Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve started to look at the data from the TAO/TRITON buoy array in the Pacific Ocean. These are an array of moored buoys which collect hourly information on a variety of environmental variables. The results are quite interesting, because they relate directly to the subject of my previous post, “It’s Not About Feedback“.
Before I get to the buoys and what kind of diurnal cycle their temperatures undergo, let me first look at what a common extra-tropical temperature cycle looks like. I used Mathematica to get the hour-by-hour temperature records for the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) station nearest to where I am at the moment, Santa Rosa, in the wine country north of San Francisco in California.
Figure 1. Location of the diurnal temperature records shown in Figure 2. Santa Rosa is in an interior valley at some distance from the true local maritime climate of say Bodega Bay. Thunderstorms are uncommon in that area, and summer days are often cumulus-free. The Golden Gate Bridge and a bit of San Francisco can be seen at the lower right.
So let’s look at what kind of temperatures it takes to make good wine …
Figure 2 shows how the temperature varies with the time of day around Santa Rosa.
Figure 2. Daily temperature swings in Santa Rosa, California.
This looks like you’d expect, or at least like I’d expected. The surface air temperature rises and falls with the sun. In addition, as the night progresses the cooling slows. It all seems very reasonable, and gives us a comparison for the surface air temperature information from the TAO/TRITON buoy array. Let me start with the location of the array of buoys:
Figure 3. The TAO/TRITON buoy array (squares with blue centres) in the tropical Pacific Ocean, along with average ocean temperatures.
You can see that a number of these buoys are in the “hot pool”, the area in the western South Pacific just south of the Equator. It is shown in the darkest red. Not all buoys collect the same information, but a large number of them have hourly air temperature records.
What follows are some of the preliminary results from my look at that TAO/TRITON data.
I have explained elsewhere what I have called my “thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis”. I propose that a combination of cumulus clouds and thunderstorms maintain the tropical temperature within a fairly narrow range. This is done by means of sequential thresholds which, when each is passed, marks a change into a different type of circulation.
In the morning, the sky is clear and the air is generally calm. When a critical threshold is passed, cumulus start to form. Each cloud marks the centre of a rising column of air. The surrounding air is descending to replace the rising air.
Note that this is not a negative feedback in the sense usually discussed. It is not dependent on the exact feedback from clouds and water vapor and whether it is positive or negative. Instead, it is a change between atmospheric quiescence and a defined circulation pattern containing rising air, clouds, and descending air. The net result is increasing wind, increasing evaporation, reflection of incoming energy, and surface cooling.
Particularly in the warmer regions, the temperatures continue to rise despite the emergence of the cumulus circulation regime.As the air temperature continues to rise, another threshold is passed, and a new circulation pattern emerges. This pattern is set by the thunderstorms that drive the surface air deep into the upper troposphere. Again, this is not a negative feedback, but a new form of self-organized criticality.
In the context of my hypothesis I was interested to look at the hourly air temperature data from the buoys. My first procedure as always is to look at each and every record. This is a critical step which is often omitted. Figures 4–6 show the hour-by-hour average temperature variations of the 67 buoys that collect air temperature:
Figure 4. Air temperature records from the first 24 TAO/TRITON buoys, ordered from the Western Pacific to Eastern Pacific. Each record shows the hour-by-hour average temperature over the entire record for that buoy. Records are colored from red to blue, from the warmest to the coldest. The colors are sequential, showing relative rather than absolute temperature. This group is from the western Pacific.
Figure 5. Air temperature records from the second 24 TAO/TRITON buoys, from the central Pacific.
Figure 6. Air temperature records from the final 19 TAO/TRITON buoys, from the eastern Pacific.
Here the value of examining each and every record becomes apparent. Five of the records, from the central Pacific, are strangely jagged and obviously quite unlike the others. I don’t know why these buoys are so anomalous, particularly as despite being dissimilar to the others, they are quite similar to each other. In any case, I simply took the easy path and removed them from the dataset. Figure 7 shows another view of the various records, before removing the questionable observations.
Figure 7. Hour-by-hour averages of all of the TAO/TRITON recorded air temperatures. Note the “jagged” records, which I removed.
One big difference is visible immediately. The tropical oceanic records only have about a tenth of the day/night temperature swing, due to the huge thermal reservoir of the ocean and the fact that it is heated at depth. The land is warmed by the sun only at the surface, which (in addition to having no thermal mixing and lower thermal mass) leads to much greater variations in day/night temperature swings over the land.
In order to try to understand what’s going on, after removing the jagged records I converted each of the records to anomalies about their averages. Figure 8 shows the anomalies of the remaining records:
Figure 8. Temperature anomalies, all valid records. I have shown two days (repeating the average anomalies) to clarify what happens overnight. Heavy black line shows average temperatures, all records.
I kind of understand what’s going on in Figure 8. The onset of cumulus formation, shortly before noon, is quite visible. I was surprised to find that the onset of cumulus on average actually cools the air temperature. I had expected it to merely slow the warming.
The reasons for the “shoulder” where temperatures tend to level out between about 9PM and midnight is less easy to understand. I suspect that it is related to the onset of the nocturnal overturning of the upper mixed layers of the ocean, which (in my experience at least) doesn’t start until a few hours after dark. But that is conjecture about the shoulder, I welcome alternate physical explanations.
I was surprised to see that despite the large difference in local average temperature, the daily swings were quite similar in size.
I find it significant that the afternoon peaks of the cooler areas (blue) are higher than those of warmer areas. I interpret this as an indication that the afternoon peaks are knocked down by strong afternoon thunderstorm action in the warmer regions.
We can get more insight into the patterns by splitting them into the warm, medium, and cool records. First, Figure 9 shows the averages of the warmer buoys.
Figure 9. Hour by hour anomalies, warmer areas. Data is shown repeated over two days for clarity. Heavy red line is average of the warmer buoys.
There are a couple points of note. The onset of the cumulus just before noon is very visible, and does more than slow the warming. It actually cools the air temperature significantly. The “shoulder” in the curves after dark are also quite evident and strong.
Next, Figure 10 shows the midrange temperature buoys, along with the average of the warmer buoys (red line) for comparison:
Figure 10. Medium temperature TAO/TRITON buoy hourly averages. Heavy green line shows the average of the selected buoys. Red line shows the average of the warmer temperature buoys.
My interpretation is that when the temperature is not as hot, the thunderstorms are more successful in keeping down the peak afternoon warmth. The effect of the cumulus onset, however, is quite similar, as are the same evening “shoulders” in the curves.
Finally, Figure 11 shows the cooler buoys. Again I have included the average of the warmer buoy records for comparison:
Figure 11. Cooler temperature (eastern Pacific) TAO/TRITON buoy hour-by-hour records. Heavy blue line shows average of cooler buoys, heavy red line shows average of warmer buoys.
The average of these cooler buoys, along with some of the individual cooler records, is starting to resemble the Santa Rosa record shown in Figure 2, losing the shoulders on both sides of the afternoon temperature peak. I interpret this as the result of weak cumulus generation and infrequent thunderstorm formation in the cooler areas.
That’s what I’ve found so far. I have no big conclusions out of all of this, other than that overall it provides clear evidence of the homeostatic mechanisms which I described in my last post. As such , it provides support for my underlying claim, that the tropical temperature is regulated by the interplay of cumulus and thunderstorm clouds.
There’s more to look at in the records. There are unanswered questions in what I show above. Why is the time of cumulus onset about the same, from the coolest to the warmest regions? Heck, I don’t know, the investigation of climate homeostasis is not far advanced, mostly the question never even gets asked, much less investigated. So I’m mostly swimming alone in the dark here, and swimming upstream against scientific orthodoxy to boot. I have also not yet split out warmer days from cooler days, to see what difference that makes in the onset time of the morning cumulus regime. Always more to do, and never enough time.
Regards to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis you really must stop doing this serious science stuff it may cause pain and heart burn in some circles. Apoplexy even, please continue. Logical analysis is an anathema to the consensus.
I was going to mention this on your last post, but the diurnal cycle of the atmosphere as well is exceeding small.
Once you get to 850 Mb, the diurnal range falls to about 0.5C and stays around that level until about 50 Mb, which is well above the tropopause.
The large energy variations throughout the day on land, moves up and out fast enough, so that the atmosphere hardly varies at all throughout the day.
Remember at the height of the day, an average 960 watt/m2 is coming in from the Sun and none is coming in at night. The atmosphere, however, reacts as though it only changes by +/- 5 watts/m2 or so throughout that 24 hour period.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/SeidelFreeWang.JGR2005.pdf
intrepid_wanders says:
August 14, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Ralph’s glider pilot view of the atmosphere at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/the-tao-that-can-be-spoken/#comment-719857 works for me. It’s not quite what I expected. While I’m not a glider pilot I know enough not to argue with their observations.
Perhaps this is a decent hypothesis. Of course, it would help if I actually had spent any time in the tropics:
Daytime heating at the sea surface is limited by the huge thermal mass underfoot. The early afternoon falloff may come from convective winds both bring air down from aloft and by mixing the top layer of seawater, allowing stable-temperature water to cool the surface. As insolation decreases, mixing improves. The clouds are still around and they act as a blanket reflecting IR back to the surface limiting heat loss. As the clouds evaporate overnight they open the window for radiational cooling and that continues until dawn. (Well, it continues until clouds reform, the early morning sun overwhelms the cooling effect.)
On your notes about mountains and deserts:
Mountain tops have a small diurnal temperature change, as they stick into air that for the most part doesn’t have direct heating from contact with the ground. Here in New Hampshire, Mt Washington’s temperature and wind profile reflects the local air mass more than diurnal effects to the point it’s are to point out the diurnal effect. It helps that it’s almost always windy. Compare http://vortex.plymouth.edu/mwn24.gif with http://vortex.plymouth.edu/1p124.gif . The latter is a grass airstrip in the Baker River Valley some 50 miles away from Mt Washington. It’s cloudy and rainy today, on sunny days they’ll have a 30 degree (F) diurnal variation.
I good rule of thumb here is to take Mt Washington’s morning temperature, add 30 degrees to it (for dry adiabatic lapse rate) and you have a decent estimate of the day’s high temperature away from the mountains.
I don’t have much experience in low deserts, but in high deserts the dry soil is a poor heat conductor and the relatively thin air has less heat content. When my brother lived in Flagstaff AZ, he tried to end a bicycle ride well before sunset as the afternoon’s ground heat quickly radiates away through the dry air. OTOH, there are some valleys in Oregon’s desert lined with basalt that present extreme UHI and baked my family well into the night during that hot 2003 summer.
No shoulder effect in either area that I know of.
One random mountain observation – while crossing the North Cascades by bicycle, I noticed I had a tail wind uphill and head wind down the other side. I figure on windless days convecting warm air masses tend to flow up the land and make a plume above the mountain tops. On windy days, wind blowing across a ridge may curl around on the downwind side and produce upslope wind there too.
Ralph – comments welcome!
—————————————-
Richard M says:
August 14, 2011 at 7:10 pm
My summertime rule of thumb is to take the dewpoint, knock a few degrees off that and that will be close to the night’s low temperature. A temperature plot often shows two exponentials – one rate down to the dew point, then a lower rate as both fall until dawn. In winter, low dew points mean there’s so much less water in the air, and the nights are so long, that rule doesn’t work. If the air is really dry, the temperature reaches the dew point and doesn’t slow down until dawn. (Both these require windless nights, a little stirring really messes up the inversion.)
Brian H says:
August 15, 2011 at 4:15 am
I think one of the naked eye navigation techniques is to spot islands beyond the horizon by seeing the clouds above them. Hmm, I guess the first clouds of the day must form over islands, so that would be the best time to look.
Nice bit of observation Willis. And lots of persistence too in arranging and calculating all the data. Observation of the real world. Can’t get enough of it.
What all that cloud says to me is that in tropical latitudes most of the energy is being lost in evaporating water and generating uplift. So, energy movement is via an evaporation/ transport phenomenon. This part of the world generates little more top of atmosphere direct radiation than the polar regions. So, no scope for a feedback loop relating to long wave energy returning to the Earth in these latitudes.
Centered on latitude 30 degrees we have cells of descending air that is dry, being compressed and warming, and that is where most of the radiant energy exits, from high in the troposphere. Very little water vapour there to generate any feedback so low sensitivity there too.
If you look at the evolution of atmospheric precipitable water over time you will find that it fell into a hole but has recently recovered. That tells me that cloud is not constant. Data at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Excellent post WIllis! I love this kind of research.
Best,
J.
“I kind of understand what’s going on in Figure 8. The onset of cumulus formation, shortly before noon, is quite visible. I was surprised to find that the onset of cumulus on average actually cools the air temperature. I had expected it to merely slow the warming.”
Yes, it does. The tropical sun is way powerful. Block it and the temperature drops five degrees immediately. This is well understood in central Florida. People who have not lived in the tropics or the subtropics do not know what sunshine can be.
Thanks Willis. I really do think you’re onto something with the thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis – the tropics are where all the energy is and they are pretty poorly studied from an atmospheric science perspective.
As to the spikes – what is the sensor A/D resolution? maybe a few 8 bit or 12 bit converters from an early batch? It can make quite a difference if the full span of the sensor is large.
For the bulk though, I’ve seen similar pm and eve shoulders from ground based measurements of photochemical species and believe that boundary layer collapses can be responsible – I think Ric Werme alluded to that.
Finally, are these averages over a whole year? Wouldn’t it be best to split it out into seasons to look at trades and doldrums – or did you do that and find no real difference? I’d have thought advected heat transport must be a consideration.
In terms of how effective this mechanism might be: couldn’t one look at what was being reflected off clouds with an airborne downward facing spectral radiometer? Might need the sickbag 🙂 I’d have thought some Wx/cloud physicists might have looked at that (maybe INDOEX?). Sorry, wish I had more time!
Your work is brilliant, Willis. It is a first-rate contribution to climate science and to the debate on climate science. In addition, the topic is very interesting as natural history. And it is likely to cause a land boom in central and south Florida.
Years ago, I told some climate scientists that they had not a clue how to explain the extremely active summer climate in central Florida. And I told them that they reason they could not explain it is that they have no physical hypotheses that describe the natural regularities that make it up. And I told them that they would never have any such hypotheses as long as they stick exclusively to their computer models of Earth’s radiation budget. As a final dig, I told them that they had not a clue how to take temperature measurements in central Florida because the temperature can vary by 20 degrees in the middle of each summer afternoon.
You work makes my case and then some.
Willis,
Excellent work as we are coming to expect. A couple of quick comments/observations:
1) The wind records from the buoys would be a very interesting addition to add depth to your analysis. I suspect they might also shed light on the “rogue” buoys, which I notice, all fell within a narrow temperature range. Another as yet unexplained “regime?”
2) Somebody spent a lot of money and time putting these buoy networks in place. I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever done even the rudimentary analysis that you have undertaken. So the question is, what, if any, is the scientific legacy of these networks? It would be interesting to have input from a legitimate (unbiased) mainstream climate scientist who is generally familiar with the research in this area. Like maybe Judith Curry. For us lay readers it would be very helpful to know what work has already been done (or not done) in the direction you are heading. Despite the ugly connotations, an informal sort of peer review would greatly help support your hypothesis.
As I have commented before, living in Panama at 9 degrees North, perched on a mountainside at 1200 meters and looking out over the Pacific, I watch the thermostat in action every day. Your hypothesis goes a long way to explain how our temps can be so incredibly consistent over the course of the year. Rainfall however, varies enormously, from almost none in some months to 50 inches in other months, with between 200 and 300 inches per year. Antidotally, in conversation with our deep sea fishing friends, there is an obvious correlation between the ocean temps and the amount of rainfall we receive.
Like the rest of us, I look forward to seeing your ideas fleshed out and verified.
I recall in the coastal Carolinas in the summer, you could practically set your watch by the 3 pm afternoon thunderstorms. It seems likely to me that a similar mechanism was at work there.
“The simple answer is, the system automatically cuts down the incoming solar by something like that same amount, and the balance is restored.”
Excellent! Now we are jamming.
“Why is the time of cumulus onset about the same, from the coolest to the warmest regions?”
Maybe because the boundary layer is in equilibrium with the local sea surface temperature.
As the surface warms, the buoyancy of the lower layers strart convection, i.e cumulus formation.
Above the PBL, the troposphere is capped in the coldest region, no deep convection, in the warmest area there is no cap so that cumulonimbus clouds can form.
>>While crossing the North Cascades by bicycle, I noticed I had a tail wind
>>uphill and head wind down the other side. I figure on windless days
>>convecting warm air masses tend to flow up the land and make a plume
>>above the mountain tops.
>>Ralph – comments welcome!
Quite correct. Anabatic and Katabatic winds. Very noticeable in mountainous areas. If you go to the likes of Gap, in S France, you will see dozens of gliders hugging the cliffs and soaring all day long (rock polishing, as it is known).
.
>>So a region with hot and cold areas (tarmac and forest) will produce
>>much better thermals (and thus heat dissipation) than a uniform region.
Just thought of something.
Will the addition of tarmac (roads, airports) increase thermic activity, and thus cool the land (averaged over the whole day) more than a uniform region with monoculture crops??
Just a thought.
Anyone got a radiation budget satellite with good enough resolution??
.
Willis says: “In the tropics the sun is around 300 w/m2 on a 24/7 basis, and DLR is around 400 w/m2, call it 700 watts/m2 all up.”
I am unfamiliar with a radiative heat transfer equation that allows just adding watts together. Please enlighten.
starzmom says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:17 am
“I recall in the coastal Carolinas in the summer, you could practically set your watch by the 3 pm afternoon thunderstorms. It seems likely to me that a similar mechanism was at work there.”
Yes, it seems that the same mechanism is active in many places but with varying ranges of temperature change, rain, and all such. In central Florida, it is active even in winter but the variations are weaker. One January, I sat through a typical rush hour (3-6 here) with an Englishman as a passenger, and he commented how the weather reminded him of London in July.
marcoinpanama says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:04 am
“Like the rest of us, I look forward to seeing your ideas fleshed out and verified.”
We will have to raise lots of money for that to happen.
>>“Why is the time of cumulus onset about the same, from the coolest
>>to the warmest regions?”
Thermal formation depends on temperature difference, not total temperature. The best thermals in the UK are formed in the cool conditions following the passage of a cold front. This not only gives cool temperatures, but also a steep lapse-rate, so that thermals can propogate to higher levels.
.
I have a basic question about the model. You propose that cloud formation should occur earlier in the day at higher temperatures. Yet, when I look at all the data, the time of the initial shoulder (cloud formation) is more or less independent of temperature. Looking more closely, it seems that the time is even delayed a bit with increasing temperature for the blue to green traces, but only advances for the green to red traces (at the hottest temperatures). Can you explain this?
Willis:
For the PM hump, check dew points? Do the floats log humidity? If so, how does the humidity chart against the temperature? I suspect an investigation along that line will illuminate the PM hump.
“The Moon has no atmosphere, so there is no “air temperature”. The surface temperature varies greatly depending on whether it is in sunlight or not.
The average daytime temperature on the Moon is around 107°C (225°F), but can be as high as 123°C (253°F).
When an area rotates out of the sun, the “nighttime” temperature falls to an average of -153°C (-243°F).
The temperatures near the poles (which get the least solar heating) can fall as low as -233°C (-387°F). This is only 40°C above absolute zero.
However, there are craters (Hermite, Peary and Bosch craters), that never receive any sunlight and their temperatures can be below -249 °C (-416°F, 26 Kelvin)”
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_on_the_moon#ixzz1V7kuxfaZ
So day average is 107Cº and Night average is -153 Cº
So the moon average must be.. -23Cº
With Max a min average: 123 Cº & -250Cº -63,5 Cº
Stupid numbers..
mkelly says:
August 15, 2011 at 9:35 am
I’m not sure what you mean, mkelly. If an object is receiving say 100 w/m2 of radiation from one source and 200 w/m2 of radiation from another source, how do you get the total radiation impinging on the object without “just adding watts together”?
w.
Theo Goodwin says:
August 15, 2011 at 9:55 am
Indeed, as I have a day job (that I’m neglecting at the moment, but then I’m self-employed) and I am an amateur scientist, meaning someone who does science for the love (amare) of the intellectual chase, and not for the money. I have no supercomputer and no graduate assistants, just me and a powerful Mac.
The good part is that means I’m not beholden to the “climate is changing, be very scared” meme. I won’t lose my job if the AGW folks are unable to even falsify the null hypothesis, much less to establish an alternate hypothesis. The AGW folks may lose their jobs (except in academia where failure is irrelevant to advancement), or at least lose funding and prominence, when scientific rationality, transparency, and observational-based analysis returns to the field of climate science.
The bad part is that I need to go to work at some point. I’ve thought about asking Anthony if I could put a tip jar at the top, but after consideration I decided that if I took folks money, I’d feel like I had to produce something on some kind of a schedule, I’d be obligated if I took the Queen’s shilling … and somehow, that would make the joy of the chase less satisfying and rewarding.
Which is why this will be a long fight. It’s like the old story about why the rabbit usually wins the race against the fox … because the fox is just running for his breakfast, while the rabbit is running for his life …
Keep running,
w.
Willis says: I’m not sure what you mean, mkelly. If an object is receiving say 100 w/m2 of radiation from one source and 200 w/m2 of radiation from another source, how do you get the total radiation impinging on the object without “just adding watts together”?
w.
Apologise if I was not specific enough. All radiative heat transfer equations I am familiar with deal in a difference in temperature modified by an emissitivity with SB. Just adding watts together is not something I have ever been familiar with. Since you used the word “warm” and talked about the sun being “square to the surface” earlier in the paragraph I made a implication you were talking about heat transfer. If you were not then no harm no foul.