Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is very precise and sensitive.
As an example of what that sensitivity can reveal about the climate system, consider Figure 1, which shows the upwelling (outgoing) longwave (LW) and reflected solar shortwave (SW), month by month, for 13 years (N=156). Since these are individual CERES datasets, their trends and values should be valid.
Figure 1. Upwelling longwave (shades of blue) and upwelling reflected shortwave (shades of red) for the globe as well as the two hemispheres separately. Cyclical seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, there are several very curious aspects to this figure. The first and most surprising issue is that the hemispheric values for shortwave, and also the hemispheric values for longwave, are nearly identical from hemisphere to hemisphere. Why should that be so? There is much more ocean in the southern hemisphere, for example. There is solid land at the South Pole rather than ocean. In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre. Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.
So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
The next thing of interest is the stability of the system. The trends in all six of the measurements are so tiny I’ve expressed them in W/m2 per century so that their small size can be appreciated … if the trends continue, in a century they may change by a watt or two. Note that despite the small spread of the measurements, none of the trends are significant.
The next thing of interest is that in addition to the values being similar in both hemispheres, the trends are also quite similar. All of the trends are very slightly negative.
Finally, despite the great difference in the size of the LW and SW signals (240 vs 100 W/m2, Figure 1), the size of the variations in the two signals are quite similar. Here is a boxplot of the three pairwise comparisons—the anomaly variations in global, and northern and southern hemisphere.
Figure 2. Boxplots of the variations in the longwave and reflected shortwave shown in Figure 1, for the globe (left panel), the northern hemisphere (center panel) and the southern hemisphere (right panel).
Since these are boxplots, we know that half of the data lies inside the colored boxes. This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.
Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.
Now, there certainly may be some other explanation for this amazing stability and symmetry of the climate despite the large differences in the geometry and composition of the two hemispheres. That’s my explanation. If you have a better one … bring it on.
Best regards to all,
w.
NOTE ON DATA AND CODE: I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code. I’ve put all the relevant functions into one file, called “CERES Functions.R”. That file of functions, plus the data, plus the code for this post, are all that are required to duplicate the figures above. I just checked, it’s all turnkey.
DATA: CERES 13 year (220 Mbytes, has all the CERES data in R format.)
FUNCTIONS: CERES Functions.R (Has all the functions used to analyze the data.)
CODE FOR THIS POST: Amazing Stability CERES (Has the code to create the figures and calculations used above.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code.”
Many thanks, I’m sure that will make it a lot easier to pick up the various things you do and contribute. (Despite the fact R is a dog to work with 😉 )
Figure 1 is truly frightening. Can we act in time?
A remarkable study.
The explanation s that there is a very stable set of control systems in the atmosphere which use CO2 as the working fluid thus reducing CO2-AGW to near zero.
The other issue is that the ‘forcing’, black body real surface energy flux and ‘back radiation’ ideas in Climate Alchemy are bad physics and must to be junked before the theory can advance.
Inferring a similar uncertainty on the incoming insolation measurement we see that TOA net flux must be +/-3 W/m^2. Or sqrt(3)=1.73 , if the errors can be assumed to be orthogonal.
The 0.85 is actually quite small in that context.
The interhemispheric difference in the Earth’s annually averaged surface temperature is only 1° – 2° C. It would be much higher if there was no meridional heat transport.
Willis wrote –
“Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.”
You really need sensible people who realize that half the planet receives solar radiation at all times and the degree of inclination determines how surface latitudes receive that radiation budget over an annual orbit or do actual imaging of this insight frighten you ? –
http://londonastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/uranus_2001-2007.jpg
Apply the same observation to the Earth as a matter of course –
http://victoriastaffordapsychicinvestigation.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/300px-axialtiltobliquity-celestial-equator-earth-has-tilted-its-axis-again-7-june-2012.png?w=600&h=465
Generally men come to terms with quantity comparisons and scales as they become adults so that they can work with topics such as climate in terms of planetary dynamics, unfortunately this hasn’t happened –
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/767871/thumbs/o-NASA-SUN-SOLAR-FLARE-900.jpg?12
These programmers have become a nuisance but they would become creative and productive were they to follow the proper principles. They are either naive or politically inept as nothing good ever comes from throwing good information after bad or disproving reckless assertions with more of the same so that all I see is an exercise in nitpicking voodoo that buries the wider population deeper into the same modeling mess.
Snap out of it for goodness sake – this issue is easy enough to resolve with decisiveness and simplicity.
I have to read more and post less.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 12:29 am
“Snap out of it”? You unpleasant little man, snap out of it yourself. Gerald, once again you come in to tell us we’re all a bunch of fools … but without telling us how your brilliant insights would make even the slightest bit of difference to me or anyone else.
So why are you here? Your claims have nothing to do with what I’ve written. You haven’t found a single thing wrong with what I said. But despite your having nothing to offer on this topic, just like on my last two threads, you continue to babble about how smart you are, but without ever answering the question …
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE?
I am sick of your endless meaningless mumbling about things which you think people are doing wrong, and your interminable claims about how you have the inside track on global wisdom. Tell me how your nonsense makes the slightest difference to what I wrote, and I’ll be interested. Show me where I’ve done something wrong, and I’ll be very interested.
But since you appear to be incapable of that, all you are doing is insisting that you have the god-given right to make a fool of yourself … which is true enough, you do have that right, but do you want to exercise it?
Up to you … but continuing to expose your content-free inanities so we can laugh at them doesn’t seem to be the best of plans.
w.
Thanks for the link Edim.
The importance of ITCZ is often over looked. Toggweiler has also noted 4.5 year periodic variation in atlantic ITCZ.
Since there are mechanisms which act to maintain stable degree.day integrals in the tropics a displacement of ITCZ and the magnitude of the heat transport to NH could induce a net heat input to climate system.
By applying Tisdale’s observation that the mechanisms of heat capture and a heat loss are non symmetric oscillations but two different processes, whatever induces these changes has a means to induce long term climate fluctuations.
Togweiler’s circa 4.5 years is half the lunar perigee. since tidal effects are generally of wavenumber=2 this raises the possibility that the observed 4.5 years is induced by lunar perigee variation.
this equilibrium does not exclude a warming of the lower troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere
Willis
I see all these websites where kids ask the most basic questions it is possible to ask – how long does it take the Earth to turn once and how many times does it take to turn in a year ?. Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !.
http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/How_many_times_does_the_earth_spin_around_a_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
You see,the answer is linked to the cause why temperatures rise and fall daily so that the only possible answer is to look at the orbital motion of the Earth over its 4 annual orbital cycles and then divide the 1461 rotations it takes to cover those circuits The external astronomical reference for this fact is straightforward enough,in this case,Sirius fixes the Earth’s position in space as it travels around the Sun and the extra day’s rotation known as the leap day moves the planet just far enough along its circuit to where Sirius is positioned just far enough to one side of the Sun to be seen. Of course, in ancient times the beginning and ending of a 4 year orbital cycle was not Feb 29th but on the day Sirius appeared for the first time.
Sometimes kids strike upon the issue and have more sense than adults or teachers who merely dig in their heels as you have done,the kids don’t have the proper principles in this rudderless environment even when common sense would dictate that all the effects within a 24 hour cycle correlate to one rotation of the planet –
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060822154250AAjckrq
So snap out of it and use your skills as a programmer to be creative and productive for a change,these are the most serious issues facing humanity and a result of the flaws,distortions and manipulations introduced by the original mathematical modelers.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:34 am
In other words, no, you can’t find a single damn thing wrong with what I wrote, but you don’t have the balls to admit that and shut up, so you are talking about a bunch of kids …
So go find the kids and enlighten them, Gerald, because here, you’re just a PITA.
w.
PS—After babbling for three threads and saying nothing, after not bringing a damn thing to the table and wasting all of our time with your meaningless, way-off-topic claims, you have the nerve to tell me to “be creative and productive for a change”?
Sorry, Gerald, I don’t take advice about creativity and productivity from a self-professed global expert like yourself, a man who (on this website at least) shows no sign of being either creative or productive. You have neither the history nor the standing to lecture anyone on creativity or productivity. If you do you know something about either one, you’ve never given the slightest sign of it. You want to get creative? Produce an answer to my question above.
Willis, could it be something to do with atmospheric pressure being the regulator?
Willis, Have you been back and had a closer look at the data ? You are right to be amazed at how little the difference is between NH and SH given their differences of topography. It just doesn’t seem right.
Your 2 reasons are of course valid but they do start my alarm bell ringing.
Gerard WTF are you on? That’s pure babbling.
Gees Gerald, that was a meaningless load of waffle.
Have you been at those funny mushrooms again ???
It seems you don’t have anywhere near Willis’s abilities, otherwise you would have fixed these mundane issues yourself. Time for you to do some learnin’ to catch up, it seems.
Willis wrote –
“In other words, no, you can’t find a single damn thing wrong with what I wrote, but you don’t have the balls to admit that and shut up, so you are talking about a bunch of kids …”
It is a basic human right that kids learn not only that the Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.In case your indoctrinated mind can’t handle this fact –
It is a basic human right that kids learn the proper principles which correlate the rotation of the planet with all the effects they wake up to each 24 hours.
People are too trapped inside a modeling labyrinth to remove themselves from a problem that started a few centuries ago when they asserted rotations and days fall out of step. I am letting you know that although my visit here is productive,I now know that you and this website is part of the problem and not the solution so good luck to you.
Willis, see Organized complexity in the climate system at Climate Etc.
“This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.”
Not so amazing if you consider what radiative gases are doing in our atmosphere. They cool the upper atmosphere by emitting to space energy equal to the net flux of radiative, conductive and latent heat into the atmosphere. They intercept outgoing surface IR and warm the lower atmosphere. They back radiate some IR having a limited effect over only 29% of the earth’s surface. But above all they play a critical role in governing the speed of tropospheric convective circulation.
You have previously described the formation of tropical clouds as “emergent phenomena”. Clouds give a visual reference for the movement of air masses. The breakaway of air masses from the surface boundary layer after dawn can also be viewed the same way. Radiative gases warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper atmosphere, adding more reduces the Rayleigh number for initiation of Rayleigh-Bernard circulation below the tropopause. Double CO2 from fictitious “pre industrial levels” and air mass breakaway may occur a few seconds sooner after dawn.
While the imbalance in the CERES data is large, incoming and outgoing radiation moving in lockstep tells a story. The atmosphere already has enough radiative gases to drive an effective vapour-condensate heat pump to space. Turn up the heat under boiling water and the water never exceeds 100C, convective circulation and evaporative cooling just speeds up. Tropospheric convective circulation is already at a speed that negates gas conduction, the adiabatic limit. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere simply speeds up tropospheric convective circulation. After the adiabatic limit has been exceeded the cooling effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is too small to measure.
“Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.”
Willis, if you would just do the experiment (incident LWIR on water that is free to evaporatively cool), you would realise just how powerful the cloud thermostat is. Kiehl was nowhere close.
I have to say I would be amazed if there was a balance of zero.
Plant life consumes energy, and the biosphere is growing.
Every movement of any tree or structure by wind causes changes within that tree or structure that are locked there for its life. The whole of Earth is constantly being eroded by energy changes, rocks crack, metals corrode. How much energy is dissipated in a large wave? Where does it go to?
No, here MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the Earth to function.
AndyG55
This is all well and good,when convictions become so narrow and people so wound up they rarely take the wider view even when the most basic planetary causes and effects are at stake.
Willis here cheerfully asserts something about the Earth’s orbit and temperatures while he can’t and won’t be drawn into the academic world which asserts that there are more rotations than 24 hour days across 4 orbital circuits.When you can’t discuss even the daily rises and falls in temperature due to our planet’s rotation you lose the ability to discuss anything meaningful.
Apologies for the poor proofreading,spelling and grammar but time to move on.
Gerald Kelleher says:
January 7, 2014 at 1:58 am
In other words, no, you can’t find any problems with my work, but you are still babbling on about off-topic subjects.
In any case, there is no “basic human right” for kids to be taught the principles of celestial mechanics, that’s a sick joke. Millions of people have been very successful in this life without knowing any of that stuff.
I do love the way you try to impress us, though, by dressing up simple stuff as though it were complex. You can’t bear to say “directly under the sun”, or “when the sun is right overhead”. Instead, you proudly insist on calling it the intersection of the “line of the ecliptic” and the perpendicular to the “circle of illumination”.
And now, rather than say we get an extra leap day every four years, you say there is a “basic human right” that kids learn the “Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.”
Really? The problem is that kids don’t know that the earth turns once every 24 hours, and there’s a “basic human right” to know that there’s an extra day on leap year? Who knew?
Perhaps your visit here has been productive for you. I hope so.
But if you think it was productive for anyone but you, then you are deluding yourself badly.
Finally, if this website is “part of the problem”, then I encourage you to run, don’t walk, to a website that is part of the solution. Perhaps they will find something useful in what you have to say, and perhaps you can find someplace where people won’t just point and laugh when you unroll your scroll and start telling people just how wrong they are about the line of the ecliptic and the 1461 days.
Like I requested before … don’t go away mad.
Just go away.
w.
Energy, sun, going in and being absorbed by Earth and radiated back to space will eventually stabilize at one or another energy(temperature) level.
The question is also what is the average surface temp NH and SH. And how much solar energy are they holding in the Oceans and Land?
Gerald : “It is a basic human right that kids learn not only that the Earth turns once every 24 hours and keeps in step through the 1461 rotations it covers 4 annual circuits.”
Once every 24h , brilliant. How you think idea a the length of the day came about , by watching the appearance of Sirius ?
How did you get the value of 1461 rotations ( apart from starting with the answer you wanted and multiplying by 4) ?
Of course you won’t be able to answer that any more than you can answer anything else.
You know sometimes psychotropic drugs can be a great way to open the mind and free us from the mental shackles imposed by society but if one does too much it hospitals are full of acid casualties who are still out there skating around the astral plane.
“Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !”
They’re all crazy I tell you ! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Willis, don’t be so dismissive. Productive no, creative: you have to give him some credit there 😉
Not an expert here but an obvious assumption behind why the two hemispheres should be different is that there are no (near) instant flows across the Equator.
Is that true? Oceans streams cross the equator and carry different coloured surface, flora and fauna. Wind carries clouds. Even the Van Allen belts cross the Equator (not sure how that means anything).
Lots of things could smooth the effect of the difference between angle of the planet and proportion of surface which is land or ocean.