Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I have theorized that the reflective nature of the tropical clouds, in particular those of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) just above the equator, functions as the “throttle” on the global climate engine. We’re all familiar with what a throttle does, because the gas pedal on your car controls the throttle. The throttle on any heat engine controls the running conditions by limiting (throttling) the amount of incoming energy.
Similarly, in the climate heat engine, the throttle is the tropical albedo (reflectivity). The tropical albedo controls how much incoming solar energy is rejected back to space at the hot end of the heat engine. In other words, the albedo throttles the incoming energy to control the entire system.
I have further said that the tropical albedo is a threshold-based and extremely non-linear function of the temperature. So I thought I’d use the CERES satellite data to take a look at how strong this climate throttle is in watts per square metre (W/m2), and exactly where the throttle is located. If such a throttle exists, one of its characteristic features would be that the amount of solar energy reflected must increase with increasing temperature. Figure 1 shows the results of that analysis.
Figure 1. Average change in reflected solar from a 1° increase in surface temperature. Red areas show greater reflection with increasing temperature. The change in reflected energy is calculated on a per-gridcell basis as the change in albedo per 1° temperature increase for that gridcell, times the average solar radiation for that gridcell. Gray line shows zero change in albedo with temperature. Dotted lines show the tropics (23.45°N/S) and the Arctic/Antarctic circles (66.55°N/S).
Clearly, then, such a throttle mechanism exists. It is also where we would expect to find it, located near the Equator where the maximum energy is entering the system. On average, the throttle operates in the areas enclosed by the gray line. I was surprised by the strength of the mechanism, however. There are large areas (red) where a one degree C warming in temperature increases the solar reflection by 10 W/m2 or more. Obviously, this thermostatically controlled throttle would be a factor in explaining the observations of a hard upper open ocean temperature of about 30°C.
The throttle mechanism is operating over much of the tropical oceans and even some parts of the tropical land. It is strongest in the ITCZ, which runs below the Equator in the Indian Ocean and over Africa, and above the Equator in the Pacific and Atlantic.
Next, it is worth noting that overall the effect of temperature on solar reflections is about zero (global area-weighted average is -1.5 W/m2 per degree, which is smaller than the uncertainty in the data). In addition, large areas of both the land and the ocean in the extra-tropics are quite similar, in that they are all just slightly negative (light orange). This is another indication that we have a thermoregulatory system at work. Since over much of the planetary surface the albedo is relatively insensitive to changes in temperature, small changes in temperature in the tropics can have a large effect on the amount of energy that is entering the system. Figure 2 shows the relationship (land only) between absolute temperature in °C, and the change in reflected energy per degree of warming.
Figure 2. Change in reflected solar (W/m2 per °C) versus absolute surface temperature (°C) over the land. Note that where the annual temperature averages below freezing (0°C), there is little variation in surface reflection with temperature. From freezing to about 20°C, the amount reflected is generally dropping as temperatures increase. Above about 20°C, there are two kinds of responses—sizeable increases or sizeable decreases in reflected solar with temperature.
Next, over the oceans the areas near the poles show the reverse of the behavior in the tropics. While the tropical albedo changes cool the tropics, near the poles as the surface warms, the albedo and the reflected sunshine decreases with increasing temperatures.
Figure 3. Change in reflected solar (W/m2 per °C) versus absolute surface temperature (°C) over the ocean, annual averages. Where the annual temperature averages near freezing, there is strong negative variation in surface reflection with temperature. From freezing to about 20°C, the variation is stable and slightly negative. Above about 20°C, there are two kinds of responses—sizeable increases or sizeable decreases in reflected solar with temperature, up to the hard limit at 30°C
What this means is that in addition to limiting overall energy input to the entire system, the temperature-related albedo-mediated changes in reflected sunlight tend to make the tropics cooler, and the poles warmer, than they would be otherwise. Clearly this would tend to limit the overall temperature swings of the planet.
Finally, the use of monthly averages obscures an important point, which is that the changes in tropical albedo occur on the time scale of minutes, not months. And on a daily scale, there is no overall 10 W/m2 per degree of temperature change. Instead, up to a certain time of day there are no clouds, and the full energy of the sun is entering the system. During that time, there is basically no change in tropical albedo with increasing temperature.
Then, on average around 11 am, within a half hour or so the albedo takes a huge jump as the cumulus clouds emerge and form a fully-developed cumulus regime. This makes a step change in the albedo, and can even drive the temperature down despite increasing solar forcing, as I showed here, here, here, here, and here
From this we see that the thermal regulation of tropical albedo is occurring via changes in the time of the daily onset and the strength of the cumulus/cumulonimbus regime. The hotter the surface on that day, the earlier the cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds will form, and the more of them there will be. This reduces the amount of energy entering the system by hundreds of watts per square metre. And on the other hand, during cooler days, cumulus form later in the day, cumulonimbus may not form at all, and there are fewer clouds. This increases the energy entering the system by hundreds of W/m2.
I bring this up to emphasize that the system is not applying an average throttle of e.g. 10 W/m2 over the average area where the throttle operates.
Instead, it is applying a much larger throttle, of a couple hundred watts/square metre, but it is only applying the throttle as and where it is needed in order to cool down local hot-spots, or to warm up local cold spots. As a result, the averages are misleading.
The final reason that it is important to understand that the albedo changes are HOURLY changes, not monthly average changes, is that what rules the system are instantaneous conditions controlling cloud emergence, not average conditions. Clouds do not form based on how much forcing there is, whether the forcing is from solar or CO2 or volcanoes. They form only when the temperatures are high enough.
And this means that things won’t change much if the forcing changes … because the cloud emergence thresholds are temperature-based, and not forcing-based.
I hold that this immediate response is the main reason that it is so hard to find e.g. a solar signal in the temperature record—because the thermoregulation is temperature based, not forcing based, and thus operates regardless of changes in forcing.
This is also the reason that volcanoes make so little difference in the global temperature—because the system responds immediately to cooling temperatures by reducing albedo, opening the thermostatically controlled-throttle to allow the entry of hundreds of extra W/m2 to counteract the drop in temperature.
There is plenty more to mine from the CERES dataset, and although I’ve mined some of it, I still haven’t done lots of things with it—an analysis of the efficiency of the climate heat engine, for example. However, I think this clear demonstration of the existence of a temperature-regulated throttle controlling the amount of energy entering the climate system is important enough to merit a post on its own.
Best regards to all on a sunny December day,
w.
http://imageshack.us/a/img109/1479/lq2.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img856/1999/01u6.gif
Credits: JRA-25 Atlas, ERA-40 Atlas, Australian Department of Defence, GlobWave Project
markstoval
The real unanswered question is what causes an interglacial period of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years and what causes a return to the glacial periods within the present ice age. Other than this oscillation between glacial and interglacial, all other questions pale in comparison.
Fred Hoyle hypothesised that the catalyst for abrupt transition to interglacials is a large ocean asteroid strike – vast amounts of sea water would be evaporated, causing a burst of global warming. No idea whether this theory is still current though.
Could precipitation alone serve as a reasonably good proxy for albedo and vertical transfer of latent heat?
Paul Vaughan says: December 29, 2013 at 5:57 am
http://imageshack.us/a/img856/1999/01u6.gif
Judging by the seasonal swing in peak wave heights from the Arctic region region in the NH winter to the Antarctic region in the SH winter, one must question the global warming meme that warming will result in more storms and wilder weather.
Willis, you have long since convinced me that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be low, perhaps 0.4 C or so.
Your very original work is outstanding! Thanks!
A Question Willis!
You showed us in an earlier article the distribution of SST observations where there seems to be a “wall” at max 30 C. To me I interpret this as a passed threshold and what the cloud feedback max allows SST to reach. Any objections?
PS Love your articles
“Clouds do not form based on how much forcing there is, whether the forcing is from solar or CO2 or volcanoes. They form only when the temperatures are high enough.”
Clouds form where the air mass has cooled, or the water vapour has increased. There are a number of ways other than convection where air masses get lifted and cool to the dew point. Cloud formation around the 50th parallels is greatly effected by atmospheric circulation, which is turn effected by solar forcing on the AO and NAO:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713005802
High values of global cloud cover is associated with low global temperatures.
How much of the albedo effect is negated by the night time insulative property of increased cloud cover?
This throttle is likely more potent than just albedo, owing to Lindzen’s adaptive iris hypothesis. Those clouds at higher energy/temp/evaporation lead to afternoon T storms, whose precipitation transfers latent heat high where it can radiate away, and which lowers specific humidity in the upper troposphere, whichnis why the ‘modeled’ constant UTrH was not observed over the warming decades. All very consistent with yours Ceres analysis, just additional throttle mechanisms.
Note that since AR4 and AR5 both say coulda are not well modeled, and therefore cloud feedback is very uncertain (despite the experimentally unsupported AR 5 conclusion that cloud feedbackmis likely positive [when available data plus your analysis suggest it is negative in the all important tropics]). There the IPCC admits that your throttle is not modeled by the coupled GCMs. Which explains in part why they run hot and have observationally about twice the likely ECS.
Willis,
Radiative changes are too weak to cause the effect – its much more likely to be a function of convection than radiation. As someone has mentioned above, the extremely strong convection in cumulonimbus clouds exactly matches your proposed throttle mechanism.
Said it before and will say it again. What the clouds do in the equatorial belt (allowing in or reflecting away SWIR into the equatorial ocean) is likely an important metric to both measure and model as a way of projecting future global temperature trends. Finding the time lag between equatorial (ie smoothed oceanic/atmospheric cloud-controlled surface irradiance weather pattern variation trends and subsequent land-based weather pattern variation trends may hold the key that unlocks global temperature trend being a function of natural variation with little to do with anthropogenic CO2. And indeed, solar amplification. If I were to coin a phrase about solar input it would be this: Earth variably and powerfully dampens solar input whether it varies or not. There is no mechanism whereby Earth amplifies solar variation.
Seems to me this could be an important mechanism by which Milankovitch cycles work and why the annual cycle for the NH (more land) is more pronounced than the SH (more ocean). Note the difference in response to 1C increase between land and ocean and between NH and SH.
My dream: Deploy a raft of anchored equatorial solar irradiance buoys around the globe’s middle. This measure alone should solve our modeled projection dilemma. The amount of heat that goes into the oceans will follow known pathways and will be belched up so many years later to affect land temperatures and weather pattern variations and shifts. Fire all the CO2 nuts and cut off all the CO2 grants and alternative energy subsidies and redirect all that money into these buoys and the scientific staff needed to deal with the data. Put the left over money into paying down the debt caused by the CO2 nuts who now sit in jail. Round up the solar nuts and make then read a basic text on solar science.
Freeman Dyson said we understand fluids but clouds are not fluids. Does the albedo of the clouds depend, upper surface shape ,droplet size, density of droplets , thickness of clouds?
It appears to me that cloud formation typifies chaos theory.
I would suggest that cloud formation may occur over 10-15 minutes. I cannot see GCMs operating on 10 minute time scales!
Great Post Willis!
Thanks Willis. Good article. The Thermostat Hypothesis gets more corroboration.
I will add another link to http://www.oarval.org/ThermostatBW.htm and the Spanish translation.
Greg says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:42 am
Thanks, Greg. The oddity is that we see such a clear signal in the stratosphere, but almost nothing at the global average temperature level. I say that this is because of the counter-effect of decreased clouds when the temperature is lower, which returns the temperature to its previous value quite quickly.
w.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 29, 2013 at 5:51 am
Lovely and very informative graphics, Paul. Do you have the code that created them?
Thanks,
w.
I have been involved in high altitude balloons and have noted a variability in global upper atmospheric temperatures. The Standard Atmospheric temperature curve is an on average plot. It is well known that the global troposphere is very cold (-60 to -80 deg C). And depending on where one launches a balloon and in spite of the Std Atmos plot, the temperature varies quite a bit. When our balloon instrumentation packages are passing through the trop, they could actually “freeze” and stop working unless we consider the thermal issues. Large NASA high altitude balloons are commonly launched from Alice Springs, Australia and Fort Sumner, NM. From Fig 1 is seems that Alice is slightly within the gray banded area and Ft. Sumner is well outside the gray area. Trop temps at Alice are some of the lowest I have noticed at -80 C while Ft. Sumner and NM in general varies from -50 to -60 C.
I wonder if it would be possible to obtain trop temps, inside and outside the gray banded regions and see if there is any correlation between the trop temps in the gray and non gray regions? Standard weather balloon flights usually pass through the trop but there aren’t many launch sites in the ocean regions.
I have no idea what it might prove other than, if there is correlation there then we might have one more piece of the complex thermodynamic puzzle figured out. Just another question in the long list of questions in what is claimed to be a settled issue.
markx says: A most beautiful rendition of wind currents on the earth:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=110.77,2.94,256
It reveals the huge effect the landmasses have on airflows around the earth.
Thanks, an excellent animation!
However, I would say that it shows the huge effect the oceans have on airflows, not land.
In fact, the way I read that is that winds are pretty much due to SST driven patterns, far more than Coriolis. Lands is there wind goes afterwards.
Rob Dawg says:
December 29, 2013 at 7:16 am
Good question, Rob. Typically, during the day in the tropics a cloud reflects hundreds of watts per sq. metre, while it increases the downwelling LW by about 40 W/m2. Check out the links in the head post regarding the TAO buoy data, it’s in there.
w.
Duster says: @ur momisugly December 29, 2013 at 12:48 am
… I would suggest that it is arguable that CO2 was selected as the “keystone” for these models, not because it was clearly important, but instead, because it was the “easiest” element to model that had well understood physical properties….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me correct that sentence for you:
I would suggest that it is arguable that CO2 was selected as the “keystone” for these models, not because it was clearly important, but instead, because it was the “easiest” element to
model that had well understood physical propertiesTAX.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Willis, Great post.
Some years ago when you came up with your thermostat theory, I took a quick look at the rain from Florida to North Carolina during the summer and found the data supported your theory.
Afternoon thunderstorms go from forming about 3/4 of the time in Florida to about 1/3 the time in southern North Carolina. They become sporadic when you hit Fayetteville NC.
I did this based on the memory of having to drive through an afternoon gully-washing thunderstorm at 4:00 pm every day when I lived in Columbia SC. (At least it was often enough to seem to be every day.)
Be interesting to see if the time those thunderstorms move in varies with latitude since it take longer to reach the threshold temperature.
Rud Istvan says:
December 29, 2013 at 7:21 am
Thanks, Rud. The hypothesis of Lindzen also involves albedo, but of a different kind (high thing clouds instead of cumulus. But the measurements made by the CERES dataset make no differentiation between the two, so both will be shown in the graph above.
Regards,
w.
John A says:
December 29, 2013 at 7:27 am
Sorry, John, but that’s not clear. What is “the effect” of which you speak, and how is it a function of convection? My hypothesis is that the changes in tropical albedo are caused by clouds … do you disagree?
w.
Thanks Willis, another great post.