Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate in other than a general way. Let me talk a bit about what the PDO is, what it does, and how we measure it.
First, what is the PDO when it’s at home? It is a phenomenon which manifests itself as a swing between a “cold phase” and a “warm phase”. This swing seems to occur about every thirty or forty years. The changeover from one phase to the other was first noticed in 1976, when it was called the “Great Pacific Climate Shift”. The existence of the PDO itself, curiously, was first noticed in its effects on the salmon catches of the Pacific Northwest.
Figure 1. The phases of the PDO, showing the typical winds and temperatures associated with its two phases. The color scale shows the temperature anomalies in degrees C.
Figure 1 is a clear physical depiction of the two opposite ends of the PDO swing, based on how it manifests itself in terms of surface temperatures and winds. But to me that’s not the valuable definition. The valuable definition is a functional definition, based on what the PDO does rather than on how it manifests itself. In other words, a definition based on the effect that the PDO has on the functioning of the climate as a whole.
A Functional Definition of the PDO
To understand what the PDO is doing, you first need to understand how the planet keeps from overheating. The tropics doesn’t radiate all the heat it receives. If it did the tropics would be much, much hotter than it is. Instead, the planet keeps cool by constantly moving huge, almost unimaginably large amounts of heat from the tropics to the poles. At the poles, that heat is radiated back to space.
The transportation of the heat from the equator to the poles is done by both the atmosphere and the ocean. The atmosphere can move and respond quickly, so it controls the shorter-term variations in the poleward transport. However, the ocean can carry much more heat than the atmosphere, so it is doing the slower heavy lifting.
The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.
The major movement of heat by the ocean, however, is not gravitationally driven. It is the millions of tonnes of warm tropical Pacific water pumped to the poles by the alternation of the El Nino and La Nina conditions. I described in “The Tao of El Nino” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/ how this pump works. Briefly, the Nino/Nina alteration periodically pushes a huge mass of warm water westwards. At the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, the warm water splits, and moves polewards along the Asian and Australian coasts. Finally, at the poles it radiates its heat to space. Figure 1a from my previous post shows the action of the pump.
Figure 1a. 3D section of the Pacific Ocean looking westward alone the equator. Each 3D section covers the area eight degrees north and south of the equator, from 137° East (far end) to 95° West (near end), and down to 500 metres depth. Click on image for larger size.
Figure 1a shows a stretch of the top layer of the Pacific Ocean. It runs along the Equator all the way across the Pacific, from South America (near end of illustration) to Asia (far end of illustration). During the El Nino half of the pumping cycle, which corresponds to the input stroke of a pump, warm water builds up along the Equator as shown in the left 3D section. Then in the La Nina part of the cycle, the pressure stroke, that water is physically moved by the wind across the entire Pacific, where it splits and moves toward both poles.
Now, this El Nino/La Nina pumping action is not a simple feedback in any sense. It is a complex governing mechanism which kicks in periodically to remove excess heat from the tropical Pacific to the poles. As such it exerts control over the long-term energy content of the planet.
So here’s the first oddity about the PDO. The two alternate states of the PDO look very much like the two alternate states of El Nino/La Nina. In both, heat builds up in the eastern tropical Pacific, while the poles are cool. And in both, the alternate situation is where the heat is moved to the poles, residual warmth remains along the coasts of Asia and Australia, and the eastern tropical Pacific is cool.
This is an important observation because in addition to regulating the amount of incoming energy through the timing of the onset of the clouds and thunderstorms, the planet regulates its heat content by varying the rate of “throughput”. I am using “throughput” to mean the rate at which heat is moved from the equator to the poles. When the movement of heat to the poles slows, heat builds up. And when that pole-bound movement speeds up, the heat content of the planet is reduced through increased heat loss at the poles.
The rate of throughput of heat from the tropics to the poles is controlled at different time scales by different phenomena.
On an hourly/daily scale, the variations in the amount of heat moved are all in the atmospheric part of the system. The timing and amount of thunderstorms directly regulate the amount of heat leaving the surface to join the Hadley circulation to the poles.
On an inter annual basis, the throughput is regulated by the El Nino/La Nina pump.
And finally, on a decadal basis, the throughput is regulated by the PDO.
So as a functional definition, I would say that the PDO is a another part of the complex system which controls the planetary heat content. It is a rhythmic shift in the strength and location of the Pacific currents which alternately impedes or aids the flow of heat to the poles.
The Climate Effects of the PDO
As you might imagine, the state of the PDO has a huge effect on the climate, particularly in the nearby regions. The climate of Alaska, for example, is hugely influenced by the state of the PDO.
Nor is this the only effect. The PDO seems to move in some sense in phase with global temperatures. Since the Pacific covers about half the planet, this should come as no surprise.
How We Measure the PDO
The PDO was first measured in salmon catches. Historical records in British Columbia up in Canada showed a clear cyclical pattern … and since then, a number of other ways to measure the PDO have been created. Current usage seems to favor either the detrended North Pacific temperature, or alternately using the first “principle component” (PC) of that temperature. Since the first PC of a slowly trending time series is approximately the detrended series itself, these are quite similar.
To measure the PDO or the El Nino, I don’t like these types of temperature-based indices. For both theoretical and practical reasons, I prefer pressure-based indices.
The practical reason is that we don’t have much information about the North Pacific historical water temperatures. Sure, we have the output of the computer reanalysis models, but that’s computer model output based on very fragmentary input, and not data. As a result it’s hard to take a long-term look at the PDO using temperatures, which is important when a full cycle lasts sixty years or so.
The same issue doesn’t apply as much to pressure-based indices. The big difference is that the pressure field changes much more gradually than the temperature field at all spatial scales. If you move a thermometer a hundred metres you can get a very different temperature. That is not true about a barometer, you get the same pressure anywhere in town. Indeed, they don’t suffer from many of the problems in temperature based indices, in part because the instruments used to measure pressure are not subject to the micro-climate issues that bedevil temperature records. This means that you can directly compare say the pressure in Darwin and the pressure in Tahiti. So those two datasets are used to construct the pressure-based Southern Ocean Index.
As a result, it is much easier to construct an accurate estimate of the entire pressure field from say a few hundred stations than it is to estimate the temperature field. Indeed, this kind of estimation has been used for many decades before computers to construct the weather maps showing the high and low-pressure areas. This is because the surface pressure field, unlike the surface temperature field, is smooth and relatively computable from scattered ground stations.
The theoretical reason I don’t like temperature based indices is that people always want to subtract them from the global temperature for various reasons. I see this done all the time with temperature-based El Nino indices. It all seems too incestuous to me, removing temperature of the part from temperature of the whole.
The final theoretical reason I prefer pressure-based indices is that they integrate the data from a large area. For example, the Southern Ocean Index (which measures pressures in the Southern Hemisphere) reflects conditions all the way from Australia to Tahiti.
In any case, Figure 2 shows a typical PDO index. This is the one maintained by the Japanese at JISAO. It is temperature based.
Figure 2. The temperature-based JISAO Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index. It is calculated as the leading principal component of the North Pacific sea surface temperature.
As I mentioned, for the PDO, I much prefer pressure based indices. Here is the record of one of the pressure-based indices, the “North Pacific Index”. The information page says:
The North Pacific (NP) Index is the area-weighted sea level pressure over the region 30°N-65°N, 160°E-140°W.
Figure 3. The pressure-based North Pacific Index, calculated as detailed above.
As you can see, the sense of the NP Index is opposite to the sense of the JISAO PDO Index. They’ve indicated this in Figure 3 by putting the red (for warm) below the line and the blue (for cool) above the line, but this doesn’t matter, it’s just how the index is constructed. It moves roughly in parallel (after inversion) with the JISAO PDO Index shown in Figure 2.
Now, for me, both of those charts are totally uninteresting. Why? Because they don’t tell me when the regime changes. I mean, in Figure 3, was there some kind of reversal around 1990? 1950? It’s all a jumble, with no clear switch from one regime to the other.
To answer these types of questions, I’ve become accustomed to using a procedure that other folks don’t seem to utilize much. I’ve taken some grief for using it here on WUWT, but to me it is an invaluable procedure.
This is to look at the cumulative total of the index in question. A “cumulative total” is what we get when we start with the first value, and then add each succeeding value to the previous total. Why use the cumulative total of an index? Figure 4 shows why:
Figure 4. Cumulative North Pacific Index (inverted). The data have been normalized, so the units are standard deviations. The cumulative index is detrended, see Appendix for details.
I’ve inverted the cumulative NPI to make it run the same direction as the temperature. You can see the advantage of using the cumulative total of the index—it lays bare the timing of the fundamental shifts in the system.
Now, looking at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in this way makes it a few things clear.
First, it establishes that there are two distinct states of the PDO. It’s either going up or going down.
In addition, it shows that the shift from one to the other is clearly threshold-based. Until a certain (unknown) threshold condition is reached, there is no sign of any change in the regime, and the motion up or down continues unabated.
But once that (unknown) threshold is passed, the entire direction of motion changes. Not only that, but the turnaround time is remarkably short. After only a few months in each case the other direction is established.
Finally, to me this shows the clear fingerprint of a governing mechanism. You can see the effects of the unknown “thermostat” switching the system from one state to the other.
RECAP
I’ve hypothesized that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is another one of the complex interlocking emergent mechanisms which regulate the temperature and the heat content of the climate system. They do this in part by regulating the “throughput”, the speed and volume of the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles via the atmosphere and the oceans.
These emergent mechanisms operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. At the small end, the scales are on the order of minutes and hundreds of metres for something like a dust devil (cooling the surface by moving heat skywards and eventually polewards).
On a daily scale, the tropical thunderstorms form the main driving force for the Hadley atmospheric circulation that moves heat polewards. Of course, the hotter the tropics get, the more thunderstorms form, and the more heat is moved polewards, keeping the tropical temperature relatively constant … quite convenient, no?
On an inter-annual scale, when heat builds up in the tropical Pacific, once it reaches a certain threshold the El Nino/La Nina alteration pumps a huge amount of warm water rapidly (months) to the poles.
Finally, on a decadal scale, the entire North Pacific Ocean reorganizes itself in some as-yet unknown fashion to either aid or impede the flow of heat from the tropics to the poles.
CONCLUSION
So … can the PDO help us to forecast the temperature? Hard to tell. It is sooo tempting to say yes … but the problem is, we simply don’t know. We don’t know what the threshold is which is passed at the warm end of the scale in Figure 4 to turn the PDO back downwards. We also don’t know what the other threshold is at the cool end that re-establishes the previous regime anew. Not only do we not know the threshold, we don’t know the domain of the threshold, although obviously it involves temperatures … but which temperatures where, and what else is involved?
And most importantly, we don’t know what the physical mechanisms involved in the shift might be. My speculation, and it is only that, is that there is some rapid and fundamental shift in the pattern of the currents carrying the heat polewards. The climate system is constantly evolving and reorganizing in response to changing conditions.
As a result, it makes perfect sense and is in accordance with the Constructal Law that when the sea temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles gets steep enough, the ocean currents will re-organize in a manner that increases the polewards heat flow. Conversely, when enough heat is moved polewards and the tropics-to-poles heat gradient decreases, the currents will return to their previous configuration.
But exactly what those reversal thresholds might be, and when we will strike the next one, remains unknown.
HOWEVER … all is not lost. The reversals in the state of the PDO can be definitively established in Figure 4. They occurred in 1923, 1945, 1976, and 2005. One thing that we do NOT see in the record is any reversal shorter than 22 years (except a two-year reversal 1988-1990) … and we’re about eight years into this one. So acting on way scanty information (only three intervals, with time between reversals of 22, 31, and 29 years), my educated guess would be that we will have this state of the PDO for another decade or two. I’ve sailed across the Pacific, it’s a huge place, things don’t change fast. So I find it hard to believe that the Pacific could gain or lose heat fast enough to turn the state of the PDO around in five or ten years, when we don’t see that kind of occurrence in a century of records.
Of course, nature is rarely that regular, so we may see a PDO reversal next month … which is why I say that tempting as it might be, I wouldn’t lay any big bets on the duration of the current phase of the PDO. History says it will continue for a decade or two … but in chaotic systems, history is notoriously unreliable.
w.
PS—This discussion of pressure-based indices makes me think that there should be some way to use pressure as a proxy for the temperature. This might aid in such quests as identifying jumps in the temperature record, or UHI in the cities, or the like. So many drummers … so little time.
MATH NOTE: The shape of the cumulative total is strongly dependent on the zero value used for the total. If all of the results are positive, for example, the cumulative total will look much like a straight line heading upwards to the right, and it will go downwards to the right if the values are all negative. As a result, it cannot be used to determine an underlying trend. The key to the puzzle is to detrend the cumulative total, because strangely, the detrended cumulative total is the same no matter what number is chosen for the zero value. Go figure.
So I just calculate the trend starting with the first point in whatever units I’m using, and then detrend the result.



The integral of PDO doesn’t match the integral of NPI. (See particularly the early 20th century.)
The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.
===========
What affect does the 18.6 year lunar cycle have on this? Does this variation in the moos orbit affect the daily tides? Does this cause warm water to be preferentially be pulled northward or southward, giving rise to the polar see-saw? Is the PDO cycle length affected by this?
There appear to be quite a few papers in support of this cycle:
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/18-6-year-lunar-nodal-cycle-surface-temperature-variability-northeast-pacific-1/
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/bidecadal-variability-intermediate-waters-northwestern-subarctic-pacific-okhotsk-sea-relation-18-6-y/
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/high-latitude-oceanic-variability-associated-18-6-year-nodal-tide/
http://www.mendeley.com/research/significant-contribution-18-6-year-tidal-cycle-regional-coastal-changes/
“The observed timing of the redistribution of sediment and migration of the mud banks along the 1,500km muddy coast suggests the dominant control of ocean forcing by the 18.6 year nodal tidal cycle(7). Other factors affecting sea level such as global warming or El Nino and La Nina events show only secondary influences on the recorded changes. In the coming decade, the 18.6 year cycle will result in an increase of mean high water levels of 6 cm along the coast of French Guiana, which will lead to a 90 m shoreline retreat.”
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/1-800-year-oceanic-tidal-cycle-possible-cause-rapid-climate-change/
Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.
Mention of detrending in
thisANY context suggests a partial but incomplete conceptual foundation.There are no “trends” in a chaotic/oscillatory system like climate. If they banned the use of both the terms “trend” and “detrending” from the climate vocabulary they would have more chance of gaining some understanding.
I need to study this information and the discussion some more. PDO and related decadal oscillations are of great interest to me since I got started in my quest to determine if we were all going to die from our expanding carbon footprint. One of the first things I did was an extensive survey of the limited NM temperature data set and found something of a ghost of the PDO cycle in it. It forced me to look deeper into the whole idea of global warming when I decided that NM had somehow not joined the rest of the world in the process of “warming”. None of the truly rural sites in NM showed any annual average temperature increase. Several showed a slight decrease. Most urban sites especially after 1950 showed a slight increase. Nothing catastrophic.
Thanks Willis and all of you for continuing to expand this knowledge base. I am very impressed by the quality, variety and the civility of the discourse on this post. Of course we all have a lot to learn but I more than most. This is an excellent place to continue the process for me. I plan to look more closely at a “pressure” relationship of the issues. It is all fascinating.
Bernie
The changepoints in the integral of NPI are controlled by solar activity & asymmetry:
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8272/sjev911.png
Dear Willis, With reference to the question what tips the pendulum I came across a paper by Mörner in Physical review and research int. 3(2) 2013 bringing in variations in the rotation speed (measured as LOD) of earth and linking it to the magnetic signature of the dear old sun. I found it an interesting read.
‘The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.’
I’m a bit slow of thinking at the moment. Why does taking x amount of mass and expanding its volume affect the gravitational gradient?
Discussion can’t advance until more leaders in this community get a handle on section 3 here:
Mursula, K. (2007). Bashful ballerina: the asymmetric Sun viewed from the heliosphere.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/Mursula_ASR_2007.pdf
Stephen Wilde says:
June 9, 2013 at 5:05 am
___”…the oceans should also be regarded as part of Earth’s atmosphere for climate analysis purposes because they are partially transparent to incoming solar energy and ‘process’ far more energy than does the air… “
¬¬¬___”Finally, someone needs to ascertain just how far a doubling of CO2 would shift the jets and climate zones. I would guess that it would be less than a mile compared to 1000 miles from solar and oceanic causes between MWP and LIA and LIA to date.”
The oceans is heavily involved in many processes and are the driver of the weather and climate. Earth climate is all about water, for example:
__Globally, the hydrological cycle is characterized by the evaporation of about 500,000 cubic kilometers of water per year, of which 86% is from the oceans and 14% is from the continents [Quante and Matthias, 2006].
__Most of the water that evaporates from the ocean (90%) is precipitated back into them, while the remaining 10% is transported to the continents, where the water precipitates. About two thirds of this precipitation is recycled over the continents, and only one third runs off directly into the oceans.
__Water vapour concentrations decrease rapidly with the height.
__Near the surface, where most water vapour resides, concentrations vary by more than 3 orders of magnitude, from 10 parts per million by volume in the coldest regions to as much as 5% in the warmest [Quante and Matthias, 2006].
__The tropical atmosphere contains more than 3 times as much water vapor as the extra- tropical.
__In the mid-latitudes the water vapor distribution is subject to intense day-to-day variations, responding strongly to the passage of cyclones.
AND:
• Only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water volume is in the atmosphere.
• The volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 12,900 km3 .
• The volume of the Baltic Sea is about 20,000 km³
• The entire water in the atmosphere is replaced about 35 times in one year.
• Each water drop (vapor) in the air remains there for not more than about 10 days.
• The ocean mean temperature is about 4°C.
Taken from an overview at: http://climate-ocean.com/book%202012/g/g1.html
You may be right that solar and oceanic causes is 1000 miles ahead of “a doubling of CO2”, whereby the sun supplies the fuel, while the while the oceans and water vapour processes solar energy to weather and climate. CLIMATE should be defined as the continuation of the oceans by other means.
Good summary Willis. However, I think you need to look further into the atmospheric pressure changes. You used those changes to drive your excellent index but ignored the ramifications of those changes. The changes in pressure over such a vast area helps to drive the jet streams. A more zonal jet stream reduces cloudiness and allows more solar radiation to reach the planet. This leads to overall warming. While, a loopy jet stream increases overall cloudiness and cools the planet.
As a result I believe the phases of the PDO could very well be the drivers of multi-decadal changes in global temperature of about ±.5C. We have the data and a possible mechanism to support it.
Of course, this does not mean the PDO is not controlled by another mechanism, but it surely is not controlled by GHGs. Some of the possible drivers include solar/lunar tidal cycles and now solar plasma changes.
Finally, I wouldn’t get too tied up with the exact dates for the regime changes. The complete system is chaotic and these cycles may get influenced when other, possibly unknown, factors are at their peaks.
Johan i Kanada says:
June 9, 2013 at 4:22 am
Can we agree that the PDO is an effect, and not a (root) cause, of any potential global energy balance change?
No. Just about everything is an “effect” of something else. However, that doesn’t mean it can’t “cause” other things to happen. It is called a chain of causality. While the PDO itself is no doubt the “effect” of other factors it could very easily be the cause of global temperature changes by ±.5C.
All of the late 20th century warming is blamed on GHGs, mainly CO2. It could very well be the result of the warm phase of the PDO (and whatever causes it to change phases).
Bloke down the pub: I’m a bit slow of thinking at the moment. Why does taking x amount of mass and expanding its volume affect the gravitational gradient?
Yes, I think Willis made that one up. If you put a ice cube in a bucket if floats because it’s less dense. This does not create a gravitational gradient the pulls it to the other side of the bucket.
@ferdberple, thanks for those links. Good to see this sort of thing is getting published. Inspired by the recent Stuecker et al paper, into seeing what they missed in W.Pacific wind speed data, I’m finding it full of lunar and solar periods. Though a limited presence of 18.6.
There is a Shen index for PDO based on Chinese rainfall records available at NCDC that goes back to before Columbus sailed the ocean blue and even older ones based on (dare I say?) tree rings.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2012/02/20/deeper-doo-doo-for-dendrochronology/long-term-pdo-indices-compared/
We have no choice but to try to stretch what little we know in many different ways. One of these is length and these indices suggest that the (perhaps) two cycle data dealt with here may not be typical.
I still argue that the only earthly force we know of with the cahones to effect these massive changes is the thermohaline circulation, and please quit calling it a conveyor belt.
It’s “Cojones” 😉
Thanks, Bob.
Very interesting article, food for thought!
The quality and depth of the comments shows this clearly. Thank you all!
Greg Goodman, at 5:05 am
Exactly the same, just not detrended.
Exactly the same, just not the same. OK.
ArndB said:
“CLIMATE should be defined as the continuation of the oceans by other means.”
Arnd made the same good point back in 2010 (and earlier) and I replied as follows:
“I’d say that the troposphere may well be the continuation of the oceans by other means but the atmosphere from stratosphere upwards could be regarded as the continuation of the sun by other means.
Climate within the troposphere is the resolution of the resulting conflict.”
from here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100922/full/467381a.html
“This recharges (or replenishes) the heat released during the El Niño.”
Oh not that nonsense again. El Niño heats the tropical Pacific, http://virakkraft.com/Rad-Temp-Trop-Pac.png
Willis
Very interesting analysis. Your excercise confirmed what various climate analysts had said before . The transition years in your CUMULATIVE MONTHLY NP index are very close to the peaks and troughs of the PDO Index. The PDO index went negative in late 2007 indicating the possible start of 30 years of cooler weather like it did in 1944. Based on the historical and somewhat recent repetitive nature of the SST pattern of the North Pacific, the PDO index , has also been successfully used to predict the broad warm and cool phases of our global climate , in particular the next 20-30 years which are likely going to be cool but which the warmist erronously said would be unprecedently warm. It would appear that the changing spatial pattern of the North Pacific SST is significant in predicting global temperatures and is one of the many tools that analysts can use . You have added a new valuable tool that we can also use which has some real meat behind it.. Good work
Willis said:
“The heat is transported by the ocean to the poles in a couple of ways. One is that because the surface waters of the tropical oceans are warm, they expand. As a result, there is a permanent gravitational gradient from the tropics to the poles, and a corresponding slow movement of water following that gradient.’”
Although I support Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis overall I think the above comment represents a fundamental flaw in his current formulation.
Gravity acting upon atmospheric mass sets up a decline of pressure with height which leads to a temperature decline with height as atmospheric density declines.
The rotation of the Earth with the consequent Coriolis force causes a higher atmosphere above the equator than above the poles which allows the height of the tropopause to be higher at the equator than at the poles.
It is the gradient in tropopause height between equator and poles which sets the pattern of the permanent climate zones on Earth and the Jetstream tracks between them.
That gradient can be altered by oceanic variation in the rate of energy release to the air from below (preferentially at the equator) and by solar variation affecting ozone quantities in the stratosphere from above (preferentially above the poles) and it is those changes altering that gradient which allow latitudinal shifting of jets and climate zones to alter global cloudiness and albedo.
Climate change is thus a consequence of the changes in cloudiness and albedo.
Ah, I think I misread Willis’s point.
He was referring to a gradient within the body of water rather than in the atmosphere.
Nonetheless I think my comments add something to the discussion.
Thanks Willis, very interesting. Your statement about gravity deltas driving the poleward flow made me wonder. You are correct, there is a gravity delta in both the Atlantic and Pacific towards the poles.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2uqk49e.jpg