forward to an admission that the seasonal minimum in specific humidity is inconsistent with a seasonal maximum in temperature in mid year at 300hpa at 20-30° south if the greenhouse effect of water vapor is the suggested to be the temperature driver. If moisture levels peak in summer then so should temperature. But in fact temperature peaks in winter.
Progress comes in very small steps. Some must be dragged, kicking and screaming as they come.
Bob Tisdale wrote (October 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm):
“Erl’s posts add confusion to already complex subjects. His conjecture and misrepresentations are not helping those who are attempting to learn.”
For the unwary, I agree …and that could be a lot of readers, I acknowledge.
Some of us pay little attention (maybe others don’t know this) to Erl’s excessively lengthy expositions and use the graphs as a stimulant to dig deeper & synthesize. Erl is one of the few contributors here who directs our attention to material that, when synthesized carefully (regardless of whether Erl is or is not carefully synthesizing himself) enables us to better visualize complex atmospheric topology. Indeed, the synthesizing exercise alone might undermine the confidence of a casual reader looking for a simple linear narrative. However, we’re a diverse audience. Erl has directed me to material & terminology that is of value for translating what I know from Earth Orientation Parameters into a language that might be more accessible to meteorologists & climatologists.
However, many of the complaints leveled in this thread have weighty merit and overall the balance appears out of whack at present. Perhaps things will settle down with the passage of time. We’ve seen other contributors tone it down to something more sober after a stay in the penalty box. In the meantime, perhaps other volunteers will step forward and raise the bar.
Bob, if/when you ever get a chance, I’d be curious to see what you can dig up on northwest Indian Ocean SST patterns. If I remember correctly, you indicated in the past that the sharpest ~1940 spike was in that area. And looking at this animation has focused my curiosity further: AnimWind850hPa_: http://i52.tinypic.com/nlo3dw.png
It may be necessary to look at absolute (not anomaly) temperature gradients to make further insight advances – (for example, see dT/dx maps on Kessler’s website [in relation to MJO]).
It may also be interesting to look at temperature contrasts across local maxima visible here: AnimWind200hPa: http://i52.tinypic.com/zoamog.png (most readers will be aware of your familiarity these areas…)
Regards.
erl happ wrote (October 9, 2011 at 8:21 am):
“[…] (if we ignore transfers of energy by the ocean and the moving atmosphere). So, it is plain that the intermediary, the variable sunshade if you like, is cloud cover.”
This is where you’re going wrong. As you yourself have pointed out, some times/places are more efficient at absorbing or bleeding heat. Ignoring circulation is patently not an option. I strongly advise you to deeply familiarize yourself with the EOP literature. There is no escaping the need for multidisciplinarity.
erl happ wrote (October 9, 2011 at 8:21 am):
“The high latitude mechanism for surface temperature change is described as the Northern Annular Mode and the Southern Annular Mode after the ring like (hence annular) pattern of surface pressure and wind response that is characteristic. The penny has yet to drop that these annular modes relate to sea surface temperature change. That will come in time.”
You’re very seriously out of touch with your audience if you think they’ll buy the notion that no one has a clue that NAM & SAM are related to temperature.
erl happ wrote (October 9, 2011 at 8:21 am):
“The very nice thing about the annular modes is that they can and do explain the diverse patterns of surface temperature change by hemisphere, latitude and season.”
In your focus on reflection asymmetry, you’re overlooking translation asymmetry, which introduces Simpson’s Paradox into northern hemisphere aggregations in particular. I do see seeds of awareness in what you write: “The warming in the northern hemisphere is most uneven depending upon latitude […]”. However, there’s no escaping the need for greater multidisciplinarity. You like teaching, but are you willing to learn from others in areas where you have weaknesses?
Once again: Thanks for pointing at JRA-25 Atlas — MUCH appreciated.
Best Regards.
Erl Happ relied: “That smells and looks like vitriol to me.”
The statements I made in my October 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm comment are the truth. Would you like me to document and illustrate them for all to read on this thread? I’d be happy to do it. I’ve got the time today.
Erl often refers to “polar vortex” & “polar night jet”. To help folks visualize:
AnimWind550K
http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png
In layman’s terms, this is “up high”. For those wishing more technical understanding (than simply “up high”), the first step:
“Potential temperature
In the atmosphere, where vertical variation in pressure is much larger than in a room, the situation is complicated by adiabatic temperature change: as a parcel of air moves upward, the ambient pressure drops, causing the parcel to expand. Some of the internal energy of the parcel is used up in doing the work required to expand against the atmospheric pressure, so the temperature of the parcel drops, even though it has not lost any heat. Conversely, a sinking parcel is compressed and becomes warmer even though no heat is added.
Air at the top of a mountain is usually colder than the air in the valley below, but the arrangement is not unstable: if a parcel of air from the valley were somehow lifted up to the top of the mountain, when it arrived it would be even colder than the air already there, due to adiabatic cooling; it would be heavier than the ambient air, and would sink back toward its original position. Similarly, if a parcel of cold mountain-top air were to make the trip down to the valley, it would arrive warmer and lighter than the valley air, and would float back up the mountain.
So cool air lying on top of warm air can be stable after all (as long as the temperature decrease with height is less than the adiabatic lapse rate); the dynamically important quantity is not the temperature, but the potential temperature—the temperature the air would have if it were brought adiabatically to a reference pressure. The air around the mountain is stable because the air at the top, due to its lower pressure, has a higher potential temperature than the warmer air below.”
Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_potential_temperature
I would animate the cycle vertically [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/zm_u_isentrop_JAN.png vs. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/zm_u_isentrop_AUG.png ] but as viewers can see (at the time of this posting), the images are (presumably accidentally) truncated. Perhaps someone will write to JRA-25 Atlas and ask them to fix the images. I’ll assemble the animation after the images are fixed.
Bob Tisdale (October 9, 2011 at 10:41 am) addressing Erl:
“The statements I made in my October 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm comment are the truth. Would you like me to document and illustrate them for all to read on this thread? I’d be happy to do it. I’ve got the time today.”
Can I suggest we not squander precious free time by allowing ourselves to be tied up at committee with protracted exchanges that do nothing innovative to advance insight?
A good example: Svalgaard, vukcevic, tallbloke, & Geoff Sharp filling threads with “too much” discord with “too little” content — amounts to “watered down” thread value.
As one of my former online students aptly labelled such exchanges: “Wasteland of tangled messages”.
Can I suggest we keep our eye on the ball (instead of the red herrings)?
Bob: You can rest assured that some of us will acknowledge your correct points regardless of your writing style & tone as perceived by others.
Sincerely looking forward to your next article…
Best Regards.
erl happ says:
October 9, 2011 at 8:21 am
“My second mistake was to suggest that any typos of mine (there were none in that particular comment but plenty in those of an opponent) might have been due to wine, two finger typing or senility. The jest misfired and I got burnt.”
========
I’ll miss your writing, respectful comments, humor, and obviously well researched posts.
I’m too stupid to understand, but it seems like you got the “short shrift”.