Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I ponder curious things. I got to thinking about available solar energy. That’s the amount of solar energy that remains after reflection losses.
Just under a third (~ 30%) of the incoming sunshine is reflected back into space by a combination of the clouds, the aerosols in the atmosphere, and the surface. What’s left is the solar energy that actually makes it in to warm up and power our entire planet. In this post, for shorthand I’ll call that the “available energy”, because … well, because that’s basically all of the energy we have available to run the entire circus.
Now, I don’t agree with the widely-held idea that the planetary temperature is a linear function of the “radiative forcing” or simply “forcing”, which is the amount of downwelling radiation headed to the surface from both the sun and from atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Oh, the radiation itself is real … but it doesn’t set the surface temperature
My theory of how the climate operates is that the globe is kept from overheating by a variety of emergent phenomena. These phenomena emerge when some local temperature threshold is exceeded. Among the most powerful of these emergent phenomena are thunderstorms. In the tropics, thunderstorms emerge when the sea surface temperature (SST) is above about 27°C (80°F) or so. Here’s a movie I made of how the thunderstorms follow the sea surface temperature, month after month.
Figure 1. Tropical thunderstorms are characterized by tall cloud towers. The average altitude of the cloud tops is therefore a measure of the number and strength of the thunderstorms in the area. Colors show average cloud top altitude, with the red areas having the most and largest thunderstorms, and the blue areas almost none. The gray contour lines show sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of 27°, 28°, and 29°C, with the inner ring being the hottest.
Thunderstorms cool the surface in a variety of ways. They waste little energy in the process because they emerge to cool the surface only where it will do the most good—the hottest part of the system.
Among the ways thunderstorms cool the surface is via an increase in the local albedo. Albedo is the percentage of energy reflected back to space. The increase in this reflection (increasing albedo) occurs because the thunderstorm clouds both cover a larger area and are taller than the cumulus clouds that they replace. Their height and area provide more reflective surfaces to reject solar energy back to space.
In addition, the thunderstorm generated winds increase the local sea surface reflectivity by creating reflective white foam, spume, and spray over large areas of the ocean. And finally, a rough ocean with thunderstorm-generated waves reflects about two times what a calm ocean reflects (albedo ~ 8% rough vs ~ 4% smooth). That change in sea surface roughness alone equates to about 15 W/m2 less available energy.
Now generally, we’d expect that additional solar energy would be correlated with warmer temperatures. It’s logical that the relationship should go like this:
More available solar energy –> more energy absorbed by the surface –> higher temperatures.
We’d expect, therefore, that both the available energy and the temperature should be “positively correlated”, meaning that they increase or decrease together. And in general, that’s true. Here’s the available solar energy, which is the sunshine that makes it past all of the reflective surfaces, the sunlight that is the one true source of all of the energy that heats, agitates, and powers the climate.
Figure 2. Available solar energy after all reflection from clouds, atmosphere, and the planet’s surface. The numbers are 24/7 averages.
As you can see, the poles are cold because they only get fifty watts per square metre (W/m2) or so from the sun. And the tropics get up to 360 watts per square metre (W/m2), so they are hot. The tropics are the main area where energy enters the system, and they’re also the hottest.
So far, what we see agrees with what we’d expect—available energy and temperature are correlated, going up and down together.
Now, my theory is that emergent phenomena act to constrain the maximum temperature. So an indication that my theory is valid would be if the amount of available solar energy were to not only stop increasing at high surface temperatures, but would actually go down with increasing temperature when the SST gets over about 27°C.
To see if this is the case, I turned once again to the CERES data, available here. I’m using the EBAF 4.0 dataset, with data from March 2000 to February 2019. The CERES satellite data has month-by-month information on the size of the incoming and reflected solar energy flows. The information is presented on a 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell basis.
According to the CERES data, incoming solar energy at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is ~ 340 W/m2. The total reflected is ~ 100 W/m2. That leaves 240 W/m2 of available energy to warm the world. (Numbers are 24/7 global averages.)
To investigate the relationship between the surface temperature and the available energy, I looked at just the liquid ocean (not including sea ice). I do this for several reasons. The ocean is 70% of the planet. It is all at the same elevation, with no mountains to complicate matters. There’s no vegetation sticking up to impede the winds. It is a ways from human cities. All of this reduces the noise in the data, and makes it possible to compare different locations.
What I’ve done is to make a “scatterplot” of available energy versus sea surface temperature (SST). Each blue dot in the scatterplot below shows the available solar energy versus the sea surface temperature (SST) of a single 1°x1° gridcell.
Then I’ve used a Gaussian average (yellow & red with black outline) to see what the data is doing overall. (In this dataset, it turns out that the Gaussian average is basically indistinguishable from averaging the data in bins of a tenth of a degree (not shown). This lends support to the validity of the line.) The yellow/red line outlined in black shows the 160-point full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) Gaussian average of the data. The red area simply highlights the part above 27°C.
Figure 3. Scatterplot of available solar energy versus liquid sea surface temperature. Blue dots show the results for each 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell. Yellow/red line is 160-point full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) Gaussian average. The part of the data where the average SST above 27°C is highlighted in red
In Figure 3 we see that above ~ 27°C, the thunderstorm initiation temperature, the available solar energy stops rising, takes a ninety-degree turn, and starts dropping. You’ve heard of things being “non-linear”? This graph could serve as the poster child of non-linearity …
It’s worth noting that at temperatures from about 3°C to 27°C, the temperature is indeed a linear function of the available solar energy. So the common misunderstanding is … well … understandable. In that temperature range the sea surface is going up about 0.1°C per additional W/m2, which is the same as ~0.4° C per doubling of CO2 … but of course, that ignores the area in red, where the relationship is totally reversed and energy goes down as temperature goes up.
This is strong support for my theory that emergent phenomena actively regulate the global temperature and constrains the maximum temperature. It is also evidence against the current theory of how climate works, which is that the temperature slavishly follows the available energy in a linear fashion … as I noted, this is as non-linear as you can get..
In the areas where the sea surface temperature is over ~ 27°C there is less and less energy available with each additional degree C of surface warming. The size of the decrease is large—6.6 W/m2 less energy is available when the surface temperature has risen by each additional 1°C.
Figure 4 shows the location of these areas (shown in blue/green with white borders) where available solar energy goes down when the temperature goes up (negative correlation).
Figure 4. Gridcell by gridcell correlation of available solar energy and surface temperature. Blue box show the tropical area discussed below (130°E – 90°W longitude, 10°N/S latitude).
Investigating the energy flows further, loss of incoming energy via increased albedo is only one way thunderstorms cool the surface. It is an important method of thermoregulation because it acts just like the gas pedal in your car—the thunderstorms are controlling the amount of energy entering the planetary-scale heat engine we call the climate. And above a sea surface temperature of ~ 27°C, they are cutting the incoming energy down.
The thunderstorms which are cutting down the total available solar energy are also cooling the surface in a host of other ways. First among these is evaporation. Thunderstorms make rain, and it takes solar energy to evaporate the rain. That energy is then not available to heat the surface.
Figure 5 Scatterplot of the sea surface temperature versus the rainfall in the equatorial Pacific area shown by the blue box above (130°E – 90°W, 10°N/S). The blue dots show results from the TAO moored buoys in the blue box. The red dots show gridcell results from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite rainfall data and Reynolds OI sea surface temperatures. Graphic from my post Drying The Sky
Figure 5 above has SST data from two separate datasets, Tao buoys and the Reynolds OISST dataset. It also has rainfall data from two separate datasets, the TRMM data and TAO buoys. They agree very well, giving support to the relationships displayed.
And once again, it is highly non-linear …
Because the tropical oceanic thunderstorms are temperature related, so is the rain. Above 27°C, every single 1°x1° gridcell (red dot) and every TAO buoy (blue dot) in the equatorial Pacific area outlined in blue in Figure 4 above has rain.
In addition, by the time the open ocean temperature reaches its maximum value of 30°C, almost every gridcell has nearly three meters (ten feet, or 120″) of rain. At high sea surface temperatures, rain is not optional. This is clear evidence of the thermal nature of the thresholds involved.
It’s an important point. The thresholds for all of these emergent temperature-regulating climate phenomena (e.g. dust devils, cumulus fields, thunderstorms, squall lines) are temperature-based. They are not based on how much radiation the area is receiving. They are not affected by either CO2 levels or sunshine amounts. When the tropical ocean temperature gets above a certain level, the system kicks into gear, cumulus clouds mutate into thunderstorms, albedo goes straight up, and rain starts falling … no matter what the CO2 levels might be. Temperature-based, not forcing-based. It’s an important point.
And below is the rainfall data from 40° North to 40° South, expressed as the amount of energy needed to evaporate the rain.
Figure 6. Scatterplot of 1° x 1° gridcell annual average ocean-only thunderstorm evaporative cooling on the vertical axis, in watts per square metre (W/m2) versus 1° x 1° gridcell annual average sea surface temperature on the horizontal axis. Evaporative cooling amount is calculated from the rainfall—it takes ~ 80 W/m2 for one year to evaporate a metre of rainfall. Graphic from my post, How Thunderstorms Beat The Heat
As I write this, I think hmm … I could use the relationship shown in red above, between tropical sea surface temperature and evaporative cooling. Then I could add that TRMM data to the solar availability data to see how much is available after albedo and evaporation. Hmm … I’m off to write a another bunch of code in the computer language simply called “R”.
(Best computer language ever, by the way, and R was something like the tenth computer language I’ve learned. It’s free, cross platform, free, killer free user interface “RStudio”, free packages to do almost anything, good help files, and did I mention free? I owe Steve McIntyre an unpayable debt for convincing me to learn to code in R. But I digress, I’m off to write R code …)
…
OK, here’s the result. The scatterplot as above, scale about the same, but this time showing what’s left after removing both albedo reflections and the energy used for evaporation. This covers the area where rainfall was measured by the TRMM, from 40° N latitude to 40° S latitude.
Figure 7. Scatterplot, available solar energy minus evaporative cooling, versus sea surface temperature from 40°N latitude to 40°S latitude. Because it is only the middle latitudes the ocean doesn’t get much cooler than 15°C.
I note that when we include evaporative cooling, the drop in available energy starts at a slightly lower temperature, 26°C vs 27°. And it is decreasing much faster and further than just the 6.6 W/m2 decrease per degree of degree warming from albedo alone as shown in Fig. 3 above.
Figure 7 shows that there is 44 W/m2 less available energy per additional degree of warming above 26°C. So it is decreasing about seven times as fast as from albedo alone. On average there is less energy left over for warming at 30°C than at 15°C … go figure.
And finally, here’s the distribution of the solar energy once we’ve subtracted the reflected energy and the energy used for evaporation. What remains is the energy available to heat the planet and to fuel plant growth.
Figure 8. Available solar energy after albedo and evaporation losses. TRMM data only covers from 40° N to 40°S latitude.
Note that there are some areas of the oceans where any additional solar forcing goes into increasing clouds, increasing thunderstorms, and increasing evaporation, with little to nothing left over to heat the area …
Now, remember that my hypothesis is that the widely-believed claim that there is a linear relationship between forcing and temperature is not correct.
Instead, I say emergent phenomena come into existence when a temperature threshold is passed, and that they act to oppose further heating.
My main conclusions out of all of this? It supports my hypothesis regarding emergent phenomena regulating the temperature, and this is clear evidence that temperature is NOT a linear function of forcing.
And on a side note, the US passed a sad milestone today—the number of COVID pandemic deaths (a once-off phenomenon) finally equaled two-thirds of the annual number of deaths from obesity. In the face of this hidden gustatory emergency of 300,000 US obesity deaths per year, I recommend mandatory gastric banding of the entire populace and fine-enforced social distancing from donuts …
My best regards to everyone, end all lockdowns, the emergency is over. Let’s get back to work, school, and play,
w.
The Small Print: When you comment please quote the exact words you are discussing, so we can all be in on the secret subject of your ideas.
27 C or 80.6 F in the tropics is not end of world.
Earth has always had this.
Let’s get back to our Ice Age.
Though mid latitudes with the larger loss with 27 C ocean surface is interesting in terms
global temperature. I don’t have particular good reason for that- other than it’s on receiving end of the tropical heat engine and having the much colder region towards the poles.
I don’t know, but it seems that could vary a bit. If get a lot of it, with thunder storms of much ocean mixing- global warming??
Regards bore holes etc
(1) removal of tree cover can increase head storage and temperature in upper layers perhaps 100’s of meters depending on age of tree cover removal. Not sure if anyone as accounting for this .. probably not big in regards ocean heat storage though.
(2) The energy balance equations (terrestrial) I have seen have a point (guessing at 7 meters) where there is considered no further downward movement of heat in the system. This is likely incorrect. I would also suspect that there is no upward movement of geothermal heat into the bottom of oceans , soil profile.
Does anyone know if current GCM models have a spatially explicit upwelling geothermal heat in their energy balance
When we built a pool in Montreal we noted that other pools, even with ‘blankets’ cooled very substantially every night. 8 feet down, the soil temperature is about 10C in summer. We installed 1/8 in closed cell foam between the concrete and the liner and our pool did not require any additional heating. While the temperature goes up as you go down, in temperate regions the heat coming out of the earth is not enough to warm the top 3m.
Willis, are you familiar with the concept of a thermosiphon?
Sure. I’ve even built one and seen plenty more.
w.
Willis:
You have an excellent explanation of how the Earth tends to limit its temperature increases through the increase in cloud formation.
However, you do not touch on WHY its temperatures fluctuate up and down, as seen in the formation of El Ninos and La Ninas.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, El Ninos are caused by decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, caused by either periods of ~3 years or more between VEI4 eruptions, or after a volcano’s aerosols have settled out, forming a volcanic-induced El Nino, or reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions due to Clean Air efforts.
The above is prelude to a very great danger that we are facing. If Joe Biden is elected president, he will implement the “Green New Deal”, whose centerpiece is the complete abolition of the burning of fossil fuels, which produce both CO2 and SO2.
Currently, the amount of anthropogenic SO2 emissions in our atmosphere is an estimated 80 Megatons. If they are driven to near zero, Earth’s temperatures will SOAR, probably rising by 1.6 to 2 deg. C from present levels. This will increase weather-related disasters, as well as make much of the Earth unlivable, through unbearable temperatures and sea level rise.
A real worry to add to your worry list. And if American, DON’T vote for Joe Biden.
”Currently, the amount of anthropogenic SO2 emissions in our atmosphere is an estimated 80 Megatons. If they are driven to near zero, Earth’s temperatures will SOAR, probably rising by 1.6 to 2 deg. C from present levels. This will increase weather-related disasters, as well as make much of the Earth unlivable, through unbearable temperatures and sea level rise.”
This sounds like hysterical garbage to me. What were the anthropogenic SO2 emissions in 1777?
Mike:
I am using the Community Emissions Data Set (CEDS) of the University of Maryland. It tracks reactive atmospheric emissions, which includes SO2. It spans the years 1750-2014, but will eventually be updated to the present.
For 1777, total anthropogenic aerosol emissions were 0.59 Megatons. In 2014, they were 111 Megatons, but have fallen since then due to global Clean Air efforts.
Definitely NOT hysterical garbage.
Burl, I discussed your theory in a post called Dronning Maud Meets The Little Ice Age.
TL;DR version? Ice core SO2 records do NOT support your claims.
w.
Willis:
You completely deny any climatic effects from volcanic eruptions, or the effects of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, and I have failed to convince you otherwise.
However, I do have a recently published peer-reviewed article titled “Experimental proof that Carbon Dioxide does NOT cause global warming”, which is based upon the changing amounts of SO2 in our atmosphere, which may convince you. And others.
http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se/article/view3210
Burl Henry September 27, 2020 at 8:42 pm
Not true in the slightest. I think that volcanoes have local effects, but that their global effects are much less and shorter-lived than generally believed.
I also showed, in the post that I linked to, that the sulfate emissions couldn’t have caused the Little Ice Age, because the ice growth started BEFORE the eruptions.
Before you try that nonsense again, QUOTE MY WORDS!!!
Finally, your link just goes to 404.
Best regards,
w.
Willis:
I have a problem in understanding your Dronning Maud graphs and comments.
First, you say there is a large expansion in the century between 900 to 1000, with “nary a volcano in sight”. However, there were actually 12 VEI4, 2 VEI5 and 1 VEI6 volcanoes in that interval, easily enough to start and maintain the cold summers from 900 to 1000.
Then a huge SO2 spike is shown in 1258, which would have been from the VEI7 eruption of Mount Rinjani (Samalas) in 1257 (per Wikipedia), and the VEI6 eruption of Katia in 1262. This would have been the cause of the ice expansion in 1280, with eruptions preceding
the ice expansion in 1280, as earlier.
Then in 1435, there is another large expansion, but without any prior large SO2 spike. Perhaps it was generated out of whole cloth by the PDF? Or one of the 1435 or 1455 dates is in error, as the authors speculated.
In any event, 2 of the 3 expansion peaks were clearly associated with prior volcanic eruptions, which is sufficient to show ice expansion after volcanic activity, as I maintain.
Willis:
You said my link went to 404.
It turns out that the link that I gave was for the article prior to being published in the Journal.
After publication, the link is: http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se/
Have at it!
Burl,
I love your Figure 2 example of the Global Distribution of Surface SO2 in the Atmosphere dated 27 June 2020.
It is full of detail for example the plume from South Africa into the Southern Ocean, and the similar plume south from Western Australia.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-34.7;33.0;4&l=temperature-2m&t=20200627/1200
In particular also are the Ship Tracks in the South Atlantic Ocean from West Africa to South Africa sailing directly against the prevailing wind.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-14.6;5.1;4&l=temperature-2m&t=20200627/1200
and the Ship Tracks in the Indian Ocean from the Gulf of Aden via Sri Lanka to the Malacca Strait at the time when the surface winds of the Indian Ocean Monsoon will drive ship engine emissions to the north.
Ventusky 27June 2020 1:00pm
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=8.1;76.1;4&l=temperature-2m&t=20200627/1200
Burl Henry September 28, 2020 at 9:24 pm
As you know, not all volcanoes put a significant amount of SO2 into the air, and it appears that the volcanoes in your list didn’t do so. And in fact, there was LESS SO2 during the period of ice growth that started around 850.
You are changing the goalposts, from SO2 to # of volcanoes … bad scientist, no cookies.
No, actually that is FAR from sufficient. They say correlation ≠ causality, and so far you haven’t even shown correlation.
First, only 1 of the 3 ice expansion peaks “followed” an increase in SO2. Not two out of three. And the largest ice expansion had nothing to do with SO2 increases.
Now you’ve changed your tune, saying that 2 out of three ice expansion times “followed” prior volcanic eruptions … sorry, that was NOT your claim. Your claim was about SO2 and only one of the three ice expansion peaks was correlated with that.
Next, you say that in the decades preceding the ice expansion in ~ 875 there were fifteen VEI4 and above eruptions … color me unimpressed. Since the year 800 we’ve had an eruption of VEI4 or stronger every four years ... so yes, they will precede any event you care to name during that time.
Next, your paper, for which you’ve provided a valid link.
First, it seems you don’t understand the concept of “References”. Here is one of your references in its entirety:
Meaningless. WHICH ENSO temps, provided by whom? Here’s another:
I went to the NWS CPC, couldn’t find such data.
Finally, I got the CEDS SO2 emission data. Your claim is that the more SO2, the lower the temperature. However, SO2 emissions increased fairly steadily from 1750 to 1988 and have decreased since then …
… and according to your theory, the temperature should have decreased from 1750 to 1988 and increased since then.
Not.
Best regards,
w.
Hi Willis:
More later, but here are a few responses to your questions regarding my paper:
Which ENSO temperatures? Just the ones caused by business-recession warming.
Here is the link to the Climate Prediction Center, for ENSOs since 1950:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Yes, the more SO2, the lower the temperatures. Recall that in the early 1970s there were fears of a New Ice Age because of the lower temperatures at that time.
You said that SO2 emissions peaked in 1988–actually, they peaked in 1979, at 136 Megatons. They were a bit lower in 1988, at 132 Megatons.
Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions have trended downward since 1979, due to global Clean Air efforts, and, as a result, temperatures have warmed up, because there are fewer SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. Present SO2 levels are estimated to be ~ 80 Megatons. Per CEDS, they were 111 Megatons in 2014.,
Willis:
Any ice expansion has to be driven by lower temperatures, and if sufficient volcanic eruptions, are present, their SO2 emissions will lower temperatures enough to cause the necessary cooling.
From Figure 3 in your paper, peak ice growth from the 1257 VEI7 Rinjani (Samalas) eruption and the 1262 VEI6 Katia eruption resulted in a large peak in 1280, ~23 years after the first eruption.
There were numerous prior volcanic SO2 peaks, but they were during the MWP and did not cause any ice growth.
The graph also shows several smaller peaks before then, the first being in ~830.
In 1800, there were two VEI6 eruptions, and two later VEI4 eruptions, whose SO2 would have caused the ~830 ice growth peak, ~30 years later.
In 823, there was a Plinian eruption [the most powerful type known (per page 17 of “Volcanoes of the World”, third edition), probably a VEI5, or a VEI6], which, along with 10 VEI4 and 1 VEI5 (860) eruptions, in between, would have caused the next growth peak, in ~875.
In 890, there was another Plinian eruption, and, along with 5 VEI4 and 2 VEI5 eruptions, their SO2 emissions would have been responsible for the growth peak in ~925, about 35 years later (there is a shoulder on that peak, which was probably caused by the VEI6 eruption of Ceboruco, in 930).
So, all of the peaks prior to 1262 were also driven by volcanic SO2 emissions. Instead of 1 peak out of 5 (with the dating of 5th peak questioned by the authors), I find 4 out of 5 peaks being caused by prior volcanic eruptions. Surely, this should be enough to convince you.
With respect to your unscientific comment that the volcanoes in my earlier list did not “appear” to have much SO2, I examined the Central England Temperatures data set. Every known VEI4, and higher, eruption appeared on the data set, to varying extents, so VEI4’s DO effect the climate.
You do great work. but I have never seen any decrease in temperatures not associated with increased SO2 in the atmosphere, and the above are just other examples.
Funny
A great post by Willis and no sight of the usual trolls Griff, Loydo, jack Dale, etc etc etc trying their best to obfuscate.
Good to see that people understand their limitations.
No one likes having their arse handed to them in public.
You’re not even wrong Pat. I enjoy reading most of Willis’ posts because I often learn something and he tends not to resort to gratuitous ad hominem attacks.
Willis,
In figure 3 you show post-albedo insolation versus temperature. The highest gaussian average value is around 325 W/m^2, just a little over ice cube level (315), yet its correlates with 27 degrees C.
You know that all those fluxes on the left-hand side don’t produce those temperatures.
Given what you said …
‘Now, I don’t agree with the widely-held idea that the planetary temperature is a linear function of the “radiative forcing” or simply “forcing”, which is the amount of downwelling radiation headed to the surface from both the sun and from atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Oh, the radiation itself is real … but it doesn’t set the surface temperature’
Where do you think the extra energy comes from to create those temperatures?
Or did I misunderstand something?
Thanks, -Z
Zoe Phin September 23, 2020 at 7:39 pm
True. It’s this curious phenomenon called the “greenhouse effect”. Google it. Or you could read my explanation of how it works entitled The Steel Greenhouse.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis. I’m familiar with your steel greenhouse, I’m just confused about your language here.
“Oh, the radiation itself is real … but it doesn’t set the surface temperature”
So what sets the surface temperature?
You don’t believe there’s a literal force involved?
You just think the steel shell MAKES the surface hotter without a “force”?
Cold communicates to hot via something other than a force, such as electromagnetic force?
It’s like a remote ping that leaves no trace?
Hot becomes hotter to maintain heat flow and it just happens automatically?
Zoe, I assume that on your planet, those words mean something to you.
Here, not so much.
Pass.
w.
On my planet the atmosphere is not a thin shell with an abstract thickness of 0, lacking any heat capacity and separated from the surface by a vacuum.
So tell me again why the inner sphere “must” warm up …
To conserve heat flow, you just add energy that wasn’t present. Where’d it come from? Who knows? But the equations balance, so it’s all good, right?
Pass.
w.
Not so fast, Willis.
Your thin shell has a conductive heat flux of 0 W/m^2, yet emits 275 W/m^2 to space. How do you justify that?
I must get some more popcorn in.
Zoe:
If you want to make it a little more realistic, let’s make the shell 1 cm (0.01m) thick. Steel has a thermal conductivity of about 48 W/m/K, so to conduct 240 W/m2 through the shell, there would need to be a temperature drop from the inside to the outside of the shell of 0.05K.
Anyone with actual experience in these types of problems would quickly do that calculation as a sanity check and realize that it had a trivial impact on the overall problem. You are simply showing that you have no such experience. You are completely out of your depth here.
Ed,
But you forgot about all the HEAT flow!
According to Willis, the shell radiates back to sphere all it receives!
The heat flow to the shell is 0 W/m^2 !
The shell comes to thermal equilbrium (assuming vacuum gap is negligible) with the sphere.
The conduction through the shell becomes 0, but … emission to space is still ~240.
But you will say there is still 240 W/m^2 of conduction. OK, if you do that then there is no 240 W/m^2 of backradiation. Can’t have both.
Zoe:
Once again you demonstrate that you have not ever actually worked with even the most simple thermodynamic problems. So let’s work through it step by step as you would in a beginner’s class.
First, define the “control mass” (look it up) as the combined sphere and shell system. In steady state conditions dE/dt is zero, so Qin heat flows must equal Qout heat flows by the 1st LoT.
Qin is 240*Area (given), so Qout must be 240*Area. (This assumes that the shell has a neglibly larger radius and area than the sphere. With a little more math, you could get a neglibly different answer.) The only mechanism for Qout is radiation to deep space, and for simplicity we use an emissivity of 1.0. In order for the shell to radiate this amount outwards, the outer surface of the shell must have a temperature of:
Toutershell = (Q / Sigma) ^ (1/4) = (240 / 5.67E-8) ^ (1/4) = 255.07K
Now consider the shell alone as the control mass. In steady-state conditions, dE/dT must be zero, so there must be a net Qin to the inside of the shell. This can only come from radiative transfer from the sphere, so using the equation you have used:
Q(net sphere-to-shell) = Sigma * (Tsphere^4 – Tinnershell^4) = 240
You can take Tinnershell = Toutershell as a good approximation, or if you want, compute a slightly higher temperature to account for finite conductivity of 240 W/m2 through the shell. It makes almost no difference. I will use the 0.05K difference I computed earlier. Solving for Tsphere, we have:
Q + (Sigma * TinnerShell^4) = Sigma * Tsphere^4
Tsphere = ([240 + (5.67E-8 * 255.12^4)] / 5.67E-8) ^ (1/4)
Tsphere = 303.35K
Double checking by consider the sphere alone: It has an internally generated 240*Area Qin and a radiative heat transfer out of 240*Area, so its dE/dt is zero and it is in steady-state conditions.
This is exactly how it would be solve in an introductory thermodynamics class. You keep demonstrating that you have never taken one.
Ed, thanks for your clear explanation. I fear I ran out of patience with that good lady a while ago.
w.
Zoe Phin September 24, 2020 at 1:59 pm
Must … Control … Fist of Death … Must … Control …
Zoe, I’m sure you noticed this, I say it on all my posts and for a good reason (emphasis in original):
As far as I know, I have NEVER said that “the shell radiates back to sphere all it receives”. In fact, the shell radiates half of what it receives inwards and half is radiated outwards.
Don’t take my name in vain … quote my exact words.
Pass.
w.
Willis,
“In fact, the shell radiates half of what it receives inwards and half is radiated outwards.”
Only after you added virtual flux.
The only real and raw flux you have is 235.
Forgeting conduction for a moment, that 235 goes to shell and at steady state: 235 returns. Nothing goes to space. There is nothing in space close enough to dampen the motion of your molecules.
You can ONLY derive Planck’s Law by counting WAVE modes in a cavity. You can’t then replace those waves with two-way photon motion (doubling photon density is not in the formula), and you certainly can’t then claim a one-way photon flow to NOTHING. There’s nothing for the photon to charge to, and so there is no reason for electron level to jump down and create a photon.
If you placed a sensor to monitor this experiment, the situation changes.
“The only mechanism for Qout is radiation to deep space …
In steady-state conditions, dE/dT must be zero, so there must be a net Qin to the inside of the shell.”
Uhuh, sounds like you want 240 W/m^2 to enter from sphere and 240 W/m^2 to leave from both sides of the shell, so you can make dE/dt equal to zero. You imagine the different directions cancel each other out? No, you just doubled the power.
“Q(net sphere-to-shell) = Sigma * (Tsphere^4 – Tinnershell^4) = 240
You can take Tinnershell = Toutershell as a good approximation”
OK that approximation results in Q = 0. Heat flow is zero at steady state. Agree!
“Q + (Sigma * TinnerShell^4) = Sigma * Tsphere^4
Tsphere = ([240 + (5.67E-8 * 255.12^4)] / 5.67E-8) ^ (1/4)”
And now you’ve made Q = 240. Nice job!
“Double checking by consider the sphere alone: It has an internally generated 240*Area Qin and a radiative heat transfer out of 240*Area, so its dE/dt is zero and it is in steady-state conditions.”
The “internal generation” is now manifest on the inside of the shell. Your heat flow is zero. You’re not sending 240 anymore. But you do it anyway.
You doubled 240 to 480, so you could send 240 to space and 240 back to justify your doubling to 480 in the first place.
Don’t think anyone serious believes you scammers.
“This is exactly how it would be solve in an introductory thermodynamics class.”
Uhuh, I’ll wait for a very similar example rather than rely on your interpretation of the rules.
Zoe:
You say: “Nothing goes to space.” But you have an input to the sphere+shell system of (235*Area) watts. If there is no power output to space, then the internal energy of the system is increasing by this same (235*Area) watts, by the most basic 1st Law analysis. So it is not remotely steady state.
Only someone with absolutely no concept of the 1st LoT could make such a ridiculous analysis.
You then say: “you certainly can’t then claim a one-way photon flow to NOTHING.”
We have many telescopes on earth that can easily see stars a million light years away. I have worked on several of these, and know that the detectors for this type of observation are capable of detecting individual photons. It’s how they work.
Think of what has happened in the million years since the star initially output that radiation, with the movement of galaxies, solar systems, and the planet. The telescope just happened to sweep across the path of that photon that was emitted a million years ago. A very slight difference in the direction of the photon would mean it missed the telescope and even the earth and just kept moving on.
But by your analysis, the photon (or even the wave) would not have been emitted a million years ago unless it somehow “knew” that it would be incercepted and absorbed a million years later. This is the “Tom Brady” radiation theory, knowing to emit to where the receiver will be.
Zoe Phin:
“So what sets the surface temperature?”
The control knob for our temperatures is the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
Decrease them, and it warms up.
Increase them, and it cools down.
“So what sets the surface temperature?”
Ocean surface temperature.
One also say tropical ocean surface temperature sets the surface
temperature.
Or knowing tropical ocean surface temperature “allows” one to say
Earth average surface temperature is about 15 C- without even going anywhere near to Antarctica.
You simply need to know tropics is 40% of Earth surface. Useful to know about 80% of tropics is the tropical ocean and the tropical ocean average temperature is about 26 C.
But entire ocean surface temperature sets or makes global air temperature-
Tropical ocean 26 C, rest of ocean about 11 and entire ocean averages about 17 C. Or 70% of earth surface has average temperature of 17 C.
Average land is 10 C.
Useful trick, ocean warms land.
And Land does not warm ocean. Or Land cools the ocean. If had more ocean, global temperature would be higher.
Less cooling by land- more warming. More cooling by land, more cooling.
But this about weather. Which many imagine is global temperature, because that what is we measure- 5 feet above surface in a white box {in natural setting without site having “artificial” warming or cooling effects- or say under a “natural” tree}.
BUT better or “real” global temperature is the temperature of entire ocean- which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Or the entire ocean “sets” global air temperature. Or since tropical ocean is important {and is disconnected to the entire ocean temperature} it could reasonable the global heat engine average temperature counts or sets global average temperature.
But journey of the story of global warming starts with Europeans wondering why Europe is warmer than “it should be”. The answer was already known, before they wondered, Europe is warmer than it should be due to ocean heating from the Gulf Stream.
And the journey of idiocy ran into fork in the road called Venus. Which caused much pondering by the morons. The morons were once wondering how pleasant Venus was going to be, and were surprised.
Anyhow, ocean of 3.5 C determine Icebox or Greenhouse {hothouse} global climate. And 3.5 C means we are in Ice Age.
Ocean temperature determine “the Age” or even “the World” we are in.
Where’d the ocean get the temperature?
The sun can only make it -42C (168 W/m^2).
–Zoe Phin September 24, 2020 at 1:30 pm
Where’d the ocean get the temperature?
The sun can only make it -42C (168 W/m^2).–
The ocean can absorb 1120 watts per square meter of sunlight on clear day and when sun is near zenith. {Oceans absorbs the 70 watts of indirect sunlight}
168 W/m^2 is average and an average that includes night time.
1/2 of Earth doesn’t get a lot sunlight, and tropics is the middle part of the 1/2 of Earth that gets most of sunlight.
Europeans wondered why they were so warm {not freezing to death}, because they actually once knew they receive very little sunlight- and the reason they can be called white people- as their skin can absorb more UV and thereby can get enough Vitamin D, within an environment with little sunlight- so, in other words not die off from being severely deficient in Vitamin D – though that is assuming they don’t stay in their caves to too long.
Chinese also have white skin and likewise don’t get much sunlight- though more sunlight than Europeans, though southern European and southern China get more than the northern parts, of course. Or with Spain almost make sense to have solar panels {almost- or, closer to almost being close to rational]. Solar panels anywhere on Earth surface is pretty much a bad idea- it’s not just the clouds, it’s also 10 tons per square of air.
If had lot less of both of these, then you get 12 hours instead of 6 hours per average day- which is would be important. And solar power in Germany would be as good as in Spain- and white skin would not had any genetic benefit. So, would not gotten any white people.
And only, the crazy white people, living in Ice Age can be delusional enough to worry about “global warming”.
So, get no global warming cargo cult, either.
Though humans can imagine all kinds of cults and religions- but I guess, on average, probably not quite that stupid.
Ed,
“If there is no power output to space, then the internal energy of the system is increasing”
Wrong. The nuclear core just makes the molecules vibrate with a given intensity. There is no increase in intensity over time.
‘would not have been emitted a million years ago unless it somehow “knew” that it would be incercepted and absorbed a million years later’
So derive Planck’s law by emission to nothing!
If you believe in the big bang, you know everything was tethered to everything else. Things moved apart, but they still know where everything else is.
Things moved apart and radiation followed from object to object.
Everything is still tethered to everything else.
Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” only applies between TWO or more things. Right? You can know something without an observer. Why you assume the observer creates actions too?
Zoe:
You remind me of a couple of kids in my high school science classes who were always reading about advanced science concepts in the popular press, but couldn’t be bothered to learn the basics, such as basic “F=ma” problems like “How long would it take an object to fall 10 meters to the earth’s surface, neglecting air resistance?”
And because they never learned the basics, they never actually understood any of the advanced concepts either. So it is with you.
You can’t grasp the most basic concept in thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy, or the simple accounting that the balance changes by the difference between the input and outputs. This has been verified countless times over the last 200 years, and is one of the most basic cornerstones of successful modern technology, but you don’t understand it!
So when you reject the claim that “If there is no power output to space, then the internal energy of the system is increasing”, you are simply displaying your total ignorance of this fundamental concept.
If you are so sure of this, try an experiment. Your body’s metabolism produces thermal energy at a rate of about 100 watts. By your logic, you do not need to output any of this power to ambient to keep your body temperature steady. So insulate your body with layers and layers of insulation to prevent any of this power output: plastic wrap to prevent evaporation, metal foil to prevent radiation, and multiple layers of down clothing to prevent conduction/convection to ambient.
Now just sit in a room at about 25C and monitor your temperature. You think you will be fine…
You continue to assert that “wave theory explains everything” about electromagnetic radiation. Yet you also, hilariously, continue to cite Planck’s Law, which was the first to use corpuscular theory (successfully) to explain observations that wave theory could not. Only someone totally confused on the basics could argue both.
In response to my example of the light from star a million light years away reaching a detector on telescope on earth, you ask: “Why [do] you assume the observer creates actions too?”
NO! You are the one claiming the star did not actually emit the radiation if it wasn’t absorbed. I do not believe this, because it is absurd.
You seem to have read some things about quantum entangled. But no, this is NOT a case of quantum entanglement, which only happens under very special circumstances. And Einstein was arguing AGAINST the concept.
So yes, you are like my high school classmates, reading about advanced concepts without remotely understanding them, and missing the most basic concepts as well.
Ed,
“Yet you also, hilariously, continue to cite Planck’s Law, which was the first to use corpuscular theory”
Absolute lie. Planck didn’t use corpuscar theory. He won the 1900 Nobel Prize. It was only later did Einstein regurgitate Newton’s corpuscular theory.
The derivation of Planck’s Law is on Wikipedia, do look into it, if you can’t find it in your textbooks.
—
Your body will produce that energy assuming you eat or have stored fat. Wrapping yourself in many many layers will never increase your temperature, except possibly as a chemical response due to not being able to get rid of toxins. This increase will not be anywhere near a doubling.
I’m getting tired of refuting all your silly points. Please read my new article:
https://phzoe.com/2020/09/25/the-steel-greenhouse-ruse/
Zoe:
Do you make a special effort to get EVERYTHING wrong???
The KEY innovation of Planck’s law was that radiation is quantized. This permitted him to explain things that classical wave theory could not. I am very familiar with its derivation.
From britannica.com:
Oh, and Planck won the Nobel in 1918, not 1900. You can’t get even the simplest things right!
On the body example: Have you never heard of heatstroke? Have you ever stopped to think why people wear less clothes when it’s hot? Little kids can understand this, but it is beyond you!
Willis, this is outstanding. Congratulations.
Thanks, Ed.
w.
I’ve always believed that the only reason life continues to exist on this planet is due to it’s self regulating temperature and all the tears flowing from the CliSci zombies was/is in vain.
So, Willis, what’s the ECS? 🙂
42
w.
This data from CERES and analysis by Willis provides climate modelers with an excellent test for their products. If their models end up with ocean temperatures over 27 C then their model has failed to support now known physical processes. That means their model is missing something and they need to halt all development until it is fixed.
This should be a validation test for admittance into the IPCC set of models.
Another clear problem just like the missing hot spot. In fact, missing these dynamics may be the very reason they end up with a hot spot.
As a longterm resident of the wet Tropics thunder cloud screening is a frequent summer observation for me. Its strong effect on local temperature is equally clear. All people outside the wet tropics could notice this only during a holiday or during a climate conference in an exotic location. Also a matter of wanting to see something which could go against a narrative – Science.
Not surprised that Micheal Mann of Miami Vice “fame” didn’t notice 😀
Willis,
Impressive and compelling post.
How does your Emergent Phenomena hypothesis relate to the work of meteorologists Herbert Riehl and Joanne Markus in 1958, as well as the great research of Dr. Joanne Simpson?
On the latter scientist, see the paper given in September, 2001 by Tao and others to the AMS Meteorological Monographs Symposium on Cloud Systems, Hurricanes etc. entitled “The Research of Dr. Joanne Simpson:Fifty years investigating Hurricanes, tropical clouds and cloud systems.”
Dr. Simpson has 9 specific accomplishments in her fifty year career, (1) Hot tower hypothesis,(2) Hurricanes, (3) airflow and clouds over heated islands,(4) cloud models,(5) trade winds and their role in cumulus development,(6) air-sea interaction,(7) cloud-cloud interactions and mergers,(8) waterspouts and (9) TRMM science.
Phew!
Very elegant, Willis.
Your observations of the data reveals a very sharp boundary depicting conditions where thunderstorms always occur…and reveals the resulting observed (associated and very sharp) ocean surface temperature limits.
I’ve always wondered why the steep “runaway global warming” — that occurs at the end of each glacial period — stops climbing at about the same average global temperature. The CO2 rise from ocean outgassing probably does drive a lot of the early steady warming when CO2 concentrations are ~180 ppm…until it reaches a saturation point near 275 ppm after the oceans have warmed considerably… and where additional CO2 has little additional “greenhouse” effect. But the CO2 saturation limit would be a pretty “dirty” upper limit regulator when H2O dominates CO2’s contribution at levels way below CO2’s 275ppm saturation point.
This Eschenbach Climate Thermostat provides the (or at least a) “hard stop” mechanism for interglacial peak temperature limits. And it provides (CO2 independent) local warming upper limits. And it is a temperature based “hard attractor” (due to the sharp condition boundaries) in the Climate’s repertoire of natural chaotic variations. Only very non-linear phenomena (like emergent phenomena) can produce these sharp boundaries. Earth’s observed very narrow temperature variability requires the existence of some “hard” regulators.
Figure 3 is “available solar energy vs. liquid sea surface temperature.” If there were multiple energy sources, a separate chart could be made for each available energy source. A GHG such as CO2 is reradiating otherwise unused solar energy. If the back radiated CO2 energy can be considered a separate energy source, a new Fig 3 could be generated showing “available back radiated energy vs. liquid surface temperature.” Assuming such a figure would be similar to the existing Fig 3, it should show if and where the feedback from GHGs goes from positive to negative (if it does indeed switch polarity). Hope this makes sense.
Excellent Willis, many thanks for your efforts.
Well done. It does seem strange that a prof from a good university does not run with this and produce a paper. It would confirm these findings or expose holes.
If it could get traction from within the ‘team’ think what progress could be acheived.
I wonder why a mainstream ‘scientist’ does not run with it?
I have stated this many times before. The energy in the climate system is a function of the distribution of water of the surface and the unique properties of water.
Ocean surface temperature cannot exceed 303K because of the rapidly increasing rate of evaporation above 298K resulting in cloud formation that reduces surface insolation. Ocean surface cannot get colder than 271K because of the formation of sea ice and the insolation of sea ice.
It should be no surprise that average ocean surface temperature is the area average of these two extremes.
I like the idea of clouds and/or storms regulating daily temperature, but aren’t there some fairly awkward questions remaining as to the source of long term stability for the earth’s temperature? If the earth’s weather thermostat works so well, then why do we have ice ages? Technically we’re still in an ice age (witness the sad state of Greenland, frozen up as it is). However, we were in a much worse glaciated portion of the ice age not very long ago in geological terms, and things could get that bad again.
When it comes to temperature stability, maybe it is just the tropics that are well regulated — but can we even count on that in the long run? What are the chances that the whole earth temperature could drop us into a world-as-snowball situation, the bitter (cold) end of life as we know it?
The current limit on the tropical ocean temperature of 303K is because all oceans have sea ice at their interface with pole/s where the temperature is 271K. That has been the case since the southern ocean circulation began some 60M years ago.
Bering Strait, that connects the northern Pacific with the northern Atlantic is only 50m deep. The slight variation in Earth’s rotational eccentricity and domination of ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere cause a build up of sea and land ice in the northern hemisphere that eventually closes Bering Strait t heat transfer. This results in accelerating glaciation around the North Atlantic.
The limit on the tropical sea surface temperature is set by the weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the sea surface because that is what determines the amount of energy required to sustain the evaporative process.
The heavier the atmosphere the more energy is needed for evaporation to occur and the higher the temperature must rise.
If there is no atmosphere to press down on a water surface then the entire body of water converts to water vapour pretty much instantaneously.
So, hypothetically, if the mechanism of storm formation were derailed somehow, there could still be a basis for temperature stability?
How can we test Willis’s theory of these emergent processes and the 27 C figure.
Since building a 1 km tower would be a tad expensive a series of radiospndes launch in a target area at say, 30 min intervals. If these detected a change in some parameters, at a point in time, then a batch of radiosondes could be launched at 10 min intervals to get a greater resolution of measurement.
If a layer effect was found then drones could be sent up to closely investigate these measurement.
Water vapour pressure rises rapidly above 298K.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/687/saturation-vapor-pressure-diagram.pdf
Ocean air circulates from high latitudes over the poles gaining water vapour over the warm oceans until saturated then that water vapour condenses to form clouds each afternoon as the air temperature cools resulting in rain then the cycle repeats the next day. The daily cycle of cloud formation reduces the surface insulation from the clear sky condition so act as shutters. Ocean air circulations eventually lose water as they move back to higher latitudes and near zero water as the air moves over sea or land ice at higher latitudes, to start the cycle again.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures_130?itok=oAV0uFx3
The air circulation creates ocean currents that also distribute heat from the tropics to higher latitudes. So sea surface temperature at the tropics does not exceed 303K due to the high rate of evaporation above that temperature and the consistent starting condition of near zero water and 271K surface temperature where sea ice forms.
The negative feedback based on the property of water is many times more powerful than any tiny changes from radiative transmission due to changes in CO2.
The factors altering sea surface temperature over eons are related to ocean connectedness that changes with movement of land masses and surface level of the oceans.
“Water vapour pressure rises rapidly above 298K.”
Actually not, at least over the temperature ranges being considered in the above article. The change in water vapor pressure going from 298 K to 300 K is about +12.6%. In comparison, the change in water vapor pressure going from 296 K to 298 K is about +12.8%.
Even at a wider range, water vapor pressure increase from 301 K to 303 K is about 12.3%, but the vapor pressure increase from 293 K to 295 K is about 13.1% . . . that’s less than a 10% change in slope over a span of 10 °C.
Here are the raw numbers: water temperature (K) vapor pressure (mb)
293 5.794
295 6.553
296 6.964
298 7.854
300 8.842
301 9.375
303 10.526
Hello Willis,
You say:
“… emergent phenomena come into existence when a temperature threshold is passed, and that they act to oppose further heating.”
In that case, how do we account for the long term statistically significant warming trend since the late 1970s that is found in all the global surface and lower troposphere (satellite) temperature data sets? If emergent phenomena check warming then a warming trend should not be observed, or is that too simplistic? Thanks.
“If emergent phenomena check warming then a warming trend should not be observed, or is that too simplistic? Thanks.”
TFN
Willis is studying the tropics, in particular the meteorology of the ITCZ that drives the Hadley Cell.
Your question is global in scope. It is well established that the Arctic Polar cell is warming. The Polar cell is at the receiving end of the atmospheric transport system that delivers energy from the tropics to the poles (via the intermediary Ferrel cell).
There is a very simple arithmetical method for calculating the average global temperature based on the areal extent of the 3 atmospheric cells per hemisphere, the height of the tropopause for each and their associated lapse rates.
If the Polar cell receives more energy then the planetary temperature will rise. However as Willis clearly shows the constraints on the collection process (tropical sea surface temperature cut-off) mean that even as the hydrological cycling rate changes in the Hadley cell the temperature in the tropics is fixed by an upper limit at the point of storm activity. It is only at the downstream end (the poles) where the temperature increase occurs and global warming ensues.
Thanks Philip,
As I understand it you’re saying (or Willis is saying) that these emergent phenomena that limit or reverse (?) warming are restrained geographically to the tropics. They are not capable of preventing warming on a global scale.
I looked at the UAH lower troposphere data for tropics and the rate of warming there since the late 1970s is pretty consistent with the global rate. Global is +0.57C/dec and tropics is +0.55C/dec. Warming above oceans has actually been slightly faster over the tropics than globally (+0.51C/dec decade over the tropical oceans versus +0.49C/dec globally).
As you say, the global figure is influenced warming in the Arctic, which has been very fast, especially over the oceans. However, the warming rate in the Antarctic is almost flat, in fact slightly negative over the ocean areas since the late 1970s (-0.05C/dec). Even so, a rate of +0.55C/dec warming above tropical regions hardly seems consistent with emergent phenomena that contain warming in that region.
Most recent UAH lower troposphere data here: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
TFN
We cannot compare the two poles of our planet for the simple reason that the North is occupied by an ocean (average elevation 0 metres) while the South is occupied by a continental ice cap (average elevation circa 2,000 metres). So in the presence of a high elevation land surface that never melts to liquid water in the austral summer the meteorology of the two polar circulation cells is bound to be different.
“in fact slightly negative over the ocean areas since the late 1970s (-0.05C/dec). ”
I would ascribe that to meteorological processes. If the Antarctic icecap is receiving more upper level air via a more vigorous planetary circulation, then the efficient cooling mechanism of the high altitude surface-to-space radiative cooling will generate more katabatic winds delivering surface generated cold air down to sea level in the Ross and Weddell seas. See Dome Argus Weather Station Temperature Profiles from 09 May to 17 Dec 2008 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335313576_Dome_Argus_Weather_Station_Temperature_Profiles_from_09_May_to_17_Dec_2008
Philip,
Indeed, as I understand it the so-called ‘coreless winter’ effect reduces the rate of warming in Antarctica.
We are still left with the question as to how lower tropospheric warming at a rate of +0.55C/dec has been observed to occur over the tropics since the late 1970s, if it is the case that Willis’s emergent processes are supposed to be countering this? I don’t see how Willis’s hypothesis is supported by these observations.
TFN
You can have warming and cooling if the proportion of solar energy getting into the system varies because that mimics changes in top of atmosphere insolation and insolation is one of the three factors that influence the baseline surface temperature. The other two being atmospheric mass and the strength of the gravitational field.
As Philip Mulholland and I have demonstrated previously the radiative characteristics of an atmosphere are not relevant since convective changes will neutralise them without a surface temperature change.
However, in order to retain hydrostatic equilibrium for the atmosphere when there is a surface temperature change there needs to be an equal negative system response which involves changes in the global convective overturning configuration so that energy out still equals energy in at the changed surface temperature.
Total global cloudiness is what matters whether the cause of the changes in cloudiness is Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis or my hypothesis which involves solar induced jet stream variations.
Natural variations such as the MWP and LIA involved changes in jet stream tracks (hence my hypothesis) affecting an area up to 1000 miles broad in the middle latitudes. In comparison, I doubt that the negative circulation response to changes in radiative gases would need to be even 1000th of that.
Once the cloudiness changes fix the new surface temperature and the negative circulatory response then Willis’s emergent phenomena (which involves far more than tropical thunderstorms) will keep the system at that new surface temperature.
In reality, that surface temperature is constantly varying up and down with the emergent phenomena varying similarly in response.
“I don’t see how Willis’s hypothesis is supported by these observations.”
TFN,
We are where we are with our understanding. I don’t agree with Willis that the local albedo effect of the ITCZ storms is the key driver everywhere (I will now get hammered by our host as I am paraphrasing). Watch the Figure 1 animation carefully and notice how the north east trades for both the Pacific and the Atlantic drive the convection process towards the southwest – there is a mismatch between sea temperature and cloud top altitude along this margin. I had some slight experience of a tropical climate on the Caicos Islands one week in June many years ago. It was clear there that the descending air in the Horse Latitudes allow for more solar energy capture by the surface waters of the open ocean (Willis’s Figure 8 above). This then feeds moisture into the north-east trades air stream directed towards the ITCZ and away you go.
Curiously the south east trades of the Pacific do no show this mismatch instead they go the other way for December with the cloud spread extending beyond the warm water isotherm, so Willis’s South Sea experience is likely to be different to mine on Caicos. For me albedo changes coupled with zonal to meridional air flow transition is the key to understanding all of this.
Every aspect of weather from the smallest zephyr through the largest hurricane to the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar atmospheric circulations is an emergent phenomenon. Even the Brewer Dobson circulation in the stratosphere is involved.
The function of the whole lot combined is to equalise energy in from space with energy out to space.
Convective adjustments neutralise radiative imbalances and the adjustments needed to neutralise any effect from our emissions would be too small to measure compared to natural variability.
The base temperature which needs to be maintained is determined by atmospheric mass, gravity and insolation.
The base temperature must be sufficient to produce an upward pressure gradient force equal to the downward force of gravity (hydrostatic equilibrium). No more and no less, otherwise no atmosphere.
Stephen,
Equatorial and mesoscale motions are not hydrostatic. The vertical velocity in these motions is directly proportional to the total of all heating and cooling forces and that total is dominated by evaporation and consensation. See our manuscripts on these topics.
Jerry
The system as a whole is hydrostatic. Individual locations within the system are not. They all average out in the end due to convective adjustments from place to place.
Stephen,
Charmed in 1947 showed that large scale motions in the atmosphere are almost hydrostatic. The climate and weather modelers then assumed that the large scale motions are in exact hydrostatic balance and that was a major mistake. That assumption led to the so called primitive (hydrostatic) equations that are not the correct system to accurately describe the evolution of large scale motions in the atmosphere. The correct system must
satisfy mathematical estimates that prove that the ensuing solution will evolve on the large scale. This must be done by using the Bounded Derivative Theory introduced by Heinz Kreiss. I suggest you bring yourself up to date on the literature . New developments based on this theory have led to a better understanding of mesoscale storms and their generation of large spatial scale gravity waves with mesoscale time scales. The theory produces well posed reduced systems that are mathematically proved to accurately evolve on the chosen scale of motion and are well posed for both t
initial and initial/boundary value problem.s. Note that the hydrostatic system is ill posed for the initial/boundary value problem and that alone is enough to show that it is not the correct reduced system.
Jerry
Jerry,
The large scale motions are never in hydrostatic balance, so I agree.
However, averaged over time, hydrostatic balance must be achieved.
Otherwise there would be no atmosphere.
Any long term imbalance would either cause an atmosphere to be lost to space through over heating or cause it to fall to the ground as a solid due to over cooling.
That doesn’t happen.
Ask yourself why.
Stephen
Only approximate hydrostaic balance, not exact hydrostatic balance. There is a huge mathematical difference between the two .
Jerry
Stephen Wilde:
You said “Natural variation such as the MWP and the LIA involved changes in the jet stream tracks”
Nonsense!
Both were simply due to variations in the number of volcanic eruptions that occurred.
Only 31 VEI4 or higher eruptions over ~300 years for the MWP
More than 135 VEI4 or higher for the ~600 year LIA, which was totally caused by volcanic eruptions https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/
In each instance, lesser or greater amounts of dimming Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
Volcanic events are a part of natural variation.
The jet stream tracks did vary from LIA to MWP.
I suggest that the causation was more likely solar than volcanic.
Stephen Wilde:
“I suggest that the causation was more likely solar than volcanic”
Again, nonsense.
There is zero evidence that the sun has ever varied during historical times. Visit the link!
Burl,
What about the Maunder Minimum that occurred at about the same time as the LIA?
It would only take a small difference in the amount of solar heating to have a major impact on the climate.
Jerry
Jerry:
You do need to visit the link which I provided above. It is an analysis of the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set, which spans the years 1659 to the present. It spans all but 15 years of the Maunder Minimum, and all temperature fluctuations coincide with a known volcanic eruption, or eruptions, apart from 2 or 3 which are probably unknown sea-floor eruptions.
There is NO possibility of any cooling due to solar activity, all cooling can be directly tied to volcanic SO2 aerosols.
There were a few warm intervals within the LIA. All that are shown were periods where there were no volcanic eruptions. The longest such period occurred within the Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots. This warming could not have happened if the absence of sunspots has any effect upon our climate.
Burl,
There is a lag between any change in solar heating and change in climate. very little is understood about the amount or change in the amount of solar heating so to dismiss it outright is questionable.
Jerry
Jerry:
The temperature spike which I alluded to occurred around 1685, about 40 years within the Maunder minimum (c. 1645-c. 1715), and about 40 years before its end. This was a settled period within the minimum., and about 5 years after the c. 1680 eruption of Tongkoko, so that its dimming SO2 aerosols would have had time to settle out and allow normal warming to occur. But this could NOT have happened if the lack of sunspots was what was cooling the Earth.
This, along with all of the downward temperature excursions in the Central England Temperatures Data set correlating with volcanic eruptions points to volcanic activity as being the primary controller of our climate
Burl,
Please provide measurements of incoming solar radiation over time and the error
in those measurements.
Jerry
Jerry:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth during the LIA years by ANY proxy measurement, as long as there are interfering volcanic SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere (as there were most of the time).
Jerry:
The correlation HAS to be global, not just regional Does such data exist?
Burl,
Solar maximum or solar max is a regular period of greatest Sun activity during the 11-year solar cycle. During solar maximum, large numbers of sunspots appear, and the solar irradiance output grows by about 0.07%.[2] The increased energy output of solar maxima can impact Earth’s global climate, and recent studies have shown some correlation with regional weather patterns.
see reference on wiki
Jerry
The limit on the tropical sea surface temperature is set by the weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the sea surface because that is what determines the amount of energy required to sustain the evaporative process.
The heavier the atmosphere the more energy is needed for evaporation to occur and the higher the temperature must rise.
If there is no atmosphere to press down on a water surface then the entire body of water converts to water vapour pretty much instantaneously.
Figure 3 is impressing. A great find. The red part of the line tells a very clear story.
Figure 7 (about TRMM evaporative cooling) seems to be even more impressing but a remark has to be made about what we are looking at: is it the role of evaporation or the process of convection? There is a time lag between evaporation and rainfall of about 8.9 days (on average). Between evaporation and rainfall the evaporated parcels have often been transported over large distances by trade winds. Rainfall is more related to convection than to evaporation because the last one happens over large surface areas below the Hadley cells and also at lower temperatures, contrary to convection.
Interesting in that respect must be the role of a [thick] layer with high relative humidity. A comment about RH from an earlier thread:
erikemagnuson January 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm
“I was intrigued by an earlier WUWT article by Willis on SST’s versus thunderstorm activity. Crunched some numbers relating to steam table data and found out that some where between 25C and 30C, the buoyancy for air (inverse of density) at 100% RH went from being driven by air expanding due to temperature (roughy linear) to being driven by the increase in water vapor (roughly exponential). Also noted that the NWS considers SST’s of 26C needed for tropical cyclone intensification.”
Figure 3 has a typo that lessens its value as a stand-alone picture. The comment in the upper left about the trend line shows less energy available ‘above 7 degees C’ vice ’27 deg C’.
What you find is only relevant for the tropics, as your figure 4 shows. But we know from paleoclimatic studies that global climate change has very little to do with the tropics. Even during glacial periods the tropics are about the same they are now. Christopher R. Scotese defines the climates of the planet for the past 540 million years as a function of the equator to pole gradients:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
See his figure 12.
The emerging phenomena you describe, although interesting and it explains a lot about the geological temperature stability of the planet, is unrelated to global warming or climate change. The climate is not changing because the tropics are warming but despite the tropics warming very little.
Javier: “The climate is not changing because the tropics are warming but despite the tropics warming very little.”
WR: As such it is already important that the tropics cannot warm more than a very little bit and hardly will cool. It proves the Earth is for a large part (40%) resilient to change. But outside of the tropics we also find emergent phenomena. In the mid-latitudes depressions develop when cold dry air clashes with warm moist air. When the gradient between Greenland and the Atlantic grows (because of some warming in the oceans) more and stronger depressions will develop transporting a lot of surface energy upward to elevations from where it can be radiated into space. The development of mid-latitude depressions can be seen as such an emergent phenomena, they don’t develop following a fixed pattern but react on developing local contrasts. The same pattern of mitigation of ‘change’ is the result.
The emergent phenomenon Willis describes happens only when the ocean surface goes above 26 °C which very rarely happens outside the tropical band. It is know and described in the literature as I have already told him a few times. It is called deep convection.
You cannot pull emergent phenomena. Each has a cause, conditions and consequences. Many atmospheric phenomena depend on the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles that provides the energy for wind and storms. It is known that storminess was a lot stronger during the LIA than now, so some emergent phenomena actually decrease with global warming.
Sud, Y. C., G. K. Walker, and K‐M. Lau. “Mechanisms regulating sea‐surface temperatures and deep convection in the tropics.” Geophysical research letters 26.8 (1999): 1019-1022.
“Scientific basis for the emergence of deep convection in the tropics at or above 28°C sea‐surface temperature (SST), and its proximity to the highest observed SST of about 30°C, is explained from first principles of moist convection and TOGA‐COARE data. Our calculations show that SST of 28–29°C is needed for charging the cloud‐base airmass with the required moist static energy for clouds to reach the upper troposphere (i.e., 200 hPa). Besides reducing solar irradiation by cloud‐cover, moist convection also produces cool and dry downdrafts, which promote oceanic cooling by increased sensible and latent heat fluxes at the surface. Consequently, the tropical ocean seesaws between the states of net energy absorber before, and net energy supplier after, the deep moist convection, which causes the SST to vacillate between 28° and 30°C. While dynamics of the large‐scale circulation embodying the easterly waves and Madden‐Julian Oscillations (MJOs) modulate moist convection, we show that the quasi‐stationary vertical profile of moist static energy of the tropics is the ultimate cause of the upper limit on tropical SSTs.”
That’s 1999, mind you. Only 21 years ago. Nice to see Willis gets to reproduce it. Of course this is news at WUWT but not in the scientific world.
“That’s 1999, mind you. Only 21 years ago. Nice to see Willis gets to reproduce it”
Javier
Beeb!
Replication using a novel technique with new data is supposed to be the touchstone of the scientific method.
(Play on).
Philip makes a good point as CERES data wasn’t available in 1999, so an updated analysis is welcome. Besides it’s not Javier’s job to dictate Willis’ research interests.
Monthly Nino34, MEI, and CP OLR (inverse cloud proxy) data show the same temperature relationship near 26-27°C Willis independently found:
It is not considered independent finding f it is something already widely known. You cannot independently find Newton’s law of gravity or discover America. You are supposed to know it through your due diligence on what is known about what you are researching. But welcomed to citizen science where every day brings a new re-discovery or dis-discovery. We would call it advance except it is not.
Javier, who was the first person to perform the work Willis did with CERES data?
Can you find a citation with similar ideas and graphics?
I certainly don’t speak for Willis but I imagine he might be like me when an idea comes up, that is he probably doesn’t immediately worry about what’s in the literature while he works out problems to satisfy his curiousity. It also comes down to asking the right questions.
On the whole there is overwhelming redundancy of wrong things in the literature, so it is wise to go over old territory, ie to verify whether the science was really settled.
It is known that storminess was a lot stronger during the LIA than now, so some emergent phenomena actually decrease with global warming.
That’s factually backwards. Storminess decreased during the LIA.
The climate is not changing because the tropics are warming but despite the tropics warming very little.
The climate changes when ENSO activity changes (from solar activity changes) drive more long-term positive or negative MEI, within the limit of the sun to warm the tropics, then the tropical heat circulates north and south warming the rest of the ocean.
The duration and strength of positive or negative MEI will dictate the extent of SST change.
Those shipwrecks might be a very bad proxy. Lots of assumptions.
Degeai, Jean-Philippe, et al. “Major storm periods and climate forcing in the Western Mediterranean during the Late Holocene.” Quaternary Science Reviews 129 (2015): 37-56.
“with a climax of storminess between 400 and 800 cal yr AD (Dark Ages Cold Period), and from 1230 to >1800 cal yr AD (SP3 to SP1, Little Ice Age).”
Sabatier, Pierre, et al. “7000 years of paleostorm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea in response to Holocene climate events.” Quaternary Research 77.1 (2012): 1-11.
“we recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300–6100, 5650–5400, 4400–4050, 3650–3200, 2800–2600, 1950– 1400 and 400–50 cal yr BP (in the Little Ice Age). In contrast, our results show that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (1150–650 cal yr BP) was characterised by low storm activity.”
Costas, Susana, et al. “Windiness spells in SW Europe since the last glacial maximum.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 436 (2016): 82-92.
“The observed distribution claims periods of enhanced storminess across Europe during the LIA, the end of the Dark Ages and during the Mid-Holocene”
Sorrel, Philippe, et al. “Persistent non-solar forcing of Holocene storm dynamics in coastal sedimentary archives.” Nature Geoscience 5.12 (2012): 892-896.
“On the basis of nine independently dated records, we propose here a stacked chronology of palaeostorm activity in northern coastal Europe, and consequently define five Holocene storm periods (HSPs) consisting of the most widespread stormy intervals during the mid- to late Holocene (Fig. 1): HSP I (5,800–5,500 cal bp), HSP II (4,500–3,950 cal bp), HSP III (3,300–2,400 cal bp), HSP IV (1,900–1,050 cal bp) and HSP V (600–250 cal bp), the last one coinciding with the early to mid-Little Ice Age (LIA).”
van Hengstum, Peter J., et al. “Low‐frequency storminess signal at Bermuda linked to cooling events in the North Atlantic region.” Paleoceanography 30.2 (2015): 52-76.
“Sedimentary evidence from diverse high-latitude coastal environments indicates that a low-frequency storminess signal has persisted across the North Atlantic region through the late Holocene, with events centered during the Little Ice Age (200 to 600 calibrated years (cal years) B.P.), Dark Ages Cold Period (1200 to 1900 cal years B.P. and from 2600 to 3200 cal years B.P.). Evidence includes increased aeolian transport in Iceland [Jackson et al., 2005] and Sweden [de Jong et al., 2006]; coastal sand dune reorganization in the Netherlands [Jelgersma et al., 1995], Ireland [Wilson et al., 2004], and France [Clarke et al., 2002]; terrestrial sedimentary flux into New England lakes [Noren et al., 2002]; estuarine tempestites in France [Sorrel et al., 2009]; and lagoon washover events in the Mediterranean [Sabatier et al., 2012].”
Multiple proxies from multiple studies agree that the LIA was a period of increased storminess. Your shipwrecks are not telling the real story.
A stronger, stormier mid latitude jet accompanies more upper level wind shear which suppresses storm formation in the tropics.
Some time back I was on the edge of the Beaufort sea, and we had a huge thunderstorm.
That was not supposed to happen, but it did.
Thus the north can experience increased emergent phenomena.
The biggest emergent phenomena is ice cover.
Since the Polar Bears are doing fine, and there is increased plant growth, what is the problem exactly?
Javier says: ‘The emerging phenomena you describe, although interesting and it explains a lot about the geological temperature stability of the planet, is unrelated to global warming or climate change.’
I believe that all agree that ‘climate change’ is caused by a radiation imbalance. The question is what causes this imbalance (i.e. CO2 or other).
The ’emerging phenomena’ described is one of the mechanisms that the earth uses to deal with this imbalance. The energy transferred by this evaporative cooling of the tropics is not only dispersed directly into space, but is also transferred throughout the atmosphere. Rather than being unrelated to global warming or climate change, is one of the causes climate change, i.e. a reduction in the equator to pole gradient. The higher temperatures at the higher latitudes represent increased radiative transfer to space and thus increased cooling, contributing to countering the radiation imbalance.
You will note that these ’emerging phenomena’ increase at a highly exponential rate with temperature and thus strongly limiting the potential for the earth’s temperature to increase as a result of a radiation imbalance.
I agree with most of what you say except that some emerging phenomena increase with global warming and some decrease.
In a warming world the atmosphere is capable of doing less work, not more.
Laliberté, F., et al. “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate.” Science 347.6221 (2015): 540-543.
“We conclude that the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.”
But we already knew that. Hurricanes are decreasing, not increasing, and storminess is also decreasing, as well as windiness. The atmosphere is getting quieter with global warming. We are being told the opposite, but we know the truth.
Vautard, Robert, et al. “Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness.” Nature geoscience 3.11 (2010): 756-761.
Willis, I didn’t see anyone commenting on this. Figure 3. The in-table caption, last line, reads ‘above 7 degrees’. Should it not read ‘above 27 degrees’?
My thanks to you and one other person for noting this, it’s fixed now.
w.