TAO And TAO Again

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Impelled by my restless curiosity, I’ve returned to the TAO buoy dataset to investigate a claim by Dr. Ramanathan of a “super-greenhouse” effect. The TAO buoys are a number of moored buoys located across the Pacific. The TAO data is available here.

TAO Buoy LocationsFigure 1. Locations of all of the sites of the TAO buoys, stretching from above Australia on the left, across the Pacific to off of South/Central America on the right.The buoys collect information on some 17 different variables. The graphic is from the data selection page linked to above. Solid blue squares show buoys which record the currently chosen variable (in this case SST). Empty blue squares show buoys which do not measure the current variable.

I am using the sites on the Equator itself because they have the widest variety of data, including rainfall, air temperature, sea surface temperature, pressure, winds, etc.

Now, here’s the statement by Dr. Ramanathan that I wanted to investigate:

The greenhouse effect in regions of convection operates as per classical ideas, that is, as the SST increases, the atmosphere traps the excess longwave energy emitted by the surface and reradiates it locally back to the ocean surface. The important departure from the classical picture is that the net (up minus down) fluxes at the surface and at the top-of-the atmosphere decrease with an increase in SST; that is, the surface and the surface-troposphere column lose the ability to radiate the excess energy to space. The cause of this super greenhouse effect at the surface is the rapid increase in the lower-troposphere humidity with SST; that of the column is due to a combination of increase in humidity in the entire column and increase in the lapse rate within the lower troposphere. The increase in the vertical distribution of humidity far exceeds that which can be attributed to the temperature dependence of saturation vapor pressure; that is, the tropospheric relative humidity is larger in convective regions.

The “convective regions” are the warmer tropical regions where convective thunderstorms are a frequent occurrence. And his claim is kind of logical, since evaporation is in part a function of temperature, with increasing temperature leading to increasing evaporation.

However, my own experience of living in the tropics led me to suspect that contrary to Ramanathan’s claim, the relative humidity (RH) would in fact be lower in the convective areas, and lower during the times of day when there are the most thunderstorms. I thought this for two reasons.

The first is my own experience of a couple of decades of working in these tropical regions. My observations are that before the afternoon thunderstorms come rolling in, the air is often “sticky” with moisture. After the thunderstorms, on the other hand, the air feels dryer. Anecdotal, I know, but I tend to trust my own experience over theory …

The other reason is that although there is a lot of moisture moving around during the thunderstorm regime, it’s mostly concentrated under and inside the thunderstorms, and that moist air is moving rapidly upwards to have the water wrung out of it by the thunderstorm. But in the much larger area in between the thunderstorms, you have dry descending air. This is air from which the water has been stripped by the thunderstorm through a combination of condensation and freezing.

And as a result, my expectation was opposite to that of Ramanatan—I expected that the more convection, the lower the relative humidity.

So, off to the data, with a few digressions along the way around and back. First, let’s look at sea surface temperatures. This is all two-minute data, that is to say the sea surface temperature (actually one metre below the surface) is recorded every two minutes.

TAO daily cycles SSTFigure 1. The daily average variations in sea surface temperature at eight equatorial Pacific TAO buoys.

Now, I’ve colored the data from light blue (coldest) to red (warmest). Note that this is also in order by location—the further west you go along the Equator in the Pacific, the warmer are the ocean temperatures. Note that the water temperatures rise evenly and fairly rapidly from early morning to a peak at about three pm. Then over the next sixteen hours or so, the ocean gradually cools down again.

There is kind of a subtle oddity in the daily variations. This is that the warmer the ocean overall, the less daily variation there is in the sea surface temperatures. To illustrate this, Figure 2 shows those same daily ocean temperature cycles as anomalies around their respective averages.

TAO daily cycles SST anomaliesFigure 2. The daily variations in sea surface temperature at eight equatorial Pacific TAO buoys, expressed as anomalies about their respective means. Red shows the warmest buoys, light blue shows the coolest buoys.

Curious. The sea surface temperature in the warmer part of the Pacific don’t vary as much on a daily basis as the temperatures in the cooler part.

As might be imagined, a similar situation holds with the air temperatures. The further west you go, the warmer the air temperatures you’ll find. Figure 3 shows the air temperatures at the same buoys shown in Figures 1 & 2.

TAO daily cycles temperatureFigure 3. The daily variations in air temperature at eight equatorial Pacific TAO buoys.

As with the sea, the temperatures increase with the distance west. However, the changes in the air temperatures are more complex, because of the emergent atmospheric phenomena of cumulus clouds and then thunderstorm clouds. This becomes visible when we look at the air temperature anomalies.

TAO daily cycles temperature anomalies

Figure 4. The daily variations in air temperature at eight equatorial Pacific TAO buoys, expressed as anomalies about their respective means. Red shows the warmest buoys, light blue shows the coolest buoys.

Figure 4 is perhaps the strongest evidence of the existence of a cloud-based temperature regulation system that I’ve found so far. Let me see if I can explain why. Here’s a graphic showing the situation at dawn …

tropical diurnal early morningFigure 5. The general situation in the tropical convection areas in the early morning.

As you can see, at this time of day clouds are uncommon. As a result, Figure 4 shows that the temperature rises very rapidly for a couple of hours after six AM. However, as the day warms up, at some point a threshold of emergence is passed and the first thermal cumulus clouds start to form, resulting in a change of atmospheric state. Within an hour or so, in place of clear skies, there will be a fully developed cumulus field covering the entire surface.

tropical diurnal late morningFigure 6. The general situation in the tropical convection areas in the late morning, with a fully developed cumulus state.

In the colder areas, the cumulus do not form as early or as strongly, so they don’t have as large an effect. But as you can see in Figure 4, in the warmer areas there are so many clouds that the temperature actually drops for three hours, from about nine o’clock to about noon. And as Figure 4 shows, the further west you go, the warmer it gets, and the stronger the cumulus cloud effect gets.

However, even in a fully developed cumulus state, there is not continuous cloud cover. The cumulus clouds can be thought of as flags, each one marking an area where there is an upwelling column of air. However, in between the upwelling air columns and their respective clouds, perforce there must be larger areas of slowly downwelling air. And these areas don’t have clouds. As a result, although the temperature rise is reduced or reversed from nine AM until noon, the sun still gets stronger over that time, and at some point around noon the cumulus shield is not enough to stop further temperature rise.

In the afternoon, with the continuing temperature rise, a new threshold is passed and we get another change of state. This one involves the formation of thunderstorms. These astounding emergent entities pipe air vertically at very high speeds, removing heat from the surface and converting it to mechanical motion. They also cool the surface in a number of other ways.

tropical diurnal early afternoonFigure 7. The general situation in the tropical convection areas in the afternoon to night, with a fully developed cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) state.

There is an oddity, which is that when the thunderstorms develop, the albedo goes down. This is because the vertical motion is so fast in the thunderstorms that they have a proportionately much larger surrounding cloud-free area of dry descending air on all sides of them.

Now, I said at the outset that there would be “a few digressions along the way around and back” to Ramanathan. So with those as the digressions along the way around, let me come back to the topic by saying that these large areas of descending dry air are the reason that I thought that Ramanathan was wrong. Remember that I’d disagreed with Ramanathan’s claim, viz:

The cause of this super greenhouse effect at the surface is the rapid increase in the lower-troposphere humidity with SST; … the tropospheric relative humidity is larger in convective regions.

And what do the TAO buoys say about the relative humidity (RH)? Well, here are the daily cycles in RH for the same eight TAO buoys …

TAO daily cycles rel humidityFigure 8. The daily variations in relative humidity (RH) at eight equatorial Pacific TAO buoys, expressed as anomalies about their respective means. Red shows the warmest buoys, light blue shows the coolest buoys.

Now, the colors of the buoys are the same. Coldest is light blue, warmest is red. But instead of the RH increasing with sea surface temperature (SST) to engender a “super greenhouse effect”, the reverse is true. As the ocean temperature rises, the relative humidity falls.

How about during the course of the day? My hypothesis regarding emergent phenomena says that the relative humidity should be lowest during thunderstorm time in the afternoon. The next figure shows the RH all of the buoys once again as anomalies, so we can compare their daily variations.

TAO daily cycles rel humidity anomalyFigure 9. Daily variations in relative humidity (RH), shown as anomalies about their respective means.

Comparing this to the SST, we see that contrary to what Ramanathan claimed, when the SST is largest, the relative humidity is the lowest.

Now, all these findings shown in Figs. 8 & 9 are curious, because Ramanathan clearly believes that relative humidity is invariant under changes in the climate. He says elsewhere (emphasis mine):

A simple explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant to climate change. As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.

But according to Figure 8, the relative humidity in the convective zones of the Pacific varies inversely with sea surface temperature. And this is true both for long-term average sea surface temperature, as well as for the daily average temperature variation.

I can’t say that I have any great conclusions from all of this. However, it does appear that the modelers’ claim of strong water vapor feedback rests on the idea that relative humidity stays constant in the face of warming. If these TAO data findings are correct, and if relative humidity more generally is not constant with respect to temperature, it would seem that this would greatly reduce the amount of purported water vapor feedback …

In any case, it would seem to falsify the idea of a “super greenhouse effect” that is driven by relative humidity as Dr. Ramanathan claimed.

Always more to consider, always more to learn.

My best wishes to all,

w.

PS—If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words you disagree with. In that manner, we can all understand exactly what you are disputing.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

159 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 20, 2015 4:24 am

Willis,
Thanks for this exposition. Very illuminating, very useful.

Sciguy54
February 20, 2015 8:25 am

As noted by Willis and several commentators above, folks who have spent time in tropical and semi-tropical climates know very well the sudden cool dry winds that may come before or after a thunderstorm, and the chilling effect of a deluge of cold water and/or ice on a sweltering afternoon. Sometimes the heat may return in a few minutes, but often the heat of the day is broken by such a passing storm and the remaining towering cloud forms which block the sun as it sinks in the afternoon sky. In some locations this is almost a daily occurrence. As Willis noted, the resulting daily temperature cycle is hardly smooth, with temperatures and relative humidity dropping associated with a thunderstorm, then temperatures rising to new lower highs and relative humidity rising as the standing water is evaporated while cooling the ground and man-made pavements and structures.
I am curious how BEST and other agencies homogenize temperature readings taken during or after such sudden cooling events, and if anyone has a handle on how the actual energy sums and balances change during the process. One would think that until model grids are fine enough to see these events and until the models measure net energy balance instead of temperature, then they will be doomed the trash bin.

Dr. Strangelove
February 21, 2015 4:06 am

“A simple explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant to climate change… Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive.”
As ocean surface evaporates, it has cooling effect on surrounding water not evaporated because evaporation is an endothermic process. When water cools below the vaporization temperature, evaporation stops. The relative humidity may be the same but absolute humidity increased because of warmer air temperature. Also, as warm air rises, it is replaced by cooler air that cools the water surface and convective cooling repeats the cycle.

Don V
February 21, 2015 9:46 pm

nickreality65 You wrote:
“I disagree. As water evaporates it influences the air/liquid sensible temperatures through conduction not radiation. Consider what is happening in one of those enormous utility wet cooling towers.”
I’m sorry, I respectfully disagree with this statement. I am a biochemical engineer, and I have had to solve for huge heat transfers in production plants and had to size heat exchangers. I too was taught that conduction and convection were the most efficient modes of getting rid of excess heat. When sizing cooling towers, we were never taught what happened to the heat that left the cooling tower as water vapor but then almost immediately condensed into a cloud just outside of it. Just consider for a moment what the picture looks like if you back out farther and look at the bigger picture – from outer space for instance. Since there is no conduction of heat to space, (nor any convection for that matter) when you pay attention to all the the little transfers of heat from the surface of the ocean all the way up to space, each little energy diagram for each “layer” of the atmospheric ocean” has a net radiative heat “in”, a net radiative heat “out” and what seems to be a net radiative heat “loss”, (or “gain”?) which is the difference between the two. Conduction and convection get all mixed into the process and serve to effect good mixing between the phase change layers, but my argument is that it is not safe to assume that the ONLY heat that is transferred, is by conduction or convection alone. Whenever a phase transition occurs some of the energy gained or lost in the process MUST BE RADIATIVE as well. It is myopic to ignore this possibility. Why do I think that? For two simple reasons.
First, at phase change, no temperature change occurs in the compound that is changing phase, while it is occurring, but the Entropy changes. To effect conduction or convection, all the equations that I had to memorize had a DELTA T term in them. The radiation equation just has a T term – no delta.
And the second, is what I mentioned in my argument above. IR photographic evidence from outer space. Why, in a black and white IR photo from outer space looking down on a storm in the middle of night, when you have NO IR or any light for the matter coming in from the sun, do you see different amounts of IR emitted back out to the camera – between a “black” (ie no IR) ocean surface (that is basically sucking up all the IR that hits it), and the top of a storm cloud (different shades of grey and white caused by the IR that is being given off)? In the picture of Sandy that I referenced, the storm was producing all kinds of IR, and yet the ocean was not, even though the ocean surface at the equator was warmer than the ice crystals at the top of the storm pelting the New England coastline. Or as a second example, why in the multi-colored pictures of the IR spectrum over the whole planet do we see lots of RED over tropical areas where lots of clouds and T showers are occurring, and lots of cool green where they aren’t?
(see for instance a spring day in 1985 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#mediaviewer/File:Erbe.gif )
I suspect it is because water phase change events in storm clouds are producing a heck of a lot of IR radiation. If we could actually see this with our eyes, I suspect that the storm would appear to “glow” with different intensities depending on what “layer” or area we are looking at, with the “brightest” glow emanating from where ever the most energy is being given off by the condensation or freezing of water. I suspect also that if we had IR sensitive eyes and we looked at what was emanating from one of those giant cooling towers, right where the most of the water vapor was condensing back to water droplets we would see a bright IR glow (especially if we could simultaneously reference that image to the much cooler evaporative process inside the tower and the water from which all that energy was extracted at the bottom of the tower).
What is going on here in my thought process is to question what I was taught where there was no factual evidence to back it up. So although I too was taught to ignore everything that happens to the water after it left the cooling tower (ie. where the energy ends up actually going) and your statement “As water evaporates it influences the air/liquid sensible temperatures through conduction not radiation,” is most likely true for sizing purposes inside the tower. I believe my arguments above, concerning phase change events actually causing an increase in radiative transfer off the planet, are well supported with the evidence.

hunter
February 24, 2015 12:31 pm

That this paper is not pulled simply for the use of the childish term “super greenhouse” is a tell that it is yet another bit of climate tripe. That the author gets the physics as wrong as he does is not actually surprising. Thepurpose of climate hype is not to accurately discuss the science. It is to keep the faithful in line.