From Penn State
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Depletion of Antarctic ozone is a more important factor than increasing greenhouse gases in shifting the Southern Hemisphere jet stream in a southward direction, according to researchers at Penn State.
“Previous research suggests that this southward shift in the jet stream has contributed to changes in ocean circulation patterns and precipitation patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, both of which can have important impacts on people’s livelihoods,” said Sukyoung Lee, professor of meteorology.
According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. B, but until now, no one has been able to determine the extent to which each of these two forcings has contributed to the shift using observational data.
“Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said. “The jet stream is expected to shift back toward the north as ozone is replenished, yet the greenhouse-gas effect could negate this.” Lee and her colleague, Steven Feldstein, professor of meteorology, developed a new method to distinguish between the effects of the two forcings. The method uses a cluster analysis to investigate the effects of ozone and greenhouse gas on several different observed wind patterns.
“When most people look at ozone and greenhouse gases, they focus on one wind pattern, but my previous research suggests that, by looking at several different but similar patterns, you can learn more about what is really happening,” said Feldstein.
In their study, the researchers analyzed four wind patterns. The first wind pattern corresponded to an equatorwarda shift of the midlatitude westerlies toward the equator. T; the second pattern also described an equatorward shift, but included a strong tropical component. T; the third pattern corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies toward the South Pole with a weakening in the maximum strength of the jet; and the. The fourth pattern corresponded to a smaller poleward jet shift with a strong tropical component.
In addition to their novel inclusion of more than one wind pattern in their analysis, the scientists investigated the four wind patterns at very short time scales.
“Climate models are usually run for many years; they don’t look at the day-to-day weather,” said Feldstein. “But we learned that the four wind patterns fluctuate over about 10 days, so they change on a time scale that is similar to daily weather. This realization means that by taking into account fluctuations associated with the daily weather, it will be easier to test theories about the mechanism by which ozone and greenhouse gases influence the jet stream.”
The researchers used an algorithm to examine the relationship between daily weather patterns and the four wind patterns. They found that the first wind pattern — which corresponded to an equatorward shift of the midlatitude westerlies — was associated with greenhouse gases. They also found that the third pattern — which corresponded to a poleward shift of the westerlies — was associated with ozone. The other two wind patterns were unrelated to either of the forcings. The researchers found that a long-term decline in the frequency of the first pattern and a long-term increase in the frequency of the third pattern can explain the changes in the Southern Hemisphere jet stream.
“Ozone had the bigger impact on the change in the position of the jet stream,” said Lee. “The opposite is likely true for the Northern Hemisphere; we think that ozone has a limited influence on the Northern Hemisphere. Understanding which of these forcings is most important in certain locations may help policy makers as they begin to plan for the future.”
In addition to finding that ozone is more important than greenhouse gases in influencing the jet-stream shift, the scientists also found evidence for a mechanism by which greenhouse gases influence the jet-stream shift. They learned that greenhouse gases may not directly influence the jet-stream shift, but rather may indirectly influence the shift by changing tropical convection, or the vertical transfer of heat in large-scale cloud systems, which, in turn, influences the jet shift. The researchers currently are further examining this and other possible mechanisms for how greenhouse gases and ozone influence the jet stream as well as Antarctic sea ice.
The results will appear in the Feb. 1 issue of the journal Science.
“Not only are the results of this paper important for better understanding climate change, but this paper is also important because it uses a new approach to try to better understand climate change; it uses observational data on a short time scale to try to look at cause and effect, which is something that is rarely done in climate research,” said Feldstein. “Also, our results are consistent with climate models, so this paper provides support that climate models are performing well at simulating the atmospheric response to ozone and greenhouse gases.”
The National Science Foundation funded this research.
They have it ‘exactly backwards’ but not surprising as they have run a model that is exactly wrong.
Exogenous factors change the stratospheric descending winds, that change both the ozone and the jet streams. Ozone is a symptom, not a cause.
I agree with the poster who asked “solar UV?”. Yup. Direct modulation of atmospheric height, stratospheric decent / vortex behaviour, and eventually ozone and jet stream. Humans need not apply…
“Previous research suggests…”
I like to think of a skeptic as an early bird. The alarmists take five to ten years to dismiss a potty theory or climate model, we do it straight away. Both sides are right, but one side gets a lot more funding than the other.
[ davidmhoffer says:
January 31, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Look folks, there’s holes at both poles. If you don’t believe me just take any globe out of its stand and have a look. ]
LOL
Stormy and Wet Across Southern Europe
Andover, MA, 21 January 2013 — WSI (Weather Services International) expects temperatures for the upcoming period (February-April) to average lower than normal across the Nordic regions, UK, and Iberia, with higher-than-normal temperatures expected across other regions, especially southeast Europe and western Russia.
“The very volatile European winter continues, with a recent transition back to a colder regime after a brief thaw during the first half of January. Going forward, all of the objective evidence suggests a very cold remainder of winter across the Nordic regions and northwestern Russia as atmospheric blocking re-emerges and allows for very cold Arctic high pressure and dry weather to persist over these areas, including the Scandinavia hydro basins. The easterly flow to the south of this high-pressure area will push transport the very cold air westward into parts of northern mainland Europe and perhaps the UK. To the south of this, a very active storm track will result in very wet and windy conditions across the hydro basins and wind-generation regions of southern Europe,” said Dr. Todd Crawford, WSI Chief Meteorologist. “We expect the lingering impacts of the atmospheric blocking to persist into at least March, with cold temperatures persisting across the Nordic regions. By April, more widespread above-normal temperatures are likely as the pattern relaxes.”
http://www.wsi.com/9d932f9d-565a-4423-b3b4-68d3d63fedd4/news-scheduled-forecast-release-details.htm
http://www.noodweercentrale.nl/de/wetter/profiwetter/stroemungsfilm/europa.html
Gail: 2/1/2013 5:18
Thank you for this information.
The major problem I have with the AGW models is that they ignore everything about the sun but the Infrared radiation – which I guess – is all they need to support their theory. The sun emits the entire electromagnetic spectrum (several powers of tens of different wave lengths of radiation). Why are all of the other forms of energy given off by the Sun ignored? Radio waves cause heat. I have seen pipes glow white from induced RF energy. Why is this ignored? Other forms of electromagnetic radiation can do the same thing. As a Ham Radio Operator, during periods of high solar activity I have seen the S-Meter (a measure of how strong the signal is) on my radio indicate 10 to 20 dB over 9 S-Units across the entire band! That is equal to 150 – 300 microvolts of signal (into a 50 ohm load) picked up on a piece of wire 20 feet long. More than 5 to 10 microwatts of power. And that energy is hitting the entire side of the earth facing the sun. I have used that energy to make small transistor radios that operate off of the “noise.”
Then they ignore the Magnetic effects of the Sun, The interactions of the earths magnetic core and the suns magnetic flux. Put a magnet in a drill and spin it in another magnetic flux. They will get warm. I haven’t measured how much but have demonstrated this to my kids years ago.
Then we have all of the particles the Sun give off. I was told that when you hit something that object gains the energy of the moving object. I have witnessed this in many different ways and know it is a true fact, no theory about it. It gets warm. Go to a shooting range and feel the chunk of steel behind the target after someone unloads a 45 into the target. How much do these particles heat the earth? All I read about is Solar Irradiance and TSI.
All of the things I mentioned are affected in ways that we do not know and not enough scientists are investigating these things. It has been less than 50 years since most scientists claimed that the Suns gravitational force was so strong that NO particle could escape the gravitational force. Now they claim that the solar wind caused by these particles is stronger than can be scientifically explained, especially at the poles of the Sun, Yet the AGW people still ignore it.
It is quite simple: during a solar cycle, the amount of UV changes ten times more than the change in amount of total solar energy reaching the earth (1% vs. 0.1%), which gives more ozone formation near the equator, as Brent Walker already said. The extra ozone absorbes more UV energy which heats the stratosphere around the equator more during solar maxima than during minima. See
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm (but forget the climate model babble).
That is what causes the shift of the jet streams poleward and reverse during solar minima. With the current low maximum in solar activity, the jet streams didn’t shift that far poleward as in previous maxima, thus giving different weather patterns.
The jet stream position is extremely important, as it gives huge differences in clouds and rain patterns and river flows: From the Nile, Po (Italy – Venice) and Portuguese rivers around the Mediterranean to the Mississippi in the US and similar in South Africa. See for the stratosphere-troposphere connection:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024393/abstract
and for the river flows e.g.:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023787.shtml (Portugal)
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/reports/paclim99.html (Mississippi delta)
Ozone depletion is going on from the equator to the poles (natural and maybe human made), but near the equator more is formed than destroyed. If there is less formation during low solar activity, that will give a larger “hole” near the poles, but largely depending of stratospheric temperatures (preferably below -80°C), reason why the colder Antarctic shows larger depletion than the Arctic.
Thus the researchers have exchanged cause and effect, not for the first time in the climate field…
digger says: February 1, 2013 at 3:29 am
Re: refrigeration –
You might find this of some amusement. Esp the comments:
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/01/not-so-very-cool
The ozone and especially ozone hole over South pole had been decreasing for decades before, but over recent years has started to recover. The ozone hole has been shrinking since the mid 2000’s and ozone levels are rising since 2000.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png
[According to Lee, based on modeling studies, both ozone depletion and greenhouse gas increase are thought to have contributed to the southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere jet stream, with the former having a greater impact. B, but until now, no one has been able to determine the extent to which each of these two forcings has contributed to the shift using observational data.]
There has been a major shift in the jet stream and therefore while greenhouse gas still increases it has nothing to do with it. The jet stream was slightly moving southwards in the SH during the declining ozone levels, but a sudden shift doesn’t explain a much shorter slight increase in ozone levels if it was the cause.
[“Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said. “The jet stream is expected to shift back toward the north as ozone is replenished, yet the greenhouse-gas effect could negate this.” Lee and her colleague, Steven Feldstein, professor of meteorology, developed a new method to distinguish between the effects of the two forcings. The method uses a cluster analysis to investigate the effects of ozone and greenhouse gas on several different observed wind patterns.]
There has already been a significant shift in the jet stream since 2000 and especially since 2007 towards the south (NH) and towards the north (SH). Therefore rises in greenhouse gases are not having any affect now and therefore likely didn’t before. We don’t need assumptions using models to show us this.
[Ozone had the bigger impact on the change in the position of the jet stream,” said Lee. “The opposite is likely true for the Northern Hemisphere; we think that ozone has a limited influence on the Northern Hemisphere. Understanding which of these forcings is most important in certain locations may help policy makers as they begin to plan for the future.”]
There is no observed science that backs up these claims, the NH had a significant shift in the jet stream and changing weather patterns since then has been the result of this. There is no evidence shown here to back up whether this is the chicken or the egg regarding ozone. Although observed scientific evidence supports it’s more likely the effect not the cause. The significant shift occurred while very modest increases in ozone over a short period and this is not significant enough to explain this. Why was there no sudden shifts with just modest decreases in ozone level?
Ian W (February 1, 2013 at 4:24 am) wrote:
“The ozone level and the Jetstream meridonality are effects of the same cause – the lowered level of EUV / UV short wave radiation from the Sun.”
So you’re suggesting EUV / UV directly modulates equator-pole temperature gradients? If so, how have you ruled out a role for other wavelengths in modulating equator-pole temperature gradients? For example, is it that you agree with the following?
“Issues in Climate Science Underlying Sun/Climate Research
Isaac M. Held, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
[…]
11-year solar cycle […] Strengthening the horizontal temperature gradient alters in turn the fluxes of angular momentum by midlatitude eddies. The angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies. […] ozone.”
— accessible via: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
digger says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:29 am
….As a side, the high cost of gases, regulatory requirements & hence repair costs forces many people now just to buy a new unit and not fix old ones. Again, another completely “environmentally unfriendly” result of a green agenda gone wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The “Green Agenda” was just the propaganda or sheepskin covering the wolves. Too bad the environuts have never figure that out. SEE: Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Bio-fuel from Mother Jones no less!
Uzurbrain says:
February 1, 2013 at 8:38 am
….The major problem I have with the AGW models is that they ignore everything about the sun….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately the solar physicists with a few exceptions like Nir Shaviv Sciencebits nod their heads and go right along with the CAGW agenda. All you have to do is read the nauseating kowtowing of NASA to the IPCC agenda of making humans the cause of climate change/CAGW
The IPCC mandate states:
Now that it is pretty darn obvious the Global Warming has stopped NASA/Hansen jump into the breach to figure out another way of hanging a guilt trip on the human race. You would think Hansen was a Jewish Mother he is so good at dishing out guilt.
Nice to see the matters discussed in my work being more widely discussed.
I’ve been banging on about jet stream shifts as a result of the interaction between solar and oceanic variations for nearly 6 years.
I still think they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar effects wrong though.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (February 1, 2013 at 8:57 am) linked to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm
Link Between Solar Cycle And Climate Is Blowin’ In The Wind — Apr. 12, 1999
Important:
Note that the following is inconsistent (at the fundamental level of universal laws) with the paragraphs preceding it in the article:
“According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.”
Paul Vaughan says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:00 am
According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.
As I said, forget the AGW babble in the article, which indeed contradicts the preceding paragraphs of empirical evidence. But remember, the article is from 1999, when any article must contain some sentence of adherance to the “consensus”, or wasn’t published…
Paul Vaughan says:
February 1, 2013 at 11:00 am
“Note that the following is inconsistent (at the fundamental level of universal laws) with the paragraphs preceding it in the article:
“According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.”
Not really, Paul. Shindell is saying that its not TSI that’s making a difference, its the spectral composition of TSI. A transparent gas (oxygen) is being converted into a greenhouse gas (ozone) in times of increased solar activity. And as we know the atmosphere is intimately connected and all sorts of other effects follow.
The Arctic had a lot of ozone loss in the 1990’s, that was when there were very few sudden stratospheric warming events:
http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/news/ozone_mar2011/ozone_loss2011.jpg
Stephen Wilde says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:52 am
“I still think they have the sign of the atmospheric response to solar effects wrong though.”
As I said to Paul above, the spectral distribution of TSI changes during periods of heightened solar activity which increases stratospheric warming. This causes stratospheric circulation toward the poles to increase and contract the solar vortex, shifting the jets toward the poles as you say. But the overall effect of more greenhouse gas is warming. You have probably seen that the first thing that happens on the upswing of a strong solar cycle is a La Niña. The warming comes later.
pochas.
The stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and is now warming a little with the less active sun.
You and they have the sign of the solar effect wrong.
I am not satisfied that there is any net warming from CO2 since it provides an additional radiative window for energy loss to space which is not supplied by non radiative gases.
“Understanding the differences between these two forcings is important in predicting what will happen as the ozone hole recovers,” she said.
I really don’t understand why they think the area of the ozone hole is important. The ozone hole is a hole because ozone never enters it. It descends to the troposphere and autodecomposes in the eyewall around the hole because of the higher pressure near the surface, whether or not there is anything there to catalyse the autodecomposition reaction. The size of the hole is due to atmospheric dynamics, not ozone chemistry.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen (February 1, 2013 at 11:15 am)
Thanks sincerely for the clarification Ferdinand. The clarity of your thinking on this subject is impressive.
Pamela Gray says:
January 31, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Who the hell is letting these people get Ph.D.’s ??????? They’re like someone who doesn’t know the difference between Last minus First and linear regression trend calculations!!!!! Today, I just can’t suffer stupid. Had to do it at work all day. Ain’t doin it here.”
Then she does. 🙂
Possibly she is a Capricorn? A walking basket of contradictions… 😉
I don’t get it, don’t see the claims of massive ozone destruction resulting from Pinatubo, in the untrustworthy data from NASA. They were one of the ones making that claim.
Was Chaiten and Puyehue Cordón Caulle high enough to noticeably affect ozone?
Well, well, and I thought that the replacement of CFCs was going to fix all that Ozone Hole business! The article looks like its models all the way down if not just speculation. It just prompts the question “Is it the ozone or is it solar UV variation?”
“The National Science Foundation funded this research.”
Is that the same National Science Foundation that gave more than two million bucks to Michael Mann over the past 4 years? How do I get on this gravy train?
Paul Vaughan says:
February 1, 2013 at 9:40 am
Ian W (February 1, 2013 at 4:24 am) wrote:
“The ozone level and the Jetstream meridonality are effects of the same cause – the lowered level of EUV / UV short wave radiation from the Sun.”
So you’re suggesting EUV / UV directly modulates equator-pole temperature gradients? If so, how have you ruled out a role for other wavelengths in modulating equator-pole temperature gradients? For example, is it that you agree with the following?
“Issues in Climate Science Underlying Sun/Climate Research
Isaac M. Held, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
[…]
11-year solar cycle […] Strengthening the horizontal temperature gradient alters in turn the fluxes of angular momentum by midlatitude eddies. The angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies. […] ozone.”
– accessible via: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
==============
I think that the quote from that paper actually agrees with what I said which was not solely EUV/UV — what I said was:
“”The place on the Earth where there is the most energy is the equatorial regions between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn as they are receiving direct insolation all year from the Sun. The hot SSTs lead to towering convective storms up to 12 miles or more in the atmosphere lifting the tropopause to 60,000 – 70,000 ft . These are the updrafts of the Hadley cells when the Sun’s energy especially, in the short wave frequencies, is high then the light penetrates deep into the oceans heating them. As the sea surface temperatures increase the convection increases. The Hadley cells grow and push the Ferrel cells the temperate convective bands poleward causing the Jetstreams to become latiduninal and reducing the depth of the Rossby waves. At the same time the increase in the EUV/UV increases the amount of ozone being formed in the upper atmosphere reducing the size of the ozone holes at the poles.””
—–
The point is that both the changes in ozone level and the changes in the vigor of the Hadley cell circulation is due to the change in short wave (including UV/EUV) radiation from the Sun. Or as the paper you quote the horizontal temperature gradient is altered – as the oceans are warmed by stronger short wave radiation. The ‘ozone hole’ does not push jetstreams, the jetstreams moves because the Hadley cells enlarge and the Ferrel cells (midlatitude eddies) move. The paper you quote is saying the same thing as I am.
Large particles (IE ash, dust, etc) get washed out rather quickly and really only affect climate for a short cycle. The oceans have that syrupy thing going on that air and land do not. Look to the oceans and their teleconnections with winds and semi-permanent pressure systems creating clear skies or clouds, along with the ability to sluggishly continue the status quo (and building or releasing heat) till the pendulum swings the other way. Nothing else seems to have that kind of potential.
My dear Goode’nuff, I’m a July baby with red hair and Irish blood. Do the math lol!