Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about how I could gain more understanding of the daily air temperature cycles in the tropics. I decided to look at what happens when the early morning (midnight to 5:00 AM) of a given day is cooler than usual, versus what happens when the early morning is warmer than usual. So what was I expecting to find?
Well, my hypothesis is that due to the emergence of clouds and thunderstorms, when the morning is cooler than usual, there will be less clouds and thunderstorms. As a result the day will tend to warm up, and by the following midnight it will end up warmer than where it started. And when the morning is warmer than usual, increased clouds and thunderstorms will cool the day down, and by the following midnight it will end up cooler than when it started. In other words, the emergent thermoregulatory phenomena will cause the temperature to tend to revert to some mean, not over months or years, but on a daily basis.
Now, this is the third post in a series discussing the effects of albedo and thunderstorms on the tropical temperatures. In order they were Albedic Meanderings, An Inherently Stable System, and The Daily Albedo Cycle. This post will make more sense if you’ve read those three first and seen the Figures.
So to investigate warm and cold days what I did was to take the air temperature data from some sixty-seven TAO buoys. I sorted them by average temperature, and I started to look at them. Figure 1 shows the temperature data from one of the coolest TAO buoys, where the mean temperature is 24°C. I split the data into “warm” and “cool” days, based on the average early morning temperature from midnight to 5 AM, and then took an hourly average of the warm and cool datasets individually.
Figure 1.Cool TAO buoy, averages of the days with warmer early mornings (Midnight-5AM) and the days with cooler early mornings. Straight lines connect the temperature at midnight at the start of the day with the midnight temperature 24 hours later. “Mean” is the mean temperature of all days. “Recovery” is how much the following midnight averages have moved towards the mean compared to the opening midnight averages. “Recovery Percentage” is the same as “Recovery”, expressed as a percentage of the distance from the beginning temperature to the mean.“Warm Recovery” is how much the warm temperatures have moved towards the mean, and “Cool Recovery” is how much the cool temperatures have moved to the mean. Horizontal black line shows the mean (average) temperature of all midnights. Red and blue straight lines connect the starting and ending midnight temperatures.
My hypothesis says that the temperatures should move towards the mean. That is to say, the temperatures at midnight of the end of the day (hour twenty-four in Figure 1) should be closer to each other than the temperatures at midnight at the start of the day (hour zero in Figure 1). So I have measured the difference between the opening distance (warm-to-cool temperature difference at opening midnight), and the closing distance (warm-to-cool temperature difference at closing midnight ). This I have called the “recovery” in Figure 1. This movement towards the mean is reported both in °C and as a percentage of the opening warm-to-cool difference. I’ve also noted how much the ending midnight temperatures of the warm and cool days separately have moved towards the mean midnight temperature.
However, there’s not a lot happening in Figure 1. The temperatures are barely moving towards the mean. When the day starts out cold it seems that it stays cold, and when it starts out warm, it stays warm. There is very little difference over the 25 hour period shown (0-24). Looking at other buoys I found that at the coolest end of the TAO buoy locations, there is little indication of my hypothesized thermoregulatory mechanisms. None of the TAO buoys in the cooler locations show any significant thermoregulated recovery to the mean.
But then I looked at the records from a TAO buoy at one of the warmest locations, where the mean temperature is over 28°C. There, the situation is totally different.
Figure 2. Warm TAO buoy, averages of the days with warmer early mornings (Midnight-5AM) and the days with cooler early mornings. Straight lines connect midnight at the start of the day with midnight 24 hours later. “Mean” is the mean temperature of all days. “Recovery” is how much the following midnight averages have moved towards the mean. “Warm Recovery” is how much the warm temperatures have moved towards the mean, and the same for “Cool Recovery”.
Now, this is quite different. At the warm end of the TAO buoy locations, the warm days end up cooler, and the cool days end up warmer, exactly as my hypothesis predicts.
One of the most interesting things about Figure 2 is how rapidly the restorative forces are able to move the temperature back towards the mean. In only one day, on average the temperature at midnight moves sixty percent of the way back to the mean midnight temperature … that’s a very rapid and rigid temperature control compared to what is happening in the cooler TAO buoy locations.
To close out this part, here’s a typical record from an intermediate temperature TAO buoy, with average temperatures of 27°C:
Figure 3. Intermediate TAO buoy, averages of the days with warmer early mornings (Midnight-5AM) and the days with cooler early mornings. Straight lines connect midnight at the start of the day with midnight 24 hours later. “Mean” is the mean temperature of all days. “Recovery” is how much the following midnight averages have moved towards the mean. “Warm Recovery” is how much the warm temperatures have moved towards the mean, and the same for “Cool Recovery”.
As you can see, the recovery towards the mean in this medium-temperature TAO buoy is somewhere in between the coolest and warmest buoys. In a single day the midnight temperature moves about a quarter of the way back to the mean.
One oddity that I noted was that although in absolute terms (°C) the recovery was different between the cold and warm days, in percentage terms (for the buoys shown above at least) the recovery is about the same.
This led me to ask, what is the overall dependence of the restorative thermoregulatory forces on the temperature? To see this, I took a scatterplot. Since I wanted to also see if the warm/cold recovery percentages were different, I used a scatterplot of the warm recovery percentages and the cool recovery percentages separately as a function of temperature. Figure 4 shows how the recovery percentage is related to temperature. I have again used the average temperature from midnight to 5 AM as the dividing factor for warm and cool days.
Figure 4. Scatterplot, daily thermoregulatory response to warmer (red) and cooler cooler (blue) days versus annual mean temperature. “Recovery Percentage” is how much closer to the mean the temperature of the midnight at the end of the day is, compared to midnight at the start of the day. If it moved all the way back to the mean it would be 100%.
First, it’s clear that the strength of the thermoregulatory response is a function of temperature. There is almost no thermoregulation at the low end of the temperature scale, while at the high end the midnight temperature moves halfway back to the mean or more in the course of a single day.
Next, it’s kind of hard to see the red and the blue because there is so little difference between them. I’ve printed them transparent so when they overlap they make purple … but in no case is there any significant difference between the warm and cold recoveries when expressed as percentages. This is despite the fact that often they are different in absolute terms (°C), as is shown in Figure 5 below. I have no explanation of why this should be so. Always more puzzles …
Figure 5. Scatterplot, absolute daily thermoregulatory response to warmer (red) and cooler (blue) days versus annual mean temperature in degrees C. “Recovery Amount” is how much closer to the mean the midnight temperature at the end of the day is, in degrees C, compared to the midnight temperature at the start of the day.
Here, we see that the thermal regulatory mechanisms at the upper end of the ocean temperature range can warm or cool a single day by a third to half of a degree C, midnight to midnight …
CONCLUSIONS: Well, I can say that this result is certainly consistent with my hypothesis that there are emergent thermoregulatory mechanisms that warm up the cool days and cool down the warm days in the wet tropics.
Now, scientists have previously proposed temperature mechanisms which they thought were involved in holding the temperature down in the Pacific Warm Pool (PWP), where we find the warmest of the TAO buoys. Sea temperatures in that area are the warmest in the open ocean … but despite that, the sea temperatures rarely exceed 30°C. Ramanathan proposed a “Super-greenhouse” effect to explain this temperature limit, and Lindzen proposed an “Iris Effect”, in order to explain the strong downward pressure on the temperature in the PWP. And those proposed mechanisms may indeed exist, they are not in opposition to my hypothesis.
What I have not seen mentioned previously, however, is that in addition to there being the strong downward pressure on the temperature of the warm days in the PWP noted by previous researchers, there is also a strong upward pressure on the cool days in the PWP … and as far as I know, mine is the only one of those three hypotheses that predicts such an effect.
However, it’s a big world out there, and I certainly could have either missed or misinterpreted previous art …
Finally, my hypothesis is that the temperatures displayed above are regulated by the emergence of cumulus, thunderstorms, and organized squall lines. HOWEVER, this analysis can say little about whether my hypothesis is the actual reason for the remarkably strong daily recovery towards the mean of warm tropical ocean temperatures. All it can say is that such a powerful thermoregulative effect certainly exists, that it operates on both the cool and the warm days, and it is consistent with my hypothesis.
It does not provide evidence that the mechanism is cloud-based. That’s hard to establish with the TAO buoys because they don’t contain information on the cloud coverage. But I think there’s a way to do it, which will be the subject of an upcoming post.
w.
You May Have Heard This Before: If you disagree with someone’s words, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words you disagree with. That way we can all understand your objection.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another interesting article. Willis says:
…in addition to there being the strong downward pressure on the temperature of the warm days in the PWP noted by previous researchers, there is also a strong upward pressure on the cool days in the PWP… such a powerful thermoregulative effect certainly exists, that it operates on both the cool and the warm days, and it is consistent with my hypothesis.
That seems pretty clear from the results. Prof. Richard Lindzen wrote:
“There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within ±1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”
Something in the tropics obviously regulates the planet’s temperature. Explaining it to the extent that he is able to make repeated, accurate predictions would place Willis Eschenbach at the very pinnacle of the climate scientist community. I sincerely hope he is able to do that. He’s certainly capable.
Lindzen must have made that statement without knowledge of the effects on the Earth’s climate by the K/T extinction event 66 million years ago. We have hard evidence of the effect of massive volcanic eruptions on our climate, I’m sure that a 10 km asteroid impact that left a 112 mile wide crater seriously affected global temperatures….
Indeed, but transiently, certainly on the billion year time scale considered.
Water vapor pressure rises with temperature. Hotter runs faster, and colder stops transporting heat (snow doesn’t evaporate as well as hot water). The physics is well enderstood in Engineering circles. It is Willis’ Thunderstorm thermostat or what I called Heat Pipe Earth.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/
They are also known to oscillate rather like weather does
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/pulsating-heat-pipes/
Same physics, just a LOT larger.
Heat pipes have working ranges, as does the interglacial Earth. Too cold, they freeze up. For the Earth, that is called an Ice Age Glacial.
The atmospheric temperature varies from up to 30 C at the sea surface to -50 C high in the stratosphere. The physics of clouds may be becoming understood, but for sure not in Engineering circles.
I like the simplicity of your statement, Water vapor pressure rises with temperature. True. Where is that water? Is it liquid or solid? Gaseous ..no; your statement refers to a two-phase boundary.
Relative to the earth surface, the tropics are the source of heat and the poles (arctic, antarctic) are the sinks of heat. The tropic band radiates less solar heat than it receives, and the poles radiate more heat than they receive. The heat engine of the atmosphere, water vapor and winds, moves heat from the equator to the poles. (Heat evaporates water in the tropics; water vapor condenses and precipitates rain and snow at high latitudes, radiating heat away from the earth.
Prof Lindzen has explained exactly that.
The earth’s surface has \water in three phases, ice water and vapor. The energy in the phase changes is very large. The heat conveyor from the equator to the poles has very large capacity. The equatorial temperature variation can not be large. The energy imbalances can only be small.
Nevertheless, the tropics radiate away most of their own heat. The poles and high latitudes are left to deal with the leftovers.
So, who to believe? A climatologist and author of twenty dozen peer reviewed papers, who was M.I.T’s head of atmospheric sciences, and Lecturer in Meteorology at UCLA, and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Chicago and NCAR, and Professor of Meteorology at Harvard?
Or… J. Jackson, who has no science background, and who gets his misinformation from alarmist blogs?
Take your pick.
Sorry Dbstealey, but when you cite the twenty dozen pal reviewed papers, etc. …..you commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Not only did Lindzen ignore the effects K/T impact, he’s ignored the fact that in a billion years, a main sequence G2V type star does not have constant output. He doesn’t address “Snowball Earth” either In other words, a lot can happen in a billion years.
…
Can you find the data and or graph Lindzen uses to discern the equatorial temperatures over the past billion years?
..
Try discussing the facts instead of committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
PS Stealey
..
A true skeptic questions everything, even things Lindzen has stated.
Interesting. Positive feedback when temperatures are cooler, switching to negative feedback when temperatures are warmer. Could this also explain the missing hotspot? The models assume positive feedback. However in the real world this changes to negative feedback as ocean temps increased, damping out the predicted hotspot.
I don’t really see a positive feedback. Rather, a negative feedback strengthening and weakening.
I see further the difficulty of incorporating into models how seawater must also shed 35 ions of sodium per thousand total molecules when it evaporates to water vapor from the sea surface, which further raises the salinity which further requires more energy to overcome the entropy barrier. the heavy salty water despite being warm sinks. Wind spray of sea salt can also further encourage nucleation of water molecules at the vapor saturation pt.
Honestly, as bad as the GCMs are, its a wonder and a tribute to their tuning that they are even in the ballpark. Of course, the GCM runs that go off the rails never see the the light of day past the cutting room floor of the CGI factories.
Joseph Murphy , correct. Both are manifestations of the same NEGATIVE feedback. ferdberple does not know what the term means.
A negative feedback is one which opposes diviation. The idea being the negation of the change , not whether the result is up/down; in/out; more negative/less negative, etc. Negative feedback stabalises a system.
A positive feedback is one which acts to increase any deviation. This leads to instability , “tipping points” etc.
Positive feedback mechanism are not likely – as positive feedback mechanisms tend to produce exponential growth. You may be familiar with the effect of positive feedback from what occasionally happens in sound systems with microphone and a speakers. From Wikipedia:
“Positive feedback is a process that occurs in a feedback loop in which the effects of a small disturbance on a system include an increase in the magnitude of the perturbation. That is, A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A. In contrast, a system in which the results of a change act to reduce or counteract it has negative feedback.
Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a closed loop of cause and effect. That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger. Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations or divergences from equilibrium. System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state.”
Please don´t be scared about the effect of positive feedback. It there was a risk of such dangerous effects in the climate system we would have known. Or rather – we would not be around to know.
By seeing the individual trees you explain the behavior of the forest–brilliant. Thank you!
That’s very interesting.
Is there a way to eliminate any mathematical bias that an extreme is likely to return to the average for most periodic functions? I’m sure there’s a proper way to say that, but it doesn’t come to mind.
Good question, George. I’d thought of that, but I’d say the fact that the cooler TAO buoys show no such tendency to “revert to the mean” on any daily basis indicates that if such an effect exists it is very weak.
w.
Hi Willis, It could be that in general regression to the mean is more evident in the hot bouys if daily temperature is dependant on short term randomness and less evident in cold bouys where daily temp might be more a function of multiday weather patterns. This would be an alternative explanation for the different behaviour of the hot and cold bouys. Is there a way to determine whether or not this is the case?
Willis,
But temperature is auto-correlative, so the amount of regression to the mean on any given time scale depends on the correlation time. So it might be that the correlation is controlled by a different process in the eastern Pacific (lower T’s in Figures 4 and 5) and western Pacific (higher T’s). The latter appear to have correlation times of a couple of days and the former have correlation times of weeks at least. So atmospheric control in the western Pacific and oceanic control in the eastern Pacific? Seems plausible since the lower T’s in the east are due to upwelling.
regression toward the mean
Thanks, Bubba. See above.
w.
It should be remembered that temperature is a cumulative integral. Any “random” variations are likely to be seen in dT/dt and temps will thus display a red noise profile, one that decreases with frequency. ould better be applied to dT/dt .
The cumulative result of random changes is called a random walk and does not display regression toward the mean. It can wander off in either direction for an indeterminate length of time.
If it does return towards the mean it is evidence of a negative feedback.
Good work Willis. Good digging.
Hi Mike- clearly they are restraints on termperature- days of -50 or + 100 degrees Celsius are very unusual in most locations. All other things being equal a day with an unusual temperature is likely to be followed by a more moderate day thus exhibiting regressive behaviour.
Mike wrote: “If it does return towards the mean it is evidence of a negative feedback.”
Anyone not living in an isolated environment should be aware that temperature does regress to the mean. That is indeed evidence of a negative feedback: heat transfer (radiative, conductive, and convective) to/from places that are colder/hotter than where the temperature is being measured.
For the planet as a whole, only radiative heat transfer matters. That is accounted for in the models by the “Planck feedback” which is negative and dominates all others. But the Planck feedback is not always classified as a feedback.
“If it does return towards the mean it is evidence of a negative feedback. ”
There’s always the SB law which already provides a neg feedback via blackbody/greybody radiation.
I think you are neglecting the thickness of the warm layer just under the surface. My measurements indicate that its temperature stays very consistent, but its thickness varies considerably from literally nothing to several feet thick and it can be extremely persistent. On sunny days the warm layer gets thicker and on overcast days the warm layer gets thinner.
It seems to me that it is a regulatory mechanism itself.
Please show your measurements.
Maybe observations is a better term. I have surface measurements and just below the surface measurements and engine inlet measurements but the thickness observation is from snorkeling which I do almost every day.
The expanding, contracting ‘warm’ layer clearly acts like a buffer.
Can I nominate Willis for a Nobel prize?
You could – but I think you have to be a naive believer to win one.
Any data on relative humidity? Clouds? Precipitation?
On a macro scale, warmer west Pacific SSTs -> more convection -> stronger and deeper trade winds-> increased humidity, clouds, and rain -> cooling effect?
Put another way, WE’s clouds/thunderstorms hardly kick in at all on cool starts, and work all day on warm starts.
Humidity differences could be the reason. Temperatures are lower at night with low humidity, and allow more sun the following day since clouds are less.
What drives humidity?
“Humidity differences could be the reason. Temperatures are lower at night with low humidity, and allow more sun the following day since clouds are less.”
Night time cooling increases rel humidity(and slows the rate of cooling ), but that also removes water vapor.
Willis:
A better and much simpler hypothesis is gut simple. Don’t use climatologist divide by four of the irradiance entering and leaving the Earth system since Earth does have a day and a night side. The TOA energy balance in and out during actual daytime is not 237.5 W/m² but 237.5 W/m² times two, or 475 W/m². Pass that through Stefan-Boltzmann with adequate assumptions as emissivity one and you get the 30°C that you see near the equator. That is assuming also 0.30 albedo but you can adjust if that is not correct for a certain region of limited time when it can go over or under that 30°C but I do agree with you Willis that this 30°C is the approximate mean.
So I do not see the need for some “Super-greenhouse” or even some “Iris Effect”. it is 30°C because the irradience says it should be 30°C.
A great idea Wayne.
To extend your ‘gut simple’ idea ad absurdum: At night there is no solar radiation coming in and, by your misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the temperature should be absolute zero.
By the way, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says nothing about irradiance (i.e. energy coming in) but only about radiation going out. The intensity of the radiation going out depends only on the body’s own temperature and emissivity (irrespective of any energy coming in).
That’s what’s wrong with gut reactions.
Wayne
Where do you get your 237.5 W/m² figure from?
Solar irradiance over the equatorial and tropical oceans whilst the sun is shinning on the oceans (ie., during the mainstay of the day) is far higher than 475 W/m², more like double that figure.
There is enough solar irradiance to drive the equatorial/tropical oceans well above 40degC.
Indeed, even in the Med, where there are shallow lagoons, the water temperature is often over 38degC. These shallow lagoons are just like hot tubs.
Infact, you only have to look at the salt lakes, around the Med, to realise how much heat the solar insolation received at these mid latitudes can generate (notwithstanding evaporation). In the equatorial/tropical regions, it is considerably more.
Most global heat balances I see have 340 W/m^2? What does the “consensus” say?
If the solar constant is 1,366 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 why is ToA 340 (+10.7/- 11.2)1 W/m^2 as shown on the plethora of popular heat balances/budgets? Collect an assortment of these global energy budgets/balances graphics. The variations between some of these is unsettling. Some use W/m^2, some use calories/m^2, some show simple %s, some a combination. So much for consensus. What they all seem to have in common is some kind of perpetual motion heat loop with back radiation ranging from 333 to 340.3 W/m^2 without a defined source. BTW additional RF due to CO2 1750-2011, about 2 W/m^2 spherical, 0.6%.
Consider the earth/atmosphere as a disc.
Radius of earth is 6,371 km, effective height of atmosphere 15.8 km, total radius 6,387 km.
Area of 6,387 km disc: PI()*r^2 = 1.28E14 m^2
Solar Constant……………1,366 W/m^2
Total power delivered: 1,366 W/m^2 * 1.28E14 m^2 = 1.74E17 W
Consider the earth/atmosphere as a sphere.
Surface area of 6,387 km sphere: 4*PI()*r^2 = 5.13E14 m^2
Total power above spread over spherical surface: 1.74E17/5.13E14 = 339.8 W/m^2
One fourth. How about that! What a coincidence! However, the total power remains the same.
1,366 * 1.28E14 = 339.8 * 5.13E14 = 1.74E17 W
Big power flow times small area = lesser power flow over bigger area. Same same.
Yes, of course, but cosine weighted due to the geometry, it divides the top of atmosphere TSI minus the albedo mean by two to get the average over the lit hemisphere. Directly underneath the sun it would be much higher, ie. twice.
Richard:
“There is enough solar irradiance to drive the equatorial/tropical oceans well above 40degC.
Indeed, even in the Med, where there are shallow lagoons, the water temperature is often over 38degC. These shallow lagoons are just like hot tubs.”
Yes, that is what I said of regions with strings of days with minimal albedo (cloudless). Plug that in and you will get your 38°C or very close. Here where I am we have strings of cloudless days hitting 104°F (40°C) also. Plug that in at 1050 W/m² peak, I’ve seen those actual measurements, divide by two, 525 W/m², and you get 310 K (37°C, 99°F) and will shallow water bodies reach that, close but not quite. To get deeper into this to see why you have to look into what the radiosondes are doing over nighttime (creating the local diurnal range) allowing for the columnar mass, heat capacity for the radiative loss at night is not much lower that daytime (see ESRL). The bulk of the tropo cools but about 1.25 K between the pressure levels of 250 – 800 hPa, above the boundary level.
BTW, thanks for the reply.
Willis, this is fascinating. I am not surprised at the temperature reduction; but, I am surprised at the warming effect. There are a number of chemical reactions in the ocean that are not well understood. I will list some of the pieces that I have noticed, but I cannot put them together and make sense of the total picture.
1. The temperature that carbon dioxide cannot remain a liquid regardless of the pressure is between 30 and 31C. A gas in solution loses some of it’s energy because its degrees of freedom are reduced. Around 26C, carbon dioxide becomes more active; I am not sure if this means it will enter into chemical reactions or outgas.
2. Calcium carbonate has two reactions, one the familiar reaction of photosynthesis and the second a direct reaction. The direct reaction is acknowledged in the literature, but no one knows how it works. The reaction is inhibited by magnesium and trace amounts of fulvic acid. This reaction appears to be the primary reaction for the calcium carbonate deposits in the warm latitudes away from the equator because of the absence of nutrients in these latitudes. The floor of the ocean down to the CCD, the depth at which calcium carbonate is dissolved, is coved like snow with calcium carbonate, so there is an active process at work.
3. When calcium carbonate is “dissolved”, it either goes into its individual ions and reforms as calcium carbonate hexahydrate or it forms calcium carbonate hexahydrate directly. Calcium carbonate hexahydrate being a hydrate does the usual thing that hydrates such as calcium chloride hydrate does, it stores energy. The important thing about this reaction is it is not inhibited by magnesium or fulvic acid.
I suspect that somewhere between the absorption and release of carbon dioxide, these reactions are reversible, i.e., they absorb and release heat. The calcium carbonate reaction is endothermic and absorbs about 1400 joules per mole of calcium carbonate. The calcium carbonate hexahydrate reaction has about 5 phases and can absorb 75 to 90 kilojoules per mole if it goes all the way to Ikaite, The Ikaite decomposes into water and calcium carbonate at 4C and releases its heat. I suspect the calcium carbonate hexahydrate release of heat is present in Kelvin Waves and the cold anomaly that flows the wave is calcium carbonate hexahydrate reforming. The problem with this scenario is the temperatures do not fit; however, I do not know how these temperatures might be modified by the water pressures.
Sorry that I cannot give the answers; maybe some of the others on WUWT that have a chemical background can add some more pieces.
Interesting stuff. Level of calcium and magnesium in the body tend to be complementary too.
This also increases the probability of life on other planets in the universe. It means the zone that supports life is much larger than would otherwise be the case. Planets closer to their sun would have more clouds and planets further away would have less clouds. The mean temperatures would be close to that optimal for life.
So where does this bring the probability of life on other planets up to? Still between 0% and 100%? 😉
Man, I hate to admit ignorance. I scanned your post looking for the meaning of TAO. Not finding it (always a chance I missed it, of course), I turned to my trusty Climate Audit Acronyms link. Alas, it is not there. Somebody help me out here….
Acromym for moored buoys across the entire equatorial Pacific. Do try to keep up.
Well, I kind of figured that out by looking at the post. But one does assume that the letters stand for something, n’est-ce pas? In this case ‘allacronyms’ gives 152 meanings for TAO.
http://www.allacronyms.com/TAO
And if you think about it, Tropical Atmosphere Ocean doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for a buoy system that is presumably in the water and not in the atmosphere. There is a lot to be said for the convention of using an entire expression initially, before using its acronym.
Do try not to lap the competition.
: > )
Well, nut, I’m going to have to eat crow on this one. The TAO home site describes the buoys capabilities as: TAO/TRITON moorings measure surface meteorological parameters, upper ocean temperatures and, at some locations, ocean currents.. I (correctly) assumed ocean temperature measurement, and (incorrectly) assumed no atmospheric measurement. Which, of course, wouldn’t make any sense, given the text of Willis’s post.
As I said I really hate to admit ignorance. But I’ll stand by my remarks on acronyms and sportsmanship.
J S … kudos to you for making the effort to follow the conversation closely by searching for something you were not familiar with. Stay with WUWT, it will be an enlightening experience.
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/
I hate acronyms – and I love to admit it.
My number for calcium carbonate formation was wrong. Zumdahl lists the delta Hf as 1207 KJ per mol.
Interesting as always.
Usually looking into the things you dont expect gives you the greatest insight. So why is the thermostatic effect small to non existent for cooler areas of the ocean?
Pretty sure you see this at all latitudes. Regression to the mean.
Regression to the mean has no meaning unless you can explain why it regresses. We also know that for larger changes – coming into and going out of deeper segments of the ice age that there are tipping points. When it happens in an electronic circuit we call it a Schmitt Trigger circuit. The part of the cycle we are in now is a negative feedback system.
Bill 2 June 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Look at the last two Figures—you don’t even see this at all temperatures, so it can’t be “regression to the mean”. Remember, we’re looking at daily changes. As I pointed out in the head post, at a number of the TAO buoy sites when a day starts out cold it ends cold, and when it starts out warm it ends warm … no regression to the mean at all.
w.
Willis, have you directly compared the days warming to that nights cooling ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/16/tao-buoys-go-hot-and-cold/#comment-1965424
I don’t think there is any reason to expect regression toward the mean. Assuming totally random behaviour, temps would be a randon walk. No regression.
Willis, “when a day starts out cold it ends cold, and when it starts out warm it ends warm”
it is the thickness of the warm layer buffer I mentioned above…..
The time of minimum and maximum temperatures vary with the day length. The day length vary with latitude and season — tan pie x tan delta where in pie is the declination of the Sun and delta is the latitude of the place.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Nice work Willis. But shouldn’t you be using “adjusted” ship intake temperature data. LOL
Willis,
You mention thunderstorms. Can you indicate your view on the role played by lightening? Is this a rapid form of heat dissipation or..? in your suggested process.
I’ve actually looked at the total energy released worldwide by lightning … it’s not large on a global 24/7 basis. But on a local level it is indeed a form of energy transformation that does move significant energy. It’s an odd one, because a good chunk of the light that is emitted by lightning must go straight to space. Other than aurorae I don’t know how often that happens …
w.
Just did a quick calculation. I think all lightning world wide represents an amount of energy which is 1/36,000 of the energy of the atmosphere. Like Willis says, it doesn’t appear to be significant overall, but maybe locally.
By shedding electrons to build up a charge, I believe kinetic energy in the air/water is being transformed into both heat energy and electrical energy. If/when lightning discharges to the ground, a typical strike will transfer about 500 MJ. A typical thunderstorm can produce 3 CG strikes per minute, and a storm typically lasts 30 minutes.
90% of the electrical energy of lightning is released in the form of heat, which is quickly dissipated into the atmosphere. Less than 1% of lightning’s energy is converted into sound and the rest is released in the form of light.
In a thunderstorm, water vapor is lifted up, and when this condenses, the amount of energy released is about 10^15 Joules. This is 22,000 times the energy released by the lightning of the storm.
So, it appears that lightning results in a transfer of kinetic energy (caused by sun) into heat, warming the atmosphere slightly. However, 85% to 90% of lightning occurs over land because solar radiation heats land faster.
“Elements of Physical Oceanography”, McLellan, 1977 although dated, covers heat budget of the ocean in Chapter 18. This link offers a download which I downloaded and compared with my paper copy:
http://bookzz.org/g/%27physical+oceanography.%27
Two of several other links offer paywalled copies at about $30 per chapter.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780080113203
http://store.elsevier.com/Elements-of-Physical-Oceanography/Hugh-J_-McLellan/isbn-9781483151939/
My text price of $9.50 for the whole book in 1970 looks like a good investment.
To the problem at hand, several commenters mentioned humidity. McLellan Chapter 18 Section 18.2 “Back Radiation” caught my attention and might offer some insight. I captured part of the text, copied below (caution on the “greenhouse effect”):
18.2 BACK RADIATION
The sea surface, by virtue of its temperature, emits long wave radiation to the atmosphere. The emissivity* is very close to unity, so that the rate of back radiation Q& approximates that from a black body as given by the Stephan-Boltzmann law,
Qb = oT^4 (18.5) [equation not fully captured]
where T is the temperature in degrees Kelvin and σ, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, has a
value 5.735 X 10^-5 ergs/sec cm^2 degree^4. The radiated energy is distributed over a wide band of wavelengths with the wavelength of maximum emission (Am) given by Wien’s displacement law,
[equation not captured]
K has the value 2880(micro symbol) degrees. Thus, for a surface at 20°C (293°K),
lambdam = 2880/293 = 9.859(microns). [equation not fully captured]
Over most of its spectrum this radiation is absorbed efficiently by carbon dioxide and water
vapor in the atmosphere. Since the air, with its water vapor, itself radiates by virtue of its temperature, the loss of heat by back radiation is reduced by the humidity of the atmosphere over the sea surface. Sverdrup et al. (1942) have presented (Fig. 18.2) a graphical relationship of effective back radiation to a clear sky as related to sea surface temperature and relative humidity measured a few meters above the sea surface. This shows that, for a constant relative humidity, effective back radiation decreases with increasing temperature. This relationship may at first appear strange but it should be noted that, for constant relative humidity, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is greater at the higher temperatures. Also the radiation efficiency of the air itself increases with temperature.
* A “black body” is defined as one that completely absorbs all incident radiation. Such a body is also the most efficient radiator. Radiation from a body with emissivity e is given by
Qb = €sΤ^4, where € has a maximum value of unity for a black body.
Air and water vapor are almost transparent to radiation in a band of wavelengths from about 8 micron to 14 micron which embraces the wavelength of maximum emission from the sea surface. This band of high transparency is sometimes known as “Simpson’s window”. The long wavelength cut-off in this window is accomplished by a strong absorption band due to CO2. Water vapor gives almost complete absorption at the still longer wavelengths.
The earth is heated by short wave solar radiation which passes efficiently through the atmosphere and, because of atmospheric absorption of the longer wavelengths, the surface temperature rises to where the wavelengths of maximum emission falls within the window. At these surface temperatures a balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy can be effected, and the skin temperature of the earth is stabilized in this range. Because of the similarity to the effect created by horticulturists with glass roofed enclosures this is called the “greenhouse effect”.
I’m trying to think what happened if opposite was true.
Warm days ended up warmer and cold ended up colder. Wouldn’t that necessarily mean the system were completely unstable? So how could it be otherwise?
There are TAO sensors measuring downwelling shortwave radiation, which is related to cloudiness, if it is defined as the attenuation factor relative to incoming shortwave flux at ToA. The latter quantity is independent of weather and only depends on time and location.
More importantly, they also measure wind speed. Your albedo-related regulatory process clearly depends on rate of evaporation, which is indeed a strong monotonic function of sea surface temperature. However, it also proportional to area of water-air interface, which is very small over calm seas. However, as soon as wind speed exceeds the limit when sea spray starts to form, it suddenly increases by many orders of magnitude.
Therefore thermoregulation is expected to kick in at a lower temperature if wind speed is high enough. Is that so?
It would also explain the apparently explosive nature of storminess. As soon as the first deep convective cell form over an area, wind speed exceeds this threshold, which in turn speeds up evaporation tremendously. A strong positive feedback loop, a sure recipe for an explosion.
Brilliant work as usual!
Is the scale of importance?
Can a maximum temperature also exist in lakes and swimming pools?
It’s 105 F all week in Phoenix. How come I still have to heat the pool to keep 80 F? Why doesn’t the pool heat up to 105 F? Because evaporation from the pool drives the water temperature towards the ambient wet bulb. Water evaporates because the air is dry, not because it is hot.
Because unless you have a cover at night, the sky temp is probably 0F to -20F, Which would be ~600 to 800 BTU’s per hour lost to space.
What sized heater do you have and how long does it have to run to maintain the temp.
BTW it will do this most of the day, it will lose a little bit less during the day, plus the amount that the Sun adds.
This is actually a really good daily energy balance experiment, the mass of water makes a good thermometer.
Oh, that’s per sq meter per hour at night
What other climatic datasets are available as hourly products?