The Big Appell Goes Underwater, Just As Hansen Predicted

David Appell says that area is now measured by volume.

ScreenHunter_702 Jun. 29 15.54

Twitter / davidappell: @VariabilityBlog Yet another …

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to The Big Appell Goes Underwater, Just As Hansen Predicted

  1. Marc says:

    Redefining geometry seems a bit extreme, even for warmists; wouldn’t it be simpler to simply redefine “greater”?

  2. tom0mason says:

    Appell has tron-like entered a computer modeled, demential, virtual world, where the very definitions of ‘extent’, ‘area’ and ‘volume’ hold no boundaries.
    He’s more to be pitied than blamed.

  3. _Jim says:

    2-D or 3-D, what’s the difference among trust-fund kiddies … maybe he is conflating the term ‘volume’ with how loud the CAGW crowd shouts …

  4. darrylb says:

    At what point in our history were we even able to determine volume of sea ice— that is knowing the average thickness of the ice.

  5. A C Osborn says:

    They are getting really worried Steve, you are getting to them.
    Steve Mosher and Nick Stokes are fighting a rearguard action against you over on Climate Etc.
    Stve Mosher called me an Asshole for saying you were right.

    Can you contact me on my email address, I want to show you something on BEST, but I don’t know how to post it on the site?

    • Gail Combs says:

      They are getting really worried because all that money, not to mention “The Cause” is at stake. The Supreme Court just upheld the EPA so if it is PROVED in the minds of the peons that NOAA LIED in order to deprive them of electricity and to sky rocket the rate they pay there is going to be he!! to Pay in coming elections and who knows the Tea Party may actually gain in strength.

      Definition of a conservative:
      A progressive who got mugged.

      The US government is mugging the rank and file “progressives” big time and some are starting to notice. Obummercare and the Bank bailouts were a bit of an eye opener for a lot of people. Polls show people don’t trust Congress or the Federal government.

  6. Average Antarctic Ice thickness is about 1m. Which implies that as of today, there is 2,000 cubic km more ice than normal (assuming the other ice isn’t thicker).

    Maybe Appel Polisher could point to an existing dataset for Antarctic Ice Volume that contradicts me.

  7. Benito Suarez says:

    sea ice is measured in whatever way is most useful to their political purposes at any particular time.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I’ve had more than a few comment wars with David. Unfortunately he is like so many warmists. He does not have a grasp of the data and when you show him incontrovertible proof his position is wrong he reverts to abuse, then storms off.

    There is more ice because temperature is falling. Sticking your head into the sand will not do anything to change this.

    • methylamine says:

      I’ve had several forum comment-wars with the nasty fat little man myself.
      He’s quite bitchy, and his argument technique reminds me hilariously of the Comic Book Guy in “The Simpsons”. Actually so does his appearance…

      My mantra in those discussions–to make it appealing to the less-informed readers–is to simply quote the facts on “carbon” emissions and where they come from. No graphs, no math, no esoteric discussions on “radiative forcing”–Appel’s favorite topic because, as he reminds everyone constantly he’s a PhD in PHYSICS so you dare not argue.

      Just this: carbon emissions by source:
      earth’s land mass: 60 gigatons/year
      earth’s ocean mass: 90 gigatons/year
      humans: 5 gigatons/year

      We’re not doing it. Whether or not “it” is happening, whether or not “it” is caused by CO2 if it IS happening, we’re not doing it.

      It enfuriates him every time because I get huge upvotes, and his inevitably abstruse replies get none.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I crossed with Appell ONCE. What a complete idiot.

      • philjourdan says:

        So David is fat? That explains a lot. He wants to call me fat every time he loses an argument (fat old man is his derogatory term). While I am getting old, I am not fat, so I wondered why he always called me that. I guess it is the term that he has heard the most.

        I guess I will just call him FLF – Fat Little (and you can guess the other F).

        • tom0mason says:

          He often comments now with a selfie as the avatar, and yes it’s a round blotch red, podgy face that looks down at you. Exactly as I imagined. I wonder if he has the high pitched, slightly gruff vioce to match my image of him.

        • philjourdan says:

          Probably an Urkel type voice. He claims to be a writer and a scientist. Yet his writing is horrendous and he does not know the first thing about science! He is adamant that CO2 is not a trace gas.

  9. Justa Joe says:

    Gotta luv the warmist. Record extent implies loss of volume in their world.

  10. philjourdan says:

    Just add that to his proclamation that CO2 is not a trace gas.

  11. Latitude says:

    Well…if it’s measured by volume……who’s doing the area maps?

  12. kirkmyers says:

    The alarmist pseudo-scientists will resort to any subterfuge to bolster their disintegrating “human CO2 is overheating the planet” theory. There are research dollars, prestige and reputations at stake. Many of them of have invested a lifetime in perpetrating the AGW fraud. They can’t just walk away. It would be too much of a blow to their egos. At some point, they might want to start worrying about the legal ramifications of their scientific malfeasance. They’ve defrauded taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars.

  13. BruceC says:

    Umm, I’m not a scientist, only a mere motor mechanic (retired), so you can call me dumb if you wish……..but if ice area and/or extent is increasing, wouldn’t there also be an increase in volume?

    I know, call me stupid and I’ll go sit in the corner.

    • methylamine says:

      It takes years of indoctrination, living at wages in conditions worse than a Mooney cult initiation center, to absorb enough lies to become a believing warmist. These cult indoctrination centers are called “graduate school”. A combination of pitiful stipends, constant forced boot-licking and Appel-polishing, and sleep deprivation breaks their wills.

      So don’t feel bad. You still have the common sense to state forthrightly that 2+2=4.

  14. I’m not sure you have the authority to question David Appell. I recall him in the comments section of this blog comparing himself to Einstein.

  15. catweazle666 says:

    Poor Appell.

    His religion is falling apart about his ears, and he’s getting hysterical.

    I doubt he’s the only one, either!

    • Gail Combs says:

      He is a “Contract Writer” with only one bog spavined, sway backed, cow hocked, club footed, pigeon toed, ewe necked, decrypt half dead pony pulling his career wagon.

      He is going to fight tooth and nail to keep that pony alive as are the other clima-crooks.

  16. DocRichard says:

    BruceC, Area is proportional to volume if and only if depth is constant. If the depth of the ice is diminishing, then volume is less. Area is easy to measure, but volume is more difficult. Obviously, volume (which is proportional to mass) is the important figure for judging accurately how the planet is heating.

    It’s the same with global surface temperature. That, like ice area, is relatively easy to measure. Total earth heat must include ocean temperatures which is more difficult, involving a whole new set of measurements.

    In the end, science must look at total earth heat, and total ice volume.

    • methylamine says:

      Well sure–that’s obvious. But it certainly stands to reason that given it’s a natural process, and given the area has increased, there’s no reason to believe that it’s thinner than usual.

      Hence, the total area AND volume have increased.

      And: “Obviously, volume (which is proportional to mass) is the important figure for judging accurately how the planet is heating.”

      You’re making a huge and unwarranted assumption–that the planet is heating, which the last 17 years have shown very clearly it’s not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You still do not have it correct.

      Temperature is a rotten method of measuring energy since it does not include the latent heat of evaporization.

      The other point the Warmists have missed is when the earth has a large extent of Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice + a Northern Hemisphere Polar Vortex like last winter, the earth is rapidly cooling.

      Why?
      1. The Polar vortex means more snow in the lower latitudes of the NH and therefore a higher albedo.

      2. The Polar Vortex means more warm air is sucked into the Arctic where the heat is radiated away.

      3. A large extent of Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice also means a higher albedo.

      Explanation:
      Comment 1

      Comment 2

      Comment 3 (Has spread sheet of actual solar Insolation values)

      The Earthshine Project at Bigbear Observatory shows a marked change in albedo after the 1997/98 El Nino: graph

      What is interesting is Dr. Joan Feynman et al also saw a lessening in solar strength back in 1997.

      Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature

      DISCUSSION

      …In this view the absence of pronounced 11-year temperature fluctuations (related to the unshaded area under the aa curve in Figure 3), is attributed to the damping effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Wigley and Raper [1990] have shown that such damping can reduce the impact of even a relatively strong solar cycle with ~0.1% peal-to-peak irrafiancevariation [Willson and hudson, 1991] to a barely detectable temperature signal (~0.02C). Thus it is the slow variation of the underlying solar signal, as revealed by the aa min time history,rather than the 11-year cycle in either aa or sunspots that shows up most strongly in the temperature record.

      The fact that the aa index at solar minimum retains a value proportional to its flanking sunspot maxima, rather than falling to near zero values like the sunspot number, is thought to be a reflection of the interchange of poloidal and toroidal (sunspot) magnetic fields via the solar dynamo… The point we wish to make here is that the aa index provides evidence for a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar variability that persists through sunspot minimum and may therefore affect Earth’s climate.

      While we hypothesize that the changing aa baseline is somehow related to a long-term irradiance variationon the Sun, there is another possibility and that is that the solar wind itself influences climate…

      Our study suggest that solar variability has contributed significantly to the long-term change of earth’s climate during the past 350 years…

      While acknowledging the importance and threat of such anthropogenic forcing, we are reminded that there is evidence, albeit mixed…, for temperatures comparable to present day values during the interval 900-1250 A.D., well before the industrial age. The later part (1100-1250 A.D.) of this so-called Medieval Warm Period had inferred solar activity comparable to present levels….

      As of this writing it appears that the average aa value of 1997 will be even lower (~16 nT) than that of 1996. Such leveling off or decline of the long-term solar component of climate change will help to disentangle its effects from that of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

      I love the gritted teeth bow to the CAGW god. (Feynman works for NASA)

  17. _Jim says:

    Heh … “The Appel has bobbed” …

  18. DocRichard says:

    Gail, where do you think the latent heat of vaporisation goes to? Is it destroyed, in your view? Or do you think it is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of condensation?

    • Gail Combs says:

      See the top of this Cloud?

      … Anvil clouds get their shape from rising air during thunderstorms that spreads out against the lower stratosphere; the air in the stratosphere is warmer than the rising air, preventing it from going up any further and forcing it to spread laterally. The aerial extent of the anvil clouds dramatically changes their impact on the Earth’s temperature and climate by altering the radiation budget of the Earth.

      The study, led by Xiping Zeng of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, reported that dust content (seeds for ice nuclei in clouds) in the rising air mass, which forms these anvil clouds, actually determines how far these clouds spread….

      So those clouds are dumping their energy at the tropopause. Also see: The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature.

      Dr. Robert B. Brown of Duke Univ (Physics) says of CO2:


      The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.

      Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”.

      Grant Petty’s book can walk you through much of the physics.
      rgb
      link

      So the water vapor, at least in our summer thunderstorms, is dumping energy into the lower stratosphere, moving energy from the warm earth to levels where it is more likely to escape straight to space.

      • _Jim says:

        Dr. Robert B. Brown of Duke Univ (Physics) says of CO2:


        The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.
        – – – – –

        My question regarding the above in bold: Is this at sea level or at 40,000 or 50,000 feet?

        .

        • geran says:

          “My question regarding the above in bold: Is this at sea level or at 40,000 or 50,000 feet?”
          >>>>>>>
          For the purposes of what he is trying to convey, it is lower troposphere, including sea level.

        • _Jim says:

          Sorry, left off the /rhetorical

        • _Jim says:

          It was a question Gail.

        • _Jim says:

          … for Gail. HELLO … I need lunch … running on vapors at the moment.

        • Gail Combs says:

          RGB says “It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter.” and it will change gradually. “In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them.”

          So he is speaking in general terms and refers you to Grant Petty’s book for the physics.

      • DocRichard says:

        Hi Gail, yes, interesting. So areas with more Cu-Nims should have a tropospheric warm spot?

        • _Jim says:

          If I can jump in here for a moment …

          I think the largest amount of sensible heat energy is still transported by physical transport of ‘volumes’ of air (air masses) to areas of the globe where surface cooling (via surface radiation to space) takes place via aid ‘mass’ transport in Hadley, Mid-Latitude and finally to the ‘Polar’ cells. It is axiomatic in meteorology that an air mass ‘takes on the characteristics of the land mass over which it spends time’. One finds that early-on in the meteo text books.

          For example, select an IR image for viewing here and note the ‘cold’ temperatures seen at the tops of the cumulonimbus … pretty cold as indicated.

          .

        • Gail Combs says:

          No they are just going to have a faster convection cycle since the air/water vapor heads straight up, hits the tropopause and dumps its heat and heads back down again. Think of the cold winds that herald an on coming thunderstorm. Air craft pilots can tell you stories…

          Lieutenant Colonel William Henry Rankin, “The Man Who Rode the Thunder.”

          …..The engine had stopped cold. As the unpowered aircraft dipped earthward, Lt Col Rankin switched on his Crusader’s emergency generator to electrify his radio. “Power failure,” Rankin transmitted matter-of-factly to Nolan. “May have to eject.”

          Unable to restart his engine, and struggling to keep his craft from entering a near-supersonic nose dive, Rankin grasped the two emergency eject handles. He was mindful of his extreme altitude, and of the serious discomfort that would accompany the sudden decompression of an ejection; but although he lacked a pressure suit, he knew that his oxygen mask should keep him breathing in the rarefied atmosphere nine miles up. He was also wary of the ominous gray soup of a storm that lurked below; but having previously experienced a bail out amidst enemy fire in Korea, a bit of inclement weather didn’t seem all that off-putting. At approximately 6:00 pm, Lt Col Rankin concluded that his aircraft was unrecoverable and pulled hard on his eject handles. An explosive charge propelled him from the cockpit into the atmosphere with sufficient force to rip his left glove from his hand, scattering his canopy, pilot seat, and other plane-related debris into the sky. Bill Rankin had spent a fair amount of time skydiving in his career—both premeditated and otherwise—but this particular dive would be unlike any that he or any living person had experienced before.
          …. Opening the chute early would prolong his descent and might result in death due to asphyxiation or hypothermia. Under normal circumstances one would expect about three and a half minutes of free-fall to reach the breathable altitude of 10,000 feet. The circumstances, however, were not normal.

          After falling for a mere 10 seconds, Bill Rankin penetrated the top of the anvil-shaped storm. The dense gray cloud smothered out the summer sun, and the temperature dropped rapidly. In less than a minute the extreme cold and wind began to inflict Rankin’s extremities with frostbite; particularly his gloveless left hand….

          Unfortunately for the impaired pilot, he was nowhere near the 10,000 foot altitude he expected. Strong updrafts in the cell had decreased his terminal velocity substantially, and the volatile storm had triggered his barometric parachute switch prematurely. Bill Rankin was still far from the earth, and he was now dangling helplessly in the belly of an oblivious monstrosity.

          “I’d see lightning,” Rankin would later muse, “Boy, do I remember that lightning….

          the storm’s capricious winds pressed Rankin downward until he encountered the powerful updrafts—the same updrafts that keep hailstones aloft as they accumulate ice–which dragged him and his chute thousands of feet back up into the storm. This dangerous effect is familiar to paragliding enthusiasts, who unaffectionately refer to it as cloud suck. At the apex Rankin caught up with his parachute, causing it to drape over him like a wet blanket and stir worries that he would become entangled with it and drop from the sky at a truly terminal velocity. Again he fell, and again the updrafts yanked him skyward in the darkness. He lost count of how many times this up-and-down cycle repeated….

          Bill Rankin removed himself from the troublesome tree and assessed his situation. The time was 6:40 pm. Bill’s brutalized body had spent around forty minutes bobbing around the area of atmosphere which mountaineers refer to unfondly as the Death Zone.…..
          http://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/

        • DocRichard says:

          Yes Gail, I could tell you a story about a hang glider pilot who was obliged to free fall through a Cu-Nim before pulling his parachute. But it wouldn’t really take us any further forward in our understanding of energy balance.

          Your man is saying that convection shifts heat up and out of the troposphere. So we need data on TOA LW emissions. All the data, properly analysed. I don’t have that, and anecdotes of experiences inside a CuNim are a poor substitute.

        • DocRichard says:

          Gail, you write “No they are just going to have a faster convection cycle since the air/water vapor heads straight up, hits the tropopause and dumps its heat and heads back down again”.

          However, the facts, as presented by Jim’s images, are otherwise. It is rarely helpful to try to base understanding of a complex system on one single, simple component of the system.

        • _Jim says:

          Oops – this website and select an IR image e.g. “Infrared (Color)” then set map size and click on a site on the map below.

          http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/
          .

        • DocRichard says:

          That’s interesting too. If I’m reading it right, the storm clouds are showing as colder, not hotter?

        • DocRichard says:
          July 1, 2014 at 10:57 pm

          That’s interesting too. If I’m reading it right, the storm clouds are showing as colder, not hotter?

          Precisely.
          http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/vrl/tutorials/advimgry/ch45enha.htm
          &

        • DocRichard says:

          So what happened to the latent heat of condensation that our friend was talking about?

  19. DocRichard says:

    Does the heat get transported in the Hadley cells?

  20. DocRichard says:
    July 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    So what happened to the latent heat of condensation that our friend was talking about?

    What would you expect to “happen” to it?

    • DocRichard says:

      I would expect it to be in the upper troposphere, as Robert Brown suggests. But the images do not support that. So I guess the heat is swept away in the Hadley cell to be deposited as dry air in the latitude od the Sahara.

  21. Gail Combs says:

    Dr. Brown, in talking of the lower atmosphere says:

    ….In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface……

    What those anvil shaped clouds are doing is short circuiting that diffusion and providing an express train for the heat via water vapor straight to the lower edge of the stratosphere.
    You can read this : Analysis finds both water vapor & increased CO2 act as negative feedbacks to cool the Earth surface by Physicist Clive Best

    Also from the hockeyschtick.blogspot
    “…The net cooling effect from clouds of -22.5 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere is about 6 times greater than the assumed radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 levels of 3.7 W/m2.

    The authors of this paper find that ” CF [total cloud fraction] is a primary modulator of warming (or cooling) in the atmosphere” and that the net effect of more clouds produces a net negative-feedback cooling effect.

    Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations…”

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2158-9
    Erica K. Dolinar et al

    A large degree of uncertainty in global climate models (GCMs) can be attributed to the representation of clouds and how they interact with incoming solar and outgoing longwave radiation. In this study, the simulated total cloud fraction (CF), cloud water path (CWP), top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budgets and cloud radiative forcings (CRFs) from 28 CMIP5 AMIP models are evaluated and compared with multiple satellite observations from CERES, MODIS, ISCCP, CloudSat, and CALIPSO. The multimodel ensemble mean CF (57.6 %) is, on average, underestimated by nearly 8 % (between 65°N/S) when compared to CERES–MODIS (CM) and ISCCP results while an even larger negative bias (17.1 %) exists compared to the CloudSat/CALIPSO results. CWP bias is similar in comparison to the CF results, with a negative bias of 16.1 gm−2 compared to CM. The model simulated and CERES EBAF observed TOA reflected SW and OLR fluxes on average differ by 1.8 and −0.9 Wm−2, respectively. The averaged SW [shortwave], LW [longwave], and net CRFs [total cloud fractions] from CERES EBAF are −50.1, 27.6, and −22.5 Wm−2, respectively, indicating a net cooling effect of clouds on the TOA [top of the atmosphere] radiation budget. The differences in SW and LW CRFs between observations and the multimodel ensemble means are only −1.3 and −1.6 Wm−2, respectively, resulting in a larger net cooling effect of 2.9 Wm−2 in the model simulations. A further investigation of cloud properties and CRFs reveals that the GCM biases in atmospheric upwelling (15°S–15°N) regimes are much less than in their downwelling (15°–45°N/S) counterparts over the oceans. Sensitivity studies have shown that the magnitude of SW cloud radiative cooling increases significantly with increasing CF at similar rates (~−1.25 Wm−2 %−1) in both regimes. The LW cloud radiative warming increases with increasing CF but is regime dependent, suggested by the different slopes over the upwelling and downwelling regimes (0.81 and 0.22 Wm−2 %−1, respectively). Through a comprehensive error analysis, we found that CF [total cloud fraction] is a primary modulator of warming (or cooling) in the atmosphere. The comparisons and statistical results from this study may provide helpful insight for improving GCM simulations of clouds and TOA radiation budgets in future versions of CMIP.

    For more on other papers see: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-finds-clouds-have-net.html
    for a listing.

    Or you can slog through these papers:

    Toward an Understanding of Vertical Momentum Transports in Cloud-System-Resolving Model Simulations of Multiscale Tropical Convection
    ABSTRACT
    This study examines the characteristics of convective momentum transport (CMT) and gravity wave momentum transport (GWMT) in two-dimensional cloud-system-resolving model simulations, including the relationships between the two transports. A linear group velocity criterion is shown to objectively separate CMT and GWMT. The GWMT contribution is mostly consistent with upward-propagating gravity waves and is present in the troposphere and the stratosphere. The CMT contribution forms a large part of the residual (nonupward-propagating contribution) and dominates the fluxes in the troposphere. Additional analysis of the vertical sensible heat flux supports the physical interpretation of the two contributions, further isolating the effects of unstable convection from vertically propagating gravity waves.

    The role of transient and nonconservative (friction and diabatic heating) processes in generating momentum flux and their dependence on changes in convective organization was assessed using a pseudo-momentum budget analysis. Nonconservative effects were found to dominate the transports; the GWMT contribution involved a diabatic source region in the troposphere and a dissipative sink region in the stratosphere. The CMT contribution was consistent with transport between the boundary layer and free troposphere via tilted convection. Transient buoyancy–vorticity correlations highlighted wave sources in the region of convective outflow and the boundary layer. These sources were akin to the previously described ‘‘mechanical oscillator’’ mechanism. Fluxes associated with this upper-level source were most sensitive to convective organization, highlighting the mechanism by which changes in organization are communicated to GWMT. The results elucidate important interactions between CMT and GWMT, adding further weight to suggestions that the two transports should be linked in parameterization.

    On the interaction between the stratosphere and troposphere during the warming of December 1967-january 1968
    Abstract

    Calculations of the transfer of kinetic energy from the troposphere to the stratosphere by means of the pressure-interaction term are carried out for the mid-winter stratospheric warming of 1967-1968. This term is computed in the wave number domain for the 100 mb level by means of the Eliassen and Palm (1960) approximation. There appears to be a distinct correlation between the stratospheric kinetic energy per wave number at the 10 mb level and the energy transfer by that wave number at the 100-mb level. A comparison of the magnitude of the energy flux for 1963 versus that for this later warming suggests that this term is of the same order as the remaining terms in the kinetic energy equation calculated by Perry (1967). Results obtained using this approximation appear to give good agreement with those obtained by direct calculation of the vertical velocity field.

    Eliassen-Palm Theory
    ….Stone and Salustri (1984) generalize the EP [Eliassen-Palm theory] flux for QG motion to include large-scale eddy forcing of condensation heating. Recalling that EP flux only represents theinternal eddy forcing of the zonal mean. Stone and Salustri (1984) following Edmon et al(1980) define a generalized EP flux including humidity effects in spherical coordinates:

    F = {F(” ),F( p )} F(” ) = #acos(” )v’ u’ F( p ) = acos(” ) f v'($ ‘+h’ L /c p /$ p (14)
    !
    Where L is latent heath, cp is the specific heat at constant pressure and h is the specific humidity.

    When comparing equations (5) and (14), besides the difference due to different
    coordinate system used, we note that the effect of the humidity (h) only modifies the
    vertical component of the EP flux.

    An interesting application of Eliassen-Palm theory can be found in Hartmann Mechoso and Yamazaki (1983). Using EP vectors and divergence, they characterized the wave-mean flow interaction processes in the Southern Hemisphere during the winter of 1979.
    The zonal mean wind averaged for the individual months of June, July and August 1979 is shown in Fig. 1. The presence of a stratospheric jet with a southward displacement is apparent. The time evolution of the zonal-mean wind and temperature at 2 mb are shown in Fig 2. The same displacement and intensification poleward of the jet stream is observed. These changes are accompanied with and increasing of the temperature in the extratropics…..

    As it was proved previously, the divergence of the EP flux is equal to the meridional flux of potential vorticity. A downgradient flux of potential vorticity in the troposphere occurs in association with baroclinic instability. Even though these results do not show accurately the EP fluxes at the surface, it has been hypothesized that relevant EP convergence is localized below 850 hPa is associated with baroclinically unstable waves. Trenberth (1986) found EP flux divergence above 850 mb (decerating the westerlies above 850), and convergence below 850 mb and accelerating the westerlies below there through the induced Ferrel cell and action of Coriolis torque….

    Conclusion
    EP flux and transformed Eulerian flow have proved to be a powerful and practical way of viewing the dynamics of eddies on a zonal flow. The EP flux diagnosis does not depend on the restrictive assumptions originally given by Eliassen and Palm (1961). Eddy and mean zonal flow changes in the Southern Hemisphere during the 1979 winter have been described. From these results, we can conclude that EP is particularly useful to study the evolution of the tropospheric and stratospheric jet and their interactions with the transient eddies.

    Energy Transfer Processes in the Stratosphere
    ABSTRACT
    During the past decade or two considerable fundamental information has been acquired on the mechanisms and rates of molecular energy transfer among vibrational, rotational, and electronic states. It is a well-known fact that the rate and even the products of a chemical reaction can be markedly influenced by the degree of internal state excitation of the reactants. Also, it is clear that many of the chemical processes occurring in the upper atmosphere produce atoms or molecules in excited states. It will be the purpose of this paper to review the state of knowledge of energy transfer mechanisms and kinetic rates as it pertains to atmospheric constituents and to attempt to indicate possible important roles of energy transfer in the physics and chemistry of the stratosphere. Some specific examples will include vibrational relaxation of OH and O3, the possible role of atomic species as quenchants, and electronic/vibrational energy transfer processes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s