[This appears to be conflating a contamination of temperature records with an actual observed phenomenon. Increasing night time temperatures, thus reducing the Day/Night difference, is a known and studied result of urbanization. -charles]
The diurnal temperature range has a significant effect on growing seasons, crop yields, residential energy consumption and human health issues related to heat stress.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Climate change is shrinking the difference between the daily high temperature and the daily low in many parts of the world. The gap between the two, known as the diurnal temperature range (DTR), has a significant effect on growing seasons, crop yields, residential energy consumption and human health issues related to heat stress. But why and where the DTR shrinks with climate change has been something of a mystery.
Researchers who are part of a new international study that examined the DTR at the end of the 21st century believe they have found the answer: An increase in clouds, which blocks incoming-shortwave radiation from the sun during the day.
This means that while both the daily maximum temperature and the daily minimum are expected to continue to increase with climate change, the daily maximum temperature will increase at a slower rate. The end result is that the DTR will continue to shrink in many parts of the world, but that the changes will vary depending on a variety of local conditions, researchers said.
The study, published in the journal AGU Geophysical Research Letters, is the first to use high-resolution computer modeling to delve into the issue of the Earth’s shrinking DTR, particularly how it is related to cloud cover.
“Clouds are one of the big uncertainties in terms of climate projections,” said co-author Dev Niyogi, a professor at The University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geosciences. “When we do this with a very high spatial resolution modeling framework, it allows us to explicitly simulate clouds.”
Lead author Doan Quang Van, an assistant professor at the University of Tsukuba Center for Computational Sciences in Japan, said this is vital for understanding the future of the DTR.
“Clouds play a vital role in the diurnal temperature variation by modulating solar radiative processes, which consequently affect the heat exchange at the land surface, ” he said.
The team included scientists from the UT Jackson School’s Department of Geological Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, National Defense Academy of Japan, and the University of Tsukuba in Japan. The modeling work used supercomputers at the University of Tsukuba Center for Computational Sciences.
Using the supercomputers, the team was able to model the complicated interplay of land-surface processes on climate change. These include changes in land use (such as deforestation), soil moisture, precipitation, cloud cover and other factors that can affect the temperature in a local region. By creating a model with a finer resolution grid – 2 square kilometer grids rather than the 100-kilometer grids used in most climate models – the researchers were able to more closely analyze the impacts of climate change.
The team focused on two areas: the Kanto region of Japan and the Malaysian peninsula. They used the 10-year period from 2005-2014 as a baseline and then ran different climate scenarios to project what will happen to the DTR in the two regions at the end of the century. They found that the temperature gap closes by about .5 Celsius in the temperate Kanto region and .25 Celsius in the more tropical Malaysian peninsula. Researchers attribute these changes in large part to increased daytime cloud coverage that would be expected to develop under these climate conditions.
The researchers said the study can help scientists improve current global climate models and aid in understanding how the shrinking DTR will affect society and the environment as the climate continues to warm.
“It is very important to know how DTR will change in the future because it modulates human, animal and plant metabolisms,” said Quang Van. “It also modulates the local atmospheric circulation such as the land-sea breeze.”
The research was funded by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI), NASA Interdisciplinary Research in Earth Science, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture.
JOURNAL
Geophysical Research Letters
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
23-Sep-2022
This just in, morons from the same Just Stop Oil who have previously vandalized art have been arrested for spray painting the front of Bentley, Ferrari and Bulgatti dealerships declaring that it is wrong that people are able to buy luxury cars while other people have trouble affording heat and food.
First off, this is just more evidence that the primary motivation is the promotion of socialism.
Secondly, it’s rich, considering how the policies pushed by these morons are directly responsible for high energy and food prices.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/watch-anti-oil-protesters-london-spray-paint-storefronts-bentley-ferrari-bugatti-dealerships
They just better stay the Hell away from Aileen Getty’s Bentley.
Perhaps they might give here fender a little Bently
throw stuff on king chucks cars , houses , ponies , whatever . cut out the middlemen
You mean “the dickhead formerly known as prince Chuck”
This should not be a surprise to anyone at WUWT. It has been pointed out in several threads that showed agricultural studies that Last Frost Days and First Frost Days are separating because of nighttime temps.
If you look at temps in fine detail, you see daytime temps rise and fall in a sinusoid fashion. However, at night the temperature looks more exponential, i.e., like a capacitor discharging.
Why? During the day GHG’s charge N2/O2 with energy just like a source charging a capacitor. This continues as long as the insolation stays high enough. However, at some time in the later afternoon, N2/O2 molecules begin dissipating their stored energy by thermalizing the GHG’s. This looks just like a capacitor being discharged with a high resistance. The land surface discharging is mixed in. In any event some gradients must be established and integrated.
A whole lot of other processes get mixed in here too. Clouds are a big one.
So the, “Society for the Promotion of Science Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research ” wants more grants-in-aid?
Blah, blah, blah … climate change. Give us money!
Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.
Read more carefully. I said:
<"During the day GHG’s charge N2/O2 with energy"<
This is done by collisions. Yes, there is also conduction/convection. In all cases N2/O2 disapates a lot of energy as insolation disappears. The temperature loss at night IS basically an exponential curve. Find some 2 or 5 minute data from a single station and guess what you will see?
May I suggest an alternative reason for this observation?
With the trace greenhouse gases making up perhaps 0.12% of the atmosphere by molecular weight I believe they would have to be impossibly receptive and energetic to buffer the insolated atmosphere temperature in the way you describe.
Water vapor and just as if not more importantly clouds (which simultaneously exist in all three states of matter with impossibly complex heat exchange) which is [probably] above 3% by molecular weight on a global basis and more than double that in large zones seem far more likely candidates for significant causation.
Certainly water vapor contributes. That is why I said GHG’s, water is a very powerful GHG. The point is that the decay of temperature at night follows an exponential curve which is vastly different from the temperature curve during the day.
This is one of the things that make using (Tmax+Tmin)/2 = Tavg as a midrange daily temperature such a mistake. The actual “average” of each type of curve is vastly different. The average of a sine from 0 to π is (Tmax • 0.64). Tmin is a whole lot more complicated to compute since it is an exponential function with several variables needing defined. Let’s just say, somewhere around 2/3 of the difference in temperature between sunset and and Tmin.
Guess what? That makes the real average this.
Tavg ~ 0.65 {(Tmax) + (Tsunset – Tmin)}
Keep in mind this is just a back of the envelope based on temps in NE Kansas. Your mileage may vary.
But clouds are not greenhouse gasses. While clouds can be said to “contain” greenhouse gasses (including water vapor) the actual cloud is water in liquid and solid forms that are suspended aloft. Clouds interact thermally with the gasses of the atmosphere–and everything else to certainly include the sun and earth–under a completely different set of rules.
Clouds are not greenhouse gases but they act like greenhouse gases and are part of the greenhouse effect. They also block some incoming sunlight.
Clouds act as gatekeepers between Earth and space, helping regulate the global temperature by capturing and releasing infrared (thermal) energy in the atmosphere. In this respect, clouds are like greenhouse gases.
Clouds act nothing like greenhouse gases. They represent a transmittance of energy from the surface to a greater height. Cooling the surface, and releasing sensible heat in condensation aloft. The mechanisms are completely different, and consequential.
Clouds only cool the surface when they are low in elevation and occur during the day. Clouds higher up and by night warm the surface. I don’t think it is particularly egregious to say that clouds (at least 3 of the 4 elevation-time combinations) act like greenhouse gases since they do put a positive radiative force on the surface.
Your perspective only applies in a radiation only system. Such that the cloud magically appears out of nowhere creating a blanketing effect. You omit the massive cooling influence of evapotranspiration at the surface, which is the source of cloud in the first place. This is a net non radiative flux away from the surface to the free atmosphere, quantified in W m-2. This, at the very least, neutralizes your supposed positive radiative only effects.
Richard says”…they do not absorb or emit solar…”
I am not sue that is strictly true.
They thermalize with neighboring molecules that do absorb and emit shortwave and longwave radiation though. In this manner N2 and O2 are “charged” with radiant energy via the conversion to kinetic energy through an indirect process using GHGs as a mediator. The process is then reversed with N2 and O2 being “discharged” of their kinetic energy via the conversion back to radiant energy through an indirect process again using GHGs as the mediator. I put “charged” and “discharged” in quotes here because it is only conceptually similar to charging and discharging a battery/capacitor. The physical mechanisms between the two are certainly different, but the concept of converting the energy from one form to another are conceptually similar.
“Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.”
SOURCE: NASA-GISS
Climate Science Investigations South Florida – Energy: The Driver of Climate (fau.edu)
The fact that N2/O2 are mostly transparent to incoming solar and outgoing terrestrial radiation in no way nullifies the fact that N2/O2 thermalize with GHGs.
Given the composition of the atmosphere, would it not be that temperature measurements of the atmosphere would basically be measuring the temperature of the nitrogen and oxygen component irrespective of how it is arrived at?
You put forward a good question. If the satellites use by UAH and RSS are based on measured radiance values from the atmosphere then what is generating that radiance? Is it just GHG’s? If so, then how does the energy in N2 and O2 get measured? The total enthalpy of the atmosphere should include *all* energy, not just that radiated by the GHG’s. If part of the radiance is from N2 and O2 then how can it be said they don’t absorb or radiate energy?
I believe they look at oxygen.
Correct.
Advanced Microwave Sounding UnitThe AMSU channel at the 52GHz is near the characteristic absorption peak of oxygen and contains information about the physical temperature of the atmospheric molecules and its perspective profiles.
From: Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences (Third Edition), 2019
Well this one goes completely nowhere fast…..
Quote:”The diurnal temperature range has a significant effect on growing seasons, crop yields”
Complete bollox:
Two things that affect plant growth and yield: (relevant to this story)
CO2 and other fertilizers too
Higher night temps make for a longer growing season, i.e., between frosts.
Let’s see what the actual temperature gradient is in rural areas (where most crops are grown) and see what night time temperatures are there. The reported temperatures we see are contaminated with UHIE and don’t have much impact upon crop yields in the rural areas.
One of the most well studied areas is the corn belt of the United States. There is a lot of literature on the topic of how land use changes have affected temperatures and precipitation in this region. That might be a good place to start.
Michael Mann says the dust bowl in your country of the United States was a natural occurring event that had nothing to do with the massive desiccation of the landscape by human activity.
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/18/how-a-natural-disaster-that-happened-90-years-ago-prophesied-our-climate-ravaged-future/
it’s almost like satire. Talk about the blind leading the blind on these issues. It would almost be funny except for the fact that we have handed over the keys on environmental management to those without a clue what they’re talking about. Stats and atmosphere nerds pontificating on subjects way outside their area of scope, without the wherewithal to understand this.
isn’t it a perfectly status quo microcosm in this very thread to have wannabe steward ignorants lecturing farmers about soil and plant processes. LOL. does nobody yet understand the source of resentment developing. It is truly ridiculous.
It is always amazing that there are so many people who know about farming and keeping the resources (like land) needed in proper shape. Fewer and fewer people have even stepped on a farm let alone butchered their own meat from chickens to cows. I’ve taken a few out to see the cows and Eewww, cow muffins are disgusting! Do you think they would touch an egg right in the nest that has a little poop on it? Ho, ho, ho!
So much for them saying how farming should be done. I’ll be here protecting my resources while the city folks are fighting over eating rats.
fewer frosts.
Not sure you can say that. But the days between last frost and first frost are increasing.
It’s a lot like the oceans. The sun warms things up, but air temperature plays a role in how fast that heat escapes.
It’s more complicated than that. Ambient temperature, ambient moisture, soil moisture, soil chemistry, and others also affect plant growth and yield. BTW…regarding #2…phytochrome response is at least partly modulated by ambient temperature. It might not dominate the phytochrome response, but it does modulate it somewhat. And it’s not just the strength of the Sun that matters. The wavelength and duration of the light matters as well. All 3 aspects of the solar light change as the seasons change.
Agreed. The length of day seems to make leaves drop more than temperature.
Clouds might have a positive or negative effect within the climate system but they affect global albedo so they deny reflected energy to the climate system altogether.
More reflection results in cooling because there is less energy in the system in the first place.
No theory about back radiation can overcome the fact that for a cloudier world there is less energy available.
YUP and then the timing of cloud appearance.
cloudy during day (less warming) and clear at night (more cooling)…
clear during day (more warming) cloudy at night (less cooling)…
It’s more complicated than that. Considering the direction of change, elevation, and timing there are 8 combinations in play. Cloud microphysics plays an important role as well determining the magnitude of the effect and in extreme cases even the sign, but the general rule for each combination is below. The net effect is determined by the aggregation of all combinations. And as you can see 3 of the 4 “cloudier” combinations put a warming influence on the climate system.
decrease-high-night = cooling
decrease-high-day = cooling
decrease-low-night = cooling
decrease-low-day = warming
increase-high-night = warming
increase-high-day = warming
increase-low-night = warming
increase-low-day = cooling
“The study, published in the journal AGU Geophysical Research Letters, is the first to use high-resolution computer modeling … “
My reading stopped after “computer modeling”
How about this simple explanation:
Greenhouse gas warming has a greater effect on TMIN than TMAX
Any TMIN versus TMAX difference from the Urban Heat Island effect has to consider that urban areas only cover about 1% of Earth’s surface.
In addition, any increase of global warming from UHI must be from an increase of the UHI over time, as cities gradually expand. Or rural areas with weather stations grow into (warmer) towns.
Exactly. Its a computer modelling graduate student project. Which is nice for them but has no relation to current of future events
I doubt they are even real experts in computer modelling, just use a standard package which they ‘customise’
> Any TMIN versus TMAX difference from the Urban Heat Island effect has to consider that urban areas only cover about 1% of Earth’s surface.
Collected data from that 1% is many times greater and far more corrupt.
Too true. This would invalidate even the best (which we know they are not) computer climate models.
There were few measurements of the SH oceans until about 20 years ago, and few SH land and ocean measurements before 1920. So there are bigger problems than UHI, such as how inconvenient data magically “changes” over time: The 1940 to 1975 global cooling nearly “disappeared” over the decades.
The sad truth is we can argue about global average measurements forever and that won’t change the scary climate forecasts THAT ARE NOT BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA. The IPCC predictions do not resemble any past climate change on our planet. They are designed to scare people, and they do.
They may only cover 1% of the world’s surface but that is also where 70% of the temperature stations are. Now you work out that weighted average, genius!
The only people I know of that calculates the average temperature using a trivial average are contrarians like Tony Heller. Everyone else uses a grid with an area weighted average. That means for Tony Heller he would give the 1% area 70% of the weight. But legitimate dataset would only give the 1% area 1% of the weight.
You may not like Heller, and love to character attack him, but I doubt if he 1% area 70% of the weight.
Richard Greene said: “You may not like Heller, and love to character attack him”
I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never attacked Tony Heller’s character.
Richard Greene said: “but I doubt if he 1% area 70% of the weight.”
Ok, you got me. It was actually Steve Goddard that did that.
I believe you are wild guessing 70%
First of all, oceans cover 70% of the planet and are not affected by UHI.
The land stations affected by UHI have to be those with significant economic growth in their vicinity.
A station located in Manhattan’s Central Park would have been surrounded by buildings and roads 50 years ago and is still surrounded today
A central city station moved to a suburban airport could have a reduced UHI
A station in a rural area could be significantly affected by a village or town springing up in the vicinity.
YUP and… UHI effect has nothing to do with GHG. So they are measuring something else altogether aren’t they!
But but but they used supercomputers/sarc
During the day, total turbulent flux is directed upward. This includes flux and latent and sensible heat. You may notice afternoon cloud condensation.
During the night, total turbulent flux is directed downward. You may notice condensation of dew at the surface overnight, for example.
The ratio of latent and sensible heat in total turbulent flux is the Bowen ratio.
Net upward latent flux during the day has a much easier time reaching the free atmosphere, out of the mixed layer, compared to sensible heat.
Sensible heat tends to get caught up in the turbulent mixed layer in local eddies. Very little released to the free atmosphere.
Latent flux from surface to cloud condensation is an effective net dissipation process out of the mixed layer. Sensible heat flux is a relatively less effective net dissipation process.
If we change the ratio of net latent and sensible flux in the Bowen ratio, such as reducing moisture available, or if cloud condensation is disrupted for any reason, more heat will circulate in the mixed layer.
If less cloud was condensed, net latent flux dissipation will be reduced. If less moisture is available for evapotranspiration, a greater proportion of sensible heat is produced.
While total turbulent flux is directed upward during the day, a perturbation isn’t very noticeable at a surface monitoring location.
However, once evening comes, the downward turbulent flux is now loaded.
Shrinking DTR is the result of reducing the effectiveness turbulent dissipative process. The efficiency of this process changes heat delivery aloft, up out of the boundary layer.
Last line of paper, wonder if they ever have experienced, much less studied such fluxes in these interesting breezes. “Considering the critical role of land/sea breezes in diurnal temperature variation in coastal inland areas, we suggest further investigating to clarify these impacts, especially within the global climate change episode.”
The logical fallacy in all these, whether it be climate, eutrophication, or any of the other crises that we must save the world from is the one directional tunnel vision. They had three simulations, plenty when you live in a hypothetical world.
What’s the difference between “high resolution computer modelling” and biased wild-assed guesses? Shirley there’s a difference? Shirley?
Shirley is indifferent.
I’m sorry, Shirley isn’t here right now, would you like to talk to Joe, Rishi, Xi or Vlad?
Oh come on, we know what is going on. Stop playing stupid!
We are adding a lot of aviation induced cirrus to the system. Just look up the sky, you can see it! And of course this is not just heating the planet, but also reducing DTR.
https://www.nature.com/articles/418601a#auth-David_J_-Travis
Or listen to Charles Long, Senior Researcher NOAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoGZrwzWHJI&t=1313s
Or just learn the basics..
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with#c384
I took your advice and looked out the window. The sky is cloudless, as it has been for several days. There are 5 commercial airports near my home, plus several major air routes in the area, yet no aviation-induced cirrus.
Guess my lying eyes are wrong.
If you say so, contrails will not exist..
> Using the supercomputers, the team was able to model the complicated interplay of land-surface processes on climate change. These include changes in land use (such as deforestation), soil moisture, precipitation, cloud cover and other factors that can affect the temperature in a local region. By creating a model with a finer resolution grid – 2 square kilometer grids rather than the 100-kilometer grids used in most climate models – the researchers were able to more closely analyze the impacts of climate change.
That’s more than 120 million data collection points covering dozens of criteria. They did not do this. They are lying.
Collection points? No, they modeled the inputs.
Of course. That means they cannot claim 2km^2 resolution. They are lying.
Meh. The ECMWF, GFS, UKMET, etc. run with 100’s of million grid cells tracking hundreds of parameters in each cell. 120 million data collection points is laughably small by today’s standards. Nevermind, that the Doan et al. 2022 configuration of the WRF model has 3 nested domains. D1 has 30 km resolution, D2 has 6 km resolution, and D3 is the one with 2 km resolution. The D3 domain has only about 25,000 horizontal data collection points covering only 90,000 km2. The D2 domain has only about 25,000 horizontal data collection points covering only 810,000 km2. And finally the D3 domain has only about 9,000 horizontal data collection points covering only 7,300,000 km2. Most convection allowing models would have maybe 100 or so vertical layers (the HRRS for example only as 50) so that means the final total is around 6,000,000 data collection points. That is even more laughably small by today’s standards. However, their time horizon is extended out 10 years. As a result they had to reduce the spatial resolution and domain to compensate for the approximately 500x increase in the temporal domain. There is no reason to suspect fraud based on the domain and resolution sizes.
ECMWF
“Long range forecasts provide information about expected future atmospheric and oceanic conditions, averaged over periods of one to three months. Like the medium and extended ranges, the long range forecasts are produced by the IFS coupled ocean-atmosphere model.”
This has nothing to do with the temperature database as measured by weather station.
I didn’t look up the others because they probably are the same – models and parameters.
You are cherry picking as usual.
They are not measured values. They are parameters made up to feed the model.
“”high-resolution computer modeling””
High precision wrongness guaranteed.
“”Clouds are one of the big uncertainties in terms of climate projections””…. so it’s easy to make stuff up
Seems they forgot computers give incredibly fast, incredibly accurate confirmations of input bias.
A reduced DTR should also mean less weather events balancing uneven surface heating?
The warmunists over at Yale (search for Covering Climate Now Partners) have beaten the Tsukuba guys to the punch with articles like “Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming” with scare stories about more CO2 resulting in less cloud cover, therefore more warming.
It is obvious to any B.Sc.or B.Applied Sc. Chem. Eng. or Mech. Eng. that a warmer wetted planet surface results in more water vapor in the atmosphere, more convection, more cloud cover, more reflected SW in daytime, less loss of IR to cold outer space during night-time, therefore more clouds means less warming.
But few of them speak up, cuz they like to build equipment and projects (say like the Pyramids) for future people to stand in awe of….
Seems like a good time to apply for a government grant to build giant cloud-sucking machines. Good for at least $100B I should think.
It is also predicted based on the claimed mechanism for warming, which is the reduction in the rate of nighttime cooling.
I’m pretty sure that was an ad hoc amendment.
Why are people who are supposed to be so smart, actually the dumbest among us? Maximum temperatures have not increased over the last century and have actually slightly declined. Minimum temperatures have increased due to the urban heat island effect because of where the sensors are sited. If you reviewed rural temperatures in well-situated sensor stations you would see little change. Their “sophisticated” modeling is just the garbage in garbage out syndrome on steroids. These people can’t possibly be this stupid. They have to ignore or pretend to not know things in order to promulgate this nonsensical garbage.
Look at those clouds….so ominous…no, wait…..it’s just a man made image.
Ding dong modelers get it upside down again. They really need to quit spliff’n and gaming all night, and check the actual data. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Cloud cover has decreased, increasing SW absorption and planetary temperature
Also
Cloud cover in The Netherlands has decreased with 3% per decade since 1980. (report from KNMI).
Global radiation, as measured in De Bilt, has increased from approximately 940 J/cm2 in the 1970’s to 1020 J/cm2 in the last decade.
See also: the paradox of cleaner air.
This is yet another paper that does not have uncertainty analysis.
How can significance be put on an alleged temperature change of 0.25 deg C as the difference between two other temperatures whose separate uncertainties are of the order of 0.5 deg C?
Is this not just noise, with a synthetic guess about a number somewhere within that noise?
The authors should retract this paper.
Geoff S
Somewhere in the uncertainty interval! You are correct. No different than throwing darts. The shame is they don’t even know what they don’t know!
Leftists do not have uncertainty
Only old fogey scientists had uncertainty
More circular self satisfaction money wasting false computer models that produce alarmist desired results.
A total waste of resources.
The work of Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. deserves to reviewed in connection with this research. Pielke argued, persuasively IMO, that changes in land use and land form could and are having a significant effect on temperatures. The crazies at the IPCC have tried to ignore this reasoning. Eventually Dr. Pielke’s work will be appreciated.
Let alone the removal of energy from the atmosphere by windmills. Sooner or later that will change local weather if not more.