The Thermostat Hypothesis

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).


The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 2 votes
Article Rating
415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Benjamin P.
June 16, 2009 9:51 am

Nasif Nahle (07:47:30) :
yes, Nasif, I get it, you are not a fan of CO2. Its pretty amazing that you tie in CO2 in your reply to every part of my post when I really was not saying anything about CO2, other than the fact that there are some what seem to be unreasonable levels predicted by the models.
Okay, I told Willis I was sorry for the distraction with Snowball earth, but I need to reply!
“I opine the contrary because they used mostly stromatolites and other biotic proxies.”
Well opine all you want, but your wrong.
From Hoffman et al, “Here, we present new data on the amplitude, timing, and duration of inorganic Delta13C variations in Neoproterozoic rocks of northern Namibia … ”
Pay close attention to that word inorganic.
I say, “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?”
To which you reply, “Glacial diamictons and dragged debris, not an abrupt decrease of CO2.”
What? First, why even mention CO2 since I said nothing about it at all? Second, glacial deposits and “dragged debris” (whatever that is) explains BIFs in the neoproterozoic? I think you just wanted to say something about CO2! Because your reply doesn’t make much sense to me if you were trying to “counter” what I said.
Anyway…
Ben

June 16, 2009 10:12 am

Benjamin P. (09:51:13) :
Nasif Nahle (07:47:30) :
yes, Nasif, I get it, you are not a fan of CO2. Its pretty amazing that you tie in CO2 in your reply to every part of my post when I really was not saying anything about CO2, other than the fact that there are some what seem to be unreasonable levels predicted by the models.

Did I say you had mentioned CO2? The authors had to “fix” the simulator by lowering the atmospheric CO2, not you.
I’m a fan of CO2, but as the essential compound for life that it is. I’m not a fan of distorted science, like AGW.

hotrod
June 16, 2009 10:16 am

Tom in Florida (07:21:35) :
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.

Yes there are other factors, it is not just the temperature and humidity but the temperature and humidity profile as you go up in altitude.
In an atmosphere that promotes thunderstorm development you have an unstable atmosphere because you have warm moist air in a layer near the ground but above it you have a layer of relatively dryer and cooler air.
Moist air has a lower density than dryer air at the same temperature and pressure.
Air pressure drops with altitude as does temperature (most of the time). This drop of temperature is called the lapse rate. If you raise a parcel of dry air 1000 ft, it will lose about 5.4 deg F in temperature. If you raise a parcel of saturated air by 1000 ft it will lose only about 2.7 deg F. This is due to the high specific heat of the water vapor in the saturated air. These are called the Dry adiabatic lapse rate and the moist adiabatic lapse rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
If the atmosphere has relatively dryer air sitting over air of high humidity, you can have a situation of “unstable air” where you have all the conditions needed for thunderstorms to develop. If that unstable situation does not exist you can have very high heat and humidity with no thunderstorm development.
This unstable condition depends on the fact that the lower atmosphere has a very specific temperature and humidity profile. The lower layer must have relatively high humidity compared to a layer just above. This stratification creates a “coiled spring” of available energy. This coiled spring is the “Convective available potential energy” often referred to as the cape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy
Storm chasers talk about “breaking the cap”. This phrase refers to the above situation, where you have the proper temperature/humidity profile to create an unstable atmosphere. There are generally two ways for that coiled spring to be released. You can continue to warm the lower layer of moist air, and at some point it will cross a critical temperature/humidity/density where it is lower density than the “cap” of dryer air above it. When this happens any random motion of the lower moist air that lifts it will cause it to be warmer than the surrounding dry air due to the differences in their lapse rates. Once this happens you have “broken the cap” and that lifted parcel of air starts to accelerate upwards like a hot air balloon due to buoyancy. It is lighter than the dryer air around it and as it rises, it pulls up more warm moist air from below which likewise once it crosses that critical density point takes off . This is what forms the rapidly rising columns of cloud and updrafts which form the thunderstorm.
That runaway process can also be triggered by any process that mechanically lifts air that is just short of the point it would rise naturally. For example if the local winds cause the warm moist air to flow up a small rise in the terrain, this “Orographic Lifting” mechanically raises the air enough to set off the runaway convection. An upper level disturbance (small pressure change at high altitudes due to jet stream etc.) can also cause enough lifting to trigger the convection by pulling up unstable air above that critical altitude/pressure/density point where the instability is released. Lifting can also be caused by converging low level winds or frontal passages that locally pushes up warm moist air as the air masses collide.
http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p387
It is possible to have very high CAPE and not trigger thunderstorms because conditions do not quite reach the critical trigger conditions. On other occasions at relatively low CAPE you can get thunderstorm development if you have strong enough lifting to trigger the instability that is available.
This is one of the reasons thunderstorm development is essentially impossible to model. It is a chaotic process that depends on multiple factors many of which are difficult to impossible to predict.
I have spent many hours sweltering in hot muggy weather with the National Weather Service telling us that the CAPE conditions favored explosive thunderstorm development only to see clear skies and get a sun burn. This was because there was not enough lifting to trigger the release of all that energy.
On other days we have had “surprise storms” when all the conditions for thunderstorm development were marginal, but a unique set of events combined at just the right time to kick off a storm.
That is why the models will never be sophisticated enough to “predict” next weeks thunderstorm development let alone world wide behavior 100 years down the road.
Right now the Severe Storm Prediction Center ( http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/ ) only gives severe storm outlooks for a few days and only the day 1 and day 2 have much reliability. They are slightly better than flipping a coin.
That is not a dig, the job they are trying to do is enormously complex and to beat even odds is a very significant accomplishment!
Larry

Richard Sharpe
June 16, 2009 10:35 am

Of course, I was out by a factor of Pi!

CodeTech
June 16, 2009 12:01 pm

hotrod, that was an extremely lucid and educational description of something I have observed many times.
Here in Calgary at 3500 feet we tend to get large, billowy thunderstorms, often with hail, and from time to time extremely massive. I believe our 1991 hailstorm is still holding the record for single-storm damage, in fact.
However, while traveling for work I have flown around thunderstorms around Toronto which looked entirely different. They were towering columns that we zigged and zagged through as they loomed thousands of feet above us, and relatively small compared to what I’m used to seeing.
Your description of how these things form makes complete sense. The Toronto area storms looked like the wake of a passing bubble, while ours look more like the interaction of fronts. The difference in energy, moisture and pressure would account for this, I think.

George E. Smith
June 16, 2009 12:06 pm

“”” Eric (skeptic) (17:05:38) :
The postulated high cl0ud positive feedback simply does not exist; clouds are always a cooling influence on the earth, and it is that inevitable negative feedback that locks the earth temperatures into that narrow range established by the fundamental physical and chemical properties of H2O.
George,
That’s not correct. The cooling effect from high clouds is well known. The simplest example is an IR satellite picture that shows that cold cloud tops radiate significantly less IR to space than land or water or low cloud tops. “””
Let me see if I have this straight ; “the cooling effect from high clouds is well known.” I’ll take your word for it; but that is contrary to everything I have ever read elsewhere that says high clouds are a positive feedback warming effect by trapping otherwise outgoing long wave infrared radiation.
If the higher the clouds are the more trapping and more surface warming (as is claimed) why are those higher clouds colder; if they are trapping more surface infra red. Oh I agree that the colder high clouds will radiate less than the warmer surface or warmer lower clouds; there’s very little about black body like thermal radiation that I am unfamiliar with. So that’s no mystery higher colder clouds radiate less, and if they radiate less and yet remain just as cold, one can conlcude that they also intercept (trap) less radiation from lower down; unless there is something new about the conservation of energy that you want to reveal to us.
That is entirely my point; there is no way that high clouds can be warming the surface by trapping and then re-radiating downwards a lot of energy that otherwise would escape from the earth.
Any simple analysis of a chain of resonance absorptions followed by molecular collisions and thermalization of the energy, followed by re-emission as a continuum radiation, will show that the easy path of propagation is upwards towards colder less dense atmosphere, and not donwards towards denser hotter layers that absorb over broader spectral bands
So I don’t need your satellite photos to convince me that higher clouds radiate less than lower denser warmer more moisture laden clouds.
But all of them; persistent over time scales of meaning to climate result in cooling of the surface rather than heating of the surface; since they block more sunlight from reaching the ground. More clouds of any kind; less surface heating.
The surface conditions generate the clouds; not the other way round.

Pofarmer
June 16, 2009 12:52 pm

I hope this isn’t a dead thread, but it seems the best place to ask this.
I’m continually having a conversation with a young man on an Ag Forum that is convinced that the Atmosphere is heating the oceans. It seems that there are two camps coming about. The AGW camp beleives that a trace gas is causing heating of the atmosphere and that is heating the oceans and the rest of the planet.
The skeptic camp seems to be coalescing around the idea that the sun controls the temperature of the oceans and various feedback mechanisms regulate the earths temperature from there.
Is this basically correct? Is there any way to change somebodies mind on this?

Willis Eschenbach
June 16, 2009 1:10 pm

TomVonk (04:06:58), thanks for an interesting post. You say inter alia:

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.

As you you say that “this idea is not really new”, I’d be very interested in any references you might have to the idea that the earth’s temperature is regulated by cumulus/cumulonimus being put forwards previously.
Best to all,
w.

June 16, 2009 1:12 pm

I know Leif won’t like this but his TSI database shows a more convincing correlation with HSG:
Correl. 70 yrs. mean-Lean/Stacked = 0.36
Correl. 70 yrs. mean-Lean/HSG = 0.364
Correl. 70 yrs. mean-Sval/Stacked = 0.97
Correl. 70 yrs. mean-Sval./HSG = 0.875
(Bolds only for characterizing one line from another)
Conclusion: HSG constitutes a very accurate proxy on calculations of past TSI. Point.
The mean values of HSG for the last 70 years were computed considering a variance of ~0.15 HSG/year. 🙂
We know that the excess of solar irradiance striking on the surface is stored mainly by the oceans and secondarily by the subsurface materials of the ground:
White, W. B., J. Lean, D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102(C2), 3255–3266.
Thus, the main role on the Earth’s climate is played by the Sun, followed by the oceans and finally by the subsurface materials of the ground.

June 16, 2009 1:15 pm

Pofarmer (12:52:16) :
I hope this isn’t a dead thread, but it seems the best place to ask this.
I’m continually having a conversation with a young man on an Ag Forum that is convinced that the Atmosphere is heating the oceans. It seems that there are two camps coming about. The AGW camp beleives that a trace gas is causing heating of the atmosphere and that is heating the oceans and the rest of the planet.
The skeptic camp seems to be coalescing around the idea that the sun controls the temperature of the oceans and various feedback mechanisms regulate the earths temperature from there.
Is this basically correct? Is there any way to change somebodies mind on this?

I think my previous post answers the first part of your question. For the last question, I think there is no way of changing somebody’s mind on AGW because long time ago they abandoned the main objectives of science and reason.

Willis Eschenbach
June 16, 2009 1:22 pm

Pofarmer (12:52:16), you say:

I hope this isn’t a dead thread, but it seems the best place to ask this.
I’m continually having a conversation with a young man on an Ag Forum that is convinced that the Atmosphere is heating the oceans. It seems that there are two camps coming about. The AGW camp beleives that a trace gas is causing heating of the atmosphere and that is heating the oceans and the rest of the planet.
The skeptic camp seems to be coalescing around the idea that the sun controls the temperature of the oceans and various feedback mechanisms regulate the earths temperature from there.
Is this basically correct? Is there any way to change somebodies mind on this?

Well, I hope this thread is not dead myself.
As you point out, the two major opposing camps are “CO2 did it” and “some natural force did it, likely the sun”. I have proposed a third possibility, “thunderstorms did it”.
However, the key point is that recent studies have shown that the oceans are no longer warming. Nor is the atmosphere warming. Antarctic ice is at the largest extent ever measured. So your friend’s basic thesis (the oceans are warming) is currently not true.
You do point out one of the major difficulties with the CO2 hypothesis, however, which is that it is very, very hard to falsify. This is because it makes very, very few testable propositions.
That is one reason that I was so happy to realize that my hypothesis did indeed make a testable proposition. This is the proposition that as seen from the sun, the right hand side of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone would be cloudier than the left. I was even happier when I was able to confirm this. The icing on the cake was the timing and size of the daily jump in albedo. This turns out to be a very sharp rise between 10:30 and 12:00 (see Fig. 2) and to involve a forcing change of ~ 60 W/m2. These were unexpected and welcome confirmations of the Thermostat Hypothesis
But the CO2 hypothesis does not make such conveniently testable propositions.
Whether you will change anyone’s mind is an open question. As a friend of mine used to say, “Your argument is so persuasive, if I had a mind, I’d change it” …
I fear all of us inconvenient skeptics find ourselves faced with that point of view far too often.
Thanks for the question,
w.

Willis Eschenbach
June 16, 2009 1:29 pm

Richard Sharpe (08:42:25), you say:

Willis said:
“and oceans disappearing as continents were lifted out of the sea”
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.

Of course, you are correct that the oceans did not disappear. However, as one example of what I was referring to, most of the central US was underwater at one time, then it emerged. It was one among a list of occurrences that one would expect to have changed the climate, but didn’t. My point was that a host of things have happened over geological time that you would expect to greatly affect the earth’s temperature … but they haven’t done so. That’s the puzzle … why not?
Regards,
w.

Pamela Gray
June 16, 2009 1:38 pm

Willis Eschenbach, your thesis is entirely testable, reasonable and well-mechanized. This is the kind of theory that some doctoral candidate worth his or her salt should take to task, narrow down to some testable point in the hypothesis, and test the bejazes out of it. Good stuff this. Eye candy for someone like me who is a total weather freak.

Willis Eschenbach
June 16, 2009 1:58 pm

Tallbloke, you raised an interesting issue, viz:

Willis- according to table 3 from your link:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Schmidt_etal_1.html
The total cloud forcing (short wave plus long wave) is NEGATIVE in both the models and observations.
If I am reading that table right, the cloud forcings in the models are actually “more negative” than the observed forcings. The models yield a net cloud forcing of – 23 to -24 W/m2, while observations show it to be -17.3 W/m2.
I note also that in the extremely long and tedious geo-engineering article posted by John Galt that :
“The other high-impact proposal, cloud brightening, increases the amount of reflected sunlight by making more clouds and thickening existing ones. One idea is to use ships to propel seawater thousands of feet in the air, where it would form or increase cloud cover.”
So it seems the negative feedback of low cloud at least is well understood.

The recent study by Soden and Held does not confirm this claim from Gavin Schmidt:

The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response. Large intermodel differences in the lapse rate feedback are observed and shown to be associated with differing regional patterns of surface warming. Consistent with previous studies, it is found that the vertical changes in temperature and water vapor are tightly coupled in all models and, importantly, demonstrate that intermodel differences in the sum of lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks are small. In contrast, intermodel differences in cloud feedback are found to provide the largest source of uncertainty in current predictions of climate sensitivity.

SOURCE: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3799.1
Note the part where they say that “The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models.”
So while some modelers may claim that their model shows negative feedback from clouds, studies of their models do not bear out that claim.
w.

tallbloke
June 16, 2009 1:59 pm

George E. Smith (12:06:12) :
Any simple analysis of a chain of resonance absorptions followed by molecular collisions and thermalization of the energy, followed by re-emission as a continuum radiation, will show that the easy path of propagation is upwards towards colder less dense atmosphere, and not donwards towards denser hotter layers that absorb over broader spectral bands

This was well known to those eminent scientists Michael Flanders and Donald Swann in the sixties:
“Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
You can try it if you like but you far better notter
‘cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler”

Willis Eschenbach
June 16, 2009 2:04 pm

Melinda Romanoff (20:18:02), you say inter alia:

Two things come to mind, firstly, just being the naif that I am, the higher temperatures experienced while the Sun was 75% less radiative might be explained by a thinner mantle, and hotter iron dynamo within the Earth itself. It has cooled over time, and might explain, to a degree, the higher temps, due to the radiative effect of the core. This should also play a bit of a role in current temperature readings, because if we didn’t have a “live” core, the energy needed from other sources to warm things up from “zero degrees kelvin” might not be too favorable for life.

When it comes to climate, all of us are naifs …
Regarding your question, the amount of heat coming out of the earth is quite small. From memory it’s on the order of hundredths of a watt per square metre. That’s why snow sticks when it falls on the ground, there’s not enough heat emerging to melt it.
So even if geothermal heat was ten times the size in the past, it still wouldn’t make a perceptible difference.
My best to you, never be afraid to ask questions. We’re all bozos on this bus …
w.

Pofarmer
June 16, 2009 2:17 pm

Willis Eschenbach, your thesis is entirely testable, reasonable and well-mechanized.
Not only that, but it works with meteorological mechanisms we already use in weather forecasting. Be a bummer for the climatologists if it turns out the climate really is just weather, though. d;0)

Richard Sharpe
June 16, 2009 2:35 pm

Willis says:

My point was that a host of things have happened over geological time that you would expect to greatly affect the earth’s temperature … but they haven’t done so. That’s the puzzle … why not?

Yes, I agree. Also, I always felt that the argument that CO2 levels dropped at exactly the correct rate to compensate for the increasing solar output was a crock.

tallbloke
June 16, 2009 2:57 pm

Willis Eschenbach (13:58:57) :
Tallbloke, you raised an interesting issue, viz:
“Willis- according to table 3 from your link:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Schmidt_etal_1.html
The total cloud forcing (short wave plus long wave) is NEGATIVE in both the models and observations.”
Note the part where they (Soden and Held) say that “The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models.”
So while some modelers may claim that their model shows negative feedback from clouds, studies of their models do not bear out that claim.

Willis, just to set the record straight, that was Chris V’s observation not mine. I speculated that it may be an ad hoc adjustment to compensate for their 16% or so underestimation of total global cloud cover.
There again, if their model actually has cloud as a positive feedback in it’s output, despite the entries in the table, that would be opposite sign.
Colour me confused…

Robin Kool
June 16, 2009 3:57 pm

This is exhilarating science. The main part of science is the production of new ideas that can be tested. And this is certainly a bold new idea.
So at a certain trigger temperature and humidity, the thunderstorm starts and transports warm, humid air upward at high speeds.
In the process enlarging evaporation of the ocean, thus creating more light, humid air that reinforces the upward movement.
In the end the thunderstorm leaves the ocean and atmosphere at lower temperatures than it’s trigger temperature.
And it doesn’t just move heat around: by bringing warm air at high altitudes where it can radiate it’s heat directly into the cosmos, and through the formation of high altitude clouds that reflect sunlight, the thunderstorm actually tips the balance so that the earth cools down.
Brilliant.
One first remark is that if anything, this phenomenon at least sets a stable temperature for the humid tropics. And that is a great relief. Because, while a bit of warming is clearly beneficial in Europe and the US, the tropics would get in serious problems.
(And it’s good news for the tropical coral reefs, which were supposed to die when the oceans warmed one degree Celsius.)
Second: Here in the Netherlands we have thunderstorms too, but only on hot summer days and later in the day – the trigger temperature is obviously reached much later in the day here in our cooler climate.
Now if there is climate warming from whatever cause – sun, oceans, CO2, Urban Heat Island Effect – I can’t see our few thunderstorms turning that back.
So I wonder how large this effect is in different parts of the world. (Since you need humid air, what does that say about the deserts?)
Third: A debate has raged over whether the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global phenomena of just happened in Europe.
This thermostat hypothesis indicates that thunderstorms keep the tropics at a constant temperature and that climate variation will happen more to the north and the south. This casts a whole new light on the debate.
Four: What is that spike in cloud cover at 15:30?
Five: Wow. It is exciting to witness the birth of a bold new idea.

Chris V.
June 16, 2009 4:33 pm

tallbloke (14:57:53) :
There again, if their model actually has cloud as a positive feedback in it’s output, despite the entries in the table, that would be opposite sign.
Colour me confused…

Tallbloke and Willis- the Total forcing of clouds is negative (cooling). This is true for the models, and observations. And while the models underestimate the actual cloud cover, they overestimate the cooling effect of clouds (compared to observations).
As to the CHANGE in the cloud forcing due to temperature changes (the cloud feedback), the models show that to be positive (in total), so with increasing temperature, the cloud forcing becomes “less negative”, meaning they have less of a cooling effect. I don’t think anybody has worked out the real cloud feedback from observations.
BTW, the models don’t “assume” a positive cloud feedback; that’s a result of the physics of the models.

Pofarmer
June 16, 2009 4:54 pm

Now if there is climate warming from whatever cause – sun, oceans, CO2, Urban Heat Island Effect – I can’t see our few thunderstorms turning that back.
I think the theory would go like, if it’s warmer, you’d have more thunderstorms and more cloud cover, because you would evaporate more water.
BTW, the models don’t “assume” a positive cloud feedback; that’s a result of the physics of the models.
So, the physics are wrong, nothing to see here, move along.

Mike Bryant
June 16, 2009 5:10 pm

“BTW, the models don’t “assume” a positive cloud feedback; that’s a result of the physics of the models.”
Ya, that’s it… the models don’t assume anything, they KNOW because of PHYSICS and other reall impressive-sounding stuff, so just accept it because computers are much smarter than people…

Peter
June 16, 2009 5:25 pm

Jari says:
“Since it seems that Willis was correct about the Tuvalu sea level not rising (latest data here http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.200904.pdf), maybe this hypothesis is correct too.”
No such pdf there at present. (Maybe it had inconvenient implications.)
Reply: Remove closing parenthesis from link and try again. ~ charles the moderator

June 16, 2009 5:51 pm

Peter (17:25:39) :
Jari says:
“Since it seems that Willis was correct about the Tuvalu sea level not rising. Latest data here http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.200904.pdf

This way, Jar…

1 9 10 11 12 13 17