By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”
As discussed last week, the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex appears to have been displaced in January and now it appears to be splitting into two discrete lobes, i.e. see the image above with two areas of blue / cold air descending within the funnels/lobes of the Polar Vortex at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet. What follows is succinct summary of Polar Vorticity, followed by various current observations. If you aren’t familiar with Stratospheric Polar Vortexes, you can get acquainted here, here and here.
Planetary Vorticity is “generated by the rotating earth”, it “is zero at equator”, is at it’s “maximum at pole (one revolution per day)” and “is always positive (cyclonic [counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere])”, Lyndon State College Atmospheric Sciences i.e.:
Polar Vortices are “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
“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
Below is Northern Hemisphere Area Where Temperature is Below 195K or -78C, and it shows very cold air within the Polar Vortex descended from 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet down to 250 hPa/mb – 10 km – 34K feet, twice during January, 2014.
“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.” “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. The corresponding signals are weaker during displacement events, although ultimately they are shown to be related to cold-air outbreaks over North America.” Mitchell et al. 2012 – Paywalled
Onto the observations. If you look at the following 4 National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center Northern Hemisphere Temperature Analyses at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet showing the cold Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex on January 7th and 11th, and February 7th and 8th, 2014 you can see the progression as the Polar Vortex was first displaced/squeezed and now spliting into two lobes:
Above you can also see an area of high pressure and warm air building between the lobes of the vortex. Polar Wind at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet clearly shows the two lobes of the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex spinning counter-clockwise (Click the Pic to Animate):
Also interesting is that Ozone Mixing Ratios at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet show the “Ozone Hole” within the Polar Vortex splitting:
The two lobes of the Polar Vortex aren’t just visible at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet, the funnels of the vortex also extend both up and down, as you can see in the following National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center Height Analysis, which starts at 1 hPa/mb – 50 km – 164K feet and extends down to 100 hPa/mb – 15 km – 49K feet. The Vortex appears to split into two lobes/funnels at about 5 hPa – 35 km – 115K feet:
For those unfamiliar with the variation of pressure with height, this graphic may prove helpful:
So what is the result of this Polar Vortex behavior? “Large regions in northern Asia, Europe and North America have been found to cool during the mature and late stages of weak vortex events in the stratosphere. A substantial part of the temperature changes are associated with changes in the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pressure patterns in the troposphere.” Kolstad et al. 2010
Here is Northern Hemisphere – Vertical Cross Section of Geopotential Height Anomalies and the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) or Arctic Oscillation (AO) Index, which shows large positive Height Anomalies and the AO swinging negative in January and early February:
And here is North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Index for the prior 4 Months, showing a positive swing in mid-January and remaining there until present:
Lastly, the causes of this year’s weak vortex events were discussed in depth last week on this thread, however two key drivers of recent Polar Vortex behavior appear to be Eddy Heat and Planetary Waves. In terms of Eddy Heat, i.e. “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.” NOAA
Here you can see that 10 day Averaged Eddy Heat Flux Towards The North Pole At 100mb is near a record daily maximum as it was in early January when the earlier weak vortex event began:
In terms of Planetary Waves “a vortex displacement event is associated with anomalously high wave number-1 planetary wave activity entering the stratosphere and is characterized by a vortex with a comma-like shape that is shifting equatorward. Often this shifting occurs ‘‘top down’’ and the vortex has a baroclinic structure. Subsequently the Aleutian high, a weak anti- cyclone, encroaches over the pole and is especially dominant at lower levels.”
“A vortex splitting event is associated with anomalously high wavenumber-2 planetary wave activity entering the stratosphere. During such an event the vortex barotropically splits into two ‘‘daughter’’ vortices that tend to align along the 90°E – 90°W axis, with one centered over Siberia and the other centered over northeastern Canada (Matthewman et al. 2009, hereafter M09).” Mitchell et al. 2011
Planetary Wave 1 activity can be see on this Zonal Wave #1 Amplitude Jan, Feb, March Time Series showing strong Wave 1 activity in January;
but in February we are seeing more Planetary Wave 2 activity:
So if the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex splits and does not break up, and if Mitchell et al. 2012 are correct, we should begin see “positive temperature anomalies over eastern North America of more than 1.5 K” and “negative anomalies over Eurasia of up to −3 K” in the coming weeks. We shall see.
For an array of real time Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex graphs and graphics please visit the WUWT Northern Polar Vortex Reference Page.
Coincidental that both vortices are located in the vicinity of the two magnetic North poles ?
The article contains numerous references to “31 km – 102K miles”. Pretty sure you mean 102K feet.
So much information. It is a valuable record and a link to valuable sources but…
I can’t see any hints at any new understandings because this is so complex. There are so many possible relationships. E.g.
And I can’t sort out closing blockquotes….
David says: February 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm
The article contains numerous references to “31 km – 102K miles”. Pretty sure you mean 102K feet.
Corrected, thank you
I think you mean 102K feet, not 102K miles throughout
Erm no it’s not. I think you’d call it ‘anticyclonic’ if air falls like that
The “Vortex” used to be simply called the “Polar High,” and its winter growth and summer shrinkage were well documented, while its undulations somewhat less well understood.
The videoclip shows the wind circulation pattern but does not show a West-to-East movement of the air-mass in general as it properly should over time.
Both weather and climate are fascinating! Keep up your brilliant work, Anthony!
M Courtney says: February 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Why just ozone?
Because that’s the only one that’s available on the NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center webisite:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/
What about NO2, NO3 or alkanes – like methane?
“The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)”
http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false
“measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract
So many variables.
Yes, but in this circumstance, I think that the dynamical forces of the polar vortex, the low pressure area that forms within it and the cold air descending within it, are much more important than the chemical reactions that might be occurring within it.
John A says: February 8, 2014 at 3:27 pm
NOAA – Windows To The Universe – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Polar Vortices are “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.”
Erm no it’s not. I think you’d call it ‘anticyclonic’ if air falls like that
Water can flow down a drain in either direction:
“In your tub, such factors as any small asymmetry of the shape of the drain will determine which direction the circulation occurs. Even in a tub having a perfectly symmetric drain, the circulation direction will be primarily influenced by any residual currents in the bathtub left over from the time when it was filled. It can take more than a day for such residual currents to subside completely. If all extraneous influences (including air currents) can be reduced below a certain level, one apparently can observe that drains do consistently drain in different directions in the two hemispheres.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-somebody-finally-sett/
The Polar Vortex is a Cyclone, i.e.:
“Cyclones and Anti-cyclones
The Earth’s spin causes the wind to curve. This is called the Coriolis Effect. The wind in the northern hemisphere curves to the right and the wind in the southern hemisphere curves to the left.
When the wind swirls counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere or clockwise in the southern hemisphere, it is called cyclonic flow. When the wind swirls clockwise in the northern hemisphere or counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere, it is called anticyclonic flow. An example of cyclonic flow is the flow around a low pressure area while an example of anticyclonic flow is the flow around a high pressure area. A hurricane is a cyclone.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/tornado/spin.html
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="394"]
This expression subtly implies that the situation is similar for all planets and that there are no other causes. Why then Venus’s is called a surprise?
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Surprises_in_the_South_polar_vortex_in_Venus_atmosphere_999.html
We know Venus is an anti-planet, and the surprising behaviour is observed at its South pole, but still, why is it surprising? Maybe the stuff that is impinging on the poles (whatever it is) already has significant spin?
Just so we’re clear on this new warm high pressure vortex:
– if the temp anomaly is hot, that’s due to accelerating Global Warming which warms the Arctic fastest ™, especially where there aren’t any temp readings (which have to be interpolated)
– the cold anomaly is caused by a polar vortex, which is caused by Global Warming
This is the cause of the ozone in the stratosphere temperature rise. This results from a chemical reaction.
Gene says: February 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm
“… caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet.”
This expression subtly implies that the situation is similar for all planets and that there are no other causes. Why then Venus’s is called a surprise?
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Surprises_in_the_South_polar_vortex_in_Venus_atmosphere_999.html
Because Science Daily wants to attract more readers. What they found seems pretty much in line with the split Polar Vortex that we are seeing right now, i.e.
“”We knew it was a long-term vortex; we also knew that it changes shape every day. But we thought that the centres of the vortex at different altitudes formed only a single tube, but that is not so. Each centre goes its own way, yet the global structure of the atmospheric vortex does not disintegrate,” explains Itziar Garate-Lopez, head researcher and member of the UPV/EHU’s Planetary Science Group.”
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Surprises_in_the_South_polar_vortex_in_Venus_atmosphere_999.html
We know Venus is an anti-planet, and the surprising behaviour is observed at its South pole, but still, why is it surprising? Maybe the stuff that is impinging on the poles (whatever it is) already has significant spin?
“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
ren says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:03 pm
What is “this”?
From memory southern hemisphere looked like that in SH late winter-early spring 2013 with split vortices also
Here is same is Southern hemisphere August 2013…….
http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/another-stratospheric-warming-event-ssw-in-the-southern-hemisphere-august-2013/
Andrew says: February 8, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Just so we’re clear on this new warm high pressure vortex:
– if the temp anomaly is hot, that’s due to accelerating Global Warming which warms the Arctic fastest ™, especially where there aren’t any temp readings (which have to be interpolated)
– the cold anomaly is caused by a polar vortex, which is caused by Global Warming
Yes, but don’t forget that, “‘It’s basically the jet stream on a drunken path going around the Northern Hemisphere,’ explains Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis.”
http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-the-arctic-is-drunk-right-now/
“Scientists tend to call the jet stream a “polar vortex,” Francis says.”
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/polar-vortex-created-by-arctic-warming-north-american-cooling
The contortions needed to come up with a plausible mechanism to blame the CO2 for Cold Air Outbreaks is comical, e.g.:
“Cohen was the lead author of a 2009 study that found that sudden stratospheric warming events are becoming more frequent, a trend that may be related to an increase in fall snow cover across Eurasia. The increase in snow cover has in turn been tied to the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, since the increase in open water in the fall means that there is more atmospheric moisture available to fall as rain or snow.” Climate Central
So the mechanism whereby Anthropogenic CO2 makes it cold is that CO2 warms the atmosphere, which melts some sea ice, increasing evaporation, resulting in increased “fall snow cover across Eurasia”, which somehow makes sudden stratospheric warming events become “more frequent” and that results in “the jet stream going on a drunken path around the Northern Hemisphere. Clearly… 🙂
Well, after it complete splitting in two, we just need the larger of the two to split again and we have the scenario of “The day after tomorrow.” 3 large vortexs in the north, causing the tropoosphere to pull -154C weather down from the Mesosphere. 🙂
Does anybody besides me notice that a misplaced Polar Vortex seems to cover the same general geography as during a glaciation?
justthefactswuwt,
What many lay people do not understand clearly is the poles will appear to warm due to the eddies when in fact the temperature imbalance (heat escaping/cooling) is what drives the circulations intensity. The polar temps may very well be warmer right now due to the exchange in surface and upper atmosphere winds but the over all trend is cooling. I call this the paradoxical presentation of a cooling world.
“Here you can see that 10 day Averaged Eddy Heat Flux Towards The North Pole At 100mb is near a record daily maximum as it was in early January when the earlier weak vortex event began:”
The closer we get to a balance of the heat budget the differential temperatures will reduce and with them the winds and circulations. In a warming world the pressure is reduced at the poles and the cooling is localized to the poles. The wild fluctuations today indicate to me that the cooling is rapid and the heat being collected from the sun is decreasing.
The paradox seems to fool people…
How does she get away with this?
Let me clarify a bit.
The polar vorticies are a massive down welling of cold to super cold air. It is accompanied by two high pressures (generally speaking). The size and intensity of which has increased over the last ten years. This lumbering big boy sometimes splits simply due to its size, earths rotation and the intrusion (running into) of the polar jet.
This cold air mass is pressured against the polar jet where it is distributed over the hemisphere causing the polar jets average temp to drop. This increase in temperature imbalance then causes wild fluctuations in the jet. The intrusion of the polar jet to as low as 10 Deg Lat. is seen as an effort to bring equilibrium to the heat on the planet by cooling the mid latitudes.
When the sun or other heat generating items are not giving sufficient input or the receiving planet reflects such heat, the balance must change. Our sun is taking siesta by the way 🙂
The poles will appear warmer due to air movement when infact, we are cooling rapidly. Ice melt and all that goes with the warmer temps will happen and is to be expected. The flip side of this coin is what we in the US, Europe, Russia, etc have been experiencing for some years now with cooling summers and very cold winters in mid latitudes.
Given the history of the LIA and the suns impact on that time period, it is my belief we are headed there right now..
The January circulation of warm moist tropical air that usually hits the Northwest from central California into Canada and SE Alaska was headed nearly due north into SouthCentral Alaska during January. That may be the tropical warmth mentioned as eddys. That has now changed and California is getting rain, and the forecast is for WA and OR to be wet at least for the next 7 days. It is reported to be 18deg F in Palmer, AK today, so the “normal” winter flow has returned.
Now, let us see how that narrative about a quicker transition to Summer holds up. How about we come back to this in late May or so and evaluate that statement?
The split doesn’t last for long, reforms over Northern Canada in a few days. Just goes to show us how strong the PV has been this winter.
http://users.met.fu-berlin.de/~Aktuell/strat-www/wdiag/figs/ecmwf1/ecmwf10f120.gif
I can guarantee you this vortex system will never be modeled. Academics may try, and fail, and then claim they’ve been successful, but it will all be lies.
Can anyone explain to how come the DMI temps for 80deg north and above are showing a consistent 5degC positive anomaly (it was as high as 10deg), yet the charts for sea surface anomaly just below it (in Anthony’s sea ice references) show neutral to slightly cold, and winter temps in North America are said to be at 30 year lows.
It doesn’t seem to make sense.
And our January thaw, the one that was just like clock work for 40 years.. didn’t happen this year in the US West and Mid West…
The cold air massing in the arctic with the vortex split will resume shortly. The split, disintegration and rebuild happens in about 5-10 days. The remains of the split is still stronger than many winter vortexes of the 80’s and 90’s. This has not warmed the west and midwest as of yet.
After getting two days with record lows being smashed by 11 deg F (-32 deg F) and record low highs below zero, I am all for some global warming.
J Martin says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Coincidental that both vortices are located in the vicinity of the two magnetic North poles ?
============
maybe not. Oxygen is attracted by a magnetic field.
@justthefactswuwt
http://phys.org/news194504586.html
seems like a decent theory at least.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It lurches this way and that, always trying to escape its confinement. Sometimes a constellation of circumstances arises that allows it to lurch a long way. Often it will then become a “cutoff low”, just as in a military engagement, too large a salient from the “front” is at risk of being pinched off and isolated.
Fear not. It is raining in California. Relief is coming.
@ #10
Sorry, that is nonsense. You have those effects on a global (sic!) scale and they never show up in your bathtub or toilet. You could ask a physicist; or watch The Simpsons which is made by physicists and which make good fun of this 😉
This has NEVER been demonstrated – show me one actual drain mentioned in literature or on video that is claimed to possess such properties.
ferdberple says:
February 8, 2014 at 6:05 pm
J Martin says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Coincidental that both vortices are located in the vicinity of the two magnetic North poles ?
============
maybe not. Oxygen is attracted by a magnetic field.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Vukcevic (I hope I spelled his name correctly) had some info in the past with regards to a relationship to the polar vortex and the two north magnetic poles. It was in a comment on WUWT and linked to his website. Interesting.
jorgekafkazar says: February 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm (Edit)
I can guarantee you this vortex system will never be modeled. Academics may try, and fail, and then claim they’ve been successful, but it will all be lies.
Never is a really long time, but we can certainly agree that we are no where close right now, i.e.:
“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
@
ferdberple says:
February 8, 2014 at 6:05 pm
and
J Martin says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:47 pm
=========
To add to my previous comment above.
I hope that Vukcevic will join in this discussion. Until he does I located this from his site. Not sure if it is the link I was looking for. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic.htm
Interesting.
I would suggest putting all the plots on a common scale, and units, with a modern geodetic projection and center-frame then re-plot all and re-present to us for inspection and comment.
Of course, you will NOT do this! Check, Mate, and Win for me.
Ha ha
It is interesting that where the spin is greatest at the poles, humans experience no centripetal force. However where humans experience no spin at the equator, they experience the greatest centripetal force due to the spinning earth. This is of course the reason the earth bulges at the equator.
Much is to be studied in regard to magnetic pole (s) field component strengths (x,y,z).
The pseudo-opposite, strato-warm conditions are also worth study along with the upper atmospheric mixing between the layers.
What stimuli and conditions are needed within the ocean phases, and their contributions toward glacial and inter-glacial transitions & visa versa ?
How does the thin layer of our planetary mesosphere change during these conditions and what relationships are noted through all spheres held within the magnetosphere, troposphere included?
The chemical and typical physical properties may be less or equal to the electromagnetic influences…
@Nemo Thanks I went there because as I was reading the earlier comment my first thought was solar effect, that was great information and looking forward to the Japanese sat. getting there (could not resist though where there any polar vortexes @20,000 Leagues?)
I live in Japan and just got through digging out of the worst snowstorm to hit the Kanto Region (where Tokyo/Yokohama/Nagoya cities are located) in about 20 years….
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/rare-snowstorm-for-japan/23094551
It was incredible! It was much worse than the big snowstorm that hit Kanto 20 years ago….
Thank you, Polar Vortex, that was quite a display you put on yesterday….
Daniel Vogler says: February 8, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Freie Universität Berlin – Department of Earth Sciences / Institute of Meteorology – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Ke et al. 2007 – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The split doesn’t last for long, reforms over Northern Canada in a few days. Just goes to show us how strong the PV has been this winter.
http://users.met.fu-berlin.de/~Aktuell/strat-www/wdiag/figs/ecmwf1/ecmwf10f120.gif
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="394"]
Firstly, that forecast comes from this valuable Freie Universität Berlin – Department of Earth Sciences / Institute of Meteorology Stratosphere Diagnostics page;
http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/winterdiagnostics/index.html
which is solid site and I was not aware of. I will need to put some of their products on the Northern Polar Reference Page. Thank you
In terms of Polar Vortex persistent, “mean breakup date ― when the winter westerly at the core of polar jet turns to summer easterly ― is about April 10. The breakup time has large interannual variation with a time span of about 2 months. It also has a long-term trend with the 1990s and 2000s witnessing more and more late breakups of polar vortex. Composite of wind speed at the core of polar jet for the extremely early and late breakup years shows that late years have two periods of westerly weakening while early breakup years have only one. The first weakening in the late years happens in middle January with wind speed dropping sharply from more than 40 m s − 1 to about 15 m s − 1. This is accompanied with anomalous activities of planetary waves in both stratosphere and troposphere; while the second weakening in the late breaking years is mainly the results of diabatic heating with very weak wave activities. In early breakup years, the transition from westerly to easterly is rapid with wind speed dropping from more than 30 m s − 1 to less than − 10 m s − 1 within a month. This evolution is associated with a strong bidirectional dynamical coupling of the stratosphere and troposphere. The circulation anomalies at low troposphere are also analyzed in the extremely early and late breakup years. It shows that there are significant differences between the two kinds of extreme years in the geopotential height and temperature composite analysis, indicating the dynamical coupling of stratosphere and troposphere with the evolution of stratospheric polar vortex.”
“The 45-year time series and its long-term trend of the breakup date of stratospheric polar vortex are shown in Figure 3. As mentioned above, the breakup date has large interannual variation with a time span of about 2 months from middle March to middle May. It also shows a long-term tendency with delay of the breakup date. Therefore, the persistence of the polar vortex has been enhanced, especially in the 1990s. This confirms the previous studies [12,15,29]. This delay in the Arctic vortex breakup may be related to the reduction of planetary wave activities, few stratospheric sudden warming events, and depletion of ozone in recent decades [15,28,30]. Also, there is decadal variability with late breakups in the late 1960s, late 1980s and late 1990s, but with early breakups in the early 1960s, late 1970s and early 1990s.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="394"]
“Composite of circulation and wave activities for 10 extremely early and late breakup years shows that late breakup years have two periods of weakening of the winter westerly while early breakup years have only one. The first weakening in the late breakup years happens in middle January. This weakening is accompanied with strong wave activities in polar stratosphere. However, the second weakening in the late breakup years is mainly the results of diabatic heating while the wave activities are weak. In early breakup years, the transition from westerly to easterly is rapid, which is associated with a strong bidirectional dynamical coupling of the stratophere and troposphere. These results make it clear that the debate on the breaking characteristics is mainly due to the different criterions. The Nash criterion [27] defines most of the first polar weakening as the final breakup and gets the conclusion that the remnants of the vortex persist longer in early breakup years. In fact, this weakening is related to wave activities and mid-winter stratospheric sudden warming, rather than the exact breakup. Obviously, the polar stratosphere is still dominated by winter westerly.”
http://cmsr.iap.ac.cn/upload/File/cw/2007SCSD-Weietal-en.pdf
“Short- and long-term changes in the intensity and persistence of the Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric polar vortices during spring have been analyzed, using NCEP/NCAR (National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research) reanalyses. For the Arctic the results confirm the existence of low frequency variability in the winter stratosphere. During the 1980s and early to mid-1990s the northern hemisphere (NH) polar vortex was intensified in spring and broke up late. Since the late 1990s however, major stratospheric warmings occurred more frequently, so that the polar vortex in spring still intensified in March but with a smaller magnitude. As some of the major warmings occurred early in winter, the polar vortex was able to recover leading to late breakup dates in spite of the dynamical disturbances. In the long-term, there is no statistically significant change in Arctic vortex intensity or lifetime. In the Antarctic, the significant intensification of the polar vortex found in the 1980s and 1990s has been considerably reduced due to an unexpected enhancement of dynamical activity in southern hemisphere (SH) winter since 2000, masking the significant increase in polar vortex persistence found for the period 1979–1999. Still on the long-term, the Antarctic vortex shows a significant deepening and shift towards later spring transitions.” Langematz, et al., 2008
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6766-2_20
@asybot
Heh, well, there’s a mælstrom…
wbrozek says: February 8, 2014 at 7:58 pm
It is interesting that where the spin is greatest at the poles, humans experience no centripetal force. However where humans experience no spin at the equator, they experience the greatest centripetal force due to the spinning earth. This is of course the reason the earth bulges at the equator.
“Do you weigh differently at the North Pole than what you do at the equator?
Yes you do, because at the equator the centrifugal force due to the spinning of the Earth is at its maximum, and vanishes at the poles. This means that the attractive force of gravity is slightly reduced because it is directed towards the center of the Earth, while the centripetal force is directed outward from the center. The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less. Your mass, in grams, however would stay the same because ‘grams’ is a measure of the resistance of a body to being moved and has nothing to do with acceleration or gravity. Your mass in kilograms would remain the same. It is common for people to use ‘pounds’ and ‘grams’ interchangeably but they are not.” NASA
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11511.html
The Polar Vortex is not caused by the mechanical rotation of the earth like a set of gears. It is at the foot print of the magnetosphere(magnetic fields) and the rotation/convection is an ionic wind…
“High-latitude plasma convection from Cluster EDI: variances and solar wind correlations”
“The magnitude of convection standard deviations is of the same order as, or even larger than, the convection magnitude itself. Positive correlations of polar cap activity are found with |ByzIMF| and with Er,sw, in particular. The strict linear increase for small magnitudes of Er,sw starts to deviate toward a flattened increase above about 2 mV/m. There is also a weak positive correlation with Pdyn. At very small values of Pdyn, a secondary maximum appears, which is even more pronounced for the correlation with solar wind proton density. Evidence for enhanced nightside convection during high nightside activity is presented.”
‘Low to Moderate values in the solar wind electric field are positively correlated to convection velocity.”
“A positive correlation between Ring current and convection velocity.”
http://web.ift.uib.no/Romfysikk/RESEARCH/PAPERS/forster07.pdf
Low Energy ion escape from terrestrial Polar Regions.
http://www.dissertations.se/dissertation/3278324ef7/
How long have we been able to track these?
Now let’s just integrate the PDO and ENSO too, for simplicity.
Don’t know about you, kina stifling, no?
Like learning to fly.
http://youtu.be/eCB_INs2E24
Do we have another paradigm shift in knowledge?
I remember an older one that happened
http://youtu.be/Iwuy4hHO3YQ
Dedicated to Mosher.
Its all good !
Mike says: @ February 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Yes Steve Goddard
jorgekafkazar says: February 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm “I can guarantee you this vortex system will never be modeled. Academics may try, and fail, and then claim they’ve been successful, but it will all be lies.”
justthefactswuwt says: February 8, 2014 at 7:08 pm “Never is a really long time, but we can certainly agree that we are no where close right now….”
Agreed. But the lies have started already, anyway:
There is no such need because there is no effective way to incorporate vortex dynamics in a fully determinate GCM. For several hundred million dollars of our resources, they may succeed in emulating polar vortices, but they’ll never be able to predict their chaotic loci, paths, or velocities for any significant period of time.
English is not my mother language, but in the title should “becomes” not be “become”?
“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.”
Then we’re in for an early spring?
justthefacts,
Thank you for an interesting and informative article.
I have a couple of questions:
1. What is the difference between ‘Polar Vorticity’ and ‘Coriolis Effect’? The diagram from Lyndon State appears to be of the Coriolis Effect.
2. From the Universe Today link: [“Polar Vortices are “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.”]. Normally, an area of low pressure will cause an inflow at the surface which will cause the air to rise, not fall from higher altitude. What makes this polar vorticity different?
Thanks,
AB
jorgekafkazar says:
February 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm
I can guarantee you this vortex system will never be modeled. Academics may try, and fail, and then claim they’ve been successful, but it will all be lies.
=============
truth has never stood in the way of cliamte modelling,
Brant Ra says:
February 8, 2014 at 8:50 pm
The Polar Vortex is not caused by the mechanical rotation of the earth like a set of gears. It is at the foot print of the magnetosphere(magnetic fields) and the rotation/convection is an ionic wind…
========
a previous post proposed a similar mechanism to explain the super rotation of the atmosphere of venus.
http://phys.org/news194504586.html
of course we are told by scientists that the gravitational force of earth on venus is too small to affect the rotation of venus, yet venus has a retrograde rotation, such that the same face of venus always faces earth at closest approach.
any time a scientists cannot explain something they observe, their explanation is that it must not be happening.
This interconversion process co converts UV radiation into thermal energy, heating the stratosphere. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Ozone_cycle.svg/1052px-Ozone_cycle.svg.png
Ozone absorbs the cosmic radiation, which can be seen on the monitor. Where there is more ozone, less radiation reaches the Earth.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t70_nh_f00.gif
http://oi57.tinypic.com/1znrker.jpg
Ozone in the stratosphere undulates, especially in winter.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif
The stratosphere is the second layer. It starts above the troposphere and ends about 31 miles (50 km) above ground. Ozone is abundant here and it heats the atmosphere while also absorbing harmful radiation from the sun. The air here is very dry, and it is about a thousand times thinner here than it is at sea level. Because of that, this is where jet aircraft and weather balloons fly.
http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
The recent solar magnetic cycle change is the cause of the polar vortex change and is the reason why there is suddenly an increase in La Niña events. The recent solar magnetic cycle change is also the reason why in the summer of 2013 there was suddenly an increase in low level cloud cover over the Arctic region which is the reason for the sudden recovery of Arctic sea ice in the summer of 2013.
There was a solar change post 2005 that has been inhibiting the solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. The mechanism that was inhibiting the galactic cosmic ray modulation of planetary cloud cover has abated which explains why in 2013 GCR modulation of high latitude clouds is suddenly observed.
As announced at the November, 2013 AGU meeting, the solar heliosphere pressure has decreased 40%. As also announced at the November, 2013 AGU meeting due to the reduction in the solar heliosphere pressure the magnetic intensity of solar wind bursts caused by coronal mass ejection and by coronal holes has been significantly reduced. Solar wind burts create a space change differential in the ionsphere which strongly affects the frequency of El Niño events. (The reduction in magnetic field strength of solar wind bursts hence causes an increase in La Niña events.)
Also as announced at the November, 2013 AGU meeting due to changes in the solar heliosphere the intensity and the number of GCR that strikes the earth is much higher at this point in time of the solar cycle as opposed to other solar cycles.
This chart shows neutron counts vs time, at high latitude. Neutrons are produced by the high speed galactic particles which are called cosmic ray flux (CRF) or galactic ray flux rather than high speed galactic particles as the first discovers of the phenomena thought the cause was high energy photons rather than particles. As shown in this chart CRF flux is must high at this point in the solar cycle as compared to past solar cycles.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=09&startmonth=01&startyear=1986&starttime=00%3A00&endday=09&endmonth=02&endyear=2014&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
William Astley mówi:
The recent solar magnetic cycle change is the cause of the polar vortex change and is the reason why there is suddenly an increase in La Niña events.
I have of the same opinion.
Cosmic rays GCR works exactly in the area of the polar vortex.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/jha2qe.jpg
The majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. During the warming period of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle the Arctic sea decreases and there is slight cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet which causes an increase in Antarctic sea ice. This phenomena is the reason why the majority of the warming in the last 70 years has been in the Northern hemisphere at high latitudes. (See Bob Tisdale’s graph.)
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
During the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle which we are now experiencing there is both an increase in Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea and there will be slight warming of the Antarctic ice sheet.
Svensmark’s attached paper uses ice core temperature measure (the ice sheet retains temperature data when the ice formed for a few thousand years which is used to show the cyclic out of phase temperature change of the Greenland ice sheet from the Antarctic ice sheet.)
As Svensmark’s paper explains the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is higher than low level clouds so the Antarctic ice sheet cools when there is an increase in cloud cover. (The very, very high velocity Antarctic winds break the snow crystals which then form an ice like substance that has a high albedo.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly. Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
This paper by Tinsley and Yu explains the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover and change the properties of clouds. As noted in Tinsley and Yu’s other papers the mechanisms change both the amount of cloud cover, the albedo of the clouds, the amount of precipitation, the number of high precipitation events, and wind velocity of winter storms. i.e. Every ‘weather’ change event that we have recently experience can be attributed to the solar magnetic cycle modulation of ‘climate’.
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v141/141GM22/141GM22.pdf
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as insitu ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.
Galactic radiation is also modulated by the Earth’s magnetic field, which means that its operation inside the Polar Circle is not equally spread out.
This graph, Greenland ice sheet temperature, last 11,000 years (roughly determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper shows nine (9) Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles of warming and cooling. The D-O warming and cooling cycles have an interval between occurrence of 950 years, 1350 years, and 2000 years.
The warming that we observed in the 20th century has occurred before.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
The following is a link to the late Gerald Bond’s paper “Persistent Solar influence on the North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene”. Bond published this paper in 2001. As Bond’s paper notes past warming and cooling cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. See Tinsley and Yu’s paper linked to above for an explanation of the mechanisms.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
In support of:
ren says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:28 am
I concur with your comment.
I wonder if the dust tail from comet ison that we are passing through has an effect.
Below is a link to Noctilucent clouds from Spaceweather.com
http://www.spaceweather.com/DAISY_PICS/current_daisy.png?PHPSESSID=dqkk71oo27lr55lgb8r1slmo13
William Astley.
You can to think about what will happen next. Forecast Vukcevic verified. The sun will be less active?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
[snip – too far off topic, and Mr. Kelleher has a habit of disrupting threads with things that are inconsequential to the post. When we have a post on planetary motions, that will be the place to post your dislike of the 24 hour period rotation of the Earth – Anthony]
“At very small values of Pdyn, a secondary maximum appears, which is even more pronounced for the correlation with solar wind proton density.”
Secondary maximum….. The vortex “splits”….
ren says:February 9, 2014 at 12:30 am
The stratosphere is the second layer. It starts above the troposphere and ends about 31 miles (50 km) above ground. Ozone is abundant here and it heats the atmosphere while also absorbing harmful radiation from the sun. The air here is very dry, and it is about a thousand times thinner here than it is at sea level. Because of that, this is where jet aircraft and weather balloons fly.
No, jets fly at 35,00 feet or 5-6 miles, not 31 miles, altitude.
Both Ren and William fail at the most fundamental level of science yet people are gathering round to add their “aye”. Is it really the case that such people are not schooled in science critique or are they just willing to ride new thought without care of proper scientific thought, method and discourse?
Steve Keohane !
Stratosphere over the pole starts from an altitude of about 8 km.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2014.gif
We have a sharp temperature jump at a height of 30 km.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/10mb9065.gif
This means a strong polar vortex turbulence.
Pamela !
Is Wikipedia is not a science?
People not understand that we are entering a period many decades of low solar activity. Vary the basic parameters of the sun.
Just
Considering the sharp reduction in air pressure and mass at stratospheric and higher altitudes, how can this cold thin air affect surface temperature by vortexing down to the surface? is there enough air mass in the stratosphere to affect surface weather?
There is a well known oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection that can set up polar vortices. By far, the stronger source of energy necessary to move and shake polar vortices would be that teleconnection, not solar parameters (of whatever kind you hang your hat on). Notice the location of SST anomaly and the locations of the split polar vortex.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=3.21,86.34,197
Tail wags dog… so the 1% of pressure at 10hPa determines what’s happening in surface at 1000hPa… I know it’s very popular to blame the 1% these days 😉
but we all know only the 0.01% own newspapers that can blame it on the 1%… So next I expect spinning the space station may also affect flooding in Britain…
Brant Ra says: February 8, 2014 at 8:50 pm
The Polar Vortex is not caused by the mechanical rotation of the earth like a set of gears. It is at the foot print of the magnetosphere(magnetic fields) and the rotation/convection is an ionic wind…
No, there are numerous variables/causes but at its core, “The forced vortex formed in nested layers of viscous matter on Earth driven by centrifugal force that is caused by rotation of Earth in a differential rotation would rotate in clockwise direction at northern hemisphere on a reference frame fixed with the rotating Earth viewing it from the top of North Pole, and rotates in counter-clockwise direction at southern hemisphere in a reference frame viewing it from the top of South Pole.”
http://uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20polar%20vortex.htm
Also, “The Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC) characterizes the transport of mass through the stratosphere, a slow upwelling in the tropics, poleward drift through the mid-latitudes, and descent in the middle and high latitudes.”
“Stratospheric control of the circulation is effected indirectly through the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex. A colder vortex creates a waveguide higher into the stratosphere, raising the breaking level of Rossby waves and deepening the circulation. Ventilation of mass in the stratosphere depends critically on the depth of tropical upwelling, and so mass and tracer transport is comparably sensitive to both tropospheric and stratospheric controls.”
We have shown that the diabatic forcing of the stratospheric polar vortex and planetary wave forcing by the troposphere can have comparable effects on the mean age of air in the mid- to upper stratosphere. Their impact on the age, however, is mediated through different controls on the diabatic circulation. Increased planetary wave forcing leads to an overall increase in the strength of the BDC, particularly the lower branch of the circulation, an effect we term ‘‘tropospheric control.’’ A colder polar vortex, on the other hand, creates a waveguide higher into the stratosphere, raising the breaking level of the planetary waves and deepening the circulation, an effect we term ‘‘stratospheric control.’’ Ventilation of mass in the mid- to upper stratosphere depends critically on penetration of tropical upwelling deep into the stratosphere, and so the age of air is comparably sensitive to both tropospheric and stratospheric controls. The relative independence of the physical processes underlying tropospheric wave driving and stratospheric diabatic forcing provide a pathway for structural changes in the Brewer–
Dobson circulation, as suggested in recent observations by Bönisch et al. (2011).”
“The thermal structure of the stratosphere was altered by varying the parameter g of the Polvani and Kushner (2002) model, the lapse rate of the equilibrium temperature profile in the winter hemisphere. A colder equilibrium profile leads to a stronger polar night jet. Outside
the tropics, the diabatic forcing cannot directly force the Brewer–Dobson circulation, and so can only affect it indirectly by modifying the wave breaking. The theoretical work of Charney and Drazin (1961) suggests that a stronger vortex will limit Rossby wave propagation into the
stratosphere, thus reducing the amplitude of the Brewer–Dobson circulation. In the lower stratosphere this provides the correct intuition: the net wave forcing of the stratosphere is reduced when the vortex is colder, especially when there is no stationary wave forcing in the lower stratosphere, as explored by Kushner and Polvani (2004). At upper levels, however, wave breaking increases with a colder vortex, as potential vorticity gradients along the edge of the vortex create a waveguide higher into the stratosphere.”
http://math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/gerber-JAS-2012.pdf
Also, “The mechanism behind the Brewer-Dobson circulation is both complex and quite interesting. At first glance, we might expect that the circulation results from solar heating in the tropics, and cooling in the polar region, causing a large equator to pole (meridional) overturning of air as warm (tropical) air rises and cold (polar) air sinks. While this heating and cooling does indeed occur, and while such a meridional overturning exists in the form of the so-called Hadley circulation (see section 3.8.1), it is not the specific reason for the existence of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Rather, the Brewer-Dobson circulation results from wave motions in the extratropical stratosphere.”
“3.4.1 Standing Planetary Waves and Wave Breaking — One type of atmospheric wave that exists is called the Rossby wave. Named for Carl G. Rossby, an early atmospheric research scientist, the Rossby wave exists due to a combination of meridional temperature gradients and the rotation of the planet (which produces the Coriolis force). The Rossby wave is a large-scale wave system whose size is thousands of kilometers in the horizontal and several kilometers in the vertical.
Large-scale topographical features, like the Rocky Mountains and the Himalaya-Tibet complex, together with the meridional temperature gradients and Coriolis deflection, create a variation of Rossby waves called standing planetary waves. These have very long wavelengths (up to 10,000 kilometers) and either remain stationary or move slowly westward (i.e., they move easterly). They eventually propagate vertically into the stratosphere.
3.4.2 Polar Night Jet Deceleration and Radiative Imbalance — When a standing planetary wave reaches the stratosphere, it deposits its easterly momentum, decelerating the westerly wintertime stratospheric jet stream. This is the polar night jet we discussed in section 2.4.2-c and depicted in Figure 6.02. The polar night jet slows and can even be displaced, which has the effect of displacing the polar vortex region.
The deposition of easterly momentum into the polar stratosphere and the deceleration of the polar night jet is known as “wave breaking” (see section 4.1.2). It produces the phenomenon of the stratospheric sudden warming (see Chapter 2, section 4.2.2) as warmer middle latitude and even tropical air intrudes into the geographic polar region. This result is a situation that is thermodynamically imbalanced. Wintertime radiational cooling in the polar stratosphere quickly begins.
3.4.3 Sinking Air and Meridional Overturning — This cooling of air is accompanied by sinking motions, since colder air is more dense and it sinks. It is this sinking motion that establishes the meridional overturning from equator to pole in the winter hemisphere. That is, the sinking air in the polar region must be balanced by a poleward flow of air into this region. By mass continuity requirements, this air must come from the tropics. Our Brewer-Dobson circulation cell is thus established as tropical air moving poleward to replace the sinking air at the poles is itself replaced by rising air in the tropics (see Figure 6.03).
A simple conceptual model for our Brewer-Dobson circulation is to use a paddle near the edge of a small circular pool. If you start paddling in one direction on the edge of the pool, in a short time, you’ll set up a circulation that carries water fully around the pool (try this in your bathtub). You don’t need to paddle everywhere in the pool, just at a single point and always in the same direction. The paddle in the stratosphere is the “wave activity” in the extratropical middle and upper stratosphere. This “wave activity” paddle causes the air to move poleward in the stratosphere, which causes the rising in the tropics, and the sinking in the polar region.
So while the Brewer-Dobson circulation cell is created due to mass continuity requirements, ultimately, its existence is due to the breaking of planetary waves into the winter hemisphere polar stratosphere. Note that the Brewer-Dobson cell is a winter time circulation. It almost nonexistent in the summer hemisphere. There the net mass flux is small and slightly downward.
3.4.4 Brewer-Dobson Circulation and Radiative Balance — In the absence of any stratospheric waves and the consequent Brewer-Dobson circulation, the polar region in the middle of winter would be much colder than it actually is. Calculations show that without the waves and resulting Brewer-Dobson circulation, the polar stratosphere would be phenomenally cold. It is estimated that 30 km polar temperature would be about 160 K (-113°C or about -171°F), as opposed to the measured 200 K (-73°C or -99°F).”
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_3.htm
Daddylonglegs, whether vortex air over water will not cause a vortex in the water? It all depends on wind energy.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=23.87,79.64,318
Now compare jetstream at 250 hPa.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=23.87,79.64,318
ren says: February 9, 2014 at 8:41 am
Steve Keohane !
Stratosphere over the pole starts from an altitude of about 8 km.
So in your mind, 8 km is the same as 31 miles. I’m glad you cleared that up for me. I simply pointed out the disparity in your contention that jet aircraft fly at 31 miles altitude, they do not, but you don’t address your fallacy. This has nothing to do with polar vortices, rather the veracity of your presentation of information about them.
Your expositions here border on the obtuse misdirection that many trolls fixate on. Since you have appeared on WUWT I have tried to decide whether you be troll, or simply one whose primary language is not English. Apparently, since I read them yet, I have not appropriated you to the former, yet.
Steve Keohane,
thank you for the the substantive arguments. I do not need to write here.
See page 119. This is a masters thesis and is a gold mine of information. Folks here should study well the basic fundamentals of basic attribution research conducted by a masters degree candidate. Show me the same level of complete thought related to solar indices. That thought is absent in this thread and is absent in the links solar enthusiasts commonly include. But don’t feel too bad. CO2 scientists have failed in this regard as well. And many of them have Ph.D.’s and handwritten nobel prize awards attached to their doors. Both sides need a good willow switchen!
This lowly master’s student has beat you and them all to pieces.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/0?0:APPLICATION_PROCESS%3DDOWNLOAD_ETD_SUB_DOC_ACCNUM:::F1501_ID:osu1311889468%2Cattachment
Pamela whether these are the masters of NASA, who have yet in 2009 argued that it will be extremely strong solar cycle?
Apparently this student is a geography major and the paper was submitted and approved in 2011. It has nothing to do with the voracity of solar cycle predictions. It has to do with the null hypothesis related to sea ice and weather pattern variations in the Arctic. Do you know what the null hypothesis is?
The null hypothesis must be considered by solar enthusiasts as the leading driver of climate and weather pattern variations in the short and long term. It must also be considered by CO2 enthusiasts. Neither camp does so to their science reputation peril.
In reply to: Pamela Gray says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:39 am
Both Ren and William fail at the most fundamental level of science yet people are gathering round to add their “aye”. Is it really the case that such people are not schooled in science critique or are they just willing to ride new thought without care of proper scientific thought, method and discourse?
William:
I am not sure what you disagree with or why. Regardless, based on the science and what is currently happening to the sun, the planet will cool. There is now observational evidence of the start of cooling.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23 warming and cooling cycles (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, the cycles have a period of 1500 years plus or minus 500 years, 23 cycles is the limit of the ocean sediment proxy data analysis which Bond was using) through the current interglacial and out into the last glacial. Analysis of the ice cores from the Antarctic peninsula finds 240 warming and cooling cycles in the last 240,000 years which have the same periodicity as the warming and cooling cycles in the Northern hemisphere (same cause, a forcing mechanism that can affect both poles, solar magnetic cycle changes).
There has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. There is now a simultaneous increase in sea ice at both poles. Based on what has happened in the paleo record the planet will now cool.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
“It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe. The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions. I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns. According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
Arfur Bryant says: February 8, 2014 at 11:27 pm
Angela Colling – Ocean Circulation – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
European Space Agency – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Alaska Independent Distance Education – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
1. What is the difference between ‘Polar Vorticity’ and ‘Coriolis Effect’? The diagram from Lyndon State appears to be of the Coriolis Effect.
“Planetary vorticity is given by the same expression as the Coriolis parameter. This is appropriate because they are both aspects of the same phenomenon, i.e. the rotation of the Earth.”
“”The rotation of the Earth about its axis results in the deflection of currents and winds by the Coriolis force.”
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"]
In short, the Coriolis Force/Effect imparts Planetary Vorticity upon the the land, oceans and atmosphere.
2. From the Universe Today link: [“Polar Vortices are “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.”]. Normally, an area of low pressure will cause an inflow at the surface which will cause the air to rise, not fall from higher altitude. What makes this polar vorticity different?
Firstly, air rising and air descending are not mutually exclusive, i.e. within a hurricane, “In stark contrast to the eyewall, a hurricane’s eye is characterized by light winds and is usually, but not always, cloud-free. As air parcels are vented from the top of the thunderstorms comprising the eyewall, some diverge into the eye. Lacking active convection, these air parcels descend and the temperature within the eye increases due to compressional warming. It is not uncommon for aircraft reconnaissance to record significant temperature differences outside and the inside the eye. For example, the flight early on October 19th observed a 14°C difference between the regions. Descending air tends to suppress the development of clouds and precipitation, hence the relatively calm conditions within the eye. The diameter of the eye is directly related to the storm’s intensity, with very small eyes associated with the most powerful hurricanes.”
http://www.lakeeriewx.com/Meteo241/ResearchTopicFour/HurricaneStructure.html
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
“Tornadoes start deep within vast thunderclouds, where a column of strongly rising warm air is set spinning by high winds streaming through the clouds’s top. As air is sucked into this swirling column, or mesocyclone, it spins very fast, stretching thousands of feet up and down through the cloud, with a corkscrewing funnel descending from the cloud’s base – the tornado.”
http://ykonline.yksd.com/distanceedcourses/Courses/EarthScience/lessons/ThirdQuarter/Chapter10/10-3.html
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Secondly, the Polar Vortex is unique in that, as noted in a prior comment the “The Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC) characterizes the transport of mass through the stratosphere, a slow upwelling in the tropics, poleward drift through the mid-latitudes, and descent in the middle and high latitudes.” “A simple conceptual model for our Brewer-Dobson circulation is to use a paddle near the edge of a small circular pool. If you start paddling in one direction on the edge of the pool, in a short time, you’ll set up a circulation that carries water fully around the pool (try this in your bathtub). You don’t need to paddle everywhere in the pool, just at a single point and always in the same direction. The paddle in the stratosphere is the “wave activity” in the extratropical middle and upper stratosphere. This “wave activity” paddle causes the air to move poleward in the stratosphere, which causes the rising in the tropics, and the sinking in the polar region.”
Aside, here is an interesting animation of a Polar Vortex on Saturn:
NASA / JPL / SSI / Kevin McAbee – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="394"]
“Cassini took 14 images of Saturn’s north polar vortex on November 27, 2012 over a period of many hours as the planet rotated beneath it. The 14 images have been processed to remove the geometric effects of Cassini’s oblique viewpoint and of Saturn’s rotation, holding the outer bright ring of white clouds fixed. With these motions removed, you can see individual vortices rotating and shearing, and the central clouds rotating faster than the outer ones.”
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/saturn/saturns-north-polar-vortex-animation.html
Cyclemania and wriggle matching do not a science make. It is no better than palm reading without first excluding the null hypothesis. There are lots of things in nature and in the human-created world that can be found to observationally match seemingly unconnected oscillations or trends. To stay within the confines of observation is to not enter the realm of science.
William, your long response to me is not a scientific response. It is wriggle matching. A wizard who has set up shop to accept sacrifice to the gods did as much. You can do better. Follow the standard practice. Reject the null hypothesis first. Show me research on how natural intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections has been shown to NOT be the source of our short and long term weather pattern variations within the present interglacial. Or at least refute the lowly master’s thesis I linked to. Surely you can pick holes in his work. Yes?
Jean Meeus says: February 8, 2014 at 11:05 pm
English is not my mother language, but in the title should “becomes” not be “become”?
Corrected, thank you.
4TimesAYear says: February 8, 2014 at 11:06 pm
“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.”
Then we’re in for an early spring?
We have no idea. The Polar Vortex has survived everything that’s been thrown at so far this year. All we have are loosely educated guesses at this point.
justthefactswuwt says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:53 am
justthefacts,
Thank you for your reply. The book you linked to regarding Coriolis and Planetary Vorticity looks very interesting.
On the second question, however, I think the emphasis of the ‘Universe Today’ quote is misplaced. The main vertical movement of air above an area of low pressure has to be upward. Any downward movement would be a lesser side effect. As per your link to tornadoes, the base of a tornado is an area of upward motion, not downward. Any downward motion inside the tornado is a lesser phenomenon. Therefore I would say the Universe Today quote is misleading.
But I thank you for the answers. Much appreciated.
Regards,
Anthony wrote –
“snip – too far off topic, and Mr. Kelleher has a habit of disrupting threads with things that are inconsequential to the post. When we have a post on planetary motions, that will be the place to post your dislike of the 24 hour period rotation of the Earth – Anthony”
Don’t mind the dishonesty as that belongs to you but it will serve a purpose in the scheme of things in future.
REPLY: OK you’ve had your say, now beat it. All further posts from you go into the troll bin – Anthony
Watts wrote –
“snip – too far off topic, and Mr. Kelleher has a habit of disrupting threads with things that are inconsequential to the post. When we have a post on planetary motions, that will be the place to post your dislike of the 24 hour period rotation of the Earth – Anthony”
Once you go down the road of dishonesty then you are finished,had you just dumped the response it would have been fine but you didn’t hence that was an incredibly stupid thing that you did.
REPLY: OK that’s it, permanent troll bin for you. I won’t be insulted or called dishonest for exercising my own guest policy for my home on the Internet. – Anthony
Arfur Bryant says: February 9, 2014 at 10:29 am
On the second question, however, I think the emphasis of the ‘Universe Today’ quote is misplaced. The main vertical movement of air above an area of low pressure has to be upward. Any downward movement would be a lesser side effect. As per your link to tornadoes, the base of a tornado is an area of upward motion, not downward. Any downward motion inside the tornado is a lesser phenomenon. Therefore I would say the Universe Today quote is misleading.
Everything I’ve read indicates that “air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months” “NASA”
“Diabatic descent inside the stratospheric polar wintertime vortices of both hemispheres is a well known phenomenon which can be diagnosed based on tracer observations (e.g. Bauer et al., 1994; Greenblatt et al., 2002; Podolske et al., 1989). This downward transport is part of the large scale Brewer Dobson circulation. Due to the relative isolation of the air masses inside the vortices, the descending air masses conserve many of their characteristics. The origin of the air masses descending into the polar vortex is therefore important when determining their chemical properties. Some observations show that air can also descend from the mesosphere into the polar stratospheric vortex (e.g. Fisher et al., 1993; Kouker et al., 1995; Ray et al., 2002; Rinsland et al., 1999), which is supported by modelling studies (e.g. Plumb et al., 2002; Siskind et al., 1997).
As mesospheric air has a different chemical composition in comparison to stratospheric air, it is important to know how much air is descending from the mesosphere into the stratospheric polar vortex for a quantitative understanding of stratospheric chemistry.”
“We have shown that air which has been transported from the mesosphere was observed in the Arctic stratospheric vortex in early 2003. This was observed during 3 balloon flights, based on different tracers or combinations of tracers. The mesospherically influenced air propagated downwards with time. It was observed above 30 km altitude in late January as a layer centred around 25 km altitude in early March and around 22 km in late March. Model calculations show that the descent of mesospheric air occurred during November and December 2002. During the second half of December, when the first minor midwinter warming occurred, air of mainly stratospheric origin was transported polewards in the upper stratosphere and beneath this a layer of mesospheric air was cut off and descended further inside the vortex.”
“The clear evidence that mesospheric air was mixed with stratospheric air inside the Arctic polar vortex during the winter 2002/2003 is an important finding, which must be considered when using correlation studies to derive denitrification or ozone loss. It is also clear from this kind of observations, that for models to correctly simulate stratospheric polar ozone chemistry, the mesosphere must be included.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/267/2006/acp-6-267-2006.pdf
“The lack of solar radiative heating at the pole leads to alarge low pressure system during winter time. This low pressure system leads to strong eastward winds around the North Pole, forming the winter polar vortex. The edge of the vortex acts as a mixing barrier such that the air inside the vortex has a different chemical composition than outside (Schoeberl et al., 1992 ; Manney et al., 1994). The polar vortex exists from the lower stratosphere up to the mesosphere, but is strongest near the stratopause. In the mesosphere, the vortex area is usually larger than in the stratosphere, i.e. the polar night jet is located at lower latitudes than in the stratosphere (Harvey et al., 2009 and references therein). Inside the polar vortex, the air descends from the mesosphere to the stratosphere. This was modeled by e.g. Fisher et al. ( 1993 ) or observed by e.g. Allen et al. (2000). During a calm winter, the vortex persists until the beginning of spring. During some winters however, the polar vortex is seriously disturbed or even breaks down due to sudden stratospheric warmings (SSW), which were first observed by Scherhag (1952).”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/7753/2012/acp-12-7753-2012.pdf
Justthefactswuwt whether it is a disruption of the polar vortex?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif
William Astley, here is more information about the dynamics of ionization of the atmosphere.
http://icrc2009.uni.lodz.pl/proc/pdf/icrc0228.pdf
justthefactswuwt says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:37 am
“Brant Ra says: February 8, 2014 at 8:50 pm
The Polar Vortex is not caused by the mechanical rotation of the earth like a set of gears. It is at the foot print of the magnetosphere(magnetic fields) and the rotation/convection is an ionic wind…
No, there are numerous variables/causes but at its core, “The forced vortex formed in nested layers of viscous matter on Earth driven by centrifugal force that is caused by rotation of Earth in a differential rotation would rotate in clockwise direction at northern hemisphere on a reference frame fixed with the rotating Earth viewing it from the top of North Pole, and rotates in counter-clockwise direction at southern hemisphere in a reference frame viewing it from the top of South Pole.”
http://uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20polar%20vortex.htm”
Did you even look at that paper I linked to? The paper I linked to is observations of the polar vortex forming at the footprints of the magnetic field. Its convection activity is correlated with the proton flux, the ring current, ion activity at the poles, reconnection at the magnetotail, etc. They measured convection changes with each of these parameters on a time scale smaller than rotational changes.. There are other types of convection cells in the earths atmosphere but in this case at the poles ionic convection is driven by the solar wind and not rotation… It cant be any plainer. Read the paper and refute the points you think are incorrect.
Or show me where I misinterpreted the paper…
‘Low to Moderate values in the solar wind electric field are positively correlated to convection velocity.”
“A positive correlation between Ring current and convection velocity.”
http://web.ift.uib.no/Romfysikk/RESEARCH/PAPERS/forster07.pdf
Low Energy ion escape from terrestrial Polar Regions.
http://www.dissertations.se/dissertation/3278324ef7/
Hello everyone, I am no science major but I do watch the events around here as much as I can. And I have a question regarding the north hemisphere ice anomaly on the sea ice page. I notice we are well below average but I see ZERO ice being reported in the great lakes area, and I was under the impression that ice DOES form in them. Why is this ice not being counted ? If its because they are lakes that is fine. But shouldn’t ice be counted no matter where it is ? If the polar vortex went south into the great lakes region and added ice I think it should count or the ice numbers look WAY off. Just my 2c
Can someone explain how and why “low heights” are associated with colder than normal weather? Much obliged!
Brant Ra says: February 9, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Did you even look at that paper I linked to?
Yes, it is literally one of thousands that attempt to identify a link between solar/geomagnetic activity and Earth’s climate leveraging correlations. We covered a number of them on this recent thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/01/a-displaced-polar-vortex-and-its-causes/
and Leif and I debated this subject ad nauseam a few years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/watch-sunspot-group-1158-form-from-nothing/#comment-614697
The basic mechanics of polar vorticity are reasonably well known and while variations in solar/geomagnetic activity might be variables, they are not primary drivers of the phenomenon.
The paper I linked to is observations of the polar vortex forming at the footprints of the magnetic field. Its convection activity is correlated with the proton flux, the ring current, ion activity at the poles, reconnection at the magnetotail, etc. They measured convection changes with each of these parameters on a time scale smaller than rotational changes.. There are other types of convection cells in the earths atmosphere but in this case at the poles ionic convection is driven by the solar wind and not rotation… It cant be any plainer. Read the paper and refute the points you think are incorrect.
Or show me where I misinterpreted the paper…
The paper is referencing occurrences in the ionosphere, the Polar Vortex occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere, explain how convection in the ionosphere propagates downward into the mesosphere, when atmospheric pressure in the ionosphere is essentially nil.
If you are really interested in meteorological dynamics one of the best text books (and usually a standard in atmospheric physics) is “An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology” by James R. Holton. Is also has a chapter on Stratospheric dynamics, including sudden stratospheric warming.
Pamela Gray says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:54 am
—————————————
Well you peaked my curiosity and I looked.
Have a look at this.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-90.56,93.76,454
Surface temps sfc and wind..
the cold ‘mass’ looks quite huge..
This mass appears to be missing something, like ionization, to give it a little lifting to be on its way or something..
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-90.56,93.76,454
Manley Roach says: February 9, 2014 at 2:10 pm
I notice we are well below average but I see ZERO ice being reported in the great lakes area, and I was under the impression that ice DOES form in them. Why is this ice not being counted ? If its because they are lakes that is fine. But shouldn’t ice be counted no matter where it is ? If the polar vortex went south into the great lakes region and added ice I think it should count or the ice numbers look WAY off. Just my 2c
As you said, most of them measure “Sea Ice”;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_prev_L.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
which the Great Lakes are not. We offer this US National Ice Center – Naval Ice Center – IMS Total Ice graph “Total IMS Sea and Lake Ice extent coverage calculations are based on all water bodies that have the majority of the surface covered at 4 KM resolution.” ” Values represent the entire area of ice covered water bodies over the entire Northern Hemisphere and are calculated in Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area Projection with a WGS84 Datum.”
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/ims_data.jpg
however, for some reason “total ice coverages are only calculated from March – September of each year to capture the maximum and minimum values for the season.”
As such, unless you can find another source, you will need to wait until March to see Total Northern Ice Cover. However, Anthony did cover Great Lakes ice cover in an article on WUWT last week, which might be helpful to you
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/08/the-great-lakes-may-hit-record-ice-cover-this-year/
Carla, fascinating isn’t it. Notice the rotating pressure systems over water and not over land. Those oceans sure affect atmospheric systems do they not?
justthefactswuwt says:
The basic mechanics of polar vorticity are reasonably well known and while variations in solar/geomagnetic activity might be variables, they are not primary drivers of the phenomenon.
Consent. But solar activity is such as 100 years ago. Now it turns out, how has the impact on the climate.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg
Yes it looks exactly the pressure distribution over the the polar circle. It is not beneficial for America.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2nvcmma.jpg
Low pressure is in an area of high radiation.
M Courtney says:
February 8, 2014 at 3:08 pm
————————————–
That chart of the ‘Normalised GPH anomaly’ from Oct 9th to Feb 5th is an exact match for night time temperature shifts in the No California mountains were I live, about 70 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
Pamela Gray says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:12 am
Cyclemania and wriggle matching do not a science make. It is no better than palm reading without first excluding the null hypothesis. There are lots of things in nature and in the human-created world that can be found to observationally match seemingly unconnected oscillations or trends. To stay within the confines of observation is to not enter the realm of science.
William, your long response to me is not a scientific response. It is wriggle matching. A wizard who has set up shop to accept sacrifice to the gods did as much. You can do better. Follow the standard practice. Reject the null hypothesis first. Show me research on how natural intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections has been shown to NOT be the source of our short and long term weather pattern variations within the present interglacial. Or at least refute the lowly master’s thesis I linked to. Surely you can pick holes in his work. Yes?
Pamela – what is a ‘teleconnection’? My understanding is that a teleconnection is a correlation without any known mechanism – or the matching of two wiggles. So you appear to be discounting ‘wriggle’ matching because of your ‘wiggle’ matching.
At another level, there is no reason why both internal variation due to oceanic currents and atmospheric effects and external solar magnetic /GCR effects could cause changes in the Earth’s climate. It does not have to be one or the other. Indeed, if these different cycles start acting together in the same ‘sense’ then perhaps more of an effect would be observed than if they were in antisense.
Ian W, please look at the temperature anomalies in the stratosphere. Whether they have an impact on the speed and course of the jet stream?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif
Or do you be related to variations solar activity?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
Whether change of ozone in the stratosphere depend on solar radiation?
Experts in the United States should consider why there in October to shift the polar vortex, which continues today. In Europe, thanks to this it is very warm.
ren says:
February 10, 2014 at 3:08 am
Ian W, please look at the temperature anomalies in the stratosphere. Whether they have an impact on the speed and course of the jet stream?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif
Or do you be related to variations solar activity?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
Whether change of ozone in the stratosphere depend on solar radiation?
Ren, It is quite probable that the changes in the Polar Vortex are due to Solar effects. What I was pointing out was that ocean currents and warming patterns may cause a reinforcement of the solar effects. These are two interacting chaotic systems.
Whether if this is the effect of magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth, you may find that the anomaly will be repeated during the next winters?
Ian, you are mostly wrong about lack of mechanism associated with well-observed teleconnections. For example, the gulf stream has a well known teleconnection to -IE mechanized reason for- warmer air temperatures and milder weather wherever it happens to wander.
The following link lists the teleconnections of the North Atlantic Oscillation. The teleconnections are most often mechanized via known properties of the connections between oceanic warm/cold pool affects on atmospheric systems (such as the well-known Atlantic hurricane tracks and their association with Atlantic sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure systems), the well-understood hydrologic cycle, and fluid dynamic theory applied to large scale atmospheric pressure systems and global “jet” streams. For more information about teleconnections please study meteorology. Teleconnections form the basis of weather system prediction, especially those associated with large bodies of water.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao.shtml
Ian, you said: What I was pointing out was that ocean currents and warming patterns may cause a reinforcement of the solar effects. These are two interacting chaotic systems.
Please parameterize the solar part of your suggested driver as being “chaotic”. In what way do you see solar parameters being chaotic?
Or were you listing ocean currents and warming patterns as being the two chaotic systems? Your sentence mechanics makes it unclear to me. Or were you referring to the teleconnection -the interaction- between them which you have said is not mechanized?
Ian, there is plenty of data -now being corrected for inconsistencies between measurement systems over the decades- to help you determine if there is a connection between whatever you are using for a solar parameter, and the polar vortex. The polar vortex does all kinds of things and frequently. So if you believe there is a solar connection, you should be able to find it, even though the polar vortex changes much more often and to a far greater degree than your solar parameters do. Warning: the polar vortex is incredibly strong thus requires a great amount of energy to change it this way or that.
My hunch is that for whatever solar parameter you choose, the polar vortex will act in similar ways inbetween the “important level” of your solar parameter as it does when your solar parameter is at its “important level” (whatever that is in your thinking), therefore requiring you to affirm the null hypothesis. And that is the way you SHOULD be thinking anyway! All serious scientists must go about their research holding on to the null hypothesis as being “the way things are” to avoid bias. Do you so think?
ren says: @ February 10, 2014 at 3:50 am
Experts in the United States should consider why there in October to shift the polar vortex, which continues today. In Europe, thanks to this it is very warm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Europe may be warm but they are getting a lot of snow
Headlines from the last week:
Record snow in the Alps
Severe snowfall buries homes in Austria
Record snowfall in Italy traps people in their homes
Ice damages 40% of forests in Slovenia
Record snowfall (almost 7 ft) in northern Iran
I do not think any of these people want any more ‘GoreBull Warming’
link to actual articles
Gail Combs this is the reason. Look closely.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=23.77,82.83,482
Do you see a shift over the Atlantic?
Here you can see the effects.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
Gail Combs says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:53 am
————————————–
Croatia and Serbia had very heavy snowfalls, also. It makes sense that a bit of warming will lead to greater snowfall.
Please look at the graphics.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/mv6hc7.jpg
Just a mere 7 days later and the polar vortex instability is gone.. It has reorganized and is strengthening.
Bill H says:
Just a mere 7 days later and the polar vortex instability is gone.. It has reorganized and is strengthening.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f168.gif