Of Turbulence, Hadley / Ferrel Cells, and Loopy Jet Streams

Turbulence Map of Asia

Turbulence Map of Asia

Original live image

Related to the Dry China posting is this prediction of turbulence over Asia. Notice anything?

Yup, that “dip” where the jet stream pulls down south more:

Jet Stream in Asia 6 March 2011

Jet Stream in Asia 6 March 2011

Original live image

So my working thesis is that as the sun goes sleepy, the UV plunges. This stops heating the upper air layers, so the whole atmosphere compresses and gets thinner. As a consequence, the Rossby Waves get deeper and we get a more “loopy jet stream”. This tends to have more cold dry arctic air plunging further equatorward. As the position of the loops wobbles, you get more extreme cold or hot events as you are on one side or the other of the interface (whereas with the ‘hot cycle’ flatter jet stream, folks on the margin are more likely to stay consistently on one side or the other and have more consistent weather).

OK, so far so good. But what about if stochastically there is a tendency for some places to spend more total time under a ‘dip’ than others? Say, places like China, for example. Especially those northern wheat growing regions?

The working thesis is that this is the method by which China gets sporadic drought and famine during “cold cycles”. It gets more of the “polar loop” than it did before, with much much less rain to give.

I’m not sure how to validate this, as it’s unlikely there were folks recording Rossby Waves in the 1700’s or 2000 BC, but there ought to be a way…

The other half of this coin is that the tropical cell (Hadley cell) ought to be getting squashed closer to the equator too. (It would be very interesting to find out if it is higher, or lower, average height… does the equatorward squashing overcome the lower UV lack of altitude heating?) At any rate, the Intertropical Convergence Zone ought to be keeping more of its water closer to home, thus the added drenching in northern South America and Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone

At any rate, that’s the raw undercooked thesis. Does a general shift of the Hadley, Ferrel, etc cells and a compression of the atmosphere lead to greater turbulence in the decending air locations, more rain in the intertropical convergence zone, greater drought in those places with stochastic resonance tendencies to be under arctic influenced dry air more often, and all of this caused by the dramatic change in solar UV output?

IFF that ties up the bundle, then we’ve got a generically useful predictor for who will have crop failures when, and what insurance companies are more likely to be paying out for floods and similar damage. We also could predict when airliners would be having more turbulence issues, along with when countries will have more civil unrest (aka food riots).

Now all it needs is a way to verify it… And to answer if if follows the cycle of Bond Events and 1/2 Bond Events…

BTW, I call this thesis the “Lava Lamp World”…

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Of Turbulence, Hadley / Ferrel Cells, and Loopy Jet Streams

  1. Ian W says:

    “We also could predict when airliners would be having more turbulence issues”

    Its a little more than that. The airlines make use of the jetstreams to pick up tail winds when eastbound and avoid them when westbound. The changes in the jetstream tracks due to the Rossby waves stopping can lead to considerable extra fuel burn for normal routes. At the moment that is something that is extremely expensive.

  2. John F. Hultquist says:

    First, there is a somewhat confusing word choice:

    “. . . so the whole atmosphere compresses and gets thinner.”

    The compresses – – thinner bit seems at first to contradict itself. The atmosphere contracts or has less height – I think that’s the notion you are going for.

    You also might want to reference the Omega Block
    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/144/

    In the link below this is called an anticyclonic block and also a high pressure anomaly:
    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/144/

    I sense you are thinking about long time periods rather than weeks, thus climate patterns rather than weather patterns. Still the concepts and terminology are related.

    Tying all these stories (dry China and so on) together is fantastically interesting. Thanks for taking all the time to do this. I think the CAGW crowd followed Robert Frost’s advice . . .

    http://www.amandashome.com/road.html

    . . . when they came to the CO2 route versus the historical route, rushing down the former and neglecting the latter. I’ve read Tonyb’s post about Arctic history with great interest. The Bond Events and human history take us back in a similar fashion. Great.

  3. E.M.Smith says:

    @John F. Hultquist:

    Yes, compresses vertically and gets thinner vertically. Not thinner in viscosity…

  4. George says:

    So my working thesis is that as the sun goes sleepy, the UV plunges. This stops heating the upper air layers

    Additionally, UV provides the greater amount of solar heating to the ocean. IR and visible light heat only the top few centimeters. UV penetrates much deeper and transfers energy to the ocean at depth. A decrease of energy in the UV portion of the spectrum has a much greater impact on ocean heating than it does to land heating as no light penetrates land at any frequency. A shift of energy from UV to visible would not impact land heating at all.

  5. David says:

    If Jet streams move toward the equator, and cloud cover follows, would this not significantly restrict the SWR entering the oceans and atmosphere as this is the area of greatest TSI reception? How does your mechanism differ from Steven Wilder (?spell check) who postulates the same effect on jet streams?

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    @David:

    The impact on clouds will likely be complex, as there are area implications (further south will cover more area, and “loopy” taking a longer run covers more area, so do the same clouds ‘spread out’ and get thinner -less dense – or do you get more total cloud?) along with cosmic ray effects from the sleepy sun, so I’m not making claims about clouds (but I’d speculate you get more of them over more area…).

    Don’t know Steven Wilder’s mechanism, but I’d not be at all surprised if more folks than just me puts these two things together and gets the same answer.

    I’m mixing in Hadley and Ferrel cell impacts, don’t know if he does. I think the “less tall” air constricts the latitudinal reach of the cells, so the Arctic makes up for the ‘gap’ by getting a more loopy edge. The heat has to get to the poles to be radiated off in winter anyway, so if it can’t go via a vertical roller, it can go via horizonal ‘loops’ that dig down into the hot band, then back up into the cold band.

    Perhaps if we went even colder we’d get a 3rd band of “cells” and the loopy Rossby waves would straighten out again. Who knows… but what I see is just that as the vertical gets constrained, the horizontal takes the motion and we get Lava Lamp world where big blobs of air head to the poles, then come back down, in blobs of Arctic lobes…

    Historically, the USA Western States including California and on out to Utah even, get more rain and wetter during cold excursions. Europe got wetter during the Little Ice Age. I think we’ll find that the Arctic Cold blobs have a preference for ‘dropping’ toward the Equator over large flat land masses with an Eastern bent to the path from the Jet Stream. This would tend to put a ‘dip’ over the US Midwest and over China, but with corresponding ‘rises’ over the USA West and Europe bringing more ocean moisture to them. Not all the time, just a higher tendency to be there, than not, but wobbling back and forth around it.

    IF that is true, then we would have the patterns we see now. More wet in some place, more drought in others, but more variability in both (as the wave wobbles). Not particularly good for crops and farming…

    At any rate, do you have a link for Steven’s stuff? If it’s the same, I’d love to know it (and put a link to it… having someone else thinking the same thing is always kind of comforting…) and if it’s somewhat different, we coud likely each pick up some ideas from the other. (The Law of Mutual Superiority. Everyone can gain from someone else…)

    @George:

    Good point. I’d not thought about that. Somehow I had the idea that UV didn’t get that far into the ocean.

  7. George says:

    This is an article about a paper on UV light increase since the Maunder Minimum

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-paper-solar-uv-activity-increased.html

    If UV radiation has, in fact, decreased, it could well result in much less energy transfer to the ocean. A photon of UV light carries more energy than a photon of visible light. IR penetrates actually only a few millimeters. Red light penetrates a few feet. UV light can penetrate many tens of feet depending on water conditions. Basically, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the penetration.

    Much of the surface heat gained by daytime IR would be immediately radiated out that evening. Energy gained by UV would impact the surface to a much deeper level. Even with only 7% or so of the sun’s light energy in this part of the spectrum, it represents most of the solar energy penetrating more than 20 feet or so.

    Most of the research in this area has been done in order to study “damage” that might be done by “the ozone hole”.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/144/m144p109.pdf

    But that seems to be out of fashion these days.

    If there is a significant change in the balance of energy of solar radiation out of the UV and into the visible, that might help explain why periods of lower sunspot numbers often correspond to cooler temperatures (in addition to a corresponding increase in GCRs possibly causing changes in cloud cover).

  8. Malaga View says:

    So my working thesis is that as the sun goes sleepy, the UV plunges. This stops heating the upper air layers, so the whole atmosphere compresses and gets thinner. As a consequence, the Rossby Waves get deeper and we get a more “loopy jet stream”.

    Seems like a great working hypothesis… but my guess is that there is also a magnetic influence that contributes to the phasing of loopy jet streams and loopy ocean currents… but there is still a long way to go in understanding this mechanism…

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

  9. Malaga View says:

    One of my other guesses is that these loopy jet streams are causing headaches for The Team… they didn’t get a baking hot Cancún… and they will have to juggle a lot more weather stations to get the right temperature… we’ve had the march to the airports [ © E.M. Smith ] … we’ve enjoyed the march to the beach [ © E.M. Smith ] … so I guess we should look forward to the march towards the equator

  10. George says:

    If I were China and if I were convinced that we were headed toward a spell of much drier weather, I will look for areas that are currently marginal due to arid conditions that become wetter under the same circumstances that cause China to become drier and begin now to accumulate farming assets in those areas. I wonder how Africa might fit into that scenario.

  11. George says:

    I also believe that we will discover that the same conditions that cause major drought in China will also cause major drought in the US Midwest.

  12. So….it is just about warm breezes and cold breezes….
    But what a coincidence that in Birkeland´s Terrela experiment happens the following:
    Quote from Kristian Birkeland’s monograph Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903:
    (Chapter VI. On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae)
    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph … nd_Nebulae
    Kristian Birkeland wrote:We will now pass on to experiments that in my opinion have brought about the most important discoveries in the long chain of experimental analogies to terrestrial and cosmic phenomena that I have produced. In the experiments represented in figs. 248 a-e, there are some small white patches on the globe, which are due to a kind of discharge that, under ordinary circumstances, is disruptive, and which radiates from points on the cathode. If the globe has a smooth surface and is not magnetised, the disruptive discharges come rapidly one after another, and are distributed more or less uniformly all over the globe (see a). On the other hand, if the globe is magnetised, even very slightly, the patches from which the disruptive discharges issue, arrange themselves then in two zones parallel with the magnetic equator of the globe; and the more powerfully the globe is magnetised, the nearer do they come to the equator (see b, c, d). With a constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high.

    Is there a kind of “taboo” prohibition just to think or to mention this phenomenon?
    Why such a fear of contradicting “official” and settled science?

  13. Malaga View says:

    @ Adolfo Giurfa
    Wonderful Birkeland quote… thank you… so no taboo from my side… electricity and magnetism go hand in hand…

    On the other hand, if the globe is magnetised, even very slightly, the patches from which the disruptive discharges issue, arrange themselves then in two zones parallel with the magnetic equator of the globe; and the more powerfully the globe is magnetised, the nearer do they come to the equator (see b, c, d). With a constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high.

    Rings lots of bells… especially regarding sunspots, jet streams and ocean currents….

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    What a difference an “r” makes…

    Oh, THAT Steven Wilde!

    The difference, IMHO, is that he says “the clouds move and that changes things” where I’m saying “the UV changes and that makes the atmosphere’less tall’ that then moves the cell bands (and incidentally the clouds) and that changes things”.

    So a bit different in ‘starting cause’ on my end, and more detail on ‘inner feedbacks’ on his end, and probably about the same from that point onward.

    Reality is probably the merger of the two, IMHO, having looked at his page (and remembering reading some of his stuff long ago and liking it, though I don’t think it was this clouds posting I’m remembering but some precursor discussion).

    Stick a UV trigger on the front of his thesis and add in some “altitude effects” from squashed atmospheric dynamics in the middle causing a more loopy jet stream and I think we’re on pretty much the same page. (Or add cloud dynamics and albedo feedbacks to my outline; which I readily admit I’ve ignored as it’s one of the ‘hard bits’..)

    Now all we need is a third party to merge the two sets of ideas, publish it, and claim all the credit. I vote for Verity ;-)

  15. Malaga View says:

    A cycles analysis approach to predicting solar activity
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/#more-1856

    Some very interesting graphics Mr Bond!!!!!

  16. George says:

    http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=335

    A devastating “mega-drought” occurred between 700 and 1000 years ago in the Great Plains of the USA. Geologists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln used “optically stimulated luminescence of sand particles and carbon-14 dating of seeds in peat laying between sand dunes in the Sand Hills of Nebraska, which form the largest sand sea in North America!

    What was the weather doing in China around that time? I think I remember reading something about a significant change in rainfall patterns in both the Levant and the Great Basin at about that time. Both became much dryer as they are today, were wetter before that.

  17. George says:

    Sierra Nevada:

    http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/posters/millar_etal_poster_mcss2004.pdf

    Apparently tree levels were higher during the MWP. Last major “extirpation event” (die off) happened between 1000 and 700 years ago.

    Timing of these events in the past:

    -Extirpation events: 3200-2900 ybp (years before present), 2300-2100 ybp, 1600-1300 ybp, 1000-700 ybp

    Colonization events (warmer weather, tree lines moving upslope) -Colonization events: 3500-3200 ybp, 2900-2300 ybp, 2100-1800 ybp, 1300-1000 ybp, 700 ybp – present

    -Some slopes likely treeless for periods of several hundred years
    • Northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast slopes final extirpation 800 years ago
    • No evidence for fire as stand-terminating events
    • Dead wood elevation range extends 200m higher than current treeline (2960m)

    So it would appear that there was a 300 year long “extirpation event” between 1000 and 700 years ago. This period corresponds to the period of the Great Plains “mega drought”

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    George

    If I were China and if I were convinced that we were headed toward a spell of much drier weather, I will look for areas that are currently marginal due to arid conditions that become wetter under the same circumstances that cause China to become drier and begin now to accumulate farming assets in those areas. I wonder how Africa might fit into that scenario.

    What Iv’e observed (and I actually sunk a few hours into this last night, postponing the ROTD posting by another day… but it’s mostly just “Libya having civil war”… ) is that the “flooding” in Australia and Northern South America is also present to some extent in Africa (though mostly in reports from 2008 – 2009 and a bit of 2010). What that says to me is that you get a lot MORE rain in the Tropics (intertropical convergence zone) and LESS further away from it.

    What has historically been the Chinese pattern is to nibble at the borders. So I’d expect them to “press their case” for the contested bit of Kashmir (folks remember India and Pakistan fighting there, but forget that China claims a chunk of it too…) and perhaps revisit some of the Russian border disputes (though only if Russia starts to look weak). Taiwan is obviously on the “shopping list” as is the South China Sea. Could that turn into a “dispute” with somewhere like Viet Nam or Philippines that justfies picking up some land? Could they use “ethnic kinship” to go after Singapore and surrounding? They generally have not liked to “island hop” though, so I’d watch the ‘remote margin’ more. I could see them “helping” Mongolia during a major cold disaster, for example; then not leaving. At that latitude, you are at the tail end of the Russian rivers that drain north. (Though I’d expect both they, and Russia, like the Mongolian Buffer Zone, so any ‘take over’ would likely not be political fusion, but economic dominance)

    Basically, I’d not want to share a border with China.

    If you look at “Kievan Rus” of about 1000 AD it’s a very small place with a European bent:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kievan_Rus_en.jpg

    China has a long memory, and many ethnic tribes of Siberia had / have an Asian face. I could easily see China making a play for the eastern edge of Russia including the disputed island with Japan (Sakalin) See this map of “Manchuria” for a ‘shopping list’ of historical China claims:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria

    You will note “outer Manchuria” is still, per the claims in the link, on some maps of China…

    So I could see a case where China presses a dispute in the UN (that would be blocked) then basically asks Moscow if they would rather keep Moscow or Manchuria?… This would only be done during a time of Russian weakness, though, and probably only after some Chinese money funded a bunch of folks in Chechnia (and others?) to cause grief on that end of things. China is an opportunist, and right now the Russian end is not very opportunistic, so I think other places would be first on the shopping list.

    Interesting, a “Bing!” of “China Territorial Claims” gives a map:

    http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/roc_administrative_and_claims.jpg

    with some odd little bits I’d not thought of…

    and scroll down in this article / discussion and there are maps (in Chinese) that cover a much larger area of Kashmir and part of Afgan along with Mongolia:

    http://fighterplanes.yuku.com/topic/3618

    http://i28.tinypic.com/2h3n228.jpg

    http://i28.tinypic.com/xaw8wy.jpg

    Though they are also going after more salty water:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8047206.stm

    With a nice map:

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45552000/gif/_45552694_south_china-sea_466.gif

    So, take a territorial claim to the ocean, then spread out when someone says it’s there and you call that a “war act”… Easy entre into countries around the puddle… And how many folks in the USA would even know where Brunei was? Per the wiki, 15% of the population is already Chinese and being “denied citizenship”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Chinese_in_Brunei

    So take on territorial claim, stir in “war act”, season with “oppressed Chinese nationals”… by by Brunei…

  19. E.M.Smith says:

    George

    I also believe that we will discover that the same conditions that cause major drought in China will also cause major drought in the US Midwest.

    I think the evidence is for an inverse relatioship, IIRC what I found here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/wet-cold-and-hot-dry-cycles/

    but that might not extend from The West into places like, oh, Ohio… (where folks cut off ‘the West’ is very strange to someone who lives in California and where “back east” begins in Reno, Nevada ;-)

    If you look at the dates you posted (such as 1000 to 700 years ago) they are about 2/3 of the way to the last Bond Event (about 500 AD). The pattern, to me, is one of “west gets wet during Bond Events, China not so much” and “West gets drought just AFTER Bond Events.

    Unfortunately, much of the “data” has 300 year or so bands on it, so hard to match to 1/2 Bond events (especially when THEY can have some error band too).

    So my ‘ongoing minor project” is to plot the implied Solar Pattern (seen in the chart in the Dry China posting) against the recorded history of actual Bond Events, plotted against “mega droughts” in China and N. America (divided into “west” and “east”) along with any other thing that I can find that is reliable (say, historical famine records?).

    Not making as much progress as I’d like, though, so if someone else wanted to make the chart ….

    @Adolfo:

    I’m not taking a position on what causes the effect, just that it happens. I’m open to the idea of a Birkland Current impact, but I’m just focusing on the “what” first and getting it nailed down before looking at “root cause”.

    FWIW, I’ve frequently commented that the “two spots” of Ozone level at the North Polar area look an awful lot like the landing zone of a Birkland twin pair. Take a look at the UV map and it’s just SO compelling… I can think of nothing else that would cause two persistent spots that drift together around the top of the earth…

    Two bright purple splotches in the “live map” at the top of this posting as I type:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ozone-hole-history/

    I think of those as “Ozone Eyes” and they are almost always there….

    I’ve raised the issue a dozen (or two or there) times, but nobody seems to care about ozone as an indicator of current density at the poles, nor how that might relate to an “ozone hole”. (IMHO due to no current landing on the S. Pole and will swap to the N. Pole on the next magnetic field reversal… but no way to test that thesis…)

  20. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M.

    You make some very interesting points regarding possible Chinese expansion of territory to increase agricultural and raw materials access. I notice that nowhere did you say (or even clearly imply) that China would actually accomplish their expansion by using boots on the ground.

    Personally, I suspect that the theft of Tibet might be the last really large scale Chinese use of military conquest.

    While it is easy enough to posit a military intervention somewhere (as the US did in Hawaii, Cuba and the Phillipines — and as the British did almost everywhere!) the Chinese will probably find it more to their advantage to undertake the same form of economic war that we have seen the West take in various third world countries. This is more of a “small stick but big carrot” approach. Military forces are used in a relatively restrained fashion — enough to convince the locals that they are seriously outgunned, but then comes a combination of loans and bribes to the local Big Man so that China is guaranteed below market price access to whatever the regional commodity is, whether agriculture, ores or oil. The nature of technology and the decentralization of ability to project force has shifted the balance of costs and benefits to the point that it is now usually cheaper to use money and international law to steal resources than outright violence. In fact, if worse comes to worst, one can even pay free market price. :) Any number of “insurgent forces” have shown that even a small number of men with low tech and very inexpensive, AK-47s, mortars and the occasional donated anti-aircraft missle can cause a high tech army to run up extraordinary costs. The Chinese know this if anyone does; they are masters at it.

    Remember too that the Port of Lazaro Cardenas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_L%C3%A1zaro_C%C3%A1rdenas is well situated for export to China of North American raw materials, not only Great Plains agricultural products, but also mining products from the Rockies and the Sierra Madre. Well, I guess they deserve a lot of those resources; we’ve already cashed their checks!

    Anyway, I think that we are unlikely to get a Ming the Merciless sort of China, but rather a sort of corporate/nationalist China armed with a powerful checkbook and a huge self-interest, a sort of China that does financially to the Pacific Basin what Rome did militarily to the Mediterranean.

  21. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason Calley:

    Gee, you don’t think folks would preferentially ship things into / out of the USA via a Mexican port that bypasses the Union controlled US ports with $100,000/yr+ plus “wages” for folks who watch containers be unloaded by machinery, do you? /sarcoff>

    Next thing you know, you’ll be saying that low cost Mexican Truckers will be able to drive on US highways hauling freight…

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/03/2096309/us-mexico-reach-deal-to-end-trucking.html

    Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that we’re well on our way to becoming another Latin American Banana Republic… buying all our manufactured goods from the industrialist county and paying for it with their credit card good at their stores… Oh, wait…

    FWIW, I think the Chinese Game will be economic war / subterfuge / mercantilism right up until it’s China The Great and you are powerless to really fight it. Then it will be “boots on the ground” and starting in the most proximal location first and with the strongest historical claims. Those maps above. They will phish with one or two minor border dust ups to test the ‘waters’ first, such as their gunboats in the South China Sea and some incursions into “disputed” territories in Kashmir and near, but not actually in, Mongolia. Say that corner of Kazakstan near Mongolia where I think China had turf once… Once they taste success, it will accellerate. I’d give it about 2030.

    Oh, and watch for a ‘peaceful’ takeover of Taiwan. The USA has an official “one China” policy as, in theory, does Taiwan. So at some point the ‘advantages’ of being a ‘second Hong Kong’ will be more than the disadvantages of being dominated. Then everyone will forget that Formosa was populated by Formosans before the Chinese invaded, and Taiwan will quietly become part of “One Chinese Heart”… About 2020 IMHO, but depending on when old folks with grudges die.

    They will also “go up” to dominate the “high frontier”:

    http://spacedaily.com/news/china-02f.html

    China Eyes Territorial Claim Of Outer Space

    by Wei Long
    Beijing – Jan 21, 2002
    A group of Chinese space scientists urged the government to accelerate acceptance of the proposal to develop an infrastructure in space and regard developing the “space territory” as a national strategy, the Hong Kong Bureau of the China News Agency reported last Tuesday (Jan. 15). The group also suggested to claim access to space as China’s “fourth territory”.

    In the recently submitted consultation report “Building of China’s Space-based Infrastructure”, space technology specialist Wang Xiji of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and three other Academy colleagues contended that conventional ground-based space facilities would no longer meet future requirements, so they proposed the construction of a space-based infrastructure.

    So, as the USA “burns our fleet” of space ships, China heads to the stars.

    But I’m sure they will sell us a ride to space where we can visit their hotels and stay in their facilities… as long as we pass the credit check…

    @Melaga View:

    Interesting Tallbloke article that is also going to take some time to fully absorbe…

    @Vukcevic:

    A lot there to digest… I’ll need a bit.

    BTW, I think that the ozone patterns would be something you could map to ‘interesting things’ in terms of magnetic and electrical patterns. See:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ozone-hole-history/

    where in a time of very low UV, we still have bright spots of high Ozone, but the max ozone has moved more equatorward, leaving very large ‘negative anomalies’ just to the north of them… Sure looks like an electrical / magnetic phenomenon to me. Much more so than any UV thing and completely unrelated to CFCs…

  22. Verity Jones says:

    I’m glad someone mentioned Stephen Wilde – his model was the first thing I thought of: http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/04/07/stephen-wildes-new-climate-model/

  23. oldtimer says:

    Morris author of Why the West Rules – For Now has an interesting chapter on The Winds of Change (pp237ff in my edition). He comments “around 800BCE…minor wobbles in the Earth`s axis generated stronger winds all over the northern hemisphere. In western Eurasia…this meant more winter rain…good for the Mediterranean basin where the commonest cause of death (was)…intestinal viruses that flourish in hot dry weather…Main problem for farmers…winter winds might not bring enough rain for good harvests.

    But new climate was bad for those north of the Alps where main killers were respiratory diseases that flourished in cold and damp…and the farmers problem was a short growing season. Between 800 and 500 BCE population dropped in northern and western Europe and grew around the Mediterranean.

    In China he says winter winds blow mainly from Siberia, so when they were stronger after 800 BCE they made the weather drier as well as cooler. He thinks this made agriculture easier round the Yangzi and Yellow rivers (by reducing flooding) where population kept growing but harder for those on the arid plateau north of the Yellow river.

    This was bad news for kings – they lost control. The Egyptian state split (into 3 principalities in 804 BCE and c12 dukedoms by 770 BCE). Control was lost in Assyria. It seems to have help trigger the expansion of the Phoenicians and the Greeks who settled coastal lands around the Med.

    There was a similar breakdown in China where the Zhou king lost control and his kingdom was plundered by raiders from the north.

    He likens this event to the collapse around 1200 BCE resulting from climate change. Other periods he identifies include 2200-2150 BCE marked by droughts, migration and the destruction of buildings (Greece), temples (Malta), coastal fortresses (Spain), biggest sites (Shandong in China) and falling populations (China, Egypt, Mesopotamia).

    There is much much more than there is space here.

    His website is here:
    http://www.ianmorris.org/

  24. E.M.Smith says:

    @oldtimer:

    Note that about 800-900 BC is Bond Event 2 while 2200 BC is Bond Event 1.

    1200 BC sits on top of a 3/4 Bond Event node… one of the 358 year (double 179 year solar patterns) nodes.

    Does the author cite a reference for the ‘polar wobble’? That is, do they have some way to show a polar move? I’m still looking for the BE 1500 year cycle driver, so if they can show a 1400-1500 year period of ‘polar wobble’ that would be very interesting…

  25. David says:

    E.M. “At any rate, do you have a link for Steven’s stuff? If it’s the same, I’d love to know it (and put a link to it… having someone else thinking the same thing is always kind of comforting…) and if it’s somewhat different, we coud likely each pick up some ideas from the other.”

    I sent this to you as soon as I found it. I have not read it. From other comments Steven has made I understood him to articulate that a lattitude shift in cloud cover, with or with out an increase in albedo, would, due to being closer to the equator, have dramatically more SWR blocking of TSI, especially over the ocean surface.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

  26. Verity Jones says:

    E.M.,

    Thanks for the vote ;-) but actually the link I gave was not as extensive a description as I’ve seen before written in articles by Wilde. The pdf link provided by David is much better and you can see ( I only had to get as far as page 6) that Wilde is talking about the height of the tropopause and overall much similarity to what you are discussing.

    I apologise if there are small differences that I have overlooked. Rather a lot else going on tonight and now I need to go and pack for a trip.

  27. E.M.Smith says:

    @David:

    OK, I’ve looked at the link. A quick read of the first of it shows up where I think we are divergent. (And that PDF is what I remember seeing some time back though maybe in simpler form).

    As I read it, he says “It’s not the UV (as conventional theory has UV warming the stratosphere and cooling was observed)” where I simply report that “sun cut UV output a lot per the sats and the atmospheric height is lower”. Or “It’s the thermosphere, folks!”:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826152217.htm

    Loads of other folks (such as Leif S.) like to assert it can’t be the thermosphere as it is just too tenuous a layer.

    I like to just point at the data.

    Solar cycle in ‘quiet phase’.
    UV Plunges.
    Thermosphere cooled dramatically.
    Atmosphere shrank.

    Those are just facts, and “The Facts just are. -E.M.Smith”…

    From that I’m willing to jump to “The UV modulates” and leave it to others to tease out “how”. Nature ran the experiment, we observed it. (It is always possible there is a covariance on something else like electrical or magnetic effects, but for my purposes, as long as they always come together when they come, I’ve got a predictor that works…)

    Now, once you say “air got squashed”, the next question is just “What happened next?”. Steven has a very elegant analysis that looks at the effects of geographic posiiton of the cloud bands, and I’m pretty sure he’s “onto something” with that. The mechanism is pretty clear and the displacement equatorward has apparently happened.

    I’m looking a bit more at “what moves the band” and suggesting that at the “tall air” end we have a nice uniform ‘3 zones’ and get nice lateral jet stream. Or maybe 4 zones… (ITCZ, Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar zones). But when the air gets squashed, the width of the equatorial ITCZ narrows and it dumps more water closer to the equator. Hello Floods and Landslides in the equatorial band… The two sets of cells get squashed in a bit, but are also deprived of that ITCZ water cycle, so more dry at the outer edges toward the poles. Then the Polar Zone, as the weakest of the set, has to “fill the gaps” and does it with Rossby Waves. (If the heat can’t get to the poles with rolling up and down in cells, it can roll side to side…)

    So, IMHO, I’m just saying “different trigger” and “I’m looking at how the parts move” while “Steven is looking at what happens when they move”. Only place I see us quibbling might be over the importance of the UV trigger. (And I’m open to that being covarient with something else that matters more). Oh, and he is more “heat balance” oriented while I’m more “heat flow” oriented. I make no claims about net heat gain / loss, only that it heads from the hot equator toward the poles and that the nature of that flow changes when the air gets squashed down…

    Like I said before, I could easily see the two approaches being merged into a “complete theory of it all”…

  28. KevinM says:

    OT: How about a WSW?

  29. dougieh says:

    Hi E.M

    don’t forget El Nino & sister (not well explained wrt climate)

    good book I’m reading on past climate wrt this from Ross Couper Johnston (2000).
    title – the weather phenomenon that changed the world.

    recommend it as it has many good historical narratives (put things in perspective) on past extreme weather/climate.
    certain people/groups need reminded to read their history.

    as always enjoy your take on everything.

    cheers
    Dougie

  30. George says:

    I read a paper recently concerning century scale drought in parts of Africa and it seemed that the entire ITCZ could move some 200-300 miles North or South at times. I believe it was in Quaternary Research sometime last year.

    I also read something recently that I believe showed that increases in clouds caused by increases in GCRs are greatest in the tropics. This would seem to make sense as that is where most of the convection is.

  31. Hal says:

    “KevinM

    OT: How about a WSW?”

    I second that emotion(sic)

  32. Eric Barnes says:

    Great Stuff! Just a small percentage change in albedo in the tropics can more than account for all the warming or cooling. The dropoff in effective cooling as clouds move poleward is dramatic I’m guessing. Any ideas on what that curve looks like?

  33. E.M.Smith says:

    @KevinM and Hal:

    It’s been on my “must do” list for about a week now.

    I’ve been unispired… and finding it hard to get the motivation up. I was supposed to get it done this Friday For SURE! Then Saturday.. Sunday… and all of today I’ve felt guilty as I’ve been finding such other fun stuff to look at…

    But “tonight for SURE!” ;-)

    (The short from is that the stuff I tossed in as comments along the way in all the wrong places that it was time to ‘own stuff’ and oil and oil trusts is still holding. Grains may be reaching a ‘toping point’ and I need to look at the chart. The dollar is dropping and it’s Swiss Francs and Yen that have the edge. Even gold started moving again. Brazil was having a ‘counter trend rally’ and may be headed back up, but has to cross the moving average set first, until then it’s a ‘buy when far below, sell at the SMA stack counter (down) trend rally’. Uncle Ben said you are not having inflation just because gasoline and food are reaching unaffordable heights, for the simple reason that your paycheck isn’t rising… Oh Dear… And US stocks did an Up Down UP Down jitter that makes me think we may be near a top, but again I need that chart time… but it’s next on my list of things to do… Honest… )

  34. George says:

    Just a small percentage change in albedo in the tropics can more than account for all the warming or cooling. The dropoff in effective cooling as clouds move poleward is dramatic

    I thin Dr. Roy Spencer did some work in that area not long ago. Might want to check around his site.

    The thing is that while clouds do lose their effective cooling as they move poleward, they begin to have the opposite impact in that they act as insulation and prevent cooling. So if you had a completely clouded Earth, you would have the same temperatures day/night, pole/equator.

    Increased high latitude clouds would be most likely to manifest as an increase in low temperatures. Increased tropical clouds as a decrease in high temperatures.

  35. Malaga View says:

    Possible magnetic excursion link with the Younger Dryas…

    Around 15,000 years ago, the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an “ice age”; this is known as a glacial termination. The large ice sheets, which covered significant parts of North America and Europe, began melting as a result. A climatic optimum known as the “Bölling-Allerød” was reached shortly thereafter, around 14,700 before present. However, starting at about 12,800 BP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e. cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD), since it is the most recent interval where a plant characteristic of cold climates, Dryas Octopetala, was found in Scandinavia.

    The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml

    Evidence for Two New Magnetic Field Excursions (11,000 and 13,000 Cal Yrs BP) from sediments of the Tahiti Coral Reef (Maraa tract)
    ….
    We interpret these anomalous inclinations to be evidence for two magnetic field excursions. The radiocarbon dates, which bracket the excursion intervals, limit the younger excursion age to between 10,600 and 11,100 Cal Yrs BP and the older excursion age to between 12,600 and 13,200 Cal Yrs BP.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMGP21B0786L

  36. oldtimer says:

    I am unable to answer your question directly (I have not yet finished reading the book – and I will certainly read it for a second time).

    Morris does discuss Milankovich cycles but also the way they have related to continental drift (most land in N hemisphere and how this amplifies the effects of solar radiation) and the decline of volcanic activity. He is of course talking about geological time here.

    His aim is to measure social development using energy capture, organisation (measured by city size), war making capacity and information technology (measured by literacy) as his indicators. He freely admits that this is like carving a tree trunk with a chainsaw.

    Climate figures in his narrative where it affects the history of the social development he seeks to chart. There are other examples (besides those previously mentioned) which I have gleaned from the index by looking up drought, famine, global warming, medieval warm period, Roman warm period and so forth. Plagues figure strongly too.

    Here are a few more examples he mentions to match against your bond event chronology:
    200-500 BCE temperature down 2F
    600 famine in China
    1300 end of medieval warm period
    1340 drought in China plus plague
    1600 volcanic eruption in Peru plus weak sunspot activity
    1640 reported to be bitterly cold
    1600s thirty year war in Germany; English civil war, state failures in China

    I think the evidence of connections is very persuasive.

  37. David says:

    “Just a small percentage change in albedo in the tropics can more than account for all the warming or cooling. The dropoff in effective cooling as clouds move poleward is dramatic”

    George responding
    “I think Dr. Roy Spencer did some work in that area not long ago. Might want to check around his site.

    The thing is that while clouds do lose their effective cooling as they move poleward, they begin to have the opposite impact in that they act as insulation and prevent cooling. So if you had a completely clouded Earth, you would have the same temperatures day/night, pole/equator.”

    George I do not quite follow this. Clouds act as insulation wherever they exist, both reducing shortwave insolation and scattering back about 50% of upward LWR. I understand SWR in the tropics can reach 1,000 W/m2. So I suppose it to be a question of feed backs, and a negative feedback operating on a higher percentage of insolation (the tropics) would have a greater effect. Perhaps you can direct me to where on Dr Spencer’s site he discusses this.

  38. @vukcevic:
    Only M.Vukcevic shows the real cause behind all these multiplicity of phenomena. As long as meteorological offices keep on launching toyish baloons to check “winds”, temperatures and pressures, instead of measuring electric and magnetic fields, they won´t be able to forecast anything.
    It seems there is a psychological barrier, a kind of buffer which “protect us” from knowing the truth, as it would take us to the influence of these fields on such things as our little and beloved existence. (think, for example, in the Cicadian rythms,etc).
    Though already old, we have been lucky to survive the last wave of proton showers….

  39. George says:

    George I do not quite follow this. Clouds act as insulation wherever they exist, both reducing shortwave insolation and scattering back about 50% of upward LWR. I understand SWR in the tropics can reach 1,000 W/m2. So I suppose it to be a question of feed backs, and a negative feedback operating on a higher percentage of insolation (the tropics) would have a greater effect. Perhaps you can direct me to where on Dr Spencer’s site he discusses this.

    Thing is, in the tropics, they reflect more energy than they “trap” so they are a net negative feedback. At the poles they would trap more than they reflect so the net feedback is positive.

    The difference being that the increase in clouds seems to be mostly in the tropics so overall the net feedback is negative.

    You might look here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/radiative-changes-over-the-global-oceans-during-warm-and-cool-events/

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/update-further-evidence-of-low-climate-sensitivity-from-nasas-aqua-satellite/

  40. George says:

    Oh, and Bob Tisdale has had some excellent stuff over the many months at his site as well. I find it worthwhile to rummage through his postings over there from time to time and I always seem to learn something new each time:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/

  41. E.M.Smith says:

    @Melaga View:

    I’ve extended my spreadsheet of 1432 / 179 based BE cycle model back to about 16,000 BC.

    It has a node of a BE at 12,300 BC and it is mid-warming at 11,500 BC.

    Just sayin’….

    @Oldtimer:

    Indeed… and thanks for the data points!

    @Adofo:

    It’s unknown why Bond Events are so much stronger than other cycles. Perhaps you could look into any evidence for a “proton shower” or other partical / isotope ratio changes on those B.E. nodal points? I would, but I’m already way over committed…

  42. David says:

    Thank you George. That brings some clarity to me concerning the effects of latitude moving jet streams.

  43. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks all, it’s nice to see my stuff getting a bit of an airing.

    I diverge slightly from Chiefio because a flattening of the polar vortices so that they spread out and push the jets equatorwards requires a warming of the stratosphere at a time of quiet sun which is, frankly, heretical at present.

    That is why I needed to invoke differential ozone effects at different levels.

    Some recent results highlighted by Joanna Haigh support that view in that during the solar quietude ozone levels actually rose above 45km which has been quite a surprise to many. If that is continuing to date then a fundamental component of my hypothesis would be confirmed.

    This is the most recent published version of my description as to how it works:

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature.html

  44. Malaga View says:

    @ E.M. Smith
    I’ve extended my spreadsheet of 1432 / 179 based BE cycle model back to about 16,000 BC.

    Global land environments since the last interglacial
    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

    14,500 y.a. – rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

    13,500 y.a. – climates about as warm and moist as today’s

    13,000 y.a. ‘Older Dryas’ cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.

    12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

    11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) – Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

    11,500 – 10,500 y.a. – climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.

    9,000 y.a. – 8,200 y.a. – climates warmer and often moister than today’s

    about 8,200 y.a. – sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

    8,000-4,500 y.a. – climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today’s.

    (but; at 5,900 y.a. – a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the ‘elm decline’).

    Since about 4,500 y.a. – climates fairly similar to the present

    2,600 y.a. – relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

    (but; 1,400 y.a. {536-538 A.D.} wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

    (Followed by ‘Little Ice Age’ about 700-200 ya)

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html

  45. You might like to look at the ideas I have posted on my site about the relationships between the electromagnetic effects of the solar wide shifts in field strengths and planetary orbital interactions via couplings through the solar wind, that results in the modulation of the Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere that drives the shifts in zonal vrs meridional flows do to long term 18.6 year Mn cycle patterns, and most obvious in the Saros cycle of 6585 days and a 240 declinational period of 6558 days=17.95 years.

    http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/

    Richard Holle *no initials back here* just 30 years of searching for answers to your question. why loopy jet streams?

  46. E.M.Smith says:

    @all:

    Please note that Stephen Wilde has made a comment above at
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/of-turbulence-hadley-ferrel-cells-and-loopy-jet-streams/#comment-13941

    which I found in the moderation queue… (I’d gone off to dinner out with the spouse… after a long day exploring things to do with Celts and being lax about ‘moderation’… please forgive…)

    @Richard Holle:

    I’ll take a look.. but not right now… “a few” beers and then a “large Sake” (and I don’t mean Salmon ;-) with dinner means I’m not at my ‘sharpest’ right now… Happy, though ;-)

    @Malaga View:

    Assuming ya is years ago and the same as BP before present…

    14,300 a BE, so by 14.500 bp we could have been in the “last hurrah” hot phase just before that plunge.. kind of like now… or the dates are just off by about 200-300 years and this is actually the ‘just after the BE warm up’…

    13,500 BP is clearly after the BE marker. So warmed to about like now.

    10,868 BC is a BE marker, so 12,868 BP… darned close to 13,000 BP… cold excursion.

    By 12,800 BP or 10,800 BC we’re clearly inside the the middle of the BE 100 year+ band by 68 years…

    11,500 BP warming is 9,500 BC, just ahead of the next BE marker date at 9436 BC, so “warm like now” just before the plunge… but, 10,500 BP or 8,500 BC is on the other side of it, so that 11,500-10,500 “cold again” straddles the 9,436 BC or 11,436 BP date for a BE. Given a bit of ‘onset lag’ to max effect, that’s right in the “cold spot”… Very ‘within the error bands’ to have warming into 9,500 BC, then in 9436 BC plunge and stay cold to 8,500 BC.

    9,000-8,200 BP (warm) has a BE marker at 8572 BP to deal with. Either it’s off by about 372 years (a bit over two solar 179 yr cycles) or things started getting colder and took a while to hit the record…

    8200 BP, or 6200 BC is “two cycles after” the BE point at 6572 BC. So the cold is recorded a bit late…

    8000 – 4500 BP or 6000-2500 BC. Skips the BE marker at 5140 BC / 7140 BP and the one at 3708 BC 5708 BP…. The next BE Marker is at 2276 BC / 4276 BP and is the point where Egypt falls… (though in theory at about that 3708 BC point folks were driven out of the desert into Egypt…) at any rate, darned close to 4500 BP that just smells of “round to 1000/2 place”…

    The 3900 BC / 5900 BP is just after the second of those ‘missed’ BE markers…

    2600 BP / 600 BC is ‘one cycle after’ the BE at 844 (665 mark for next period)

    700-200 BP or 1300-1800 AD is straddling the middle of the cycle and ought to be “warm” per full BE measures. It’s amost a straddle of the midpoint. ( 1304-1662 AD, next cycle at 1841 AD) So unless there is a 1/2 Bond Event ripple that doesn’t show up in the older stuff, it’s hard to explain. Our node is at 2020 (which I fixed as the start date, so if there IS a pathological offset to the numbers, I likely need to change the starting point of the cycle computation away from 2020 AD…)

    OK, You’ve got the numbers. Anything “regularly offset”?

    BTW, the “spreadsheet” is trivial. Start at 2020, subtract 179 repeatedly. It has an “8” repeat pattern (as I understand it) so BE at 2020, 1841, 1662, 1483, 1304, 1125, 946, 767, 588 BE, 409, 230, 51, -128, -307, -486, -665, -844 BE, -1023, -1202, -1381, -1560, -1739, -1918, -2097, -2276 BE, -2455, etc. etc.

    It could be improved by matching the known BE closer to existing dates and sliding the start point, and by making that 179 more precise (as errors accumulate) or by using actual planetary / solar dates rather than a 179 plug number, or by …

    But at first glance, it looks to me like the thesis fits inside the error bands given with the possible issue of the LIA being a bit “odd”… (and I sure hope that it was NOT the start of the plunge into the next Glacial and it really IS true that AGW is happening, “but it’s a good thing”, as that would make all the bickering and time wasted way too close to painful “poetic justice” to both sides…)

Comments are closed.