A Request For Peer Preview

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, for my sins I’ve been working on a paper with the hope of getting it published in a journal. Now that it’s nearly done, I realized that I have the worlds’ best peer-reviewers available on WUWT. So before seeing if I can get this published, I thought I’d take advantage of you good folks for some “peer preview”, to point out to me any problems you might see with the title, format, style, data, conclusions, or any other part of the following paper. All of the graphics are in grayscale because that’s what the journals want.

Many thanks for any and all contributions.

w.


The Emergent Thermostat

Abstract

The current paradigm of climate science is that the long-term change in global temperature is given by a constant called “climate sensitivity” times the change in downwelling radiation, called “radiative forcing”. However, despite over forty years of investigation, the uncertainty of the value of climate sensitivity has only increased.1 This lack of any progress in determining the most central value in the current paradigm strongly suggests that the paradigm itself is incorrect, that it is not an accurate description of reality. Here I propose a different climate paradigm, which is that a variety of emergent climate phenomena act in concert to keep the surface temperature within tight limits. This explains the unusual thermal stability of the climate system.

Overview

Several authors have analyzed the climate system as a heat engine. Here is Reis and Bejan’s description

The earth with its solar heat input, heat rejection, and wheels of atmo- spheric and oceanic circulation, is a heat engine without shaft: its maximized (but not ideal) mechanical power output cannot be delivered to an extraterrestrial system. Instead, the earth engine is destined to dissipate through air and water friction and other irreversibilities (e.g., heat leaks across finite ∆T) all the mechanical power that it produces. It does so by ‘‘spinning in its brake’’ the fastest that it can (hence the winds and the ocean currents, which proceed along easiest routes).2

When viewed as a heat engine, one of the most unusual and generally unremarked aspects is its astounding stability. Over the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature varied by less than one kelvin. This is a variation of ± 0.2%. Given that the system rejects a variable amount of incoming energy, with the variations mostly controlled by nothing more solid than clouds, this is a most surprising degree of stability.

This in turn strongly argues for some global thermoregulatory mechanism. The stability cannot be from simple thermal inertia, because the hemispheric land temperatures vary by ~ 20K over the year, and hemispheric sea temperatures vary by ~ 5K.

Emergence

There is no generally accepted definition of emergence. In 1874 Lewes proposed the following definition: “Emergence: Theory according to which the combination of entities of a given level gives rise to a higher level entity whose properties are entirely new”.3

For the purposes of this article, I will define emergent climate phenomena functionally and by example.

Emergent climate phenomena arise spontaneously, often upon passing some thermal or other threshold. Consider the daily development of the tropical cumulus cloud field. Upon passing a temperature threshold, out of a clear sky hundreds of individual cumulus clouds can appear in a short time.

They have a time of emergence and a limited lifespan. Dust devils form spontaneously at a certain moment, persist for a while, and then dissipate and disappear.

They form a separate whole, distinct from the surroundings. Tropical thunderstorms are surrounded by clear air.

They are often mobile and move in unpredictable ways. As a result, tropical cyclones have “prediction cones” for where they might possibly go next, rather than being accurately predictable.

They are often associated with phase changes in the relevant fluids. Convective cloud emergence involves a phase change of water.

Once in existence, they can persist below the threshold necessary for their emergence. Rayleigh-Benard circulation requires a certain temperature difference to emerge, but once in existence, the circulation can persist at a smaller temperature difference.

They are flow systems far from equilibrium. As such, in accordance with the Constructal Law4, they must evolve and mutate to survive.

They are not naively predictable, as they have entirely different properties than the substrate from which they emerge. If you lived somewhere that there were never clouds, you likely would not predict that a giant white object might suddenly appear hundreds of meters above your head.

Examples of natural emergent phenomena with which we are familiar include the behavior of flocks of birds, vortices of all kinds, termite mounds, consciousness, and indeed, life itself. Familiar emergent climate phenomena include thunderstorms, tornadoes, Rayleigh-Bénard circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, clouds, cyclones, El Ninos, and dust devils.

A Simple Example

To explain how emergent phenomena thermoregulate the earth’s surface temperature, consider the lowly “dust devil”. As the sun heats a field in the summer, the change in temperature is some fairly linear function of the “forcing”, the downwelling solar radiation. This is in accord with the current paradigm. But when the hottest part of the field reaches a certain temperature with respect to the overlying atmospheric temperature, out of the clear sky a dust devil emerges. This cools the surface in several ways. First, it moves warm surface air upwards into the lower troposphere. Second, it increases sensible heat transfer, which is a roughly linear function of the air velocity over the surface. Third, it increases evaporation, which again is a roughly linear function of the surface air velocity.

At this point, the current paradigm that the change in temperature is a linear function of the change in forcing has broken down entirely. As the sunshine further irradiates the surface, instead of getting more temperature we get more dust devils. This puts a cap on the surface temperature. Note that this cap is not a function of forcing. The threshold is temperature-based, not forcing-based. As a result, it will not be affected by things like changing amounts of sunshine or variations in greenhouse gases.

A Complete Example

The heavy lifting of the thermoregulatory system, however, is not done by dust devils. It is achieved through variations in the timing and strength of the daily emergence of tropical cumulus fields and the ensuing tropical thunderstorms, particularly over the ocean. This involves the interaction of several different emergent phenomena

Here is the evolution of the day and night in the tropical ocean. The tropical ocean is where the majority of the sun’s energy enters the huge heat engine we call the climate. As a result, it is also where the major thermostatic mechanisms are located.

Figure 1. Daily emergent phenomena of the tropical ocean.

As seen in Panel “Early Morning”, at dawn, the atmosphere is stratified, with the coolest air nearest the surface. The nocturnal emergent Rayleigh-Bénard overturning of the ocean is coming to an end. The sun is free to heat the ocean. The air near the surface eddies randomly.

As the sun continues to heat the ocean, around ten or eleven o’clock in the morning a new circulation pattern emerges to replace the random atmospheric eddying. As soon as a critical temperature threshold is passed, local Rayleigh-Bénard-type circulation cells emerge everywhere. This is the first emergent transition, from random circulation to Rayleigh-Bénard circulation. These cells transport both heat and water vapor upwards.

By late morning, the Rayleigh-Bénard circulation is typically strong enough to raise the water vapor to the local lifting condensation level (LCL). At that altitude, the water vapor condenses into clouds as shown in Panel “Late Morning”.

This area-wide shift to an organized circulation pattern is not a change in feedback, nor is it related to forcing. It is a self-organized emergent phenomenon. It is threshold-based, meaning that it emerges spontaneously when a certain threshold is passed. In the wet tropics there’s plenty of water vapor, so the major variable in the threshold is the temperature. In addition, note that there are actually two distinct emergent phenomena in Panel 2—the Rayleigh-Bénard circulation which emerges prior to the cumulus formation, and which is enhanced and strengthened by the totally separate emergence of the clouds. We now have two changes of state involved as well, with evaporation from the surface and condensation and re-evaporation at altitude.

Under this new late-morning cumulus circulation regime, much less surface warming goes on. Part of the sunlight is reflected back to space, so less energy makes it into the system to begin with. Then the increasing surface wind due to the cumulus-based circulation pattern increases the evaporation, reducing the surface warming even more by moving latent heat up to the lifting condensation level.

The crucial issues here are the timing and strength of the emergence. If the ocean is a bit warmer, the new circulation regime starts earlier in the morning and it cuts down the total daily warming. On the other hand, if the ocean is cooler than usual, clear morning skies last later into the day, allowing increased warming. The system temperature is thus regulated both from overheating and excessive cooling by the time of onset of the regime change.

Consider the idea of “climate sensitivity” in this system, which is the sensitivity of surface temperature to forcing. The solar forcing is constantly increasing as the sun rises higher in the sky. In the morning before the onset of cumulus circulation, the sun comes through the clear atmosphere and rapidly warms the surface. So the thermal response is large, and the climate sensitivity is high.

After the onset of the cumulus regime, however, much of the sunlight is reflected back to space. Less sunlight remains to warm the ocean. In addition to reduced sunlight, there is increased evaporative cooling. Compared to the morning, the climate sensitivity is much lower.

So here we have two situations with very different climate sensitivities. In the early morning, climate sensitivity is high, and the temperature rises quickly with the increasing solar insolation. In the late morning, a regime change occurs to a situation with much lower climate sensitivity. Adding extra solar energy doesn’t raise the temperature anywhere near as fast as it did earlier.

At some point in the afternoon, there is a good chance that the cumulus circulation pattern is not enough to stop the continued surface temperature increase. If the temperature exceeds a certain higher threshold, as shown in Panel “Late Afternoon”, another complete regime shift takes place. The regime shift involves the spontaneous emergence of independently mobile heat engines called thunderstorms.

Thunderstorms are dual-fuel heat engines. They run on low-density air. That air rises and condenses out the moisture. The condensation releases heat that re-warms the air, which rises deep into the troposphere.

There are two ways the thunderstorms get low-density air. One is to heat the air. This is how a thunderstorm gets started, as a solar-driven phenomenon emerging from strong cumulus clouds. The sun plus GHG radiation combine to heat the surface, which then warms the air. The low-density air rises. When that circulation gets strong enough, thunderstorms start to form. Once the thunderstorm is started, the second fuel is added — water vapor. The more water vapor there is in the air, the lighter it becomes. The thunderstorm generates strong winds around its base. Evaporation is proportional to wind speed, so this greatly increases the local evaporation. This makes the air lighter and makes the air rise faster, which makes the thunderstorm stronger, which in turn increases the wind speed around the thunderstorm base. A thunderstorm is a regenerative system, much like a fire where part of the energy is used to power a bellows to make the fire burn even hotter. Once it is started, it is much harder to stop. This gives thunderstorms a unique ability that is not represented in any of the climate models. A thunderstorm is capable of driving the surface temperature well below the initiation temperature that was needed to get the thunderstorm started. It can run on into the evening, and often well into the night, on its combination of thermal and evaporation energy sources.

Thunderstorms function as heat pipes that transport warm air rapidly from the surface to the lifting condensation level where the moisture turns into clouds and rain, and from there to the upper atmosphere without interacting with the intervening greenhouse gases. The air and the energy it contains are moved to the upper troposphere hidden inside the cloud-shrouded thunderstorm tower, without being absorbed or hindered by GHGs on the way. Thunderstorms also cool the surface in a host of other ways, utilizing a combination of a standard refrigeration cycle with water as the working fluid, plus cold water returned from above, clear surrounding air allowing greater upwelling surface radiation, wind-driven evaporation, spray increasing evaporation area, albedo changes, and cold downwelling entrained air.

As with the onset of the cumulus circulation, the onset of thunderstorms occurs earlier on days when it is warmer, and it occurs later (and sometimes not at all) on days that are cooler than usual. Again, there is no way to assign an average climate sensitivity. The warmer it gets, the less each additional watt per meter warms the surface.

Once the sun sets, first the cumulus and then the thunderstorms decay and dissipate. In Panel 4, a final and again different regime emerges. The main feature of this regime is that during this time, the ocean radiates the general amount of energy that was absorbed during all of the other parts of the day.

During the nighttime, the surface is still receiving energy from the greenhouse gases. This has the effect of delaying the onset of oceanic overturning, and of reducing the rate of cooling. Note that the oceanic overturning is once again the emergent Rayleigh-Bénard circulation. Because there are fewer clouds, the ocean can radiate to space more freely. In addition, the overturning of the ocean constantly brings new water to the surface to radiate and cool. This increases the heat transfer across the interface. As with the previous thresholds, the timing of this final transition is temperature-dependent. Once a critical threshold is passed, oceanic overturning emerges. Stratification is replaced by circulation, bringing new water to radiate, cool, and sink. In this way, heat is removed, not just from the surface as during the day, but from the entire body of the upper layer of the ocean.

Predictions

A theory is only as good as its predictions. From the above theoretical considerations we can predict the following:

Prediction 1. In warm areas of the ocean, clouds will act to cool the surface, and in cold areas they will act to warm the surface. This will be most pronounced above a temperature threshold at the warmest temperatures.

Evidence validating the first prediction.

Figure 2. Scatterplot, sea surface temperature (SST) versus surface cloud radiative effect. The more negative the data the greater the cooling.

As predicted, the clouds warm the surface when it is cold and cool it when it is warm, with the effect very pronounced above about 26°C – 27°C.

Prediction 2. In the tropical ocean, again above a certain temperature threshold, thunderstorms will increase very rapidly with increasing temperature.

Evidence validating the second prediction.

Since there is always plenty of water over the tropical ocean, and plenty of sunshine to drive them, thermally driven tropical thunderstorms will be a function of little more than temperature.

Figure 3. Cloud top altitude as a proxy for deep convective thunderstorms versus sea surface temperature.

As with clouds in general, there is a clear temperature threshold at about 26°C – 27°C, with a nearly vertical increase in thunderstorms above that threshold. This puts a very strong cap on increasing temperatures.

Prediction 3. Transient decreases in solar forcing such as those from eruptions will be counteracted by increased sunshine from tropical cumulus forming later in the day and less frequently. This means that after an initial decrease, incoming solar will go above the pre-eruption baseline until the status quo ante is re-established.

Evidence validating the third prediction.

Regarding the third prediction, my theory solves the following Pinatubo puzzle from Soden et al.5

“Beginning in 1994, additional anomalies in the satellite-observations of top-of-atmosphere absorbed solar radiation become evident, which are unrelated to the Mount Pinatubo eruption and therefore not reproduced in the model simulations. These anomalies are believed to stem from decadal-scale changes in the tropical circulation over the mid to late 1990’s [see J. Chenet al., Science 295, 838 (2002); and B.A. Wielicki et al., Science 295, 841 (2002], but their veracity remains the subject of debate. If real, their absence in the model simulations implies that discrepancies between the observed and model-simulated temperature anomalies, delayed 1 to 2 years by the climate system’s thermal inertia, may occur by the mid-1990s.”

Figure 4. Soden Figure 1, with original caption

However, this is a predictable result of the emergent thermostat theory. Here is the change in lower atmospheric temperature along with the ERBS data from Soden:

Figure 5. ERBE absorbed solar energy (top panel in Figure 4) and UAH lower tropospheric temperature (TLT). Both datasets include a lowess smoothing.

As predicted by the theory, the absorbed solar energy goes above the baseline until the lower troposphere temperature returns to its pre-eruption value. At that point, the increased intake of solar energy ceases and the system is back in its steady-state condition.

Prediction 4. The “climate sensitivity”, far from being a constant, will be found to be a function of temperature.

Evidence validating the fourth prediction.

Figure 6 below shows the 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell by gridcell relationship between net downwelling radiation at the surface and the surface temperature.

Figure 6. Scatterplot, CERES net downwelling surface radiation (net shortwave plus longwave) versus Berkeley Earth global surface temperature. The slope of the lowess smooth at any point is the “climate sensitivity” at that temperature, in °C per watt per square metre (W/M2)

The tight correlation between the surface temperature and the downwelling radiation confirms that this is a valid long-term relationship. This is especially true given that the two variables considered are from entirely different and unrelated datasets.

Note that the “climate sensitivity” is indeed a function of temperature, and that the climate sensitivity goes negative at the highest temperatures. It is also worth noting that almost nowhere on the planet does the long-term average temperature go above 30°C. This is further evidence of the existence of strong thermoregulatory mechanisms putting an effective cap on how hot the surface gets on average.

Prediction 5. In some areas, rather than the temperature being controlled by the downwelling surface radiation, the surface radiation will be found to be controlled by the temperature.

Evidence validating the fifth prediction.

Figure 7 below shows the correlation between net downwelling surface radiation (net shortwave plus longwave) and surface temperature. As expected, over most of the land masses the correlation is positive—as the downwelling radiation increases, so does the surface temperature.

Figure 7. Correlation between monthly surface temperatures and monthly surface downwelling radiation. Seasonal variations have been removed from both datasets.

However, over large areas of the tropical ocean, the temperature and downwelling surface radiation are negatively correlated. Since decreasing downwelling radiation cannot increase the surface temperature, the only possible conclusion is that in these areas, the increasing temperature modifies the number and nature of the overlying clouds in such a way to decrease the downwelling radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

1) The current climate paradigm, which is that in the long run, changes in global surface temperature are a simple linear function of changes in forcing (downwelling radiation), is incorrect. This is indicated by the inability of researchers to narrow the uncertainty of the central value of the paradigm, “climate sensitivity”, despite forty years of investigations, millions of dollars, billions of computer cycles, and millions of work-hours being thrown at the problem. It is also demonstrated by the graphs above which show that far from being a constant, the “climate sensitivity” is a function of temperature.

2) A most curious aspect of the climate system is its astounding stability. Despite being supported at tens of degrees warmer than the moon by nothing more stable than evanescent clouds, despite volcanic eruptions, despite changes in CO2 and other GHG forcings, despite great variations in aerosols and black carbon, over the 20th Century the temperature varied by only ±0.2%.

3) This amazing stability implies and indeed requires the existence of a very strong thermoregulation system.

4) My theory is that the thermoregulation is provided by a host of interacting emergent phenomena. These include Rayleigh-Benard circulation of the ocean and the atmosphere; dust devils; tropical thermally-driven cumulus cloud fields; thunderstorms; squall lines; cyclones; tornadoes; the La Nina pump moving tropical warm water to the poles and exposing cool underlying water; and the great changes in ocean circulation involved with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and other oceanic cycles.

5) This implies that temperatures are unlikely to vary greatly from their current state because of variations in CO2, volcanoes, or other changing forcings. The thresholds for the various phenomena are temperature-based, not forcing-based. So variations in forcing will not affect them much. However, it also opens up a new question—what causes slow thermal drift in thermoregulated systems?

REFERENCES

1 Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. & Hegerl, G. Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nature Geosci 10, 727–736 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3017

2 Lewes, G. H. (1874) in Emergence, Dictionnaire de la langue philosophique, Foulquié.

3 Reis, A. H., Bejan, A, Constructal theory of global circulation and climate, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Volume 49, Issues 11–12, 2006, Pages 1857-1875, https://doi.org/10.1016

4 Bejan, A, Reis, A. Heitor, Thermodynamic optimization of global circulation and climate, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 29, Is. 4, https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1058

5 Brian J. Soden et al., Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor,Science 26 Apr 2002, Vol. 296, Issue 5568, pp. 727-730, DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5568.727


Anyhow, that’s what I have to date. There are few references, because AFAIK nobody else is considering the idea that emergent phenomena act as a global thermostat. Anyone who knows of other references that might be relevant, please mention them.

Finally, any suggestions as to which journal might be willing to publish such a heretical view of climate science would be much appreciated.

My best to all, the beat goes on,

w.

As Always: I can defend my own words, but I can’t defend your interpretation of them. So if you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing so we can all understand what you are referring to.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
350 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MJB
April 29, 2021 5:37 am

Minor point to consider.

In the overview section Willis says “This is a variation of +/- 0.2%.”

In my view this reads a bit disingenuous as 0 kelvin is an arbitrary baseline (if i understood the 0.2% correctly), and practically speaking not a temperature the earths surface will experience anytime soon. If you would like to present a percentage as context for 1 kelvin variation over the 20th century, then perhaps express it relative to the range of temperatures earth has experienced in relatively modern times, geologically speaking. Perhaps comparing to the temperature range from the paleocene-ecoene thermal maximum and pleistocene ice ages?

April 29, 2021 6:30 am

Most excellent work! The work is clear, concise and with supporting real world data.

I am not adept at commenting on the protocols and vagaries of publishing to journals or peer review, however I would like to point out the following:

Just as you successfully argue that “emergent” processes appear to rule the physical realm, I would argue the whole purpose behind the Climate Change Cult as it stands now, also succumbed to “emergence”! (from a bad seed it has grown into a humongous hydra headed serpent, who regrows a new head each time you cut one off)

The origins of this “man caused” apocalypse, had nothing to do with the Climate per se. Rather it was a means to scare, convince or brainwash the masses towards an agenda which they otherwise would not accept.

There are countless examples of those who started this hoax, and those who champion it now, admitting it never was about the Climate or Environment, but rather about power, control and some misguided notion of ushering in some socialist/Marxist utopia. And with that main dish, a generous helping of population reduction as a side dish.

But those original goals – generated their own “emergent” processes. So for example the paradigm is so deeply ingrained and critical thinking so seriously eroded in so many minds that rational persons cannot accept anything which challenges that paradigm.

The “entity” of the cult of thermageddon, created mechanisms to thwart any challenges to the central ideas – like smart people knowing their livelihoods depend on towing the party line. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea.

You may want to consider this built in emergent resistance to challenges – in how you approach the dissemination of this excellent work! (just publishing a paper showing the paradigm is wrong won’t change it in the current intellectual climate – find ways to open a crack in the many emergent defense mechanisms the present paradigm has evolved to block any common sense or empirical challenges)

My diatribe may be misplaced – your work surely could serve to crack the thick heads of holders to the existing paradigm and plant a seed. Perhaps be more gentle denouncing the flawed existing paradigm, while planting your seed of reality/truth…. enhancing the chance it may breach the emergent defenses already in place and grow.

April 29, 2021 7:30 am

Looks pretty good overall, subject to the prior-literature searches suggested by others that may take a bit of the wind out of your sails, so to speak. Overall I think the analysis is spot-on.

However, I do, as you might expect, take issues with statements like these based on the CERES calculated (not measured) data: “The sun plus GHG radiation combine to heat the surface”. Here is a more precise phrasing for you: “plus maybe GHG radiation, which no one has been able to measure, but we assume it must be there, because we can’t make our equations work without it, since we don’t want to include other effects we’ve been told about but don’t believe in, such as the gravito-thermal effect – and in our defense, physicists have a long tradition of inventing imaginary matter and forces to fill in gaps in their knowledge, such as aether, and dark matter”. FIFY.

(You should probably suspect that there’s something wrong with your theory when the only way to “determine” the hypothetical DWLWIR is to measure something else from space, and infer the quantity you want at ground level. However, in your favour, I would speculate that not too many people in the broader community will complain when you use NASA’s calculated datasets, since they are NASA, even though around here we know that NASA’s climate division is not that infallible, as it turns out. So you might just be able to get away with it. Best of luck!)

April 29, 2021 7:34 am

Willis,

I don’t really have the technical depth for much comment, but from all the discussions here about “climate vs. weather” I would say I have a problem with your use of the term “climate sensitivity”, i.e. “In the early morning, climate sensitivity is high” – At this point, you’re talking about a transient phenomenon that changes, as you state, later in the day (“In the late morning, a regime change occurs to a situation with much lower climate sensitivity.”). I don’t think that “climate” is the right term for something changing that rapidly.

Elsewhere, you refer to the more “classic” usage of climate sensitivity “the uncertainty of the value of climate sensitivity has only increased.” – which I think can create some confusion. Perhaps this is due to ignorance on my part of the normal usage of the term, but I’ve always seen it to refer to the longer-term, not to something that may change that rapidly.

Sorry, I don’t really have a suggestion for a better term. Perhaps “transient climate sensitivity” or “daily sensitivity”? Something to distinguish the daily sensitivity from the long-term. Or maybe just some definitions to help those of us with somewhat less understanding of the technical details?

I hope that isn’t coming across as too dense – if my criticism is lacking hopefully you can enlighten me.

Reply to  TonyG
April 29, 2021 9:06 am

After reading through the comments and rereading the article, it almost seems to me that you are suggesting that the very concept of a “constant” for climate sensitivity is incorrect, and that it would actually be variable dependent on conditions.

OK S.
April 29, 2021 7:38 am

Hi Willis,

I couldn’t be much help so I thought I’d let the experts weigh in first.

I do wonder about the dust devils though (we called the whirlwinds) and about the dust they raise.

In southern New Mexico the dust seems to dissipate somewhere as they move along. I saw one in the Texas Panhandle, though, going across a freshly disked field and it raised quite a cloud of dirt above it. There were a few little puffy clouds around and when the dust moved into one of them, both the cloud and dirt cloud disappeared. I suppose the wet dirt fell to the ground. 

I’ve wondered if the general dust in the air affected weather in the area or if it even got high enough in the atmosphere to matter..

Stephen Fitzpatrick
April 29, 2021 7:40 am

Hi Willis,
I think it may be better to talk about potential temperatures rather than actual temperatures (taking into account adiabatic cooling) when you discuss convective stability in the troposphere. Except very close to the surface, the actual temperature drops with altitude, even when the potential temperature is rising with altitude.

I like figure 1. Think it would be good to include some comments about were rising CO2 (and other IR emitting gases) will influence the described processes. For example, during the night when tropospheric convection has subsided, the rate of cooling of the ocean surface will be reduced somewhat with higher CO2 (narrowing of the IR window to space). This will influence the timing of emergent processes the next day.

I think your chance of getting published would be improved by pointing out that while rising GHG’s may increase average surface temperature, the extent of that increase will be diminished by the emergent processes you describe. The deficiencies of GCMs are almost certainly due in large part to the inability of the models to capture the emergent processes you are describing; adopting “parameterized” descriptions of those processes is a major cause for the uncertainty (and likely exaggeration) in their predictions of sensitivity to GHG concentrations.

Finally, it would be helpful to contrast emergent processes over land versus over the ocean. Graphics like figures 2 and 3 for land only would be informative in drawing that contrast.

Ferdberple
April 29, 2021 8:11 am

Graphs showing the slope of fig 6 and the category sums of fig 7 would be most helpfull. Fig 6 is your money plot and deserves further analysis.
Fig 7 is hard to see in b&w. A histogram showing the total area by category would serve what the eye cannot.

Sebastian Magee
April 29, 2021 8:21 am

Great article Willis,

“However, over large areas of the tropical ocean, the temperature and downwelling surface radiation are negatively correlated. Since decreasing downwelling radiation cannot increase the surface temperature, the only possible conclusion is that in these areas, the increasing temperature modifies the number and nature of the overlying clouds in such a way to decrease the downwelling radiation.”

It is not the only posible conclusion, the decrese in downwelling radiation could cause some other variable to change which in turn causes the temperatures to increase. I agree that it is compelling evidence for the reverse causality since there is a proposed mechanism for it, but maybe some other phrasing will be better.

Kevin kilty
April 29, 2021 8:43 am

Willis, I am going to e-mail Charles to see if this post couldn’t stay at the top of the list for a few days as it is going to get buried in time.

I looked through your paper last night. Things will occur to me over time, as I read multiple times, and after reading what others post, so my questions and comments are going to come in no particular order. Usually I have about a month for a peer review.

Current comment/question #1: Figures 2,3 are very good, but they come with limited discussion. They certainly suggest self-organization, but what happens? Is this like the transition in rayleigh-benard — i.e. we pass a point were a most unstable mode of motion grows exponentially? Figure 4 and 5 are new to me. They are very interesting. Are you saying that in contradiction to what Soden et al claim that the anomalies are not related to Pinatubo; they actually are verified, real, and related to some emergent phenomenon initiated by Pinatubo? As you claim a later in the day development what evidence can you provide about timing of cumulus appearance and growth? Figure 6 presents a concern. How does BEST go about finding surface temperatures, and does this constitute truly independent data? If the surface temperatures are actually derived from satellite data by means of some algorithm, as CERES skin temperatures are derived from GOES data, then there is the potential for some circular reasoning here,a and the relationship observed is actually the GOES temperature algorithm.

That’s all I have for now.

Anders Rasmusson
April 29, 2021 8:46 am

Willis, some suggestions due to figure text (mainly that y-data are plotted versus x-data) :

A:

”Figure 2. Scatterplot, sea surface temperature (SST) versus surface cloud radiative effect.” 

suggested to be replaced by :

“Figure 2. Surface cloud radiative effect versus sea surface (SST).”

The word “Scatterplot” can be excluded.

The wording “Surface cloud …” also to be rephrased.

B:

“Figure 6. Scatterplot, CERES net downwelling surface radiation (net shortwave plus longwave) versus Berkeley Earth global surface temperature…… (W/M2)”

suggested to be replaced by (also valid for the text (could be excluded) just above the graph) :

“….. Berkeley Earth global surface temperature versus CERES net downwelling surface radiation (net shortwave plus longwave) ….. (W/m2).”  

Note “W/m2”.

The word “Scatterplot” can be excluded.

LOWESS smoothing in capital letters or/and to be explained/referenced.

C:

“Figure 7. Correlation …..”

What sort of correlation is meant, linear, correlation coefficient squared or what?

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

ralfellis
April 29, 2021 9:30 am

It will be good to see this as a science paper. 
But you will need many more references.
For example…

Thunderstorms emerge earlier when it is warm…
Who said that? In what science paper? Date and DOI index number?

Thunderstorms are heat pipes…
Who said that? In what science paper? Date and DOI index number?

Cumulus decay earlier…
Who said that? In what science paper? Date and DOI index number?

etc: etc: all the way through.

And references should be taken from science papers, not books or articles.

Then choose your publication journal wisely. I discovered that the Western education establishment will do anything to delay a paper that does not agree with the consensus – by just sitting on it. And you can only apply to one journal at a time.

That is why I went to Geoscience Frontiers in Beijing, because they were open to alternate views. And then the Western education establishment said: “but they are not a real science journal, because they are just Chine…. oh, wait a minute, we cannot say that anymore….”.

Geoscience Frontiers also paid for publication, while Western publication can cost from $6,000 to $16,000, depending upon the number of diagrams, and if you want colour.

The other problem was the quality of Western peer reviewers, which was woeful. I think they skim through them, without having any depth of knowledge.

a. One reviewer read ‘insolation’ as ‘insulation’ throughout the entire paper, so could not understand it at all and failed it.

b. Another reviewer said that CO2 remains at the same proportion (say 240 ppm) throughout the entire depth of the atmosphere, so there is no reason for plants to be starved of CO2 at high altitude. Again, he-she failed the paper.

c. Another reviewer could not tell the difference between glaciogenic dust and CO2-induced dust from the Gobi desert, so failed the paper as not being novel.

(Note: The paper has to include novelty to be published, so you need to emphasise areas where your paper differs from other climate theories and papers. Because a paper on glaciogenic dust had already been published by Ganopolski – and the reviewer could not differentiate glaciogenic dust from CO2-induced dust from the Gobi – he-she said my theory was not novel and failed it.)

Ralph Ellis

ralfellis
April 29, 2021 9:49 am

Regards atmospheric stability, you might mention Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last ice age.

These rapid warming events might suggest that the thunderstorm thermostat system has limits, outside which the temperature can increase exponentially.

But you would have to be careful not to invalidate your own theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event

The reason for D-O events is open to speculation. There is a paper that suggests they are all linked to combustion product events, presumably continental-sized forest fires. Which might suggest a polar-ice albedo mechanism.

Ralph

Paul Penrose
April 29, 2021 9:51 am

Willis,
My only nit would be in your conclusions. I think it would be more accurate to say that billions have been spent and trillions of computer cycles wasted.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 30, 2021 7:46 am

Don’t use the term “billions of computer cycles”. A gigaflop is a billion floating point operations per SECOND, so billions of computer cycles, even trillions, seems silly. To put it into context, there have probably been millions of computing hours spent on modeling in the last 30 or so years without closing in on a better number for ECS…

Also, re: the discussion above on ECS going to 0. Willis, please avoid the temptation to cut the graphic below ECS values of 1 to “hide the decline”. 🙂

Johan
April 29, 2021 9:54 am

The emerging phenomena are supported theoretically by RC Dewars maximum entropy production principle, MEP, derived from fundamental physical laws and valid even for nonlinear phenomena. Nature creates new dissipative phenomena when needed. I think this is beautifully shown in the many graphs here based on observations. The principle is brought in from meteorological reasoning but solidly derived theoretically by Dewar. One might make a reference to some of his papers.

Henry
April 29, 2021 10:32 am

I am not immediately convinced by your point 5, in particular where you say “However, over large areas of the tropical ocean, the temperature and downwelling surface radiation are negatively correlated. Since decreasing downwelling radiation cannot increase the surface temperature, the only possible conclusion is that in these areas, the increasing temperature modifies the number and nature of the overlying clouds in such a way to decrease the downwelling radiation.” Causality need not be in one of two directions, and correlation does not always imply causation. Are the data hourly or daily? Are temperature changes and downwelling radiation changes here smaller than in the rest of the world, and if so, are other seasonal effects (with causes beyond immediate local temperature and local downwelling radiation) dominating the apparent relationship in these places.

ETHAN BRAND
April 29, 2021 10:33 am

Hi Willis
Thank you for the tremendous effort to articulate your interesting and compelling Tstorm/Tstat theory/hypothesis. As you note, using WUWT for your initial “pal” review (smiley face!) is an excellent first step.

I have three general comments. (I have just been travelling the Covid Contaminated World, so have not had time to work on details…I will try).

1) Overall writing style: As many reviewers have noted, you mix styles quite a bit. Informal to formal, etc. I would recommend you pick a good paper (published) that your really like and respect and “copy” that style. For example, I prefer a very dry, logical, to the point style with references and foot notes for everything. Any assertive statement should have a foot note, or at least a parenthetical reference. Your foot notes and references could be almost as long as the paper….I would highly recommend that you end up with zero unreferenced assertions. Anecdotes and opinions have no place in the paper (unless part of a referenced assertion).

2) What are you really trying to communicate? Are you merely attempting to provide a plausible alternate to run of the mill “C02 Bad”, or are you trying to present a rigorous argument that your theory has demonstrable effect on the earths climate vis a vis global temperature regulation?. I will admit that this draft paper in unsure of which direction…hence comment 3)

3) So What? Whenever I read/hear or am introduced to some idea (new or not), my first internal question is “so what”?. In this case,let me explain my first reaction to your paper: I think you provide an excellent primer as to the general “reasons” why thunderstorms form. Succinctly: Its hot. I see little in the paper that would be argued by anyone. Your basic underlying theory is that thunderstorms have a significant net cooling (or at least significant amelioration to warming) feedback on a global scale. I do not see where your paper makes any real attempt to show that thunderstorms have significant negative feedback to global temperatures. In short, I read the paper as making a good case that thunderstorms form in equatorial regions in response to locally rising temperatures, and as a result, local temperatures fall. Not to be rude, but “so what”?, we all have seen this. I think you need to build on the good foundations that thunderstorms act locally as a “thermostat” and extend to how they have a large enough effect to significantly affect global temperature. In short, you provide excellent analysis that thunderstorms CAN do this, but you do not show that they actually do affect global temperatures.

I would suggest you choose a subset of wuwt denizens as an initial editorial/content “committee”. Do this privately. Then periodically expose the next draft result to the fire hose of full wuwt. I hope you can find a single co author or so. You have a lot of great potential candidates here, and I imagine your travels have filled your “contact” list with many more.

Best Regards,
Ethan Brand

Charles
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2021 6:12 pm

I learned a lot from you paper. I personally liked how you started with the lowly dust devil and worked up from there.
As far as large scale Emergent processes, would you consider the slowing down of the Gulf Stream to be one ?
Less salty water (from polar ice melt runoff) in the artic is not sinking and then returning to the equator as a bottom level southern current to replace the surface current water heading north. Result is colder weather in France and Germany, and eventually the polar regions too.
I personally think this is a natural negative feedback process, although the main thoughts I have read seem to point it out to be another pending disaster.
Yes, for a time there is a greater and greater heat imbalance between the Northern regions that enjoyed the stream’s warmth and the buildup of heat in the central Atlantic from not being able to ship hot surface water anywhere, but then thunderstorms will increase to cap surface water temperatures to ~ 30 deg, the Northern regions will get colder, the Northernmost waters will eventually get saltier as meltwater volumes decrease, and the Gulf Stream current will start flowing again.

April 29, 2021 11:31 am

“5) This implies that temperatures are unlikely to vary greatly from their current state because of variations in CO2, volcanoes, or other changing forcings. The thresholds for the various phenomena are temperature-based, not forcing-based. So variations in forcing will not affect them much. However, it also opens up a new question—what causes slow thermal drift in thermoregulated systems?”

Northern Annular Mode anomalies are forcing-based, so ENSO and the AMO are also forcing-based. During centennial solar minima, El Nino conditions increase and the AMO is warmer. Because of weaker solar wind states causing increased negative NAM anomalies. The warmer SST’s then reduce low cloud cover and increase lower-mid troposphere water vapour, so they are self amplifying negative feedbacks. A cold or a warm AMO phase gets locked in for decades, that’s not simply thermoregulatory.The point is that the global mean temperature changes inversely to changes in forcing at inter-decadal scales, and that post 1995 warming is a negative feedback.

Ned Nikolov
April 29, 2021 11:37 am

This paper does not contain a single math equation. In atmospheric & climate science, one cannot prove/advance a new concept without using proper math.

The empirical correlations between near-surface temperature and satellite-observed SW & LW fluxes cannot be understood in physical terms without physics-based mathematical analysis of temperature drivers. We have already conducted such an analysis, and the results were presented at the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society last January. Here is the video presentation that explains some of the empirical correlations shown by Eschenbach:

Role of Albedo in Planetary Climates: New Insights from a Semi-empirical Global Surface Temperature Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv66_mpJz-c

I don’t think this paper could be published in a peer-reviewed journal in its present form as Mr. Eschenbach hopes!

anthropic
Reply to  Ned Nikolov
April 29, 2021 9:55 pm

I showed this paper to an ocean scientist, a former student of mine. While she could not conclude it was right or wrong, she did say there was not one equation in it.

Reply to  anthropic
April 30, 2021 1:00 pm

This is work in progress, putting equations in before you have understanding is not helping. When people put equations in climate science, the equations have always been static equations with the final answer working toward a stable climate temperature. The climate system is dynamic with alternating warm and cold phases. There have been no papers that included that.

One of my best friends in college figured that out. He said, you write a bunch of equations, you intergrade or take derivatives and come up with the equation they asked you to derive. You just present back what that they told you. They did not understand it and you do not need to understand it, you just need to present what they presented. When papers have a lot of equations in them, many of them are there because papers with more equations, even when they mean noting, are published just because more equations are there, and they know that will help them get their next paper published.

Reply to  Ned Nikolov
April 30, 2021 1:51 am

Ned
The phenomenon of emergent temperature homeostasis is established, so Willis’ proposition is a reasonable one. Emergent nonlinear phenomena and attractor landscapes don’t follow the same rules as the arithmetic of “La La Linearland” that is not really relevant to climate. To the extent that maths is applicable, it’s of a different kind.

Here’s a study from 2016 describing emergent homeostasis:

https://direct.mit.edu/isal/proceedings/alif2016/28/608/99454

We demonstrate the emergence of spontaneous temperature regulation by the combined action of two sets of dissipative structures. Our model system comprised an incompressible, non-isothermal fluid in which two sets of Gray-Scott reaction diffusion systems were embedded. We show that with a temperature dependent rate constant, self-reproducing spot patterns are extremely sensitive to temperature variations. Furthermore, if only one reaction is exothermic or endothermic while the second reaction has zero enthalpy, the system shows either runaway positive feedback, or the patterns inhibit themselves. However, a symbiotic system, in which one of the two reactions is exothermic and the other is endothermic, shows striking resilience to imposed temperature variations. Not only does the system maintain its emergent patterns, but it is seen to effectively regulate its internal temperature, no matter whether the boundary temperature is warmer or cooler than optimal growth conditions. This thermal homeostasis is a completely emergent feature.

Editor
Reply to  Ned Nikolov
April 30, 2021 4:29 am

Maths is the study of patterns. Equations are only one way of describing them. Equations are not mandatory. But where has Willis claimed that it is a maths paper?

Reply to  Ned Nikolov
April 30, 2021 12:38 pm

Ned,

I agree that Willis may have problems publishing in a peer-reviewed journal but not for the same reasons you offered.

He will have trouble because he disagrees with consensus.

The math equations in many peer reviewed papers are not even considered. They put garbage in and get garbage out of their equations, many of which equations are garbage themselves. It the conclusions supports the agendas of the publishers, it gets published. If not, it does not.

You and Karl put one over on them, big time, when you published with your names spelled backwards and you published stuff they did not understand that did disagree with their consensus.

There is enough knowledge about the climate system to better understand the many external and internal factors that work together to make the climate systems cycling in stable, well bounded limits.

There has been no serious effort to pull the knowledge together and form a new consensus based on best evidence using best records of past and present. We have worked separately and only told each other what we disagreed with. All this stuff works together and understanding it together should be a best way forward.

I like my polar ice cycle theory, but it could not work if your pressure theories were wrong and it could not work if Willis’s tropical thunderstorm theory was wrong.

Ned, I have tried to have you, and/or Karl, include internal response of the climate system that includes ice cycles since I listened to you and Karl talk at a conference in London.

I believe a dozen or more of us all had lunch at Shakespeare’s Head on the first day of the Conference.

WILLIAM B HANDLER
April 29, 2021 2:58 pm

Interesting ideas, I do not like how you have structured it that much though. I think your predictions are not predictions for example, they are a set of observations that you hope to explain via the emergent phenomena you introduce. If it were a prediction, you would predict, then go and do the measurement to see if you were correct. I do not think you did it that way round, and would advise that you reframe it.

If I were you I would not try to write a paper trying to disprove the global warming paradigm either. Perhaps you could consider writing a paper where you propose the emergent phenomena as an as yet unconsidered effect in models, and try and quantitively come up with how big the effect would be and show evidence for it in the data as you do. You would then be able to build on that going forward.

Note I am not saying you are wrong, but you are putting an enormous scope on the work. If instead you show something new, relevant and get it out there it will be good for your credibility and poke holes in the unassailable edifice you clearly want to assault.

Also, I want to say I enjoy reading your posts, you clearly have a lot of insight and are a natural skeptic, an important trait in science, so keep up the good work.

Charles
Reply to  WILLIAM B HANDLER
April 29, 2021 3:58 pm

I learned a lot from you paper. I personally liked how you started with the lowly dust devil and worked up from there.

As far as large scale Emergent processes, would you consider the slowing down of the Gulf Stream to be one ?

Less salty water (from polar ice melt runoff) in the artic is not sinking and then returning to the equator as a bottom level southern current to replace the surface current water heading north. Result is colder weather in France and Germany, and eventually the polar regions too.

I personally think this is a natural negative feedback process, although the main thoughts I have read seem to point it out to be another pending disaster.

Yes, for a time there is a greater and greater heat imbalance between the Northern regions that enjoyed the stream’s warmth and the buildup of heat in the central Atlantic from not being able to ship hot surface water anywhere, but then thunderstorms will increase to cap surface water temperatures to ~ 30 deg, the Northern regions will get colder, the Northernmost waters will eventually get saltier as meltwater volumes decrease, and the Gulf Stream current will start flowing again.

Reply to  Charles
April 30, 2021 1:15 pm

If it were a prediction, you would predict, then go and do the measurement to see if you were correct. 
This is about the climate, you check you answer in a hundred years.

If I were you I would not try to write a paper trying to disprove the global warming paradigm either.
The Global Warming Consensus is Wrong. That is the whole point of doing alternate research, the people who are supposed to do the research work for people who do not allow disagreement.

Less salty water (from polar ice melt runoff) in the artic is not sinking and then returning to the equator as a bottom level southern current to replace the surface current water heading north.

Right, the ice being dumped into the arctic chills the saltwater to cold enough to freeze ice cream in an ice cream maker and it is the warm saltwater currents that are chilled and sent back to cool the tropics.

The freshwater evaporates and rebuilds the sequesterd ice or freezes and becomes sea ice.

Northernmost waters will eventually get saltier as meltwater volumes decrease, and the Gulf Stream current will start flowing again.

The Gulf Stream has not stopped flowing, that is the only factor that has ever thawed the Arctic Sea Ice.

Charles
Reply to  Herman Pope
April 30, 2021 1:58 pm

Right, I didn’t mean stopped flowing; only that the flow rate varies over time to change the heat distribution. If the Gulf Stream slowed down by a significant enough amount, northern Europe’s snow would reflect energy back into space, the snowpack would increase, and hurricanes would pull heat out of the ocean and to the tops of the atmosphere for additional radiation to space, while its clouds would block the sun in its 1000 mile typical radius. So all these things are negative feedback systems that ’emerge’ to keep things in long term balance. All these things keep us from loosing all the ice at the poles. Its a back and forth, maintaining a balance within the earth’s surface systems and even regulating how much is absorbed from the sun.

David L. Hagen
April 29, 2021 7:21 pm

Excellent observations. Encourage you on greater descriptive differentiation in the different regimes and their transitions in your predictions. Particularly on how to describe transitions, trends between, and parameters that could make quantitative predictions.
Recommend plotting the SLOPE on the other axis.
Then make initial predictions about transitions between which major emergent phenomena based on breaks in curve, and in steps / transitions in slope. Then how to predict those transition points and the slopes before and after.
Prediction 1. Show 3 regimes with breaks. e.g. A) Declining about linearly. Then transition to B) near horizontal near ocean freezing. Then transition to third C) declining region. at ~ 26C. Predictions on slopes in A and C and near horizontal in B.
Prediction 2 Fig. 3. Major transition between about horizontal up to ~26 C then rapid rise (quadratic?) above.
Prediction 3 Plot the divergence between the two curves. e.g. Onset rise to intermediate difference, then join. (Possibly two oscillations?) Length of time between the divergence and convergence? As a function of magnitude of the eruption?
Prediction 4 Fig 6. Plot the slope – Show three regimes, the breaks between them, and characteristics of each. e.g. Rapid near near linear rise from 100 to 180. Flat above 660. Thus major early & end regimes with a continuous transition between them?
Prediction 5 Fig 7 Two major regimes. What transition between? A function of tropical cumulous clouds? Depth of Cloud? Boundary of change in ocean temperature? vs radiation?
Compliments. Best regards David

David L. Hagen
Reply to  David L. Hagen
May 3, 2021 7:46 am

Willis See gmail ver C & comments

April 30, 2021 1:46 am

Could emergent temperature regulation of climate be called “climate emergency”? 😀

Poems of our Climate
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 30, 2021 9:42 am

How about “climate action”? Eg.
Somehow, Mother Earth, on her own, engages in the most powerful of climate actions.

Keitho
Editor
April 30, 2021 3:21 am

Listening to DeBussy La Mer while reading this contribution from Willis didn’t necessarily increase my understanding but but the three movements are a good fit for the subject matter. It made reading this even more of a pleasure than it already is.

OK S.
Reply to  Keitho
April 30, 2021 4:22 pm

Nice music. I scraped mine off of an old LP i found at a thrift story, the best version I’ve heard so far: .L’Orchestre des Concerts Colonne/Pierre Dervaus (1961).

I listen to it before bedtime every week or so.

Simon Derricutt
April 30, 2021 9:37 am

Willis – I’ve seen complaints here that the language isn’t dry enough (that is, not turgid enough to comply with the normal published standard) and that there aren’t enough equations. They might even be correct if it is required to submit it to Nature or suchlike.

However, when it comes to explaining the process itself, and seeing what happens as the water (or damp land) heats up, I’m totally happy with the descriptive methods you use, maybe especially since I do much the same when exploring an idea. The only complaint I’d have was the plots of “lowess smooth” without specifying what that term is, since though it is pretty intuitive that it’s an average of the scatter-plot it’s not obvious what algorithm is used to produce it or why the resultant line should actually be smooth.

The underlying proposal, that as the day progresses the evaporation will cause water to be evaporated, and that if enough water-vapour is in the air then we’ll get clouds that block off the sunshine and thus cool the ground level, should be totally understandable and for a lot of people would be daily experience (if not at home, then for holidays in a hotter place).

Whereas CAGW seems surprised at 1°C rise since 1850, I’m surprised at the constancy of the average temperatures on a long-term basis, which tells me there’s some pretty severe negative feedback in the system. For example the attached plot.

There’s also a fair degree of error involved in taking an average from a set of weather-stations where the locations of those stations have changed, the instruments have changed, and the procedures (time-of-day) are changed over time. Thus a degree difference in 150 years or so is within the error-band, and we can’t assume that it’s a valid number anyway.

I have the same problems in what I write, by explaining why it happens and showing the evidence, so my efforts also wouldn’t be accepted in learned journals. I’ve also shown some pretty basic laws of physics are not always true. I think the problem you’ll face with this is that the people who need to understand are earning their money by not understanding it. They believe that CO2 is causing the weather to get worse, and that reducing it is the only way to stop the sky from falling, and there’s very little evidence against that that will be accepted even if they can see that evidence outside their window or experience it daily. How warm the day is depends very much on how cloudy it is, and so anything that affects the cloudiness will have a major effect that anyone walking around outside can feel.

This article really needs to go to a magazine, since it’s aimed at the moment at people who aren’t thick but haven’t too much science knowledge, but do have common sense (which isn’t actually that common). I don’t see it getting past Nature’s gatekeepers no matter how it’s rewritten.

I’d add a prediction 6, which is that since the poles are warming while the equatorial regions have a hard limit, then the energy available for storms and tornadoes (which is based on the difference between those limits) will on average reduce as CO2 rises. That doesn’t stop weather happening, and the random excursions from historical averages, but will make them less frequent. The variation of the equivalent of ECS with local temperature does have an advantage.

CET-June_1772-2019.png
Reply to  Simon Derricutt
April 30, 2021 1:29 pm

 I think the problem you’ll face with this is that the people who need to understand are earning their money by not understanding it. 

You nailed that part exactly right
 
 people who aren’t thick but haven’t too much science knowledge, but do have common sense (which isn’t actually that common). 

Common Sense is very common, but, unfortunately, it is common sense to not get involved in confrontations with the fanatics, so we don’t hear from most of them. We did hear from many of them when they voted for Donald Trump.  
 
the poles are warming while the equatorial regions have a hard limit,

The poles have a hard limit also, when sea ice is thawed, it snows more until more sequestered ice dumps into the warm ocean currents and forms sea ice again. There have been alternating warmer and colder polar climates for fifty million years. 

April 30, 2021 9:52 am

It seems to me that you have not defined “sensitivity” in any meaningful way, and consequently you can equivocate on that term. Case in point:

In the early morning, climate sensitivity is high, and the temperature rises quickly with the increasing solar insolation. In the late morning, a regime change occurs to a situation with much lower climate sensitivity. Adding extra solar energy doesn’t raise the temperature anywhere near as fast as it did earlier.

This does not match any definition of sensitivity that I’m familiar with. Sensitivity has to do with the expected change in global average surface temperatures when reaching equilibrium with a given change in radiative forcing: dT = λ*dF. ECS is the amount of change in global average surface temperature once temperatures reach equilibrium with a doubling CO2. It’s a specific case of dT in the equation dT = λ*dF where dF is 3.71 W/m^2 (the increase in radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2). Equilibrium temperature changes in proportion to a change in radiative forcing, with a constant of proportionality (sensitivity) of λ.

The example you give doesn’t fit these definitions because at any point in time it is early morning at some part of the globe and it is late morning in another, afternoon in another, and the middle of the night in another. There’s no change in “sensitivity” in your example. GMST hasn’t changed at all.

Perhaps you mean something more like Transient Climate Response but even that strictly speaking refers to the change in GMST over a 70 year period (1% increase in CO2/yr). I can’t think of any way in which your examples would qualify as “sensitivity” in any meaningful sense.

Reply to  Scott J Simmons
April 30, 2021 1:36 pm

You wrote: you have not defined “sensitivity” in any meaningful way,

I do not know if Willis explained the definition of ‘sensitivity, in a meaningful way.

Willis did explain what he was describing in a very meaningful way.
It gets hotter until thunderstorms are started to reverse the warming.
We have all seen that. I have been caught on lakes on a sailboat when unexpected thunderstorms chilled my day. It is hugely cooler immediately, actually cold with wind and water and wet clothes.

Reply to  Herman Pope
April 30, 2021 8:13 pm

But that isn’t sensitivity in any meaningful sense. What he’s arguing is dependent on temperature isn’t sensitivity. That’s my point.