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.
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!