Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve mentioned before that a thunderstorm functions as a natural refrigeration system. I’d like to explain in a bit more detail what I mean by that. However, let me start by explaining my credentials as regards my knowledge of refrigeration.
The simplest explanation of my refrigeration credentials is that I have none at all. As with many trades I’ve pursued, I have no training in refrigeration. But the challenge was simple. When I was 37, a good friend of mine and I had taken the job of installing a blast freezer system in a 60′ (18m) steel sailboat in Fiji called the Askoy. I was sure we could do it … despite the fact that at that point in my life, neither of us had ever taken apart a refrigerator, or could even explain how a refrigerator worked.
Figure 1. The Challenge SOURCE
But we had two months before the job started, and one rule of thumb has never failed me—Do Your Homework …
I was laughing about this with my friend this afternoon. We’ve been partners in various oceanic ventures and adventures over the last forty years. He reminded me that I’d bought my refrigeration gauges and my Freon sniffer at the local flea market. I’d forgotten that detail. He was to do the metalwork, the piping and the soldering and such, while I had to design the system and charge it and get it working. We discussed our ignorance at the time, and he said “I never had any doubt that you’d do the refrigeration part.” I laughed and said “I never had any doubt that you’d do the metalwork part.”
I learned refrigeration the old-fashioned way. I taught myself.
WARNING—this post is a 50/50 mixture of science and autobiography, call it autosciography. If that makes your brain explode, DO NOT continue reading.
I went to a technical bookstore in San Francisco and bought a college refrigeration textbook, and a refrigeration technicians textbook. I started with the college refrigeration text, just like I was in college again. I read every word of every chapter, and then I answered all of the questions at the end of each chapter. I went back on the ones I missed until I understood them as well. At the end of the first month I could knowledgeably discuss superheat and the difference between the kinds of Freon and other refrigerants and how different types of refrigeration systems and heat pumps worked and what the units called “tons” measure in refrigeration (the cooling power equivalent to the melting of 2,000 pounds of ice starting at 0°C in 24 hours).
Then once I understood the theory backwards and forwards, I got out my refrigeration gauges and my sniffer, and I found some old refrigeration systems and I started working through the refrigeration technicians manual. By the end of the second month I could test and charge and repair a system, fine tune the setup, discharge the system and recapture the Freon, tear it down and build it again, whatever you wanted. I was ready to go. (Yes, there are other refrigerants besides Freon. But in 1981, for the kind of refrigeration I was doing, it was all Freon.)
So that’s how I learned about refrigeration, and my friend did the same regarding the metalworking and silver soldering and all the rest of the knowledge he needed. And after we finished the installation of the blast freezer, I subsequently made good money at various times diagnosing and repairing marine refrigeration systems. I’ll return to the question of my credentials and the lack thereof in a bit. But first, for those who like me couldn’t explain how a refrigeration system works, here’s my explanation.
A refrigerator cools things in exactly the same way that sweating cools your body—by evaporation. Of course instead of using water like your body does, a refrigerator uses Freon, or one of the modern refrigerants. But the principle is exactly the same regardless of the “working fluid”. You use an evaporating liquid to remove the heat from whatever you want to cool down.
Now, if the working fluid is actually boiling, you get the maximum evaporation. So for a particular refrigeration application, you might pick a liquid (one of the various Freons in the old days, now other liquids) that boils at say ten degrees below freezing.
Of course, your body uses up the water that cools us when we sweat. We don’t try to recapture that water, it condenses somewhere else.
But we don’t want to waste valuable Freon. We’d rather condense it back to a liquid. One way to do that, of course, is to pipe the vapor to some cold place, where it naturally condenses back into a liquid. In The Inventions of Daedalus, the eponymous author propounds another of his crack-brained but plausible schemes, this one for air conditioning Nairobi by running the vapor up to the top of Kilimanjaro, where it would condense and run back down by gravity. Here’s my sketch of his plan:
Figure 2. Daedalus’s plan for air-conditioning Nairobi (click to expand). The working fluid boils at say 5°C (41°F). The liquid return pipe is insulated so the fluid doesn’t boil on the return path to the evaporator.
The working fluid boils in the evaporator on the lower left. The evaporator is like a car radiator, and a fan blows through it, and the resulting cool air is used to air condition Nairobi.
The vapor then moves up to the top of Kilimanjaro, where a condenser (also looks like a car radiator) has icy natural winds blowing through it to condense the liquid. This liquid then flows by gravity down an insulated tube and back to Nairobi to start the cycle again. And like most of Daedalus’s inventions, there’s no reason you couldn’t actually build that.
Now, that’s the basic principle underlying how a refrigeration system works. A liquid turns to a vapor, absorbing heat in the process. This is called “latent heat”, because it doesn’t increase the temperature.
That vapor, containing the latent heat, is piped away from the object you want to refrigerate. Then somewhere else, it’s condensed back to a liquid, and in the process releasing the latent heat as sensible heat. Finally, the liquid is returned to the original location, to repeat the cycle.
Note the importance of the two phase changes in the process—evaporation (picking up latent heat) and condensation (releasing that latent heat elsewhere as sensible heat). Those two processes, evaporation and condensation, are the central part of the whole process of refrigeration. It’s just a very efficient way to move heat from A to B.
Now, consider Figure 3, which shows what a tropical thunderstorm is doing, and how it functions as a refrigeration system.
Down at the surface, the water is evaporating and refrigerating the surface. The thunderstorm forms over a local hot spot. The evaporation cools the surface, and the energy is transferred to the air as latent heat. The hot, moisture-laden air moves upwards.
Up at an elevation above the “lifting condensation level”, which is the elevation of the base of the clouds where condensation begins, the water condenses into larger and larger droplets. The latent heat is released back into the air as sensible heat. The water then falls as rain, to complete the cycle.
Figure 3. Natural refrigeration system. Just as in a domestic refrigerator, a working fluid (in this case water) is evaporated to remove heat from the surface, the area to be refrigerated. After rising up into the thunderstorm, the water is condensed, releasing the latent heat as sensible heat.
As you can see, this is the same system that Daedalus proposes to air condition Nairobi. It uses the same principle as your home refrigerator. Evaporation cools what you want cooled, and somewhere else, you condense the working fluid and get rid of the heat.
Now, let me start by making one thing crystal clear.
THIS IS NOT A FEEDBACK!!!
Instead, it is a natural refrigeration system, capable of cooling the surface well below its starting temperature. Treating it mathematically as a feedback is a huge mistake. It is nothing of the sort. It is a threshold-based emergent phenomenon which actively refrigerates the surface.
[UPDATE: In the comments, people have been confused by this question of feedbacks. Obviously I was not clear enough. When I say it is not a feedback, I mean it is not a simple linear feedback of the only kind considered by the IPCC. Instead, it is a control system which utilizes feedbacks of a host of kinds to maintain a constant temperature. -w.]
Not only that, but it selectively refrigerates the hot spots, forming just where it is needed. As a result, it is very difficult to represent by averages. This is especially true because its response time is minutes to hours, not days. The hot spot doesn’t really have time to get going before it is refrigerated into submission.
It gets better, much better. You see, up until now, I’ve just described the parts of the system that correspond exactly to manmade refrigeration systems. Let me point to some very clever wrinkles that thunderstorms use to increase their refrigeration capacities and to cool the surface more efficiently and more widely.
• Wind
The thunderstorm generates wind at its base, and evaporation is proportional to wind speed. If the wind underneath the storm cloud increases from say 5 knots to 20 knots, or say from 2 m/sec to 8 m/sec, evaporation goes up by a factor of 20 / 5 = four-fold. In other words, the self-generated wind alone multiplies the strength of the refrigeration by about four.
In addition, the wind increases the evaporative area by blowing water into the air as spray and fine droplets. These have a large surface area and evaporate rapidly. This also increases the strength of the refrigeration.
• Dual fuel
Thunderstorms run on both temperature and moisture. Moist air is lighter than dry air. The four-fold increase in evaporation yields a proportional increase in the vertical speed of the air moving through the thunderstorm, because it is much lighter. It also keeps the thunderstorm from dying out if the temperature drops, because once the wind starts, the moist air is light enough to keep the thunderstorm going until the surface temperature falls to well below the temperature required for initiation.
• Direct surface refrigeration by cold working fluid.
In most manmade refrigerators, evaporation is the only mechanism for cooling the objects to be refrigerated. The working fluid is not used directly to cool down what is being refrigerated. Instead, it’s brought to the evaporator in an insulated tube and immediately evaporated to carry away the heat.
But in addition to the evaporation, a thunderstorm also delivers large quantities of chilled water directly to the surface. This is a separate and distinct refrigeration mechanism, one not generally utilized in manmade refrigerators.
• Refrigeration via entrained wind.
You’d expect that the rain would warm as it fell through the warmer lower atmosphere, and to some extent it does. But it also entrains the air around it as it is falling, carrying it along. This sets up a vertical entrained wind that falls right along with the rain. That wind is constantly cooled as it falls by the evaporation of the rain that it is mixed in with. And since the rain and the chilled air fall together as a package from aloft, they both arrive at the surface much cooler than the surroundings. Often when standing out on the apartment deck in the Solomon Islands at night, the first sign of the approach of a thunderstorm would be the arrival of the cool entrained wind.
The entrained wind falls vertically with the rain, but unlike the rain it’s not absorbed by the surface. So it blows out cold air horizontally in all directions from the base of the rainfall. This blast of cool air is quite distinct. It smells of the upper atmosphere where it originated, and it is very refreshing on a hot night. It is also a separate and distinct refrigeration mechanism.
• Re-use of heat of condensation.
This one is sometimes done in manmade installations. In the thunderstorm, the heat is used to drive and sustain the building of the “tower”, the tall vertical part of the cumulonimbus cloud. This in turn increases the speed of the upward flow through the core of the thunderstorm, and allows for the possibility of another phase change.
• Increased Radiative Heat Loss
Each thunderstorm is surrounded by an area of descending dry air. The moisture has been removed from the air, first in the form of rain and then in large thunderstorms in the form of ice. Because little water vapor remains, much more of the upwelling surface longwave (thermal) radiation will escape to space.
• Additional phase change
It would certainly be possible for humans to design a system using a second phase change in the working fluid. Right now, our refrigeration systems utilize the phase change from gas to liquid and back again. But there’s another possibility, to go from gas to liquid to solid and back again.
The advantage is that you can move more heat that way. Instead of just the heat from one phase change, you could move the heat from two phase changes as latent heat.
So why don’t humans utilize both phase changes for extra efficiency? Well, we haven’t figured out an easy way to get the solid working fluid from wherever it was frozen, back to the evaporator to start the story over. I mean, we could freeze the Freon after it’s condensed into a liquid … but then how do we move solid Freon back to the evaporator to continue the cycle? With wheelbarrows?
Nature doesn’t mind these small problems, however. Nature continues to cool the water past the point where it condenses, and all the way to where it freezes … and then it uses gravity to return the solid working fluid back to the surface as frozen water. I can only bow my head in awe, what a clever setup. At the surface the ice will first melt (cooling the surface) and then warm up to the local temperature (further cooling the surface) and then evaporate to continue the cycle.
• Inter-storm coupling.
When the need for surface refrigeration gets high (anomalously warm surface temperatures), a new emergent pattern appears. The thunderstorms start to align themselves in long rows, called “squall lines”. These in turn have long canyons of descending air between them. This is a type of Rayleigh-Bénard circulation that greatly increases the throughput, and thus the refrigeration capacity, of the mass of thunderstorms.
CONCLUSIONS
• At all times and all around the planet, thunderstorms are constantly refrigerating tropical hot spots to prevent the globe from overheating. This constant refrigeration is what controls the surface temperature of the planet, not CO2. If this refrigeration system failed even for a week, we’d fry.
• The thunderstorm refrigeration system utilizes the same familiar principles of manmade refrigeration—evaporation removes the heat from what you want to refrigerate, and condensation gets rid of the heat somewhere else.
• In addition, the thunderstorm refrigeration system utilizes some unfamiliar processes, all of which combine to greatly increase the refrigeration capacity of a given thunderstorm.
• The refrigeration is selective, responding to local temperature—the hot spots get refrigerated until they confess, and the cold spots get nothing.
• The current generation of climate models deal with feedbacks. This is nothing of the sort. It is an emergent mobile self-sustaining refrigeration system, not a feedback of any kind. It needs to be analyzed as such, and it is very difficult to do so by means of parameters or averages.
• The system responds to temperature. It is not driven by the forcing, nor does it respond to areas of high forcing. Instead, it actively responds to surface temperatures. The formation of a local hot spot is quickly followed by the formation of a corresponding refrigeration system to cool the hot spot down.
• The system is extremely sensitive to the formation of local hot spots. It puts a refrigeration unit right to work on the problem. On the other hand, it is indifferent as to the cause of the hot spot. It chills them all the same.
• In addition, the surface temperature of the system is relatively insensitive to the number of hot spots—you just get more or less refrigerators to match the number of hot spots, and that keeps the temperatures within bounds. And this in turn means that the surface temperature of the system is relatively insensitive to the forcing.
• As a result, the system doesn’t care about CO2, or about small variations in the sun, or about the effect of volcanoes. The threshold for refrigerator formation is based on surface temperature, not on CO2. If there are more hot spots, the system simply makes more refrigerators, whether the hot spots are from CO2 or from a clearing of the aerosols or from a 5% increase in sun strength over a billion years.
• In such a system, the idea of “climate sensitivity” doesn’t go anywhere or mean anything. The system is relatively insensitive to the forcing, not sensitive. The system responds to hot spots by building refrigerators … and as a result the surface temperature is maintained despite variations in the forcing. The problem is not that the relationship is non-linear. In a thermostatically governed system such as the climate there often may be no relation all between forcing and temperature.
• This is a relatively simplified (but very accurate) explanation only one of a host of interlocking emergent phenomena that maintain the surface temperature within ± half a degree in a hundred years. Yes, there are lots of details I’ve left out, and manmade refrigeration systems have other valves, bells and whistles … if you’re interested lets discuss them, but please don’t bust me for leaving them out.
========================
That’s what I wanted to say about refrigerators and thunderstorms. When you are analyzing our climate, which contains powerful emergent refrigeration systems like thunderstorms, you can’t analyze them as a feedback. It’s very difficult to parameterize them. You have to get out your refrigeration tables and analyze them as what they are, huge natural refrigeration units, and very efficient ones at that. My takeaway message is this:
The surface temperature of our amazing planet is set and maintained by the constant refrigeration of the surface hot spots as they form, not by the forcing, whether from CO2 or anything else.
========================
To close, earlier I said I’d return to the question of my credentials for talking about refrigeration. Well, before we went to Fiji my friend and I researched the available marine refrigeration systems. We went and talked to the people freezing the product and saw what they used. Harlow, the owner of the boat, wanted to be able to purchase and process what they call “crayfish”, the tropical ocean lobster. To do that, you want to flash-freeze them with a wind colder than 40° below zero or so (either -40°C or -40°F, they’re the same). They need to be snap-frozen, an ordinary freezer won’t do it.
So my friend and I located a killer packaged refrigeration unit, all assembled, self-contained, ready to go. We could bolt it in and go processing in a couple weeks, because that was the dream. We’d finish the freezer and go processing crayfish around the tropical South Pacific … what’s not to like? So we went down to Fiji. Harlow was going to buy the packaged unit and bring it down.
But Harlow decided he knew better. So he shows up in Fiji with a refrigeration compressor, and an evaporator, and a condenser, and some fittings and valves and pipe, and tells us he wants it built from scratch. Oh, and he wants it water-cooled, not air-cooled. Oh, and not driven electrically, but run off a “lay-shaft”, a separate shaft driven by the main engine which drives other machinery in turn.
Ooooooh kaaaaay … we can do that, Harlow, but it’s gonna take a while.
So for my very first refrigeration project, my friend and I got to design and build an entire marine engine-driven commercial-type blast freezer system with a water-cooled condenser … from scratch, from the individual pieces. Might as well set the bar high, I figure …
So I got out my texts and tables and designed it up, and we got started, nothing else to do. We built the lay-shaft, and installed the refrigeration piping from the engine room up forward to the freezer room, belt-drove the lay-shaft off the main engine, and then got the water pump and the refrigeration compressor to run off the lay-shaft, and laid out and cut and soldered and tested all of the piping, and that’s only a tiny fraction of all of the tasks … in a foreign country, with not a whole lot of refrigeration parts available, and no instruction manual.
Like we warned Harlow, it took a while, just about six months to do it, with my gorgeous ex-fiancee serving as the ship’s cook and nurse and general hard worker. But finally, after scraping Suva dry of various refrigeration parts and pieces, one fine day I charged up the system, and we gave it the first test … and the wind off of that blast freezer was at -50°F (-46C) just like we planned. Indeed, the blast freezer worked like a champ. As long as the main engine was on it could be clutched in or out to run it, and the lay-shaft could also be driven by the auxiliary engine to keep the freezer hold and the seafood frozen if the main engine died. It was a sweet rig.
So naturally, Harlow decided that we should have a party to celebrate, and we were all up for the plan. We’d been anchored right offshore from the Royal Suva Yacht Club the whole time, so we invited everyone.
There was a trimaran owned by a friend at the Yacht Club at the time, so we tied her up alongside the Askoy. That was for the big wide stable dance floor, we hung speakers from the rigging on each side. Our friend Doc Lowry used his 28′ open skiff as the shore boat, to bring out loads and loads of people from the Yacht Club dock. He spent most of the night moving folks from the Club to the party and back again … then out to the party again …
As each person arrived, we took them a couple at a time down into the blast freezer. You entered through a hatch in the deck, and down below it was cold, cold, cold. I had put a number of bottles of vodka into a basket right in front of the blast of the freezer. I stuck a thermometer through the cap in one of them, it registered minus thirty degrees … I still have a picture of it around here somewhere. [UPDATE—found the picture. You can see the red indication.]
So as each person came down into the freezer, we’d prop them up in front of the wintry blast. The wind was strong, and blowing at minus fifty degrees F. Most of these folks were Fijians, who had never seen any place that was as cold as plus 50°F (10°C), much less minus 50°F. They started shivering as soon as they got inside, they’d never in their lives felt a wind at minus fifty. So I or their other host of the moment would pour each person a reasonable glass of pure vodka at minus thirty degrees.
Vodka at that temperature hardly has any taste, and the folks were in a hurry to get out of that damned freezing cold, so they’d drink it down straight like it was water … then we’d take them back out into the balmy tropical night. They’d get about ten steps across the Askoy deck, maybe somebody would pull them onto the dance floor, maybe not, but in either case, a few steps later, the combination of the initial freezing cold wind, the vodka, and the subsequent heat would make their knees wobbly and their eyeballs jiggle, and the Askoy Freezer Party got just that much merrier. The Yacht Club Bar eventually closed, and the bar guys and the Club office ladies joined the party. People kept arriving. Big Jenny showed up at three AM and shouted “Am I late?”
“No, party just starting, girl!” We took her into the freezer and gave her a double shot, and indeed the party restarted when she came back out.
I’ve not been to too many parties like that one. Rumor had it that it resulted in one marriage and a couple of divorces. Both a wallet and a set of eyeglasses committed suicide by jumping into the Suva Harbour sometime during the night.The amount of debris on the deck and the dance floor was overwhelming. And me, I proved it was a magical party. By the end of the night I was so drunk that shortly before dawn I went to sleep on a nice, soft pile of rope I’d discovered up front near the bow of the boat. It was covered by some gunny sacks, and I nestled in and got comfortable and was gone.
When I woke up, though, I sadly concluded that some ungrateful bastard must’ve replaced the rope while I was sleeping, because I found I was nestled on the usual pile of Askoy anchor chain … in its usual spot up in the bow … covered up as always with dirty gunny sacks …
Sleeping on chain, I found out, makes a man say very bad words upon awakening. If you are given an alternative mattress choice, say a bed of nails, or a small barnyard stall with two chickens and a rabid goat, I’d advise taking it. Plus it seemed that the entire Fijian mosquito tribe had taken advantage of the party to do some in-flight refueling. My body was royally whupped in the morning, big anchor chain marks and dents in my hips and side, covered in mosquito bites.
But I didn’t care a bit. The freezer was done, the icy blast off the evaporator was at minus fifty, the vodka had been at minus thirty to forty all night long, the party was a success, and my gorgeous ex-fiancée and I had danced away the night.
And that’s all there is to my refrigeration credentials. Well, except for several times after that, when I made money fixing various non-operating sailboat refrigeration systems.
Regards to everyone,
w.

Robert Clemenzi says: I was taught that a governor is a mechanical device the provides negative feedback. Are you claiming that that is not correct?
I would say that a governor is a mechanical device that uses feedback to govern (control) a system. But all this is getting to be knit-picking semantics.
I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about a governor while saying feedbacks are not involved.
Storms: initial feedback to temperature rise : increased evaporation (negative). Water vapour plus air is lighter and rises. Draws in more air to replace it which causes more evaporation, wind, which causes spray droplets and more evap. ie a positive f/b that increases the magnitude of the negative f/b.
Since this +ve does not turn into an explosive chain reaction there must be some further neg. f/b that limits it. This will be viscous drag in both air and sea water that ultimately limits wind speed and wave height.
So self-amplifying neg f/b all wrapped up in neg. f/b envelop.
Now knowing how horribly complex fluid dynamics gets when you try to write it down as an equation, I don’t know what the chances of anyone correctly modelling one thunderstorm would be, let alone the whole tropical climate system.
Maybe by the latter half of the century maths and processing power will be sufficient to do it if society has not fallen apart for some other reason by then.
One thing is for sure , we will have stopped worrying about climate change long before we manage to model it from first principals. A fools errand IMHO.
Willis,
“The threshold for refrigerator formation is based on surface temperature, not on CO2.”
.
The threshold has nothing to do with CO2 or other GHG’s; it is a temperature difference (surface temperature compared to the temperature of the air above), not strictly a surface temperature which sets the threshold for convection. If the air above is slightly warmer, then the surface has to be slightly warmer for convective transport to get going. The primary effect of GHG’s (absent any potential feedbacks) is to raise the average temperature of the entire troposphere by restricting radiative loss to space from well above the surface (mainly in the upper troposphere). The convective processes of thunderstorms (of course) act as you say, cooling any area which warms too much… but ‘too much’ is always relative to the temperature of the air aloft, not relative to some absolute temperature. Warmer air aloft means a warmer (on average) surface temperature.
How could anybody possibly write any computer program that dealt with a rotating sphere with a tilted axis traversing a elliptical orbit, which is possibly not even reproducible due to orbits of other spheres gravity, having a variable period over it’s surfaces over time, subject to varying energy inputs, especially unknown magnetic effects, moderated by chaotic variable cloud induced albedo changes, including energy “trapped” by conversion to unknown quantities of mass through photosynthesis and including unmeasurable mechanical work through wind action ?
The shear complexity is stupendous and will likely never be solvable.
“settled science” – BS.
Here, Willis, this is up your street. From you endless travels, are you aware of anything similar to what the Aussies call Morning Glory waves anywhere else in the world?
http://www.dropbears.com/m/morning_glory/linkpage.htm
Steve, convection is caused by temp. relative to surrounding air , not air aloft. Hot air goes up the chimney because the air in the room is denser, not because of what is happening on the roof.
I thought climate science tells us that –
1. The major constituents of air are transparent to IR. Some even claim they do not radiate.
2. Most of the IR escaping to space is due to GHGs.
If these are true then climate science is a no-brainer.
99% of air cannot be heated by IR and cannot be cooled by IR – only GHGs can.
Therefore it is difficult to see why increasing the concentration of the only things that can radiate to space will not increase the cooling.
There are gaps in radiation theory.
I always find the visible radiation from “Cyalume” sticks interesting – you know the ones used in emergency where you break the glass inner tube and the chemicals mix emitting green light – a significant amount of light for quite a long time.
This occurs without generating any significant heat yet green visible light is associated with very high temperatures according to Wien’s displacement law.
Can someone give some explanation about this ?
Robert Clemenzi
“I was taught that a governor is a mechanical device the provides negative feedback. “
I think this is degenerating into semantics, I’m an electronics technician, (not an engineer) and know as much about feedback, positive or negative, as any other techie.
To me a governor on a steam engine is NOT controlling the speed by “feedback” it simply increases or decreases the the flow of steam. In other words controls a valve.
What does it feed back?
As I said, it boils down to semantics.
joeldshore asks about energy transferred up through a cloud.
Temperature is not the ONLY thing that affects radiation. For instance, water vapor radiates in only a part of the spectrum and cloud drops use all the spectrum. Therefore, cold cloud tops radiate more energy than water vapor at the same temperature. When you include the increased albedo from the clouds, the total energy to space by cold clouds could be more than expected if there were no clouds at all.
When forming, cloud tops tend to be warmer than the surrounding air (due to the heat of condensation). As they dissipate, they will be colder (because the droplets are evaporating due to the low humidity).
“What does it feed back?”
Sorry I should have said “what feed back ?”
Geg Goodman,
Convection is always due to differences in density, of course. But please consider what would happen if the if the air outside the top of the chimney was less dense than the air in the chimney. Would convection up the chimney continue under those circumstances? Warming of the upper troposphere pretty much has to translate into some warming at the surface; how much surface warming takes place for a specified warming in the upper troposphere is a subject of legitimate debate. The satellite data suggest that the warming aloft is less than warming near the surfaces (the TMT trend is consistently less than the TLT trend), which indicates that the GCM’s have serious problems with tropospheric transport, and maybe some other factors as well, since they consistently predict greater warming aloft than near the surface. That doesn’t mean warming aloft (and near the surface!) has not happened; it clearly has. (http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html)
As I have said many times- We live in a big swamp cooler.
Willis,
I don’t know which of the two following quotes was the best:
“Sleeping on chain, I found out, makes a man say very bad words upon awakening. If you are given an alternative mattress choice, say a bed of nails, or a small barnyard stall with two chickens and a rabid goat, I’d advise taking it. Plus it seemed that the entire Fijian mosquito tribe had taken advantage of the party to do some in-flight refueling. My body was royally whupped in the morning, big anchor chain marks and dents in my hips and side, covered in mosquito bites.”
ROTFLMPO
Or, “WARNING—this post is a 50/50 mixture of science and autobiography, call it autosciography. If that makes your brain explode, DO NOT push the button marked “Continue reading →”.
You have wonderful talent in explaining complex systems. I wish I were able to force upon this nation your installation as “Primary Science Adviser” for certain and varying fields. This explanation of TStorms and refrigeration gave me no insight, but it DID give me an appreciation for the way this type of subject can be presented.
Kudos.
… and thanks… I will save this and hopefully be presenting it to some folks I know.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
The reason that the TMT trend is smaller than the TLT trend is because those channels actually measure over a fairly broad range of altitudes and, in particular, the TMT is measured from the T_2 channel which has a significant tail into the stratosphere ( http://www.rtcc.org/2007/html/images/pictures/res/space/noaa_2_large.gif ) where, over the past 35 years, the temperatures have cooled at a steeper rate than they have warmed in the troposphere.
Robert Clemenzi says:
The first part of what you said here is right, but you forget something that makes the second part of what you say incorrect: By Kirchhoff’s Laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation ), an object that is a better emitter at a certain wavelength is also a better absorber.
So, no, at the end of the day, colder clouds don’t radiate more energy to space than if there are no clouds. What you have at the end of the day is that the amount of emission you see from the earth at a certain frequency is a (weighted) average of the temperature (really, T^4) over the range of heights where the radiation emitted can successfully escape to space without being absorbed again. Hence, in places with high cloud tops, the emission comes mainly from those high…and hence cold…cloud tops and is less. In places with no clouds and at frequencies where the greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, …) are not good absorbers, you have the emission coming mainly from the Earth’s surface…where it is warmer and hence the emission is greater. This is how an IR satellite shows the clouds…The clear regions with greater emission show up as blacker and the cloudy regions, particularly those with high clouds, where the temperatures are coldest have lesser emission and show up as white.
As an addendum to my last post, here is emission from the Earth as seen by satellites, with blackbody emission curves for various temperatures also shown: http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg At any particular wavelength, the temperature of the blackbody curve at that radiance represents the weighted average temperature of the region of the atmosphere from which the radiation that successfully escaped to space was emitted.
Very good article, Willis. It will have links from your “Thermostat Hypothesis” pages in ARVAL.
Another wonderful story.
However, for me your theory, Willis, raises a question. Based on my experience living elsewhere I agree with your theory that thunderstorms function as a refrigeration system. However, here in Toronto, it seems that most of the time the temperature and humidity are increased following a summer thunderstorm. On a hot, sticky summer day it is a supremely disappointing phenomenon. Would anyone here know why that would be the case? I suppose it could just be due to the movement of weather fronts.
Re. “feed back”.
Feel as I’m teaching my grandma how to suck eggs in this company of self confessed engineers but here goes.
Take two electronic examples both achieving the same outcome, and tell me which is using Feedback?
We have an automatic level control, monitoring the output of the last stage of an amplifier by taking a small amount of the output signal, rectifying it, and if it’s over a set level feeds this control signal back to the appropriate stage and reduces the gain, the level goes down, same in the opposite direction.
Second set-up we have a rheostat (potentiometer) directly in line with the output signal. Hypothetically we rig up some sort of crude mechanism that turns the rheostat forward or back as required thus controlling the output.
Would you say that the second set-up is using feedback?
Willis, I’m not quite sure where you want to go with this. I think we are both agreed that this phenomenon cannot be explained by a simple linear feedback term. But I’m not sure that “control system” or “governor” is the best way to name the alternative.
The notebook computer I am writing this on has a heat pipe to cool the processor. When I turn on the computer, this heat pipe does not provide much cooling and the processor heats up quickly. The temperature rise is rapid until the processor gets hot enough to start boiling off the water in the heat pipe, which rapidly carries away heat to the external “universe” where the water is condensed and flows back to the processor to complete the cycle. Even though this employs only one of the cooling mechanisms of a thunderstorm, it is a pretty good analogy for the cooling mechanism that thunderstorms provide.
For me, the key in both cases is that at a certain temperature threshold, a new and much more potent cooling mechanisim kicks in, strong enough to effectively cap the temperature rise of the system in question. Looking at both regimes, this is a strongly non-linear feedback effect. I would explain it in terms of it providing a saturation effect. That is, after a certain point, additional energetic inputs do not cause any additional increase in temperature.
(I would also state the essential lack of CO2 effect somewhat differently. I would say that even if additional CO2 inhibited radiative loss in the mornings, causing more retained heat and a faster temperature rise, all this would do is slightly bring forward the time of day at which the secondary loss mechanism — the thunderstorm — kicked in, capping the temperature.)
I am inclined to believe that you are onto something significant with your thunderstorm hypothesis, that the formation of these storms puts a pretty hard upper limit on tropical temperatures.
But is it appropriate to call it a “control system” or “governor”? I don’t really think so. For most people, these terms imply deliberate engineering, and response to some sort of set point, and these things don’t exist here. This may be just a semantic quibble, but semantics can be important in getting a point across properly. To me, control systems employ feedback to make the state of a system match a desired state. I think you will always get a lot of pushback from people who at least intuitively consider a control system to imply design.
So anyway, I would explain your argument as having identified a strongly non-linear increasing negative feedback that creates a saturation capping the possible temperature that can be achieved. I am certainly open to your arguments as to why it should be considered a control system or a governor.
joeldshore says:
March 12, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Mmm … models.
Thanks, Joel. You raise a couple of issues. However, I’m not sure they can be answered. Let me give an example. Suppose we have two adjacent ocean gridcells that are the same temperature. One has say ten hotspots, each with it’s own refrigerator. The other has a hundred hotspots, each one with a refrigerator.
If you are “accounting” for these two situations, what would it look like when it was “properly accounting for”? The temperatures are the same. The throughput is totally different. How can the model account for that?
Next, you seem to assume that the incoming radiation is somehow fixed. For example, you seem to think there will be “extra energy” when CO2 increases, and that this perforce must raise the temperature … but that may not be the case at all. It may be compensated for by a reduction in incoming solar energy. A change in albedo from 0.3 to 0.31 is enough to offset a doubling of CO2 …
Next, you seem to think that the models would be able to determine the difference. But they can’t even model the surface temperature to within a degree, so I fear such precision is not available at the moment.
Finally, you seem to be ignoring the possibility of more throughput rather than increased temperature. Consider for example the areas of the ocean that do not exceed a certain temperature. When more energy strikes the surface there, it doesn’t raise the temperature. Instead, it just increases the throughput of the system, the rate at which it is moving energy through the system.
Like others, you seem totally unclear about the difference between a simple linear feedback (whether positive or negative) and a governor. You claim above that a strong negative lapse rate feedback is a governor, an interesting idea but not one I can really get hold of. Feedbacks and governors have different names for a reason.
w.
Dear Willis,
I do like your theories and I see a lot that makes sense. However, if the thermostats automatically appear at certain temperatures and humidity, how come there is so much temperature difference across the globe? Comparing two equally humid areas with different temperatures (say, England and some tropical rain forest), something prevents the thermostats from completely controlling the higher temperature area to go down to the lower temperature area’s temperature.
Is it that the thermostats only start working above some critical temperature? In that case, the colder places (England in the example) could still experience significant warming up to this critical temperature.
Or is it that the thermostats can only do a limited amount of cooling? In that case, both places could still experience significant warming, despite the thermostats.
Maybe I missed something, but I would say the amount of thermo-regulation of the thermostats is rather limited, which would undermine your conclusions 1, 8, 9 and 10.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 13, 2013 at 12:16 am
joeldshore says:
March 12, 2013 at 12:46 pm
“Like others, you seem totally unclear about the difference between a simple linear feedback (whether positive or negative) and a governor.”
I seem to be having a problem with this, too. The JW type governor for example “detects” an unwanted amount of output and operates to reduce it (steam pressure). It is impotent, however, to deal with a reducing input of energy into the system which causes the system to slow, and at the extreme, stop (I suppose you could have a governor that would react to stoke up the fire in this case if you wanted to stretch the idea). Now your “governor” is a very fine metaphor and I like it very much,but, like all metaphors it has a limitation and defending it to the death, I believe, mars it. In the climate case, you have an input that automatically sets up conditions to mitigate itself – both ways – too hot, it builds a refrigerator, too cold, the refrigerator goes away and lets things warm up. Now I know, unlike the steam example, that the sun is a more or less constantly stoked fuel so the engine won’t quit and this makes the metaphor a good one, but it is also the definition, of a negative feedback (positive feedbacks – like the series electrical motor, I believe are not as important in climate, precisely because your overriding negative feedback “governor” keeps us in the zone more or less in the zone (within 3% as you say. Sheesh, semantics is a waking nightmare.
Having gotten that safely out of the way(?), I’m surprised that you haven’t applied the governor metaphor to the thunderstorm’s big sister – the hurricane – in the kind of detail it has been applied to the thunderstorm. It cleans up the big hot spots in essentially the same way.
Curt says:I am inclined to believe that you are onto something significant with your thunderstorm hypothesis, that the formation of these storms puts a pretty hard upper limit on tropical temperatures.
===
I think that was what was shown in Willis’ look at ARGO data last year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/
What that data does not seem to show is a similar regulation of negative swings, so I’m not sure how far the idea of a governor can be applied.
During cold periods less storms can allow greater solar energy to hit the ocean but once the sky is clear it can help no more. The control mechanism hits the end stop. Maybe another process limits the negative excursions.
If tropics clamp the upper limit maybe poles control the cold end. Increasing ice cover area prevents most upward IR, evaporational losses. A couple of km of ice provides pretty good insulation and the only part of the planet not covered is the topics where the heat comes in.
Cryosat2 data is leading to the first recognition of a negative feedback in the Arctic, rather than the alarmists favourite “tipping point” positive feedback.
Maybe that’s why we see a bistable system, swinging between glaciation and interglacials.
As Willis has pointed out, tropical storms can provide very fast ( on an hourly scale ) response to input variations. Changes in polar ice cover take several years to build up a significant change. Though, as Alley found in Greenland core, even major swings like de-glaciation can happen in just a few decades.
Bistable systems usually indicate some kind of positive feedback at work, constrained by a more powerful negative feedback to keep the whole thing long term stable.
A combination of negative and positive feedback provided hysteresis, the latching to one extreme or the other. Positive feedbacks can also explain emergent phenomena mushrooming out of what seems like insignificant variations.
joeldshore,
“The reason that the TMT trend is smaller than the TLT trend is because those channels actually measure over a fairly broad range of altitudes and, in particular, the TMT is measured from the T_2 channel which has a significant tail into the stratosphere”
There is some overlap; it is in the range of 10%-15% contamination of TMT with the lower stratosphere trend. But even taking that into account (adding 15% of the inverse of lower stratospheric trend to the TMT trend, or about +0.045C per decade) the adjusted TMT trend (~0.124C per decade) is still below that of the TLT (0.131C per decade), while the models predict warming in the mid troposphere that is >20% higher than in the lower troposphere. The models do appear unable to match the best available tropospheric profile data, which indicates they do not properly handle tropospheric heat transport. The discrepancy of the TMT with the model projected surface trend (rather than TLT) is even greater.
Greg Goodman says: “Bistable systems usually indicate some kind of positive feedback at work, constrained by a more powerful negative feedback to keep the whole thing long term stable.”
I tend to agree. I am certainly not the first engineer to look at the Vostok core data and see the action of Schmitt trigger. This is an externally digital circuit whose analog innards use positive feedback around an op-amp to drive the output quickly from low to high or back. There is significant hysteresis on the input to prevent a noise spike from causing an output transition.
During a transition, the internal positive feedback dominates the effect. Once the transition starts, the output goes very quickly to the opposite “rail”. But as the high or low voltage “rail” is hit, this effect is saturated and the negative feedback that stabilizes the power supply is now the dominant effect.
In the glacial/interglacial transitions, the ice-snow/albedo feedback certainly could be a prominent positive feedback. Possibly, changes in water vapor and CO2 concentration and the resultant IR trapping changes could be significant as well.
But as the world warms coming out of a glacial period, the strength of the ice-snow/albedo positive feedback weakens. Certainly, the effect is much stronger when glaciers are at 45N latitude than at 75N. I’ve often thought that the transition stops (repeatedly!) at the point where it does – it could go further, of course – because this feedback weakens so much that it is reduced to insignificance.
At the tropical end, a mechanism such as Willis’ “thunderstorm hypothesis” could put a clamp on the tropical temperatures as well when the world gets to about present conditions.
An interesting source of hysteresis in these transitions comes from the height of continental glaciers. What falls as snow on the top of these glaciers at about a kilometer of elevation would turn to rain by the time it hit the ground underneath if the glacier weren’t there. I have seen calculations that concluded that if you could remove the Greenland glacier, it would not regrow under present conditions because it would melt each summer before it could build up the height to stay frozen.