[This article was first published 11th March 2012.
April 2015 Dr Tim Ball in a guest article at WUWT references Dr Hans Jelbring’s thesis. This review may be useful.
Advection: The Forgotten Weather Factor
Sadly there are no more copies of the thesis available.
— Tim, co-mod]
Tallbloke wrote: –
Yesterday I had a full day to myself and the opportunity to read one of the copies of the Doctoral Thesis Hans sent me.
This is a superb piece of work. It balances the known with the unknown, and encompasses all timescales from the birth of our planet to the weather pattern changes which occur overnight. As an overview of climate and how we can go about trying to understand it, condensed into 111 pages of readable cogent thinking written in plain language, I cannot think of a better primer for those who have a strong interest in the relative scale and interactions of the forces which shape the changing climates and weather on Earth.
Hans sets the scene by making a realistic assessment of the extent of the incomprehensibility of the systems we have to try to understand through the cave-shadow mimickry of proxy series. These he deals with in more detail in a later section, taking a closer look at 18O and 13C proxies from various locations, as well as dust indices and other proxies. Within the unknown limits set by variously assessable levels of uncertainty, Hans extracts the key elements of the big climate picture which are pulled together to provide his expert judgement on the causes of ice ages and interglacials, the general circulation of the Holocene and earlier epochs, and the longterm storage and release of energy through solar heating of the SH oceans and NH radiation to space.
Possible extraterrestrial origins of the observed cyclicities and one off major climate events are discussed, and the natural variation of climate is emphasized at all timescales including our modern epoch. The internal oscillation of energy flows through the ocean are well considered and run as a constant theme throughout the work. Concurrently, the atmospheric processes which result from the interaction of these oceanic energy flows and the direct input of solar energy on the diurnal, seasonal and longer timescales weaves a narrative which supports the often unspoken contention – that wind is a powerful and poorly understood driver of climate at all timescales.
The strength of this argument was brought home to me the other day in a link provided by Richard III on my ‘new climate theory’ thread. In the page it linked to was a graph showing the relative effect of a 0.1m/s change in global average wind speeds on evaporation, compared to the change allegedly caused by the increase in co2 since 1750, which was equivalent to the error term on the vastly larger effect of wind. At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change. On consideration of the power of wind to change the rate of ocean surface evaporation, I am left in no doubt that he has identified the most important and elusive of climate variables.
Predating the N&Z hypothesis by a long time, Hans offers a formal demonstration of the effect of atmospheric mass on surface temperature, and offers this as a potential explanation for the bulk of the biggest swings in temperature the Earth’s surface has seen over the geological timescale. Additionally, two bonus papers on sunspots and paleoclimate are included in the appendices. And yes Joe, it covers centrifugal force and salt too. 🙂
I have five copies of this rare and historically important document available through the Talkshop literature resource service – details here:
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
TB,
And what creates wind?
Certainly need planetary rotation! 🙂
TB,
Here is a posting that Hans Jelbring did that shows he is NOT a big fan of the current structure of science and our political masters… 🙂
Click to access Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Joe, sure, and there are other factors too, like the meridional transport of energy giving rise to the major circulations such as Hadley. And the asymmetric heating of our Planet from the Sun, the axial tilt and the seasonal variation it causes etc.
At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change. On consideration of the power of wind to change the rate of ocean surface evaporation, I am left in no doubt that he has identified the most important and elusive of climate variables.
It is, imo, a prolonged period of dry weather over the continental land mass which brings about a soil moisture deficit which is too large to recover from. This causes the soil surface to ‘give up’ more aerosol dust particles than normal. Dust particles move for thousands of miles on existing wind patterns and are incorporated into the system of weather. This provides the atmospheric water vapour with more sites onto which it can condense. This whole process results in an increase in the energy provide to the system, by the system. It is well know that water has a higher heat capacity than air and so any increase in the water holding ability of the atmosphere will increase energy input and its‘ ability to move it about. This results in more wind due to the increased energy.
Once there is a substantial increase of energy to the oceanic weather systems from this process, the wind increase at sea creates greater turbulence, and so more salt aerosol form from wave spray and results in more cloud formation. The result is greater climatic variation, shifts in patterns and cooling.
In time the cooling climate allows the weather systems to penetrate inland and return the soil moisture to evapotranspiation balance, hopefully. Dust levels drop and energy reduces. Probably coincidental with low solar activity and an increase in cosmic ray aerosol forming potential which increases low level cloud amounts.
Effectively energy shifts from and between atmospheric water to surface water and is controlled by the amount of aerosol loading in the atmosphere. If dust level continue to rise more energy is intercepted in the atmosphere, less gets to surface.
The atmosphere has been getting increasingly dustier over the last one hundred years.
There is no wind without gravity, heat flow and pressure variation.
In essence wind is part of convection. It is also physical motion.
Hence the mention of a heat engine.
Key point in the generation of wind patterns are the lunar declinational atmospheric tides, which perturb the equatorial air masses off of the tropical oceans into the mid-latitudes in both hemispheres.
Looking at these meridional flow surges in the timing and production of hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather patterns with high rates of precipitation, yields a lot of correlation, although it is said that correlation is not causation in it self, but in all cases of strong causation mechanisms, show strong correlations.
If there is ammo in the gun, the hammer is cocked, and the trigger is pulled, it usually goes bang. Whether it kills some one, is not solely a function of the mechanical process.
If the meridional flow surges in the global circulation, are instrumental in moving the thermal energy of the oceans by the latent heat of evaporation mechanism coupled into the movement of the air into the mid-latitudes, or on into the polar regions for more rapid radiation into space. Then the resultant shifts in the 18.6 year period of lunar declinational tidal extent should show up in the long term global temperature trend.
The main stream idea is that the thermal content of the atmosphere alone drives the global winds and circulation patterns, if this were the case the patterns generated would be more diffuse and less cyclic, and defiantly not repeatable in sync to the declinational movement of the moon.
Granted the wind sucks the heat off of the ocean surfaces is a given, the question to answer for the advancement of future forecasting is what drives the surges in wind production. I think it is the lunar declinational tidal movement that gives the starting push the Coriolis effects gets all the credit for,
.
Hi Richard,
Both the 18.6 year cycle and the coriolis force get several mentions in Hans’ Thesis.
Tidal forces of all descriptions from various celestial bodies are given a strong place as currently incomprehensible features of the cyclic phenomena observed in climate proxies. Hans’ does mention two specific examples of proxy series which show a strong 18.6 year periodicity, one of them was the Nile data. I’d need to recheck for the other. Better still, spring a tenner + shipping and I’ll send you a copy. 🙂
So what does keep us warm on our planet spining in space, our atmosphere of mixed gases, one trace gas or the sun warming all that it touches?
James: You missed out the oceans. They keep us warm. Have you ever noticed how warm it is on a clear night on the beach in summer. The air cools down fast under cloudless skies, but the vastly greater heat capacity of the ocean just keeps on pumping energy into it without losing much temperature itself.
Tallbloke: Good point. Strangely enough I’ve never considered land as a source of heat (except when I cycled through several southern deserts and they threw off heat like an oven (during the day, not so at night ))
But I have always realised the sea as a source of heat (except when sailing far North where it is freezingly deadly).
Great Britain is the perfect example of this. In the South West we have sub tropical gardens, in the North East we have ski resorts, in the North west we have too much water and in the South East we have a drought. All of this is nothing to do with CO2 but ALL to do with the Ocean.
Would be nice though to edit posts and correct embarrassing spelling mistakes.
[Reply] WordPress doesn’t have the option, so I fixed your spelling.
There are some quirky tropical features in the northwest too, like the palm trees at plockton. The southwest has some great spots. I walked from Penzance to Newquay round the coast path a couple of years ago. There are some hidden gems there.
Yes, the oceans and their mysterious currents make a huge difference to climate. Plocton is at the same latitude as Newfoundland nearly. No palm trees there…
There is nothing of the above without the SUN…
sent 25lbs keep the extra for general funds.
Hi Richard, a very smart investment, you’ll be delighted I assure you. But you’ve done enough for general funds already so I’ll do a paypal partial refund once I have the postage cost to your address. Is the address on your paypal account up to date?
Adolfo, there’s only so much you can pack into 111 pages so whilst noting the possible influence of solar variation as one of the big as yet ‘incomprehensible’ factors, Hans plays safe and treats solar output as constant in his thesis presentation. He had to get it past the review board after all.
“””He had to get it past the review board after all.”””
Isn’t that a damning statement!!? The death of science for personal gain!
We really are looking into the abyss. 😦
blast forgot which site I am on.
BTW, that comment is not directed at Hans. Just expresses my anger that any scientist must prostitute his science to gain publication in the face of vested interests.
[Reply] I fixed your bold tags for you.
Hans was clever how he did this. In effect he said, for the purposes of discovering the other subsystems which affect climate, we’ll assume the solar output is constant. But at various points in the thesis he emphasises that the sun’s output may be affected by other solar system tidal forces, and that those effects may in turn affect Earth’s undeniable cyclic climate fluctuations both directly and indirectly via the Sun. It’s an issue which Hans correctly placed under the category of currently uncomprehended factors. The important point is that he didn’t just sweep them under the carpet to avoid confronting the issue of uncertianty as so many other climatologists have.
I suspect that the idea that his approach enabled him to make any personal gain will arouse some bitter laughter in the Jelbring household. Stockholm university has not been a generous alma mater to Hans.
TB,
Our current system of science generated a hell of a mess. Our current form of science is more of statisticians rather than actually studying our planet. Looking for a pattern that really does not exist in a confined time frame. We missed parameters when “observed science” was created that generated our science laws that confined scientists to areas they cannot cross.
I enjoy reading your posts and comments generated as everyone has a different perspective. Sometimes, it is crap but mostly, it is looking for understanding.
I am the ONLY person in this field of mapping and studying planetary velocity differences. This makes it difficult to consult anyone as they do not understand the significance of the parameters of motion. If I was able to work at this full time, all the planets in our solar system would be mapped along with the velocity of planetary tilting and our atmospheric velocity differences.
There is a great deal of “what if” factors of changing parameters which give a better understanding to our planet.
I know our current measuring of atmospheric pressure is incorrect as it is also layered like our oceans pressure, just a different density.
A very active sun gives off a great deal of mass particles which with the rotation of our atmosphere, can pick up some of these. The odds that our planet has been hit by direct solar flares is very likely. But then what protected the planet and our oceans? It would have to be the density change of our outer atmosphere.
[Reply] As Svalgaard tells us, the total mass of particles from the Sun into the upper atmosphere when a good sized CME hits is about that of a decent sized turkey. However, the tilt and eccentricity of orbit are important for other reasons, as is axial spin rate, so don’t feel your ideas are being ignored or dismissed. We just need to get the first order effects sorted out first.
OK, two more copies have gone leaving two up for grabs.
Thanks Richard Holle and David Cosserat.
I doubt this will ever appear digitally, as Hans old computer is in a mess, and the printed book looks like it was set with hot metal.
Last two, get one while you can.
This is unfortunately the way books are lost, got several of those where I might be able to persuade spouses to release copyright but there is no digital source.
If something is important it can be copy typed.
Richard Holle says: March 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm
“Looking at these meridional flow surges in the timing and production of hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather patterns with high rates of precipitation, yields a lot of correlation, although it is said that correlation is not causation in it self, but in all cases of strong causation mechanisms, show strong correlations.”
and
“Granted the wind sucks the heat off of the ocean surfaces is a given, the question to answer for the advancement of future forecasting is WHAT DRIVES THE SURGES IN WIND PRODUCTION. I think it is the lunar declinational tidal movement that gives the starting push the Coriolis effects gets all the credit for.”
Your comments are interesting.
I am interested in what type of correlations you are talking about and the source of your information and I appreciated your thought about the importance of winds relating to earth´s climate variations.
IMO winds are created by a number of physical processes. Jet wind systems, daily local solar irradiation variations, regional seasonal irradiations variations, density driven surface convection (Mobile Polar Highs and centrifugal force) and tidal replacements of atmospheric mass in varying time and spatial scales are examples of some processes and certainly there are mixtures of these.
Just consider the two most extreme large scale wind processes which are Mobile Polar Highs and cyclones. The former is produced by cold (polar) surface air moving at the surface of earth all the way to the equator where it comes to rest. Its maximum acceleration and devastating energy is released at mid latitudes (Google 1899 blizzard) and mostly several storms are just byproducts of the total energy release.
The second type is very probably caused (initiated) by strong relocations of atmospheric mass at the top of the troposphere which makes it possible for a hurricane to suck energy from the ocean surface in a secondary phase of its evolution.
A few of the Hurricanes created outside east Africa will almost reach east North America and turn back over the Atlantic to Europe in a third phase and end up hitting Sweden as an “extratropical storm” about 3 weeks after it was created (initiated).
It is easy to make to simplistic models of what causes the wind to blow. You could argue that winds are always way of nature trying to keep the surface pressure at sea level constant. When that happens there is little or no winds but there are always a number of processes that upset such a calm atmosphere. Tides are for sure important (relocation of atmospheric mass) but all types are important to understand especially since they have very different impact in different regions of earth.
(from Wikipedia) —-The Great Blizzard of 1899 was an unprecedented winter weather event that affected the southern United States. What made it historic was both the severity of winter weather and the extent of the U.S. it affected, especially in the South. The first reports indicated record-high barometric pressure over Assiniboia (now Saskatchewan) due to the weight of the extremely cold and dense air. Later reports of the impending freeze were relayed down through Florida by the Florida East Coast Railway.—-
Great Blizzard of 1899 — wikipedia
Assiniboia — Wikipedia
With respect to the brief exchange between adolfogiurfa and tallbloke, above, my present understanding is that the solar forcing is primary and vertical, while surface forcing is secondary and horizontal:
For Climate, All the Worlds’ a Stage
OK, Another copy has gone, Thanks Markus.
LAST ONE UNLESS HANS CAN GET MORE PRINTED/SUPPLIED
GOING…. GOING….
Image, Farmer’s Almanac
Adding to what Hans described..
NOAA reckon that is an example of the infamous “Nor’easters”, documenting many more and explaining the origin, where that seems to fit nicely without naming MPH.
NOAA web page here
Farmer’s Almanac describes rather more on extent, The Great Blizzard of 1899: Deep South, Deep Freeze
A retired editor at Gainsville times writes The Blue Sunday Blizzard of 1899
Looks like a YouTube item http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqSRivk0cPU but like most video does not work here.
“At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change.”
That was my first question and it came to mind within seconds of reading the title of the dissertation. Temperature gradients cause winds but winds also cause temperature gradients.
There are many chicken/egg problems like this. The ultimate answer is it is the sun that causes both winds and temperature changes and which comes first is therefore not a valid question because the answer can be either, neither, or both. That great glowing orb of energy in the sky drives everything. Without it there would be no climate or weather or people to talk about climate and weather.
@Joe’s World
Earth’s rotation sets a preferred wind direction for very large wind patterns while it has very little to do with wind velocity.
@Joe’s World says:
March 12, 2012 at 10:35 am
A tiny current that only can make rotate the earth once every 24 hours:
Ok, so what happens to winds on a tidally locked world?
W^3
“LAST ONE UNLESS HANS CAN GET MORE PRINTED/SUPPLIED
GOING…. GOING….”
Gone!
Thanks Murray, good scoop!
Back orders can be placed on this thread with no cash upfront, because i have no idea if/when we can fulfill them. 🙂
” At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change”
It’ s both of course. They are coupled events, as are most natural processes. So if you have A influences B and B influences A, then it is not possible to say that one is a cause and the other is a result.
B_Happy says: March 14, 2012 at 2:59 am
” At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change”
It’ s both of course. They are coupled events, as are most natural processes. So if you have A influences B and B influences A, then it is not possible to say that one is a cause and the other is a result.”
I made my comment above (March 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm) just to avoid generalisations of this kind which do not serve the purpose of informing people. Such ones just contribute to confusion even if there is a grain of truth involved. You can treat any of the examples I listed above and discuss QUANTITATIVELY how much of the wind energy is caused by thermal energy input and how much is caused by non thermal agents. That would increase our understanding above the level of general averaged statements.
Look at the winds created by the US blizzard 1899. In my opinion more than 95% of the wind energy was produced by mechanical force and had nothing to do with solar irradiation. Hence, if that statement is true winds caused the extreme low temperature in Florida by moving the cold pack of atmosphere from polar areas to the Florida area and further south all the way to the equatorial area. This reality influenced a lot of people in many ways.
When realising this as a fact the question remains why extreme cold air masses can evolve and why they move southwards seemingly along arbitrary longitudes from time to time. Professor Marcel Leroux coined the expression Mobile Polar Highs for this phenomenon. The understanding relating to it is in its infancy and the results of his work (and also the work of his pupils) has been practically ignored by mainstream climatologists for unknown reasons.
Could I go on your backorder list please? Would it be possible to scan the thesis and upload it, with Hans Jelbring’s permission of course?
B_Happy says:
March 14, 2012 at 2:59 am
” At one point in the thesis, Hans asks that we seriously consider whether the temperature change causes the wind, or the wind causes the temperature change”
“It’ s both of course. They are coupled events, as are most natural processes. So if you have A influences B and B influences A, then it is not possible to say that one is a cause and the other is a result.”
All climate is the result of weather and weather is controlled by temperature difference. If there would have been entropy in Earths atmosphere there would have been no exchance of energy and no weather.
What drives the weather is horizontal and vertical differences in energy(temperature).