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.
I know how closed—and close-minded—academia can be, and how scarce jobs are (have kin who’ve been looking), but I would bet there is a small, independent college somewhere in the world that would love to have a talented, idiosyncratic, eclectic, amateur climatologist on board. Indeed, I would not be surprised if someone here knew of such a place. Maybe, instead of a tip jar, Anthony would let you post a ‘Position Wanted’ ad at the top.
/Mr Lynn
Ralph says:
August 15, 2011 at 10:29 am
Ralph, my thanks to you and the other glider pilots for your insights. I’m considering and learning from them all.
Indeed, thermal formation from temperature difference is visible in thunderstorms towards dusk. Instead of dissipating, as the upper air cools and the ocean maintains the warmth of the day, they can intensify and continue their work of cooling the surface.
It’s all part of what I call “The Great Hadley Global Air Conditioning, Water Purifying, and Ice Making Machine™.” One single thing drives the Hadley planetary circulation—massed and serried ranks and piles of thunderstorms at the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). It’s the same thing that wanders in ones and fives across the land as well, the thunderstorm.
Here’s an oddity to consider. A thunderstorm moves across the face of the ocean. But it does not move randomly. Instead, it moves preferentially to the warmer areas, areas which will prolong its existence.
We don’t notice it because we are so familiar with thunderstorms, but they are an emergent phenomenon with great similarities to a living organism. It is born at a certain moment. It has a certain lifespan. It is a heat engine which converts energy into work. At the end of the lifespan it decays into its component parts, and passes out of existence as an entity. During its lifetime it may spawn copies of itself which in turn have their own time-limited independent existence, and may in turn spawn further copies. It is capable of feeding itself (by increasing winds at the base it provides increased quantities of one of its two fuels, water vapor). In its lifetime it moves preferentially to areas containing more of what fuels it (see immediately above). If it sits still it dies (thunderstorms will rain themselves out with cold water, just like raining on a fire, if they sit still and grow straight upwards).
Now, don’t go all Gaia on me, I’m not suggesting that thunderstorms are alive.
My point is that they share a host of behaviors with life, and that this sets them apart from many other phenomena. Their spontaneous threshold-based generation in response to increasing temperature means that there is a “mushy” but none-the-less real upper temperature limiting mechanism. Any real-world theory of climate and climate models has to include thunderstorms and their action. They thermally regulate the system and their selective response to counteract even the most local temperature increases needs to be included in any climate theory and model.
w.
mkelly says:
August 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm
mkelly, I’m sorry but it’s still not clear, in part because you didn’t answer my question. How much radiation energy is impinging on the object in my question? Once you answer that I can see where any misunderstanding might lie.
Regarding emissivity, to a first-order approximation the simplifying assumption of blackbodies all around is usually made regarding climate radiation. It’s not true, but it’s not far from true. The surface IR emissivity is about 0.95 instead of blackbody 1.0, and for the average atmosphere it’s somewhere near the same (because about 70% of the surface is covered by clouds at any instant, clouds which except when very thin are basically blackbodies with respect to IR). When considered separately, clear sky emissivity is often taken as a “gray-body” with emissivity of about 0.75. Averaging 70% blackbody with 30% at 0.75 gives 0.95 average, not far from blackbody.
Finally, in climate science it is usual to concentrate on the individual flows of energy to and from something (e.g. upwards radiation from the surface of say 390 w/m2.) This allows the flow analysis while it avoids the question of emissivity altogether, as the emissivity only affects the actual temperatures of the objects in question and not the flow of energy between them.
Hope this clarifies things,
w.
Richard M says:
August 14, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I suppose that depends to some extent on latitude. Here in Central Alberta (actually most of Alberta), the temperature falls in summer as in winter until about an hour after sunrise with a clear or partially cloudy sky and not too much wind. I speculate that that is due to the air not warming sufficiently until solar insolation has reached balance with what is being radiated into space.
At any rate, in early Fall, some of the first frosts of the year do not occur until after sunrise.
Ralph says:
August 15, 2011 at 3:02 am
I read and re-read your explanation above, but I didn’t see where the evening shoulder was explained. What am I missing?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“The bad part is that I need to go to work at some point.”
Understood. Perhaps as a group we could develop a collaborative project to to push the hypothesis forward. Right here on this blog you have an enthusiastic group of real scientists, amateur scientists and science enthusiasts, many of whom might be willing to lend a hand. Some of us have time and ability, but not specific subject area knowledge. Others, as you are hearing, have cogent insight into the phenomenology involved.
What are the key areas that need to be explored to verify your hypothesis? I for one, would be happy to volunteer an hour or so a day to do Internet research or help with organization. I know there are others who can run data sets and do statistical analysis. It would probably be helpful to have a different forum, more like a Yahoo group, in which people could interact directly with each other.
I for one believe that this is too important an idea – and indeed time *is* of the essence in defeating the AGW meme – to let it founder for lack of time/money/effort. What think the rest of you?
Two papers on intradiurnal temperature that may be of interest:
http://faculty.knox.edu/pschwart/2a.pdf (full text pdf)
“Observed changes in the diurnal temperature and dewpoint cycles across the United States”, by Paul C. Knappenberger and others from University of Virginia. Published in GRL, Sept 15, 1996.
and Dai, Aiguo, Kevin E. Trenberth, Thomas R. Karl, 1999: Effects of Clouds, Soil Moisture, Precipitation, and Water Vapor on Diurnal Temperature Range. J. Climate, 12, 2451–2473.
doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1999)0122.0.CO;2
fulltext pdf: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281999%29012%3C2451%3AEOCSMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The first paper looks at hourly readings from 15 airport stations in the US to determine trends in hourly readings from 1948 through 1990. They never really plotted the actual readings, but do show a schematic drawing of the change. The show early post-sunrise hours have cooled, while late afternoon hours have warmed. They used an interesting analysis method of doing one analysis centered on local sunrise; another analysis centered on local sunset; and then spliced the two analyses together to get a full daily plot,.
The Trenberth paper used a 3 hour modeling step, so the fine temporal details are missing. It looks at both observations and model outputs for a variety of parameters including temperature and precipitation. The summary and concluding remarks include
“The CCSM2 captures the diurnal amplitude (18–68C)
and phase (peak at 1400–1600 LST) of surface air temperature
over land. Over the oceans, however, the simulated
temperature amplitude (#0.28C) is too small. The
observed surface air temperature also shows a coherent
semidiurnal cycle with amplitudes of 0.48–1.58C over
land and 0.28–0.48C over ocean and peaks around 0100–
0300 and 1300–1500 LST over most land areas. The
model simulates some of the semidiurnal features, but
they are too weak over Eurasia and North America during
DJF and over the oceans in all seasons. The results
suggest that, while the daytime solar heating and nighttime
radiative cooling near the ground are generally
realistic in the CCSM2, the diurnal cycle over the ocean
surface is too weak in the model owing to the absence
of diurnal variations in SSTs.”
and
“Over the marine stratocumulus regions west of the continents
where large diurnal variations (amplitude 3%–
10%) in low and total cloud amount are observed, the
CCSM2 underestimates the mean low cloud amount by
10%–30% and the diurnal variations with incorrect diurnal
phase (midnight peak instead of 0300–0500 LST
in observations).”
>>Willis
>>I read and re-read your explanation above, but I didn’t see where
>>the evening shoulder was explained. What am I missing
Err, actually I am missing something – I was explaining the morning shoulder. I will think again about the evening shoulder, and post again if I have a brainwave.
Cheers.
>>John
>>I have a basic question about the model. You propose that cloud formation
>>should occur earlier in the day at higher temperatures.
From gliding experience, thermal formation (cloud formation) occurs LATER in higher temperatures. With a cold airmass, very little solar heating is required to start thermal production, but higher atmospheric temperature require much more heating.
In the UK we can get thermals by 9am. In Western Australia in the summer, you may wait until 10-30 or 11am.
.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“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.”
I believe that you should have a tip jar at WUWT. What you have accomplished is worth so much that it will take contributors to your tip jar a long time to catch up to you. So, there is no need for you to feel obligated to publish on a schedule or more often.