Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Mark Albright, who reportedly lost his job as Oregon State Climatologist in 2003 apparently because of his views on global warming, drew attention to the failed El Nino based forecast for Oregon. Here is the official prediction.
Most of the state remains in drought conditions, and climatologists expect a strong El Nino this year. All those conditions are expected to combine to create a warmer, drier winter than Oregon usually experiences.
On January 16, 2016, Albright notes,
Portland averages 14.1 inches of precipitation over the 3 winter months of Dec, Jan, and Feb. We are about have way through winter 2015-16 as of today (17 Jan) and the winter precipitation total stands at 18.9 inches with 6 weeks of winter remaining in our future. In other words, we have already reached 134% of normal winter precipitation, and yet we are only at the half-way point of winter. Even if no precipitation falls for the remaining 6 weeks of winter (UNLIKELY!), this winter of 2015-16 will go down as a WET winter in Portland Oregon.
It is one of many forecasts that failed because they use the weather and climate patterns of previous El Nino years.
A useful article by Bob Tisdale outlined some of the problems with the sea surface temperature (SST) data that are considered an integral part of the entire El Nino and more widely ENSO process. The problem parallels the inadequacies of the overall surface temperature record. Accurate knowledge of the data, which is the effect, guarantees failure to determine the cause. Similarly, lack of knowledge and understanding of the cause guarantees failure to understand and accurately predict the effect. This is part of, but more than, the problems with turbidity, differential equations, and other basic physics that Essex and McKitrick identified so well in Taken By Storm. There is much discussion about the complete failure of the IPCC models, which is not surprising considering the inadequate data and mechanisms omitted because they are not understood or deliberately left out. The problem is more elaborate models don’t produce any better results.
This article will trigger the usual responses from people who present themselves as the authorities on one specific aspect of the vast complex system that is weather and climate. They are the so-called climate scientists. The idea that you can know and understand the role of any one portion of Figure 1 illustrates the complexity and the limitations of specialization within the Earth-atmosphere system. There is only one input, solar radiation, but that ignores other mechanisms that result in changes within the system. There is an obsession with radiation that ignores physical and other mechanisms of change. This parallels the problem of ignoring gravity in the global vertical temperature gradient and the wind as a major cause of change among others.
Understanding one piece requires knowledge of the much larger segment if not the entire system, as the arrows try to indicate. Systems Analysts recognize the challenge because it is a systems diagram. They developed their expertize to deal with real world problems of interrelationships and interconnectivity.
Figure 1: (Source Kellogg and Schneider, 1974).
In universities, the problem of specialization quickly challenged academics dealing with real world problems and resulted in the creation of inter-disciplinary studies. The real world is integrated, a fact no model or prediction can avoid.
The reason climatology was studied and taught in Geography Departments is because it is the original integrative discipline. Some referred to as Chorology defined as
the study of the causal relations between geographical phenomena occurring within a particular region.
Specialists deride it as a generalist discipline with the epithet of being jacks-of-all-trades, but masters of none. These specialists who saw an opportunity of funding in global warming believed that their piece of the puzzle was the answer. It wasn’t, but it did create the new category of climate scientists. In fact, they are people who study one small part of the complex weather and climate system. Failed predictions reflect their limitations.
Specialization is a major explanation, but it is reinforced by omitted and incorrect assumptions including that
· Most ignore the fact that cold air dominates so that warm air only moves into an area after the cold air recedes.
· An external forcing is detectable in all climate records and that an external forcing is detectable at all latitudes.
· A 30, 50, 100, or even 1000 – year record is an adequate representation of climate change.
· There are data sets adequate as the basis for any climate model.
· They believe it is safe to eliminate a variable to accommodate the limited computer capacity and assume the analysis is still valid at any point in the climate record.
· Physical force, such as the solar wind, wind, or magnetism are as important and sometimes more so than those considered.
El Nino Alone Illustrates Why IPCC Science Is Wrong
IPCC Reports claim with 95+ percent certainty that increases in global temperature since 1950 are due to human addition of CO2. This claim is made despite the omission or lack of understanding of most major temperature altering mechanisms. Most climate scientists who question the IPCC are little better as they focus, without full or contextual understanding, on one or two possible causes. El Nino events are a good example. Once again we are in the middle of an El Nino event that is reportedly modifying temperatures beyond the claimed human effect. The predictions about its strength and impact were wrong again. Why? As Erl Happ noted,
If we wish to understand the ENSO phenomenon we must look beyond the tropics for causal factors. ENSO in the Pacific is just one facet of change in the tropics. Change is driven by air pressure variations at mid and especially high latitudes.
Historical El Nino
Most of the public incorrectly thinks El Nino is a new phenomenon resulting from global warming. The only thing relatively new is scientific awareness and its influence on global climate. Inca, who sailed the Pacific coast of South America for millennia, knew its effects well. Their priests observed the Pleiades star formation in the spring from high in the Andes to study the optical conditions. They knew empirically that the difference between a clear or shimmering cluster of stars determined the precipitation pattern. It was a useful rainfall predictor and guided when to plant their main crop, potatoes. The atmospheric conditions vary between unstable and stable conditions as the Pacific Ocean switches between El Nino and La Nina, which determines the precipitation pattern. The Inca also knew a great deal from sailing Balsawood rafts to fish and visit the Galapagos Islands. Quinn and Neal produced a detailed record of El Nino events from 1522 to 1987 in Climate Since A.D.1500.
Spanish sailors learned from the Inca and their experiences. They named it after the little Christ child because it occurred near Christmas. Sir Francis Drake was a first class navigator but needed someone who knew the Pacific currents when he rounded Cape Horn in 1579. He captured a Spanish vessel and used the navigator Morera to avoid the El Nino currents and reach the west coast of Canada. Morera became ill near Oregon and was put ashore to increase his chances of survival. He promptly walked to Mexico and reported what Drake was doing to Spanish authorities.
Science of El Nino
Sir Gilbert Walker produced the first scientific discussions of alternating wind patterns in the Pacific in the early 20th century. Later it was called the Walker Circulation. In 1924, Walker introduced the term Southern Oscillation (SO), which is now used as an Index (SOI) to measure the difference in pressure between Darwin in Australia and Tahiti. Wang reports that scientific analysis began much later.
The earliest studies for causing tropical Pacific climate variability associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) can be dated back to Bjerknes (1966 and 1969). Bjerknes provided evidence that the long-term persistence of climate anomalies associated with Walker’s Southern Oscillation (Walker and Bliss 1932) is closely associated with slowly evolving sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the equatorial eastern and central Pacific. Bjerknes hypothesized that a positive ocean-atmosphere feedback involved the Walker circulation is responsible for the SST warming observed in the equatorial eastern and central Pacific.
I remember when these studies appeared but know that they had little impact in climatology and especially among the public. Part of this was because the focus, especially in the US, was on global cooling at the time. It was also because its impacts were primarily in northern South America and Central America. Unfortunately, we live in a world that determines the importance of a natural event on where it occurs. El Nino achieved global headlines when in 1982-1983 because it moved north to impact California. It was terrible as beachfront houses of celebrities in Malibu were threatened (Figure 2).
Like all ‘new’ discoveries of natural weather phenomenon, it became an explanation for many events, but the lack of understanding of the mechanism makes predictions very difficult.
Figure 3 is a schematic of El Nino and La Nina showing the reversal of ocean surface currents that creates alternating warm and cold water on each side of the Pacific.
Figure 3: La Nina and El Nino and Related Weather Patterns
Surface winds are created by the difference in pressure, so the air moves from the High pressure to the Low. The SOI measures the oscillating pressure difference as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Graph of recent SOI.
There is a general period of 4 years, but this varies from 2 to 7 years. Intensity and location of the events also vary. This is a major stumbling block for computer models as Wang explained.
“The ENSO oscillator models produce periodic solutions, whereas ENSO variability in nature is known to be irregular.”
There are similar problems of variability in location and latitude of El Nino events. On the American side, it is predominantly in the southern hemisphere with the northern edge affecting northern South America and touching the southwestern USA. The 1982-83 event dispelled that idea but didn’t trigger the analysis and explanation required. Nobody has effectively explained why the 1998 event triggered such a dramatic peak in global temperature. Nobody has explained why an El Nino has a measurable global impact on temperature when La Nina, which is also a large area of warm water, but on the other side of the Pacific, does not create a similar temperature impact.
Focus is on pressure, ocean currents and sea surface temperature differences, but these are effects, not the cause. Something must cause a complete reversal of the general wind patterns for the ocean currents to reverse. There are three major global wind patterns, Polar Easterlies, Mid-Latitude Westerlies, and equatorial easterlies. Only the latter disappear or reverse flow and seem to be the mechanism that causes reversals at the surface. The question is what causes the upper-level equatorial wind reversals? The IPCC tacitly acknowledge they don’t know in their 2007 Report.
“There are also apparent decadal variations in ENSO forecast skill (Balmaseda et al., 1995; Ji et al., 1996; Kirtman and Schopf, 1998), and the sources of these variations are the subject of some debate. Finally, it remains unclear how changes in the mean climate will ultimately affect ENSO predictability (Collins et al., 2002).”
They are just as unsure in the 2013 IPCC Report. As an unusual NOAA analysis says,
The IPCC has LOW confidence in exactly what will happen to ENSO in the future even while they have HIGH confidence that ENSO itself will continue.
It is unusual because its banner says, “ENSO +Climate Change = Headache. This quote reinforces that assessment.
If there is one bit of knowledge you should leave the ENSO blog with, it is that ENSO is a complex system of give and take between the atmosphere and the ocean (see here or here or maybe here, and just for good measure here). Imagine a dining room whose light is controlled by a dimmer switch. If you want to make the room brighter, adjust the switch. Now, imagine instead of one dimmer switch on the wall there are hundreds, all of which affect the amount of light in the room. That light is ENSO. And climate change is some bratty kid who goes into the room and fiddles with each switch differently. Will the end result of his fiddling be a brighter room (i.e. stronger or more frequent ENSO) or a darker room (weaker or less frequent ENSO)? Hard to say.
They are all ignoring the obvious. They assume that the cause and effect are within the ocean/atmosphere system. It is not. There is no explanation for the mechanism that causes the reversal of pressure between the different sides of the Pacific. Surface pressure differences are caused by temperature difference, but there is no evidence or plausible explanation for that temperature difference. It appears that the primary forcing is in the mechanism that causes a reversal of the Equatorial easterlies.
Figure 1, from the latest IPCC report, shows one possible way the Pacific Ocean might change if the central/eastern Pacific Ocean warms faster than areas in the western Pacific or just north or south of the equator. The resulting reduction in sea level pressure difference between the east and west is due to weakening high sea level pressure in the east as SSTs warm more so than SSTs in the west. This weakens the trade winds and the overall Walker Circulation (IPCC, 2013; Collins et al. 2010). However, keep in mind, other studies suggest the SST gradient and the Walker Circulation could strengthen (Cane, 1997; Solomon and Newman, 2012; L’Heureux et al., 2013).
In a 2004 study titled, “Extreme climate of the global troposphere and stratosphere in 1940-42 related to El Nino” the authors wrote.
Although the El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomenon is the most prominent mode of climate variability and affects weather and climate in large parts of the world, its effects on Europe and the high-latitude stratosphere are controversial.
We conclude that the observed anomalies constitute a recurring extreme state of the global troposphere–stratosphere system in northern winter that is related to strong El Niño events.
These observations assume incorrectly that El Nino is causing changes in the Jet Stream. Labitzke and van Loon wrote about sun/atmosphere relationship in1992 and reinforced their findings in 1994.
This paper brings up-to-date our correlations between the 10.7cm solar flux and 30mb heights, and our composites of temperatures and geopotential heights grouped according to the extremes of the 11-year solar cycle. It shows that our earlier results are robust. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the large correlation coefficients between the solar flux and the 30mb heights to a great extent are associated with temperature variations on a decadal scale in the middle and upper troposphere in the outer tropics-subtropics.
There are some interesting studies that point to a relationship and impact not considered by most, especially the IPCC. For example, in 1974 J. King published Weather and Earth’s Magnetic Field. The abstract says,
A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of ‘permanent’ depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.
Another study by Professor Baker links solar activity to precipitation, and concludes,
“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”
The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. Droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect, according to new research.
Interesting correlations, but what are the cause/effect mechanisms? All of these factors attracted my interest during research for my doctoral thesis. I discovered a strong 22-year cycle in a spectral analysis of a long precipitation record for two weather records. One, Churchill, is climatically subarctic. The other, York Factory is mid-latitude and within the boreal forest. York has the 22-year pattern, but Churchill does not. This mid-latitude precipitation pattern links with research of drought cycles on the Canadian Prairies.
Evidence for a possible extraterrestrial driving force constantly appears as Tsiropoula notes.
The literature contains a long history of positive or negative correlations between weather and climate parameters like temperature, rainfall, droughts, etc. and solar activity cycles like the 27-day cycle, the prominent 11-year sunspot cycle, the 22-year Hale cycle and the Gleissberg cycle of 80–90 years. A review of these different cycles is provided as well as some of the correlative analyses between them and several stratospheric parameters (like stratospheric geopotential heights, temperature and ozone concentration) and tropospheric parameters (like temperature, rainfall, water level in lakes and river flooding, clouds) that point to a relationship of some kind. However, the suspicion on these relationships will remain as long as an indisputable physical mechanism, which might act to produce these correlations, is not available.
In a chapter of the book, Handbook of the Solar-terrestrial Environment the authors write
Until recently it was generally doubted that the solar variability in the “11-year sunspot cycle” (SSC), as measured by satellites, has a significant influence on weather and climate variations. But several studies, both empirical and modelling, have in recent years pointed to probable and certain influences. For instance, Labitzke suggested in 1982 that the sun influences the intensity of the north polar vortex (i.e., the Arctic Oscillation (AO)) in the stratosphere in winter, and that the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is needed to identify the solar signal. At present there is no agreement about the mechanism or mechanisms through which the solar variability effect is transmitted to the atmosphere.
I proposed several years ago that a possible major mechanism in changing patterns of upper levels is the varying pressure of the Solar Wind on the magnetosphere. It cascades down through the layers to the atmosphere, where it causes changes in the major wind patterns. The mechanism has to accommodate two major wind situations. First, is the reversal of upper troposphere equatorial winds that result in ENSO. Second is the change in the Jet Stream from Zonal to Meridional Flow. This is achieved through the physical mechanism of the solar wind acting like bellows on the atmosphere that expands and contracts with increasing and decreasing Solar wind pressure. It creates a push-pull effect that causes the weaker tropical winds to stop or reverse and the much stronger Jet Stream to switch between low amplitude Zonal Flow and high amplitude Meridional Flow.
The IPCC claimed with 90% certainty that global warming is due to human CO2. Lack of data combined with omission or lack of understanding of major mechanisms as major reasons why all past, present, and future predictions are wrong. The same is true of major events within the Earth/atmosphere system like El Nino or ENSO. As it is more frequently said these days, if your predictions are wrong the science is wrong.
UPDATE 1/18/16:
I turned over the office of Washington State Climatologist to Phil Mote in 2003. However, I remained connected to the office as the “Associate State Climatologist”, in fact, that was a condition I made for turning it over to Phil in 2003. Then in 2007 I was dismissed as Washington Associate State Climatologist for questioning the claimed rapid ongoing demise of the Cascade Mountain snowpack due to global warming. I was dismissed for not being a consensus team player in the global warming arena.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smart guy making a smart argument. This may not be a good explanation but some parts of it are certain to be partly right. If we can get enough truly smart, highly educated people to pay attention to Dr. Ball’s hypotheses along with other good ideas we CAN learn what causes weather and climate. Knowing the causes will permit accurate predictions which in turn will save lives, ease hunger and create wealth. Even the watermelons will have to applaud.
The liberal elite’s socialist goal is to reduce the Human population, not help it in any way !! They have absolutely no interest in the weather, but all your other points are dead on !
“These observations assume incorrectly that El Nino is causing changes in the Jet Stream. Labitzke and van Loon wrote about sun/atmosphere relationship in1992 and reinforced their findings in 1994.”
This is fundamentally wrong. ENSO does affect the global jet streams in a simple way. Air flowing away from the equatorial convergence zone aloft deposits sinking air in the subtropics i.e. the subtropical high pressure belt. The location of where the main convection zone is determines where these semi permanent subtropical highs are located and their strength. The strongest high pressure zones normally reside over the Ocean basins. In an El Nino year these highs are displaced over the N and S Pacific from their more normal La Nina locations. (It is worth noting at this point La Nina’s are just an enhanced version of the ‘normal’ pattern, El Nino’s are the anomaly.)
I have successfully used the tropics to make longer term weather predictions globally in my role as an energy trading meteorologist. I know that statistical models or analogue predictions using past El Ninos generally don’t work, especially if you group all the Ninos together and hence why statistical correlations with weather in Europe for example are almost nil. However, almost every El Nino is different, most importantly in the location of the strongest warm SST anomalies. This El Nino is more central Pacific focused compared to 97/98 so I look upon in dismay when I see people trying to predict weather long term using a single example like 97/98 which clearly does not fit this year but then again neither does 1982/83. Then you have to determine strength and areal coverage as well….not to mention whether the Indian Ocean is warm or cool in tandem with an El Nino.
There are many different factors affecting the global circulation. The trick is finding which is dominating. Right at this moment the MJO is making a play for changing the global circulation. So even within an El Nino year there are many other factors that can enhance or reduce the impacts of El Nino. It is complex but there is a signal to be extracted and can be used.
” energy trading meteorologist ” ..oh boy, more models…
The solar cycle of the sun is 65.7 earth years. Comprising three 21.92 year sun spot cycles of roughly 11 years positive and 11 years of negative stronger intentensive spots. The over all climate cycle is 789 years to repeat again. As witnessed in population movements to obtain favorable climates for food production over the past 5,000 years. I.e. northern europe.
No, there is no evidence that the 6 cycles in each 66-year interval are related in any physical way.
Nothing about the Sun is that consistent. Approximations would be more apt…. A little knowledge is dangerous !
The less people know, the stronger their claims are.
Yes, it always seems that way ..
The less people know, the stronger their claims are.
==============
strong claims = weak knowledge?
ferd-
“The less people know, the stronger their claims are.
==============
strong claims = weak knowledge?”
Shhhhhhh don’t point out that he made some really strong claims earlier 🙂
The ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is not the only one out there. There are other named oscillations/”oscillations”. In addition, random regional ruts that go on for a few or several years often crop here or there in the Pacific, and The Blob is just one of them. The Blob is a major reason why many storms hitting the US West Coast this winter did so farther north than usual during an El Nino.
Meanwhile, The Blob seems to be slowly weakening, and the storm track has shifted farther south recently, finally allowing southern California to get some surplus of rain. (Not yet enough to fix its multiyear drought caused mostly by The Blob in the past 2-2.5 years, although La Nina just before that also contributed to their multiyear drought.)
Also – there are 4 named “Nino regions” – 1+2, 3, 3.4, and 4. Most of the “Nino regions” area is in regions 3 and 4. Region 3.4 is the eastern 40% of region 4 and the western half of region 3, and region 3.4 alone is used in NOAA’s current Oceanic Nino Index.
(Nino 1+2 is a smaller region approximating coverage by the still-smaller Nino regions 1 and 2.)
Yet, regardless of what is happening differently outside the Nino regions from one El Nino to the next, there are also variations of where the most anomalous warmth occurs within the Nino regions from one El Nino to the next. For example, the current El Nino seems to have roughly matched the century-class one of 1997-1998 in Nino regions 4 and 3.4, but is looking weaker than the one of 1997-1998 in the part of Nino 3 that is not in Nino 3.4, and likewise in Nino 1+2.
Also yet, the current El Nino seems to have caused coastal waters along extreme southern California and most of Baja California to warm more than usual for the amount of warming in the Nino regions east of Nino 3.4. This may be related to The Blob – this could be a “south blob” that is detracting from the original Blob with assistance by the current El Nino.
Overall, this is a set of Pacific conditions different from anything since before WWII. For that matter, “business as usual” in the Pacific seems to usually be any given year or 2-3 year period usually being different from all other years or 2-3 year periods since before WWII, although parts of the Pacific can get into ruts lasting several years to around a decade.
Yea, but it’s so much easier to just blame CO2 so they don’t actually have to think about all these variables !!
Yes, and the other variables don’t lead us to burn lesser fossil fuels.
Well, well, well. Another non-reader mystified by El Nino. If you had bothered to read pages 23 to 28 of my book “What Warming?” you would know now what El Nino is. El Nino itself is caused by a low frequency harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side in a very large bowl we call the Pacific Ocean. If you blow across the end of a glass tube you get its fundamental tone, determined by the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are like blowing across the end of a tube and the ocean answers with its own fundamental tone, an El Nino frequency around four or five years per cycle. But it is not a perfect oscillation because other happenings in the ocean can change the frequency to be anything from two years to seven years. It can be traced as far back as we have records, even to the CET. It has existed as long as the Pacific current system has existed which means since the Panamanian Seaway closed, perhaps two million years ago. Since it is an oscillation Hansen’s prediction of a La Nina-like Pliocene is out of the question, both physically and time-wise. Starting with trade winds that blow from east to west, warm water gets piled up in the Western Pacific at the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. When the water level there has reached equilibrium height reverse flow by gravity begins. The returning water follows the equatorial countercurrent, runs ashore in South America, spreads north and south along the coast, and warms the air above it. Warm air then rises, joins the westerlies, gets carried around the world, and we notice that an El Nino has arrived. But any wave that washes ashore must also fall back. When that El Nino wave returns to the ocean sea level in back of it drops as much as half a meter. Cold water from below then wells up and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the air the La Nina will now cool it and global mean temperature does not change. This is normal but things are not always normal. The choke point of the ENSO system is the narrow equatorial countercurrent that may occasionally become blocked just as an El Nino is crossing the ocean. When this happens its way forward is blocked and it spreads out on the surface in the middle of the ocean and creates an El Nino on the spot. This is called El Nino Modoki or CP (Central Pacific) El Nino. As far as the warm phase of ENSO goes it does not matter much but there is no way to create a La Nina in the middle of an ocean. As a result, it is possible that an El Nino Modoki just may be able to raise global mean temperature, something that a regular El Nino does not do.
lol
Bill 2 January 17, 2016 at 8:44 pm: “lol”
That classifies you as a troll.
Oops – did not check my references. “La Nina-like Pliocene” should be “El Nino-like Pliocene.” It is not just Hansen alone who has this delusion. I get half a dozen references to it, all assuming uncomprehendingly that warmth of the Pliocene makes it El Nino-like. The real nature of El Nino was and still is unknown to them but they just have to join the “consensus” about it despite their ignorance.
Thanks, Dr. Ball.
It seems like the similarities between the effects of one El Niño and those of another El Niño on a different year can be enormous, but still, there is a common core.
I think more serious research is needed on what looks to me as the greatest factor of Earth’s climate.
OH NO “common core” ! sorry Andres i just had to say it, I am getting really tired of of all these circular discussions from all the people on the site these days, there is little we can do about what is going on as far as “Climate Change” is concerned. What we should be more concerned about is providing cheap energy and reliable food sources to those that need it.
Accurate
First use of this word in the text perhaps ought to be “Inaccurate” — or so I think.
After being warned of an El Nino, people in Australia braced for yet another drought. Instead eastern Australia got huge rains and Lake Eyre filled. Is there nothing settled in science yet?
I loved the tale of Morera: “Morera became ill near Oregon and was put ashore to increase his chances of survival. He promptly walked to Mexico”. Let’s see anyone try that these days.
http://www.lakeeyreyc.com/Status/latest.html
Hardly filled. Slight exaggeration. Re Nino for Victoria. Stats show a cool temp anomaly for SE Australia in Nino’s so not sure why the BOM went warm if they did at all?
The Morera tale is rather dubious and seems to be based on a desperate need of the Spanish to prove that Drake could only have mapped the Pacific coast with Spanish help. One Canadian historian who has studied the Drake voyages described it variously as as
‘A yarn that has been making the rounds for centuries.’
‘A nebulous fourth-hand tale, apocryphal and completely undocumented’
Drake himself reported having put ashore at a latitude of 38 degrees after having sailed south from the Oregon coast and wintered in a location that most historians believe is near Point Reyes in California. The local tribes were described as hospitable and this was an area that had already been explored by the Spanish in the 1540’s. A trek from there into Mexico is much more believable than one down the Oregon coast in the depths of the LIA.
You make a brief note that if temperature changes atmospheric pressure changes. The opposite can also be true. If atmospheric pressure changes, so does temperature. So add that to the list of uncertainties. On certainty we do have is that CO2 has zero effect on the mean temperature of a planetary atmosphere. It may effect the weather or the distribution of the mean temperature, but a simple analysis of Venus completely falsifies the greenhouse theory in its entireity.
My evaluation: This is an appalling thread. Tim Balls article is a fine attempt to grapple with a matter of great public importance. He gets no credit for the attempt. People here seem to be focussed on making ‘witty’ comments and the forum managers are running with it. This is sad.
I agree with Dr Balls comment: “Something must cause a complete reversal of the general wind patterns for the ocean currents to reverse. There are three major global wind patterns, Polar Easterlies, Mid-Latitude Westerlies, and equatorial easterlies. Only the latter disappear or reverse flow and seem to be the mechanism that causes reversals at the surface.”
Roy Spencer, who knows something about climate and El Nino gave his opinion of the source of the massive difference in tropical sea surface temperature that manifest across the Pacific suggesting that it was due to a difference in the rate of up-welling of very cold waters from the deep as determined by flux in the winds. In truth, we know that when the trades slacken we get El Nino.
But that is the change that we see near at hand that is in turn driven by change further afield
You can see for yourself that there is a tongue of very cold water that enters the equatorial circulation on the East of the Pacific and its much bigger on the South American than the North American side.That is a response to the interruption to the west wind drift by the near conjunction of the Antarctic Peninsula and Tierra Del Fuego on the south American side. The flux in the west wind drift (and the degree of upwelling of cold waters off the coast of Chile) occurs due to change in surface pressure relations between 60-70° south and 20-40° south. The difference drives the westerlies of the southern hemisphere. The westerlies have been gaining strength for 70 years. That puts the Chilean fishing industry in good stead and is progressively choking off the El Nino tendency.
That flux in the differential pressure between the mid and high latitudes is due to change in the intensity of polar cyclones driven by the flux in the partial pressure of ozone above 500 hPa. If the intensity of polar cyclone activity increases atmospheric mass shifts from high to mid latitudes and the Westerlies blow harder. Same applies to the Northern Hemisphere.The AO index and the AAO index have been developed to monitor this phenomenon.
As Dr Ball, who lives in Canada observed, the Polar Easterlies of the northern hemisphere are the only one of the planetary winds that can reverse. That’s important for the circulation of the north Pacific and Canada. In the northern Pacif the cold water tends to enter the equatorial flow further west. To do so it has to flow through a vast cloud free area under a high pressure cell with little cloud cover. That high pressure cell expands and contracts according to the rate of uplift in the low pressure cell centred on the north west Pacific. What goes up must come down.As the high pressure cell expands the surface warms.
I believe that Dr Ball never wrote truer words than these from above:
“In universities, the problem of specialization quickly challenged academics dealing with real world problems and resulted in the creation of inter-disciplinary studies. The real world is integrated, a fact no model or prediction can avoid.
The reason climatology was studied and taught in Geography Departments is because it is the original integrative discipline. Some referred to as Chorology defined as
the study of the causal relations between geographical phenomena occurring within a particular region.
Specialists deride it as a generalist discipline with the epithet of being jacks-of-all-trades, but masters of none. These specialists who saw an opportunity of funding in global warming believed that their piece of the puzzle was the answer. It wasn’t, but it did create the new category of climate scientists. In fact, they are people who study one small part of the complex weather and climate system. Failed predictions reflect their limitations.”
This is Leif Svalgaards problem. A great scientist who makes original contributions in a very limited area of endeavour who has taken it upon himself to educate a wider audience…Great stuff but not the entire answer. To see the big picture you need a generalist.
In the field of atmospheric numerical modelling there is an assumption that the atmosphere is a closed system. If Antarctic surface pressure falls by 15mb over 70 years you know its not. If the Antarctic stratosphere warms by 10°C in the space of a decade you know its not. And you know for sure that the prevailing theory that planetary waves cause episodic stratospheric warmings is nonsense.
Ignore ENSO which is an artefact of the strength of the winds. Ask yourself what causes the change in the strength of the winds. Ignore any temperature trends that are ENSO affected. It represents a change in the extent to which cold water is upwelling from the deep. Its like having a basket of oranges and apples. You can put one or other on top or a mixture of the two. You can have apples to the right and oranges to the left. But it doesn’t really change anything.
In assessing temperature trends don’t rely on any period shorter than a decade. Then, to take into account that the climate is forced by ozone that accumulates in the winter hemisphere look at the trends according to an interval no greater than a month. That way you capture the ozone effect. That’s what I do here: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/3-how-the-earth-warms-and-cools-naturally/
Well, I generally only comment on something I know a lot about, in stark contrast to many here [including you].
Are you really in a position to know?
I think so. And, at least, my peers in the Sun-Weather-Climate fields think so too, see e.g. page vii of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf
The rest of the report is good reading too.
I was once regarded as an expert in the field, and still retain a bit of the fundamental knowledge.
The ‘effect’ your link refers to was ‘discovered’ by me back in 1973 (see page 199 of my link http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf ], but didn’t hold up. Back in 1970s I was on the forefront of Sun-Weather-Climate research, so, yes, I do know a lot about this topic.
Unfortunately, the claims of the 1970s have not held up and my [and other’s] work back then must today be considered to be spurious.
It is a prerogative of a scientist to be wrong, but a true believer cannot be.
From the original reply above: RE request for exact words:
In the most detailed study to date [5], variations in IMF By of ~8 nT were associated with changes in high-latitude station surface pressure of ~1–2 hPa.
Our results indicate that a mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate weather patterns at mid-latitudes.
nowhere does it say that the magnetic field moves the atmosphere. A change in a magnetic field produces an electric field which in the present of a conductor (ionized air) can drive an electric current (moving the charges). The magnetic field does not move anything.
The first indication of the effect was in a paper of mine:
Svalgaard, L. (Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., United States)
Abstract: Some new evidence that the weather is influenced by solar activity is reviewed. It appears that the solar magnetic sector structure is related to the circulation of the earth’s atmosphere during local winter. About 3 1/2 days after the passage of a sector boundary the maximum effect is seen; apparently the height of all pressure surfaces increases in high latitudes leading to anticyclogenesis, whereas at midlatitudes the height of the pressure surfaces decreases leading to low pressure systems or to deepening of existing systems. This later effect is clearly seen as an increase in the area of the base of air with absolute vorticity exceeding a given threshold. Since the increase of geomagnetic activity generally is small at a sector boundary it is speculated that geomagnetic activity as such is not the cause of the response to the sector structure but that both weather and geomagnetic activity are influenced by the same (unknown) mechanism.
Publication Date: Jan 01, 1974
Subject Category: METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY
Financial Sponsor: NASA; United States
Imprint: In: Correlated interplanetary and magnetospheric observations; Proceedings of the Seventh ESLAB Symposium, Saulgau, West Germany, May 22-25, 1973. (A75-19126 06-46) Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1974, p. 627-639.
We looked carefully at this for several years in the 1970s, but with more data, the effect went away [as almost all other sun-weather-climate associations [correlations] eventually do]. Sadly enough, as if they held up, they would increase our funding enormously.
That there is a causal connection between the observed variations in the forces of the Sun, the terrestrial magnetic field, and the meteorological elements has been the conclusion of every research into this subject for the past 50 years. The elucidation of exactly what the connection is and the scientific proof of it are to be classed among the most, difficult problems presented in terrestrial physics. The evidence adduced in favor of this conclusion is on the whole of a cumulative kind, since the direct sequence of cause and effect is so far masked in the complex interaction of the many delicate forces in operation as to render its immediate measurement quite impossible in the present state of science. Before attempting to abstract the results of this research on these points a brief resume of the views held by the leading investigators will be given, especially with the object of presenting the status of the problem to those who are not fully acquainted with this line of scientific literature. The bibliography is large—covers a century—and embraces such names as Gauss, Sabine, Faraday, Wolf, Stewart, Schuster, Airy, Kelvin, and many others. [Bigelow, 1898]
These words appear to provide a modern and contemporary introduction to an essay on solar activity and the weather, but in fact they were written 75 yr ago. During this interval of 75 yr, well over 1000 papers have been published on the subject. It may be fair, then, to ask exactly what has been accomplished.
And those words were written by John Wilcox 41 years ago (in NASA Special Publ. 366, 1975) and we can repeat the question “exactly what has been accomplished?” It may be fair to answer: “not much”. The optimism we all had so long ago has faded as virtually no compelling progress has been made, and the correlations that we cherished back then have fallen by the wayside. Science is a harsh mistress (to paraphrase Heinlein).
Thank you for your continued contributions to these discussions. Your last statement sums up the problems in Climate completely. Both sides have true believers that continually talk past the problems.
With a focus in Solid State Physics during my studies, I don’t have the background in plasma physics to enter into any serious discussion of the topic, however I watch the discoveries in the area of lightning discharges with interest, because here is a place where vast quantities of energy move over extremely short periods. It’s an area where the low energy of a solar particle could trigger an extremely energetic event. It won’t happen all the time, and looking at it with statistics could easily swamp the effect. We are looking for many small triggers of effects which aggregated produce changes. The search is non-trivial, let alone finding the understanding.
Thank you once again for your contributions.
I don’t believe everything I read. But if the evidence just keeps on adding up and the behaviour of the atmosphere indicates that the mechanism exists, then I start with the inference and I am quite satisfied when so many people over such a long period of time, people of the calibre of Harry Van Loon and Karen Labitzke see a response to the sun in the atmosphere. I look at all the work done on the annular modes which represent unidirectional shifts in the planetary winds that persist in moving in one direction for the entire period of record and begin to reverse only in the last two decades and I infer that this is not a closed system……its a system subject to external influences. I look at the work that identifies the stratosphere as the source of change at the surface and I observe the role of ozone in driving polar cyclones and is therefore responsible for these atmospheric shifts. In short I see climate science that assumes a closed system when patently it is not. The interaction with mesospheric air at the poles drives change in ozone as documented by Randall, Seppala Clilverd and so many others. And so, the basic parameters of the supposedly closed system are forever changing……………and then there is the stonewalling of Lief Svalgaard and I really wonder why.
Some more research and opinion for Lief to mull over.
http://www.geo.ecnu.edu.cn/themes/261/userfiles/download/2015/7/20/ynb0f5ztbe6hur0.pdf
Indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation show correlations on the day-to-day timescale with the solar wind speed (SWS)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/pdf
Results are presented suggesting a relationship between the NAO index and the electric field strength E of the solar wind
This study confirms, for seven additional winters, a relationship discovered earlier between geomagnetic storms and subsequent deepening of 300-mb troughs.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793208040130
The influence of solar proton events (SPEs) with particle energies > 90 MeV on the evolution of extratropical cyclones in the North Atlantic is studied. A substantial intensification of the regeneration (secondary deepening) of cyclones near the southeastern Greenland coast after the SPE onset is detected. It is shown that the observed deepening of cyclones is caused by intensified advection of cold when the zone of the Arctic front in the region of the Greenland coast is approached. The results allow us to assume that SPEs with the above particle energies cause substantial changes in the structure of the thermobaric field of the subpolar and high-latitude troposphere, which form more favorable conditions for the regeneration of cyclones. In this case the role of the Arctic vertical frontal zone is apparently important.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682604000069
It was shown that the SPE under study are accompanied by noticeable pressure and temperature decreases at the high-latitudinal stations in the cold (October–March) half of year as well as by relative vorticity increases in the troposphere. The most pronounced effects were found in the region of the arctic front near the south-eastern Greenland coasts and Iceland. The weather chart analysis showed that the effects discovered seem to be related to the intensification of the deepening of well developed cold cyclones in this region.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC079i015p02161/abstract
700-mbar height difference between 20° and 55°N increases significantly in winter 4 days following geomagnetic disturbance Synoptic analyses of the departures of the mean 700-mbar contour heights from seasonal climatology following geomagnetic disturbance reveal that the effect proceeds with the growth and development of large negative centers in the latitude belt 40°–60°N and smaller positive departures at lower latitudes.
http://spaceref.com/nasa-hack-space/satellites-last-days-improve-orbital-decay-predictions.html
The C/NOFS data at these lower altitudes show that the upper atmosphere and ionosphere react strongly to even small changes in near-Earth space, said Rod Heelis, principal investigator at the UT-Dallas for NASA’s Coupled Ion-Neutral Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) instrument suite on board the satellite.
“The neutral atmosphere responds very dramatically to quite small energy inputs,” said Heelis. “Even though the energy is put in at high latitudes closer to the poles the reaction at lower latitudes, near the equator, is significant.”
hen there is the stonewalling of Leif Svalgaard and I really wonder why.
Perhaps I’m less gullible than you are; people believe what they want to believe. There are thousands of Sun-Weather-Climate papers. Unfortunately none of them are compelling. And none of them pass muster in my book. I’ll ask with Willis: of the thousands of paper, which ONE in your opinion contains the best evidence, which one is the one that settles the matter.
Heh, not one settles it, but several unsettle it.
==============
There’s plenty of evidence out there to work with. Trouble is, most of Climate Science is based on selectively ignoring most of it.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Here are some sound reasons for not believing “official stories” and against jumping to conclusions without scientific research.
The “http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/” Laing/Ward study asserts predictability, even for D-O events, especially at the scale of Ice Ages and interglacials. The mechanism is mega-volcano emissions, high in ash or halogens, cooling or warming (ozone-depleting chlorine, etc.) respectively. CO2, of course, is just a trailing indicator.
I think you mean turbulence rather than turbidity
“Understanding one piece requires knowledge of the much larger segment if not the entire system, as the arrows try to indicate. Systems Analysts recognize the challenge because it is a systems diagram. They developed their expertize to deal with real world problems of interrelationships and interconnectivity.”
This says it all, particularly when you are using computers to determine some outcome of such a complex system. There’s an obvious parallel even for the simpler use of computers in process industry control systems. If you produce a software package at the very start without fully understanding all possible interfaces and routes through the very many operating scenarios and sequences that could occur, and then later simply patch in changes, in isolation, to accommodate what you later require to overcome particular problems or scenarios that arise, then you start to get “unforeseen” system responses. If the climate scientists build inadequate computer models for forecasting future climate changes, and then start “adjusting” the programme or the data to accommodate any ongoing divergences of events from past forecast outcomes, then the ongoing system will inevitably provide ever more unreliable ongoing forecasts.
even here a strong el nino is not doing what it is supposed to do in Belgium: usually el nino’s increase the chance of blocking during the winter. in 1985-1986 we had severe winters, in 1998 we had one in 2010 we had one and this year the blocking appeared to happen in “reverse” with the warmest december ever. (mainly due to the NAO pattern that was very high in the positive mode which brings us subtropical south western winds. add to this we were on the warm side of an “omega blocking” pattern and nothing very abnormal here.
The only “abnormal thing was this pattern started around december 1 and the 3-4 weeks did fall right “in synch” with the month.
El ninos have usually the tendency to bring us at the “cold side of the omega block” but this year it seems it didn’t. However it is still too early to say. February is usually the month where winter can strike the hardest.
they say europe has no influence because of the el nino, and to some degree they are correct, but the cold blocking pattern tends to occur more easily during strong el nino’s is what weather events tell here.
@ur momisugly Dr. Tim Ball,
I thank you for posting the above commentary.
My comment is a little off-topic but is directly associated with these four (4) excerpted statements which caught my attention, to wit:
Being a per se “avid student” with a great interest in human migration from Asia to the New World (Americas) …. I have to assume that the Inca’s millennial old knowledge of the El Nino’s effect on “sailing across/around the South Pacific” was learned from their ancestors who were the first Asian migrants to populate the Americas …. thus negating the Bering Sea Land Bridge Theory.
Dr. Tim, some current analysis indicate that the Rapa Nui may have fingered ENSO earlier.
Voyaging and Isolation in Rapa Nui Prehistory – Ben Finney, Ph.D., University of Hawai’i, Manoa
Around 1,500 B.C., well after the glaciers had receded and sea levels had risen, canoe voyagers with roots in Southeast Asia pushed eastwards from islands off the north shore of New Guinea, and moved rapidly through island Melanesia to reach the mid-Pacific archipelagos of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Their identifiably Polynesian descendants then spread farther eastwards, reaching all the way to Rapa Nui perhaps as early as 400 A.D.
Typically preceding or during an El Nino event the usual atmospheric pressure gradient across the South Pacific of high in the east and low in the west flattens out or reverses. This is known as the “Southern Oscillation”; hence total phenomenon of ocean and atmosphere disturbances is referred to as an “El Nino-Southern Oscillation” (ENSO) event, although here I will use the simpler label of El Nino event. This oscillation manifests itself in a weakening of the trade winds, and the outbreak of prolonged and intensive periods of westerlies, generally during or around the summer season. Although these westerlies are usually confined to the western and central Pacific, in 1982-83 a particularly massive El Nino event brought a prolonged outbreak of westerlies that pushed far into the eastern Pacific. Reports of these westerlies has led me to hypothesize that early voyagers from West Polynesia might have employed the widespread westerlies of such major El Nino events to expand to the Marquesas and other archipelagos of central East Polynesia, and that if these El Nino-intensified westerlies extended all the way to Rapa Nui they might have been crucial in the discovery of this easternmost outpost of Polynesia (Finney 1985:16-18). Subsequently, Caviedes and Waylen (MS 1989) have developed the latter suggestion, citing wind data gathered on Rapa Nui during the 1982-83 El Niflo event showing that prolonged spells of westerlies indeed reached the island.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~dennisk/voyaging_chiefs/finney_voyaging.html
And unmentioned as yet is the coordination between two or more data streams, which will morph into a compelling set of new daa points, but be missed entirely by busy well meaning weather experts, because they are looking for only evidence of what they already believe to be true.
I have not studied the subject in great depth. However, could someone explain to me why the consensus (apparently) is that wind is the main driver of Nino. Why is it not a case of cyclical change in marine currents/upwelling etc? In this case wind is just a positive feedback. We are quite willing to accepts cyclical behavior in other marine currents and warm/cold water migration. You could be on a wild goose chase trying to explain wind as the driver. It could well be a symptom
reported what Drake was doing to Spanish authorities
=============
what was Drake doing to the Spanish authorities?
I’m very confused about the treatment of this El Niño by the forecasters. In 1998, it produced a zonal flow pattern to the jet stream. This produced a milder and wetter winter than usual here in Texas and greater than normal rainfall on the west coast. However, the “experts” told us this time around that Texas will be colder than normal and that parts of the west coast will be drier than normal. Why did they expect the same climatic phenomenon to would have different results?
I think this is not correct. To have more rains in W and SW USA you have to have the Pacific Jet displaced southwards from it’s normal location. This is not zonal (i.e. west to east) but rather more meridional (north to south) than normal. The jet stream gets displaced southwards in the Pacific as the eastward displaced anomalous warm pool of Nino and associated enhanced thunderstorm activity acts as an attractor. However, if the Jet is displaced south here, then it must displace northwards downstream as a counter balance and this will then set up a anomalous wave like wobble in the Jet until it flattens out again probably just in time for it (the Jet) to be displaced by the Nino again as it tracks around the globe in the mid latitudes. The net result is more meridional wobbles in the Jet compared to a La Nina pattern. This is why in some Nino years there is much more blocking or wave breaking of the Jet Stream, but this blocking also depends on the strength of the winter time polar circulation. This year the polar circulation is very strong so the tendency to block is much less likely until something like a stratospheric warming event comes along to disrupt the polar circulation.
All this sounds confusing but there are many factors which combine with or cancel out the induced circulation changes caused by El Nino and hence why each one is different and correlation stats are weak. It is also why broadbrush statistical or analogue forecasts often fail in Nino years. There simply are not enough analogue years and too many other factors that can change the El Nino influence. However, this year, once the polar circulation was obviously stronger than normal and largely symmetric around the polar region then it was obvious that blocking was less likely and that for the likes of W USA, a wet outcome and for W Europe a warm outcome was the only solution. If this polar circulation breaks down then the dominant pattern of this NH winter so far will change.
Accurate knowledge of the data,
Should that be — Inaccurate knowledge of the data, — ?
The New Zealand Metservice gave a degree of probability (80%) on its long term predictions regarding the influence of El Nino several months back. This is what we should insist on in every prediction. Lets cut the crap so the general public can start to learn about the uncertainties associated with climate science.
Interesting read from Dr. Ball.
I agree with most, but the most important force which drives changes of ENSO is missing from his article and that is of the influence of the Lunar cycles. I have found with the research I have made with my ANN software that the lunar gravitational force is the main driver of ENSO variability. The other important forces which I also can show cause changes of ENSO are changes in Earth’s magnetic field and of the Solar Wind, which agrees with what Dr. Ball says.
Believe it or not, but I have solved the mystery around ENSO variability. I have just written a up a description of how this work and its mechanism which I’m going to publish. One place for this is going to be on WUWT. Coming soon!
Typo?: In light of its lead-in about inaccurate assumptions, I think this sentence needs a “not”:
“· Physical force, such as the solar wind, wind, or magnetism are as important and sometimes more so than those considered.”
Except that the ‘physical forces’ exerted by these agents are exceedingly minute and therefore dwindle to null in importance.
If I may summarize; the atmosphere works like a large (imperfect) waveguide. Atmospheric magnetic tides are global scale waves excited by differential heating OR by gravitational tidal forces from the moon and sun. (editorial comment: quite a range of forces)
There are both gravitational waves and rotational waves. Each mode is characterized by a zonal and meridional component with periods of one solar or lunar day. The solar diurnal tidal mode is the most important. The lunar tide is 20 times smaller and insignificant. (editorial comment: what about differential heating?)
The geomagnetic east component is the best proxy for the solar diurnal mode.
Francois Arago described in the 1820’s how this component altered the declination of his compass in Paris by a factor of 10.
[end of summary, apologies if necessary]
ENSO has the peculiar habit of altering global mean sea level when it has no thermosteric right to do so. Can we rule out solar tidal influences as miniscule when they are 20 times stronger than the lunar tides we have excluded as insignificant, when after all, the moon is thought to control our common tides?
Secondly and far more weirdly, the “excitation” with integer solar and lunar periods through step change “waveguides” with gravitational (=vibrational) and rotational modes, sounds remarkably like the quantum resonances of a molecule. Gravity remains unexplained, but has waveform without the inverse of mass. What if the planet could be thought of as a molecule?
Like you say, it’s ok to be wrong. Far better to keep having ideas.
The solar/lunar tides ratio of 20/1 is for the ionosphere and does not pertain to the lower atmosphere [or the sea]. If you want to get something out of your speculation you must examine what new phenomena it predicts or which old ones it explains better. And the prediction must be quantitative. You know: numbers.
Fair enough. By what mechanism would gravity waves be attenuated in the ionosphere and not pertain to the troposphere or ocean?
Imagine you have a whip [a thick handle and tapering to a thin tip http://www.westernwhips.com/images/australian-whip-wia06.jpg ]. Try to wiggle the tip to see how much the handle moves as a result. Now, image the handle being a million time thicker than the tip and see how much the handle wiggles now when you wiggle the tip. Not much, I would think.
Ok, the whip being the transition from 1000 mb at the surface to ~.0005 at 105 km. Are these gravity waves different from the ones that cause common tides?
They shouldn’t really be called ‘gravity waves’ as they are not. Tides are not waves. Here is some information on the magnetic tides http://geomag.usgs.gov/downloads/publications/1335.full.pdf