Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.). This is the idea that cumulus clouds and thunderstorms combine to cap the rise of tropical temperatures. In particular, thunderstorms are able to drive local temperatures to a level below that necessary for thunderstorm initiation. This allows them to act as a true governing mechanism.

Recently I came across a fascinating study by Zeng et al called “A Multiyear Hourly Sea Surface Temperature Data Set“(PDF). Figure 5 of their paper contains a host of information in three panels, from which I have extracted the average hourly changes in surface temperature in three areas of the Pacific shown below. The information is from moored buoys.

Figure 1. Multi-year hour by hour long-term average surface air temperatures for three areas in the tropical Pacific (2°N 95°W, 0°N 155°W, and 0°N 156°E, shown by colored circles). Two full days are shown, in order to see the complete temperature change during the night.

Note the strange shape of the hour-by-hour temperature record, and yet how similar it is between the various sites. Of course the question arises … where in Figure 1 is the evidence for a homeostatic system regulating the temperature? To investigate that, I looked at the data in a slightly different way.

Figure 2 shows exactly the same data as in figure 1, but shown as anomalies about the average, and only covering one day rather than two. There is information in the similarities as well as in the differences between the three locations.

Figure 2. Anomalies in hourly Pacific temperatures. Locations and colors are the same as in Figure 1. Intensity of the theoretical clear-sky solar energy at the surface (surface insolation) is shown by the line running through the sun (right scale). Blue oval shows general cumulus initiation time, green oval shows thunderstorm initiation time, and the brown oval shows the cloud dissipation time.

Let me give the timeline of the tropical day that is shown in Figure 2, pointing out the important time periods.

At dawn the day is clear and the air is calm. As a result, the air temperature starts rising quite quickly after sunrise.

As the day warms, at some point before noon a threshold is passed. Cumulus clouds (the small puffy white summer clouds) start to form, and the lower tropospheric circulation switches to a new pattern. The cumulus clouds can be thought of as flags that mark an area of rising air. Around each of them, there is a ring of descending air. This change has a couple of immediate effects.

The first is an immediate reduction in the incoming solar energy because of reflections from the cloud tops. This is accompanied by a rise in the surface wind. Since the evaporation varies linearly with the wind, if the wind doubles from 1 metre/second (2 knots) to 2 metres/second, evaporation doubles. This also cools the surface.

As a result of the changes in the lower troposphere, from calm with no clouds to increasing numbers of circulation cells with cumulus clouds, in the central and western Pacific the temperature actually starts dropping. This is happening despite the continuing increase in the amount of incoming solar energy (negative climate sensitivity, go figure). In the eastern Pacific, the air (and the ocean) is much cooler. As a result the cumulus coverage is less complete and develops more slowly, and the temperature rise is not reversed, but the temperature rise is significantly slowed.

However, even in the western and central Pacific the steady input of solar energy overwhelms the cumulus, and the temperature starts to rise again. At some point, usually early afternoon (and earlier in the day if the temperature is warmer), another threshold is passed and thunderstorms start to form. The temperatures continue to rise, but at a much slower rate than earlier in the day.

At some point in the late afternoon, the amount of incoming energy is less than the amount of outgoing energy, and the air starts to cool. It is aided in this cooling by the thunderstorms, which in warmer seas often continue until several hours after dark.

After the sun goes down, of course, clouds have a warming effect because they greatly increase the amount of downwelling “greenhouse” radiation. This can be seen in the kink in the curve between about 19:00 and 21:00 hours.

Once the clouds dissipate, however, the air is much freer to radiate out to space, and rapid cooling sets in which lasts until dawn. By that time, there are no clouds and the atmosphere is generally calm … and the cycle starts over again.

DISCUSSION

There are two main effects to having this daily cycle. The first is the rapid warming in the morning. The second is the abrupt slowing, and in warmer waters the reversing, of the rapidly rising temperatures by clouds and thunderstorms. These effects work together to keep the daily temperatures within a fairly narrow band.

The differences between the three locations are revealing. The onset of the cumulus is nowhere near as effective at preventing the temperature rise in the warmer waters of the western Pacific “hot pool”. In this warmer area the temperature starts rising again around noon, where in the central Pacific this doesn’t happen until about 2PM (14:00). In the much cooler waters of the eastern Pacific, on the other hand, it appears that not many clouds form, and the result is to push the peak daily excursion higher than that of the warmer waters. And because there are fewer thunderstorms in the cooler eastern Pacific, the temperature stays warmer after dark and does not show as pronounced a kink after dark.

Also, in the hottest region the peak temperature occurs earlier in the day than in the two cooler areas. Presumably this is because of the more complete development of the thunderstorm regime in the warmer waters, leading to more rapid cooling.

One unexpected curiosity in this data involves the fact that it takes energy to warm the air. If we start at the coldest point in the day and sum the temperature anomalies around that point, it will give us a relative measure of how much energy it took to warm the air during the 24 hours.

Here’s the odd part. Despite the differences in the local average air temperature, all three areas warm the local air the same amount, within about ± 5%. I have no idea why this might be so. Whatever the combination of clouds and thunderstorms is doing, it leads to about the same amount of warming of the air in all three areas. I have no idea why.

CONCLUSION

The hourly air temperatures over the tropical Pacific show a clear pattern that is due to the specific timing, formation rate, and number of cumulus and cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds. This pattern is completely congruent with the idea that cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds act as a homeostatic mechanism to prevent the oceanic air temperatures from getting too warm or too cold.

I have not yet taken a look at the underlying dataset, I’m sure that there’s much more to learn. So to make this an official science paper, let me say that additional studies are needed …

All ideas welcome, be nice, attack the ideas all you want but please don’t attack individuals or cast aspersions on motives. That angrifies my blood mightily and I tend to do things I later regret. I’d prefer to avoid that.

Best regards to all,

w.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom in Florida
June 7, 2011 9:24 am

“As the day warms, at some point before noon a threshold is passed”
The key would be to find the mechanism that creates this threshold and be able to accurately predict when it will be passed on any particular day. We would then be able to better calculate a tee time in order to get us back in the clubhouse prior to the thunderstorms.

timetochooseagain
June 7, 2011 10:08 am

I am curious as to weather you have seen the similar work done by Lindzen and Rondanelli, Willis. The examine TRMM and the Kwajalein radar and find evidence for a mechanism like this operating:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD010064.shtml

timetochooseagain
June 7, 2011 10:09 am

Haha, got weather on the brain. That should be whether.

Billy Liar
June 7, 2011 10:13 am

Willis,
You have ignored the reverse of convection that brings cold air down to the surface in the vicinity of a thunderstorm. Entrainment of cold air by the precipitation falling within the thunderstorm causes substantial downdrafts within thunderstorm cells. These can be strong enough to be a danger to aircraft and have indeed caused many airliner crashes. They must be a significant cause of the reduction in surface temperature during the active phase of a storm.
Don’t know how this affects your theory.

June 7, 2011 10:53 am

I’m not so sure there is anything noteworthy here. Accepting your qualitative description of how it works, I’m left with
1. Without math to describe the phenomena we really dont have scientific understanding.
2. The thermostat hasnt keep the planet from warming. that is, unless it changes the way heat eventually returns to space (radiation), then it’s not really doing anything interesting on a global scale.

gnomish
June 7, 2011 11:19 am

this is getting well developed and the name is good.
phase change, willis – it doesn’t change a temperature.
while evaporating or condensing, water stabilizes the temperature

Antony Nailer
June 7, 2011 11:20 am

Dear Willis,
As you are probably aware I have been carrying forward the work of Dr Noor Van Andel on the effects of water vapour as the controlling factor in global temperature.
I would disagree with the statement that a doubling of wind speed causes a doubling of evaporation. It would be nice to see how that figure was derived. More likely it was just reasoned.
The evaporation according to the formula I have adopted as the one which
most closely fits with experimental data has the evaporation proportional to
(1.316 + U*). Where U* is the surface frictional velocity in m/s.
U* varies by the 0.8th power of the change of wind speed. Let us see how a
doubling of wind speed affects this.
For a typical ocean wind speed of 5.3m/s the U* value is 0.44m/s,
New U* = 0.44 (10.6/5.3)^0.8 = 0.77.
The evaporation previously was proportional to 1.316+0.44 = 1.756.
The evaporation now will be proportional to 1.316 +0.77 = 2.086.
Evaporation will have increased by 2.086/1.756 = 1.19.
Then a doubling of wind speed results in a 19% increase in evaporation.
Definitely not 100% increase.
Regards,
Antony.

Matt in Houston
June 7, 2011 12:47 pm

Nice article Willis. We experienced a similar phenomenon this afternoon (&yesterday afternoon as well) here in Houston. Folks around central Florida enjoy this also. Temp rocketed up to around 93 and the nice little thunderstorms rolled in off the gulf and promptly dropped the temp down to about 80. Not quite the same effect that you’re describing, but very similar the way I figure. Houston/KSC might be a decent place to look for data to support your hypothesis…I know local conditions in Houston dont always line up quite as nicely as in the tropics but there may be some good data in quantity available to help flesh your ideas out.

Theo Goodwin
June 7, 2011 12:52 pm

Nice work, Willis. You are attempting to describe a system of natural regularities that might prove to be important to climate science. Those who criticize you seem to forget that Big Warming sends you neither big money nor a lab full of cute graduate students. Clearly, you do not have the means to collect the data necessary for rigorously formulated hypotheses. However, the sort of thing that you are doing is what climate science will look when it is out from under the thumb of the metaphysical modelers. In addition, what you are doing makes wonderful natural history. I wish I had the time and money to do a similar study of Central Florida’s summertime late afternoon showers. The cloud phenomena are very similar to what you describe but the thunderheads form over the peninsula. Thanks again for your wonderful work.

Theo Goodwin
June 7, 2011 12:58 pm

steven mosher says:
June 7, 2011 at 10:53 am
“2. The thermostat hasnt keep the planet from warming. that is, unless it changes the way heat eventually returns to space (radiation), then it’s not really doing anything interesting on a global scale.”
Not everything in climate science is a matter of the planet warming. There are discrete phenomena like thunderstorms and their behavior that must be understood in their own right. To say that climate science is the study of the planet warming is to admit a gross inversion of values. Someday, everyone will realize that, including the Gaia modelers and their CO2 sky god.

Hans H
June 7, 2011 1:26 pm

To expand on my comment (6.44 am):
First, sorry about the spelling error (dryer ->drier; English is not my first language).
Second, I understand that the skies are mostly clear in the early mornings (6-9am) in the Equatorial Pacific independent of longitude. That would mean that the amount of energy transferred from the sun in that period is roughly the same in the three regions mentioned. However, according to the figures above the temperature on average rises more sharply the further west you go in the period. This could be explained by the air, at sunrise, on average being drier the further west you go, as it takes less energy to heat dry air than moist air. But one would indeed expect the air to be drier at sunrise in the west than in the east, as it on average experienced more falling rain due to thunderstorms the day before. (I understand that rain falling through (moist) air leaves the air drier due to condensation.)
If this argument holds, one would, with the data above, have that the average net heat transfer from the sun to the three regions is larger the further east you go. Thus strengthening the hypothesis that if the ocean gets more heated due to changes in forcings (e.g. CO2, the sun) a mechanism (more/stronger thunderstorms) sets in to cool it down. Not necessarily like a governor, it could also be like a negative feedback.

jae
June 7, 2011 2:42 pm

Something doesn’t compute. You show a total daily anomaly of only about 0.8 C. The diurnal variation should be something like 8 C, according to records for, say, Guam: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/sum2/41415.txt
What am I missing?
Also, where you suggest:
“After the sun goes down, of course, clouds have a warming effect because they greatly increase the amount of downwelling “greenhouse” radiation. This can be seen in the kink in the curve between about 19:00 and 21:00 hours.
I would suggest that at least some, if not all, of that kink is due to evaporation of the cloud droplets and release of latent heat.

Bob
June 7, 2011 3:17 pm

Willis: Beautiful job. I loved (truly) your cloud governor hypothesis. This feeds right into that I also spent some time in tropical and semitropical waters. Just a quick question: What is happening to cause the small kinks between 3:00 and 6:00 am. I am sure there is an explanation. Thanks again.

June 7, 2011 3:59 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 7, 2011 at 12:51 am
“…the daily swing of tropical weather (clear at dawn, increasing morning clouds leading to afternoon thunderstorms, clearing after dark) is so common as to be almost a cliché, we used to laugh that they could tape record the weather forecast and just play it day after day …”
There’s an old saying in the tropics: “Just another lousy day in paradise.” From a thermodynamic perspective, it is the thermally-driven moist convection that sets the the entire regulatory process into motion.

Richard Scott
June 7, 2011 5:38 pm

“For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.). ”
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Searching for evidence to support your hypothesis is not the way science is done. That’s the kind of subjective nonsense we see from the alarmists.
Science is done by TESTING a hypothesis, not looking for evidence to support it.

Spector
June 7, 2011 7:23 pm

I believe in the context of this article, a hurricane might be considered as a ‘super-marine’ thunderstorm.

gnomish
June 7, 2011 7:56 pm

it does not even require convection for water gas to rise

Spector
June 7, 2011 8:33 pm

RE: Willis Eschenbach
“For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis”
A ‘what if’ hypothesis is not a bad start if you do not go out of your way to ‘manufacture’ evidence to support it. In this case, I believe, it is necessary and sufficient to *prove* that there is a level in the upper atmosphere, such as the tropopause, that has an excess cooling ability allowing it to resist being heated or being pushed to a higher altitude by rising air from the surface. If this is not the case, then rising surface temperatures will be reflected directly in upper atmosphere temperatures. All rising air can do in the latter case is even out local hotspots without the ability to act as a general temperature regulation mechanism.
I do not believe that it is necessary to show that this temperature is ‘rock-solid’ in the face of surface temperature increases, only that the upper air temperature will not rise directly as the surface temperatures increase.