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).


Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 2 votes
Article Rating
415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 16, 2009 11:39 pm

And if the americas and europe/africa have been pushing together for a long time, raising the land level at the interfaces, might that explain the shift from the 45K year interglacial to 100K year interglacial periodicities?
OK, I’ll wait for a thread on tectonics, sorry to clutter this one Willis.

Stephen Wilde
June 16, 2009 11:43 pm

Willis,
I’ve been giving your hypothesis more thought overnight and trying to see how best to fit it in with my own more general scenario.
I confirm that I agree with you. Basically warmer air in the tropics brings forward the timing of cloud development each day and the earlier the clouds develop the sooner they increase albedo to reduce solar input and the sooner they start their work of ejecting energy into the upper air. Both mechanisms increase cooling to negate the initial excess warmth and importantly are scaled up in proportion to the degree of any excess warmth.
On the other hand cooler air in the tropics delays the whole process and reduces the energy flow to the upper air and thence to space.
However one should go on to consider matters of causation and scale.
On a day to day basic I agree that your hypothesis is overwhelming in scale. On that timescale it clearly is the main temperature stabilising process.
Unfortunately I’m not sure that it does the business ON IT’S OWN over longer timescales and more particularly on multidecadal and century or more timescales.
Something clearly sets the initial starting point to which the process you describe is a response.
Your process is so effective on a short short day to day basis that on the face of it NOTHING should be able to alter the initial base temperature.
Nevertheless we do see that over several decades or more that initial base temperature does change over time both up and down. In the case of CO2 the alarmists speculate a permanent change in the base level temperature for as long as extra CO2 (and consequent extra water vapour) stays in the air. I think we have to concede that variations in solar input and variations in ocean energy emissivity and possibly (on a theoretical basis) CO2 are all capable of changing that base temperture over longer timescales despite your hypothesis. Simple observations since at least the LIA have demonstrated that fact.
Thus we need something else that stabilises much larger effects on the base temperature over much longer periods of time.
I think that that is where my scenario supplements yours. Your process is a powerful day to day influence but to deal with long term changes in the base temperature one has to see your process itself change in intensity on a long term basis and not just as a response to the other main long term forcings of sun, ocean variability and (if it exists) extra GHGs. Your process would need to be a driver and not just a response and it would need to overcome all other drivers, which it seems it does not.
To have the required effect the entire global air circulation has to be involved and that is where my proposition about the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems becomes important.
I think one has to take that extra step to deal adequately with long term changes in the base temperature so that one can then say that the effects of more GHGs are likely to be negated by air circulation changes BEFORE extra warmth in the air can warm up the oceans. I think that since the air temperature is set by the SSTs especially in the Tropics any extra energy has to have got into the oceans BEFORE your process begins.
It is essential to stop extra GHGs warming up the oceans first because I have no doubt that if they could warm up the oceans then they would inevitably warm up the air on a permanent basis and your process might become more active each day but would not lower that increased long term base temperature.
Warmer oceans would result in a ramping up of your process as you suggest but the base level temperature would have been raised permanently by the GHGs so your proposition does not seem to solve the AGW problem.
Once one involves a latitudinal shift in the air circulation patterns that should actually stop any extra GHG generated energy from getting into the oceans in the first place because it is ejected to space straight away and is not then available to upset the base equilibrium between sea surface and surface air temperatures which is initially set by sun and sea rather than the composition of the air.
If there is something about your idea which I have not understood please say so.

June 16, 2009 11:51 pm

Sorry can’t resist, ideas tumbling out.
The near 4:2:1 ratio between the 100K year interglacial regime, the 45K year regime, and the Earth’s precessionary period is suggestive of an additional solar forcing, i.e differential insolation varying between south pole sunwards at perihelion and north pole sunwards at perihelion.

June 17, 2009 12:06 am

Stephen Wilde (23:43:28) :
On a day to day basic I agree that your hypothesis is overwhelming in scale. On that timescale it clearly is the main temperature stabilising process.
Unfortunately I’m not sure that it does the business ON IT’S OWN over longer timescales and more particularly on multidecadal and century or more timescales.

Stephen, have you considered the results from the earthshine project?
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Admittedly a short data series, but shows that increased cloud cover on a decadal scale at least is having an effect on base temperature.
1998 – cloud cover increases, and stays that way.
2003 (or a bit earlier?) – oceans stop gaining heat (ARGO – Josh Willis’ corrected results)
2005 – Land temps start to fall rapidly
2009.5 Global temp 0,25C lower than 2005.

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 12:13 am

I do not wish to divert this to Tuvalu any more than to snowballs. However, I wish a correct a misconception. I did not say that the sea level was not rising at Tuvalu. Sea levels have generally been rising for decades. Tidal records from Tuvalu are too short (and contradictory) to say too much about exactly what’s happening there.
What I said can be summarized as:
1. There is no sign of acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise. It has been rising in general since the end of the last Ice Age. And it has been rising over the last century. This means whatever is happening in Tuvalu can’t plausibly be blamed on CO2.
2. The problems in Tuvalu are not due to the unchanged historical rate of sea level rise. They are the result of:
• coral mining
• man-made channels and changes to the reef
• overuse of water
• human-caused erosion
• paving much of Funafuti for the airport.
And perhaps most of all, atoll sand loss is from killing the beaked fish that grind up the coral to make the lovely sand beaches. Without those fish, the change in the delicate long-term balance of sand gained from the reef and sand lost to wind and wave can tilt an atoll right back into the ocean. The parrotfish should be the national bird of every tropical atoll, they constantly rebuild the place … but I digress.
On the larger scale, let me take this misunderstanding of what I actually said as an illustrative example. The way we can all avoid this kind of difficulty is to quote what someone actually said. That’s why I generally quote the part of someone’s message that I’m responding to. I invite you to do the same, particularly as regards the Thermostat Hypothesis, and in general for discussions of what each other have written.
Onwards, with appreciation,
w.

oms
June 17, 2009 12:17 am

tallbloke (23:30:56) :

So if the earth warmed enough, the sea level would rise until it flowed across the joins between the americas, and africa/europe, reducing the poleward ocean circulations and causing strong cooling.

Sorry, I misunderstood your original conjecture to mean closing the gap between N./S. America and Europe/Africa, aka the Atlantic Ocean.
But if you are talking about sea level rise which is severe enough to inundate a sizeable part of Central America, then yes I’m sure you’d find a much different pattern of ocean circulations as well. 🙂

oms
June 17, 2009 12:31 am

E.M.Smith (23:36:13) :

And what, exactly, is a ‘cloud forcing’? What physical property, documented in a physics text, is a ‘forcing’? In what units is a ‘forcing’ measured?

I thought this one had been answered earlier in another thread. The “forcing” is usually exactly that.
The forcing term is F0 sin…, usually from an accelerating “force.”
Here the forcing is f(x,t),, usually corresponding to a heat source.

This hand waving of “forcing” is just silly. Give something that has SI units, please…

W/m2 I believe all refers to SI units.

oms
June 17, 2009 12:33 am

P. S.: The previous post was referring to the typical “forcing” terms in the harmonic oscillator equation and the heat equation, respectively, but the equations didn’t appear properly.

Indiana Bones
June 17, 2009 12:34 am

Ron de Haan (09:00:39) :
Ron, you’re right to doubt the rosy greenness of electrification. But things are further along than you might think.
The identified lithium resources total 760,000 tons in the United States and more than 13 million tons in other countries (USGS) – enough for 1.1B, 1st generation hybrid batteries. Lithium-ion packs can be fully recycled.
Hitachi just announced a 4.5kW/kg power density for their 4th generation batteries.
http://fleetowner.com/green/hitachi-lithium-ion-hybrid-battery-0519/
There are nearly 60 hybrid and or full EVs announced for 2010-12 production. Far from perfect but enough to begin to reduce demand for gasoline.

Patricia
June 17, 2009 12:37 am

According to Wilhelm Wien’s displacement law (approx. …. earth surface temperature in Celsius = 2898 / wave length in µm – 273,15) the CO2 contributes very very very slightly to the global temperature at surface temperatures round 3 Celsius and 32 Celsius. There are not so many places on Earth, where the surface temperature equals 32 or 3 Celsius.
There is also a second limitation – gas concentration. If gas concentration is too high, the moleculs do not flash back the heat but transfer it to the next molecule. It is because the electrons orbiting on a higher level do not have the time to fall down to the lower energy level again and to de-excitate the gained energy. Before they do so, they hand their gained energy over to another molecule.
I browsed this article and found the sentece “The majority of the earth’s absorption of heat from the sun takes place in the tropics.” This is a proofless premise and compared to above limitations seems to be a nonsense. So, without actually reading the article, I believe this thermostat hypthesis has no substance and is probably a nonsense. In case someone made in principle similar objection I appologize to the rest of the community as they have to read this twice. I just scanned the comments if there is a notice to Wien’s displacement law.

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 2:15 am

Stephen Wilde (23:43:28), thank you for your thoughtful and interesting post. Inter alia you say


On a day to day basic I agree that your hypothesis is overwhelming in scale. On that timescale it clearly is the main temperature stabilising process.
Unfortunately I’m not sure that it does the business ON IT’S OWN over longer timescales and more particularly on multidecadal and century or more timescales.

I used to think the same thing, that the feedback system would have to operate over longer timescales. I wasted a lot of time trying to imagine what that system would be.
But one day I realized that if on average the cloud/thunderstorm combo kept the daily temperature on average between 72° and 78°F, then the million year average would also be between 72°F and 78°F …

Something clearly sets the initial starting point to which the process you describe is a response.
Your process is so effective on a short short day to day basis that on the face of it NOTHING should be able to alter the initial base temperature.
Nevertheless we do see that over several decades or more that initial base temperature does change over time both up and down. In the case of CO2 the alarmists speculate a permanent change in the base level temperature for as long as extra CO2 (and consequent extra water vapour) stays in the air. I think we have to concede that variations in solar input and variations in ocean energy emissivity and possibly (on a theoretical basis) CO2 are all capable of changing that base temperture over longer timescales despite your hypothesis. Simple observations since at least the LIA have demonstrated that fact.

The base temperature is set by the physics of atmosphere and cloud formation and thunderstorms and the like. As I discussed above, anything that affects those will push the thermostat up or down. These include cosmic rays changing cloud formation rates, aerosols affecting cloud cover, average wind speed, and the like.
Note that the base temperature is not affected by some of your suggestions. Variations in solar energy will be matched by changes in cloud cover. The same is true of changes in oceanic emissivity. (Although ocean emissivity doesn\’t vary much. Water is nearly a perfect absorber of IR, which of course means a near perfect emitter. Geiger, The Climate Near The Ground, gives a value of 0.96.)

… I think that since the air temperature is set by the SSTs especially in the Tropics any extra energy has to have got into the oceans BEFORE your process begins.
It is essential to stop extra GHGs warming up the oceans first because I have no doubt that if they could warm up the oceans then they would inevitably warm up the air on a permanent basis and your process might become more active each day but would not lower that increased long term base temperature.

Infrared (greenhouse) radiation (IR) is very inefficient at warming water from the top. This is because, in stark contrast to the penetrating solar rays, all of the IR is absorbed within the first millimetre of the surface.
This immediately raises the temperature of the skin of the water. Since radiation varies with the fourth power of the temperature, there is a large increase in radiation with this increase in skin temperature. Evaporation also goes up very sharply with temperature, so IR immediately increases both evaporation and radiation. As a result, there is less energy available for heating the ocean.
Sunlight, on the other hand, penetrates into the upper mixed layer of the ocean. There, the energy makes little difference to the surface temperature, so evaporation and radiation are not increased as with IR.
But that, while interesting, doesn\’t really address your question. The real answer is that if there is extra heat in the ocean from any source, the cloud cover increases. The thunderstorms increase. This is visible in the course of each day. As the sea heats, clouds increase.
A change in albedo of 2% is equivalent to two doublings of CO2 (from the current 380 ppmv to 1,520 ppmv!) … so a tiny, undetectable change in cloud cover is more than enough to offset any conceivable variation in CO2.
CO2 does not directly affect the rate of cloud formation. According to reports, cosmic rays directly affect the rate of cloud formation. Accordingly, of these two only one will change the base temperature of the cumulus and thunderstorm based global thermostat.
My best to you, and everyone,
w.

June 17, 2009 2:16 am

The parrotfish should be the national bird of every tropical atoll
Can\’t see that one flying. 😉

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 2:58 am

Hotrod, you say:

Lets take as an example a stationary thunderstorm that simply sits in one place and dumps water. In the Big Thompson flood in Colorado in 1976 a upslope flow developed and created a thunderstorm that parked over the Estes Park area and dumped approximately 7.5 inches of rain in an hour and about 12 inches of water in a period of about 4 hours. Peak flow in the river was about 1000 cubic meters/second. This rain fall fell over approximately 70 square mile area.
http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/flood/flood_summaries/07_31_1976.html
For a back of the envelope calculation lets look at how much water would be needed to cover 20 square miles to a depth of 8 inches. The tally works out to about 418176000 cubic feet of water or about 1.18 x 10^7 cubic meters of water fell as rain in a period of 4 hours. That water was converted from vapor to liquid water and as a result had to release the latent heat of condensation for that amount of water in a similar period of time.
I think if you crunch the numbers you will find that the heat loss necessary to condense that much water far exceeds the solar isolation.

Not sure what you mean by this. Some water is evaporated. In a thunderstorm it condenses. The energy in and out in this system is the same. This is because (neglecting a small difference due to temperature) the latent heat released by condensation is the same as the latent heat required for evaporation.
What am I missing?
w.

bill
June 17, 2009 3:13 am

Willis Eschenbach (23:06:55) :
… If you want to know what’s going on in the tropics, the best source is the UAH satellite data. It shows that the trend in the tropics (20 N/S) is 5 hundredths of a degree per decade … which as you might imagine is not statistically different from zero.
So the basic hypothesis of your argument, that the tropics is warming, is not supported by the evidence.

If you read my post you will see that I did not say temps were increasing/decreasing just that there were large variations.
A thunderstorm can only react to current air temperatures i.e. no delay. For the thermostat to function as you suggest then there should be NO wild swings in measured AIR temperatures.
Those few plots were used as they were long (most from 1949 so longer than any satellite record) and relatively complete. There are others showing wilder swings over a year\’s average.

bill
June 17, 2009 3:25 am

Nasif Nahle (22:06:36) :
The info on Fig. 13 says it clearly:
Figure 13. This figure illustrates that as the sea level record becomes
longer, the relative sea level trend estimates become more stable and reliable. The reason for this is that the trends from short sea level records are affected by the natural sea level variability occurring on inter-annual, El Niño and decadal timescales due to atmospheric, oceanographic and geological processes. (Bolds are mine

What are you saying!!??
Fig 13 shows a time average of rate of sea level rise The average becomes more stable as more readings are taken (the max and min excursions become less significant). The plot shows that the rise is positive. From the table this is 5.5mm/year.
Willis Eschenbach (00:13:43) :
… Sea levels have generally been rising for decades. Tidal records from Tuvalu are too short (and contradictory) to say too much about exactly what’s happening there.

Not so, see fig 13
What I said can be summarized as:
1. There is no sign of acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise. It has been rising in general since the end of the last Ice Age. And it has been rising over the last century. This means whatever is happening in Tuvalu can’t plausibly be blamed on CO2.
2. The problems in Tuvalu are not due to the unchanged historical rate of sea level rise. They are the result of:
• coral mining
• man-made channels and changes to the reef
• overuse of water
• human-caused erosion
• paving much of Funafuti for the airport.

1 and 2 are not compatible unless coral mining/channel digging/manmade erosion/paving have been occuring since the last ice age.
The last century is exactly when GW has had an effect!

Stephen Wilde
June 17, 2009 3:28 am

Thanks Willis, points taken, but I think we have a basic difference of opinion that will have to be resolved by real world observations over time.
I certainly agree about the ineffectiveness of IR impacting the ocean surface (the skin) as compared to the impact of solar energy. Indeed the evaporative and other responses in the air to IR hitting the sirface are so quick that I doubt the validity of the concept of such a skin existing at all.
Where we seem to disagree is that you do not see ocean emissivity as varying much so, inevitably, logic pushes you to favour the tropical convection scenario. Nor do you yet accept those oceanic variations and the solar variations as the underlying driver of all those changes in the air which you describe.
I still think that the base temperature is set by sun and sea and not by the physics of air and clouds. I think that the physics of air and clouds (more broadly the air circulation systems) modulates the oceanic variations in emissivity just as the physics of the ocean circulations modulates solar variations in energy supply to the oceans.
I saw the oceans and then the air warm from all those strong El Ninos from 1975 to 2000 and at the same time the air circulation systems moved poleward. From 2000 the air circulation systems started to move back equatorward and the warming first stopped and we are now cooling with less (and less powerful) El Ninos.
Recent observations about multidecadal ocean cycles (seperate in each ocean) that seem to operate over 30 to 60 years or more show that net ocean emissivity/absorption does change on such timescales and I believe we have seen enough to link those emissivity changes to air circulation changes and to link them to all observed global temperature changes and regional climate shifts without needing to involve CO2.
Once one accepts significant variations in ocean energy emissivity working with longer term solar variability then the logic shifts away from tropical convection to the wider concept which I describe.
I think the fuller truth is as follows:
1) Day to day (diurnal) temperature disequilibrium is dealt with very effectively by the process you describe.
2) Seasonal temperature disequilibrium is dealt wth by the observed latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems which we see every year.
3) Longer term temperature disequilibria caused by solar variation, changes in ocean emissivity or changes in the composition of the air are dealt with by additional shifts in the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variation.
Combining all three pocesses is needed in order to account for the observed apparent stability of Earth\’s temperatures for so long.
The point about CO2 or any other GHGs including water vapour is that they alter the characteristics of the air alone. As you have observed, the reaction of the air above water when warming of the air occurs is so strong (due to the energy values of the latent heats of evaporation and condensation combined with accelerated air movement) that warming of the air alone cannot warm the water.
Thus the only available global response to changes that affect the air alone is to accelerate the extra energy to space by shifting the air circulations latitudinally imperceptibly and thereby maintain the sea surface. surface air temperature equilibrium.
Thank you for enlivening this aspect of the climate debate so effectively.

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 3:29 am

Patricia (00:37:47), thank you for your objection. You say inter alia:


I browsed this article and found the sentece “The majority of the earth’s absorption of heat from the sun takes place in the tropics.” This is a proofless premise and compared to above limitations seems to be a nonsense. So, without actually reading the article, I believe this thermostat hypthesis has no substance and is probably a nonsense. In case someone made in principle similar objection I appologize to the rest of the community as they have to read this twice.

You are the first to raise this objection, no apologies necessary.
I did not offer proof for the statement because it is widely known.
Absorption of solar energy rapidly decreases as you move away from the equator. This is the result of a variety of mechanisms:
1. The surface of the earth is more and more tilted to the sun as one moves towards the poles. This means that each square meter intercepts less and less sun as you move polewards. At 60° latitude, the surface only gets half the sun that hits the tropics.
2. The thickness of the atmosphere the suns rays must traverse increases with latitude. This is why even the full sun seems wimpy when it is near the horizon. Much more is energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.
3. Surface reflection (albedo) increases with latitude. The increase is slow in the lower latitudes, but increases rapidly at higher latitudes. This is particularly true of the ocean, as you can see if you look at the ocean in the late afternoon.
4. Clouds have greater albedo at high latitudes. This is because when the sun is overhead, it can shine down through the gaps between the clouds. When seen from an angle, however, the clouds may overlap and reflect the sun entirely. In addition, tall clouds have much more surface area from the side than from the top. This also increases high latitude albedo.
5. Ice and snow have a high albedo.
The net result of all of these is that the amount of solar heat absorbed by the surface is much, much greater in the tropics than at the poles. Around two thirds or more of the absorbed sunlight occurs in the band 30N – 30S.
As evidence of this preponderance of heat in the tropics, consider Fig. 1 and Fig. 2above. Note the intense band of thunderstorms surrounding the equator, called the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). These drive the great Hadley Cells. The system (like all good systems) is solar driven … so the location of the ITCZ indicates where the solar energy driving the system is being absorbed.
Finally, the atmospheric circulation constantly moves terawatts of energy from the tropics to the poles. Were it not for this movement from hot to cold, consider how hot the tropics would be and how cold the poles would be! That also shows how most of the heat enters the tropics. The poles get most of their heat from the equator, not from the sun.
This is all well known, which is why I did not cite or support the statement.
My best to you,
w.
PS – I loved your statement that

So, without actually reading the article, I believe this thermostat hypothesis has no substance and is probably a nonsense.

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 3:41 am

E.M.Smith (23:36:13), you ask:

And what, exactly, is a ‘cloud forcing’? What physical property, documented in a physics text, is a ‘forcing’? In what units is a ‘forcing’ measured?

In climate science, a “forcing” is some kind of energy that enters or is transferred around the climate system. “Solar forcing” for example refers to the energy entering the climate system from the sun. Forcing is measured in Watts per square metre (W/m2). As such, it is an instantaneous measurement.
For example, TOA (top of atmosphere) instantaneous solar forcing perpendicular to the sun is about 1360 W/m2. However, this has to be divided by 4 to average it over the surface of the earth. Thus, incoming solar forcing is usually taken to be 340 W/m2.
“Cloud forcing” comes in two varieties. Clouds reflect about 70 W/m2 of the incoming sun, which is called a negative forcing. They also emit infrared that warms the surface. This is called a positive forcing.
The question at hand regards the “net cloud forcing”. In total on a global average basis, do clouds reflect more sunlight (in W/m2) than the amount of infrared they emit (again in W/m2)? The models say yes. I and others say no.
Hope this clears up the confusion,
w.

Willis Eschenbach
June 17, 2009 3:42 am

Hmmm … this site doesn’t like quotation marks …
w.
[Reply: It appears to be a WordPress glitch. ~dbstealey, mod.]

Richard S Courtney
June 17, 2009 4:27 am

Willis:
I write to answer a question you posed (above), but I begin by offering my thanks.
Firstly, thankyou very much indeed for your superb article.
Secondly, I am especially grateful because your article is the first cogent answer to a question I have been asking (as I am aware you know) for nearly two decades; viz.
Why is ~0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to be potentially catatrophic when radiative forcing from the Sun has increased ~30% with no discernible effect in the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth has had an oxygen-rich atmosphere?
Importantly, your article fits with a long-standing dispute which you highlight by your question that asks:
“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.”
The earliest reference which I know is
Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991).
This showed a negative feedback prevents tropical ocean surface temperatures rising above 305K (i.e. present maximum ocean surface temperature).
Ramanathan & Collins argued that an effect occurs in the tropics where sea surface temperature is observed to have a maximum value of 305 K. Any additional warming (from any source) increases evapouration, and that evapouration removes the additional heat.
(People have all experienced this effect personally: it is why people sweat when too hot).
But over the oceans the increased evapouration also increases cloud cover over and near the region of maximum temperature. And the clouds shield the surface from the Sun (as every sunbather has noticed). This reduces the heat input to the ocean surface (from the Sun) near the region of maximum temperature.
So, sea surface temperature has a maximum value of 305 K and additional heat input reduces solar heating near the region of the maximum temperature. This reduction to solar heating in the surrounding region provides a net effect that warming the tropical ocean causes its temperature to fall.
n.b. this is an unusual effect whereby any additional heat input causes temperature to fall.
The theory of Ramanathan & Collins obtained much dispute that can be traced in the literature, but – in my opinion – the evidence for it is clear and not refuted.
Your article can be considered to be an extension of that theory by inclusion of
(a) the contributions of storms and their initiation
and
(b) the consideration of global climate as a heat engine that is governed by tropical cloud formation.
I point out that solar input to the Earth is predominantly in the tropics. Indeed, the tropics are net absorbers of radiation while polar regions are net emitters of radiation. Hence, if the climate system does operate as a heat engine with a governor then that governor must be most effective in the tropics. And it can be argued that it only needs to be operative in the tropics because – as you say in your article – the cloud effect is so large in the tropics (variation of 60 W/m^2).
Again, thankyou.
Richard

June 17, 2009 5:28 am

Willis,
I note your comment re an impending paper on the reason why 200hPa temperature varies much more than surface temperature. Any chance of a preview?
Thanks in anticipation.

Patricia
June 17, 2009 5:40 am

Willis Eschenbach (03:29:29) : One of your sentences:
“The net result of all of these is that the amount of solar heat absorbed by the surface is much, much greater in the tropics than at the poles.” tells me that we probably talk on different levels. This sentence and the listed factors have nothing in common. Also, I think, you should take into account the subtropical bands instead of the tropical one.
Please forget all the factors you have named. They are all secondary. The dynamics of heat transportation on Earth starts at the moment when the heat is being reflected from Earth surface (or from the clouds but I exclude this factor for the moment). It is unimportant whether the surface of the earth is more tilted or less tilted, thickness of the atmosphere is low or high (gas pressure) etc.
In case of H2O heat absorption (or any other gas like CO2, metan etc.) the Earth surface has to heat up to several degrees of Celsius in order that the gases or the vapour would be able to absorb the heat and then to reflect it. And once again – this is where it starts. At the moment I cannot say nothing about albedo’s influence on the heat transportation.
So, I insist that any hypothesis which does not take into account the basic laws of physics – like Wilhelm Wien’s displacement law – that such a hypothesis cannot claim of being scientific.
At the beginning of the considerations you should first take into account places on Earth where the surface temperature reaches 3 Celsius or 32 Celsius. You can exclude any other area on Earth surface which do not reach these temperatures. Do you understand? This is the main factor. Everything else is secondary.
Please, replace the words “without actually reading” with “without actually studying”. Also, English is not my native language – I am Czech. So, when answering something or writing a comment requires much more time in comparison to a native English speaker.

bill
June 17, 2009 5:53 am

I will post this reference again as it seems to be very relevant to this discussion. It is an analysis of the ERBE satellite data:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Harrison%20et%20al%20JGR%2095%20D11%2018687-18703%201990.pdf
Sincwe this is based on actual measurements it presumably includes storm heat pumps.
Fig 1 especially
Fig 2 shows solar insolation vs latitude
Table 4 gives a comparison of GCMs and ERBE
It is very readable!

June 17, 2009 5:57 am

Chris V. (18:04:37) :
[…]
I should also point out that it’s very tough to explain ice ages if there is some strong, still-undiscovered negative feedback mechanism.

Not if the ice age mechanism reduces the incoming solar heating. If the Milankovitch Cycles really are the drivers of the Plio-Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles, cloud/albedo negative feedbacks aren’t much of a deterrent to cooling…The Earth simply receives less heating from the Sun. As the Earth “wobbles” into glacial episodes, sea level drops by more than 100 meters…This might release sufficient methane hydrates from the sea floor to actually accelerate the warming process as the Earth “wobbles” its way out of glacial episodes.

Stephen Wilde
June 17, 2009 6:01 am

Just a thought on Richard’s contribution (04:27:41)
I note that the process of tropical convection appears to limit tropical SSTs to 305K. That begs the question as to whether that top temperature can very over time but no matter for present purposes.
It seems to me that whether or not Tropical SSTs can get no warmer than 305K it would still be possible for average global SSTs to vary considerably albeit below that temperature. Indeed the Tropical SSTs would often be below that temperature but still transporting energy elsewhere at varying rates.
A great deal would depend on how efficiently (or not) the solar warming of the Tropical waters is transported from the Tropics either from the surface or via deeper levels.
The average global equilibrium temperature might be very different from the equatorial SSTs for a large number of reasons. In fact I seem to recall a figure around 10C for the average global air temperature. That figure could vary considerably without the maximum Tropical SST ever having to be exceeded.
It’s all a matter of interply between the very different circulations in the air and those in the oceans.
That is why I think one should nevertheless regard the internal oceanic circulations and the level of solar input combined as the ultimate driving forces with Tropical weather systems being just the first stage of the response of the air to changes in oceanic energy emissions.
Enhanced Tropical weather activity translates into an expansion of the equatorial air masses which has a knock on effect to all the other air circulation systems and thus the rate of energy transfer from surface to space. That is entirely consistent with my more general description.
Likewise if energy release from the Tropical oceans is reduced then the equatorial air masses contract.
Willis is obviously correct but I think a few more logical steps need to be taken to get a coherent overall climate scenario rather than a Tropocentric one.

1 11 12 13 14 15 17