New Computer Fund

Monday, May 14, 2012

Notes on Stuff

I love messy charts. Showing the short term changes are a reminder of how chaotic things can be. I nice milquetoast smoothed chart is for pansies. Show me the nasty!
This is real nasty. It is the average CO2 monthly change measured at Mauna Loa, the actual monthly change and the deviation from the mean (average) monthly change. Annually, the CO2 measured varies a few parts per million at Mauna Loa. I just took the period from 1979 to 2011 and found the average variation for each month, subtracted the actual value for each month and viola! deviation from the average or mean. Lots of noise, but there are periods of less and more variation.
This compares a portion of the deviation from mean to the TIM TSI solar measurements from SORCE. This is not the solar data I wanted, but the best I have at the moment. If you squint real hard you can see a slight inverse correlation. Lower solar versus greater deviation from mean. This really should be the CO2 deviation from mean versus Solar UV. Why? Because UV creates ozone, ozone reacts with ice crystals and hydroxil (I think that is right) can react with CO2. Real chemistry was never my forte, so I will leave that vague. So what?
I did the same deviation or variation from mean with the UAH mid troposphere temperature data. This chart is the northern extent land and ocean minus the southern extent land and ocean. The extent have a push me pull you thing going on annually. By subtracting the two, it gives a bigger picture of the change in the monthly variation. The break is at 1995 with the trends lead in and out. I use 1995 because I believe that is a climate shift matching the stratospheric shift from cooling to neutral. The UAH mid troposphere data is questionable for the portion around 1983, which would increase the magnitude of the shift if UAH is in error. That shift is I believe due to the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) approaching a pseudo equilibrium for current conditions. Less uptake of heat would create a greater cooling flux which would create greater atmospheric temperature variability. This is all a crazy theory at the moment. It will require a much more serious effort to flesh out, but it does tend to jive with the southern hemisphere temperature reconstructions I have seen, the change in Antarctic sea ice area variation and the change in Artic sea ice variation. There are so many failed climate theories that I am not too enthusiastic about this one, but some pieces are fitting a little better.

No comments:

Post a Comment