Image Credit NASA – Polar Vortex on Venus
WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”
Currently there is a lot of media hype about the Polar Vortex over North America, but little in the way of coherent explanation as to what a Polar Vortex is and how it affects Earth’s temperature. As such, 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.” Wikipedia In addition to those on Earth, Polar Vortices also have been sighted on Venus, Mars, Jupiter , Saturn and Saturn’s Moon Titan.
“Long-term vortices are a frequent phenomenon in the atmospheres of fast rotating planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, for example. Venus rotates slowly, yet it has permanent vortices in its atmosphere at both poles. What is more, the rotation speed of the atmosphere is much greater than that of the planet. “We’ve known for a long time that the atmosphere of Venus rotates 60 times faster than the planet itself, but we didn’t know why. The difference is huge; that is why it’s called super-rotation. And we’ve no idea how it started or how it keeps going.
The permanence of the Venus vortices contrasts with the case of the Earth. “On the Earth there are seasonal effects and temperature differences between the continental zones and the oceans that create suitable conditions for the formation and dispersal of polar vortices. On Venus there are no oceans or seasons, and so the polar atmosphere behaves very differently,” says Garate-Lopez.” Phys.org
So with that background, let’s take a look at the Polar Vortex currently over North America. Starting at 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) here we have a Height Analysis showing the low pressure area;
a Temperature Analysis showing the cold area;
Zonal Mean Temperatures showing the cold area from a global perspective;
a wide perspective Wind Animation and more focused Wind Animation showing the motion of the Vortex,
and Ozone Mixing Ratio map showing the “Ozone Hole” within it:
Now we are going to travel down the Polar Vortex in several steps, so here’s another Height Analysis showing the low pressure area at 30 hPa/mb – Approximately 23,700 meters (77,800 feet);
a Temperature Analysis showing the cold area;
Zonal Mean Temperatures showing the cold area from a global perspective;
and Ozone Mixing Ratio map showing the “Ozone Hole” within the Vortex:
Here’s a Height Analysis showing the low pressure area at 70 hPa/mb – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet);
a Temperature Analysis showing the cold area;
Zonal Mean Temperatures showing the cold area from a global perspective;
a wide perspective Wind Animation and more focused Wind Animation showing the motion of the Vortex,;
and Ozone Mixing Ratio map showing a slight “Ozone Hole” within it:
And here’s here we have a Height Analysis showing the low pressure area at 100 hPa/mb – Approximately 15,000 meters (49,000 feet);
a Temperature Analysis showing the cold area;
Zonal Mean Temperatures showing the cold area from a global perspective;
and Ozone Mixing Ratio map showing a slight “Ozone Hole” within the Vortex:
Per this Northern Hemisphere – Vertical Cross Section of Geopotential Height Anomalies you can see that the Polar Vortex currently extends to approximately 100 hPa/mb:
also reflected in this Northern Hemisphere – Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C:
So why is it so cold in North America right now? Per Global – 10-hPa/mb Height Temperature Anomalies – Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet);
it appears that that we are having an [Upper Stratosphere Lower Mesosphere (USLM) Disturbance] that could lead to a Sudden Stratospheric Warming growing over East Asia, i.e. “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 ”The January 1985 Arctic outbreak was a meteorological event, the result of the shifting of the polar vortex further south than is normally seen. Blocked from its normal movement, polar air from the north pushed into nearly every section of the eastern half of the United States, shattering record lows in a number of states.” Wikipedia This BBC Article and Video are helpful in understanding Sudden Stratospheric Warmings. (Note that the text within the [brackets] above has been added and the struck-through removed to correct the article based upon learnings from this comment and this comment below.)
In terms of claims that “US polar vortex may be example of global warming” Guardian and “Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather” Time, these appear to be unsupported conjecture as:
“Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October–November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry–climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving.”
“In the V1 model, the delayed breakup of the Antarctic vortex biases temperature, circulation and trace gas concentrations in the polar stratosphere in spring. The V2 model behaves similarly (despite major model upgrades from V1), though the magnitudes of the anomalous effects on springtime dynamics are smaller.”
“Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”
“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.
Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models.”
To learn more about Polar Vortices please visit the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page.
I’ll have to re-read this, but it was interesting. Thanks Anthony (& WUWT team).
Gene
So a large chunk of air is moved pole ward, loses energy then is squeezed south, right?
Isn’t that how it is supposed to work?
“but little in the way of coherent explanation as to what a Polar Vortex is and how it affects Earth’s temperature. “
Wow. And your 50 graphs helped? I don’t think so. And the fact that you don’t mention the jet stream? Amazing.
At least for Finland those pictures are lacking reality. Basically it has been +/-0 to +3 celsius here for the last month or so. I can agree that we’re “enjoying” the low pressure of that vortex, but the temperature map doesn’t match at all. Luckily, within few days we’re going to have more normal winter temps here.
Really good presentation – wow – very interesting. Just perusing the net today must have seen a thousand different explanations for this.
Looks a lot like the movie: “The day After Tomorrow”…
Thanks for the information overload. I mean that. Thanks. For those who haven’t discovered this, the wind animation can be zoomed and rotated. I was able to get a close up of the winds we’ve had here at my little house on a point on Lake Erie.
@DocWat
LOL! I was thinking the same thing.
So where is James Hansen when you really need him?
Pippen Kool says: January 7, 2014 at 7:39 pm
Wow. And your 50 graphs helped?
15 graphics for the record, but regardless, maybe a video would help? This animation shows Earth’s Winter 2008 – 09 Arctic Polar Vortex breakup and a Sudden Stratospheric Warming: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIXfYTSmBg0&feature=related]
And the fact that you don’t mention the jet stream? Amazing.
What about the Jet Stream? What are you amazed about?
Box of Rocks says: January 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm
So a large chunk of air is moved pole ward, loses energy then is squeezed south, right?
Isn’t that how it is supposed to work?
I think it’s much more involved than that, i.e. a Stratospheric Vortex forms during the polar night and cold “Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.” NASA The Polar Vortex is then buffeted by Eddy Heat Flux i.e.:
As such, here’s 10 day Averaged Eddy Heat Flux Towards The North Pole At 100mb;
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
you can see the recent spike. The breakdown of the Polar Vortex is an unpredictable and extremely chaotic event, e.g. sometimes the Polar Vortex and associated “Ozone Hole” can split in two, i.e. per this September 2003 paper on the SOuther Polar Vortex, “Ozone Forecasts of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex Splitting Event in September 2002″: http://www.knmi.nl/~eskes/papers/jas1039_eskes_pp.pdf
“The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html
In summary, I think the answer is it depends, i.e. on how well developed the Polar Vortex is, how it breaks up, when it breaks up, where it is when it breaks up, the conditions outside of it when it breaks up, and a bunch of other factors that we do not yet understand, hence why we haven’t figure out how to model the Polar Vortex breakdown process yet.
And even if the AGW theory were supported by climate models (which this article shows it isn’t), the graphs of the Arctic sea ice extent during this summer show it close to the 30 year average. Time for Michael Mann to call an AGW cult team huddle to rally around “the cause” – http://cosmoscon.com/2014/01/07/time-for-an-agw-cult-team-huddle/
Answer to Halo , January 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The situation in Finland (and Sweden) is a result of two factors:
* the eruptions in Iceland vulcanos the other year
* today’s Northern Polar Vortex was ‘born’ five years ago and due to the complexe systems mentioned above, including jet streams, as well as our Earth wobbling. All that happened after the Polar Wortex of today was ‘born’ including the vulcanos eruption under water south Alaska which caused inflow of water from the Pacific. Water of other density and higher saltpercentage.
“What about the Jet Stream? What are you amazed about?”
The vortex is bounded by the jet stream which has, for some reason (blink blink wink wink) has wandered south. This was documented in the vortexes of 2006, 2009 and 2010, so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes requires an explanation of what is happening to the jet-stream. Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?
Reblogged this on A TowDog and commented:
At last, an explanation for the dreaded “ArcticSharkVortexNado” that’s based on science instead of breathless media hype
cosmoscon says: January 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm
And even if the AGW theory were supported by climate models (which this article shows it isn’t), the graphs of the Arctic sea ice extent during this summer show it close to the 30 year average. Time for Michael Mann to call an AGW cult team huddle to rally around “the cause” – http://cosmoscon.com/2014/01/07/time-for-an-agw-cult-team-huddle/
Yes, good point;
This animation demonstrates the increase in ice thickness measured by CryoSat over the last four Octobers:
European Space Agency – CryoSat – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="564"]
Also, Arctic Sea Ice Extent remained within two standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the entirety of 2013;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area saw its smallest decline since 2006, with a decline less than half of the prior year and it ended 2013 less than .5 Million Sq Km below the 1979 – 2008 average;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
Furthermore, if you look at the graph above last time this type of event occurred, i.e. the “January 1985 Arctic outbreak”, Arctic Sea Ice Area appears quite close to average, so it appears spurious to attribute this type of event to declining Arctic Sea Ice.
norah4you says: January 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Answer to Halo , January 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The situation in Finland (and Sweden) is a result of two factors:
* the eruptions in Iceland vulcanos the other year
* today’s Northern Polar Vortex was ‘born’ five years ago and due to the complexe systems mentioned above, including jet streams, as well as our Earth wobbling. All that happened after the Polar Wortex of today was ‘born’ including the vulcanos eruption under water south Alaska which caused inflow of water from the Pacific. Water of other density and higher saltpercentage.
What? That’s impressively incoherent. “Today’s Northern Polar Vortex was ‘born’” in December 2013, i.e. Northern Hemisphere – Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
due to factors we do not fully understand, but the Coriolis Effect;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
is the biggest factor in the equation.
An excellent article , thanks.
Guardian article regurgitating article Andrew Freedman at Climate Central :
“Cohen published a study in September that found this Arctic paradox pattern has become common in years with low fall sea ice cover and rapidly advancing fall snow cover across parts of Asia, and that there is a likely link between the trends. The paper found the pattern was observed during the winter of 2012-2013, following the lowest fall sea ice extent on record in September 2012.”
So Freedman sees no problem in applying conclusions of a “paper” in a magazine called TOS. linking low arctic ice coverage and such events. to a year with average arctic ice extent.
I guess that’s what they mean by “counter-intuitive”, a terms that seems to be “trending” recently.
How often during winter does the jet stream wander far south? Does it ever wander very far north? During its excursion south in one place does it wander far north in other places. Do you have a large enough sample of jet stream behavior to justify your winking?
Corioli Pippen Kool says: January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm
The vortex is bounded by the jet stream which has, for some reason (blink blink wink wink) has wandered south. This was documented in the vortexes of 2006, 2009 and 2010, so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes requires an explanation of what is happening to the jet-stream.
This a question of what’s the dog and what’s the tail. In this case, the dog is likely the Polar Vortex and Jet Stream is likely the tail, i.e. the Jet Stream didn’t “wander”, but rather it was moved by the Polar Vortex. Take a look at this animation;
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
and review this page;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972
to see what a Vortex break up looks like. It doesn’t look like the jet stream is doing much “bounding”.
Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?
No, please take a look at this article;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/
and let me know if there are any more of “those scary AGW hypotheses” you’d like me to poke holes in next.
JTF: “Furthermore, if you look at the graph above last time this type of event occurred, i.e. the “January 1985 Arctic outbreak”, Arctic Sea Ice Area appears quite close to average, so it appears spurious to attribute this type of event to declining Arctic Sea Ice.”
That also appears to have a year with unusually small annual variation. Possibly the lowest in the record.
Just on casual observation, it looks to me like the round shape of the simple votex is being squeezed between two highs. The strongest one being in North Pacific.
That would appear to be what is causing the deformation leading to the bulge now extending into N. Am.
This hotspot seems to have its origins well up in the stratosphere.
I would also note that we just past perihelion at the same time as new moon. This will be a time of maximum tidal forces, which affect both oceans and atmosphere.
I’m currently trying to find out the state of the perigee cycle to see whether earth-moon distance is also adding to this.
Pippen Kool says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm
“What about the Jet Stream? What are you amazed about?”
The vortex is bounded by the jet stream which has, for some reason (blink blink wink wink) has wandered south. This was documented in the vortexes of 2006, 2009 and 2010, so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes requires an explanation of what is happening to the jet-stream. Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?
———————————
You seem to think that the jet stream is doing something unusual. What would make you think that?
If you read the “Joe’s” on WxBell professional, the likelyhood of the polar vortex dropping over central NA is correlated to the phase of the QBO, AO/NAO & the ENSO (neutral) cycles. If I read their posts correctly, they expect it will drop into the US again before the end of winter due to the combination of the above factors.
Box of Rocks says:
January 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm
So a large chunk of air is moved pole ward, loses energy then is squeezed south, right?
Isn’t that how it is supposed to work?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Essentially the polar vorticies (Usually two high pressure interacting with one massive low.) are a massive Heat Transfer in action. This is one of the major driving forces of our planets cooling system and appears to be directly related to upper atmosphere cooling. The air exchange allows black body radiation high into our atmosphere and escape into space. IN times of low solar output the upper atmosphere cools and the down welling of cold interacts with the up welling of warm. Somewhat like a dryline works and causes two distinct areas of rotation, one warm and one cold.
This shoving match soon enlarges to the point the rotation is unstable and like a top is shoved OR wanders off point. When this happens the vortex weakens or collapses and the upwelling warmer air rushes over top of the low disrupting it briefly. After a short period the upper cold air forces its way to the earths surface while the earths rotation resumes the low pressures rotation and the process essentially starts over.
If you look into the history presented by JTF these major cooling spells, sub arctic air intrusion and record breaking low temps have been during times of low solar output and colder air aloft over the poles. During times of higher solar activity the air masses above the poles is warmer and the reduced differential does not allow these vorticies to grow in size. (and incidentally tropical vorticies increased in size)
One could hypothesize that a cooling planet will have greater differential above the poles and thus cooling would be thrust outward to the equator. Even though the temps (at the poles) may moderate, the globe as whole is cooling. Inversely, if the air above the poles is warmer due to an active solar cycle, ADO, PDO, etc the warming reduces the temperature imbalance (at the poles) and thus the polar vortex is reduced in size keeping cooling localized.
Meh. It’s happened before. It will happen again.
It is amusing, though. After the Warmists realized they really couldn’t get away with labeling every heat spell a sign of AGW, and every cold snap mere weather, they decided to coopt the cold snaps to The Cause as well. I wonder how many suckers will fall for the ploy?
Pink-eye Kool,
An article is presented that has facts and you ever-so-daintily try to swat it away with something about a jet stream, which, apperantly, not only disproves all the facts (which really is the ‘scary’ bit, no? wink W!NK ROTFLMAO LOLZ!1!!), but also manages to magically exonerate AGW-substantiating models. Mind you, that is running under a perhaps outlandish assumption that there is one agreed upon, unifying AGW model that has accurately predicted long-term trends, not only incuding a jet stream model, but all the other myriad of plagues it is to visit it upon us.
You work in sarcasm like Rubin worked in oils. But please, keep it up. 🙂 Really, you’re a bit of a model yourself.
By the way, I must add how humorous it is that the good Sir Pip is sent into convulsions over all the fact-filled, NOAA and other governmentally sourced data and would rather, instead, focus on one additional factor that he feels backs him up. You must be breaking out in hives when you visit this site. Do take care of yourself. Please, don’t mind all the additional information being posted in response to your fits.
Elephant in the room. With a quiet sun and a polar vortex with potential to last several months, and if next Spring and Summer temperatures are below average, is this the tipping point for a mini ice age?
Dr. Maue used the term “polar vortex” in the piece that appeared on FOX News. So, all of a sudden, a rather mundane meteorological term is being bandied about as though it’s a just discovered rare event.
As a matter of interest, there’s a NOAA website full of data about the Great Lakes, not just ice cover, although, at this time of year, ice cover is of great concern when its absence can result in lake snow events that can be measure by the foot:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/
justthefactswuwt says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:03 pm
15 graphics for the record, but regardless, maybe a video would help? This animation shows Earth’s Winter 2008 – 09 Arctic Polar Vortex breakup and a Sudden Stratospheric Warming:
Wow! Excellent video. Very impressive!
It shows that our atmosphere is actually a thermal machine.
It’s more like a dark cloud on the horizon at this point. And the temperature would most likely “tip” only down to the “step” it was at before the 1998 step-change upward.
But that’ll be the final and fatal arrow in the elephant, as far as the warmist narrative goes.
I think we just had a polar vortex come up our street. Sounds like it taunted the neighbor’s dog. It sounded really spinny as it came up the road. We live in a cul-du-sac so I think it became confused. By the time I got to the door it was gone, though. I hear there is a flock of those vortices headed for North Carolina tonight. They told us to leave our faucets dripping and to keep the cabinet doors open. Maybe they don’t like the sound of dripping water and leaving those doors open means they can’t hide in there. I haven’t actually seen one of them yet but I have been keeping a close eye in the mirror on my drive to work because I hear they like to sneak up behind you. Last thing I need is a polar vortex right up the old tailpipe.
Pippen Kool says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm
“What about the Jet Stream? What are you amazed about?”
Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?
Pippen Kool: I am not so sure it really matters. The last interglacial, the Eemian (MIS-5e) did not go out with a bang. It went out after at least two bangs (or warming events), the second of which sent the most sensitive measure of climate change (sea level) a minimum of 10 times (+6.0 meters, or one order of magnitude) the AR4 “business as usual” prognostication of +0.59 meters amsl to almost 2 orders of magnitude (+52meters amsl – Lysa et al, “Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and sedimentary environment of the Arkhangelsk area, northwest Russia”, Global and Planetary Change 31 [2001]. 179–199).
The jet stream will do whatever it does, and especially at an end extreme interglacial. No one knows why.
What we actually do know is that that the end extreme interglacials are attended with from at least 1 to 3 thermal pulses, right at their very ends, If the scariest AGW hypothesis yields only +0.59 meters amsl (Figure 10.33 from page 821 of Chapter 10 of AR4) then I register as duly unscared out of my wits.
If you think for one minute that you can scare me with an AGW “signal” of +0.59 meters amsl (slightly less than 10% of the lowest estimate of the second thermal pulse at the end Eemian, which is +6 meters amsl), then you are sadly mistaken. If you want to challenge the highest sea level estimate for that second thermal pulse then you need 88 times as much sea level rise (or +52 meters amsl, almost 2 orders of magnitude) just to reach parity with the high-end of the most recent reported end extreme interglacial “noise” (Lysa et al, 2001, “Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and sedimentary environment of the Arkhangelsk area, northwest Russia”, Global and Planetary Change 31, pp 179–199, sorry, link to this paper is down at present).
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
In closing, please do try to keep up.
Best Regards,
William
Pippen Kool says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm
‘so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes’
I am sure ‘justthefactswuwt’ is walking on air now you have condescended to have an ‘intelligent’
discussion with him.
Just for the record,kindly define ‘intelligent’ discussion,because seriously every single time,bar none, I see someone refer to themselves as intelligent they turn out to be as thick as two short planks.
Awesome, interesting, educational post, JTF. Thanks. The wind animation is a work of art.
Pippen Kool said:
“The vortex is bounded by the jet stream which has, for some reason (blink blink wink wink) has wandered south. This was documented in the vortexes of 2006, 2009 and 2010, so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes requires an explanation of what is happening to the jet-stream. Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The best-ignored hypotheses of AGW, Drought Vortex Edition…
JB Goode says:
January 7, 2014 at 11:39 pm
“kindly define ‘intelligent’ discussion”
JB, if I may, I have spent considerable time trying to come up with a proper example of the difference between intellectual and plain-old Kool clever.
It seems to me that if Wernher von Braun, a hominid that contributed significantly to putting another hominid on the moon, while on his way to the loo at a deepest/darkest African safari, is attacked and killed by a leopard lying in wait beside the trail to the loo. In such an instance one might conclude that the Leopard appears to be superior.
The Leopard did away with one that set the stage for our rendezvous with our moon. To date, no leopards have mounted any expedition to the moon. Yet it was the leopard that triumphed and survived.
So, Pippen Kool, in the game of life, indeed in the game of the universe, which is the superior intellect?
The clever leopard, by way of its clever hiding place in the weeds, won the game of life. In your best estimation, Pippen Kool, at what point in the future do you suppose leopards will land a rover (or the first leopard) on the moon?
Because landing a rover on the moon (perhaps even Mars) is as clear a demonstration of intelligence that any creature calling gaia home can presently lay claim to. Below that bar lies the not so difficult discussion of cleverness…….
Thanks JB Goode for your insightful musings – William
It is technically not a true SSW, rather a USLM disturbance that usually precedes a SSW. The warming initiated at the 1hPa and downwelled to 10hPa, http://i.imgur.com/zK7IB6l.gif
The Zonal Mean Zonal winds didn’t really budge either, http://i.imgur.com/y0GLgpr.gif but the warming did come from the wave 2 activity, That began near the end of Dec, and still going as we speak,
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE2_MEAN_ALL_NH_2013.gif
noting its clear signature in the last animated anomaly map, the 2 warm Highs at the “side” (gives the shape of a peanut or squeezing a balloon in the middle if looking down at the NP)
We need several more rounds of Wave 1 & 2 to really knock down the PV via a true SSW (which is looking to occur late January.
According to BBC weatherman , Liam Dutton, on BBC Radio 2 yesterday (7-1-14) the “Polar Vortex” is an American thing that only exists at very high altitude and cannot affect ground conditions. Back to the classroom Liam
Sound interesting but acronyms like SSW, rather a USLM disturbance don’t mean much out of context. Also I don’t see any peanuts.
Wave 1 & 2 just looks like two ends of an annual cycle , why #1 #2 ?
The temperature graphs are way off the mark. We’re experiencing the warmest winter I’ve seen in my life(northern sweden). Just find it odd thats the images show us part of the cooling. NA seems to fit according to what I’ve read in the media/blogs.
Sheffield Chris says:
According to BBC weatherman , Liam Dutton, on BBC Radio 2 yesterday (7-1-14) the “Polar Vortex” is an American thing that only exists at very high altitude and cannot affect ground conditions. Back to the classroom Liam
Sound on a par with Michael Fish’s classic, “don’t worry, there isn’t” a few hours before a storm that brought down 1/3 of the trees in Britain.
The Met Office have ‘improved’ their forecast models since. But still don’t seen to have learnt that you can’t rely on computer models.
Pippen Kool says:
January 7, 2014 at 7:39 pm
“Wow. And your 50 graphs helped? I don’t think so. And the fact that you don’t mention the jet stream? Amazing.”
And your 21 thoughtful and incisive words added so much more to the understanding of this event and its causes by everybody?
Pippen Kool says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm
“The vortex is bounded by the jet stream which has, for some reason (blink blink wink wink) has wandered south. This was documented in the vortexes of 2006, 2009 and 2010, so I think that any intelligent discussion of polar vortexes requires an explanation of what is happening to the jet-stream. Or are you alarmed that this might bring up those scary AGW hypotheses, best ignored?”
So am I to take it that the situation is now getting worse and worse every couple of years with this vortex being more and more likely to occur in the future because AGW says that more really cold air getting further south is what is going to happen more frequently?
That is REALLY scary. AGW = lots of cold air further south. Makes a change from the usual fair I suppose.
Liam Dutton is the Ch4 weather presenter and is much more grounded than the news team who still glibly promote on the main 7pm news that climate change has caused the polar vortex to move to America in the context of ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ film.
William McClenney says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:16 am
Thanks William
Kool and the gang,I just dont understand them.
It’s not for want of trying,I just can’t get my head that far up my arse.
Is worthwhile recalling:
I. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”
“And less solar activity can slow the jet stream, triggering a suite of interlinked extreme weather events …” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html)
Of course, I completely do not agree with M. Lockwood relating the strength and importance of AGW: now and in the future.
II. “When we have had periods where the sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters,” Sunderland University climate scientist Dennis Wheeler told …”
“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science” (http://www.trunews.com/multiple-lines-evidence-suggest-global-cooling/)
This is a decrease in solar activity (http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png).
Simply “no place” here for AGW …
To those objecting to the temp graphs, they are at high altitude, and often opposite to surface temps.
For those interested in the effect of solar activity on the polar vortex, Michele Casati gave me this link after I commented on his site.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/moreqbo/MZ-Labitzke-et-al-2006.pdf
As justthefacts says, is it the tail wagging the dog?
I hope everyone has their various instruments oiled and polished, ready for the arrival of tomorrow’s X1+ flare. I would have thought that this is an unprecedented opportunity to measure the effects of a flare on the stratosphere above a disrupted vortex. Could it take the sting out of it by reducing the temperature gradient?
Just thought I’d come in here with a few animations and videos to expain in simple terms to subject of this thread.
justthefacts:
Good job of explaining what is, even to a professional in the field of weather, a complicated subject re physical formation – and one that has only within the last 10 years been acknowledged and appreciated for it’s effects on the “bottom” bit of the atmosphere, where our weather is created.
In the most part this lack of knowledge was due the scarcity of observations, but also due the lack of computing power to model the process of a “SSW” (Sudden Stratospheric Warming).
A number of processes have been observed.
The one underway now involves air having been driven aloft over mountain ranges (Rockies, Himalayas primarily) and creating a wave in the high atmosphere. Due compression on the “down” side this warm “wave” front, warming air “breaks” (think surfing) into the PV and as it has a cold core, then the warm air eventually will mix out the temp differential – or at least squeeze the core to shift it or split it. Current forecasts suggest that a splinter of the PV will drop into Eurasia with the next 2 weeks to bring cold here.
This squeeze can happen where air is funnelled N’wards in certain areas – notably through the Bering Sea into the Chukchi Sea over Alaska and E Siberia (check their warm Dec weather). This “squeeze” often leads to an upstream down-wards movement of the PV pole – hence the current position of it centred over N Canada and extending well S into the States.
Another process has been observed too – a “top down” one, where Ozone is impacted on by Cosmic rays and the inherent warming of O3 destruction causes the warming at the top of the cold high core. This happens (sometimes – not always) in times of Low Solar Flux. Think the Little Ice Age and Maunder minimum.
You have to remember that due the Earth’s spin, air is deflected eastward and cold air amplifies this as high up air will move from warm to cold then turn right (anti-clockwise). So a PV is a self contained/self feeding entity than has winds at all levels (well it diverges at the top) converging into it. It can only move when nudged by warm air.
When this happens – the opposite occurs, in that the temp differential high up reverses and so air then spins the other way (clockwise), slowly down-welling to lower levels and eventually making HP cells in the Arctic. These move air OUT of them and so push frigid Arctic air S. This is distinct however from the major PV pole which after being deflected will restrengthen. This all a winter scenario as the cooling, is of course, because the NP is in permanent darkness for 6 months.
Here are animations of some SSW events…..
http://curriculum.pmartineau.webfactional.com/wp-content/svw_gallery/test/gif/2013_01_17.gif
The jet stream is simply that wind located at the height in the atmosphere where greatest horizontal temperature gradient is present. It demarcates a temp/density/pressure boundary. In warm air at any level there is more air above you than there is at that level in cold. Cold air is denser and hence “hugs” the ground more. So air sat on the warm side is pushed to the cold side. The Earth’s spin then deflects to the right and you have your jet. Therein lies a complexity however – chicken & egg. As the max temp contrast aloft creates the jet – but the jet can distort the contrast (depending on strength and direction).
Here’s a good video showing Rossby wave-train developments…
Here a Lab demonstration of hemispheric flow…
Demonstration of Coriolis in the lab….
And here a good (layman’s) explanation of Sudden Stratospheric warming…
You just don’t get it. I took a science class and it is simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man is adding greenhouse gas. It is obviously destroying the planet with all this hot and cold stuff going on. Very simple for us smart people who took a science class you see.
Sounds to me like the rapid cooling at the beginning of an ice age (or mini ice age) could be in part due to more stable polar vortices lasting several months each year. And could be linked to reduced sun spot activity as several have mentioned. Kind of scarry how fast we could enter another mini ice age if true.
@ Willis a picture of Earths magnetic field lines (pause lines) mite clear things up a bit. Then apply the left and right hand rule regarding electromagnetics. The stratopause being negative and the tropopause being positive. The pause lines are layers were temperature equalises and moves poleward. Remembering energy will always take the path of least resistance I can see why the pause lines exist.
crosspatch says: @ January 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm
….I hear there is a flock of those vortices headed for North Carolina tonight…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They arrived. It was a nice brisk 10 °F (-12 °C) this morning. The average low for this time of year is 31 °F.
I found the seasonal historical graph for AO 1950 to present, Jan/feb/mar… But is there one for April/may/June? I’m curious because of AO’s effect on arctic ice; AO positive bad for ice, AO negative good for ice
http://www.cpc.ncepmp Onoaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
TB says at January 8, 2014 at 4:27 am
Thank you for the insight. I would think this could be a main post.
However, I am curious as to
How do we know that there is “inherent warming of O3 destruction”? I thoughgt that there were many competing prceesses in the upper atmosphere and that effect of Cosmic Rays could disrupt more than just ozone? How do we know it will be warming relative ot some other process?
Please understand that I am a layman so I may have misunderstood.
Tripod says: @ January 8, 2014 at 4:33 am
…Kind of scary how fast we could enter another mini ice age if true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even more scary when you consider Richard Alley and his colleagues made the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years.
@Brian H.
Thank you for the explanation!
Justthefacts -“..
I think it’s much more involved than that, i.e. a Stratospheric Vortex forms during the polar night and cold “Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.” NASA The Polar Vortex is then buffeted by Eddy Heat Flux i.e.:
…”
So where did the large amount of air come from to begin with. We are talking 3 dimensions here, right?
The 1st NASA image looks like a magnetically stirred beaker of milk.
Good job NASA!
I still don’t have a warm feeling…my fingers are numb!
Barry Cullen says: @ January 8, 2014 at 5:50 am
The 1st NASA image looks like a magnetically stirred beaker of milk….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are right! Maybe that is how they got the pixs ROTFLMAO
Since Mars was mentioned I just spotted this little gem a few minutes ago on the US weather.
It must be the 95% co2 keeping the Red Planet nice and toasty.
Jimbo says: @ January 8, 2014 at 6:30 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good grief! No wonder the Minnesotans are for Global Warming! link
The electron vortex created above the north pole by the magnetotail’s interaction with the S1 radiation storm the Earth encountered during the new moon as a result of two solar flares (high-energy photon bursts), dragged the cold of space with it into the pole, until the electrons in the magnetosphere reached equilibrium with the earth.
It’s time for people to get with the program. Auroras are classified as either electron or proton driven. ALL electric/magnetic weather effects are solar driven. It’s photons, protons, and electrons from short-term solar bursts that drive extreme weather events and natural disasters. It takes days for all those effects to play out, in ways that vary with many variable factors. THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.
TB
Since 1998 these SSW events have been more frequent , earlier and of greater impact [ last one only a year ago,[ january 2013 ] They happened every other year before . Does anyone have an answer why there is a more frequent pattern to them ? To me it appears that SSW is a cooling and rebalancing mechanism for the planet when excessive warm pockets of air build up.?
They may have been there all along [ unexplained cold winters during warm years ] , except we are now becoming aware of them . For example locally we had a near record very cold day. and the previous january record cold for that same day was 1945, the era of very warm years ]. So perhaps these SSW events are present as the globe moves from a warming planet to a cooling planet?
Thanks JustTheFacts, very good article. Congratulations on the new Polar Vortex Reference Page. Happy New Year!
The current status of our northern Polar Vortex can also be seen at http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-90.0,90.0,197
@Box of Rocks:
The Statosphere is where IR leaves the planet. That Statospheric cold air heads off to the cold pole (in winter forming the Polar Night Jet) and then decends to the planet surface (as the polar vortex).
At the equator and in part of the temperate zone, hot moist air rises. At the top of the troposphere, the moisture condenses making rain, snow, hail, etc. and dumping heat (in the water IR bands). The height of the tropopause is varable. It depends on how much heat needs to be convected up high. AT the tropopause, it is NOT a static “lid”. The air stops rising, but turns into a Huricane Cat 2 force wind sideways. (Yes, there is some mixing here with stratospheric air). That sideways air is headed for the poles to be sent back down.. But only after the heat dump.
Hope that helps. Pretty graphs here: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/
including one with CO2 shown as dumping heat to space in the stratosphere… and one showing lateral wind speed in the tropopause.
Simple way to visualize it is that the earth is a giant Lava Lamp, with hot blobs rising and cold blobs sinking at the poles. Then just spin it all and add coriolis effects 😉 No suprise at all that the blobs change size, spin, and location. It’s a chaotic system…
Oh, and the solar quiet time cut the UV way back, so the atmospheric height lessened. It’s all compressed into less vertical range. So things spread out a bit more from the poles.
While I’m here: Why Global Average Temperature is a stupid thing, in easy to understand terms:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/calorie-counting-thermometers/
Just a side question here. How do you ‘manage’ through policy and market manipulation the Ozone Hole with this huge cyclone going on?
And what is the density of the air at 100 hPa supposed to drive 1050hPa polar air into lower latitudes? Notwithstanding that polar air driving south (north in the austral) happens on a continuous basis since it is atmopsheric circulation!
E.M.Smith says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:52 am
@Box of Rocks:
Soo.. a bunch of air cooled off over the poles, descended from an altitude, and when the cold air hit the earth it had no way to go except south, right????
@TB… your Jennifer Francis Jet Stream pipe dream video is truly collector. The hemispheric flow video by the Met is also amazing stuff in which colder zones are designed as cyclones while warmer ones as anticyclones! I guess 1050hPa air coming from the pole must be called cyclone now…LOL
M Courtney says:
January 8, 2014 at 5:02 am
TB says at January 8, 2014 at 4:27 am
Thank you for the insight. I would think this could be a main post.
However, I am curious as to
…where Ozone is impacted on by Cosmic rays and the inherent warming of O3 destruction causes the warming at the top of the cold high core.
How do we know that there is “inherent warming of O3 destruction”? I thought that there were many competing prceesses in the upper atmosphere and that effect of Cosmic Rays could disrupt more than just ozone? How do we know it will be warming relative ot some other process?
Please understand that I am a layman so I may have misunderstood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing further research on this MC – there are indeed other processes involved with O3 in the Strat.
But to answer your direct question: The production/destruction of O3 are both exothermic reactions and produce heat as a by product.
The receipt of UV in the Stratosphere also has a large bearing on warming via O3 destruction/reformation.
O2+02+UV=O3+heat O3+UV=O2+O2+heat
An intro article…
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
See also below link:
There is a very good weather forum based in the UK that has a section/thread devoted to Stratospheric development. The first page gives a good run-down of processes impacting the Vortex.
Note, I left out in my OP other complicating interactions (I thought things were complicated enough) – such as those emanating from tropical convection “pulses” (MJO Madden-Julian-Oscillation) – a wave pattern that circulates the globe and the BDC (Brewer-Dobson Circulation) – transports O3 to the Poles.
The direction of the QBO (Quasi-biennial-oscillation – a Stratospheric wind above the equator that blows whether E’ly or Wly over an ~2yr cycle) also has a determination on developments.
http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/78161-stratosphere-temperature-watch-20132014/?hl=%20stratospheric%20%20warming%20%20events
http://www.journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%290172.0.CO%3B2
Note that where Ozone (O3) is concerned – the effect is with its ability to warm and hence increase or decrease a horizontal temperature gradient (analogous to a jet stream below it in the Troposphere).
Thus more O3 towards the tropics means more warming there and an enhanced gradient towards to Pole – so stronger Polar night jet in winter. And vice versa.
In the following article – Note that the graphic at the top mimics the temperature anomalies that we saw at the start of this cold plunge over N America but NOT over the Atlantic and Eurasia.
Upcoming forecast developments are for the eastern half of the graphic (broadly) to complete in about 2 weeks.
Hence a pattern of hemispheric flow that mirrors that discovered to have been predominant during the Maunder Minimum winters.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122
Interesting list of comments above. Polar vortices and Rossby waves are both chaotic turbulent phenomena. Hence they are (in one sense) nucleated or altered by the proverbial butterfly wing effect — a tiny perturbation that encounters favorable conditions for growth (that are, themselves, the result of solving chaotic equations over the system’s past). The the case of waves, it can do things like modulate the number/period/wavelength and amplitude of the waves (which are not always “pretty” — they can be a superposition of several “waves” happening all at once, and with chaos small changes can lead to e.g. period doubling or halving). The vortex is basically a wave that breaks off at the singularity.
These wave phenomena are caused by the interplay between differential regional warming and cooling, buoyancy, and the coriolis force. As the poles cool relative to their hemisphere, warm air is favorably transported poleward and cold air is favorably transported equatorward, warm air on top and colder air on the bottom. But it cannot go straight north or straight south — air from the equator is moving much faster to the east than air near the poles, and air from the poles is moving much slower than the earth and hence displaces towards the west if it can. Even air heading straight east or west at any given time cannot go in a truly straight line because the Earth is curved — it tries to follow a great circle and hence is “deflected” equatorward not by a real force but by geometry and kinematics. Each parcel of air is subject to not only buoyant forces that generally almost perfectly sustain it at an equilibrium height — until differential warming or cooling cause it to become more or less dense than its surrounding air parcels but pressure forces that balance laterally as well. Except where they don’t. Uplifting air and downfalling air self-organizes into enormous spirals that are coupled to all of the other spirals around them and patterns of high and low pressure emerge with forces driving winds from high pressure towards lower pressure.
Solving for fluid motion in a system like this involves solving Navier-Stokes equations at a fairly fine granularity. The granularity is important because of the butterfly effect — in a truly chaotic system, even tiny fluctuations can grow. Also, in a coarse grained simulation the mass transport part of the PDE solution will be poorly resolved with errors that all by themselves act like “fluctuations” and grow to substantially alter both the details and even the character of the solutions. This is one of the points where I think GCMs are truly broken — they use a lat/long coordinate system with gridding that distorts at the poles due to the spherical polar coordinate Jacobean so nearly all quadrature or ODE solution methods are going to truly suck on the grid. I hence don’t find it at all surprising that they do a terrible job at representing chaotic waves near the poles. I await the day somebody writes a GCM based on a rescalable icosahedral tesselation of the sphere that doesn’t treat the equatorial cells any differently or at any different scale than it treats polar cells. The computational tools to accomplish this and theory are all there — it’s just too difficult for the climate modellers to handle, I guess.
As it is, different GCMs applied to a toy planet consisting of an untipped water world do not even converge to the same general solution space. I have no idea how they would compare on a toy planet that is a featureless untipped rotating deformed sphere of solid, uniformly grey ground, but I would guess that similar problems would arise.
And then there is the Earth. Spinning, tipped, highly eccentric orbit, moving continents, a nearly unknown amount of highly variable background vulcanism, much of it occurring at the bottom of the 0 -10 kilometer deep 4 degree Centigrade variably salty ocean that covers 70% of its surface and that requires an entirely distinct (but coupled) set of Navier-Stokes equations to describe as it is differentially heated and evaporated at the surface. Its dynamics are totally different from that of the atmosphere — it is heated only at the surface, not the bottom or throughout the volume (via absorption), neglecting the pitifully small heat discharge through the crust at nearly all of the ocean floor. It is nearly stable to large scale thermally driven convection everywhere but in or near the surface freezing zone. Its major currents are driven as much by variations in salinity as surface water is evaporated as anything else. It currents are shaped and diverted by the land surface at the coasts and at the sea bottom and also build persistent large scale vortices driven by coriolis forces and a mix of thermal and salinity density changes and surface coupling to atmospheric movements. To further complicate life, the ocean-atmosphere coupling involves the substantial transfer of energy in the form of latent heat and the self-modulation of the radiative properties of the atmosphere and ocean with its water content in multiple phases. Ice, snow, clouds all have high albedo. Moist air can carry orders of magnitude more energy per unit volume around than dry air. Water vapor is a strong absorber in the LWIR bands associated with the normal range of Earth temperatures. Water transports substantial heat vertically and laterally and can nonlinearly alter both heating and cooling of the Earth as it is differentially heated by the sun.
Put it all together and even without wild cards such as possible magnetic or ionic modulation, the variation of our variable sun, possible interactions with a near-mythical ring of dark matter that “might” be circling or otherwise bound to the Earth (sorry, this is enormously speculative but no kidding, recent /. article somebody actually postulated such a thing in a talk at a recent physics conference — let’s just take it as a placeholder for possible “unknown physics”) you have a very, very difficult computational problem to solve. If you are trying to prove something with your solution — such as the inevitability of CAGW — it is all too easy to tweak the system to prove it. It may not even need tweaking — many physical models will, by their nature, have systematic errors in one particular direction only. It is no place for confirmation bias, and no place for the modellers to indulge any sort of hubris, such as the belief that their model is right before it is solidly and consistently confirmed by Nature.
It is important to understand that self-organized near-critical open systems often organize to become more efficient dissipators as they are more strongly driven, although it is difficult to make any blanket statement about chaotic solutions to strongly nonlinear dynamical systems. Water heated on the stove organizes into convective rolls where warmer less dense water on the bottom becomes unstable relative to cooler more dense water on the top. Small asymmetries in the bottom heating and top cooling cause one region to start to uplift and another to downfall, and a spontaneous heat engine is born of heated water circulating to the top, cooling by evaporation, falling back to the bottom, being heated again, rising up to the top, but doing so in an organized roll, not in a bunch of local up and down spots at arbitrary scale. The water has viscosity and hence is happier concentrating the region where it is moving in opposite directions to a single vortex line. However, as one heats it more strongly, one can break the single roll into multiple rolls, and the structure, number, and character of the rolls that occur depends strongly on the geometry of the pot, the details of the bottom heating source, and whether or not you give the water a stir while it is close to spontaneously organizing and hence nucleate many possible modes.
The Earth is capable of far more complex self-organizations, of course. I don’t find it at all surprising that the Eemian ended with strong warming spikes. As such a the system approaches a phase transition, it often experiences “critical slowing down” — the appearance of longer and longer lifetimes for what are usually transient modes. Things like the polar vortex nucleate and then stick, lasting far longer than one expects, but destabilize the system until when they break up they do so violently and the system reorganizes into something else completely different. In the case of the Earth, it could enter a mode that traps heat, but does so only as long as a particular circulation is maintained. It warms and remains warm, but of course the Earth continues along its Milankovitch progression and it has to remain warm with a steadily weakening driver. Eventually the peristent warm phase becomes highly unstable — it is mere hysteresis, as it were — and just the right fluctuation comes along, breaks the persistent warming behavior, and the system suddenly transitions into a strong cooling mode under conditions that favor its rapid growth.
If one numerically solves nonlinear dynamical systems that have known chaotic behavior in certain parametric regions, you can observe how delicate this sort of thing is. If you ODE solver is too coarse, you miss it entirely — you are left believing that the system will be well-behaved and “linearly” predictable across the chaotic regime. When you solve it with sufficient precision, what was a simple oscillation suddenly bifurcates and you find a rich, broad range of solutions where you thought there was just one.
The Earth puts such systems to shame. Simple nonlinear systems are just that — simple. The Earth is a veritable Rube Goldberg device. Every flip here produces a flap in Brazil later and vice versa as it propagates into the future, being selectively amplified or attenuated and transported to the next place to augment or cancel something happening there. I seriously do not think we are particularly close to being able to accurately or even qualitatively simulate it. We can get “Earth-like” climate simulations to work, but they don’t quite match the Earth, even in very simple ways, and they are not an adequate explanation of the LIA, the MWP, and much else. They rely on things like “arbitrary” modulation of unknowns such as volcanic aerosols to explain some of these past events when it is just as likely (IMO) that they are phenomena arising from pure internal nonlinear dynamics — chaotic modes becoming dominant and substantially varying the Earth’s efficiency at storing or losing heat.
Maybe in twenty or thirty years, we’ll have the computational tools and the observational data to make this work correctly. In the meantime, while GW since the LIA is an observational fact, the “A” contribution to it is very much an open question and the “C” hypothesis is always a chance — in any or all directions.
The point is that all by itself the Earth is perfectly capable of heating up or cooling down 2-4 C over an appallingly short time, without any help whatsoever from CO_2 — this is an empirical fact of the paleo climate record. It is an empirical fact that the Earth does heat and cool itself 1-2 C over a 0.5 to 2 century timescale (the recent climate record) without any help whatsoever from CO_2. It is a simple fact that the Holocene is old enough that it could be living on borrowed time, subject to the near-critical fluctuations either way that presage a phase transition to the glacial phase. The LIA was very likely precisely such a fluctuation, and this possibility is real enough that in the 60’s and 70’s it was advanced as an actual hypothesis for the contemporary cooling (anthropogenic, of course — everything is “our fault”:-).
In the old days, prophets used to prophecy various kinds of doom and destruction as a matter of course, and would be sure to clearly indicate that if they did happen, it was because of the sins of the people and how they angered the gods. In other words, doom was going to happen and it was going to be their fault and the doom itself was sufficient proof of this. Because “doom happens”, sooner or later one of their prophecies would come true. Because there was no penalty for a wrong guess (and a slick talker can always explain this as the gods generously giving us another chance, probably due to the good influences of the interlocutor please donate on your way out of the tent to keep it up) the wrong guesses were quickly forgotten and the doom indeed became sufficient proof that the people were sinful, the gods were angry, and above all, that listening to the priests and doing what they say (including, of course, donating generously — see the little box over there? could you drop a few shekels in on your way out? or do you LIKE the idea of boils on your wing-wang?) was the only way to rescue the situation from still worse doom in the future.
The sad thing is that the great climate debate is disturbingly accurately described by this model, on both sides. Yes, in NC we set cold records for the date yesterday and (I’m certain) today. Elsewhere, in association with the exact same vortex, warm records for the date were no doubt set. The vortex isn’t proof of global warming or global cooling. Vortexes happen. Hurricane Sandy wasn’t proof of global warming or global cooling. “Perfect storm” hurricanes happen. The ongoing all-time record deficit of cat 3 or better Atlantic hurricanes making landfall in the US isn’t proof of global warming or global cooling. Deficits happen (although this is the sort of thing that eventually might actually be proof of something or other, if anybody could possibly figure out what).
The best that we can say is this. Even if the GASTA continues to rise or spikes up, it isn’t proof of AGW. The Earth has the demonstrated capability to cause this to occur without our help. On the other hand, would be evidence consistent with the AGW hypothesis, and there is no question that we’re kicking a nonlinear system we do not understand, and cannot be shocked if it kicks back tenfold, any more than it is totally surprising that a kid’s snowball fight or a particularly loud sneeze can trigger an avalanch. If GASTA continues to remain level, fall, or rise very slowly, it isn’t proof that AGW is incorrect. The Earth has the demonstrated capacity to cancel completely any anthropogenic effect we’ve created so far — if it weren’t for CO_2 the 60’s cooling might have turned into a second glacial-ward plunge, LIA2 as it were, and it might be all that is holding off a descent into true Holocene-ending glaciation right now. Since we don’t have any idea how to predict or even realistically model the local dynamics of glacial-interglacial transitions, we cannot say. However, it isn’t strong evidence for the AGW hypothesis.
Lacking strong evidence for the hypothesis — given poor (to say the least) agreement between the models and reality, given a fair amount of obvious bias in the treatment of the temperature records upon which even our current perception of warming is based, given a truly unknown breakdown between anthropogenic and natural climate factors that we literally cannot decompose into “natural signal” and “human forcing” in a strongly nonlinear non-Markovian double coupled pair of unevenly driven Navier-Stokes equations solved on a tipped, rotating oblate spheroid irregularly dotted with continents that rise up to the stratophere and oceans that sink down even more deeply into continental rifts, the wisest course of action is not to panic. No matter what happens, nature could have made it happen all by itself and it won’t be our fault, as the only way we can meaningfully modulate our current anthropogenic influence is to commit mass suicide, a cure worse than any possible disease. We are no longer living in the dark ages, and we are not helpless against “the will of the gods”. We have technology, common sense, science, and human reason to combat natural or unnatural disasters as long as we keep our wits about us.
All things being equal, it would be good to transition from a carbon-based energy economy to one that relies far less on burning fossil carbon as a fuel. Maybe CO_2 is indeed harmless, or even beneficial. Maybe not. We’re still kicking a nonlinear system that we do not understand, which is as stupid as free-swimming with great white sharks. I’d do it to get from my sinking boat to the shore, sure, but go out and do it for “fun” or pretending that they are “magnificent animals” who won’t hurt us because we aren’t their natural prey? If you’re eaten in a case of mistaken identity (sorry mate, I thought you were a seal) or because some particular shark is having a bad day you’re just as dead.
Also, oil and coal are raw materials of enormous value when we don’t burn them, and indeed burning them is gradually depleting the raw material supply and will eventually come back to bite us in the pocketbook. We cannot possibly sustain human civilization on their backs for more than another century, giving us a comparatively narrow window to painlessly transition to longer term energy resources and eventually to a fully sustainable energy supply that will last longer than the human species will. Making a deliberate decision to pursue sustainable energy (at reasonable levels of investment) is simply part of becoming a mature global society.
However, in the shorter run we have two or three more pressing concerns. We have not yet achieved anything like global equity for the human species. The rich are vastly richer than the poor. The poor are stuck living in the 17th and 18th century; the rich live in the 21st. We are stuck in a world dominated by nationalism and worse, religionism, leading to medium scale regional warfare that never seems to quite disappear. We are stuck with a general disagreement over the correct basis for an equitable global, continental or national economy, and for pete’s sake, there are still Kings running things in some countries. What’s up with that? Haven’t we even settled on some sort of self-government meme? Even the threat of global nuclear war hasn’t disappeared, it has just gone underground, smoldering, awaiting a time when the chips are down and nuclear cards once again come into play. All of these things are far greater risk factors than unproven CAGW, and indeed in order to effectively combat CAGW should it prove to be a true hypothesis our first step is to get our global house in order and stop behaving like primitive tribes run by a corrupt priesthood and a small set of dominant families.
In my lifetime? I doubt it. In the lifetime of my kids? I still doubt it — if anything, I find them discouragingly disengaged. They live in the best of times that there ever was in the strongest culture that ever was, and yet they are comparatively hopeless, disenfranchised, marginalized. Maybe my grandchildren. But each generation has to fight its own battles.
rgb
Note that it was a sudden stratospheric WARMING that made the jets more meridional.
Also that when the jets were more zonal in the late 20th century the stratosphere was COLDER.
Those facts rebut many of the comments in this thread.
The observations suggest that the quiet sun increases ozone in the stratosphere above the poles and the warmed stratosphere descends in height which pushes the polar air masses more often towards the equator.
That is the opposite of conventional climatology and at the heart of my New Climate Model.
Leif chunners on about needing data that could falsify my Model. Let’s see what the stratospheric temperatures above the poles have been doing since around 2000. Is that data available ?.
Recent observations suggest that ozone has indeed increased above 45km during recent quiet sun years and I propose that towards the poles that effect is dominant because the tropopause is lower at the poles.
I await more up to date data with interest.
there is no question that we’re kicking a nonlinear system we do not understand, and cannot be shocked if it kicks back tenfold, any more than it is totally surprising that a kid’s snowball fight or a particularly loud sneeze can trigger an avalanch.”
Umm, no. There is no tipping point in history caused by CO2. CO2 demonstrably has an insignificant effect on climate.
TomRude says:
January 8, 2014 at 8:43 am
And what is the density of the air at 100 hPa supposed to drive 1050hPa polar air into lower latitudes? Notwithstanding that polar air driving south (north in the austral) happens on a continuous basis since it is atmopsheric circulation!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom:
The main driver in Temperate/Polar regions of the atmosphere is not density per say, as in a denser mass of air will sink through another.
Think of it this way – in terms of warm/cold next to each other and a temperature differential horizontally through them both. That creates the winds at that level. The Earth’s spin turns it. In order to disrupt the PV then we want the winds to change from anticlockwise to clockwise (westerly to easterly. This happens when we put warmer air on the N side and colder on the S. It is this effect that subsides down the vortex and weakens/disrupts it.
This can be achieved both by wave-breaking from air being deflected over high mountain ranges (Mountain Torque events), and thrusting up the air on a mass-scale, so intruding into the Stratosphere – or by the O3 warming effect described.
The atmospheric circulation you talk of is continually being influenced by a myriad of effects (many akin to the so called “Butterfly” chaos effect). But some are feed-backs – here I talk of just some significant ones. A circulation will feed on itself IF the jet-stream wobbles (Rossby waves) have the right amplitude to self-reinforce – becoming stationary or even retrogressing (move backwards). Note, I mean the loopy pattern of the jet and NOT the track of Lows necessarily below it. However the “blocking” High cell will move backwards.
And no, cold air from the Arctic does not “continually move south” – it needs these meridional (more N>S) jet patterns to make it do so. Quite often the jet has a majority zonal component (mainly W>E without many wobbles) – when this happens the climate heat-engine equalises the Equatorial warmth with the Polar cold via turbulence at the boundary (Jet) by means of strings of Lows/Depressions mixing the two air-masses together. This has been happening recently in bringing wet stormy weather the UK and western Europe. This despite the major wave induced by the ridge of HP through Siberia/Alaska earlier, causing the downstream PV Pole to sink into N America. As I say, the forecasts are for the meridional pattern to propagate into Eurasia within the next 2 weeks.
From NASA (regarding sudden stratospheric warming in the Arctic): ” Research has led to a good documentation of the frequency and seasonality of sudden warmings: just over half of the winters since 1960 have experienced a major warming event in January or February (e.g., Charlton and Polvani, 2007). The event in early January 2013 is thus not atypical, but, like all of these events, has unique dynamical characteristics in terms of its development and interactions with the tropospheric flow.”
And from the conclusions of Extreme Cold Outbreaks in the United States and Europe, 1948–99
JOHN E. WALSH, ADAM S. PHILLIPS,* DIANE H. PORTIS, AND WILLIAM L. CHAPMAN
“There is no apparent trend toward fewer extreme cold events on either continent, at least over the period since 1948.”
Regarding the oft-mentioned oscillation of the jet stream as a sign of AGW, here is an interesting read:
The Behavior of Jet Streams over Eastern North America during January and February 1948
NORMAN A. PHILLIPS, University of Chicago (1950)
Which describes the Jetstream dipping as far south as 20 degrees latitude over NA bringing with it Arctic air. The word unprecedented did not appear in the paper.
Lastly, here is what the IPCC (2007, 3.8.5) has mentioned about the “extreme” event of more frequent cold snaps and late/early freezes that are a danger to crops throughout the world like what we have witnessed over the past few years and are now being told by certain blogactavists is the result of AGW:
[Cold spells/snaps (episodes of several days)] Insufficient studies,but daily temperature changes imply a decrease
Robert Brown aka rgbatduke posted great treatise. Excellent grounded critique of the wild postulations without physical support and brilliant insight into human nature, vis-a-vis, “prophets of doom”. Thanks again!
TB, you should observe satellite animations of weather systems and field measures for a change. Your verbose style reminds me of some vintner… who could not even recognize low clouds on satellite imagery and was pontificating about mete and climate. Ciao!
TomRude says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:51 pm
“TB, you should observe satellite animations of weather systems and field measures for a change. Your verbose style reminds me of some vintner… who could not even recognize low clouds on satellite imagery and was pontificating about mete and climate. Ciao!”
Don’t mention it – I just thought you might be interested, since you asked the question.
Oh, if you thought that was “verbose” – do realise I was talking down to the imbicile you proved youself to be.
Whatever you may think my friend – weather and climate is far from being conveyable in simple terms – as you have spectacularly proved – alongside your snarky contempt for professional knowledge. That sadly seems all too common on here – well with some of my exchanges anyway.
Cheers!
Loads of good comments here. I should like to add that if we are seeing temps to the negative we have not experienced for about 100 years, when there was a solar low.. and we are experiencing a similar solar low (which apparently effects our magnetic shield), perhaps, just perhaps we are witnesses of the renewal of a cycle we barely understand. Polar vortexes are not new, and neither are huge dips in the jet stream. Maybe the combination of low solar activity, a weak magnetic field and a downswing of a 30 or so year sine wave like variation between warm to cool creates such conditions when the elements line up? The term “a perfect storm” is ridiculous considering the events it describes have occurred before, it would seem uncommon is more common then most folks would like to admit. My point is this.. we have yet to enter a realm of temperature never seen before on this planet, both pre and post mankind… and if we cannot deal with temperature variation with level heads then maybe we should go extinct, but to sit and cry out about pollution in developing countries, then buy their goods because they are cheap is what is truly counter intuitive and quite frankly our biggest REAL problem.
@ HGW xx/7 says:
RE: Your reply to the always entertaining “pippen” or pepin, or whatever its name is.
Sarcasms emulating Rubens working in oils? Now, I know Peter Pauls’ work. I just can’t fathom how a string of non sequiturs from a poster here can be in any way compared to Peter Pauls’ prolific output, in oils, of naked fat lady pictures. I admit to a certain lassitude today.
herkimer says:
January 8, 2014 at 7:42 am
TB
Since 1998 these SSW events have been more frequent , earlier and of greater impact [ last one only a year ago,[ january 2013 ] They happened every other year before . Does anyone have an answer why there is a more frequent pattern to them ? To me it appears that SSW is a cooling and rebalancing mechanism for the planet when excessive warm pockets of air build up.?
They may have been there all along [ unexplained cold winters during warm years ] , except we are now becoming aware of them . For example locally we had a near record very cold day. and the previous january record cold for that same day was 1945, the era of very warm years ]. So perhaps these SSW events are present as the globe moves from a warming planet to a cooling planet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After a quick look-up, it seems there have been SSW’s every year since 1998, bar 2005. Prior to that there were 22 of them from 1958 (as far as data goes) – mind you there were 5 years within which 2 of them occurred. Or put another way out of the 40 years 1958-98, 17 winters had a SSW. And latterly 15 in 16 years. Also there will have been events that did not meet the criteria for the designation of a SSW (Mean zonal winds at 60N and 10mb become Easterly during winter), but still caused N’ly outbreaks somewhere in the NH.
I don’t think we have enough evidence yet to conclude whether the greater regularity of them these last 16 years is down to any one cause – more likely there’s a number of reasons. One could be more open and much warmer Arctic waters come Autumn especially the E Arctic Seas. Recent anomalies of SST’s there by that time have been +5C. The mechanism for this would be the greater availability of moisture there feeding back to earlier/heavier Eurasian snowfield build-up into early winter. There is a known correlation with that and stronger/earlier Siberian Highs – which later migrate into the Arctic, then to cause more widespread Arctic cold plunges.
I suppose you could look at it as a “mechanism for the planet when excessive warm pockets of air build up”. I think of it in terms of atmospheric mechanics though, which is basically fluid mechanics on a rotating surface. The mechanism involved from the bottom up is largely as a result of topography inducing deflection/channelling of air-masses and without the high mountain ranges the atmosphere would have been quite happy to flow in a more undisturbed fashion.
rgb
Thank you for your long comment. I didn’t understand all that much of it. However, what I really appreciated was the honest perception of how far off we are from truly understanding this whole gigantic area.
My original discipline was Experimental Psychology (don’t laugh).
I took much that was valuable from its study, but the single most valuable lesson was that we really don’t understand the fundamentals of perception, cognition, motivation, memory or learning, let alone the far more tricky constructs of personality or consciousness.
Anyone who says they do is a charlatan.
We don’t yet even have the cognitive tools to really approach these things.
Anyone who says we do is misguided.
I think it advances science far more to lay out the problems honestly rather than shying away from them with hubristic (or at the least, wildly optimistic and premature) claims about grand causes and explanations.
I say this as someone who took a fashionable route away from true experimentalism, into another kind of ‘modeling’ – Artificial Intelligence. It took me three years to see the overwhelming difficulties of using AI to gain the simplest insight into the workings of the human brain (apart from the shortcomings of my own apparatus). Accordingly, I took a more modest direction, applying some of the same techniques to model computers instead – even this is quite difficult, and subject to well-known limitations, but at least it’s a living where the distinction between success and failure is rapidly obvious…
The science that is being done nowadays is, I think, attacking increasingly ‘difficult’/wicked areas, and we may be requiring techniques which it will take us a long time to achieve, in order to make any appreciable headway. In the face of this, many would-be scientists seem to be resorting to either ‘re-enactment science’ or facile pseudo-science, like the current infatuation with ‘big data’. I just hope we get over it and start tackling the difficult stuff with more honesty and humility again.
Stuart B
Comment on: Box of Rocks says: January 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm
So a large chunk of air is moved pole ward, loses energy then is squeezed south, right?
This sounds just like a description of Al Gore’s life over the past 20 years.
Resourceguy says: January 8, 2014 at 8:02 am
Just a side question here. How do you ‘manage’ through policy and market manipulation the Ozone Hole with this huge cyclone going on?
Yes, good point. The “Ozone Hole” is likely a result of the dynamical effects of the stratospheric polar vortex, i.e.:
And there are other “holes” along with the ozone one, i.e.
Also,
Air towards the top of the stratosphere has lower concentrations of ozone;
NOAA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
As such, when this “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex” it displaces the air below it, decreasing the concentration of ozone within the Polar Vortex. The combination of the low pressure area formed by the centrifugal force of the Polar Vortex and the air from very high altitudes with lower concentrations of ozone that descends vertically through the center of the vortex, creates the “Ozone Hole”.
As such, it would seem quite difficult to ‘manage’ the “Ozone Hole” “through policy and market manipulation”…
Stephen Wilde says: January 8, 2014 at 11:10 am
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
“Leif chunners on about needing data that could falsify my Model. Let’s see what the stratospheric temperatures above the poles have been doing since around 2000. Is that data available ?.”
“I await more up to date data with interest.”
Here’s RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;
[caption id="attachment_54062" align="alignnone" width="568"]
and associated data;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/time_series/rss_ts_channel_tls_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.txt
Here’s RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;
[caption id="attachment_54062" align="alignnone" width="568"]
and associated data;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/time_series/rss_ts_channel_tls_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.txt
Polar high – where did the usual Polar high go that sits atop the pole? You know, downward descending drier air that is part of the ‘polar circulation’ cell? Downward moving air as in a High-pressure anti-cyclone system?
Are we sure we aren’t dealing with this effect?
Image alone showing polar ‘jet’ and circulation about the pole on for panels depicting the spinning-off of a low (“L”) pressure system … or vortex? here:
http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/29/101929-004-0AC1F903.jpg
Note that image (d) shows a spun-off Low from the polar jet into Asia …
.
Old wive’s tale; not codified in any of the ‘laws’ of physics. Take lightning, for instance. It provides its own ‘path’ so to speak. And it’s never a straight path. Take a magnetron as the second example and note the ‘path’ electrons take from cathode to anode.
.
TB you’re hilarious. Keep them coming…
Daniel Vogler says: January 8, 2014 at 12:21 am
It is technically not a true SSW, rather a USLM disturbance that usually precedes a SSW. The warming initiated at the 1hPa and downwelled to 10hPa, http://i.imgur.com/zK7IB6l.gif
Interesting. Per a paper you cited here;
http://forum.netweather.tv/user/18727-daniel-vogler/?tab=reputation
Here is a good description of Upper Stratosphere Lower Mesosphere (USLM) Disturbances
Here’s a good slide deck on Upper Stratosphere Lower Mesosphere (USLM) Disturbances;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/working_groups/WACCM/Presentations/2012/greer.pdf
and here’s a helpful abstract from last week’s American Meteorlogical Society conference, the abstract is on “Planetary Wave Breaking in the Polar Winter Middle Atmosphere and Extreme Temperature Event” from Katelynn R. Greer, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO; and J. P. Thayer and V. L. Harvey:
Based upon reviewing your comment and this information, I’ve made a correction to the article above, i.e.
Thank you for your comment and insights. JTF
Stephen Wilde:
“The observations suggest that the quiet sun increases ozone in the stratosphere above the poles and the warmed stratosphere descends in height which pushes the polar air masses more often towards the equator.”
Why would the warmed Stratospheric air descend?
You note the occurrence of Stratospheric Warming, and claim that it rebuts many other points. Is all Stratospheric Warming ‘unnatural’? Would Stratospheric Warming not take place if humanity produced no fossil fuel Co2 emissions?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
Does dog wag tail ,or tail wag dog?
Since the ‘jets’ are a creature living within the boundary between the two air masses (actually, it seems, within the warmer of the two air masses at a ‘front’) how does it achieve the ‘drive’ meridionally (vs zonally) and futhermore, aren’t the jets actually artifacts of the interface (a complicated interface involving classically ‘fluid flows’ which sets the jet into motion within this interface area) of the two airmasses, and not the other way around?
Example of ‘area’ where jet resides:
. . http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m201/GeneralCirculation/PolarJetBlank.jpg
Primer, atmospheric circulation (derivation from a uniformly heated, non-spinning orb up to the real deal), including Polar high and an apparent resident polar low as well:
. . http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/circulation.html
3-D Jet Stream and 0 C temperature surface loop (not from this last event, just an example of a jet and movement across US 48 state area):
. . . http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/idv/gallery/jetStream.gif
Also, this phenom could be termed “Wave Breaking”, as shown here, where an “L” is spun off intruding into the warmer air and also entraining (at low levels) warm air masses into the cold above the arctic circle:
. . http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Wave-Breakin.6896.0.html
A sampling of Jet stream diagrams some depicting cross-sectional details.
.
Andres Valencia says: January 8, 2014 at 7:50 am
Thanks JustTheFacts, very good article. Congratulations on the new Polar Vortex Reference Page. Happy New Year!
Thank you very much, though the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page has actually been around since October 29th, 2011:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/new-wuwt-polar-vortex-reference-page/
The current status of our northern Polar Vortex can also be seen at http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-90.0,90.0,197
That focused view is actually better in some ways than the one I chose. I’ve added the view you provided to the article above and the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page.
Thanks again. JTF
_Jim says: January 8, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Encyclopedia Britannica- Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Wikipedia- Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Polar high – where did the usual Polar high go that sits atop the pole? You know, downward descending drier air that is part of the ‘polar circulation’ cell? Downward moving air as in a High-pressure anti-cyclone system?
Are we sure we aren’t dealing with this effect?
Image alone showing polar ‘jet’ and circulation about the pole on for panels depicting the spinning-off of a low (“L”) pressure system … or vortex? here:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
“The strongest jet streams are the polar jets, at around 7–12 km (23,000–39,000 ft) above sea level” Wikipedia , you can see the Northern Polar Jet on these 250 hPa/mb – Approximately 10,400 meters (34,000 feet) Wide and Focused Perspective Wind Animations. “The stratospheric polar vortex is a large-scale region of air that is contained by a strong west-to-east jet stream that circles the polar region. This jet stream is usually referred to as the polar night jet. The polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.” NASA You can see the Polar Vortex on these 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) Wide and Focused Perspective Wind Animations and these 70 hPa/mb – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet) Wide and Focused Perspective Wind Animations. “The troposphere extends upwards from right above the boundary layer, and ranges in height from an average of 9 km (5.6 mi; 30,000 ft) at the poles, to 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) at the Equator” Wikipedia This image is helpful in visualizing:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
As such, the Polar Vortex is a separate and distinct phenomenon from the Polar Night Jet, however the formation, size, strength, location, persistence and break up of the Polar Vortex can have significant impacts on the Polar Night Jet.
A sober look at… those figures from Encyclopedia Britannica: Cold air mass qualified as “L” lows… Really, lows at 1050hPa… And of course, the undying tri-cellular 1856 Ferrel representation seriously discredited since Leroux 1993…
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
“Why would the warmed Stratospheric air descend? ”
A warm stratosphere reduces tropopause height and a cold stratosphere lifts it.
Either way I think natural processes are magnitudes greater tan human influences.
JTF
Thanks for that data.
Do you see a slight upturn or at least a cessation of cooling since around 2000 ?
It looks that way to me.
TomRude says:
January 8, 2014 at 6:57 pm
TB you’re hilarious. Keep them coming…
I plan too – Thanks….
If i bring a little levity into your life – Oh, and maybe teach you a little civility along the way.
Then you could take both those things as a bonus at least.
To you and some others I’ve come across on here.
Just because you have “issues” with climate science – doesn’t make the basic physics of Meteorology wrong or easily assimilable to the layman, and to expect otherwise is sheer hubris.
If you want to learn a little of the way things work then read on and. Otherwise you know what you can do.
The “basis” of the 2004 end-of-the-world-by-freezing movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, with Dennis Quaid in a frozen New York. -135F in seconds as the cold air plummets, but doesn’t warm up because it falls “too fast to heat up”:
Global warming was the cause by destabilizing the planetary atmosphere.
A strong vortex displacement in the last day or two:
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/arctic/ecmwf.php?im=1
Could be of interest here – Earth From Space produced by Iain Riddick for Discovery Channel Canada shows our weather systems from various satellites gathering data. If there is more spin than the Coriolis Effect provides you can judge for yourselves..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html?ampelqCampaignId=580
Thanks Just the Facts. Lots of really good information. WPR did a MSM version of the “Polar Vortex,” and they used Jetstream and AGW throughout. Nothing like the amount of information you just help us all to see here.
But I do wish we would stop, raping the Earth of its resources and stop polluting. Natural variability will eventually trump mankinds error of its ways.
TomRude says: January 8, 2014 at 9:17 pm
ddata.over-blog.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
And of course, the undying tri-cellular 1856 Ferrel representation seriously discredited since Leroux 1993…
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
I agree that the tri-cell model is simplistic, Wikipedia refers to it “highly idealised”, however, in terms of a graphic showig the height and location of the Polar Jet in relation to the Tropopause, there aren’t many options. This one is better:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Stephen Wilde says: January 9, 2014 at 12:24 am
Do you see a slight upturn or at least a cessation of cooling since around 2000 ?
No, both Northern and Southern Polar Lower Stratosphere Temperatures have continued to decline since 2000.
Carla says: January 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm
But I do wish we would stop, raping the Earth of its resources and stop polluting.
I agree, I think Thorium power;
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/energy-and-environment/in-depth/your-questions-answered-thorium-powered-nuclear/1017776.article
might be a good step in that direction.
Natural variability will eventually trump mankinds error of its ways.
Yes, probably via a glacial period.
The statistical data are so terrible…!!!!
Oh Jesus please stop; we request from our heart..!!!
I am praying to stop it.!!!
@Justthefacts, the latest figure is indeed more precise.
JTF said
“No, both Northern and Southern Polar Lower Stratosphere Temperatures have continued to decline since 2000.”
There are some clear upward spikes in recent years.
Anyway, it is the region above 45km that warms first and then the Lower Stratosphere follows later.
The period 2004 to 2007 showed more ozone and warming above 45km.
What has happened since 2007 ?
benjaminbruce36 says: January 9, 2014 at 9:43 pm
The statistical data are so terrible…!!!!
Oh Jesus please stop; we request from our heart..!!!
I am praying to stop it.!!!
I’d recommend SkepticalScience.com, they try to avoid data over there…
justthefactswuwt says:
January 9, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Yes, probably via a glacial period.
———————————
Do you see Earth’s rotation speed making a difference for further development of stronger more lasting polar vortex..?
Boy oh Boy, stronger polar vortex would be a big game changer for the Earth climate pattern circulations. Just wandering aloud..Wisconsinite here and the terrain shows it glacial scars of yester year..
TomRude says: January 10, 2014 at 8:55 am
@Justthefacts, the latest figure is indeed more precise.
To an extent, but somehow they misspelled “Tropopause” on there…
Stephen Wilde says: January 10, 2014 at 9:28 am
There are some clear upward spikes in recent years.
Anyway, it is the region above 45km that warms first and then the Lower Stratosphere follows later.
The period 2004 to 2007 showed more ozone and warming above 45km.
What has happened since 2007 ?
Southern Polar is positive, but Northern Polar continued to decline.
Did anyone click on the supposed NASA link for the pictures at the top of the article? This is on VENUS !
Carla says: January 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Do you see Earth’s rotation speed making a difference for further development of stronger more lasting polar vortex..?
Wikipedia
Science Daily
Lambeck et al., 1976 found that;
Over long enough timeframes changes in Earth’s rotation would likely have influences on vorticity, however on decadal timeframes I am not aware of a mechanism whereby millisecond changes in Length of Day would have a significant influence on Polar Vorticity.
There have been;
It states that:
In summary, I don’t think we know what causes variability in Polar Vortex strength and persistence, thus I don’t think we have any predictive capacity in this area.
JTF said:
“Southern Polar is positive, but Northern Polar continued to decline.”
Could you link to the sources for that, please.
I’m curious to see whether Northern Polar shows any reduction in rate of decline.
It is possible that the effects of solar variations occur first in Southern Polar with Northern Polar following later due to the very different surface features of the two hemispheres.
Michael Snow says: January 10, 2014 at 8:55 pm
Did anyone click on the supposed NASA link for the pictures at the top of the article?
It is not a “supposed NASA link”, it is a link to a Wired article;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
that contains the NASA image:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/591917main1_polar-vortex-set-226wide.jpg
To avoid confusion, I changed the Wired article out for this NASA article that also contained the image:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/venus-temp20110926.html
This is on VENUS !
Corrected the image at the head of the article is an example of a Polar Vortex on Venus. The goal of the introduction of this article was to explain what Polar Vortices are, including those on other planets. For some reason we have much better imagery of the other planets’ vortices than our own. To avoid others experiencing your apparent surprise, I’ve added the words “Polar Vortex on Venus” next to the Image Credit above.
Stephen Wilde says: January 10, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Could you link to the sources for that, please.
I’m curious to see whether Northern Polar shows any reduction in rate of decline.
The RSS data sources were inked below the graphics in my comment above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/a-sober-look-at-the-northern-polar-vortex/#comment-1529932
JTS
Both show a continuing decline through the entire period but you acknowledge that in fact the Southern Polar has turned positive more recently.
I would like the slope in both charts to be adjusted to show the periods before and after 2000 to see if there is any inflection point around that time.
2000 or thereabouts is when I first noticed the jets starting to become more meridional again and that fits well with the decline in solar activity towards the end of active cycle 23 and beginning of less active cycle 24.
justthefactswuwt says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:22 pm
Carla says: January 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm
————–
Thanks for the reply. Will take some time today to go through some of this.
You may want to have a look at the graph on page 19 figure S1.
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf
Figure S1: LOD observations, atmospheric and oceanic signals, and predictions.
The figure is pretty telling. Wish we had a longer reliable reference though…
Also, IERS says no adding leap second again this year.
=======================================================================
Did you strike “East Asia” because you meant “East Anglia”? 😎
There are terms being used to describe weather events in the last few years that I personally don’t remember being used before in weather reports (i. e. “Polar Vortex”, “Derecho”).
Have they been commonly used and I just missed them or might starting to use the terms be a case of “A Rose by any other name would sound more weird.”?
oops forgot the date of the article July 2013. So we all know it is newer.
Just a comment,
This article:
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf
July 2013
They do a good job with the overall trend, which is showing a consistent ‘trend towards a faster rotation since early 1990,’ when it did not slow back down to prior level. Also appears to me to follow the interplanetary magnetic fields decline over the same period. As the current decline of IMF began its descent in the early 90’s and continues to present. (Less magneto pressure?)
graph on page 19 figure S1
Does a good job representing the intradecadal variation in Earth LOD (rotation). So much so I thought that there may be an inverse correlation between Helio current sheet angle and the LOD oscillation. (still do and would not expect precision following over all decades but a lag for some interior redistribution, which may have manifested in volcanology and tectonics over the period. )
page 21 figure S3
My bad,,correction..should say
Carla says:
January 11, 2014 at 9:45 am
…which is showing a consistent ‘trend towards a slower rotation since early 1990,’
Korean scientists are seeing the same trend in rotation. See page 2 of the sneek preview for figures 1 +2. Note figure 1(b) the time period from 1999 to 2006 is also a period with 4 geomagnetic jerks/LOD jumps. Starting in around 2006- 2009 is also when the N. Magnetic pole slowed its latitudinal ascent and began moving more longitudinal.
Journal of the Korean Physical Society
July 2012, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 152-157
Spectral analysis on earth’s spin rotation for the recent 30 years
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3938/jkps.61.152
Sung-Ho Na, Jung-Ho Cho, Jeongho Baek,
Younghee Kwak, Sung-Moon Yoo
Abstract
Earth’s spin rotation is slowing down with perturbations of complicated characteristics. The recent deceleration in earth’s spin rotation is smaller compared to its long-time average. Presently, the earth’s spin axis is slowly drifting on the earth’s surface at a rate of about 8.1 cm/yr directed to West 59°. Periodic perturbations exist in both the spin angular speed and the polar motion. Different periods for these two perturbations are identified using the most recent and accurate dataset.
Carla says: January 11, 2014 at 7:21 am
R. Holme & O. de Viron – Characterisation and implications of intradecadal varia-
You may want to have a look at the graph on page 19 figure S1.
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf
Figure S1: LOD observations, atmospheric and oceanic signals, and predictions.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
tions in length-of-day – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The figure is pretty telling. Wish we had a longer reliable reference though…
Also, IERS says no adding leap second again this year.
“The length-of-day (LOD) fluctuations from 1962 until 2012 are corrected for atmospheric and oceanic effects using assimilating general circulation models (see supplementary material, Figure S1). This correction accounts for most of the variation at yearly and shorter periods.”
That tells me that on short timescales atmospheric and oceanic cycles effect LOD, not the other way around.
Carla says: January 11, 2014 at 12:51 pm
…which is showing a consistent ‘trend towards a slower rotation since early 1990,’
Korean scientists are seeing the same trend in rotation. See page 2 of the sneek preview for figures 1 +2. Note figure 1(b) the time period from 1999 to 2006 is also a period with 4 geomagnetic jerks/LOD jumps. Starting in around 2006- 2009 is also when the N. Magnetic pole slowed its latitudinal ascent and began moving more longitudinal.
Spectral analysis on earth’s spin rotation for the recent 30 years
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3938/jkps.61.152
Sung-Ho Na, et al. refer to the change in LOD as “tiny indeed”. There is no doubt that LOD is changing and there are correlations with Ocean and Atmospheric cycles, however I am not aware of any mechanism, other then butterflies, whereby a few millisecond change in Earth’s rotation could have significant short-term influence on the Ocean, Atmosphere or Polar Vorticity. Do you?
Bill H. Thank you for mentioning the REAL culprit, THE SUN.
Bill H. As much as the Warmists would like to say that Sudden Stratospheric Warmings are driven purely by ocean/land/orography temperature differentials causing Rossby waves that disrupt the wind circulation and particularly in conjunction with the QBO can be focused directly at the Polar Vortex, the truth is far more likely to be Solar activity that happens to correspond with SSWs.
I know acknowledging this would mean that Anthony would have to agree with Piers Corbyn, the arch-nemesis of Meteorologists everywhere 😉
Gunga Din says: January 11, 2014 at 7:27 am
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Did you strike “East Asia” because you meant “East Anglia”? 😎
Funny. I had thought that it might only be an Upper Stratosphere Lower Mesosphere (USLM) Disturbance, versus a full-fledged Sudden Stratospheric Warming. However, as things unfold, I am wondering if the first version was right, i.e.:
The Vertical Cross Section of Geopotential Height Anomalies shows that the Polar Vortex has weakened significantly and the AO has swung negative;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Analysis at 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) shows a high level split within the Polar Vortex:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Height Analyses show that the Polar Vortex has split in two below 50 hPa/mb – Approximately 20,100 meters (66,000 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
70 hPa/mb Height Analysis – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
and 100 hPa/mb Height Analysis – Approximately 15,000 meters (49,000 feet):
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
The split is also visible in Ozone Mixing Ratio 30 hPa/mb – Approximately 23,700 meters (77,800 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
50-hPa/mb Ozone Mixing Ratio – Approximately 20,100 meters (66,000 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
and 70-hPa/mb Ozone Mixing Ratio – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet):
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Northern Hemisphere Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C shows significant warming in the last few days;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
and Global – 10-hPa/mb Height Temperature Anomalies – Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) continues to increase over East Asia:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
justthefactswuwt says:
January 11, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Sung-Ho Na, et al. refer to the change in LOD as “tiny indeed”. There is no doubt that LOD is changing and there are correlations with Ocean and Atmospheric cycles, however I am not aware of any mechanism, other then butterflies, whereby a few millisecond change in Earth’s rotation could have significant short-term influence on the Ocean, Atmosphere or Polar Vorticity. Do you?
———————-
We’ve added 25 leap seconds between 1972 and 2012.
In the period 1999 to 2012 only 3 leap seconds.
page11 figure 9
Earth Rotation – Basic Theory and Features
Sung-Ho Na
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/44925/InTech-Earth_rotation_basic_theory_and_features.pdf
Phase change in the Chandler Wobble 2005
Chandler wobble: two more large phase jumps revealed
Zinovy Malkin and Natalia Miller
Central Astronomical Observatory at Pulkovo of RAS,
Pulkovskoe Ch. 65, St. Petersburg Russia
23 August 2009
Abstract
Investigations of the anomalies in the Earth rotation, in particular, the polar mo-
tion components, play an important role in our understanding of the processes that
drive changes in the Earth’s surface, interior, atmosphere, and ocean. This paper is
primarily aimed at investigation of the Chandler wobble (CW) at the whole available
163-year interval to search for the major CWamplitude and phase variations. First, the
CW signal was extracted from the IERS (International Earth Rotation and Reference
Systems Service)…
Among other interesting CW peculiarities, a phase jump of about 180◦ occurred in the
1920s. Perhaps, it was for the first time detected by Orlov (1944). Detailed consideration
of this CW phase jump is given e.g. in Guinot (1972) and Vondr´ak (1988). Also, less
significant CW phase jumps can be observed, which may be in temporary coincidence with
geomagnetic jerks and Free Core Nutation (FCN) phase perturbations (Gibert & Le Mou¨el
2008, cf. Shirai et al. 2005).
…All the methods used gave very similar results, with some differences at the ends of the
interval. These discrepancies can be explained by different edge effects of the methods used,
but they can hardly discredit the final conclusion that can be made from this study about
existence of two epochs of deep CW amplitude decrease around 1850 and 2005, which are
also accompanied by a large phase jump, like the well-known event in the 1920s. Thus, the
latter seems to be not unique anymore.
page 5 Figure 2: The CW amplitude computed for SSA-filtered and FT-filtered CW time series.
Unit: mas. One can see similar behavior of the CW amplitude obtained for both series, with
some differences near the ends of the interval. However, three deep minima below 0.05 mas
around 1850, 1925 and 2005 coincide in both cases.
Motion of North and South magnetic poles in 2001-2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..1411236Z
Zvereva, T.
EGU General Assembly 2012, held 22-27 April, 2012 in Vienna, Austria.,
We created the daily average spherical harmonic models of the main geomagnetic field (n = m = 10) with an interval of 4 days using vector data CHAMP satellite during May 2001 – December 2009 (2001.5-2009). Using obtained set of the models coordinates of the North and South magnetic poles (i.e. the point on the Earth’s surface where the magnetic filed lines are vertical) were calculated. Both poles continue to move northward and westward. North pole shifted 400 km, South pole moved 10 times slower. Accelerated motion of the North magnetic pole stopped around year 2003, when rate of motion increased to ~ 62.5 km/yr. Then the motion of North pole started to decelerate to ~45 km/yr in 2009. At the same time it should be noticed that North pole began to retrace in the direction of Canada, moving northwestward as before. This follows from the fact that during this period the rate of the pole latitude movement decreased from 58 to 35 km/yr, while the longitude speed increased from 23 to 32 km/yr. Thus, we can hope that North magnetic pole just “wanders” and will not leave Canadian anomaly and will not reach Siberia in approximately 50 years, as predicted earlier.
4 geomagnetic jerks/LOD jumps 1999-2007
See page 21 figure S3 vertical dashed lines.
Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
in length-of-day
R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
…Here, by working in the time domain, rather than
the frequency domain, we demonstrate a clear partition of the non-atmospheric component
into only three components: a decadally varying trend, a 5.9-year period oscillation, and
jumps at times contemporaneous with geomagnetic jerks. The nature of the jumps in LOD
changes fundamentally what class of phenomena may give rise to the jerks, and provides a
strong constraint on electrical conductivity of the lower mantle, which can in turn constrain
its structure and composition.
page 21 figure S3
Wish just one of these articles would have at least tried to couple the Earth system with Solar electro and magnetic system.
Note in 2003.5 geomagnetic jerk/LOD jump same year as, “Accelerated motion of the North magnetic pole stopped around year 2003, when rate of motion increased to ~ 62.5 km/yr. Then the motion of North pole started to decelerate to ~45 km/yr in 2009. “”
sabretruthtiger says: January 11, 2014 at 4:37 pm
NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
As much as the Warmists would like to say that Sudden Stratospheric Warmings are driven purely by ocean/land/orography temperature differentials causing Rossby waves that disrupt the wind circulation and particularly in conjunction with the QBO can be focused directly at the Polar Vortex, the truth is far more likely to be Solar activity that happens to correspond with SSWs.
A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
hit Earth around January 1st:
Ensemble WSA-ENLIL+Cone Model Evolution Movie for Median CME Input Parameters – Dynamic Pressure
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
and the Magnetosphere was rocking and rolling:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
“Strong negative fluxes indicate poleward flux of heat via eddies. Multiple strong poleward episodes will result in a smaller polar vortex, Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and an earlier transition from winter to summer circulations. Relatively small flux amplitudes will result in a more stable polar vortex and will extend the winter circulation well into the Spring”
Also, the 10 day Averaged Eddy Heat Flux Towards The North Pole At 100mb is near its record high daily maximum for this day of the year:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
“Strong negative fluxes indicate poleward flux of heat via eddies. Multiple strong poleward episodes will result in a smaller polar vortex, Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and an earlier transition from winter to summer circulations. Relatively small flux amplitudes will result in a more stable polar vortex and will extend the winter circulation well into the Spring”
There are numerous papers that argue connections between Space Weather and Earth’s Weather, e.g.: “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit Tung:”
This non-peer-reviewed 2009 article by Václav Bucha: “Geomagnetic Activity and the Global Temperature” states that;
This 2010 paper, “Geomagnetic activity related NOx enhancements and polar surface air temperature variability in a chemistry climate model: modulation of the NAM index” by A. J. G. Baumgaertner1, A. Seppälä, P. Jöckel and M. A. Clilverd states that;
This paper, “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” this paper finds “SIGNALS OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE IN THE NORTHERN ANNULAR MODE AND THE EQUATORIAL STRATOSPHERIC QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION” By Hua Lua and Martin J. Jarvis. They ;
eeek…Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) continues to increase over East Asia:
Carla says: January 11, 2014 at 8:14 pm
We’ve added 25 leap seconds between 1972 and 2012.
In the period 1999 to 2012 only 3 leap seconds.
page11 figure 9
Earth Rotation – Basic Theory and Features
Sung-Ho Na
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/44925/InTech-Earth_rotation_basic_theory_and_features.pdf
According to Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Thus Leap Seconds are primarily to address the fact that “the duration of one mean solar day is slightly longer than 24 hours (86400 SI seconds).” “Seasonal perturbation in star transit time; being behind in spring and ahead in late summer by 20-30 millisecond, which should be accumulation of LOD variation of the same periodicity. Along with the seasonal perturbation, fortnightly and monthly variations in LOD exist. Amplitudes of LOD variations of these different periodic components are in the order of one millisecond. Some amounts of these periodic perturbations are associated with body/ocean tides in the Earth. However, there is strong atmospheric effect on LOD variation. There also exist large quasiperiodic variations of much longer period range, called decadal fluctuation.”
Even if we granted a full second per year of variations in LOD, beyond butterflies, I don’t see how one second variations in Length of Day can have a signifacant impact on short-term Polar Vortex strength and persistance. There are numerous other variables involved in Polar Vortex development, persistance and breakdown, including Atmospheric and Oceanic Occillations, Heat Eddys, Rossby Waves, Tidal Forces, Potentially Solar e.g. CME or Cosmic Ray/Cloud, etc. I still don’t see a mechanism whereby LOD could be a signifacant varaible in short term changes to Polar Vorticity.
Carla says: January 11, 2014 at 8:30 pm
eeek…Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) continues to increase over East Asia:
Yes, per the paper “The Influence of Stratospheric Vortex Displacements and Splits on Surface Climate”, Daniel M. Mitchell, et al.;
justthefactswuwt says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:23 pm
———————————————
Thanks for the additional information given in that post.
Will be back later ..
Computer crash and bang, bang down go the over 60 browser windows I had open.
justthefactswuwt says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm
Even if we granted a full second per year of variations in LOD, beyond butterflies, I don’t see how one second variations in Length of Day can have a signifacant impact on short-term Polar Vortex strength and persistance. There are numerous other variables involved in Polar Vortex development, persistance and breakdown, including Atmospheric and Oceanic Occillations, Heat Eddys, Rossby Waves, Tidal Forces, Potentially Solar e.g. CME or Cosmic Ray/Cloud, etc. I still don’t see a mechanism whereby LOD could be a signifacant varaible in short term changes to Polar Vorticity.
———-
Yes, I understand what you are saying.
I was only trying to show that while these short term changes to Polar vorticity exist, at the same time some changes are occurring in the long term trend of the polar region. Movement of the N. Magnetic pole change magnetic field orientation. Field lines are most vertical at the polar regions around the magnetic pole. Maybe its jerk, wobble and jump that contributes to the polar vortex irregularity? lol.
But found a precipitating electron flux dump at the south pole. Apparently the POES satellite is missing these electron flux enhancements.. just how often does POES miss this? And then we must ask, is this also happening at the N. Pole?
Energetic electron precipitation characteristics observed from Antarctica during a flux dropout event
Mark A. Clilverd1,*, Neil Cobbett1, Craig J. Rodger2,
James B. Brundell2, Michael H. Denton3, David P. Hartley3,
Juan V. Rodriguez4,5, Donald Danskin6,
Tero Raita7, Emma L. Spanswick8
5 NOV 2013
..””Combining the ground-based data with low and geosynchronous orbiting satellite observations on 27 February 2012, different driving mechanisms were observed for three precipitation events with clear signatures in phase space density and electron anisotropy. Comparison between flux measurements made by Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) in low Earth orbit and by the Antarctic instrumentation provides evidence of different cases of weak and strong diffusion into the bounce loss cone, helping to understand the physical mechanisms controlling the precipitation of energetic electrons into the atmosphere. Strong diffusion events occurred as the 30 keV flux than was reported by POES, more consistent with strong diffusion conditions.””..
Seems that more and more electron fluxes are being found to penetrate into regions that will and do affect atmospheric composition and climate.
Gee the part of the abstract I wanted to post is not there. Let’s try again.
Do we see 10 to 100 times greater flux values in the following text? Yes there we go now..
Energetic electron precipitation characteristics observed from Antarctica during a flux dropout event
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA019067/abstract;jsessionid=82D30A53CA4AA047776345D2B8F415A2.f01t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
“”Comparison between flux measurements made by Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) in low Earth orbit and by the Antarctic instrumentation provides evidence of different cases of weak and strong diffusion into the bounce loss cone, helping to understand the physical mechanisms controlling the precipitation of energetic electrons into the atmosphere. Strong diffusion events occurred as the 30 keV flux than was reported by POES, more consistent with strong diffusion conditions.””
This getting weird on me now. Let’s try from a different source for the same article..
Never had a copy paste do that before.
“”Strong diffusion events occurred as the 30 keV flux than was reported by POES, more
consistent with strong diffusion conditions.””
http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/Auto_AARDDVARK_MS_2013.pdf
Carla says: January 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Computer crash and bang, bang down go the over 60 browser windows I had open.
Been there, done that… 🙂
Yes, I understand what you are saying.
I was only trying to show that while these short term changes to Polar vorticity exist, at the same time some changes are occurring in the long term trend of the polar region. Movement of the N. Magnetic pole change magnetic field orientation. Field lines are most vertical at the polar regions around the magnetic pole. Maybe its jerk, wobble and jump that contributes to the polar vortex irregularity? lol.
I poked at this with Leif a few years ago and he was dismissive, i.e.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/watch-sunspot-group-1158-form-from-nothing/#comment-614640
Excerpted:
Here is a more recent paper on the same:
I covered an array of potential influences with Leif on this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/watch-sunspot-group-1158-form-from-nothing/
but can’t say that I made too much headway. There are so many variables in play, the system is ridiculously complex, our data record is woefully brief and our understanding is rudimentary. It is fun to poke around with, but realistically it will take us generations to understand Polar Vorticity and even longer to accurately predict its behavior.
Look up and install the “Session Manager” add-on. Saves tabs every few minutes, recovers from crashes, etc. I wouldn’t surf without it.
Other essentials:
“Lazarus” add-on, saves posts as they are being typed.
ClipMate package, saves all copied items and text.