Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I read a Reviewer’s Comment on one of Richard Lindzen’s papers today, a paper about the tropics from 20°N to 20°S, and I came across this curiosity (emphasis mine):
Lastly, the authors go through convoluted arguments between forcing and feed backs. For the authors’ analyses to be valid, clouds should be responding to SST and not forcing SST changes. They do not bother to prove it or test the validity of this assumption. Again this is an assertion, without any testable justification.
Now to me, showing that clouds respond to the tropical surface temperatures, either on land or sea, is a no-brainer, I’m surprised that the Reviewer would question it. But before I discuss that, let me digress for a moment to say that I think there are two simple changes in the reviewing process that would help it immensely.
1. Double blind reviewing. Right now, reviewing is just single blind, with the reviewer knowing the identity of the author but not the other way around. This is a huge, huge violation of the scientific norms, and it leads and has led to problems. A recent proposal to use double-blind reviewing in the awarding of grants by the National Science Foundation makes for interesting reading … http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf This would put the focus back onto the ideas rather than the author.
2. Publish the reviews and the reviewer’s names along with the paper when it is published. This sunshine, this transparency, will have several benefits. First, if a reviewer still has strong reservations about the paper, or if their objections have led to improvements or changes in the paper, this will be made visible when the reviews are published (presumably online) along with the paper. Second, we get to see who agrees that the paper is valid science, and who might not. Third, in the fullness of time, we will have a record of who was right and who was wrong. But I digress … the anonymous Reviewer wanted Lindzen to show that clouds respond to SST.
Not having read Lindzen’s paper, I don’t know what he said about the question. But for me, Figure 1 should convince even the most alarmist reviewer that clouds are responding to the surface temperature, both on land and over the ocean.
Figure 1. Monthly albedo averages from ERBE. Images show the N/S range of the geographical tropics (~ 23.5° N/S). Thin black horizontal line shows the Equator.
The upper panel shows the albedo for August (northern hemisphere summer) and the lower panel for February (southern hemisphere summer). The brighter areas show the regions with higher albedo, because there are more clouds. There are some things of note in the figure.
For example, look at Brazil and the Amazon in the lower panel (the bright spot in the lower left of the panel, below the Equator.). In February, in the southern summer, the heat creates lots of clouds. But in the upper panel, the southern hemisphere winter, Brazil has a much lower level of clouds.
The same thing is true about southern Africa. In the southern summer (lower panel) the albedo is high in southern Africa, with lots of clouds. In the southern hemisphere winter (upper panel), on the other hand, southern Africa loses its clouds, and above the Equator where it is summer we see increased albedo in the northern part of Africa.
Next, tropical Asia in August, when it is warm, has lots of clouds. But when winter comes, the clouds move with the summer down to the southern hemisphere.
Similar changes are generally occurring over the oceans as well, but in a more muted fashion. Again, this difference in effect shows that surface temperature is the driving factor, since the land temperatures change more with the seasons than do the ocean temperatures.
Now, we have three choices here:
1. Tropical clouds are increasing and decreasing in response to the changes in surface temperature resulting from the sun’s motion, which alternately warms the areas north of and south of the Equator, or
2. The clouds are just coincidentally in sync with the sun by random chance, or
3. The clouds are making the sun move north and south of the Equator.
Your choice, but to me, that should satisfy even the most recalcitrant reviewer. It’s clear that the clouds are responding to the variations in surface temperature, with more clouds forming as the surface warms and less clouds when the surface is cooler.
w.
PS: Since we’re discussing clouds as forcing and feedback, you’ll excuse me if I take this opportunity to re-post the following from my “Thermostat Hypothesis” paper. In it I am describing how the clouds and thunderstorms work as a governor to stabilize the temperature:
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 night-time. And it’s always summer under the sun.
If we accept the convenience that 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 tropics would have more cloud than the left hand side), I though “Hey, that’s a testable proposition to support or demolish my hypothesis”. So in order to investigate whether this postulated increase in cloud on the right hand side of the earth 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. Red line on graph is solar forcing anomaly (in watts per square meter) in the area outlined in yellow. Black line is 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Willis, for a logical explanation of mechanism that makes perfect sense to me.
As for unleavened clouds, perhaps that is what “the models” are using and are the root of their problems? 🙂
ursus augustus says, June 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Gives a whole new meaning to the Marvelous Breadfish :-).
“Kasuha says :
Apart of that, I kinda disagree that clouds respond to surface temperatures. ”
From what I have observed in sub tropical SE Queensland we have the following scenario :-
The land mass is heated during the day – and in Spring/Summer fairly rapidly.
The heated air begins to rise and a “sea breeze” begins.
This humid air is “sucked” into the now rapidly convecting air mass over the warmer land surface and in turn rises.
As this progresses throughout the day the afternoon clouds form.
If sufficient humid air is drawn in a storm forms and the result is a much cooler local environment that night.
I have seen this behaviour repeated over 50 odd years.
I kinda agree that clouds respond to surface temperatures.
C.Close:This is one reason there is no evidence for clouds operating to keep the tropics from overheating, or for providing a robust ‘thermostat mechanism.’
This is over the top. There is plenty of evidence for this. Willis’s Figure 2 in the thread root is only one such. There may indeed exist much counter evidence. The case for a themostat may be unproved and in balance might be weak. But to say there is no evidence tells me to discount other things you say and write.
Your point about looking beyond shortwave energy is well taken. However, the longwave energy that escapes is a function of a time-varying cloud cover. Remove the clouds and things cool off faster at night.
@Willis
“The same thing is true about southern Africa. In the southern summer (lower panel) the albedo is high in southern Africa, with lots of clouds. In the southern hemisphere winter (upper panel), on the other hand, southern Africa loses its clouds, and above the Equator where it is summer we see increased albedo in the northern part of Africa.
“…Again, this difference in effect shows that surface temperature is the driving factor, since the land temperatures change more with the seasons than do the ocean temperatures.”
+++++++++
Having spent 30 years studying the weather in Southern Africa I have to disagree with the main thrust of the argument. The winds change direction completely between summer and winter and that is the reason for the change in moisture in the atmosphere (excluding the Cape Town winter rainfall area which is on its own reversed cycle). When the clouds mostly disappear, early April in the summer rainfall area, it is still warm and can be warmer than January and February – December too in some years. Clearly temperature at the surface has little (if anything) to do with cloud formation.
Temperatures in ‘winter’ are as high as 25 C in the daytime but because of a lack of moisture, can drop below zero at night. What makes winters really cold is moisture. It if rains in winter (like this and the past couple of years) it is miserably cold. Winter rains are connected to the 19 year drought/wet cycle and it is at the peak ‘wet’ now. The more clouds, the wetter and colder it is. Surface temperatures are driven by cloud+rain. Obviously if it is cloudy it is colder but it takes rain/snow to get really cold. As many people find it surprising that it snows regularly in Africa, show them this:
http://www.wartrail.co.za/Motor(2106147).htm
Does the quarterback respond to the rushing linebacker or does the rushing linebacker respond to the quarterback. Anyone who knows anything about football would immediately say “both”.
Do clouds respond to changes in surface temperature or does surface temperature respond to changes in cloud cover. Anyone who knows anything about weather would immediately say…
Not sure what the argument is about.
Stephen,
If one were to take an undergraduate course in atmospheric science, it would be rather obvious why clouds often form when the surface is being heated by insolation. This is not a priori evidence of a “thermostat” nor does it have much bearing on the climate change issue.
Chris Colose: – Clouds do not cause the bulk of temperature change that is caused during ENSO events (for example),
How much of it do they cause?
There are entire books written on the subject of convection as well as tropical dynamics,
What are some recent ones that you recommend? I am expanding my library on climate science.
Chris Colose: This is not a priori evidence of a “thermostat” nor does it have much bearing on the climate change issue.
Personally I don’t like the teleology of the “thermostat hypothesis”, but the idea that negative feedbacks may be sufficiently strong to prevent heating above a physically realizable maximum is certainly worth considering. That there is no “a priori” evidence may be true, but when have scientists ever worried about “a priorI”? If the idea is testable, it should be investigated. It has considerable bearing on some of the climate change issue, in particular whether it is possible for the Earth to warm up as much as the AGW models predict (starting from where the earth is now), or for there to be a “runaway” effect.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Thanks, Matthew and Chris. Certainly we see this effect, of a maximum temperature regardless of input, in the Argo float data. This has been known for a while, I discussed it here.
However, it’s a mistake to think it is just simple negative feedback. Thunderstorms have the capability to cool the surface well below the temperature required for initiation. In a lagged system, this “overshoot” is a requirement for establishing the type of temperature maximum that is shown by my link above. It’s not just a passive linear or semi-linear feedback.
w.
Matthew,
Some standard atmospheric dynamics books include Holton’s Intro to Dynamic Meteorology (though with emphasis on mid-latitudes, an excellent supplement to this is Jonathan Martin’s Mid-latitude dynamics text…if only because he was a professor of mine back in an undergrad class). The texts by Adrian Gill as well as Valllis are excellent and thorough resources. I’m less acquainted with texts *specifically* on the tropics (my feeling is that someone still needs to write one, papers may be better for this from my experience, but I also sense that the general field is in more flux than those concerned with the dynamics of the mid-latitude cyclone for example). Kerry Emanuel has a general book on Atmospheric Convection, but I’ve only read small sections of it. A lot of standard texts on thermodynamics (Grant Petty’s being an excellent one) discuss some convection/instability stuff as well. (Note: all of these recommendations require calculus at least to the level of understanding vector relationships, partial derivatives, basic differential equations) and of course physics.
I fully agree that the prospective existence of “thermostats” is an interesting climate question for a number of reasons, both respect to clouds and other mechanisms. The class of cloud thermostats discussed by Willis has been extensively examined in the literature, dating at least back to Ramanathan in the early 90s, but is no longer widely accepted due to failure to account for sometimes very elementary factors.
There are thermostat mechanisms that operate outside of timescales of interest to us (e.g, silicate weathering), which has implications for a geologic view of climate change, but I can absolutely say that a “runaway greenhouse” is not possible for the current solar insolation received by Earth. It’s very hard for feedbacks on Earth to overcome the T**4 dependence of Stefan-Boltzmann. A runaway snowball is in the realm of physical possibility, and it’s quite possible for the ice-albedo feedback to overwhelm other stabilizing mechanisms (it evidently has in the past, as I discussed in the third post in the link on my name) but I don’t think that is a worry today.
But Willis, the observation of a “maximum SST” in the tropics, as well as a threshold for deep tropical convection, is simply a characteristic of the current tropical climate for reasons which I sense are reasonably understood by now – all based on fundamental stability criteria coupled to the large-scale circulation that the tropical atmosphere relaxes to.
The threshold for convection would change in a warming climate, and the SST distribution along with it. ARGO observations can’t sample a different climate. Ramanathan got this all wrong decades ago, and it would nice if he publicly disavowed his views.
Willis: It’s not just a passive linear or semi-linear feedback.
Simple? No.
Linear? No.
Self-organizing (as opposed to “controlled”)? Yes.
Chris Colose, thanks for the book recommendations. I’ll check them out from a library.
Rainfall over the tropical oceans peaks between 3 and 6 AM, ie before dawn. Clouds are at their maximum at this time.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122%3C2296:AEOTDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
What happens is the sun heats the ocean during the day and this heat is mostly retained in the oceans as air temperatures are above or close to the ocean surface temperature. After nightfall, the air temperature falls and the ocean surface now warmer than the air loses heat to the air mostly through evaporation. The warm moist air feeds convection (or feeds into existing convection processes) and results in precipitation causing clouds forming late in the night.
It appears to me that this diurnal cycle is the key to temperature regulation in the tropics, at least over the oceans.
Let’s say something (aerosols) causes more persistent clouds and an overall increase in cloudiness. This will reduce the amount of sunlight entering the oceans, but also reduce night time radiative cooling of the air above the ocean. The night time temperature differential between the ocean surface and the air will be reduced and less evaporation occurs. Resulting in fewer clouds and less precipitation (which means less heat transport upward in the atmosphere).
The climate acts to keep cloud cover stable over the 24 hour cycle.
Chris Colose says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Thanks, Chris. At present, there is a limit beyond which the ocean temperature doesn’t rise, no matter how much energy is coming in. The energy goes up, but the temperature doesn’t.
You claim that in a “warming climate” somehow this will all change. The only difference in a “warming climate” would presumably be greater forcing. But since greater forcing doesn’t warm the oceans beyond that limit today, what makes you think that greater forcing would push the ocean above that limit tomorrow? I mean it’s all very well to claim that, but upon what are you basing the claim?
Finally, I brought it up to show that indeed there are limits on how much large parts of the planet can warm, which obviously implies a phenomenon or phenomena which maintain that limit. I hold that the phenomena are a combination of clouds and thunderstorms, which cool the surface in a host of ways.
w.
PS—I fear that saying that the temperature limit is “based on fundamental stability criteria coupled to the large-scale circulation that the tropical atmosphere relaxes to” doesn’t say much at all … what “stability criteria”? What makes them “fundamental”? What are the non-fundamental stability criteria? What large-scale circulation does the tropical atmosphere “relax to”? Why would the relaxation of the tropical atmosphere result in a limit on the ocean temperature?
I fear that your meaning is not at all clear …
Chris Colose says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm
AFAICT, the main “elementary factors” leading to the lack of acceptance of the idea of thermostatic mechanisms are that they don’t lend themselves to alarmism, and that they disagree with the current paradigm that states that there is a linear relationship between forcing and temperature.
Seriously, Chris, what “elementary factors” do thermostatic mechanisms not account for? And where does Ramanathan discuss the fact that thunderstorms can cool the surface below the temperature required to initiate the thunderstorms?
I disagree that the analysis of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism has been “extensively examined in the literature”. It has scarcely been discussed in the literature at all. The thermostatic mechanism discussed by Ramanathan is quite different from the one I have proposed. In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins said that the albedos of deep convective clouds in the tropics limited the SST … but as far as I know, they didn’t discuss the idea of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism at all.
In other words, that all sounds like you are trying to hand-wave away my ideas because you have problems with them …
w.
A bit late on parade here. I’m a tropical operational forecaster. We look all the time for ‘hot’ spots in SST for MCS buildups. Its like clockwork. Anyone who doesn’t think there is a direct correlation with SST hot spots and cloud buildup is a bit naiive. Sometimes I feel like knocking a few heads and wouldn’t be surprised that the resonance resembles wood.
Willis said:
“indeed there are limits on how much large parts of the planet can warm, which obviously implies a phenomenon or phenomena which maintain that limit. I hold that the phenomena are a combination of clouds and thunderstorms, which cool the surface in a host of ways.”
Willis, you may not welcome this comment but in my humble opinion you really do need it for your hypothesis to work.
The relevant phenomenon which determines the limit on how much large parts of the planet can warm is atmospheric surface pressure.
As soon as there is enough water vapour for the convective uplift from that lighter than air water vapour to exceed the convective uplift from temperature at the surface alonethen nothing can raise the surface temperature above water any further.
P.Solar noted the significance above:
“P. Solar says:
June 7, 2012 at 6:09 am
Stephen Wilde: “In fact I think the apparent ‘lid’ on tropical SSTs that Willis has previously drawn to our attention is set at the point where the rate of evaporation rises to a level where convective uplift from the amount of water vapour present starts to exceed uplift from surface temperature alone.”
Good point, I had not made that connection and was a little sceptical of that claim when Willis made it. In fact I think the difference is that surface temperature only provides at negative feedback whereas uplift due to less dense water vapour is a self sustaining process. This makes it more than just a linear negative feedback. It’s like negative feedback with a tipping point!
That effect in itself would probable be sufficient to ensure climate stability on the upper end to a wide range of additional forcing.
I think Willis covered this in his posts on ARGO data. It was particularly clear in SH, there seemed to be an upper limit of about 38C of SST.”
Back to the post title: Forcing or Feedback?
Forcing takes place wherever you begin a sequence of events, with associated feedback showing up a few steps later.
Chicken or Egg?
Is the climate slowly forming the weather, or vice-versa?
What is the gender of angels?
By the way: what is THE climate?
”
Dave says:
June 7, 2012 at 4:50 am
Willis>
Is double-blind reviewing possible? I would have no trouble picking your writing from Anthony Watts’ or Steve McIntyre’s, let alone that of some of the alarmists, whether it has your name on it or not..
”
It very well may be quite difficult but I don’t think it is because of the reason you provide. Publishing scientific papers isn’t so much about the reading but in getting a publication. As such, creative writing and writing styles other than the stuffy formal one is not important. The author(s) regret boring the readers to death but if the reader is bored stiff, there’s less likelyhood of the reader finding fault with the paper and it makes it look even more ‘scientific’. Blogging successfully requires creative writing skills. One needs to attract and keep as many readers as possible by making things interesting, including having controversy.
I for one appreciate that Steve, Tony, Willis, and other regular contributors have styles rather than use the sterilized blah style of the classical scientific paper.
As for recognizing a double blind paper submission, that is mostly achievable by having a knowledge of who regularly publishes in the field and what they specialize in. Unfortunately, it may also be achieved in climate science by reading the abstract and conclusions and ascertaining the presence of advocacy. Some authors like hansen often push advocacy with conclusions that are not warranted based on the content of the paper. Others give lip service to CAGW just to avoid any potential conclusions that their paper might provide damage the CAGW hype. Some are mostly interested in disproving CAGW which may or may not show exactly who wrote it and which may or may not have legitimate conclusions based upon what may or may not be advocacy rather than solid science – but it doesn’t matter who wrote those to CAGW advocates screening papers because if it damages the hypothesis, the paper must be blocked. As for pal review, pals know what each other are working on anyway.
Hence, the well done blog becomes what the peer review process was supposed to be.
Peer review in publication was to weed out garbage and was to try to improve upon what was presented in an era where paper and ink were valuable commodities and room in publications was at a premium and prestige of the publication mattered. It was never part of the scientific method other than to assist in the repetition of experiments so has to help validate research efforts. Now, one often finds criticism from reviewers that it’s already been done once if one submits for publication a substantial duplication of an experiment already published.
“But for me, Figure 1 should convince even the most alarmist reviewer that clouds are responding to the surface temperature, both on land and over the ocean.”
There is a big problem with that, less clouds in winter is a positive feedback further away from the tropics, reduced winter cloud cover would increase coldness in the mid and upper latitudes in winter. All Fig 1 really shows is the seasonal movement of the ITCZ, which is dominated by the mid-higher latitude seasons rather than the equatorial seasons, as the midday Sun is directly overhead at the equinoxes at the equator and not at the solstices.
Fig 2 is interesting, apart from the asymmetry of more N.H. clouds in the tropics from 10.30am, while the tropics show increasing cloud through the day, beyond there the heavier cloud accumulates further towards the poles through the day.
>>
As soon as there is enough water vapour for the convective uplift from that lighter than air water vapour to exceed the convective uplift from temperature at the surface alone then nothing can raise the surface temperature above water any further.
>>
Easy with statements like “nothing can…” .
Perhaps we should not be too categorical about this. The temp swings are definitely not symmetrical and there is a strong neg feedback beyond around 30C , but this is not a hard ceiling. There is a quite a lot of temps getting as high as 35C in NH.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/all-n-hemisphere-floats-temps-gt-30-plus-gauss.jpg
“Easy with statements like “nothing can…” .”
Agreed. I spotted that after posting.
I think the point is that it becomes extremely difficult and requires a huge and rapid energy input to push sea surface temperatures above the observed ceiling.
This request may look OT to some readers.
Can anyone point to a plain-text webpage record of the data used to produce the TOP PANEL of figure 15 (annual oscillation of the inverted barometer (IB) effect in the NCEP system) on p.26 here [ http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf ]?
If so, sincerest thanks.
Willis, I was thinking about this and began to wonder if this same concept could be used to explain the temperature changes related to the PDO cycles. For example, during the cool PDO cycle warm water remains in the tropics which leads to increased evaporation within the tropics and ultimately increased albedo which decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. During the warm PDO cycle warm water is dispersed northwards leading to a decrease in evaporation at the tropics and an increase in TSI forcing. A simple concept that should not be difficult to test using measurements of albedo during warm PDO years versus cool PDO years.