ren: How did the polar vortex lock?

Posted: February 22, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, atmosphere, climate, Natural Variation

Guest post from commenter ‘ren’ a friend from Poland with a strong interest in meteorology and some interesting ideas on the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, ozone levels and stratospheric pressure systems.

How did the polar vortex lock?
by ‘ren’ on 23-2-2014

In October 2013 there was a decrease in solar activity, as evidenced by the growth of cosmic rays at that time.
ren1

ren-oulu

This decline resulted in a short-term rise in temperature in the stratosphere, the ozone zone.

ren-temp

As a result, the temperature rise was halted polar vortex, which is picking up speed in the winter. View.

It is interesting that the inhibition occurred only over eastern Siberia, which indicates that over the area changes in solar activity caused the greatest effect. Smaller solar activity means an increase of ionizing radiation over the Arctic Circle, which in turn affects the reactions taking place in the area of ​​the ozone over the Arctic Circle. As is known the temperature drops in the troposphere and the stratosphere borders later grow depending on the amount of ozone formed in the ozone zone.

These seemingly small changes in the stratosphere were the beginning of the lock polar vortex, which lasts all winter and causes influx of polar air over North America and warm, with short breaks over Europe. The first anomaly was the harbinger of the storm, which completely surprised the farmers in South Dakota in early October 2013. Weak polar vortex allowed the influx of warm air over the Arctic, which clearly undermined the growth rate of sea ice.

Occurring in the later period of solar activity spikes, surges resulting temperature in the area of ​​the ozone anomaly only deepened.
ren-oulu2 tempcostam-530x355

Recent strong growth in solar activity caused a strong decrease in cosmic rays, while the temperature in the stratosphere and the troposphere above the polar circle, as shown in the above graphic, which shows the temperature anomalies. It follows that the polar vortex should now speed up and shrink. But I suppose that shifting the entire vortex will still be visible.
ren2
So currently looks like the polar vortex at a height of about 17 km (70 hPa).

Source: LosyZiemi.pl

Comments
  1. “This decline (in solar activity) resulted in a short-term rise in temperature in the stratosphere, the ozone zone.”

    Yes, this is what I’ve been telling everyone for several years.

    A quiet sun is supposed to REDUCE ozone and lead to COOLING of the stratosphere and I think that is right above the equator but not right above the poles.

    The thing is that the ozone response to solar variability is reversed above 45km and the descending stratospheric polar vortex provides a means whereby the effect above 45km can be transmitted down towards the tropopause in the polar regions.

    A warmer stratosphere above the poles pushes tropopause height down and forces the cold surface polar air masses outward across the middle latitudes.

    It is the solar induced changes in tropopause height above the poles relative to the tropopause height above the equator that determines the latitudinal position of the jets and climate zones and which then affects global cloudiness and albedo so as to alter the proportion of solar energy that enters the oceans to drive the climate system.

    The lower tropopause height above the poles at a time of less active sun pushes large areas of cold polar air towards the equator and, being cold, those air masses are in the form of high pressure cells (as per Marcel Leroux’s mobile polar highs) and it is those high pressure cells that cause jet stream ‘blocking’ in the middle latitudes.

  2. tchannon says:

    GCM are showing badness a week ahead, 2nd March 2014, strong northerly winds all the way from the Arctic, below zero all over.

    Does not show as continental blocking from Europe but conditions are strange anyway.

    Whether this will come to pass and if this heralds a significant cold snap or another cold spring is a matter of watching and waiting.

  3. ren says:

    tchannon says:
    GCM are showing badness a week ahead, 2nd March 2014, strong northerly winds all the way from the Arctic, below zero all over.
    Look at the forecast of the polar vortex and jet stream.


    It will not be so bad. The cold will be whereas in America, where he will wind from the north.

  4. ren says:

    suricat says:
    However, This ‘correlation’ seems to relate more to Sol’s ‘particle emission/absorption’ and NOT ‘Cosmic Ray Particle’ absorption. Nevertheless, there is always a ‘background’ of ‘seasonally changing’ EM radiation which can only serve to confuse the data.
    Ray remember that the background GCR runs all the time. Once the solar wind weakens immediately intensifies the GCR. You need to bear in mind that the GCR is very strong for 10 km and covers the the whole atmosphere, and even goes back to the ground. Neutrons measured on the surface of the Earth.
    Greetings.

  5. Truthseeker says:

    Tallbloke,

    For me the money quote is in section 4.3 of that paper …

    For this reason, our results suggest that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is very small, perhaps negligible. At any rate, its magnitude appears to be too small to be detected from the archived radiosonde data.

  6. ren says:

    Solar activity is still high. Will accelerate the polar vortex. Will rise in the Arctic ice cover.

  7. Chaeremon says:

    @ren: you have a fan base with your predictions, keep up the good work.

  8. ren says:

    Chaeremon says:
    @ren: you have a fan base with your predictions, keep up the good work.
    Thanks and please help, how do you know I’m not a scientist.

  9. Chaeremon says:

    @ren, you wrote: .. you know I’m not a scientist.

    No? Hypothesis minus falsifying observations ==> advance of science by using the scientific method. Perhaps you meant your’e not a published academic, that’s quite a difference.

  10. markstoval says:

    ” … you know I’m not a scientist. … Perhaps you meant your’e not a published academic, that’s quite a difference.”

    Now there is the truth of the gods.

  11. ren says:

    Can see as arctic air is driven over the North America and can be seen a lock over the Siberia.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-155.81,68.30,481

  12. tallbloke says:
    February 23, 2014 at 4:08 am

    Hi Rog.

    That is an intriguing new paper.

    It seems to be suggesting that the tropopause is created by a mechanical process that results in greater molar density in the stratosphere as compared to the troposphere and presumably it is that greater density which marks the point where convection rising from the surface ceases.

    That suggestion is put forward as an alternative to the generally accepted idea that the tropopause is a result of ozone heating in the stratosphere.

    Be that as it may, they say this:

    “Possible correlations between solar ultraviolet variability and climate change have previously been explained in terms of changes in ozone heating influencing stratospheric weather. These explanations may have to be revisited, but the correlations might still be valid, e.g., if it transpires that solar variability influences the formation of the heavy phase, or if the changes in incoming ultraviolet radiation are redistributed throughout the atmosphere, after absorption in the stratosphere.”

    which means that whether the tropopause height is set by ozone heating or by their proposed new method then if it is responsive to solar variability the outturn is still as proposed by my New Climate Model in that solar variations change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

    My model simply requires such differential changes in tropopause height between equator and poles to enable the latitudinally shifting jets and climate zones. It need not necessarily be ozone heating that causes such differential changes though that is my best guess at the moment.

    If they can establish different solar induced causation then that could slot in just fine but they have a way to go yet to demonstrate the validity of their proposition.

    It could just be that above the height where the convective uplift from the surface runs out of power due to it being countered by the gravitational field the atmosphere becomes a little denser than the atmosphere below that height due to the absence of such convective uplift ‘diluting’ the density.

    On-going convection tends to reduce average density so at the height where convection stops it follows that average density immediately above that point would increase

    Is that all that their paper is getting at ?

  13. ren says:

    Will now be a lot of confusion in America because of the weather.
    Enter my observations show what is happening. It is clear that solar activity spikes precede changes in temperature in the stratosphere.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: I think they are saying the whole of atmospheric physics needs an overhaul… 🙂

  15. Rog,

    I’m further into it now but still some way to go.

    Nevertheless I do agree that they are overhauling the whole of atmospheric physics.

    They are pointing out that the slope of the lapse rate (a) varies differentially at different heights AND LATITUDES and at certain heights there are density changes that suggest that density does not decline evenly with height.

    Furthermore, an important variable is the height at which such density changes occur (c).

    That gives a whole new scenario for the ability of the atmosphere to regulate the flow of solar energy through the system.

    If you recall, one of my suggestions was that the ‘ideal’ lapse rate required for the long term retention of an atmosphere had to be maintained on average whatever internal system forcing elements tried to disrupt it. That ‘ideal’ lapse rate being set by gravity and atmospheric mass.

    I said that if anything tried to make the average lapse rate from surface to space diverge from that ‘ideal’ lapse rate then the only way it could be negated would be via changes in atmospheric circulation.

    That paper seems to be providing the necessary variables within the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere (and taking account of latitudinal positioning) to achieve that which is necessary for long term retention of an atmosphere.

    It is implicit from what they are saying that the entire global air circulation shifts latitudinally as necessary to maintain system stability.

    It does so by altering the values of (a), the lapse rate slopes and (c), the heights at which density changes occur differently at different latitudes so as to ensure that energy out always matches energy in.

    The physical manifestation of those adjustments is latitudinal climate zone and jet stream shifting.

    One aspect of atmospheric behaviour that GW theory completely overlooks is the thermal effect of density changes.

    Another, is the variability of lapse rate slopes.

    That paper appears to be addressing both issues.

  16. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: Yes, and lots more detail in their second paper.
    http://t.co/S8BPuKdBR0

  17. R J Salvador says:

    What a paper!! D. Rasmussen would not publish it in Copernicus.

    I quote starting from line 1160
    “For this reason, our results suggest that the mag-
    nitude of the greenhouse e ffect is very small, perhaps
    negligible. At any rate, its magnitude appears to be
    too small to be detected from the archived radiosonde
    data.”

    I quote starting from line 1207
    “The theory of \anthropogenic global warming” (or
    \man-made global warming”) explicitly assumes that
    the magnitude of the greenhouse e ffect is substantial
    for the Earth’s atmosphere, in order to reach the con-
    clusion that a doubling or trebling of the atmospheric
    concentration of carbon dioxide can have a major ef-
    fect on atmospheric temperatures, even though car-
    bon dioxide would still remain a trace gas[11, 13, 14,
    1215 20, 21, 26, 27]. However, if the magnitude of the
    greenhouse e ffect is as small as our results imply, the
    anthropogenic global warming theory would be in-
    valid.”

    and lastly I quote starting from line 1536
    “Our findings seem to have a large number of signif-
    icant implications, which we have attempted to sum-
    marise in Section 4. In terms of the current under-
    standing of climate science, a considerable portion
    of the literature may now need to be revisited (see
    the 2007 reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change for a detailed review of the current
    literature[26]). In particular, the problems we have
    identi fied with the current global climate models ap-
    pear serious enough to require re-development \from
    scratch” (see Edwards, 2011[9] for a good review of
    the development of the current climate models and
    Neelin, 2011[81] for a good introductory textbook on
    how they work). Nonetheless, we believe that our
    new approaches to understanding the physics of the
    Earth’s atmosphere provide more insight, and ulti-
    mately should improve attempts at weather predic-
    tion and our understanding of climate change.”

  18. ren says:

    Ozone in a polar vortex during the summer is more stable due to the strong UV radiation.

  19. ren says:

    Tallbloke surprise me hypocrisy in America. After all, the people there suffer most from such a position of the polar vortex, do not wish to to see my observations.

  20. tallbloke says:

    ‘ren’ Yes, as Nicola Scafetta said yesterday, they think science is something which is already in the textbooks. At this website, we are happy to explore new ideas from people who study data for themselves.

  21. ren says:

    “The polar vortex is essentially a mass of very cold air that usually hangs out above the Arctic Circle and is contained by strong winds,” stated AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski.
    Under the grip of the polar vortex, the Upper Midwest, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley will endure several days in the teens and single digits. This includes Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Montreal and Buffalo, N.Y.
    Was this comment is true?

  22. markstoval says:

    tallbloke: “…At this website, we are happy to explore new ideas from people who study data for themselves.”

    And that my friend is what makes this site so darn interesting. 🙂

  23. Jaime Jessop says:

    Oh my, working my way slowly through the Connolly paper. Hard going for someone who doesn’t even have an ‘O’ Level in Chemistry, but very interesting.

    If they are right, it completely destroys two cornerstones of accepted environmental wisdom, i.e. that industrial emissions caused the Antarctic Ozone Hole to open up during the ’80’s and Industrial emissions of a different kind are catastrophically heating the planet. As far as the former is concerned, it might appear that we are now looking at the Ozone Hole being created as a consequence of solar radiation, specifically, variations in solar radiation linked to the Modern Solar Maximum. Also, if the theory is correct, ozone creation/destruction in large areas of the atmosphere in thermodynamic equilibrium can happen much faster than previously assumed, with obvious accelerated feedback consequences for weather and climate.

  24. Jaime Jessop says:

    Thanks for the reblog TB.

  25. Rog,

    I’ve read most of the second paper now and see the emphasis on what they call multimers which are aggregates of atmospheric molecules that can change the thermal properties of the non radiative gases so that they can contribute to the radiative balance in ways not recognised by AGW theory.

    That returns us to the primacy of mass rather than radiative capability in setting the temperature of a surface beneath an atmosphere.

    Part 3 is to describe their proposed mechanical process of energy redistribution within the atmosphere (they call it pervection) and I suppose that is where they could set out a link with solar variations.

    Whatever the detail, they are clearly moving towards an explanation of ways in which the atmosphere can alter its vertical thermal structure in three dimensions so as to regulate the throughput of solar energy.

    If correct, that would support the idea that latitudinal climate zone and jet stream shifting is indeed the negative system response that is needed to counter the assumed thermal effects of GHGs and all other disruptive elements other than more mass, stronger gravity of higher insolation.

    I hope they really are on to something.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: Many thanks for the concise summaries. I agree with your assessments, as well as the main premises of your own theory. I wish the authors success, though as we have all experienced when trying to get people to read papers, they twist around looking for reasons not to if they think it’s going to upset the apple cart.

  27. Thanks, Rog, but my first post at 4.01 was a little off beam. Should have read more carefully.

    I think they say that density decreases at a faster rate at the start of the tropopause rather than a slower rate as I first thought.

    The other two posts are fine though.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Jaime, it’s a really good post, thanks for the props too.

  29. Anything is possible says:

    Jaime Jessop says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:23 pm
    Oh my, working my way slowly through the Connolly paper. Hard going for someone who doesn’t even have an ‘O’ Level in Chemistry, but very interesting.

    ================================

    Same here. except I have the ‘O’ Level in Chemistry, It’s not helping!

  30. suricat says:

    ren says: February 23, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Here you are ren. I was awaiting your response in ‘another thread’. It’s only fair that I copy the post that you gave answer to, here:

    “ren. Thanks for this conundrum, it’s really got me thinking and now I realise that Sol ejects ‘neutrons’, as well as protons and electrons during a ‘Solar flare event’.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/592/1/590/fulltext/56207.text.html

    Please see that link for a paper on “Solar Neutron Event in Association with a Large Solar Flare”.

    ‘IMHO’ (In My Honest/Humble Opinion), the “Oulu Neutron Monitor” graphic is too ‘peaky’ to represent Cosmic Ray Particles (CRPs are more attenuated by Sol’s ‘wind’ and rise and fall ‘slowly’ in ‘amplitude’), it looks more like a product of multiple ‘CME’ (Coronal Mass Ejection) events (neutrons emitted during Solar Flare events). Corroborative data is needed on the ‘temporal’ subject of ‘Solar Flares’ to validate this observation IMHO, though it does seem valid.

    The coincidence of the events recorded in the data from that monitor coincides with the “GDAS-CPC Zonal Temperature Anomaly Time Series”, thus, shows ‘correlation’.

    However, This ‘correlation’ seems to relate more to Sol’s ‘particle emission/absorption’ and NOT ‘Cosmic Ray Particle’ absorption. Nevertheless, there is always a ‘background’ of ‘seasonally changing’ EM radiation which can only serve to confuse the data. This needs to be addressed.

    Don’t forget that the ‘effective’ height of the Polar Vortex alters with season and reconfigures itself with percentage of local insolation during a 24hr period. More to this, the inclusion of ‘WV’ (Water Vapour) alters local density and renders this system ‘chaotic’.

    I think that any realistic ‘forecast’ must come from the ‘Strat’ where systems are less chaotic and your observations, though IMHO are misplaced, seem more valid.

    These are my primary conclusions following a ‘first reading’ of your article.

    I await your response. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.”

    I’ll respond in another post for clarity. There’s also a lot more to read here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  31. Anything is possible says:

    TB, Stephen et al : Here is the link to part 3, when you’re ready for it :

    http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf

  32. suricat says:

    ren says: February 23, 2014 at 9:22 am

    “Ray remember that the background GCR runs all the time. Once the solar wind weakens immediately intensifies the GCR. You need to bear in mind that the GCR is very strong for 10 km and covers the the whole atmosphere, and even goes back to the ground. Neutrons measured on the surface of the Earth.
    Greetings.”

    Yes, greetings. Unconventional, but understandable. I usually sign off with; regards Ray; best regards Ray; Ray, but others may well use; cheers; thanks, or some other ‘sign off’. I’m just trying to be helpful here. 🙂

    GCRs do ‘run all the time’, but they need to force their way through Sol’s ‘heliosphere’. The ‘Solar Wind’ needs to be ‘weak’ for a long period before ‘the ~constant’ from ‘The Cosmos’ can effectively show any ‘great change’ at Earth’s orbital distance from Sol. Thus, the peaky ‘spikes’ in the ‘Oulu Neutron Monitor graphic’ are due to a ‘Solar’ source.

    Please check your data. GCRs are best observed by sensors facing 180 degrees from Sol to avoid neutron detection generated by Sol. The ‘penetration depth’ is ~unimportant for their effect in the stratosphere.

    However, congratulations on showing another route by which Sol alters Earth’s ‘reactance’ to ‘insolation’. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  33. suricat says:

    Anything is possible says: February 24, 2014 at 1:40 am

    “TB, Stephen et al : Here is the link to part 3, when you’re ready for it :”

    Oh dear! I just got here. Lots of reading on my ‘to do’ list.

    Best regards, Ray.

  34. ren says:

    Suricat is, conversely, the effect of solar radiation after the explosion kept short, and it has a weak in the zone ozone ionizing radiation, in contrast to the GCR. What other summer when UV operates.

  35. Chaeremon says:

    @suricat, you wrote: GCRs are best observed by sensors facing 180 degrees from Sol to avoid neutron detection generated by Sol.

    Why would anybody, who is interested in intensity, look away from the observable object?

    Can you elaborate for us on measurements of levels of GCR, in particular the isotropies and anisotropies, and their change by change of observation directions. TIA.

  36. Andrew says:

    Second paper, Formation of ozone bottom of page 23. (6) the splitting could also be thermally driven e.g. Through high energy molecular collision.

  37. I’ve had a chance to look at Part 3 briefly.

    The concept of mechanical energy transfer via a process called pervection is introduced.

    The idea is that the in situ jostling of molecules against one another is enough to mechanically transfer energy rapidly from one end of a chain of molecules to the other end.

    It is distinguished from conduction because temperature remains the same throughout. Since a molecule passes the mechanical energy on as fast as it receives it the temperature of an individual molecule need not rise.

    The result of the process is approximate thermal equilibrium for the entire atmosphere which takes radiative physics out of the scenario because radiative physics relies on there being a disequilibrium which the radiative transfers within the atmosphere then seek to correct.

    It is a form of conduction, in my view, but non thermal since it moves energy around to achieve overall equilibrium without requiring a temperature rise.

    As soon as a molecule in one location tries to become warmer (more kinetic energy) than its surrounding molecules then the jostling begins and the ‘surplus’ energy that would otherwise have raised the temperature is rapidly disseminated through all the molecules in the system via pervection.

    It is the speed of that transmission that maintains system equilibrium by not allowing surplus thermal energy to build up in any specific location.

    That still leaves room for conduction where a surface is warmed by sunlight faster than the pervection process can carry the energy away or where a warm surface remains beneath a cooling atmosphere when radiative loss from the air is faster than pervection can return energy to it.

    Since conduction is still available to create surface / air temperature differentials convection can still occur in the usual way.

    However, since the mechanical processes (when pervection is added) create an atmosphere in overall thermal equilibrium there is no longer any need to consider radiative exchanges within the atmosphere since the mechanical processes have already achieved overall equilibrium.

    The radiative exchange then only becomes relevant as between atmosphere (as a whole) and space.

    A neat explanation as to why the S-B equation simply does not work within at atmosphere and it also accords with the opinions of those who point out that there must be a thermostatic mechanism related to the gas laws in so far as those laws affect atmospheric mass held within a gravity field.

  38. Pervection would assist in moving energy around mechanically to maintain equilibrium in the event that solar variation has differential heating or cooling effects at different levels in the atmosphere.

    The result would be air circulation changes rapidly and effectively negating the thermal consequences of any potentially disruptive forcing element other than mass, gravity and insolation.

    Their work is supplemental to my previous points about the importance of the adiabatic energy exchange and does not seem to render it any less important.

    Adiabatic onvection up and down remains the process which deals with any residual imbalances when conduction / pervection temporarily goes out of sync with the atmosphere / space radiative exchange.

    In reality there are constant imbalances either side of true equilibrium hence our latitudinally shifting jets and climate zones.

    By far the largest such imbalances being caused by solar and oceanic variability with changes in GHG amounts being indiscernible in comparison.

  39. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    By far the largest dry imbalances being Caused by solar and oceanic variability with changes in GHG amounts being indiscernible in comparison.
    Location polar vortex according to forecasts little change. Is America wake up from hibernation?

  40. Jaime Jessop says:

    Pervection – fourth mode of energy transfer; mechanical jostling of particles but so swiftly as to effectively maintain thermal equilibrium. Sounds like a thermo-acoustic wave to me, the so-called Piston Effect discovered in microgravity, but this would require a gas near the Critical Point.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.5283.pdf

    http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-en/10282-st-1990-the-piston-effect-discovered-in-microgravity.php

  41. ren says:

    When will be the end of winter? Polar vortex at an altitude of 30 km has accelerated.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=45.74,74.42,481

  42. Jaime, good find.

    Now we need to know whether pervection can happen within the standard atmosphere.

    And find some multimers.

    The thing that occurs to me is whether overall thermal equilibrium can be maintained anyway without pervection or multimers just by the usual processes of ozone heating and adiabatic convection.

    They point out a couple of issues with the ozone heating / convection scenario but I don’t see them as fatal once one takes account of adiabatic heating during the descent phase of the convective overturning.

    It doesn’t seem to matter to my Model which scenario is correct. Either way the effects on the global air circulation are much the same with varying lapse rate at different levels just as observed but all netting out to the ‘ideal’ lapse rate set by mass and gravity.

    This does all seem to be a bit off topic though because to get the polar vortex to alter the height of the polar tropopause and cause latitudinal movement in the climate zones and jets we still need (IMHO) a different sign thermal response to solar variations above and below 45km with the effect of the upper level response filtering down through the vortex as it descends.

    I don’t think multimers and pervection assist with that process.

  43. Jaime Jessop says:

    Which tends to prove my point Stephen that there is still considerable work to be done on pinpointing exact mechanisms for solar variability/terrestrial climate interactions. Maybe even now rewriting some of the basic tenets of meteorological science!

    But at least we are all grown up enough to agree that the ‘new’ science of climate now emerging is not settled!

  44. Andrew says:

    The authors of the 3 papers have produced an essay, in which they start with basic atmospheric physics for beginners. Then run through their study, with colourful guides. They emphasise how the AGW theory is defeated by their research, with help from Frenman and Geoff Hurst. http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/

    The Hockey Schtick introduces the paper & has a conversation with Anders http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/three-new-papers-challenge.html

  45. ren says:

    Andrew:
    “To us this indicates that most of the ozone in the ozone layer is formed from oxygen multimers, and not by the Chapman mechanism, as has been assumed until now.

    It also suggests that we have seriously underestimated the rates at which the ozone layer expands and contracts. Figure 20 shows how the thickness of the ozone layer is strongly correlated to the phase change conditions.

    But, these phase change conditions change dramatically from month to month. This means that ozone is formed and destroyed in less than a month. This is much quicker than had been previously believed.”

  46. Andrew says:

    Paper I ” In section 4.1 we noted the possibility that the heavy phase formation & distribution could be strongly influenced by solar activity. We also discussed above some mechanisms by which the heavy phase distribution could be strongly influenced by the geomagnetic field….. In this way the geomagnetic field could influence the distribution and/or formation of the heavy phase”

    Add to this the point made earlier about the formation of ozone, that molecular splitting could be caused by impact from high energy particles.

    Paper II. 3.4 explains how weather events can be influenced by these changes

    Does this point to an explanation or addition to, the mechanisms that lead to what could be called Piers Corbyn’s R5 periods?

  47. tallbloke says:

    500 page views on this article. Most read post on the talkshop yesterday. Well done ren!

  48. suricat says:

    ren says: February 24, 2014 at 5:28 am

    Sorry ren, but your dialogue is confusing for me. However, your ‘link’ speaks for itself.

    I’m unfamiliar with the abbreviation “SPE”, but my guess is that it signifies an output from Sol. This makes sense because our close proximity to Sol puts us more ‘at risk’ from Solar Mass Ejections than Galactic Cosmic Ray Particles.

    Best regards, Ray.

  49. ren says:

    Is X4.9 flare of spots in the East. The activity high. Polar vortex accelerates.

  50. suricat says:

    Chaeremon says: February 24, 2014 at 7:37 am

    “Why would anybody, who is interested in intensity, look away from the observable object?”

    This depends on what you want to ‘look at’. If it’s GCRs you need to cut the ‘signal : noise’ ratio by eliminating Solar ‘interference’. If you want to look at Solar Mass Ejection, you need only ‘day side’ observations to limit the ‘background noise’.

    As for the rest of your post. I’m pretty sure you understand this as much as I do. Neutrons possess no charge and are unaffected by a magnetic field, but particles that possess charge within a magnetic field may, by ballistics, alter the trajectory of a neutron by way of collisional kinetic impact.

    Best regards, Ray.

  51. suricat says:

    ren says: February 25, 2014 at 2:50 am

    This is a Solar led effect ren. Nothing to do with GCRs (unless you inhabit another Galaxy 😉 ).

    Best regards, Ray.

  52. Chaeremon says:

    @suricat: do you really suggest that airline crews flying long distance high-altitude routes can be saved from cosmic rays when flying your 180° or at an another daytime?

  53. ren says:

    Suricat, GCR to 90% of high-energy protons, generally higher than those solar protons. Neutrons are part of the secondary radiation that occurs in the atmosphere. I will not be doing a lecture. It is Wikipedia:
    Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 10^20 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[9]
    Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth’s atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements.[10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.

  54. ren says:

    Thus an increase of neutron measurements gives a greater change in the GCR.

  55. ren says:

    Temperature in the Arctic has decreased so much that there was an increase of sea ice.

  56. ren says:

    How much more evidence of the shift of the polar vortex need?

  57. Chaeremon says:

    @ren: have you bookmarked Nir J. Shaviv: On the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver: The Debate Counter to claims by anthopogenic global warming enthusiasts, there is ample evidence to support the idea that cosmic rays do indeed affect climate (evidence will soon be summarized on this site).

    Shaviv is speaker at this year’s EIKE conference (en) in Mannheim, April 10.

    @Rog, what’s up with Shaviv, tallbloke commenters receive him controversial?

  58. tallbloke says:

    Chaeremon: Nir Shaviv is someone I’ve been encouraging people to read for five years. His paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter is crucial to understanding solar variation’s influence on the Earth
    http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter

  59. ren says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    I’ve read most of the second paper now and see the emphasis on what they call multimers which are aggregates of atmospheric molecules that can change the thermal properties of the non radiative gases so that they can contribute to the radiative balance in ways not recognised by AGW theory.
    Chaeremon, it appears that the current observations are consistent with such a theory.

  60. ren says:

    Let’s see the current distribution of ozone over the Arctic Circle.

  61. ren says:

    A sudden increase of ionizing radiation on the pole after today’s explosion X.

    Flares produce radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, although with different intensity. They are not very intense at white light, but they can be very bright at particular atomic lines. They normally produce bremsstrahlung in X-rays and synchrotron radiation in radio.

  62. ren says:

    We’ll see how long it will remain so high radiation.

  63. dscott says:

    With all the volcanism that is going on, wouldn’t the aerosols they emit deepen the polar vortex causing more temperature drops due to the heightened sensitivity of that regional climate system to already reduced light/energy levels?

    Another one just popped off today, Poas in Costa Rica.

  64. suricat says:

    Guys, whatever I say, someone misconstrues it. We really do need to disambiguate ’emissions by Sol’ from the general mess of particles that enter the Solar system from elsewhere, namely, ‘Cosmic Rays’. Sol emits at many levels that can be ‘classified’ as Cosmic Rays, but they’re not! They don’t come from “The Cosmos”, thus, they’re ‘Solar emissions’! The sooner we can come to terms with this, the sooner we can appreciate the ‘power’ of Sol and its ‘ULF’ (Ultra Low Frequency) ‘Pulsar like’ behaviour. I’m not an astrophysicist, but as a many disciplined engineer this makes perfect logical sense.

    ren says: February 25, 2014 at 7:56 am

    “Suricat, GCR to 90% of high-energy protons, generally higher than those solar protons.”

    Not according with your link of February 24, 2014 at 5:28 am:

    There the GCRs are lower on both the X and Y axes. Perhaps this is not a surprise since the altitude in focus receives almost constant ‘Summer’ insolation.

    “Neutrons are part of the secondary radiation that occurs in the atmosphere. I will not be doing a lecture. It is Wikipedia:”

    Please provide a better reference, Wikipedia is ambiguous on this subject. ‘Secondary Radiation’ may well be ‘duplicitous’ as to its ‘origin’. As an ‘aside’ (off thread comment). When a CNC injection moulding press, for the plastics industry, altered its ‘programme’ we put this down to ‘Sun Spots’ and ‘not’ GCR influence. Heck, around this time, Hawaii got its power grid knocked out by a Solar Flare.

    I’m taking a rest from posting whilst I peruse the papers that have been linked in this thread. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  65. ren says:

    Suricat let me me remind how and where to operate GCR, which produce large (high energy) tufts secondary particles in the lower stratosphere and the troposphere, where it does not operate solar protons and electrons. Operates of course electromagnetic radiation.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/cosmic-rays-info.htm

  66. ren says:

    Tallbloke very interesting behavior of polar vortex at an altitude of 30 km. You can see the compatibility with the location of ozone.

    How will be now the weather in North America? However Sun has an impact on the climate.

  67. tallbloke says:

    Ray: Ren has a couple of valid points here. GCR’s ave a high enough energy to penetrate to ‘the ozone zone. Grids are knocked out by EM, not protons. However, both of you should read Brian Tinsley’s stuff on the global electrical circuit and clouds.

  68. ren says:

    Tallbloke changes in the vortex are no violent. Solar activity has to be fixed by more than a week. Changes in the ozone occur after some time.
    X flare lasts too a short time.

  69. ren says:

    Here’s proof, radiation above the Arctic Circle this already GCR.

  70. ren says:

    Sorry, look at the data:

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cycling engines can be based on different technologies. No matter the technology, you can take engine pulse with a tachometer.

    New — updated with most recent ~2 years-worth of solar data:

    SST = 82% Sun

    Look familiar RJ? : ]

    Multidecadal Sun-Climate-Change 101: Solar-Terrestrial Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer on Trivial Extension of Milankovitch

    It’s a law-constrained proof. You can bet the life of your children on it.

    This isn’t about the details of mechanisms. This is about seeing in aggregate focus.

    Others are focused on studying micro-level details. Their studies have merit, but let’s remain vigilantly aware that there’s no fog clouding perception of aggregate constraints.

    I appreciate ren’s stimulating contributions.

    Thank you ren.

  72. ren says:

    It’s probably gamma radiation.

    Kp index low.
    Now is already so.

  73. R J Salvador says:

    Paul, yes it looks very familiar.

    On this excellent thread started by Ren: It seems to me that the solar wind effect on climate works in opposition to the TSI effect. As they usually increase and decrease together over a solar cycle, There is a fine balance between them modulated by the solar magnetic field. Spikes in solar particle emissions can however upset this balance. This is particularly true when the suns magnetic field is weakened like now and more so when we enter a general solar magnetic minimum.
    The electro-magnetic “Brian Tinsley’s stuff” mentioned by TB is very powerful evidence for the driving mechanism. And this gets back to your profound statement Paul “Climate doesn’t shift simultaneously at all latitudes.”

  74. ren says:

    This current polar vortex at 17 km.

  75. ren says:

    RJ Salvador, It is important to demonstrate that ozone reacts faster to radiation than it seemed.

  76. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 26, 2014 at 6:50 am

    “GCR’s ave a high enough energy to penetrate to ‘the ozone zone.”

    Yes they do, and any resultant collision is likely to produce particles more ‘exotic’ than O3.

    “Grids are knocked out by EM, not protons.”

    Of course, but what do fast moving protons and electrons from a CME generate as they pass through Earth’s magnetic field? Magnetic pulses! Can even disorient a homing pigeon. 😉

    =====================================================

    I’ve not had much time for reading TB, but the ‘density disconnect’ at the tropopause, from your first link, has surely been reported before?

    Equal volumes at equal pressure from samples taken from the lower strat and upper tropo are described as “heavy” and “light” ‘phases’ respectively, resulting in the statement that “This revealed a pronounced phase change at the tropopause.”, whereas few, if any, ‘phase changes’ occur here/there.

    IMHO this would be better understood as a differential to the ‘gas mixing ratio’. There just isn’t any observable ‘H2O gas’ (water vapour) in the strat, it’s mostly in a liquid, or solid, phase that adds to the mass/volume fraction. Whereas in the tropo, the ‘gas phase’ of ‘H2O’ (water vapour) is quite apparent. I remind you that, as a gas, H2O is ~3/5 the density of the remainder ‘atmospheric mix’ constituents.

    I’ll read on.

    Best regards, Ray.

  77. ren says:

    Suricat, the polar vortex is visible in the zone of the ozone. Changes in temperature of ozone accelerates and inhibit his. That is why it is so important GCR and UV, because they strongly operate in this area. They focused on the Arctic Circle because of magnetic field.

  78. ren says:

    Look at the temperature anomalies of ozone.

  79. p.g.sharrow says:

    The magnetic field is the key to the rest. The strength and polarity of the sun’s fields effects the stability and strength of the earth’s fields. Solar Radiation causes radicalization of the gases in the atmosphere. Ozone is one of the results. NOx is another. These revert when they have lost enough energy. Intense cold is one of the environmental conditions that speeds this reversion. Radiation intensity is shielded by strength and polarity of the magnetic fields, so the ozone concentrations are a way to visualize these fields effects. The circumpolar air flow is steered by high and low pressure areas as the atmospheric density is changed by the fields that pass through it. Back in the “good old days” when the ozone “hole” was discovered it was accepted that the intense cold of the antarctic vortex was the cause. Then an Ecoloon “scientist” posted a paper that floro-chlorinated hydrocarbons was the cause. And “Save the Ozone” save the world from human caused disaster was off and running. Anyway, the elevation and strength of ozone may well be a good proxy of the steering of the polar vortex by high pressure/high density atmospheric conditions. In California we have been shielded from cool wet weather by a very persistent high pressure area that pushes the weather high up north into Alaska bringing the arctic cold down into the eastern U.S. If that condition becomes common the great Ice Mountains of North America will return as well as those of north Europe. The great glaciers are built on heavier snows not so much colder climate. Cold climate is a result of that effect. pg

  80. Chaeremon says:

    Perhaps someone can help me? I’m looking at “Impact of solar activity changes onto the Earth’s atmosphere”, the department of radar and rocket observations of IAP-KBorn Institute.

    That page concludes with “The solar influence upon the semidiurnal tidal component is very small and nonsignificant. For further details see Keuer et al. (2007).”

    Unfortunately, their publications server does not work, but a copy of the Keuer paper is here.

    Now, this paper states that “only the tidal components correlate at most observations
    negatively with the solar activity”.

    So, what is what?

    B.t.w. they seem to have a hobby horse “due to a greenhouse cooling the middle atmosphere is shrinking (Bremer and Berger, 2002).

  81. ren says:

    Chaeremon says:
    That page concludes with “The solar influence upon the semidiurnal tidal component is very small and nonsignificant. For further details see Keuer et al. (2007).”
    The same rate, whether such changes of ozone are important or not. Or You take a look out the window.

  82. ren says:

    From such an anomaly in the region of the magnetic pole began to blockade polar vortex.

  83. ren says:

    Current Temperature in Canada and the U.S..

  84. ren says:

    Gamma rays also works in the zone of the ozone in the stratosphere.

  85. Chaeremon says:

    @ren: good picture, what’s the source, who’s to be credited?

  86. ren says:

    Chaeremon says:
    @ren: good picture, what’s the source, who’s to be credited?
    Here you are:
    http://bellm.org/blog/2011/10/13/limitation/

  87. R J Salvador says:

    @Ren:

    Vukcevic reported data for a strong geomagnetic storm yesterday;
    http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&amp

    Based on what you have been posting, would you expect that this will intensify the oscillation in the polar vortex, speed it up, force more cold air into North America, or some other effect??