The Thermostatic Throttle

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.

changes in reflected solar per one degree increaseFigure 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.

change reflected solar energy over land per degree temp vs tempFigure 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.

change reflected solar energy over ocean per degree temp vs tempFigure 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 herehere,  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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
167 Comments
silver ralph
December 29, 2013 9:20 am

Very interesting, Willis.
What stage are we in at present? Are we in a cool-water-low-albedo phase, or a warm-water-high-albedo phase?
R

Greg
December 29, 2013 9:30 am

Willis: “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.”
I think the volcano stack plots show that you are basically correct in the tropics. Even degree.days product is maintained about 6 years out from eruptions. However, ex-tropics do take a hit. Temps come back up but there is a permanent loss of degree.days.
I have not split TLS by latitude, it would be worth doing. My guess is that post eruption drop in TLS reflects more incoming solar going into recharging tropical OHC and is probably contributing to the 1998 pulse and subsequent warmer global temps.
I’im not aware of any data going back to pre-sat era that could help on this but it seems that those two events actually “cleaned” the stratosphere. Whether it flushed out some anthro-pollution or just naturally occurring aerosols and condensation nuclei I have not looked into.
However, it does invite the question : to what degree to such stratospheric events could end up causing warming rather than the presumed cooling when the full decadal scale picture is examined.

Gail Combs
December 29, 2013 10:04 am

Eric Worrall says: December 29, 2013 at 6:09 am
….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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It might explain one but not the periodic repeats.
graph 1 and graph 2 a subsection of graph 1.
You might want to look into the closure of the Panama Isthmus link and the opening of Drake Passage. link

December 29, 2013 10:31 am

A number of years ago I asked why the climate models all used equilibrium equations and broad averages. One only has to look outside to see that weather and the climate act pretty much instantaneously on a very localized, non-equlibrium basis. What clouds are ever in equilibrium? The idea got roundly blasted and dumped in their borehole. Never went back again.
Thanks Willis for tweaking out a real scientific idea from the data that has been so misused in the past.

mbur
December 29, 2013 10:36 am

“Thermostatic Throttle”—–is that the control knob that no-one goes near,for fear of getting shocked?kinda reminds me of a corona discharge :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge
Thanks to the author and WUWT for the interesting posts,postings,essays,articles,stories,news items,links and comments.

Susan Corwin
December 29, 2013 10:38 am

So, if one were to have a huge continent covering a major portion of the equator,
          like say Pangaea, or Gondwana,
then one might expect the temperature to regulate somewhat higher
          causing very voluminous life
in spite of the sun being a bit weaker
          sort of like addressing the “faint young sun” problem?
And should that continent ever split or cover less of the equatorial region, one would expect a period of glaciation
          maybe like the Huronian glaciation,
          about 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago.
Why does this seem like a much better theoretical explanation of the historical record than do most of the current theories?

Curious George
December 29, 2013 10:45 am

Willis, thanks, it looks great. Could you please post a reference to data you used for this work? I am not familiar with the CERES project.
Happy New Year!

December 29, 2013 11:14 am

Clouds also act as a throttle to govern the rate of OLR to space. I have found there is a linear relationship between the amount of atmospheric precipitable water and the reduction of OLR at any location (the difference in radiation at skin surface temperature and outbound longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere). The coefficient of this linearity is relatively constant from the equator to the poles where the controlling factor (atmospheric water, ice, vapor) has extremes. This effect swamps any possible sensitivity to atmospheric CO2.

BigOil@KochIndusturies
December 29, 2013 11:27 am

Keep up the work and us folks Big Oil will not only keep not sending you a check, we will come after your money….
Yer pals at Big Oil

Bill H
December 29, 2013 11:34 am

In keeping with Willis’s heat engine hypothesis, what would happen when you stop up the exhaust. The Arctic regions are just that, the exhaust as the atmosphere is thinner and out going LWIR escapes more rapidly.
In an active solar cycle the equatorial regions will be less affected so the throttle will have little impact, but as lower energy input is placed into the system the amount of energy escaping will exceed that of the input until equilibrium is reached. During solar maxima the exhaust is stopped up so to speak and heat will build up due to the inefficiency of the motor at higher temp.
Maybe I’m just to simplistic but a plugged exhaust on my car sure makes it overheat.
Bill

Bill H
December 29, 2013 11:40 am

fhhaynie says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:14 am
Clouds also act as a throttle to govern the rate of OLR to space. I have found there is a linear relationship between the amount of atmospheric precipitable water and the reduction of OLR at any location (the difference in radiation at skin surface temperature and outbound longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere). The coefficient of this linearity is relatively constant from the equator to the poles where the controlling factor (atmospheric water, ice, vapor) has extremes. This effect swamps any possible sensitivity to atmospheric CO2.
======================================================
Interesting premise. Add to this the fact the molecular weight of CO2 does not allow for it to be well mixed and thus at earths surface it is greater. this fact alone should dismantle the CO2 meme as it removes CO2 from the parts of the atmosphere that would be required to create runaway heat.

donald penman
December 29, 2013 11:42 am

I have never thought that the equator having a more or less constant seasonal temperature requires an explanation, I don’t like analogies.The reason that we have ice at the poles of the Earth during some periods in earths history but not in others does require an explanation, logic would suggest that if this was down just to changes in earths orbit and inclination then we would see the pattern that we have seen in the last 5 million years constant throughout earths history,and we don’t. Why don’t we?

Gail Combs
December 29, 2013 11:49 am

Susan Corwin says: December 29, 2013 at 10:38 am
So, if one were to have a huge continent covering a major portion of the equator…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does make sense doesn’t it?
You have the position of land masses (not to mention mountains and rain shadows) that dictate ocean currents. Then you add in the information from Bob Tisdale on ENSO, trade winds and clouds and Willis’ information on clouds.
You can also add a bit about the sun (sorry Pam) and ocean Solar Radiation Intensity and Wavelengths at Various Ocean Depths and The oceans as a calorimeter – Nir Shaviv
And if you are really open you can add in a lunar component.
Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the Southern Hemisphere
Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides?
Now if they can figure out what causes Bond and Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) warming and cooling cycles (1450 year cycle plus or minus 500 years) SWAG – a lunar tide component maybe?

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
ABSTRACT
… A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing…..

There are a heck of a lot more possible influences on climate than just CO2 and the IPCC ignores most of them.

Bill H
December 29, 2013 11:52 am

“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.”
Willis this is why no model we have today will function with any certainty beyond about three hours. Using a bone hung from a tree as a weather predictor would be more accurate. If there is snow on the bone its snowing.. If there is water dripping from the bone its raining… Etc..
You have hit so many points with this post its amazing.. Excellent !!!

Box of Rocks
December 29, 2013 11:52 am

Bill H says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:34 am
In keeping with Willis’s heat engine hypothesis, what would happen when you stop up the exhaust. The Arctic regions are just that, the exhaust as the atmosphere is thinner and out going LWIR escapes more rapidly.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe the extent of ICE on the poles acts like a throttling device?
Would be interesting to see a calc on the amount of heat rejected by the poles and a graph of the yearly energy budget.

Gerald Kelleher
December 29, 2013 12:00 pm

Eric Worrall
Climate science is a lot of fun and spirited when comfortable with the astronomical principles and these Milankovitch cycles are way off the mark. Were you to assign the 82 degree rotational inclination of Uranus to the Earth while retaining its daily rotational 24 hour cycle and its 365 1/4 day orbital period,it would mean extending the Arctic/Antarctic circle to large areas of the Earth’s surface and almost to the Equator,in other words,the Earth would have a polar climate. This assumes a climate spectrum governed by the degree of inclination from zero degrees (Equatorial climate) to 90 degree inclination (polar climate).
There are two components to surface conditions,the daily rotational input which causes temperatures to rise and fall within a 24 hour period and the annual component which causes latitudinal variations in temperatures across an orbital period. The Earth has a largely Equatorial climate in that daily rotational influences are dominant up to the Arctic/Antarctic circles where orbital influences take over. Increasing the inclination of the Earth towards the polar end of the spectrum would mean widening the surface area exposed to polar conditions so that at 45 Degree inclination,the Arctic circle would extend down to New York. A shift towards the polar end of the spectrum does not mean a colder climate as it is more complicated than that,just as the length of time New would spend in polar darkness so would it experience more time in solar radiation,the global heat budget would be the same as today with a 23 1/2 degree inclination but the way it would be experienced would be conditioned by orbital rather than daily rotational influences.
Astronomically,global climate comes under a set of generalized rules regardless of distance from the Sun,atmospheric or surface condition such as the presence of oceans or not. Presently we are still subject to the inadequate ‘no tilt/no seasons’ ideology which is obscuring what is effectively an Equatorial climate (0 degrees) set off against a polar climate (90 degree inclination) as a spectrum. This deserves a thread on its own insofar as it represents a modification of variable axial inclination first proposed by Copernicus himself –
“To this circle, which goes through the middle of the signs, and to its plane, the equator and the earth’s axis must be understood to have a variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality of days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the
character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged.” Copernicus
Although it is a tough assignment,it is also an enjoyable one made easily with visualization tools both actual and animated.If the stakes are so high then everything has to be revisited including the original assertion of variable annual inclination.

Gail Combs
December 29, 2013 12:06 pm

donald penman says: December 29, 2013 at 11:42 am
…. we would see the pattern that we have seen in the last 5 million years constant throughout earths history,and we don’t. Why don’t we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again look into the closure of the Panama Isthmus link and the opening of Drake Passage. link
Those two events changed the ocean circulation patterns. Also look into Pangaea, or Gondwana as Susan Corwin suggested.

Gail Combs
December 29, 2013 12:19 pm

Gerald Kelleher says…
Do not forget there are actually three components.
The shape of the Earth’s orbit (roundness or eccentricity)
The tilt of its axis (obliquity) which you just explained
and the direction the axis points (precession)
This has a good animation link (click on arrow)

donald penman
December 29, 2013 12:27 pm

I have looked at past plate tectonics and we had periods when all the continents were on the poles and yet we had a warm ice free planet .How can I explain that? I think that the continents may have been at a lower elevation and the oceans less deep at this time.

Gerald Kelleher
December 29, 2013 12:35 pm

Willis
The maximum solar energy entering the Earth at any given time is determined by the ecliptic path of the planet and not the rotational line of the Equator.The Equator having the largest surface area across latitudes constantly passes through that ecliptic line for it makes no sense to say the Equator tilts towards and away from the Sun for clearly it does not ,neither do the poles or anywhere in between.
The best way to visualize the latitudinal variation in optimum energy input is through the unique inclination of Uranus where the rotational Equator of Uranus will run almost in line with the circle of illumination at the Solstice and receive little energy from the Sun whereas all the energy will be concentrated at the poles –

This is why a global polar climate is not necessarily colder but it would be extreme.
That Hubble time lapse footage is priceless for one specific reason – it demonstrates that aside from and in addition to daily rotation,all locations on the planet turn once to the central Sun as a component of the orbital motion of the planet.It is along that ecliptic line that the greatest energy to the Sun is received and not the daily rotational line of the Equator.

Bill H
December 29, 2013 12:39 pm

Box of Rocks says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:52 am
Maybe the extent of ICE on the poles acts like a throttling device?
Would be interesting to see a calc on the amount of heat rejected by the poles and a graph of the yearly energy budget.
========================================
Willis showed there was no rejection of heat in his article. What is not shown is the LWIR of heat being lost. Willis shows how the INPUT is being regulated. What I am suggesting is the output being unrestricted allows for the motor to run smoothly and when a restriction of heat is applied to these regions how it will slow the heat loss.
The surface storms a few years back broke up major amounts of ICE and increased LWIR loss. this of course after along time of slow warming. What is now occurring is a rapid rebound now that the excess heat is gone. The exhaust is flowing very well and now its time to close up a little to maintain heat.
Heating > warms oceans > flows to poles where it melts ice> once the ice buffer is reduced the LWIR is allowed out rapidly> Ice Returns to choke off the exhaust and slow heat escape> buffer rebuilds> heating resumes….. Repeat…

jim2
December 29, 2013 12:47 pm


Willis did another post on WUWT. I’m not sure why the cloud regulator isn’t getting the attention it deserves. The Earth as a heat engine is limited by this mechanism. The limit on SST sets the high temperature of the heat engine. That leaves the poles as the low temperature side of the engine. It may be that this fact makes the poles the driver – but it may be that the temperature variation at the poles isn’t enough to make a significant difference.

So, instead of the temperature of the tropical atmosphere just getting hotter and hotter, the time spent at the 31C limit would get longer every day as more CO2 accumulates. Sort of a duty cycle control (the time spent at the limit) sort of like a quadrac controlled by a RC circuit, with R variable, and a diac.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/26/seasonal-radiative-response/#comment-430391

Gerald Kelleher
December 29, 2013 12:55 pm

Gail
It may come across as too much too quickly but axial precession must go the same way as the ‘no tilt/no seasons’ perspective.
A person standing on the South pole experiences a single day/night cycle each year where 6 months of darkness follow roughly 6 months of daylight so to account for the polar day/night cycle the same rules of surface rotation must apply as those which cause the daily daylight/darkness cycle at habitable latitudes.
Rather than the old ’tilt towards and away from the Sun’ explanation or any of its variants to account for the polar day/night cycle,that location turns in a circle to the central Sun just as the rotational poles of Uranus is seen to do in the time lapse footage from the last posting.It is initially difficult to spot the orbital surface rotation to the central Sun in the East to West motion seen in the Hubble video because it has become so ingrained in the human mind about tilt and precession but effectively axial precession as it is presently understood has to go in order for the annual surface rotation of our planet to conceptually mesh with the daily surface rotation in defining climate.
It takes a of familiarity to discern that Uranus is not going through axial precession,the polar coordinates are simply being turned in a circle to the central Sun while maintaining a fixed orientation in space –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
Likewise the polar coordinates of the Earth turn in like manner to the central Sun indicative of a separate surface rotation,again,takes a bit of getting used to but an entirely different way to explain the seasons and climate.

Stevek
December 29, 2013 1:21 pm

I think some of these basic principals would be easy to test using using a type of cloud chamber and a source of light.