Guest Essay by Willis Eschenbach

Abstract
The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms, along with other emergent phenomena like dust devils, tornadoes, and the El Nino/La Nina alteration, actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature.
Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis – historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism.
Historical Stability
The stability of the earth’s temperature over time has been a long-standing climatological puzzle. The globe has maintained a temperature of ± ~ 3% (including ice ages) for at least the last half a billion years during which we can estimate the temperature. During the Holocene, temperatures have not varied by ±1%. And during the glaciation periods, the temperature was generally similarly stable as well.
In contrast to Earth’s temperature stability, solar physics has long indicated (Gough, 1981; Bahcall et al., 2001) that 4 billion years ago the total solar irradiance was about three-quarters of the current value. In early geological times, however, the earth was not correspondingly cooler. Temperature proxies such as deuterium/hydrogen ratios and 16O/18O ratios show no sign of a corresponding warming of the earth over this time. Why didn’t the earth warm as the sun warmed?
This is called the “Faint Early Sun Paradox” (Sagan and Mullen, 1972), and is usually explained by positing an early atmosphere much richer in greenhouse gases than the current atmosphere.
However, this would imply a gradual decrease in GHG forcing which exactly matched the incremental billion-year increase in solar forcing to the present value. This seems highly unlikely.
A much more likely candidate is some natural mechanism that has regulated the earth’s temperature over geological time.
Theoretical Considerations
Bejan (Bejan 2005) has shown that the climate can be robustly modeled as a heat engine, with the ocean and the atmosphere being the working fluids. The tropics are the hot end of the heat engine. Some of that tropical heat is radiated back into space. Work is performed by the working fluids in the course of transporting the rest of that tropical heat to the Poles. There, at the cold end of the heat engine, the heat is radiated into space. Bejan showed that the existence and areal coverage of the Hadley cells is a derivable result of the Constructal Law. He also showed how the temperatures of the flow system are determined.
“We pursue this from the constructal point of view, which is that the [global] circulation itself represents a flow geometry that is the result of the maximization of global performance subject to global constraints.”
“The most power that the composite system could produce is associated with the reversible operation of the power plant. The power output in this limit is proportional to

where q is the total energy flow through the system (tropics to poles), and TH and TL are the high and low temperatures (tropical and polar temperatures in Kelvins).
The system works ceaselessly to maximize that power output. Here is a view of the entire system that transports heat from the tropics to the poles.

Figure 1. The Earth as a Heat Engine. The equatorial Hadley Cells provide the power for the system. Over the tropics, the sun (orange arrows) is strongest because it hits the earth most squarely. The length of the orange arrows shows relative sun strength. Warm dry air descends at about 30N and 30S, forming the great desert belts that circle the globe. Heat is transported by a combination of the ocean and the atmosphere to the poles. At the poles, the heat is radiated to space.
In other words, flow systems such as the Earth’s climate do not assume a stable temperature willy-nilly. They reshape their own flow in such a way as to maximize the energy produced and consumed. It is this dynamic process, and not a simple linear transformation of the details of the atmospheric gas composition, which sets the overall working temperature range of the planet.
Note that the Constructal Law says that any flow system will “quasi-stabilize” in orbit around (but never achieve) some ideal state. In the case of the climate, this is the state of maximum total power production and consumption. And this in turn implies that any watery planet will oscillate around some equilibrium temperature, which is actively maintained by the flow system. See the paper by Ou listed below for further information on the process.
Climate Governing Mechanism
Every heat engine has a throttle. The throttle is the part of the engine that controls how much energy enters the heat engine. A motorcycle has a hand throttle. In an automobile, the throttle is called the gas pedal. It controls incoming energy.
The stability of the earth’s temperature over time (including alternating bi-stable glacial/interglacial periods), as well as theoretical considerations, indicates that this heat engine we call climate must have some kind of governor controlling the throttle.
While all heat engines have a throttle, not all of them have a governor. In a car, a governor is called “Cruise Control”. Cruise control is a governor that controls the throttle (gas pedal). A governor adjusts the energy going to the car engine to maintain a constant speed regardless of changes in internal and external forcing (e.g. hills, winds, engine efficiency, and losses).
We can narrow the candidates for this climate governing mechanism by noting first that a governor controls the throttle (which in turn controls the energy supplied to a heat engine). Second, we note that a successful governor must be able to drive the system beyond the desired result (overshoot).
(Note that a governor, which contains a hysteresis loop capable of producing overshoot, is different from a simple negative feedback of the type generally described by the IPCC. A simple negative feedback can only reduce an increase. It cannot maintain a steady state despite differing forcings, variable loads, and changing losses. Only a governor can do that.)
The majority of the earth’s absorption of heat from the sun takes place in the tropics. The tropics, like the rest of the world, are mostly ocean; and the land that is there is wet. The steamy tropics, in a word. There is little ice there, so the clouds control how much energy enters the climate heat engine.
I propose that two interrelated but separate mechanisms act directly to regulate the earth’s temperature — tropical cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. Cumulus clouds are the thermally-driven fluffy “cotton ball” clouds that abound near the surface on warm afternoons. Cumulonimbus clouds are thunderstorm clouds, which start life as simple cumulus clouds. Both types of clouds are part of the throttle control, reducing incoming energy. In addition, the cumulonimbus clouds are active refrigeration-cycle heat engines, which provide the necessary overshoot to act as a governor on the system.
A pleasant thought experiment shows how this cloud governor works. It’s called “A Day In the Tropics”.
I live in the deep, moist tropics, at 9°S, with a view of the South Pacific Ocean from my windows. Here’s what a typical day looks like. In fact, it’s a typical summer day everywhere in the Tropics. The weather report goes like this:
Clear and calm at dawn. Light morning winds, clouding up towards noon. In the afternoon, increasing clouds and wind with showers and thundershowers developing as the temperature rises. Thunderstorms continuing after dark, and clearing some time between sunset and early hours of the morning, with progressive clearing and calming until dawn.
That’s the most common daily cycle of tropical weather, common enough to be a cliché around the world.
It is driven by the day/night variations in the strength of the sun’s energy. Before dawn, the atmosphere is typically calm and clear. As the ocean (or moist land) heats up, air temperature and evaporation increase. Warm moist air starts to rise. Soon the rising moist air cools and condenses into clouds. The clouds reflect the sunlight. That’s the first step of climate regulation. Increased temperature leads to clouds. The clouds close the throttle slightly, reducing the energy entering the system. They start cooling things down. This is the negative feedback part of the cloud climate control.
The tropical sun is strong, and despite the negative feedback from the cumulus clouds, the day continues to heat up. The more the sun hits the ocean, the more warm, moist air is formed, and the more cumulus clouds form. This, of course, reflects more sun, and the throttle closes a bit more. But the day continues to warm.
The full development of the cumulus clouds sets the stage for the second part of temperature regulation. This is not simply negative feedback. It is the climate governing system. As the temperature continues to rise, as the evaporation climbs, some of the fluffy cumulus clouds suddenly transform themselves. They rapidly extend skywards, quickly thrusting up to form cloud pillars thousands of meters high. In this way, cumulus clouds are transformed into cumulonimbus or thunderstorm clouds.
The columnar body of the thunderstorm acts as a huge vertical heat pipe. The thunderstorm sucks up warm, moist air at the surface and shoots it skyward. At altitude the water condenses, transforming the latent heat into sensible heat. The air is rewarmed by this release of sensible heat and continues to rise within the thunderstorm tower.
At the top, the rising much dryer air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the rising air bypasses any interaction with most greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere. During the transport aloft, there is no radiative or turbulent interaction between the rising air inside the tower and the surrounding lower and middle troposphere. Inside the thunderstorm, the rising air is tunneled through most of the troposphere to emerge at the top.
In addition to reflecting sunlight from their top surface as cumulus clouds do, and transporting heat to the upper troposphere where it radiates easily to space, thunderstorms cool the surface in a variety of other ways, particularly over the ocean.
1. Wind driven evaporative cooling. Once the thunderstorm starts, it creates its own wind around the base. This self-generated wind increases evaporation in several ways, particularly over the ocean.
a) Evaporation rises linearly with wind speed. At a typical squall wind speed of 10 meters per second (“m/s”, about 20 knots or 17 miles per hour), evaporation is about ten times greater than at “calm” conditions (conventionally taken as 1 m/s).
b) The wind increases evaporation by creating spray and foam, and by blowing water off of trees and leaves. These greatly increase the evaporative surface area, because the total surface area of the millions of droplets is evaporating as well as the actual surface itself.
c) To a lesser extent, the surface area is also increased by wind-created waves (a wavy surface has a larger evaporative area than a flat surface).
d) Wind-created waves in turn greatly increase turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer. This increases evaporation by mixing dry air down to the surface and moist air upwards.
e) As spray rapidly warms to air temperature, which in the tropics can be warmer than ocean temperature, evaporation also rises above the sea surface evaporation rate.
2. Wind and wave driven albedo increase. The white spray, foam, spindrift, changing angles of incidence, and white breaking wave tops greatly increase the albedo of the sea surface. This reduces the energy absorbed by the ocean.
3. Cold rain and cold wind. As the moist air rises inside the thunderstorm’s heat pipe, water condenses and falls. Since the water is originating from condensing or freezing temperatures aloft, it cools the lower atmosphere it falls through, and it cools the surface when it hits. Also, the droplets are being cooled as they fall by evaporation.
In addition, the falling rain entrains a cold wind. This cold wind blows radially outwards from the center of the falling rain, cooling the surrounding area. This is quite visible in the video below.
4. Increased reflective area. White fluffy cumulus clouds are not very tall, so basically they only reflect from the tops. On the other hand, the vertical pipe of the thunderstorm reflects sunlight along its entire length. This means that thunderstorms reflect sunlight from an area of the ocean out of proportion to their footprint, particularly in the late afternoon.
5. Modification of upper tropospheric ice crystal cloud amounts (Lindzen 2001, Spencer 2007). These clouds form from the tiny ice particles that come out of the smokestack of the thunderstorm heat engines. It appears that the regulation of these clouds has a large effect, as they are thought to warm (through IR absorption) more than they cool (through reflection).
6. Enhanced night-time radiation. Unlike long-lived stratus clouds, cumulus and cumulonimbus often die out and vanish in the early morning hours, leading to the typically clear skies at dawn. This allows greatly increased nighttime surface radiative cooling to space.
7. Delivery of dry air to the surface. The air being sucked from the surface and lifted to altitude is counterbalanced by a descending flow of replacement air emitted from the top of the thunderstorm. This descending air has had the majority of the water vapor stripped out of it inside the thunderstorm, so it is relatively dry. The dryer the air, the more moisture it can pick up for the next trip to the sky. This increases the evaporative cooling of the surface.
8. Increased radiation through descending dry air. The descending dry air mentioned above is far more transparent to surface radiation than normal moist tropical air. This increases overall radiation to space.
In part because they utilize such a wide range of cooling mechanisms, cumulus clouds and thunderstorms are extremely good at cooling the surface of the earth. Together, they form the governing mechanism for the tropical temperature.
But where is that mechanism?
The problem with my thought experiment of describing a typical tropical day is that it is always changing. The temperature goes up and down, the clouds rise and fall, day changes to night, the seasons come and go. Where in all of that unending change is the governing mechanism? If everything is always changing, what keeps it the same month to month and year to year? If conditions are always different, what keeps it from going off the rails?
In order to see the governor at work, we need a different point of view. We need a point of view without time. We need a timeless view without seasons, a point of view with no days and nights. And curiously, in this thought experiment called “A Day In the Tropics”, there is such a timeless point of view, where not only is there no day and night, but where it’s always summer.
The point of view without day or night, the point of view from which we can see the climate governor at work, is the point of view of the sun. Imagine that you are looking at the earth from the sun. From the sun’s point of view, there is no day and night. All parts of the visible face of the earth are always in sunlight—the sun never sees the nighttime. And it’s always summer under the sun.
If we accept the convenience that the north is up, then as we face the earth from the sun, the visible surface of the earth is moving from left to right as the planet rotates. So the left-hand edge of the visible face is always at sunrise, and the right-hand edge is always at sunset. Noon is a vertical line down the middle. From this timeless point of view, morning is always and forever on the left, and afternoon is always on the right. In short, by shifting our point of view, we have traded time coordinates for space coordinates. This shift makes it easy to see how the governor works.
The tropics stretch from left to right across the circular visible face. We see that near the left end of the tropics, after sunrise, there are very few clouds. Clouds increase as you look further to the right. Around the noon line, there are already cumulus. And as we look from left to right across the right side of the visible face of the earth, towards the afternoon, more and more cumulus clouds and increasing numbers of thunderstorms cover a large amount of the tropics.
It is as though there is a graduated mirror shade over the tropics, with the fewest cloud mirrors on the left, slowly increasing to extensive cloud mirrors and thunderstorm coverage on the right.
After coming up with this hypothesis that as seen from the sun, the right-hand side of the deep tropical Pacific Ocean would have more clouds than the left-hand side), I thought “Hey, that’s a testable proposition to support or demolish my hypothesis”. So in order to investigate whether this postulated increase in clouds on the right-hand side of the Pacific actually existed, I took an average of 24 pictures of the Pacific Ocean taken at local noon on the 1st and 15th of each month over an entire year. I then calculated the average change in albedo and thus the average change in forcing at each time. Here is the result:

Figure 2. Average of one year of GOES-West weather satellite images taken at satellite local noon. The Intertropical Convergence Zone is the bright band in the yellow rectangle. Local time on earth is shown by black lines on the image. Time values are shown at the bottom of the attached graph. The red line on the graph is the solar forcing anomaly (in watts per square meter) in the area outlined in yellow. The black line is the albedo value in the area outlined in yellow.
The graph below the image of the earth shows the albedo and solar forcing in the yellow rectangle which contains the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. Note the sharp increase in the albedo between 10:00 and 11:30. You are looking at the mechanism that keeps the earth from overheating. It causes a change in insolation of -60 W/m2 between ten and noon.
Now, consider what happens if for some reason the surface of the tropics is a bit cool. The sun takes longer to heat up the surface. Evaporation doesn’t rise until later in the day. Clouds are slow to appear. The first thunderstorms form later, fewer thunderstorms form, and if it’s not warm enough those giant surface-cooling heat engines don’t form at all.
And from the point of view of the sun, the entire mirrored shade shifts to the right, letting more sunshine through for longer. The 60 W/m2 reduction in solar forcing doesn’t take place until later in the day, increasing the local insolation.
When the tropical surface gets a bit warmer than usual, the mirrored shade gets pulled to the left, and clouds form earlier. Hot afternoons drive thunderstorm formation, which cools and air conditions the surface. In this fashion, a self-adjusting cooling shade of thunderstorms and clouds keeps the afternoon temperature within a narrow range.
Now, some scientists have claimed that clouds have a positive feedback. Because of this, the areas where there are more clouds will end up warmer than areas with fewer clouds. This positive feedback is seen as the reason that clouds and warmth are correlated.
I and others take the opposite view of that correlation. I hold that the clouds are caused by the warmth, not that the warmth is caused by the clouds.
Fortunately, we have way to determine whether changes in the reflective tropical umbrella of clouds and thunderstorms are caused by (and thus limiting) overall temperature rise, or whether an increase in clouds is causing the overall temperature rise. This is to look at the change in albedo with the change in temperature. Here are two views of the tropical albedo, taken six months apart. August is the warmest month in the Northern Hemisphere. As indicated, the sun is in the North. Note the high albedo (areas of light blue) in all of North Africa, China, and the northern part of South America and Central America. By contrast, there is low albedo in Brazil, Southern Africa, and Indonesia/Australia.

Figure 3. Monthly Average Albedo. Timing is half a year apart. August is the height of summer in the Northern Hemisphere. February is the height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Light blue areas are the most reflective (greatest albedo)
In February, on the other hand, the sun is in the South. The albedo situation is reversed. Brazil and Southern Africa and Australasia are warm under the sun. In response to the heat, clouds form, and those areas now have a high albedo. By contrast, the north now has a low albedo, with the exception of the reflective Sahara and Rub Al Khali Deserts.
Clearly, the cloud albedo (from cumulus and cumulonimbus) follows the sun north and south, keeping the earth from overheating. This shows quite definitively that rather than the warmth being caused by the clouds, the clouds are caused by the warmth.
Quite separately, these images show in a different way that warmth drives cloud formation. We know that during the summer, the land warms more than the ocean. If temperature is driving the cloud formation, we would expect to see a greater change in the albedo over land than over the ocean. And this is clearly the case. We see in the North Pacific and the Indian Ocean that the sun increases the albedo over the ocean, particularly where the ocean is shallow. But the changes in the land are in general much larger than the changes over the ocean. Again this shows that the clouds are forming in response to, and are therefore limiting, increasing warmth.
How the Governor Works
Tropical cumulus production and thunderstorm production are driven by air density. Air density is a function of temperature (affecting density directly) and evaporation (water vapor is lighter than air).
A thunderstorm is both a self-generating and self-sustaining heat engine. The working fluids are moisture-laden warm air and liquid water. Self-generating means that whenever it gets hot enough over the tropical ocean, which is almost every day, at a certain level of temperature and humidity, some of the fluffy cumulus clouds suddenly start changing. The tops of the clouds streak upwards, showing the rising progress of the warm surface air. At altitude, the rising air exits the cloud, replace by more air from below. Suddenly, in place of a placid cloud, there is an active thunderstorm.
“Self-generating” means that thunderstorms arise spontaneously as a function of temperature and evaporation. They are what is called an “emergent” phenomenon, meaning that they emerge from th background when certain conditions are met. In the case of thunderstorms, this generally comes down to the passing of a temperature threshold.
Above the temperature threshold necessary to create the first thunderstorm, the number of thunderstorms rises rapidly. This rapid increase in thunderstorms limits the amount of temperature rise possible.
“Self-sustaining” means that once a thunderstorm gets going, it no longer requires the full initiation temperature necessary to get it started. This is because the self-generated wind at the base, plus dry air falling from above, combine to drive the evaporation rate way up. The thunderstorm is driven by air density. It requires a source of light air. The density of the air is determined by both temperature and moisture content (because curiously, water vapor at molecular weight 16 is only a bit more than half as heavy as air, which has a weight of about 29). So moist air is light air.
Evaporation is not a function of temperature alone. It is governed a complex mix of wind speed, water temperature, and vapor pressure. Evaporation is calculated by what is called a “bulk formula”, which means a formula based on experience rather than theory. One commonly used formula is:
E = VK(es – ea)
where
E = evaporation
V= wind speed (function of temperature difference [∆T])
K = coefficient constant
es = vapor pressure at evaporating surface (function of water temperature in degrees K to the fourth power)
ea = vapor pressure of overlying air (function of relative humidity and air temperature in degrees K to the fourth power)
The critical thing to notice in the formula is that evaporation varies linearly with wind speed. This means that evaporation near a thunderstorm can be an order of magnitude greater than evaporation a short distance away.
In addition to the changes in evaporation, there at least one other mechanism increasing cloud formation as wind increases. This is the wind-driven production of airborne salt crystals. The breaking of wind-driven waves produces these microscopic crystals of salt. The connection to the clouds is that these crystals are the main condensation nuclei for clouds that form over the ocean. The production of additional condensation nuclei, coupled with increased evaporation, leads to larger and faster changes in cloud production with increasing temperature.
Increased wind-driven evaporation means that to get the same air density, the surface temperature can be lower than the temperature required to initiate the thunderstorm. This means that the thunderstorm will still survive and continue cooling the surface to well below the starting temperature.
This ability to drive the temperature lower than the starting point is what distinguishes a governor from a negative feedback. A thunderstorm can do more than just reduce the amount of surface warming. It can actually mechanically cool the surface to below the required initiation temperature. This allows it to actively maintain a fixed temperature in the region surrounding the thunderstorm.
A key feature of this method of control (changing incoming power levels, performing work, and increasing thermal losses to quelch rising temperatures) is that the equilibrium temperature is not governed by changes in the amount of losses or changes in the forcings in the system. The equilibrium temperature is set by the response of wind and water and cloud to increasing temperature, not by the inherent efficiency of or the inputs to the system.
In addition, the equilibrium temperature is not affected much by changes in the strength of the solar irradiation. If the sun gets weaker, evaporation decreases, which decreases clouds, which increases the available sun. This is the likely answer the long-standing question of how the earth’s temperature has stayed stable over geological times, during which time the strength of the sun has increased markedly.
Gradual Equilibrium Variation and Drift
If the Thermostat Hypothesis is correct and the earth does have an actively maintained equilibrium temperature, what causes the slow drifts and other changes in the equilibrium temperature seen in both historical and geological times?
As shown by Bejan, one determinant of running temperature is how efficient the whole global heat engine is in moving the terawatts of energy from the tropics to the poles. On a geological time scale, the location, orientation, and elevation of the continental land masses is obviously a huge determinant in this regard. That’s what makes Antarctica different from the Arctic today. The lack of a land mass in the Arctic means warm water circulates under the ice. In Antarctica, the cold goes to the bone …
In addition, the oceanic geography which shapes the currents carrying warm tropical water to the poles and returning cold water (eventually) to the tropics is also a very large determinant of the running temperature of the global climate heat engine.
In the shorter term, there could be slow changes in the albedo. The albedo is a function of wind speed, evaporation, cloud dynamics, and (to a lesser degree) snow and ice. Evaporation rates are fixed by thermodynamic laws, which leave only wind speed, cloud dynamics, and snow and ice able to affect the equilibrium.
The variation in the equilibrium temperature may, for example, be the result of a change in the worldwide average wind speed. Wind speed is coupled to the ocean through the action of waves, and long-term variations in the coupled ocean-atmospheric momentum occur. These changes in wind speed may vary the equilibrium temperature in a cyclical fashion.
Or it may be related to a general change in color, type, or extent of either the clouds or the snow and ice. The albedo is dependent on the color of the reflecting substance. If reflections are changed for any reason, the equilibrium temperature could be affected. For snow and ice, this could be e.g. increased melting due to black carbon deposition on the surface. For clouds, this could be a color change due to aerosols or dust.
Finally, the equilibrium variations may relate to the sun. The variation in magnetic and charged particle numbers may be large enough to make a difference. There are strong suggestions that cloud cover is influenced by the 22-year solar Hale magnetic cycle, and this 14-year record only covers part of a single Hale cycle. However, I have yet to find any significant evidence of this effect on any surface weather variables, including clouds.
Conclusions and Musings
1. The sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about a third of the sun’s energy back to space. As near as we can tell, over billions of years, this system of increasing cloud formation to limit temperature rises has never failed.
2. This reflective shield of clouds forms in the tropics in response to increasing temperature.
3. As tropical temperatures continue to rise, the reflective shield is assisted by the formation of independent heat engines called thunderstorms. These cool the surface in a host of ways, move heat aloft, and convert heat to work.
4. Like cumulus clouds, thunderstorms also form in response to increasing temperature.
5. Because they are temperature driven, as tropical temperatures rise, tropical thunderstorms and cumulus production increase. These combine to regulate and limit the temperature rise. When tropical temperatures are cool, tropical skies clear and the earth rapidly warms. But when the tropics heat up, cumulus and cumulonimbus put a limit on the warming. This system keeps the earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures (e.g., a change of only 0.7°C over the entire 20th Century).
6. The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging physics of wind, water, and cloud.
7. This is a reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable (or more recently, bi-stable as glacial and interglacial) for hundreds of millions of years.
Further Reading
Bejan, A, and Reis, A. H., 2005, Thermodynamic optimization of global circulation and climate, Int. J. Energy Res.; 29:303–316. Available online here.
Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and A. Y. Hou, 2001, Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 417–432. Available online here.
Ou, Hsien-Wang, Possible Bounds on the Earth’s Surface Temperature: From the Perspective of a Conceptual Global-Mean Model, Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1 July 2001. Available online here (pdf).
KlausB (22:29:31) :
re: DJ (14:41:57) :
Anthony,
Simply ignore him. He isn’t worth the effort.
Seconded, and I’m impressed bythe fact that intis thread at least, few have risen to the stinky bait. Trust the judgement of your readership Anthony!
Without replying, i actually saved DJ’s firstpost to a notepad document, so we can revisit it next year after the non-appearance of the ‘super el nino’.
Not that he ever will admit he was wrong. Climate professionals don’t do that sort of thing.
I don’t know, it’s not news that clouds, oceans distribute heat energy.
Even my school geography lessons talked about the oceanic conveyor & cloud effects.
The warmers will agree, but with the caveat that man did not exist before and thus human CO2 is a new factor which will throw this finely balanced system out of range (see Gaia “theory”).
This extrct from another article seems relevant:
“the weather systems on Earth (primarily the jet streams and the high pressure cells either side of them) ramp up their thermal efficiency in tune with the scale of any positive or negative energy input changes from any source including that from human CO2. Just like increasing or decreasing the flow of air across a resistor.
Shifting large volumes of air towards the poles increases radiation of energy to space thus neutralising any warming of the air and shifting large volumes of air towards the equator draws heat from sunshine and oceans thus neutralising any cooling of the air.
The air can only push energy towards space or draw it from the oceans. Air cannot draw energy from space or push it into the oceans.
At this point I should mention the vast energy transfer potential of the latent heats of evaporation and condensation. Huge quantities of energy are taken from water surfaces by evaporation then dumped higher up in the air by condensation to accelerate the expulsion of energy to space. That process is highly variable in scale and speed and is intimately linked to the air circulation that drives weather and climate. It is that process which gives the weather systems an overwhelming power to vary quickly in response to any imbalance between energy flowing into the air from the oceans and into space from the air.
Whether the air warms or cools the weather systems change to cancel it out.
Thus there does seem to be a mechanism whereby the warming effect from human CO2 (indeed all greenhouse gases) could be removed naturally as it arises. The weather systems accelerate the expulsion of the additional energy to space in order to return the energy inputs and outputs of the air to balance. ”
Full article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2581
Benjamin P. (23:26:25) :
but I thought everyone here hated climate models anyway?
A fairly vacuous statement. What I dislike is garbage output from incorrectly parameterized models paraded as truth to a compliant media.
Re: temp data sets saying May is .. whatever warmest on record. I cant resist. One month is weather, not climate:P Sux to have that turned around on you doesnt it?
NS (23:40:32) :
The warmers will agree, but with the caveat that man did not exist before and thus human CO2 is a new factor which will throw this finely balanced system out of range (see Gaia “theory”).
The Co2 level was 20 times higher than today long before man came on the scene. Didn’t boil the seas then either.
First, my thanks to all who have contributed.
Next, let me say that this thread is not really about snowball earth, and I was foolish to enter that discussion. It is fascinating, and I got sucked in, but it is a side track to discussing the implications of the Thermostat Hypothesis. Not sure where the Snowball Earth thread is, but it would be great if you took the snowballs there, or even better if you just put the snowballs in your pockets and stuck around.
The oddity under discussion is that the Earth’s temperature has stayed within a narrow band for at least the last half a billion years. During that time it has seen meteor strikes, and centuries long widespread volcanic eruptions, and huge forest fires, and oceans disappearing as continents were lifted out of the sea, and all manner of the good, bad, and ugly. Despite all of that, despite all of the variation in the forcings and the changes in the losses during all of that geological time, the earth’s temperature hasn’t moved around much at all. A few percent.
Seems evident to me that this is not a system that will be thrown off balance by changes in trace gases. I have proposed a mechanism that governs the temperature. It involves a combination of throttle control through cloud albedo, combined with active heat transport and surface cooling through thunderstorms.
While my hypothesis may not be correct, something is constraining the Earth’s temperature to a fairly narrow band. I think its cumulus clouds and thunderstorms.
Thunderstorms are weird creatures. They are what is known as an “emergent phenomenon”. This means that they emerge out of a set of conditions (warm clear morning air over the ocean) with properties that have little to do with either air or ocean. Both clouds and thunderstorms are emergent phenomena.
One oddity about emergent phenomena is that they are usually associated with a “threshold” below which they will not emerge. Above that threshold, however, they may form in great numbers. It’s that way with clouds, for example. First there’s none, then there’s 1, then 2, then 17 …
The same is true of the threshold for the metamorphosis of a little innocent cumulus cloud, happily reflecting sunlight, into a towering, raging cumulonimbus thunderstorm. Once that combined temperature/humidity threshold is passed, thunderstorms can form in large numbers.
This non-linearity, of course, makes both cumulus and thunderstorms ideal candidates for temperature control mechanisms. When the tropics is cool, it’s below the first threshold. No clouds form, and the full heat of the sun rapidly brings up the temperature. When the first threshold is crossed, rapidly spreading cumulus quickly turn down the sun. When the second threshold is passed, a host of thunderstorms soon start vacuuming up the warm moist surface air and shooting it skywards, while pelting the earth with cool rain and wind. Between them, cumulus and thunderstorms put an upper bound on the earth’s temperature. That’s the Thermostat Hypothesis.
I would add just two thoughts to the article, the first is that models confirm that concentrated convection has a global cooling effect, see #3088067 here:
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/publications/PhD%20and%20Masters%20Theses.htm
for example. Their hypothesized reason that concentrated convection cools the planet is that it dries the upper troposphere.
I would also add that what goes up must come down, so a big part of the effect from concentrated convection is the subsidence around it (especially prominent around tropical cyclones). That large area of downward moving air prevents clouds and thus allows a large amount of outgoing IR.
It’s important to note that the climate stability to which Mr. Eschenbach refers only goes back about 600 million years(the Phanerozoic Eon). “Snowball Earth” and the “Faint Sun Paradox” hypotheses are attempts to explain things that appear to have happened prior to the Phanerozoic.
Prior to the Phanerozoic (“visible life”) Eon, the Earth’s atmosphere is believed to have been quite different…Possibly 80% CO2 and/or CH4.
The geological evidence points to a very stable Phanerozoic climate with, as Mr. Eschenbach stated, a total variation from the median temperature of less than +/-3%.
600 million years of no evidence of CO2-driven climate change may not be 4 billion years…But it’s a long time and it is the entire time span of Earth’s modern atmosphere.
Even if this idea is not really new (Bejan’s method to only mention his name go in the same direction) it is refreshing to see a bit of common sense physics .
Thanks Willis .
We have been fed for the last 15 years by 19th century physics of naive equilibrium systems .
All and any GCMs past , present and future are based on this 19th century physics where Arrhenius is still cited as reference even if he ignored everything about non linear dynamics and matter/radiation physics .
Most climate “scientists” are trying to brainwash everybody by babbling about static systems with constant temperatures and “departures from equilibrium” .
Well of course as the real Earth system is neither static nor in equilibrium , GCM can only produce garbage painfully data fitted with ad hoc parametrizations .
So obviously the right way is to treat the Earth system like what it really is – a dynamical system out of equilibrium with all governing parameters FUNDAMENTALLY time dependent .
Willis shows that this (only) correct approach is not only feasible but clear and enlightening .
Even if here are some very complex aspects in climate dynamics , they have nothing to do with esoterical “radiative equilibriums” and “GHG forcings” .
You are on the right track Willis . The Earth is a dynamical self regulating out of equilibrium system and as long as your working hypothesis are consistent with these facts , you have a chance to be right .
Willis Eschenbach (19:14:53) :
The model is tuned …
Willis, and others, that phrase should set alarm sirens off at full volume. The only, I say again only, time an honest user of modeling and simulation introduces a “tuning” or “fudge” factor is when it’s necessary to get M&S to reproduce observed results. Having done so, the M&S is presented as: a. corresponding well to observations, b. the fudge factor indicates area requiring further research.
Introducing the fudge factor to get the result you want, then changing or creating “observational” data to support it is fraud.
Frank K. (19:34:03) :
One of the world’s best models?? I’m sorry – Model E is a piece of FORTRAN junk!
Hey! FORTRAN is my Mother Tongue (so to speak). It’s still a good language for science and engineering. It just requires more intelligence to use properly than these people possess.
RE: Dave Wendt (20:50:08) :
I too wish to stand up for the honor DJs everywhere!
Help, Cecil, help! Help, Cecil,help!
Willis Eschenbach (01:33:12) : “One oddity about emergent phenomena is that they are usually associated with a “threshold” below which they will not emerge. Above that threshold, however, they may form in great numbers. It’s that way with clouds, for example. First there’s none, then there’s 1, then 2, then 17 … ”
Kind of like a tipping point?
” Once that combined temperature/humidity threshold is passed, thunderstorms can form in large numbers.”
There must be other factors involved as over the last several days in my part of the central west coast of Florida we have had temps in the low 90’s and humidity above 72% but no thunderbumpers. The wind was NNW so perhaps that helped to stablize the upper atmosphere. Suffice it to know that even my periwinkles needed water.
To tie in the thermostat effect with snowball earth: This model assumes the
result is due to the effects of weathering and removal of CO2 when the continents are near the equator.
http://www.applet-magic.com/snowball.htm
If the continents were near the equator, that would have reduced significantly the amount of ocean near the equator, leaving the ocean thermostat less effective.
Melinda Romanoff (20:18:02)I think the insulation or R-factor of rock is too high to get much of an effect from heating from the core of the earth. Presently, there is about .08 watts per sq. Km from the inner earth, not much compared to ~1360W/Km from the sun.
Bob Wood (16:17:33) Here in Colorado we have lots of sedimentary rock, as well as marble, metamorphized limestone, at 5-14 K feet. This used to be a sea bed.
Dave Wendt (20:50:08)” BTW, are there any other fossilized old crocks here, old enough to remember ‘Beanie and Cecil’?” Sure do, and how about Tom Terrific?
Benjamin P. (23:26:25) :
@Nasif Nahle (22:24:24) :
“The authors are using simulators which rely 100% on carbon dioxide; hence they had to lower the carbon dioxide concentration to get the conditions for a snowball Earth. Not based in real data, the whole work is based on conjectures, except for the data obtained from proxies which mainly are biotic systems. Biosystems adapt and evolve”
Well they are trying to explain data in the rock record, and in this case, most of the data are not from biotic systems. And I would not simply brush it off as conjecture there are a lot of observations that need an explanation.
I opine the contrary because they used mostly stromatolites and other biotic proxies.
Banded iron formations (BIFs) are a unique rock that are found mostly in the oldest of rocks. Reduced iron is soluble in water, but oxidized iron is not. When the earth’s atmosphere went from anaerobic to aerobic, the BIFs stopped forming. Except for a brief period of time in the neoproterozoic. Why? And why are there glacial drop stones in those BIFs? And why are their glacial deposits in the tropics? And why are those glacial deposits overlain by carbonates?
Glacial diamictons and dragged debris, not an abrupt decrease of CO2.
Snowball earth gives a good explanation for this, but as I said, it could use more data. We have a hard enough time reconstructing climate 300 years ago, let alone 800 Ma.
Again, not due to abrupt decreases of CO2. During the Carboniferous the CO2 was low and remained los until the Permian; however, the icehouse was interrupted by a short warmhouse followed by a short icehouse which gave pass to a warmhouse, and the CO2 remained at low levels until the Creatceous.
As for the modeling, there are folks who have tried their models to produce a snowball earth (with limited success) but I thought everyone here hated climate models anyway?
Models are useful when we need to interpret data from real world and make some predictions based strictly on the data taken from real world. Models are not for inventing worlds; for example, this revealing paragraph from the article:
To simulate a snowball Earth, coupled energy-balance models require that atmospheric CO2 levels be lowered dramatically (~10^-4 bar), even with lower-than-present solar luminosity…
@ur momisugly tallbloke (00:34:04) :
Yes Tallbloke, sorry that was mostly sarcasm. Sarcasm is one of those things that does not work well in written form.
@ur momisugly Dave Middleton (04:03:15) :
600 Ma to present. Works for me.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach (01:33:12) :
“Next, let me say that this thread is not really about snowball earth, and I was foolish to enter that discussion. It is fascinating, and I got sucked in, but it is a side track to discussing the implications of the Thermostat Hypothesis. Not sure where the Snowball Earth thread is, but it would be great if you took the snowballs there, or even better if you just put the snowballs in your pockets and stuck around.”
My apologies for starting that distraction.
“The oddity under discussion is that the Earth’s temperature has stayed within a narrow band for at least the last half a billion years.”
I’d argue that when we are looking for climatic variations (thousand year scales) in the geologic record (million year scales) it might be hard to put a lot of faith in that paleoclimate reconstruction. When you have a few data points over millions of years of data, I am not sure how you could account for what is going on in that “thousands of years” time scales.
Ben
I stand for the theory that there are external and internal drivers of the Earth’s climate; nevertheless, I cannot integrate the carbon dioxide within the internal causes of warmhouse and icehouse on our planet because, simply, the carbon dioxide lacks the physical thermal properties which could make it able to drive the Earth’s climate. The changes of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide obey to changes of climate, never the opposite.
Many authors changed data and viewpoints exactly after the advent of the mythical role of CO2 on climate changes, in 1998. Many, many honest scientists, are yet adhered to real data, real physics, real world.
OW!
Thanks for a very pleasant read. Thermostat Hypothesis – clear, to the point, observable and probably testable.
It would have made the article longer but it would have been nice to see the same band from the opposite view. The reverse effect as the system collapses and dissipates in preparation for the next day.
Alan D Macintyre says:
If the continents were near the equator, that would have reduced significantly the amount of ocean near the equator, leaving the ocean thermostat less effective.
How intriguing. If my quick attempt at trying to find a formula for the surface area encompassed up to X degrees North and South of the Equator is correct, ~30% of the surface area resides between 20N and 20S. That’s about the land surface area. (It looks like the function is 4.r^2.Sine(Lat).)
Without a doubt our resolution of past events becomes much coarser with the increasing age of the events we are trying to resolve…But there are quite a few rather drastic climate changes that have occurred over the last few thousand to few hundred thousand years that can be resolved to decadal or century scales. Most notably: Dansgaard-Oeschger events in Pleistocene ice cores and the Heinrich/Bond events in Pleistocene to Holocene marine sediment cores. These rapid climate changes (on the order of Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age scale) appear to have had very rapid onsets…As little as a few decades in many cases.
Willis said:
I find your hypothesis to be very interesting and think it likely correct, however, I do not think oceans disappeared in any useful way. Sure, a particular part of the ocean surface might have been obliterated, but the volume of water is essentially constant, it seems to me. Of course, land emerging at the equator and displacing ocean surface elsewhere is likely to have a bigger effect than the same occurring elsewhere.
Indiana Bones (22:07:53) :
Ron de Haan (19:40:05) :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-schram/the-myth-of-energy-indepe_b_215647.html
Alan Schram suggests that continuing our escalating consumption of foreign oil is a good thing: “we must remember that we do business with the Middle East in the open market. Voluntary exchanges are not zero sum, rather they are positive sum.”
No, it is hardly an open market. Nor is it a “voluntary” exchange. It is trade caused by short sighted development of non-petroleum resources and by environmental legislation limiting domestic petroleum production. Assuming the $700B sent to the Middle East annually is a “positive sum” for Americans is malarky. We are being squeezed by oil cartels foreign and domestic and it is finally coming to an end.
Electrification of transportation (starting with Tesla) will rapidly erode the demand for foreign oil. Electric demand at home can be met by a broad portfolio of domestic resources including nuclear, coal, and alternatives. Energy independence strikes fear in the hearts of old-school monopolies accustomed to peddling resources to dependent nations. Their time is over.
Indiana Bones,
Although I agree with your remarks about the oil market, I disagree with the wondeful green future provided by the electrification of transport.
Tesla is currently the best technology available and unfortunately it is not enough.
We need better (much better) batteries (higher capacity, shorter charging time at much, much, much lower costs).
As long as this is not the case the electric vehicle will be a niche product.
As long as these batteries are not available we will not come very far.
Untill that moment arrives we will use good old plain oil and natural gas to power our rides.
I am not very optimistic about the development in regard of battery performence nor the raw materials that make the core.
Solar and wind scream for serious storage solution.
This ‘pressure’ on development should have resulted in cheap, high energy density battery packs years ago.
There is also the difficulty of availability of the basic amterials to produce batteries.
It does not make sence to swap dependence of oil for dependence on the basic materials to produce batteries.
I am confident that we will get where we want to be in time, but not within the next thirty years.
Just Want Results… (21:24:24) :
Just Want Results… (21:22:15) :
The Weather Channel specifically mentioned “a year without a summer” in that report. Were they talking about Accuweather and Joe Bastardi?
Just Want Results,
I think they refer to a PDF File that you can find here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=115