By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
We are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page.
For those unfamiliar, a Polar Vortex is “caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.” Universe Today
“A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.” “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. The Antarctic polar vortex is more pronounced and persistent than the Arctic one; this is because the distribution of land masses at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere gives rise to Rossby waves which contribute to the breakdown of the vortex, whereas in the southern hemisphere the vortex remains less disturbed. The breakdown of the polar vortex is an extreme event known as a Sudden stratospheric warming, here the vortex completely breaks down and an associated warming of 30-50 degrees Celsius over a few days can occur. The Arctic vortex is elongated in shape, with two centres, one roughly over Baffin Island in Canada and the other over northeast Siberia. In rare events, the vortex can push further south as a result of axis interruption, see January 1985 Arctic outbreak. Wikipedia
These Wired and NASA articles and associated imagery, including the one at the top of this article, help to demonstrate the dynamical effect of the polar vortex on Venus’s south pole.
This animation shows Earth’s Winter 2008 – 09 Arctic Polar Vortex and a Sudden Stratospheric Warming, which occurs when the Polar Vortex splits or breaks-up:
Within the Polar Vortex, “Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.” NASA
“The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)” Stratosphere troposphere interactions: an introduction
There are also “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993
In addition to our Polar Vortex Page if you have not had the opportunity to review the other Reference Pages it is highly recommended:
- Atmosphere Page
- Atmospheric Oscillation Page
- ENSO (El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation) Page
- Geomagnetism Page
- Global Climate History Page
- Global Temperature Page
- Ocean Page
- Ocean Oscillation Page
- Polar Vortex Page
- Sea Ice Page
- Solar Page
- The Spencer-Braswell & Dessler Papers
- Tropical Cyclone Page
- US Climatic History Page
- US Weather History Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.
>>Erl Happ
Sorry Erl, you are no making sense with this (cut & paste?) explanation. The NOX and Ozone is irrelevant to the phenomena, so please do not discuss this issue.
>>8. The tendency for warmer air to descend produces a broad winter
>>minimum in temperature at many surface locations.
Warm air only descends in anti-cyclonic conditions.
>>9. A stalling of the vortex when polar pressure falls gives rise to an
>>increase in ozone levels and what is known as a ‘stratospheric warming’.
If the vortex stalls when pressure drops, then the phenomena must be anti-cyclonic. – ie, a high pressure system. But in the pic above, the rotation appears to be anticlockwise, which is a feature of N.H. cyclones (low pressures).
>>10. A re-invigorated vortex as polar surface pressure increases is
>>associated with the incursion of very cold air into the major
>>continental land masses of the northern hemisphere.
Again, if the vortex is invigorated with increasing pressure, then this is an anti-cyclonic feature, and not a low pressure.
In short, your explanation has failed to explain.
.
M.A.Vukcevic says: October 30, 2011 at 2:06 am
I have a link to even more impressive link from NASA:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
That’s good stuff. I’d really like to get a live/current version for the reference page. It’s amazing how limited our vortex and vorticity tracking and measurement capabilities are at present…
Actually Ulric, I think we can resolve your points.
The strength of El Nino might well be much the same throughout cold periods but maybe the time between El Nino events is longer during cold periods.
I proposed that ENSO is a result of an imbalance between solar input to the oceans in each hemisphere. During a cold period El Nino need not become less strong. It might just take a little longer for the required imbalance to accumulate.
That would still be reflected in the RELATIVE relationship between El Nino and La Nina over the 60 year periods of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation however. They need not change their respective intensities much. A change in timing would have much the same outcome.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
October 30, 2011 at 6:59 am
“Note that your data, Ulric, may be mainly dealing with short term SW variations within a single solar cycle whereas true climate change such as that from MWP to date deals with multiple solar cycle changes in SW over 1000 years peak to peak such as MWP through LIA to date.”
The response would be at a weekly/monthly scale, though there is obviously a seasonal factor at play too as ENSO tends to change its vector in January or July:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
On the long scale, the LIA, Dark Ages, and Greek minimum all show a rise in El Nino frequency:
http://coastalchange.ucsd.edu/st1_thenandnow/images/palla_right.jpg
Ulric, the return period for El Nino is 3 to 7 years on that graph but recently it has been far less than that.
Could you explain please ?
Baa Humbug says: October 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Could we please have an SOI index at the ENSO page. (Immediately below the Nino 3.4 index)
Done. The SOI indexes where available on the Atmospheric Oscillation Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmospheric-oscillation/
but I added them to them on the ENSO page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso
below the “Niño Region Sea Surface Indexes and Anomalies” charts and under the header “Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)”.
“The Day After Tomorrow” – redux…
Stephen Wilde (October 30, 2011 at 9:04 am)
“However the global equilibrium temperature (if one includes the oceans) need not change much if at all.”
It’s guaranteed to change due to the spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox, the “unfair averaging” (in layman’s terms) of straight vs. loopy land-ocean heat-capacity contrasts with zonal vs. meridional jet shifts on an asymmetric planet.
A quick look at the north-south fractal dimension contrast (length:area ratio) of isolines here [ http://i54.tinypic.com/swg11c.png ] makes that crystal clear.
The changes are only tenths of a degree K, but they do account for the multidecadal terrestrial oscillations we observe, as I’ve shown [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png ]. It’s just asymmetric aliasing of the solar drive wheel. If climate discussion participants had a better handle on complex numbers (high-school math) and correlation (1st year university intro stats) they’d realize it’s as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.
Ulric & Stephen:
Multivariate multiscale complex correlation (complex as in complex numbers, not as in complicated) sorts out the nonlinearities interfering with your communication on SW, ENSO, volcano, & earthquake relations.
One of the challenges plaguing the media & the public in the climate discussion is the relentless mainstream direction of our attention to average anomalies where climate cannot be understood without maintaining vigilant cognizance of absolute gradients (differentially driving circulation & water states across hemispheres & basins).
It’s an interesting exchange you guys are having here.
—
Erl, thanks for joining the discussion. No other WUWT contributor has done so much to pioneer & promote community awareness of atmospheric circulatory geometry as you …but “Just The Facts” is now giving some welcome competition!
—
“Just The Facts”: Can I suggest that you feature this [ http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png ] animation on the WUWT polar vortex ref page? If so, JMA & CRIEPI ask that you include an acknowledgement such as the one I provided above [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/new-wuwt-polar-vortex-reference-page/#comment-782074 ]. Looking forward to a ref page on the Westerlies if/when you ever have time/interest. Thanks for volunteering contributions.
On Saturn the polar vortex is a HEXAGON!!!
Have fun!
Thank you JTF
This is a much appreciated marvellous work you do
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
October 30, 2011 at 9:30 am
“Actually Ulric, I think we can resolve your points.
The strength of El Nino might well be much the same throughout cold periods but maybe the time between El Nino events is longer during cold periods.
I proposed that ENSO is a result of an imbalance between solar input to the oceans in each hemisphere. During a cold period El Nino need not become less strong. It might just take a little longer for the required imbalance to accumulate.”
Two of my links above say El Nino frequency increases during cold periods.
“Ulric, the return period for El Nino is 3 to 7 years on that graph but recently it has been far less than that. Could you explain please ?”
2yrs between weaker El Nino episodes is not at all uncommon. Also, recent monthly rises in SW velocity have been quite rapid compared to periods of generally falling SW velocity, favouring more El Nino episodes and conditions:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25927.gif
@Paul Vaughan says:
October 30, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Ulric & Stephen:
Multivariate multiscale complex correlation (complex as in complex numbers, not as in complicated) sorts out the nonlinearities interfering with your communication on SW, ENSO..”
The relationship I have found looks sound to me. The next thing I would explore in ENSO is rates of change, and apparent inertia of the ENSO condition according to it`s magnitude, it should take longer to stall and reverse a very strong El Nino.
>>Stephen Wild
>>The high pressure at the poles draws the mid latitude jets
>>poleward towards it so as to provide the rising air needed to
>>sustain the high pressure cells at the poles.
Horse before the cart?
I think you will find that the jets determine the location of the pressure systems, and not [i]vice verse.[/i]
.
Well Ralph, that is the conventional opinion. But if that is so then why do the jets become more meridional when the sun is less active and more zonal when it is more active ?
The jets mark the contact region between two areas of high pressure with one being comprised of a polar air mass and the other being comprised of a more equatorial air mass.
Change the position or intensity of those high pressure cells relative to one another and the jets are forced to follow.
On the specific point you refer to, try to envisage a flow of falling water into a bucket. If the flow is rapid as in a positive polar vortex the entry region will be deep but small in diameter so that the consequent upwelling is closer to the entry point (the jets move poleward).
If the flow is slow as in a negative polar vortex then the entry region will be shallower but broader and the consequent upwelling will be further away from the entry point (the jets shift equatorward).
So it is when the polar air masses respond to changes in the intensity of the downward vortex flow.Fluid mechanics are applicable in these scenarios because the atmosphere behaves like a fluid of low density.
It is confusing, simply because the flow in the upper atmosphere at the poles is not upward but downward EVEN THOUGH low pressure can be present AT THE SURFACE when the downward flow is weaker.
Normally one would expect low pressure at the poles to mean rising air at the poles. At low levels that is so but in the bulk of the atmospheric column the flow is always downward at the poles.
I think that distinction has hitherto caused conceptual problems that prevented an accurate diagnosis for the variations in the pressure distribution at high latitudes.
Of course I may be wrong in which case someone should correct me 🙂
I think I can improve on that description as follows:
i) When the sun is active more ozone destroying chemicals flow down through the mesosphere and stratosphere which then cool as a result of the ozone destruction. The effect is maximised over the poles and the permanent downward flow is strongest over the poles so that is where the polar high pressure cell becomes established.With the high pressure cell localised to the pole the rest of the surface pressure systems have more space to shift poleward.
ii) When the sun is less active then at such times less ozone destroying chemicals flow down through the mesosphere and stratosphere which then warm relatively due to the presence of more ozone. That effect is maximised over the poles as before but the relative warmth over the poles blocks the permanent downward flow preventing it from reaching the surface at the poles. Instead the downward flow is directed horizontally to flow irregularly down and around the warm block so as to reach the surface at two or three points some distance away from the poles thereby encroaching on the mid latitudes. Thus during a period of negative polar oscillation we see two or three polar high pressure cells forming over the poleward portions of the mid latitudes pushing polar air equatorward ahead of them.With the high pressure cells split up and spread around the poles rest of the surface pressure systems are forced to shift equatorward.
I have described the climate consequences of that latitudinal shifting elsewhere.
The process is more pronounced at the north pole because the energy leaving the Arctic Ocean predisposes the air above the north pole to be warmer than the air above the south pole.
Ralph says:
October 30, 2011 at 8:41 am
Sorry Erl, you are no making sense with this (cut & paste?) explanation. The NOX and Ozone is irrelevant to the phenomena, so please do not discuss this issue.
Ralph, I cut and pasted the above out of my head.
If you persist in applying your conception of the behavior of mid and low latitude circulatory phenomena to that at high latitudes, and fail to recognize the unique features of the system at high latitudes then you will not get to first base in understanding the phenomena.
Consider this. There is no tropopause. The cold point moves between 200hPa and 20hPa between summer and winter and exhibits a lot of variability in winter. This gives rise to a coupled circulation of the notional troposphere and stratosphere, concepts that have limited or no applicability to the high latitude atmosphere. Forget these concepts. Think of the entire atmospheric column locked in convection with a tendency for the coolest parts to descend promoting the pattern of low pressure of the annular modes at about 60° of latitude over the sea on the margins of Antarctica and over the Pacific and the Atlantic in the northern hemisphere.
Then, think of a vortex at the top of the column (NOx rich) affecting ozone levels between 100hPa and 1hPa in what would otherwise be ozone rich air (none richer). This vortex manifestly varies in strength with surface pressure. Strong surface pressure = strong vortex = more NOx = less ozone. The vortex cools the air in the center of this heaving mass of air promoting a contrary tendency at the highest altitude/latitude, but shifting about, particularly in the Arctic where there is no high ice dome at the pole.
Now, go look at the behavior of temperature at 10hpa at 90° south since 1948 at:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Then, tell me again that NOx from the mesosphere is irrelevant to the ozone content, air temperature and surface pressure at high latitudes.
The circulation is completely unrelated to surface phenomena in the troposphere that can be observed elsewhere. Get real. Observe. Inspect. Take an interest. Look at the historical data and THINK..
Tom Rude, you are looking at the dog, not the tail. I would have thought that a man familiar with Leroux would know that.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 30, 2011 at 2:53 pm
<i) Change the position or intensity of those high pressure cells relative to one another and the jets are forced to follow.
That’s accurate.
Also, let’s note that if we change the relative strength of the high pressure cells we change the meridional flow from north to south or south to north with big consequences for surface temperature. And the big changes come in winter.
Paul Westhaver says:
I’ve been looking at this phenomenon for some time and it is really amazing. We know so little about everything yet so much about co2. Ocean cycles,jet stream cycles,solar cycles,even some bicycles we know less about than co2-yet our government knows best.
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
October 30, 2011 at 2:53 pm
“Well Ralph, that is the conventional opinion. But if that is so then why do the jets become more meridional when the sun is less active and more zonal when it is more active ? […]
Of course I may be wrong in which case someone should correct me :)”
During El Niño events, increased precipitation is expected in California due to a more southerly, zonal, storm track. During the El Niño portion of ENSO, increased precipitation falls along the Gulf coast and Southeast due to a stronger than normal, and more southerly, polar jet stream.
(remembering that El Nino occurs with lower SW speed = less active Sun)
Am I the only one that thinks Paul Vaughan found a syllabus, and has become addicted to it’s pronouncements ????
Ya sorta caught me last time 🙂
Paul Vaughan says: October 30, 2011 at 11:06 am
“Just The Facts”: Can I suggest that you feature this [ http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png ] animation on the WUWT polar vortex ref page?
The animation at present does not meet three of the criteria for inclusion on the WUWT reference pages. Firstly, it must be hosted at its source, i.e. whether NOAA, NASA, leif.org or climate4you.com, it must be a source where users can go to evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of the data source. Thus tinypic.com is an issue. Secondly, it must be current/regularly updated, daily is preferred, monthly is common, quarterly is acceptable, and annually is tolerated in certain circumstances. We do not update any of the urls on the reference pages, thus we rely on our data sources to automatically update the content at each url we use. Finally, the graphic/animation must provide sufficient information for someone to verify its accuracy. In the example you provide, the year of each image in the animation isn’t available.
With all of this said, it is a valuable animation and there is a dearth of good animations on Earth’s vortices, thus if we can figure out how to overcome the afore mentioned issues, I’d be happy to include the animation on the polar vortex page.
Looking forward to a ref page on the Westerlies if/when you ever have time/interest.
Westerlies is pretty narrow, I doubt that there are enough current data sources to support a page. We might be able to do a wind or atmospheric circulation page. Please post any prospective content and I will start compiling them for a future page, but next up are going to be the Potential Climatic Variables and the Significant Climatic Variables Reference Pages.
Erl, I think we are almost agreed on the basis of your response to Ralph.
Just try this:
Envisage a warming effect in the mesosphere and stratosphere as a weak sun sends less ozone destroying chemicals down through the descending polar vortex. That is the reverse effect from standard climatology which assumes a cooling mesosphere and stratosphere when the sun is less active.
However it is only by getting a warming effect at high altitudes above the pole that one can obstruct, break up and redistribute the downward flow of the polar vortex in the way that is observed as per my post at
Stephen Wilde says:
October 30, 2011 at 3:52 pm
If you can accept that contention then it all falls neatly into place doesn’t it ?
It also accords with Joanna Haigh’s comments about increasing ozone above 45km from 2004 to 2007 whilst the sun was becoming less active.
Once the downward flow of the polar vortex has been split up and redistributed so that the surface pressure elements are pushed equatorward for a net increase in global cloudiness and albedo then less solar energy enters the oceans and the Earth system as a whole starts to cool.
The opposite thermal effect occurs when the sun is more active.
I hink that is the answer to the entire climate conundrum.
Whatever way one tries to cut it we cannot get the observed changes in surface pressure distribution without a warmer stratosphere at a time of less active sun and a cooler stratosphere at a time of more active sun.. After all, the polar vortex did become more positive with more poleward jets during the late 20th century period of warming at a time of more active sun.
A shorter term example is the phenomenon known as a sudden stratospheric warming. It is well accepted that short term warming of the stratosphere above the poles does split up and redistribute the polar vortex in exactly the same way as is observed on a longer timescale when the jets become more meridional such as occurred in the LIA.
I think the logic is sound and the evidence incontrovertible.
The models need to be adjusted to reflect that reality and the albedo changes that accompany it. Then we will start to get some more accurate ‘projections’.
Stephen.
Copyright 31/10/2011
Hi Stephen,
What comes before is coherent but I can not make sense out of this:
Those changes alter the balance between the vertical temperature profiles at poles and equator with the mid latitudes acting as a sort of mobile fulcrum as the point of balance shifts cyclically towards the poles or towards the equator.
The sun affects the size and intensity of the vortices at the poles because when the mix of particles and wavelengths changes then so does the net thermal effect of the chemical response in the upper atmosphere
If you were to relate your argument to the planetary winds rather than the ‘jets’ it would make more sense to me. You would then be describing the Arctic Oscillation.
You do not give enough weight to the changes in surface pressure that are responsible for the change in the planetary winds and do not appear to have a coherent explanation of why surface pressure changes.
Nor do I see a coherent explanation for how and why cloud cover increases or decreases.
Erl, it is hard to transfer ideas from one’s own mind to another isn’t it ?
i) I think ‘the planetary winds’ might well be a better term than the ‘jets’. I just used the latter because the route of the mid latitude jets is where the effect is most apparent. I didn’t refer specifically to the AO because I am considering a global process. Consider the slope in height of the tropopause from equator to north pole. That slope can be changed either by oceanic changes below at the equator or by solar changes above at the pole. If the solar and oceanic effects vary independently to some degree (as I think they do) then the point of balance (the fulcrum) between the two influences will cyclically shift latitudinally and that will take ALL the surface pressure components in that hemisphere along with it thus altering the latitudinal positions of the permanent climate zones.
ii) Surface pressure changes can only occur locally and regionally from a redistribution of the various high and low pressure cells. The global atmospheric pressure is static on time scales we are concerned with.Changes in surface pressure distribution can only result from thermal changes above or below the atmosphere. Ocean SSTs can change the surface pressure distribution from below by altering the rate at which energy is released from oceans to air. Solar changes seem to be able to alter the vertical temperature of the atmosphere or parts of it so as to change the surface pressure distribution from above.So, surface pressure changes result from variability in sun and oceans.I think that is coherent.
iii) When the polar air masses push equatorward in a more meridional fashion then the additional loopiness lengthens the boundaries between polar and equatorial air masses around the world. More air mass mixing occurs and I think more cloudiness develops with an effect on global albedo.It is no coincidence that cloudiness dropped as the jet streams became more zonal during the late 20th century warming spell. Nor is it a coincidence that we now see increasing cloudiness with more meridional jet streams. I don’t think we need the Svensmark hypothesis to deal with cloudiness changes. I think that is a coherent explanation.
>>erl happ says: October 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm
>>Ralph says: October 30, 2011 at 8:41 am
>>If you persist in applying your conception of the behavior of mid and
>>low latitude circulatory phenomena to that at high latitudes.
>>Strong surface pressure = strong vortex = more NOx = less ozone.
In other words, this vortex is associated with a high pressure system, not a low pressure system as was initially advertised. And the clouds in those pictures are spiralling down in a clockwise fashion – as in a NH high pressure system. And NOX has naff all to do with it.
.
Ralph says:
October 31, 2011 at 7:42 am
Your simplification of the phenomena will not assist in understanding its power to change surface temperature.
And NOX has naff all to do with it.
So, you are not all all interested in the history of stratospheric temperature over Antarctica and you plainly did not download the data as I suggested. And plainly there is no point in endeavoring to answer your questions.
I suspect you have an agenda and that this is a topic that you do not wish to see discussed. You are politically rather than observationally motivated.
@justthefactswuwt (October 30, 2011 at 7:32 pm)
The 550K potential-temperature polar-view isotachs & pressure climatology animation [ http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png ] is from JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm “The reanalysis covers the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004 […]”] using this sequence:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/prs_w_550_JAN.png […]
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/isentrop-1/prs_w_550_AUG.png […]
More on the Westerlies another week. Thanks for explaining the criteria.
It doesn’t matter how many variables you have, a chaotic system can not be reliably modeled.
Minor, even trivial, variations in input data initial state, or minor, even trivial, variations in precision during calculations, result in dramatic divergence in the modeled outcome. It doesn’t converge on a solution, it diverges into chaotic states (by definition…)
So take a cone. Balance it perfectly on the tip. Which way will it fall when released?
Does it depend on the precision of the point? Even mass distribution? Surface inclination? Temperature differentials? Minor air currents? Rate the hand is withdrawn? Yes. And a whole lot more. So no matter how precisely you set all those initial state values, the cone is still likely to fall in an unexpected direction (minus an actual bias of leaning at the moment of release…)
If it was not so, then you could model a rolling die or the lotto balls and win millions… Or maybe even model a cloud with some accuracy 😉
And after that cone falls over, which way will it roll? … and which other cones will it knock over?… and which ways will THEY roll?
Divergence in models is the big bugaboo that makes them problematic for a whole lot of uses. Chaotic systems have divergence in spades.