Paul Vaughan: Wind is an dominant player in climate variation

Posted: March 14, 2015 by tallbloke in Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, solar system dynamics, Thermodynamics, Tides, waves, weather, wind

Paul Vaughan writes in suggestions:

It’s the wind.

Rial (2012) drew my attention to a fundamental correction that’s underway in oceanography (more notes forthcoming on this later) ….

Lozier, Susan (2010). Deconstructing the conveyor belt. Science 328, 1507-1511.
http://sites.duke.edu/mslozier/files/2010/11/Lozier_2010.pdf
=

Though appealing in its simplicity, the ocean conveyor-belt paradigm has lost luster over the years […] the ocean’s eddy field, unaccounted for just decades ago […] figures prominently in the dismantling of the conveyor-belt paradigm. Another player in this dismantling is the ocean’s wind field. The traditional assignation of surface ocean gyres to wind-forcing and overturning to buoyancy forcing has ignored the vital impact of winds on overturning pathways and mechanics. […] the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well […] because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning.

[…] wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning […]

Although many past studies have invoked buoyancy forcing at high latitudes as the driving mechanism for the overturning […] wind forcing―by creating surface mass fluxes and/or by providing the mixing needed to return deep waters to the surface―is instead the dominant mechanism (14). […] 14. C. Wunsch, Science 298, 1179 (2002).

=
— — — —

Wunsch, Carl (2002). What is the Thermohaline Circulation? Science 298, 1179-1181.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/dezheng.sun/lectures/haline/wunsch_sci_2002.pdf
=

[…] the deep ocean is in a near-equilibrium state, and it is not possible, without an intricate calculation, to determine if the density/pressure differences drive the flow field, or the reverse. Some authors claim to be able to separate the fraction of the flow derived from density field gradients from that caused by the wind field (definition 6). But the density gradients are set up primarily by the wind.
[…]
The only possible sources of this work are tidal stirring and the wind field […] a convective mode of motion cannot generate the turbulence required to carry the MOC across the stable stratification.
[…]
The conclusion from this and other lines of evidence is that the ocean’s mass flux is sustained primarily by the wind, and secondarily by tidal forcing. Both in models and the real ocean, surface buoyancy boundary conditions strongly influence the transport of heat and salt, because the fluid must become dense enough to sink, but these boundary conditions do not actually drive the circulation.

The ocean is thus best viewed as a mechanically driven fluid engine, capable of importing, exporting, and transporting vast quantities of heat and freshwater. Although of very great climate influence, this transport is a nearly passive consequence of the mechanical machinery. When Stommel (10) first introduced the term “thermohaline circulation” in a box model, he explicitly provided a source of mechanical energy in the form of mixing devices. These devices disappeared in subsequent discussions and extensions of this influential model.

For past or future climates, the quantity of first-order importance is the nature of the wind field. It not only shifts the near-surface wind-driven components of the mass flux, but also changes the turbulence at depth; this turbulence appears to control the deep stratification. The wind field will also, in large part, determine the regions of convective sinking and of the resulting 3D water properties. Fluxes and net exports of properties such as heat and carbon are determined by both the mass flux and spatial distribution of the property, and not by either alone.
[…]
The term “thermohaline circulation” should be reserved for the separate circulations of heat and salt, and not conflated into one vague circulation with unknown or impossible energetics. No shortcut exists for determining property fluxes from the mass circulation without knowledge of the corresponding property distribution.

=

Comments
  1. ren says:

    Let’s see how the distribution of ozone in the winter affects the circulation.

  2. ren says:

    Click the graphic.

  3. ren says:

    Can be seen low temperatures in Alaska compared to January.

  4. ren says:

    Can be predicted to circulate for five days. Basically, the jet stream will run along the edge of the yellow area. You can see that frost will return to the south-east US. The temperature also falls in Europe.

  5. ren says:

    Circulation in the Eastern Pacific is substantially constant throughout the winter. Hence the high ocean temperatures in this region.

  6. ren says:

    “Global average cooling in the deep ocean conflicts with some previous ocean heat content estimates (e.g. Balmaseda et al. 2013), but is consistent with the long thermal memory of the ocean, and with other recent studies (e.g. Durack et al. 2014; Llovel et al. 2014).”
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/

  7. Bob Weber says:

    NOAA SST Anomalies, 1996-2015

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    IMPORTANT:
    Carefully comparatively digest figures 1, 7, & 11:

    Rial, J.A. (2012). Synchronization of polar climate variability over the last ice age: in search of simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity. American Journal of Science 312, 417-448.
    http://www.dynamicpaleoclimate.org/uploads/2/3/5/4/23543390/417.full.pdf
    =

    […] in an unusually scathing critique of scientific consensus, Wunsch (2010) suggests that the great ocean conveyor, the significance of repeated freshwater hosing numerical experiments, and many seemingly supporting results from climate models must all be called into question.

    =

    A one-stop-shop comparative catalog of climate symmetries might help modelers get real about wind.

    I’ve left a string of suggestions:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-10/

    For those of you interested in the role of planets in terrestrial climate, I’ve shared links to some of Rial’s other hard-hitting papers on 22ka, 100ka, 400ka, 2Ma. (De-mullerization at it’s best.)

    There’s a direct analogy between orbital & multidecadal timescales. I’m digging through the literature to determine the fundamental roots of misunderstandings that are preventing expedition. For example, why can’t Curry & Mann understand a simple geometric proof? Why can’t climate modelers constrain their models to be consistent with key properties of earth orientation parameters? I agree with Wunsch that it’s a multi-disciplinary education problem at the root (dramatically complicated, of course, by (at times severely vicious) political interference).

    Community Alert: There are some patently & profoundly incorrect things being said about Milankovitch theory at wuwt. Sometimes when people get soaring on a wave of hubris they don’t know when to stop (and double-or-nothing every-time no-matter-what ends up bust). A lot of irreversible credibility damage has now been done. Bill Illis is probably the only trustworthy commentator on the subject at wuwt. It’s to the point where wuwt should issue retractions.

  9. Bob Weber says:

    If it’s the case that “There are some patently & profoundly incorrect things being said …” then it’d be best dealt with directly yourself as you doubt anyone else’s credibility, trustworthiness, or smarts.

    FWIW, Bill Illis had this to say about my NOAA SST video that I posted above (and there): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/#comment-1882821

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ice orography shapes the wind field and the wind field drives THC (salt, heat, buoyancy):

    Wunsch, C. (2006). Abrupt climate change: an alternative view. Quaternary Research 65, 191-203
    http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/abrupt2006.pdf
    =

    […] what was the major change between the glacial period and the Holocene? […] the disappearance of the Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets. In effect, two enormous mountain ranges of high albedo, nearly bracketing Greenland, were removed. When these features are present, D–O events are observed. When they are absent, D–O events are also absent.
    […]
    […] ice sheet elevations had a large effect on the atmospheric stationary wave patterns. Roe and Lindzen (2001) calculated the influence of an idealized Laurentide ice sheet on the atmospheric circulation, including modification of the ice sheet itself by the atmospheric circulation. A reasonable inference is that the mean structure of the westerly wind system, the standing-wave patterns, encountering the massive ice sheets is quite different from its modern value, and that more than one equilibrium is possible.
    […]
    Earlier modeling calculations […] involving slow changes in the shape of Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets, are strongly suggestive of their influence on the climate system.
    […]
    […] equilibrium position for a zonal jet can be quite sensitive to the underlying boundary conditions […] pattern of mean westerlies encountering Greenland would markedly change the temperature and precipitation patterns there, as well as induce a change in the wind-stress curl over the ocean to the south […] The modification and removal of the great continental ice sheets corresponds to changes in a huge orographic feature.
    […]
    How does this approach to rationalization deal with what may be remote indicators of D–O events both on land and suggestions of oceanic changes? The conventional theory of the ocean circulation […] represents the three-dimensional motions in terms, primarily, of the wind-stress driving. Energy arguments […] show that buoyancy forcing, while contributing in important ways to the structure of the circulation and determining to a large degree the extent to which it carries heat and moisture, cannot ‘‘drive’’ the circulation. […] The body of theory suggests that the most important and sensitive determinant of the circulation is the wind field. Any change in the high latitude North Atlantic wind field, even without more remote changes, would lead one to anticipate very rapid shifts in the ocean circulation patterns, and with a record of these changes appearing in the sediments. That is, one expects the ocean to promptly respond, possibly as seen in the Bond et al. (1993) high latitude North Atlantic records. Coupled with amplifiers in the form of sea ice feedbacks […]
    […]
    The primarily local interpretation implicates the wind field as the central element by which central Greenland temperatures change abruptly, and the mechanism by which larger-scale signatures would be carried to distant locations, including those induced by ocean circulation shifts under the changing wind system. Given the comparatively small contribution of the ocean to the high-latitude meridional flux of heat, it seems an unlikely primary stimulus of major climate shifts beyond the North Atlantic basin. It can readily operate as an integrator and as a transmitter of signals, but that is a different role.

    =

    The similar present-day analogy (certainly not exactly the same) is something like cold arctic outflows funneled through coastal fjords, orographic precipitation accumulating in the adjacent mountains, and harshly-funneled wind seasonally ripping the fjord stratification (fresh over salt). A big difference: scale. Also, obviously the glacial mountains were made of ice (not rock), but that makes no difference to wind funneling & orographic precipitation.

    Orographic features are a MASSIVE BIG DEAL to climate, as Bill Illis has made crystal clear with this single, powerful illustration:

    The analogous symmetries (differing primarily only in amplitude) between orbital & multidecadal-to-centennial timescales can be cataloged (perhaps by an industrious grad student) to expedite cross-disciplinary education & correction.


    Extending the Milankovitch framework downscale begins with ability to recognize and willingness to acknowledge (corrupt politics aside) the trivial decadal cyclic volatility attractor in semi-annual earth rotation. Failure to acknowledge this constitutes an obstinate denial of basic geometry and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. (For some creepy, mysterious political reasons, that’s where we seem to be.)

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob, I maintain a boycott of volunteering comments at wuwt & ce because not only is the validity of 1+1=2 is not acknowledged at those venues, but anyone who dares to say 1+1=2 gets dragged into ridiculously-protracted harassment. That indicates a calculated, mean-spirited agenda to thought-police towards political convenience and a willingness to viciously discourage harmonious exploration & statement of simple (but inconvenient) truths.

    Let’s nevermind all that. (It’s the kind of thing to just walk away from.)

    There are interesting things to discuss, like Rial’s papers on 22ka, 100ka, 400ka, & 2Ma.
    I shared links here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-10/

  12. Bob Weber says:

    I appreciate your efforts Paul. Good work on winds. Just wish I’d gotten a copy of Hans Jelbring’s thesis in 2012 when a few copies were still available. As for Milankovitch cycles, that’s beyond my personal area of interest. No offense meant either. I’m sure it is interesting, and if there’s time, I’ll read along.

    Blogs: I’ve seen the bad side too, but in reality, no one is as bad or as good as we tend to make them out to be. There are a great many good earnest people who participate in blogs who aren’t aware or barely aware of the things you’re calling out, and they shouldn’t be painted with such a broad brush.

    I was personally sidetracked/thwarted many times by a few familiar names at wuwt, but I look at it differently, I see it as more of a challenge to understand things well enough to communicate simply and effectively enough to make my points stick, especially when dealing with vastly more experienced individuals. That helps drive the work I do in doing the necessary research too.

    Most people everywhere don’t have the time or inclination to do the depth of research you do, and would benefit greatly from someone like you, IF you chose to talk on their level, and bring them up, as opposed to broadly knocking everyone and walking away. You have a lot to offer and I look forward to more from you down the road.

    Anthony Watts is not mean-spirited, IMHO, and he runs a very good blog, as does Tallbloke & Co. There are a few others whose motives are questionable/malignant, but for the rest, they’re like everyone else, searching for answers, often haphazardly, one step back, two steps forward style.

    Pop quiz: Does everyone know what you mean by “solar cycle deceleration”, or “the trivial decadal cyclic volatility attractor in semi-annual earth rotation”, or “an obstinate denial of basic geometry and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum”? If not, then your job as a communicator is not done. Just sayin’….

    Maybe you’re frustrated that people don’t appear to understand what you’re saying. Explain everything at the undergraduate level, and explain every single phrase down to the nitty-gritty details, if you want to be completely understood. I think you’d like to have people remembering you for what you taught them, thanking you for illuminating that which was previously unknown or misunderstood, that enables them to carry on communicating effectively themselves when you’re not there, the things that they’ve learned from your teaching efforts.

    I’d sure like to hear how the wind fields changed in our lifetimes, or the last few decades, for example, and how the sun did that, specifically, by changes in activity, from “PV’s POV”!

    Take it away!

  13. tallbloke says:

    Bob W: You have mail

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    No broad brush Bob —- 12 really bad apples are ruining the barrels at wuwt & ce
    (but it should probably be noted that the rest are letting them get away with it).

    Jo Nova has no wool over her eyes, for contrast.
    She & Tallbloke are in a higher league of intellectual sophistication.

    The limits of what I can volunteer:
    I have time & resources only to minimally state 1+1=2.

    If I say 1+1=2
    and the response is
    “That’s interesting and compelling”
    or alternately
    “I admit I’m unable to take personal responsibility for independently following that proof firsthand”
    that’s quite different from rudely barking back
    “No! 1+1≠2” and then proceeding to needlessly push incessant waves of protracted, vile harassment based on logical distortion & falsehoods.

    Sober, practical perspective:
    12 rotten apples —- seems like a pretty easy problem (for a sensible host) to get rid of…….

    – –

    Those Rial frequency modulation papers are really something. (De-mullerization at it’s finest.)
    Has everyone read the one from 2004? 1999? 2013? Links:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-10/

    FYI, SCD (solar cycle deceleration) works the same way (it’s just on a smaller scale).

    Insolation-driven wind carves the path to climate enlightenment.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Like the solar terrestrial weave,
    Milankovitch theory (really the same thing, just at a different scale) is indestructible.

    Just to clarify for a 3rd time:
    Rial (1999) deconstructs Muller’s 1997 paper. (Yes, that Muller.) There’s a twist with almost every paragraph. Rial had the luxury of time & resources needed to craft a storyline that keeps a skeptical reader on the edge of their seat. His argument keeps looking weak, but then with every paragraph there’s a new sharp punch to remind the reader that Rial clearly has the high ground and is almost toying with peoples’ inclination to remain in ignorant disbelief by reserving ammunition for surprise assaults in later paragraphs. It’s classic.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Huybers, P.; & Wunsch, C. (2010). Paleophysical oceanography with an emphasis on transport rates. Annual Review of Marine Science 2, 1-34.
    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/paleophysical_annrevsms2010.pdf
    =

    […] ocean circulation is first and foremost the result of driving by the wind fields.
    […]
    […] although buoyancy exchange has a major influence on the structure of the circulation and is a major determinant of the transports of heat and other properties, it cannot drive the circulation in the sense of providing the energy required to sustain it.
    […]
    6.3. The North Atlantic Obsession

    Like the Genesis story, the idea that the North Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation is the major controller of the climate system has taken on an almost mythic status.
    […]
    With the recent recognition […] that some elements of the climate system can shift far faster than the large-scale ocean circulation—best regarded as basically a fly wheel—perhaps the notion of North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation as the control, rather than as the response and feedback, will finally be challenged. The most volatile elements of the climate system are the wind field—major changes can occur in hours—and sea ice […] which has a huge seasonal range. They are the most likely explanations of abrupt climate change. One needs mechanisms capable of providing both rapid change and stability over long periods in the new state. The ocean provides stability, perhaps as part of a response/feedback mechanism […]
    […]
    Apparently, the difference between these model runs lies not with any fundamental difference in model physics, but with the choice of ice-sheet orography and the sea-surface temperatures either imposed or derived from the model. That such lowest-order changes arise from details of the model configuration calls into question whether an accurate representation of the wind forcing can be obtained as a response to imposed conditions within a model.

    =

  17. ren says:

    Paul Vaughan and Bob Weber.
    It can be seen that the speed of the polar vortex depends directly on the speed of solar wind. I think that this relationship is to be demonstrated.
    Regards.

  18. ren says:

    About circulation of this year indicates a unique ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

  19. ren says:

    A strong solar wind caused the change in the position of the polar vortex. Currently, he is shifted in the direction of the Bering Sea, and there will increase the ice. This location also reverses the circulation in Europe: from east to west.

    http://www.sat24.com/pl/eu?ir=true

  20. Bob Weber says:

    ren, I must agree with you, as all the data I’ve seen this year indicates that is so. I intend to write up an article about the several SSWs we’ve had this past winter, and include the supporting evidence. However, like probably you and Paul and many others, I’ve been too busy, as I’m backed up with so much research and associated preparation for my new website. That’s why I’m so grateful that you’ve regularly posted graphics supporting the solar wind – polar vortex connection this winter.

    Craig350, who puts together the WeatherAction News Blog for Piers Corbyn, just asked about this yesterday at Piers’ site. He referred to Dr. Judah Cohen and his polar vortex research. I found this http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/autumnwinter/intro.jsp, where the research is summarized:

    “Researchers have validated a new weather prediction model that uses autumn snowfall to predict winter cold in the United States and Europe. When snowfall is high in Siberia, the resulting cold air enhances atmospheric disturbances, which propagate into the upper level of the atmosphere, or stratosphere, warming the polar vortex. When the polar vortex warms, the jet stream is pushed south leading to colder winters across the eastern United States and Europe. Conversely, under these conditions the Arctic will have a warmer than average winter.”

    To which I responded:

    “The idea that Siberian snow cover in the fall predicates the later polar vortex action is on the face of it LAUGHABLE. Maybe he’s right and I just don’t get it (yet?). From all the observations and research I’ve done, the polar vortex is a product of the solar wind interaction with our magnetosphere, and is intimately related to solar activity. Every SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) event this winter and last was preceded by a solar impulse. Perhaps the truth is that what is really causing Fall Siberian snowfall also is related to SSW conditions, ie solar influence. But since I haven’t spent one second studying Siberian snowfall records, that’s a WAG. The article discussed winters 2002/03 & 03/04, which were the solar max years of SC23, as 2013/14 & 14/15 were SC24 cycle max years, and the weather situations were similar in the NH. Like everything else, we’re all still learning new things, and maybe Cohen is on to something – time will tell.”

    So, to put it in perspective wrt this blog article here, yes, the wind, the SOLAR wind, is also a dominant player in climate variation, and I have no doubt that our terrestrial winds are driven by solar energy gradients, insolation driven, as Paul says, and via the solar wind, as we are saying.

  21. Berényi Péter says:

    it is not possible, without an intricate calculation, to determine if the density/pressure differences drive the flow field, or the reverse

    It is quite possible.

    In a fluid, both heated and cooled from above at different places, no deep overturning can occur. Only simple common sense and high school physics is needed to see that, but it can also be demonstrated in the lab.

    In the ocean, if density differences could drive the circulation, the abyss would eventually get saturated with dense cold, salty water. At that point the circulation would grind to a halt.

    Thermal conductivity of seawater is well known, and it is much too small to transport heat to depth, needed to replenish buoyancy there. Diffusivity of salts is even smaller (by some two orders of magnitude).

    In that kind of “dead” state only geothermal heating at the bottom could maintain some circulation, but that would be orders of magnitude weaker than what is observed.

    Also, there is no such thing as “upwelling”, because water masses would not go against density gradients on their own.

    The way buoyancy is replenished at depth is deep turbulent mixing. However, even this is measured to be orders of magnitude weaker in the open ocean, than what is needed to drive circulation at the observed rate.

    It is driven by breaking of internal waves over rugged bottom features and continental margins of complex geometry. The process is restricted to a small fraction of oceans and it is also intermittent at most places. However, where and if it happens, rate of vertical mixing is spectacular, three or more orders of magnitude higher than values measured in the open ocean.

    The places and times where and when this process kicks in are poorly known.

    Internal waves themselves are generated by tides and surface winds, that is, by pure mechanical energy input, which has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

    Density of seawater is determined by two factors, temperature and salinity. Seawater is not like fresh water, which is densest well above its freezing point (at 4°C). If salinity is high enough, density of water is highest just above freezing (around -1.9°C), therefore downwelling occurs close to the ice margin. It is exacerbated by brine exclusion (ice prefers to freeze with less salt in it, so the remaining water mass has a higher salinity).

    Downwelling occurs at times and places, when and where density of surface water is highest, provided another process elsewhere made room for it, that is, buoyancy at depth is being replenished by mixing somewhat warmer and/or fresher water masses downward. That’s a job for vertical turbulent mixing.

    Under current configuration of continents, downwelling happens almost exclusively somewhere at the ice margin. The places and times are primarily determined by salinity of water, although at some places (around Antarctica) the ice/water interface goes down to a considerable depth, and freezing point of seawater decreases with increasing pressure. At such places supercooled water masses can form (which, if they were brought to the surface, would freeze). Therefore Antarctic bottom water has somewhat lower salinity than Atlantic deep water, but its density is higher. When the two kinds of water meet somewhere around the equator, Atlantic water forms a layer above Antarctic one.

    Then a curious process starts. At the interface salt fingers develope, so the two water masses exchange salts without exchanging much heat.

    Surface water masses of high density can also be created at a higher temperature, if rate of evaporation is high and water vapor condenses elsewhere, so no rain comes back. Under such circumstances salinity of water can become so high, that it makes the parcel sink. Currently it only happens on a small scale, mostly in enclosed basins like the Red sea and over restricted areas of the ocean, like some places in the Caribbean.

    However, in several ancient epochs of geologic history, when there was no ice/water interface anywhere because of the lack of ice and configuration of continents was different, it was the dominant process. It took place over the Horse latitudes and used to make the abyss much warmer than it is today (something like 20°C).

    Under the current configuration of continents, there is no way to eliminate the ice/water interface all year round, entirely, not even under the wildest scenarios alarmists can dream up in a nightmare.

    Therefore location and timing of downwelling can change. However properties of downwelling water masses are not determined by “climate”, but by physical properties of seawater. That means heat content of the abyss is strictly regulated, it can neither increase nor decrease beyond a tiny bit, and if it can, it is certainly not due to the (passive) downwelling branch of circulation, but to rate of deep turbulent mixing, which also determines the downwelling flux.

    By the way, the proposition “the ocean’s mass flux is sustained primarily by the wind, and secondarily by tidal forcing” is not strictly true. Tides and winds have about equal share in generating internal waves in the ocean.

    Most of wind forcing (about 80%) happens over the Southern ocean (roaring forties, furious fifties &. screaming sixties). Its spatio-temporal pattern is pretty much fixed, but it is subject to chaotic variations.

    On the other hand, tides at any one place depend on the relative positions of the Sun, Moon and the Earth’s surface. That pattern repeats itself (not quite, but almost exactly) with a long period. It is 3 Saros cycles, that is, 54 years and a month. If you also want to align it to seasons, it becomes 649 years. Sea level records shorter than that are meaningless.

    Summing it up, one does not need “an intricate calculation” to arrive at the conclusion ocean currents are driven by pure mechanical energy input, not by thermodynamic forces.

    All we need is common sense, some simple input parameters like heat conductivity of seawater or diffusivity of salts and the back of an envelope.

    It is quite surprising such a flawed paradigm could maintain its popularity among oceanographers for so long and was allowed to dominate peer reviewed publications. It tells something about the intellectual quality of that crowd.

  22. p.g.sharrow says:

    It appears to me that Deep Ocean circulation can only be caused by Angular Momentum of the Earth’s rotation and gravitational effects from the bodies of the Solar System. The Tides are the local results of this. This is the only thing that can move all the water of the Oceans in a East to West direction, the shape of the ocean basins create deep currents in the back flows as the water in the basins slosh forward and then back.
    Wind driven water movement can only effect the surface waters, 200 feet of depth at most. Just the thing to pile up Solar heated waters in the Caribbean and Indonesian Seas for the surface warm water currents.
    Meteorology teaches us that wind is air flow from high pressure to low pressure areas, caused by heating or cooling, but pressure changes can cause temperature changes while the actual energy content of the air has not changed.
    Our friend ren points to the steering of Polar air masses caused by Solar wind and magnetic fields acting on the Polar Air Mass. The effects of magnetic fields and Gravity can cause changes in the depth and density of the local atmosphere and therefore the local barometric pressure as well as the temperature of the local air mass. No change in actual energy content needed.
    Just the postings of an old farmer with only a High School Science education. 😉 pg

  23. I agree completely Bob. As of late EUV readings have been in the 140 -150 unit range.(From Layman Sunspot Site) I predict if they approach 100 units or go lower the polar vortex will weaken and expand . -AO/-NAO.

    This (euv interaction) influences the amounts, and distribution of ozone which influences the structure and characteristics of the polar vortex.

    “The idea that Siberian snow cover in the fall predicates the later polar vortex action is on the face of it LAUGHABLE. Maybe he’s right and I just don’t get it (yet?). From all the observations and research I’ve done, the polar vortex is a product of the solar wind interaction with our magnetosphere, and is intimately related to solar activity. Every SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) event this winter and last was preceded by a solar impulse

  24. Bob Weber says:

    Salvatore, thanks. ren also points out that the cosmic ray energy that is modulated by the various solar interactions is part of the equation. It is really cool how that all works – no pun intended!

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Berényi Péter (March 15, 2015 at 11:08 pm) commentary appears to be in resounding agreement with Wunsch about the need for a correction in the field of Oceanography.

    Extended notes (stuff I cut from round 1 above):

    Huybers, P.; & Wunsch, C. (2010). Paleophysical oceanography with an emphasis on transport rates. Annual Review of Marine Science 2, 1-34.
    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/paleophysical_annrevsms2010.pdf
    =

    Some of the challenge in arriving at accurate estimates can be understood by noting that a 1 mm/s error in the flow field, extending the width of the Pacific Ocean from 1000 m to the bottom, would represent a volume transport error of approximately 30 × 106 m3/s (30 Sverdrups, Sv), approximately equal to the volume transport of the Gulf Stream at Florida. Thus, very small velocity errors can have large oceanographic implications. A disputatious literature exists concerning the modern rates of meridional overturning circulation […]
    […]
    Eddies and the problem of scales of motion. […] the intense turbulence superimposed on the large-scale structures contain 90–99% of the kinetic energy of the flow […] Two separate problems arise: In the presence of eddies, climate records are noisy—making it difficult to identify and extract climate signals of interest (Wunsch 2008)—and the eddies can have important, even dominant, influence on the nature and behavior of the much larger-scale space-time property structures.
    Almost no component of the ocean circulation is time invariant. After nearly 150 years of
    regarding the ocean as having an essentially fixed, time-independent circulation and properties, the discovery that everything was changing to a certain degree produced an intellectual turmoil not yet recognized by many investigators […]
    […]
    […] paleoproxies tend to reflect only properties near the surface or the sediment-water interface, making it difficult to constrain the conditions in the interior.
    […]
    5.1. Winds
    […]
    […] large-scale movement of water in the ocean, excepting coastal and near-equatorial regions, depended not directly on τ , but on its derivatives […]
    The wind field and its derivatives set the overall magnitude of observed flows […]
    […] to make rapid changes in the ocean circulation, the wind field is the most efficient mechanism—surprisingly, very high frequency fluctuations (timescales of days), will be felt almost instantaneously at the sea floor, much more effectively than slower changes for which the stratification intervenes and greatly slows the abyssal response.
    […]
    The modern ocean circulation is believed to be baroclinically and barotropically unstable[…] Thus an increase in the wind strength, driving the large-scale flows harder, would not lead directly to an increase in the circulation strength, but merely a faster transfer of wind energy into the geostrophic eddy field. Something like this behavior is seen in models of the Southern Ocean […] where the transports do not respond in any simple way to changes in wind strength.
    […]
    High-latitude convection and the formation of dense water that sinks to intermediate or great depths is one of the central elements of the ocean climate system. Unfortunately, the existence of this flow, which is not in doubt […] led to the misconception that the ocean was a convective system like the atmosphere, but one with the top and bottom interchanged. The atmosphere is heated from below and cooled above as in the classical Rayleigh-Benard situation. A fluid such as the ocean, which is heated and cooled at the same level (near the sea surface), has very different physics, which is perhaps best understood by asking the question: If deep water forms at the sea surface and sinks to the sea floor, why does the ocean not simply fill up with that cold-dense water?
    […]
    Sandstrom’s inference, consistent with Jeffreys’s interpretation, is not that there is no abyssal flow from surface buoyancy forcing—merely that it will be weak. […]
    How buoyancy forcing acts in concord with other forces is the essence of understanding the circulation. The only simple inference one can make is that, although buoyancy exchange has a major influence on the structure of the circulation and is a major determinant of the transports of heat and other properties, it cannot drive the circulation in the sense of providing the energy required to sustain it.
    The deep ocean does have a significant observed flow, not directly dependent on buoyancy forcing. Parts of it are necessarily supported by turbulent mixing […]
    The intensity and spatial distribution of that turbulence is a determinant of the possible circulation patterns. Turbulence requires energy to support it, and in a paleocean where abyssal turbulence is different from its values today, it can be expected to have a different circulation […] Only the wind field and the tides appear to be viable as major turbulence energy sources […]
    […]
    Absent wind-field estimates, it will be difficult to produce quantitative theories either of the large-scale ocean circulation or of the small-scale mixing that helps determine it.
    […]
    […] among the many hypotheses would be those that make the ocean circulation the “trigger” of climate change, with such triggers lying largely in the North Atlantic, as opposed to possibilities that the ocean responds primarily to disturbances from the coupled atmosphere and ice distributions and that cause and effect are largely global.

    =

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    p.g.sharrow (March 16, 2015 at 3:55 am) suggested:
    “Wind driven water movement can only effect the surface waters, 200 feet of depth at most.”

    Where did you get that idea?
    How did you arrive at this belief?
    [ :

    ? ? Berényi Péter ? ? What do you say to this ? ?

  27. ren says:

    A strong solar wind causes the south polar vortex is centrally located in the stratosphere and the temperature drops quickly.


    There is also no waves in the stratosphere.

  28. ren says:

    Circulation in the north and the south is different (in low solar wind) due to the magnetic field. Cosmic radiation energy is concentrated around the magnetic poles.

    Note that because of the high energy GCR easily enters deep into the atmosphere. In the area of the ozone greatly increases the number of collisions and secondary radiation. Is very high up to about 10 km.

  29. ren says:


    Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). The number of cosmic rays with energies beyond 1 GeV decreases by about a factor of 50 for every factor of 10 increase in energy. Over a wide energy range the number of particles per m2 per steradian per second with energy greater than E (measured in GeV) is given approximately by N(>E) = k(E + 1)-a, where k ~ 5000 per m2 per steradian per second and a ~1.6. The highest energy cosmic rays measured to date have had more than 10^20 eV, equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball traveling at approximately 100 mph!

  30. ren says:

    I recall the Earth’s magnetic field.

  31. ren says:

    How important is the wind you can see after the temperature of Humboldt. La Nina is coming.

  32. Brett Keane says:

    @PV: Thanks for your summation. So, the planetary system is always moving, and internal change will last as long as it does. Turbulence and eddies are part of the mechanisms. As a SH lad, I can only be in awe of the power which can apparently bend the seafloor orography south of the Horn, so hugely. By current flow. Brett

  33. Brett Keane says:

    @ren: what on earth is the magnetic field up to now?

  34. ren says:

    Magnetic field in the Arctic regions
    Although almost 90% of the observed magnetic field can be approximated by a dipole, the 10% left over, called the non-dipole field cannot be ignored. In places it can be large relative to the dipole field, thus altering noticeably the shape of the observed field. This is especially true in the vicinity of the North Magnetic Pole, with important consequences. In order to appreciate how the non-dipole part of the magnetic field distorts the overall shape of the magnetic field it is important to understand what the dipole field looks like. The three diagrams illustrate the following points.
    The real magnetic field is quite different, as can be seen in the next set of three diagrams.

    Total Intensity

    Inclination

    Magnetic Meridians
    http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-eng.php

  35. DD More says:

    Paul Vaughan on Milankovitch theory. My question was, how stable the wobble and tilt is. If a small piece of bubble gum stuck to the side of a child’s toy top, can make it wobble out of control. What would giga tonnes of ice do to a spinning globe? The vast ice sheets unevenly arranged around the globe during the glacial times has no effect on the size of the wobble?

    Did find someone else who looked into it and found it is true.
    ****************
    Polar wandering and the forced responses of a rotating, multilayered, viscoelastic planet
    Roberto SabadiniDavid A. YuenEnzo Boschi

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB087iB04p02885/abstract

    Sabadini and Peltier [1981] have constructed a physical model in which they found that a net polar wander could occur as a result of the periodic forcing by active glaciation and deglaciation. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1. Previous work by McElhinny [1973] and Jurdy and van der Voo [1974] have concluded that the amount of true polar wander (TPW) during the last 55 m.y. has been quite small, about 2 ø. However, recent reanalysis of paleomagnetic data by Jurdy [1981] and Morgan [1981], using a reference frame based on hot spots, have revealed that TPW of between 10 ø to 15 ø had occurred since the Cretaceous. Furthermore, Morgan has proposed boldly that, in fact, 5ø-10 ø of this polar wander must have taken place in the last 10 m.y.

    Copyright ¸ 1982 by the American Geophysical Union

  36. tallbloke says:

    I would suggest that in addition to the mechanical forces already outlined, even quite small changes in LOD will cause quite a lot of turbulent mixing on the rough ocean floor. When the Earth changes speed, the ocean doesn’t, until friction and turbulence has imparted enough energy to it.

  37. p.g.sharrow says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    March 16, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    p.g.sharrow (March 16, 2015 at 3:55 am) suggested:
    “Wind driven water movement can only effect the surface waters, 200 feet of depth at most.”

    Where did you get that idea?
    How did you arrive at this belief?
    [ :

    Hi Paul, sorry, I can point to no wonderful paper by an accredited authority to hang my statement on. .
    Over 25 years ago I was asked to study the feasibility of a sea going city/free-port for a TV pilot/movie. The city was to be large enough for a protected harbor, support an International airport and be steerable with it’s nuclear power plants. It was necessary to design the city in a way that modern engineering/construction could build it as well as make it stable under all sea conditions. My studies indicated that we needed 300 feet of draft so the bottom of the float segments would be below any wave motion. The City was to ride the ocean currents and avoid grounding in it’s circuit of the Pacific Ocean. I spent 4 years in the US Navy and have some idea of the abilities of a very angry sea……………pg

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (March 16, 2015 at 11:08 pm) wrote:
    “I would suggest that in addition to the mechanical forces already outlined, even quite small changes in LOD will cause quite a lot of turbulent mixing on the rough ocean floor. When the Earth changes speed, the ocean doesn’t, until friction and turbulence has imparted enough energy to it.”

    Are we maybe saying the same thing (at least sort of) in different words?
    Isn’t (at least some of) this implicit in notes of Carl Wunsch & Berényi Péter?

    Let me try to provoke comparative perspective with an eye for equivalence.

    High-frequency LOD is tidal.
    Low-frequency LOD’s shaped by SCD (solar cycle deceleration). Insolation-driven wind evaporates (water to vapor), mixes (water, vapor), blows (ice, precipitation) & otherwise redistributes water (& water state). It “pumps” in general. It does this both meridionally & vertically (Rial’s 2012 fig. 1, 7, 11 combo = analogy).

    Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” – Nikolay Sidorenkov

    Maybe what DD More says (March 16, 2015 at 10:44 pm) is similarly implicit. For sure there’s more than one way to say the same thing.

    Maybe the point of the various quoted notes above is to correct fundamental mainstream misconceptions blocking recognition that AMOC pacing is governed by insolation-driven wind.

    Maybe (?) sunspot integral informs about accumulated heat?
    Maybe (?) SCD informs about (meridional & vertical) exchange rate?

    If it hasn’t already, maybe it will start to become intuitively clear to community luminaries after quickly fathoming big picture analogies with Rial’s (2012) figures 1, 7, & 11.

    Perspective A.
    Perspective B.

    Maybe actually not so different…
    (maybe actually equivalent…?)

    I would say it’s mostly the same thing but framed differently.

    I’m curious:
    Is anyone reading Rial (2012)? And do you see (benthic-pelagic, south-north)??

    Regards

  39. ren says:

    Brett Keane
    Will rapidly accrete the ice around Antarctica.

  40. ren says:

    Let’s see how it looks ionization atmosphere during solar storms.

  41. ren says:

    Need to click.

  42. Bob Weber says:

    This morning we’re undergoing a G1-class geomagnetic storm. Oulu is sharply down right now.

    The IMF was 35nT a few minutes ago, with Bz as high as -28nT during that spike and 600km/s solar wind. Hemispheric power at both poles went from 9 GW to 90 GW very quickly, triggering auroras down to the US-Canadian border (hemispheric power is a function of solar wind speed & density).

    Solarham said this morning “CME Impact: Ground based magnetometers detected a geomagnetic sudden impulse (54 nT @ Boulder) at 04:35 UTC. This marks the exact moment that an interplanetary shockwave originating from the sun swept past our planet. The Bz component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), carried through our solar system via the solar wind is currently pointing north, a condition that could suppress geomagnetic activity. Monitor solar wind during the next several hours. Should the Bz tip south, this could help intensify geomagnetic conditions at high latitudes. Sky watchers should be alert tonight for visible aurora displays.”

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    Berényi Péter (March 15, 2015 at 11:08 pm) wrote:
    “[…] downwelling occurs close to the ice margin […]

    Downwelling occurs at times and places, when and where density of surface water is highest, provided another process elsewhere made room for it, that is, buoyancy at depth is being replenished by mixing somewhat warmer and/or fresher water masses downward. That’s a job for vertical turbulent mixing.

    Under current configuration of continents, downwelling happens almost exclusively somewhere at the ice margin.”

    It has been a long time since I mentioned it, but here’s a reminder of the global ice extent index I developed — this is about global seasonal extent of ice margins:

    “Seasonal variations of [insolation] result in seasonal variations of poleward meridional transport, hence of averaged zonal wind.” [published typo: “insulation” edited to “insolation”]
    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L15307.

    Rial (2012) pushes awareness towards recognition that it’s not only “meridional” but also vertical (pelagic-benthic = north-south differintegral —- take the time to understand this mainstreamers ….unless you just can’t ever be bothered to get serious)

    Everything’s coupled. That’s where the FM comes from. The turbulence measured via cyclic volatility:

    solar-terrestrial weave’s rate of twist = SCD, which is (hardly surprisingly) coherent with multidecadal LOD

    dead simple geometry, constrained by spatiotemporally balanced differential of form a+b+c+…+x+y+z=FIXED and laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum

    Why does the mainstream think the synchronization can be independent of the coupling???
    Don’t they realize how silly this implicit climate modeling assumption looks?
    These people need to learn to get a whole lot more serious about accepting observation. I think Wunsch is right that a lot of the modelers have theoretical backgrounds and aren’t even remotely sufficiently aware of what has been observed. He suggests it’s a cross-disciplinary education gap and I wholeheartedly agree. I would add that nasty politics has become a strong stint artificially holding the gap open.

  44. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: Are we maybe saying the same thing (at least sort of) in different words?
    Isn’t (at least some of) this implicit in notes of Carl Wunsch & Berényi Péter?

    Hi Paul, we probably are. I was just adding LOD into the mix because the internal sea-bottom waves mentioned are only partly due to tidal action. There is also (I believe) and external celestially driven component to changes in LOD, which may well be acting via the solar wind as you mentioned.

  45. oldbrew says:

    When computer says A while observation says B, climate science sees B as the problem.

  46. Bob Weber says:

    Hemispheric power right now is 110GW at both poles. http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/aurora-nowcast-hemi-power.txt Feel it?

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let’s clarify this one more time. The solar-terrestrial weave:

    It’s rate of twist (measured by SCD = solar cycle deceleration) is coherent not only with LOD, but with properties of the entire heliosphere:

    So for mainstreamers bothering to fathom the differintegral structure Rial (2012) comparatively illustrates (benthic-pelagic south-north analogy), the lesson is simply about coupling of meridional to vertical. It’s dead simple.

    Don’t forget that methane & CO2 have the same spatiotemporal relationship.
    (addressed by Rial (2012))

    It seems to me that mainstreamers are having difficulty accepting the OBSERVED frequency modulation of the turbulent flux. Probably inadequate depth of conceptual understanding of aggregation fundamentals is the root of the ignorance (and consequently the sustained political deception thus facilitated).

    The sensible option for mainstreamers is to simply concede that it was ridiculously unreal to assume so much verticial-meridional independence despite obvious coupling, thus emphasizing the clarity that comes with 20/20 hindsight. (It’s hardly surprising that there’s an insolation gradient towards the polar night and that it matters to semi-annual wind & sea ice extent.)

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (March 17, 2015 at 2:26 pm) wrote:
    “Hi Paul, we probably are. I was just adding LOD into the mix because the internal sea-bottom waves mentioned are only partly due to tidal action. There is also (I believe) and external celestially driven component to changes in LOD, which may well be acting via the solar wind as you mentioned.”

    I would say insolation-driven wind & ice extent (including height for land ice).
    It’s about how turbulence from meriodional gradients entrains the depths & heights (ocean mixing & nonlinear glacial orography).

    It appears possible that we’re looking at the same thing from differing perspectives.

    Best Regards!

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    For those looking at Rial’s (2012) differintegrals while reviewing Bond, ice-rafting, etc., a reminder of the differintegral structure of the temperature-gradient ice-export relationship:


    SCL is the integral of SCD.
    SCD is the derivative of SCL.

    It’s all the same thing, just on a different scale.

  50. ren says:

    Bob Weber

  51. ren says:

    Now even accelerate the jet stream. Will also wind blew strongly at the level 700 hPa.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=24.35,68.24,442

  52. Bob Weber says:

    ren, US winds very gusty right now. could you make a screenshot of the earth.nullschool image you’re linking to above and post it please? I just captured all the various indice images to document this event in full, and the aurora images were among them. The south pole image:

    If the reader doesn’t see this today, hemispheric power was peaking around 115GW w/90%+ aurora.

    Polar Cap Index is also showing a major spike from the CME.

    http://pc-index.org/

  53. craigm350 says:

    Bob,

    Ren’s image

    I’ve got a more hemispheric view on a post capturing a load of images:

    http://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/observing-the-strongest-geomagnetic-storm-of-solar-cycle-24/

    Cloudy here so unlikely to see anything.

  54. Bob Weber says:

    Thanks Craig. Spaceweather.com just posted this

    “CME IMPACT, SEVERE GEOMAGNETIC STORM: Arriving earlier than expected, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field on March 17th at approximately 04:30 UT. At first, the impact sparked a relatively mild G1-class (Kp=5) geomagnetic storm. Since then, however, the storm has intensified to G4-class (Kp=8), ranking it as the strongest geomagnetic storm of the current solar cycle. This storm is underway now. Before sunrise, bright auroras were sighted over several northern-tier US states including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, the Dakotas and Washington.”

  55. macrobeak says:

    Bob and Ren – please expain the likely effects of the severe geomagnetic storm on weather and earthquakes in simple terms. Many thanks in advance.

  56. ren says:

    Radioactive radiation of the Arctic Circle in the storm is very low. Increases directly after a strong explosion (gamma).

  57. ren says:

    Macrobeak, strong magnetic activity of the sun changes, both up and down causing a strong movement of magma. Probably soon we shall see.
    http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/

  58. http://globalrumblings.blogspot.com/2011/03/japan-quake-corresponds-to-solar-flare.html

    I expect an uptick in geological activity due to the k8 geo magnetic storm.

    Ideally an AP INDEX less then 5 for several months with a spike to 300 or higher would make me more confident, but nevertheless this spike should result in some increase in geological activity over the next few weeks in contrast to the few weeks prior to this event.

    Time will tell over the next few weeks.

  59. Berényi Péter says:

    Though appealing in its simplicity, the ocean conveyor-belt paradigm has lost luster over the years […] the ocean’s eddy field, unaccounted for just decades ago […] figures prominently in the dismantling of the conveyor-belt paradigm.

    Indeed. The ocean is only a thin layer on the surface of Earth, its horizontal extent is 3+ orders of magnitude larger than its vertical one. Therefore it is tempting to model its currents as 2D flows, with two separate layers perhaps (surface + abyss). That’s what the “conveyor belt” is about.

    However, there is a fundamental difference between the math of 2D and 3D flows. In a turbulent 2D flow energy is transferred to ever larger scales (inverse cascade), so small eddies tend to disappear with time. Such a flow can not support turbulent mixing. On the other hand, 3D flows do the opposite, kinetic energy is transferred to ever smaller scales (forward cascade), until the Kolmogorov scale is hit.

    That’s how turbulent mixing, the engine behind ocean currents works. Therefore the 3D nature of the flow can’t be ignored in models.

    Unfortunately the very existence of forward cascades makes numerical modelling of a turbulent flow mathematically intractable.

  60. Paul Vaughan says:



  61. Paul, I agree. Wind does most everything! Try to understand, NOI This earth was designed and constructed to be non understandable to whatever is the current top predator! How marvelous..
    Polk at it is fine for trying to understand. We gots to consider the UN-understandable. How dey do dat?

  62. ren says:

    Thursday March 19 2015, 03:15:26 UTC 13 hours ago Off East Coast Of Kamchatka 5.0 40.0 CSEM-EMSC Feed

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Andrew (March 20, 2015 at 9:51 pm) brings up a big topic.

    “Figure 3: Coherent multi-decadal variability between the SAM and NH and tropical surface temperature.”
    The various SAM reconstructions measure different things but try to go by the same name. Some of them are dominated by tropical coupling to SH fall & winter whereas others depict what I would consider a more true SAM (more devoid of tropical contamination). This is an advanced subject for people who understand that chaos in climate is NOT temporal but rather spatiotemporal. New methods need to be developed to aggregate sensibly across the multiscale turbulence to isolate attractors according to a spatiotemporal version of the law of large numbers. The tricky part is the boundary conditions. Some of the features do have simple symmetries and that is why some minimalist progress is feasible, but it gets tricky picking out the celestial contamination. For example the semi-annual oscillation in the Southern Ocean picks up the stratospheric volcanism and this beats with the nearest QBO & BDO harmonics to nonlinearly contaminate the sunspot integral signal. The beats give a penta-decadal signal & another wave with a period of ~83-85 years. Their harmonic mean is ~64 years. But none of these lunisolar beats are of core interest. They represent contamination of the true external signal of insolation, which is the only thing that drives anything. The lunisolar stuff just stirs. A project for someone who wants to get to the bottom of this is to look at the geographic alternation of VEI clusters associated with decadal ENSO. I would be d*mned surprised if the military doesn’t already have (highly classified) detailed animations of this. If I had serious time & resources you can be D*MN sure I’d have animations of it too. I think this topic is too advanced for serious blog discussion. In part I say that to (amicably!) provoke. Remember that the ~83-85 year signal is coherent with multidecadal CAM (core angular momentum) and the long JEV cycle.
    I’ve been digging into the SAM reconstruction literature while revisiting old notes. A cautionary reminder is worth repeating: the various SAM reconstructions do NOT measure the same thing, so when you say “SAM” and I say “SAM” and someone else says “SAM”, we’re DEFINITELY NOT talking about the same thing, so we’re going to be having some uphill work communicating about this for awhile, at least until someone does better classification. I don’t really expect much of this to make much sense. We’re probably not going to be able to sensibly discuss this until vastly superior classification is available. It’s not a matter of this SAM or that SAM being “right” or “wrong”; rather it’s a matter of them conveying different info. Some of them are telling (way) too much about tropical coupling to SH fall & winter IMO (and so should be called something else). I’ll be digging at this more for sure…. I’m already convinced there’s something quite misleading in this new paper (because what it calls “SAM” isn’t SAM), but this is probably a useful opportunity for everyone to start studying up, so it might be useful stimulus despite whatever.
    Regards

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    I knew there was something quite suspicious about this Visbeck (2009) SAM:
    “Based on the assumption that mass is conserved poleward of 20°S […]”
    http://www.geomar.de/index.php?id=SAM (links to pdf & data)
    So there’s your nutty assumption: There’s a wall at 20°S, neatly compartmentalizing everything south of it. You have to believe that to go with the “Coherent multi-decadal variability between the SAM and NH and tropical surface temperature” suggested by the grand new multidecadal “wisdom” to which Andrew has alerted the community (also announced a few days ago by Judy Curry).
    So what we have is more contamination of clear thinking if this Impenetrable Wall of 20°S becomes the meme-base …which I believe is the plan of a certain group of lukewarmist distortion artists infected with a wild lust to artificially engineer monstrous uncertainty. I’m pretty sure I already know the defense they plan for The 20°S Wall …and I assure everyone it will be effortlessly taken down in one lazy shot (that’s how weak the defense is).

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    To put this in perspective:
    It’s a Livina & Lenton -class screw-up.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    What will be really funny (and nakedly indicative of shallow quantitative “reasoning”) will be observing who buys into this stuff. All of the “data” before 1945 is based on the false assumption that there is a wall at 20°S preventing northwards coupling. So take a minute to think this through. The new “wisdom” uses “data” assuming absolutely no north-south atmospheric connection (across 20°S) to prove a north-south atmospheric connection (across 20°S). This could be the material of stupendous comedy if someone who deeply understands finds time to write up a scathing exposure.

  67. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘This could be the material of stupendous comedy if someone who deeply understands finds time to write up a scathing exposure.’

    Well, that’s the state of climate science theory for you in a nutshell. Seeing what they want to see and ignoring everything else.

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gosselin points out a new article from Shaviv:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/sights-field-trip-milky-way

  69. Brian H says:

    “An dominant”? Sounds awful. Careful with the copy-paste word replacements.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    http://s27.postimg.org/46is65usx/MD_Wave_SLP.gif
    Let’s be clear:
    That’s not SAM.
    SAM is the bigger thing upon which that multidecadal pressure wave rides.

    A key thing to note is the high latitude SH spatiotemporal pattern.

    The waves go:

    Antarctica northward to ocean
    ocean westward to continent
    continent southward to Antarctica
    repeat

    But!
    The ~60 year wave does not travel at an equal pace in each sector.
    In the Indian sector only ~60° is covered in 1 cycle, whereas the Atlantic cycle covers ~180° and the Pacific cycle covers ~120°.

    Inattention to asymmetry is the root of the confusion in the SAM reconstruction literature.

    False assumptions. False assumptions. False assumptions. That’s the most important weapon in the arsenal of dark agents. Antidote: Disarm. First point out: assumption of uniformity fails harshly.

    The Shaviv article is refreshing. I especially like how it shoots down false modeling assumptions.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    It should be possible to get a better-constrained SAM reconstruction by using spatiotemporal differintegrals to remove the (contaminating) ~60 year eddies. A straightforward & simple numerical approach should be sufficient, without need for fancy kernels tailored to (analytically nearly intractable) orography. It will be interesting to see if the sampling is adequate. (I suspect it is.)

  72. oldbrew says:

    PV: another case of ‘shoot the messenger’ by the climate alarm crew, LOL.

    ‘I later joined forces with Canadian geochemist Ján Veizer who had the best geochemical reconstruction of the temperature over the past half billion years, during which multicellular life left fossils for his group to dig and measure. His original goal was to fingerprint the role of CO2 over geological time scales, but no correlation with the paleo-temperature was apparent. On the other hand, his temperature reconstruction fit the cosmic ray reconstruction like a glove. When we published these results, we instantly became personae non gratae in certain communities, not because we offered a data-supported explanation to the long-term climate variations, but because we dared say that CO2 can at most have a modest effect on the global temperature.’ (from PV’s link: http://www.sciencebits.com/sights-field-trip-milky-way)

    Cherry-picking their ‘evidence’ is the M.O. of promoters of man-made climate alarm. Anything else gets ignored or attacked, all the more so if it has a strong scientific basis.

  73. ren says:

    A major earthquake struck early Monday morning in northern Chile.
    The National Seismological Service at the University of Chile initially listed the temblor at a magnitude-6.3. The U.S. Geological Survey listed it as a magnitude-6.4.
    The temblor’s epicenter was located 48 kilometers (30 miles) east-southeast of Putre, Chile, at a depth of 128 km (180 miles), the USGS reported. It was near the borders with Peru and Bolivia, and occurred at 12:51 a.m. local time.

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB: Agree.
    There’s a fatal problem with ethics on this file.
    It’s thoroughly sickening and it needs to be corrected.