Convective Storms Cool The Planet

Heat in the lower troposphere causes evaporation from vegetation and bodies of water, producing cooling. Then the humid air rises and condenses in the upper troposphere, which generates heat that radiates out into space.

Cold precipitation then falls downwards, dragging cold air down to the surface and producing further cooling at the surface.

It is unfortunate that no climate modeler has ever experienced cooling after a thunderstorm, because otherwise they surely would have incorporated this as a negative feedback in their models.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Convective Storms Cool The Planet

  1. Password protected says:

    In order to model something it (all the parameters) must be clearly understood.
    That won’t happen with climate models until they get away from the ‘CO2 is the Earth’s thermostat’ input within the models.

  2. tom0mason says:

    The simplicity of this notion is beyond climate science™, but then they have never experienced life beyond their own insular, spherical echo-chamber.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    What is needed to bring home the cooling of a convective storm is to push all the Climate Scientists one by one out of a plane at 47,000 feet above a nice big thunderstorm. We will even give them warm clothing and oxygen masks/tanks. link Perhaps after they make it back to earth they will have a better appreciation and knowledge of convective storms. If not we can repeat the experiment. {:>D

  4. John B., M.D. says:

    Climatologists aren’t engineers. They don’t understand control systems or feedback loops, or reporting data with the proper number of significant digits.

    • Albert says:

      I’m afraid they do understand negative feedback, John. If they properly adjust the feedback, the grant money will disappear. You see, in this case grant money is proportional to system error. Therefore it is in their interest not to reduce the error by providing too much negative feedback.

  5. Albert says:

    “It is unfortunate that no climate modeler has ever experienced cooling after a thunderstorm, because otherwise they surely would have incorporated this as a negative feedback in their models.”

    Silly blogger! The purpose of the models is not to predict future temperatures, it’s to increase grant money!

  6. rishrac says:

    Yea, well, according to the IPCC that doesn’t happen. Because co2 is a GHG all that heat gets retained rather than released. And according to their measurements, the total energy budget is 363w/m^2 incoming, and only 103w/m^2 leaving. (average for the planet) That was a few years ago, and as everybody knows, co2 levels have increased so the heat being retained has to be even more now. Hence a tipping point in the very near future. That’s why we must act now!!

    I don’t know which I don’t believe. The heat retained or the numbers from outgoing and incoming. Maybe, I don’t believe either
    First, co2 can’t possibly retain all of the heat released during even a single thunderstorm, it would overwhelm the carrying capacity of the co2 or any other gasses there. The co2 would not get any warmer just because more heat is being released. For the co2 to become warmer would require that the heat being released be warmer than heat that was released. Oh, so the heat would be released to the surrounding gasses and would keep getting warmer? ( Actual argument) Then it would never rain. And most certainly, it would never snow. Take your pick of who you argue with, Either co2 releases the heat more quickly or it holds on to it longer. Why is that important? Because either one can be used as an explanation of AGW.
    Then the numbers. I thought they were wrong then, and every year since. Seen any new numbers on outgoing and incoming? No? I didn’t think so. Take your pick of well let’s say 10 years, might be 18 or 16 or 13, but for arguments sake 10. By the way, this is the only argument if done properly, I did say properly, that could prove AGW. At a constant rate of 240w/m^2 being retained over 10 years, that is without a doubt, no matter what time frame they put on that, was that an hour, minute, day, month? Who knows? An enormous amount of heat. Hiding in the deep oceans? (Sure that’s where it is.(sarcasm intended))

    So, if there has been more co2 in the past, why wasn’t a tipping point reached then?
    And if those numbers are real, why aren’t they telling us what the new numbers are? I am certain they know. If the numbers were in their favor, they’d be screaming about it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…., why aren’t they telling us what the new numbers are? “

      That is what Dr Happer’s lecture was about and that is why he wanted some skeptics in the audience. He was a bit afraid of the CAGW eco-nuts.
      link 1 (background)

      link 2

      For the physics minded. It had to do with:
      Mössbauer effect
      Pound–Rebka experiment
      Motional narrowing
      and the Voigt profile.
      (see WIKI)

      The Climastrologists approximated the Voigt profile incorrectly and the experimental data shows it is too broad.

      This will affect the CO2 sensitivity. If I recall Dr Happer thought it would drop to to below 1°C per doubling. (But do not quote me on that)

      • rishrac says:

        Everybody is afraid of the eco terrorists They have the full faith and support of the UN and other governments.

      • daveburton says:

        Were you there at UNC on Monday, Gail?

        I was the guy in the front who jumped up to loan him my laser pointer (though he ended up using a 6′ yardstick, instead).

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, my hubby was the guy with not so perfect pitch.

          I think Dr Happer liked the yardstick because he could use it to demo flexing of the bonds.

          BTW, did I mangle the info from the lecture too much? It was all new to me since physics is not my field.

      • daveburton says:

        Yes, though there was quite a bit that I didn’t understand.

        I ran TapeATalk on my phone, so I might have a usable recording. I haven’t checked it yet, though.

        Also, I have Prof. Happer’s email address, and I suspect he’ll be happy to share his powerpoint with us. I’ll email him and ask. (Find my email address at, and send me your email address, and I’ll forward it to you when I get it.)

        I was relieved that the crowd was friendly. I also attended his talk at the Locke Foundation in Raleigh at noon, and of course that was a friendly crowd. But I feared that the crazies would rally against his heresy and disrupt his lecture at UNC. Fortunately, that didn’t happen.

      • daveburton says:

        Gail, Prof. Happer has emailed me his powerpoint. I’ll forward it to you, if you’d like. But I need your email address. (Email it to me; don’t post it unobfuscated in an open forum, or you’ll get buried in spam forever.) Click on my name (daveburton) to find my email address.

  7. Scarface says:

    This is Willis Eschenbach’s take on this: “The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature”

    Since he is a skeptic, no climate scientist will ever read it though.

  8. au1corsair says:

    Don’t “scientists” get out much? This reminds me of the canard that “animals don’t have emotions–only instinct” that dominated mainstream psychology for decades.
    Even Charles Darwin observed evidence of animal emotions!
    See the parallels between the different branches of mainstream science? Psychology used to deny the existence of the human mind, too. Climate “science” denies weather–and the effects of solar radiation.
    What next? Oh, that’s right–there’s the “science” of economics as practiced by the global banking industry and the politicians owned by the bankers…

  9. Tel says:

    Ed Krug has a chapter on this in his book “Environment Betrayed”.

    He mentioned that the strong negative feedback caused by the nonlinearity of water, provides a thermostat. He also digs up some references indicating that this has been known for a long time, but got forgotten when the AGW scare got up to speed.

  10. Jason Calley says:

    As E.M. Smith (Chiefio) says, “The Earth’s atmosphere is a spherical heat pipe.”

    And for anyone who does not know what a heat pipe does, the answer is “conduct heat hundreds of times better than solid copper or anything else you care to name.”

  11. B.C. says:

    Here in FL, we call thunderboomers “Gawd’s air conditioning”. I’ve measured a 15F drop in temperature in less than 5 minutes with my trusty Kestrel® from a passing thunderstorm’s outflow while conducting a prescribed burn. All that fire must have converted the CO2 into ice particles via an Inverse Algoreythm.

  12. Mark Luhman says:

    In Arizona 30 degree drops are not unusual, we start in 105 plus and end up in the seventies, alas it only last for a few short hours and the hot air rushes back in.

  13. tom0mason says:

    So every day we have tons of air convecting and tons of water evaporating rising, dumping heat, and falling again. We have kilowatt scale impacts from changes of cloud cover. And all of it drops off each night as it finishes it’s job of dumping the 1,300 kW/m^2 of added heat back to space. And in that milieu CO2 counts for nothing. It does nothing.

    Put at it’s most basic: The decision to use a DAILY AVERAGE temperature hides the actual processes involved in dumping heat. Using a MONTHLY AVERAGE simply assures that all the interesting processes are completely hidden and their effects sterilized.

    From the very first step, the creation of a “monthly average temperature” for each place in the temperature data set, the “Climate Science” of “Global Warming” is broken and un-physical. They have their “time scale” all wrong.

Leave a Reply