A Sober Look At The Northern Polar Vortex

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;

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

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:

Northern Hemisphere - Vertical Cross Section of Geopotential Height Anomalies (Polar Vortex) — NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

also reflected in this Northern Hemisphere – Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C:

Northern Hemisphere Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C (Temperature below which Polar Stratospheric Clouds May Form) — NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

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);

Global - 10-hPa/mb Height Temperature Anomalies - Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) — NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

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.”

Assessment and Consequences of the Delayed Breakup of the Antarctic Polar Vortex in Chemistry-Climate Models Hurwitz et al., 2009

“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.”

Stratospheric Polar Vortices, Waugh et al. 2010

To learn more about Polar Vortices please visit the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

142 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 11, 2014 2:11 pm

Carla says: January 11, 2014 at 7:21 am
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"] R. Holme & O. de Viron – Characterisation and implications of intradecadal varia-
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,’

“The recent deceleration in earth’s spin rotation is smaller compared to its long-time average.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3938%2Fjkps.61.152

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

“The secular change of the l.o.d. in known to be mainly due to the incessant friction of the ocean tide at the ocean bottom”
“Besides the secular deceleration, periodic and quasi-periodic perturbations in the l.o.d. variation, often called ‘decadal fluctuation’, is known to be related to the generation of the geomagnetic field. Torques affecting earth’s spin rotation are also exerted by the moon, sun and other planetary bodies. The luni-solar gravitational attraction on the earth’s equatorial bulge results in the earth’s precession and the major components of Earth’s nutation. Moreover, the position of earth’s spin axis on its surface shows a small and slow periodic movement, which is commonly called polar motion (originally termed as polhode in classical mechanics). Two main components of polar motion are Chandler and annual wobbles. Chandler wobble is the free Eulerian nutation of the earth, and its excitation is general ascribed to the hydrosphere/atmosphere acting on the solid earth’s surface.”

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?

sabretruthtiger

January 11, 2014 4:34 pm

Bill H. Thank you for mentioning the REAL culprit, THE SUN.

sabretruthtiger

January 11, 2014 4:37 pm

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 😉

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 11, 2014 6:48 pm

Gunga Din says: January 11, 2014 at 7:27 am
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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
70 hPa/mb Height Analysis – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
and 100 hPa/mb Height Analysis – Approximately 15,000 meters (49,000 feet):
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
50-hPa/mb Ozone Mixing Ratio – Approximately 20,100 meters (66,000 feet);
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
and 70-hPa/mb Ozone Mixing Ratio – Approximately 18,000 meters (59,000 feet):
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Northern Hemisphere Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C shows significant warming in the last few days;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]

Carla

January 11, 2014 8:14 pm

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.

Carla

January 11, 2014 8:21 pm

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. “”

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 11, 2014 8:23 pm

sabretruthtiger says: January 11, 2014 at 4:37 pm
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"] NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
and the Magnetosphere was rocking and rolling:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"] NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
“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"] NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
“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:”

“The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC, with a statistically significant zonal mean warming of approximately 4.6 K in the 10–50-hPa layer in the mean and 7.2 K from peak to peak. This magnitude of the warming in winter is too large to be explainable by UV radiation alone. The evidence seems to suggest that the polar warming in NH late winter during SC-max is due to the occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), as noted previously by other authors. This hypothesis is circumstantially substantiated here by the similarity between the meridional pattern and timing of the warming and cooling observed during the SC-max and the known pattern and timing of SSWs, which has the form of large warming over the pole and small cooling over the midlatitudes during mid- and late winter. The eQBO is also known to precondition the polar vortex for the onset of SSWs, and it has been pointed out by previous authors that SSWs can occur during eQBO at all stages of the solar cycle.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS3883.1

This non-peer-reviewed 2009 article by Václav Bucha: “Geomagnetic Activity and the Global Temperature” states that;

“We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”
“As a consequence of geomagnetic storms, indicating the enhancement of the solar wind, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the polar vortex. There they take part in perturbing the processes in the polar region and in changing the direction of the flow of the polar air to the lower latitudes.” And “At the time of La Nina and under low values of the AA index, the wind blows from the polar region over North America and from the Atlantic towards the pole via Greenland. Surface temperatures in Eurasia are below normal. Under El Nino and increased values of the AA index, the vortex shifts towards Europe and rotates couterclockwise.”
“This leads to the increase of surface temperatures in Eurasia and increases the global temperature.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c071v0t195182757/

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;

“Statistically significant temperature effects that were observed in previous reanalysis and model results are also obtained from this set of simulations, suggesting that such patterns are indeed related to geomagnetic activity. In the model, strong geomagnetic activity and the associated NOx enhancements lead to polar stratospheric ozone loss. Compared with the simulation with weak geomagnetic activity, the ozone loss causes a decrease in ozone radiative cooling and thus a temperature increase in the polar winter mesosphere. Similar to previous studies, a cooling is found below the stratopause, which other authors have attributed to a decrease in the mean meridional circulation. In the polar stratosphere this leads to a more stable vortex. A strong (weak) Northern Hemisphere vortex is known to be associated with a positive (negative) Northern Annular Mode (NAM) index;
our simulations exhibit a positive NAM index for strong geomagnetic activity, and a negative NAM for weak geomagnetic activity. Such NAM anomalies have been shown to propagate to the surface, and this is also seen in the model simulations. NAM anomalies are known to lead to specific surface temperature anomalies: a positive NAM is associated with warmer than average northern Eurasia and colder than average eastern North Atlantic. This is also the case in our simulation. Our simulations suggest a link between geomagnetic activity, ozone loss, stratospheric cooling, the NAM, and surface temperature variability.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/30171/2010/acpd-10-30171-2010.pdf
This paper “THE EFFECT OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE ON THE EARTH’S MAGNETOSPHERE” by C. T. Russell, G. Le, S. M. Petrinec and M. Ginskey
states that “a sudden compression of the magnetosphere launches both a compressional wave across field lines toward the Earth’s equator and a shear Alfven wave along magnetic field lines to the auroral ionosphere. The wave which causes the first ionospheric effect is not certain. Fast modes in general move faster than the Alfven velocity and the fast mode has a shorter path. However, the density of plasma in the equatorial plane is much greater than along the auroral field lines and thus the Alfven wave may arrive sooner.”
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/effect_magsphere.pdf

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 ;

“report statistically measurable responses of the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) to solar wind dynamic pressure. When December to January solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the Northern Hemispheric (NH) circulation response is marked by a stronger polar vortex and weaker sub-tropical jet in the upper to middle stratosphere. As the winter progresses, the Arctic becomes colder and the jet anomalies shift poleward and downward. In spring, the polar stratosphere becomes anomalously warmer. At solar maxima, significant positive correlations are found between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the mid- to late winter NAM all the way from the surface to 20 hPa, implying a strengthened polar vortex, reduced Brewer-Dobson circulation and enhanced stratosphere-troposphere coupling. The combined effect of high solar UV irradiance and high solar wind dynamic pressure in the NH mid- to late winter is enhanced westerlies in the extratropics and weaker westerlies in the subtropics, indicating that more planetary waves are refracted towards the equator. At solar minima, there is no correlation in the NH winter but negative correlations between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM are found only in the stratosphere during spring. Statistical evidence of a possible modulation of the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) by the solar wind dynamic pressure is also provided. When solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the QBO at 30-70 hPa is found to be preferably more easterly during July to October. These lower stratospheric easterly anomalies are primarily linked to the high frequency component of solar wind dynamic pressure with periods shorter than 3-years. In annually and seasonally aggregated daily averages, the signature of solar wind dynamic pressure in the equatorial zonal wind is characterized by a vertical three-cell anomaly pattern with westerly anomalies both in the troposphere and the upper stratosphere and easterly anomalies in the lower stratosphere. This anomalous behavior in tropical winds is accompanied by a downward propagation of positive temperature anomalies from the upper stratosphere to the lower stratosphere over a period of a year. These results suggest that the solar wind dynamic pressure exerts a seasonal change of the tropical upwelling which results in a systemic modulation of the annual cycle in the lower stratospheric temperature, which in turn affects the QBO during Austral late winter and spring. These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs. Their combined effect in the stratosphere may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM and the QBO. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.”
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008JD010848.shtml

As such, it appears that there may be some correlations between solar wind dynamic pressure and the atmosphere, including the NAM and QBO, however there is no known mechanism whereby ” the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere.”

Carla

January 11, 2014 8:30 pm

eeek…Atmospheric Temperature Anomalies At Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) continues to increase over East Asia:

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 11, 2014 11:28 pm

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

“In Figure 9, recent variation of UT1 is illustrated by three different ways. Above, cumulative delay in UT1 is shown, and then, in the middle, difference between UT1 and UTC (UT1-UTC) is shown. Including the last leap second introduced at the midnight of June 30th of 2012, there were total 25 leap seconds since 1972. The bottom graph shows the excessive amount of Earth’s spin angular speed Δω from its nominal value ω0 =7.292115 ×10 5(rad/s). Recent Earth’s spin angular velocity, as can be seen in Figure 9(bottom), has been increasing in minute amount. This tendency can also be noticed from reduced number of leap seconds during the last twelve years or so.”
“Length of day (LOD), which is meant by the length of a solar day, is about 86400 second and
slightly variable. The length of a sidereal day is about 86164 second. Besides the secular increase described in a former section, there exist periodic variations in LOD. Even before atomic clocks, precise quartz clocks provided measurement of 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.

According to Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

A leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in order to keep its time of day close to the mean solar time. Without such a correction, time reckoned by Earth rotation drifts away from atomic time because of irregularities in the Earth’s rate of rotation. Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 25 such leap seconds have been inserted. The most recent one happened on June 30, 2012 at 23:59:60 UTC.[1]
The UTC time standard, which is widely used for international timekeeping and as the reference for civil time in most countries, uses the international system (SI) definition of the second, based on atomic clocks. Like most time standards, UTC defines a grouping of seconds into minutes, hours, days, months, and years. However, the duration of one mean solar day is slightly longer than 24 hours (86400 SI seconds). Therefore, if the UTC day were defined as precisely 86400 SI seconds, the UTC time-of-day would slowly drift apart from that of solar-based standards, such as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and its successor UT1. The purpose of a leap second is to compensate for this drift, by occasionally scheduling some UTC days with 86401 or 86399 SI seconds.
Specifically, a positive leap second is inserted between second 23:59:59 of a chosen UTC calendar date (the last day of a month, usually June 30 or December 31) and second 00:00:00 of the following date. This extra second is displayed on UTC clocks as 23:59:60. On clocks that display local time tied to UTC, the leap second may be inserted at the end of some other hour (or half-hour), depending on the local time zone.
A negative leap second would suppress second 23:59:59 of the last day of a chosen month, so that second 23:59:58 of that date would be followed immediately by second 00:00:00 of the following date. However, since the UTC standard was established, negative leap seconds have never been needed.
Because the Earth’s rotation speed varies in response to climatic and geological events, UTC leap seconds are irregularly spaced and unpredictable. Insertion of each UTC leap second is usually decided about six months in advance by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), when needed to ensure that the difference between the UTC and UT1 readings will never exceed 0.9 second. Between their adoption in 1972 and June 2012, 25 leap seconds have been scheduled, all positive.

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.

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 11, 2014 11:31 pm

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.;

A strong link exists between stratospheric variability and anomalous weather patterns at the earth’s surface. Specifically, during extreme variability of the Arctic polar vortex termed a “weak vortex event,” anomalies can descend from the upper stratosphere to the surface on time scales of weeks. Subsequently the outbreak of cold-air events have been noted in high northern latitudes, as well as a quadrupole pattern in surface temperature over the Atlantic and western European sectors, but it is currently not understood why certain events descend to the surface while others do not. This study compares a new classification technique of weak vortex events, based on the distribution of potential vorticity, with that of an existing technique and demonstrates that the subdivision of such events into vortex displacements and vortex splits has important implications for tropospheric weather patterns on weekly to monthly time scales. Using reanalysis data it is found that vortex splitting events are correlated with surface weather and lead to positive temperature anomalies over eastern North America of more than 1.5 K, and negative anomalies over Eurasia of up to −3 K. Associated with this is an increase in high-latitude blocking in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors and a decrease in European blocking. The corresponding signals are weaker during displacement events, although ultimately they are shown to be related to cold-air outbreaks over North America. Because of the importance of stratosphere–troposphere coupling for seasonal climate predictability, identifying the type of stratospheric variability in order to capture the correct surface response will be necessary. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00030.1

Carla

January 12, 2014 7:33 am

justthefactswuwt says:
January 11, 2014 at 8:23 pm
———————————————
Thanks for the additional information given in that post.
Will be back later ..

Carla

January 12, 2014 4:08 pm

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.

Carla

January 12, 2014 4:14 pm

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.””

Carla

January 12, 2014 4:20 pm

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

justthefactswuwt

Author

January 14, 2014 8:44 pm

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:

“Correlations have been found between solar wind driven geomagnetic activity and atmospheric variables including temperature, geopotential height and the NAO [Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002; 2003; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004; Bochnicek and Hejda, 2005]. For the period of 1973 to 2000, Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003] showed that the variation of the winter NAO is positively correlated with the electric field strength of the solar wind, and suggested a solar wind generated electromagnetic disturbance in the ionosphere may dynamicly propagate downward to affect the NAO. For the period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, Bochnicek and Hejda [2005] found that the winter NAO is more positive when the geomagnetic index Ap is high, in line with the results of Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003]. It is, however, apparent that a multi-decadal scale modulation of the relationship between the NAO and geomagnetic activity may exist, as the correlation tends to wax and wane over time-scales of a few decades [Bucha and Bucha, 1998; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004]. Lu et al. [2007] demonstrated that there were multiple solar influences on atmospheric temperature, with both solar irradiance and solar wind drivers playing a role. They used the Ap index [Mayaud, 1980] as a measure of geomagnetic activity, which is indirectly dependent upon the solar wind characteristics. They showed that, for the period 1958-2004, the magnitude of the temperature response in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere to the geomagnetic Ap index is at least comparable to that associated with solar irradiance over the 11-yr SC.”
“The transfer of energy from the solar wind to the Earth system is a complex process and can depend upon various solar wind parameters [Wang, et al., 2006]. Palmroth et al. [2004] have presented direct evidence for the dependence of Joule heating, generated by currents in Earth’s upper atmosphere, on solar wind dynamic pressure. These currents are driven in the outer magnetosphere by solar wind action and connect to make a circuit through the auroral zones in the lower thermosphere region where they dissipate energy. They can be divided into ‘region 1’ currents that flow down into the dawnside and up from the duskside of the higher latitude auroral zone and ‘region 2’ shielding currents, with the opposite sense to ‘region 1’ currents, which flow into and out of the lower latitude auroral zone. Palmroth et al. [2004] pointed out that both the ‘region 2’ currents and the weaker ‘region 1’ currents are highly correlated with magnetospheric pressure changes which are, in turn, balanced with changes in the solar wind dynamic pressure. They showed (their Fig 4) through magnetohydrodynamic numerical simulation that the Joule heating from these current systems is approximately proportional to the solar wind dynamic pressure. Hence, if solar wind geo-effectiveness is determined by the subsequent dissipation of magnetospheric energy into the neutral atmosphere through Joule heating, then the solar wind dynamic pressure can be used as a proxy for this geo-effectiveness.”
“The importance of the solar wind dynamic pressure in transferring energy from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere has been demonstrated by several authors. Shue and Kamide [2001] showed that, in a magnetic cloud, increasing solar wind density intensified the auroral electrojets for both southward and northward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). Boudouridis et al. [2003] demonstrated that, under IMF southward conditions, the solar wind dynamic pressure increases widened the auroral oval and decreased the polar cap size. Lu et al. [2004] reported that compressional waves from within the solar wind dynamic pressure enhancements could lead to penetration of solar wind matter and energy across the magnetopause into the magnetosphere. Palmroth et al. [2007] analyzed 236 solar wind pressure pulses separated into two groups, dependent upon whether the solar wind magnetic field increased or decreased at the time of the pressure pulse. They showed that both groups transfer energy to the magnetosphere; although coupling efficiency decreased when the magnetic field increased, and vice versa, the coupling energy within the pressure pulses with increased magnetic field remained the larger. Zhou and Tsurutani [1999] have shown that sudden increases in the solar wind dynamic pressure can generate global disturbances with Auroral activity appearing on the dayside and propagating to the nightside with ionospheric speeds consistent with the solar wind pressure pulse speed. In support of this, the inverse effect has been observed by Liou et al. [2006] whereby decreasing pressure pulses lead to a rapid extinguishing of auroral activity. Observations by Laundal and Østgaard [2008] indicate that the causative mechanism behind proton aurora precipitation during high dynamic pressure is connected to the compression of the magnetosphere, which is directly related to the solar wind dynamic pressure.”
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5932/1/LuJarvisHibbins_2008JD010848_JGR_NORA.pdf

Here is a more recent paper on the same:

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of geomagnetic activity (used as a measure of solar wind parameters) on the variability of large-scale climate patterns and on changes in the global temperature. We show that positive statistically significant correlations between global temperature and the distribution of surface temperature over Eurasia, the East and Equatorial Pacific and over the North Atlantic for the period 1966-2009 correspond to large-scale climate patterns defined by climate indices. We found very similar positive correlations between geomagnetic activity and the distribution of surface temperature in the mentioned regions. As an effect of geomagnetic storms, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the stratospheric polar vortex. The increase of temperature and pressure can be observed over northern Canada. The vortex shifts towards Europe, rotates counter-clockwise and the wind blows from the polar region over Greenland southwards. It diverts the warm flow proceeding northward over the Atlantic, eastward along the deep Icelandic low extending as far as the Barents Sea and takes part in warming Eurasia. The strengthened zonal flow from Siberia cools the western Pacific with the impact on the warming of the equatorial and eastern Pacific when also a distinct 1976-78 climate shift occurred. Processes in the Atlantic and Pacific play a significant role and a time delay (wind forcing over the previous 1-4 yr) appears to be the most important for the relocation of the oceanic gyres. Results showing statistically significant relations between time series for geomagnetic activity, for the sum of climate indices and for the global temperature help to verify findings concerning the chain of processes from the magnetosphere to the troposphere.http://web.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=00393169&AN=83847877&h=x%2bAWoR7s7NmnOUQKie8MPMMMkWib5XWVMkX5jghNP2%2fYyauYtheQo0d0OxRSr5kh1ZejgT3%2fDBjiHQqqI%2bmriw%3d%3d&crl=c

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.