Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve been wanting to [take] another look at the relationship between net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation changes on the one hand and changes in temperature on the other. As a necessary prelude, I finally have gotten round to an oft-postponed task, that of looking at the thermal lag in different areas of the planet. This is the lag between a change in TOA radiation and a corresponding change in surface temperature. Figure 1 shows my results.
Figure 1. Lag in months between the changes in TOA radiation and the corresponding changes in temperature.
As always when working with CERES data, I find that every graph brings surprises. For example, the wet land areas respond more quickly to changes in TOA radiation than do the dry land areas. Not sure I understand that. Also, you can see the quick response in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) just above the equator in the Pacific. This suggests that the water-thunderstorm cycle transfers the energy more readily to-from the surface, with less thermal lag.
Now, I admit that there are more accurate ways of calculating the lag. However, my method gives the lag to the nearest month, so the error won’t ever be more than half a month. Here is the relationship between raw temperature and TOA radiation at a randomly chosen point in the Atlantic:
Figure 1a. Scatterplots of net TOA radiation versus surface temperature at 35°N, 10°W. Letters in the graphs are the initial letters the months, JFMAMJJASOND. All trends given are in degrees C per 3.7 W/m2 of TOA radiation change (the change expected from a doubling of CO2). Click image for larger version.
As you can see, the actual best fit for the lag is slightly more than two months, but not as large as three months. However, we won’t get much error using the 2 month lag.
In any case, having that lag data, I was able to see what the trend was between temperature and TOA radiation given the lag in each cell. Figure 2 shows that result. I have given the trend in temperature per 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2) increase in TOA radiation. This is the change in the amount of downwelling TOA radiation that the IPCC says will result from a doubling of CO2. In other words, the graph shows the immediately change in temperature that (might) theoretically result from a doubling of CO2 IF ALL ELSE STAYED UNCHANGED. Of course, things wouldn’t stay unchanged, because change is the rule, not the exception …
… in any case, Figure 2 below shows the relationship between TOA radiation and temperature, with the trend calculated using the gridcell-by-gridcell lag:
Figure 2. Change in temperature per 3.7 W/m2 change in net TOA radiation. All gridcell trends have been calculated using the thermal lag indicated in Figure 1.
This is the raw trend of the relationship between the net TOA radiation and the appropriately lagged temperature response.
However, we still have a problem. This is that because of the thermal lag, the surface temperature doesn’t get as high as it would if there were no lag and the thermal response were instantaneous. I discussed in Time Lags in the Climate System how we can estimate the reduction in amplitude due to the thermal lag. In general, as you might expect, the longer the thermal lag, the smaller the change in temperature.
Once I’ve adjusted the amplitudes upwards to allow for the reductions in amplitude caused by the thermal lag in each gridcell, I get the results shown in Figure 3. This is an estimate of the Transient Climate Response (TCR), which is the short-term response to an increase in net TOA forcing.
Figure 3. Best estimate, transient climate response (TCR) in degrees C per doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2 change in TOA radiation.) It differs from Figure 2 in that the amplitude has been increased as a function of the thermal lag.
As is expected, this adjustment increases the overall expected thermal response to the change in net TOA radiation. Note that this adjustment reduces the land/ocean difference, but without removing it entirely. I take this as support for the method being used.
So what can we learn from this? Well, first off, the transient climate response (TCR) value of 0.44°C per 3.7 W/m2 shown in Figure 3 is pretty small compared to the IPCC values. For the 18 climate models that reported results in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the mean TCR is 1.8 ± 0.1 °C (std. err. of mean) per doubling of CO2. My results in Figure 3 are less than a quarter of their results.
Finally, how does the transient climate response (TCR) relate to equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)? The ECS is the long-term response to a change in TOA radiation after all succeeding adjustments have occurred. ECS is the sensitivity that people usually discuss.
Well, the relationship shown by the AR4 models linked above is that the ECS is about 1.82 ± 0.1 (std. err. of mean) times as large as the transient climate response (TCR). With a TCR from Figure 3 of 0.44 degrees C per doubling of CO2, that would put the equilibrium climate sensitivity at 0.8 ± 0.03 degrees C per doubling of CO2.
By comparison, the average of the 18 AR4 climate models linked to above is an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.2 ± 0.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This is about four times larger than my results.
Please note that I make no overarching claims regarding the accuracy of these measurements and estimates. They represent my best effort in my continuing quest to understand the relationship between the TOA radiation and the temperature.
Regards to all,
w.
Usual Note: If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words you think are incorrect so that we can all understand your objection.
Math Note: Using the method in my post linked above, the multiplication factors to increase the amplitude of the temperature cycle based on the individual gridcell thermal lags are 1.0, 1.7, 2.9, and 4.8 for lags of 0, 1, 2, and 3 months respectively. In other words, amplitudes are not increased for 0 months lag; for a one month lag, all amplitudes would be multiplied by 1.7; and so forth.
I have calculated the length of the lag by using the cross-correlation function (ccf) and selecting the lag with the greatest correlation. I understand that there are likely better ways to establish the more precise value, but using the ccf was quick and did what was required.
Data Note: I’m using the CERES EBAF dataset. For the surface temperatures I’ve converted the (calculated) upwelling surface longwave radiation dataset to the corresponding blackbody temperatures. The data starts in March 2000 and ends in February 2014.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, Willis.
Enjoy your holiday weekend.
The issue I have with this is the original assumption that TOA changes are directly correlated to temperature changes up to 3 months later. There is nothing in this article to explain why this is assumed or counter explanations for the evidence used to make this assumption.
Study fig. 1a a little.
Might the difference be in the proposed increase in water vapor creating more reradiated warmth than CO2 increase alone?
Yes, in my meagher understanding. I see how an increase in cosmic radiation due to the decrease in heliospheric density might excite more nucleic cloud formation at the TOA and cause an overall cooling. I think I’ve witnessed that from may location this past winter and spring.
I have often wondered if the duration of contrails from jets is only temperature and humidity dependant.
I also wonder if noctilucent clouds might be an indicator of cosmic radiation levels at the TOA. Can any body set me straight here?
That’s not what I meant. Willis calculates reduced sensitivity compared to IPCC. I am wondering if the major difference has to do with IPCC’s fudge factor related to increased water vapor due to increase evaporation from longwave radiation evaporating off the ocean surface.
He states, “Well, the relationship shown by the AR4 models linked above is that the ECS is about 1.82 ± 0.1 (std. err. of mean) times as large as the transient climate response (TCR).”
The model includes a water vapor response, thus amplifying the affects of increased CO2. I think it is possible Willis has shown that the amplification does not exist.
Water vapor does not have a positive feedback. Even IPCC gives clouds a negative feedback of -20 W/m^2, ten times opposite the 2 W/m^2 RF of CO2. Water liquid and vapor run the climate. GHGs are a bee fart in a hurricane.
The models include this water vapor amplification and there are studies that attempt to demonstrate it. Whenever I run across such studies I first look for reanalysis, a method that takes raw data and “improves” it. Next I look for modeled results presented to look like observations. Third I look for any attempt to rule out natural drivers of observed phenomenon. The last one is most concerning and reveals evidence of bias. Bias is something that should never see the light of day in the mind of a real scientist. Unfortunately, bias is more often than not the driver of research.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.full.pdf
Willis I have trouble following some of this, but thought I’d just ask, is your finding of ECS somewhere in the ballpark of Lindzen, Lewis Curry, Spencer, Michaels etc. And why do you think that is, in comparison to the IPCC models?
BTW the first sentence needs one less look to make sense.
[edited. .mod]
I greatly appreciate your analysis. One point: The statement shortly following Figure 3 “So what can we learn from this? Well, first off, the transient climate response (TCR) value of 0.44°C per W/m2 shown in Figure 3 is pretty small compared to the IPCC values.” left the 3.7 out of per W/m2. It is shown correctly elsewhere and a simple overlook, but needs correction.
[So, you recommend it be changed to “Well, first off, the transient climate response (TCR) value of 0.44°C per W/m2 shown in Figure 3 is pretty small compared to the IPCC values of 3.7 deg C W/m2. ” ? .mod]
No, he means it should be 0.44°C per 3.7 W/m2
Agree it should be 0.44°C per 3.7 W/m2 ?
Thanks, Leonard, fixed.
w.
I can’t make out the months that well in your charts but it looks like one group of months lag at three months (summer through fall?) and the other lags at two months (winter to spring?).
Thanks Willis, I really enjoy your work.
“…the trend in temperature per 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2) increase in TOA radiation.” (3.412 Btu/h per W)
Out of what? ToA total 340 W/m^2 +/- ? 2? ? 10? 3.7 = 1.1%!!!
How can anybody claim that level of accuracy? And from space!! Much of my triple decades career involved measuring thermodynamic parameters on power plant equipment and systems. Up close & personal. ASME PTCs have entire sections on the treatment of inaccuracies and uncertainties
IMHO there is no way anybody can measure 3.7 W/m^2 at ToA or mm sea level changes or 0.5 C temperature anomalies with any significant certainty.
The limitation and misapplication of significant figures is a whole ‘nother story..
See what I wrote in a comment, just 2 and 1/2 weeks ago, on another blog, about the “climate sensitivity”:
on Judith Curry, climate sensitivity and climate policies
It is entirely obvious to me that there is no global-warming greenhouse effect due to increasing CO2.
The question always remains regarding the accuracy of CERES TOA measurements. The following Hansen paper discusses the problems:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
From the paper:
“The notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth’s energy imbalance to 0.1Wm−2 is prima facie preposterous. Earth emits and scatters radiation in all directions, i.e., into 4 steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions? Climate change alters the angular distribution of scattered and emitted radiation. It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it. There is also the difficulty of maintaining sensor calibrations to accuracy 0.1Wm−2, i.e., 0.04 percent. That accuracy is beyond the state-of-the art, even for short periods, and that accuracy would need to be maintained for decades.”
“The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to
reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85Wm−2”
The instrument “calibration” factor is pure baloney. All it does is artificially gives you the result the model suggests. What the hell kind of science is that? My take is that scientists do not even know what they are measuring in the TOA with all the emr going in all directions.
In my opinion this is not quite fair to Loeb et al.who concluded from their study that present state-of-the-art satellite technology lacks the precision to close the energy budget at TOA.
In 2012 an update was published in Nature Geoscience on the subject of uncertainties in the observations of solar and terrestrial energy flows (radiative flux). The authors stated:
“‘The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm–2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.”
Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012
URL:http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
Further, the comment by Hansen was earlier. By 2011 Hansen had adjusted downwards his estimate of global energy imbalance to 0.6 W-m2 which was adopted by Stephens in 2012. in their 2012 paper, Stephens et al. cite Hansen’s figure +0.6 W-m2 for energy imbalance. This estimate of the energy flux into the oceans is from James Hansen et al. (2011) Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, 2011). URL:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
In 2012 Loeb et al had reduced this to 0.5 W-m2. Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling,Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. (Nature Geoscience Vol 5 February 2012)
URL: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
In effect, these papers taken as a whole are saying that, using satellite measurements as their basis of measuring radiation at TOA, the net global energy imbalance measured at the surface was not significantly greater than zero during the decade considered.
What does it all mean? Because of the lack of precision in measurements, the net incoming energy may be greater than, equal to, or less than the energy leaving the Earth. NASA cannot say for sure if the Earth is warming, remaining the same, or cooling. The observations are not precise enough to tell us for sure that some other climate phenomenon does not completely counteract the warming effects of greenhouse gases, including the warming effect of CO2.
Obviously, given the stance of the POTUS, these scientists cannot come right out and say, “Mr President, we don’t know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or maintaining its thermal balance.”
But that is what their papers have said.
Great information, thank you.
Side note: The earth is exothermic at a rate of 44 terawatts, which I think is about .08 W/m^2. This is cooling the earth at a rate of about 100°C every billion years. This is 0.0000001 °C / year.
.5 W/m^2 / .08 = 5.81. So, the earth may be warming at a rate of 0.0000005 °C / year +/- ??.
Satellite measurements have been a great disappointment and hindrance to the warmists. It has never supported their models or assumptions. Most recently satellite data shot down Hansen’s hypothesis that the halt in global warming was due to increased atmospheric turbidity. The data has to be “improved” in some way to be acceptable to them, usually by running the data through a computer model. Here Hansen is shown adjusting straightforward satellite data to match his models rather than adjusting his models to match data because to do the latter would be to admit that catastrophic global warming is unlikely.
Willis, a question, do you think TOA is affected by the amount of water vaper?
“For example, the wet land areas respond more quickly to changes in TOA radiation than do the dry land areas. Not sure I understand that. ”
I think our questions are related, with dry land you’re heating rocks, wet land you’re boiling water. and I think it’s related to the temperature response to changes in air mass, it’ll change 10 – 20F as the air changes from originating in the Tropics to Canada and it does this in basically hours.
And I believe it based on the water vapor the air mass carries.
Even if you are correct, the planet is ~71% ocean.
“the wet land areas respond more quickly to changes in TOA radiation than do the dry land areas”
Perhaps because water vapor is the most active greenhouse gas, so the heat is more easily retained. Desert areas are known for getting very cold at night because the daytime heat radiates away to the clear night sky.
You are completely dismissing direct conduction and focussing entirely on radiation.
Willis,
Very interesting, but not yet convincing. Why should we assume that the slope of the line is the climate sensitivity? Why the ellipses in Fig 1a? Without understanding that, how can we know how to properly analyze the data?
One way to test this might be to apply the method to the output of a GCM and see if it gives the same sensitivity as known from the model.
>> Why should we assume that the slope of the line is the climate sensitivity?
I’ve also found it confusing because climate sensitivity descriptions/discussions usually link it directly to CO2. However, it’s actually defined the way Willis is calculating it. Climate Sensitiviy = dT/dR.
>> Why the ellipses in Fig 1a?
The ellipses are caused by the fact that although the radiation has dropped (August), the temperature are reaching their maximum. When he increased the time lag to 2 months, it matches up. This matches exactly my experience growing up on the shores of Lake Erie, as the Lake increases the time lag.
VikingExplorer,
OK, seasonal lag makes sense as the cause of the ellipses.
Yes, Climate Sensitiviy = dT/dR. But T is global average temperature, not local temperature, and R is radiative forcing, not TOA radiative imbalance. So my question remains: Why should we assume that the slope of the line is the climate sensitivity? I am pretty sure it is not, for reasons given below.
>> Why should we assume that the slope of the line is the climate sensitivity?
No need to assume anything. It’s a graph of T vs R. Climate Sensitiviy = dT/dR. If you’ve ever taken Calculus 1, you would know that the first derivative is the slope of the line.
Thanks Willis!
Good stuff once again
Question,
How do we determine the saturation point with respect to IR, more specificaly LWR and CO2?
I think RGBatduke spoke of such once.
It seems important to the energy budget, hence my curiosity.
I’m not clear what you mean by the “saturation point”. Absorption by well-mixed GHGs doesn’t get “saturated”, although it’s a common misconception.
w.
Typo in the second paragraph after Fig.2: This is that the because of the thermal lag, the surface temperature doesn’t get as high as it would if there were no lag and the thermal response were instantaneous.
I think the emboldened text needs to be deleted.
[Fixed, thanks. ~mod.]
Wet things conduct heat better than dry things. Take something hot out of the oven with a dry mitt and then try it with a damp mitt. Wetlands usually consist of shallow water. Wet mud will be warmer than dry mud.
Very interesting and educational post. It does make sense that more water in the atmosphere would facilitate Heat transfer, because water is a good conductor of heat.
Also, the plots basically indicate that the heat of summer usually comes a bit later than peak radiation. In other words, as we all intuitively know, June 21 is not the hottest day of summer. It being as long as 2+ months later is probably due to picking a spot in the ocean. Land heats up quicker, as every sailor knows.
The climate sensitivity discussion was very interesting. Of course, the controversial part is whether CO2 would actually cause the 3.7, because you say, all other things are not equal.
Willis,
I have a problem with your use of net TOA radiation. In a simple radiation balance model, we have
dH/dt = F – (lambda*delta_T)
where F is the forcing and (lambda*delta_T) is the change in outgoing IR due to a change in T. So if you want to get lambda, you need to plot outgoing IR vs. T.
For the planet as a whole, net TOA radiation is equal to dH/dt so one could, in principle, plot net TOA radiation vs. T to get lambda, but that only works for the planet as a whole. At any given location there will also be horizontal transport that is not included in the above equation, so the equation is no longer valid.
Horizontal heat transport will generally be from hotter areas to cooler ones. That will reduce the temperature of the former and increase the temperature of the latter, thus compressing the temperature range and making the slopes of your plots lower than they otherwise would be. So I think your estimate of TCR is only a lower bound.
Mike M,
Your question is highlighting an issue that many of us have discussed before. You are modeling the earth as a flat surface heated by a cool sun. Many of us have been the arguing that the real situation is a rotating/spinning earth heated by a hot sun.
Willis is taking empirical data and very elegantly showing what the climate sensitivity must be. During summer, the data shows that incoming radiation exceeds outgoing, which naturally causes the surface to heat up. The opposite in winter.
Radiation balance doesn’t matter because planets have a tremendous amount of energy. Mercury is warming up while Jupiter is cooling off, but ever so slowly. It would take eons to achieve radiation balance.
VikingExplorer,
“You are modeling the earth as a flat surface heated by a cool sun.” That is ridiculous. I am doing no such thing and can not imagine why any sane person would do that.
“Many of us have been the arguing that the real situation is a rotating/spinning earth heated by a hot sun.” Of course that is the real situation and that is what is in all climate models.
“During summer, the data shows that incoming radiation exceeds outgoing, which naturally causes the surface to heat up.” Yes, but that has at best a tangential relation to climate sensitivity.
“Radiation balance doesn’t matter”. Nonsense. In any case, Willis’s entire calculation is based on radiation balance.
>> Nonsense. In any case, Willis’s entire calculation is based on radiation balance.
What law of nature is inducing radiative balance?
Why haven’t Mercury or Jupiter achieved it, after all this time?
How did Willis use “radiation balance” to compute the values for Figure 1?
I didn’t say anything about climate models, since I have no first hand knowledge of them. I was reacting to an implication of what you wrote.
Take two numbers 1 and 3. The average of 1 and 3 is 2. 2 ^ 4 = 16. However, 1^4 = 1 & 3^4 = 81. The average of those two numbers is 41. IOW, any sane person realizes that (avg T1-n) ^ 4 is not equal to avg( T1^4 + T2^4…)
And yet you wrote with apparent insanity:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to say you just modeled the earth wrong. The alternative is that you are really ignorant of math.
No, Willis did it exactly correct. Only Net TOA radiation can effect temperature. You are claiming that the water level of a lake is dependent on incoming water only. The reality is that only Input – Output can affect the water level.
>> Yes, but that has at best a tangential relation to climate sensitivity.
Nonsense. Climate sensitivity is defined exactly the way Willis is calculating it.
The horizontal transport question is valid. Willis admits it’s all pretty rough but just to get a ball-park figure. One may argue that it will lower sensitivity in tropics and boost it in temperate regions. In an ugly, rough as guts, approach it *could* all average out. That would need some justification…
The reason that there are loops is the phase lag, as others have said. If if was a simple lag there would be thin ellipse for 2 and 3 months. The fact that it’s twisting is because it’s not that simple.
What happens is that there is an in-phase relationship between forcing ( rad ) and dT/dt, ie temp and rad are orthogonal. The induced temp increase ( δ T ) at any point in time is the integral of rad(t) . Once the system starts to adjust neg. feedbacks kick-in. This is the increase in outgoing LWIR.
Assuming ( as climatologists always do ) that this is linear system this would lead to an exponential response to an changes in radiative forcing. Now you can’t straighten out an exponential with a simple lag. Spencer and Braswell (2011) discusses the problem of separating the two effects, without knowing how to do it.
The problem is that there are complex reactions that are orthogonal mixed in together. Just aligning the peaks, which is what Willis’ method if effectively doing, is not going to distinguish them, and thus the answer is not what he interprets it as being.
Douglas and Knox also tried this Lissajou figure approach, paradoxically in a paper where they also did a very thorough mathematical exponential calculation. They apparently missed the contradiction. More detail on all of this in the following link:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/
The above article shows how this exponential reaction can be fitted to tropical TOA radiation budget around Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
It finds the tropics to be very insensitive to radiative change.
I don’t think you understood my comment. I’ll try once more.
You are probably referring to the fact that Rout = k Tout ^ 4. This implies that if the earth was a flat surface, there would be a parabola shape in a graph of radiation vs TOA temperature.
However, the earth isn’t flat. The orbit, along with the tilt, result in a large amount incoming radiation in the summer, and a large amount radiation going out in winter.
So, although TOA Radiation-out is changing like a parabola, it’s being subtracted from a much larger sinusoidal like input value. The NET difference is the ellipses in figure 1a.
You write “The induced temp increase”, but it’s important to never reverse cause and effect with SB. Temperature causes radiation, not the other way around. The characteristics of the thermodynamic system determine it’s temperature, and whatever temperature the TOA happens out to be, it radiates at that temperature according to SB. However SB is not a substitute / shortcut to analyzing the thermodynamics of the system using the principles of classical thermodynamics.
moderator, can you please delete the last post since I missed a end blockquote.
[done -mod]
There is no law of nature inducing radiative balance. Radiative balance is just a consequence of either gaining or losing energy. The temperature of earth reflects the total Energy of earth, not the rate of change in energy. AGW folks assume no time delay to achieve radiative balance, but in fact, Mercury and Jupiter have been working on it since they were formed.
Mike,
Thanks for the discussion of the phase diagram. I will have to think about it. I agree that one can not properly interpret the diagram without having some idea of how to untangle the effects.
But as the the horizontal transport, I must disagree when you say “One may argue that it will lower sensitivity in tropics and boost it in temperate regions. In an ugly, rough as guts, approach it *could* all average out.” That might well be the case for averages. But for slopes, horizontal transport causing hot areas to get cooler and cold areas hotter are changes in the same direction: towards smaller slopes. So the errors will not average out.
> Also, you can see the quick response in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) just above the equator in the Pacific.
I don’t get it. Your heretic theory as I have understand it is that tropical ocean climate is regulated by emergent effects of thunderstorms and squall lines and that heat transfer from the tropics to the poles is much more efficient than what the models show.
Why would we accept a thin line of quick response, surrounded by significantly less efficient response in the rest of the tropics?
amplitudes are not increased for 0 moths lag
shurely shome mishtake?
Lagging moths? Thanks, fixed.
w.
Willis
Your above analysis of CERES satellite data says
Your finding shows remarkably good agreement with the finding of Sherwood Idso from his eight “natural experiments” that he published in 1998.
Idso’s paper is here and says
A similar result has also been obtained by
Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
and by
Gregory and from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Richard
Mods
I twice attempted to make a post but it vanished both times. If you find it when you check the ‘bin’ I would be grateful if you post the first version and delete the repost.
And if you don’t find it in the ‘bin’ please be so kind as yo say so I can post it again.
Thanking you in anticipation
Richard
One of my earlier posts also vanished. Don’t want to double post so I’m waiting.
Thank you for some very interesting graphs Willis
However, the question is how fast you see the effect of the imbalance in the TOA radiation.
In IPCC’s definition of transient climate response, they use a gradual increase in greenhouse gases over a period of 70 years as a measure. That means that 70 years is their short-term effect. The equilibrium occur approximately 100 years later.
You operate with only a few months, and then the sensitivity will of course be smaller.
/Jan
Willis writes “As always when working with CERES data, I find that every graph brings surprises. For example, the wet land areas respond more quickly to changes in TOA radiation than do the dry land areas. ”
My guess is the rapid and efficient transfer of energy to the TOA by water vapour’s latent heat of vaporisation works better over land because there is enough water there to do it but not so much as to cause the cloud cover that feeds back against this process.
Willis,
I have made a similar calculation using the seasonal variations for the two hemispheres. The climate sensitivity in my calculation ends up even lower than yours. Please have a look in this paper to see if you can spot the difference: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/seasonal_variations_0_6.pdf
Changes in TOA radiation vary little for the globe as a whole so the above article is primarily of interest for seasonal changes.in individual regions.
For climate change across decades and centuries what matters is changes in the proportion of TOA insolation able to reach the surface as global cloudiness and global albedo vary.
Downward radiation is a bit of a red herring. What matters is either TOA insolation or the proportion that reaches the surface.
Downward radiation fails to warm the surface or reduce the rate of cooling of the surface and so has zero net thermal effect at the surface.
The reason is that the rate of photon emission declines relative to temperature as one descends trhrough the mass of an atmosphere.
The greater the density the more collisional activity occurs instead of photon emission so downward directed IR is statistically less likely to be re-emitted as a photon every time it is reabsorbed by another molecule during its descent into greater density.
The net effect is that all downward IR is absorbed into collisional activity before it reaches the surface and its energy then causes an enhancement of convective overturning whereby that downward IR becomes potential energy (not heat) within the convective columns of ascending and descending air.
That is one reason why Willis’s Thermostat Hypothesis, although incomplete, being limited to the tropics, hints at a fundamental truth.
Convective activity does indeed negate radiative imbalances but since the hydrostatic balance of the atmosphere is mass dependent any effect from GHGs could never be measured.
Hydrostatic balance involves the upward pressure gradient force matching the downward gravitational force in order to keep the mass of an atmosphere suspended off the surface.
The energy required for such balance is collisional activity derived from kinetic energy at the surface.
That kinetic energy is prevented from radiating to space by the declining amount of photon emission as one descends trhrough the mass of the atmosphere and the evidence of that decline is the dry adiabatic lapse rate slope.
Everyone thinks that a surface at 288K beneath an atmosphere radiates at 288k but it does not because of the photon emission constraint caused by mass density.
Earth’s surface actually emits photons at a rate commensurate with 255K.
GHGs do try to interfere with that 255K rate of emission but their blocking effect is negated via convective adjustments that I have described elsewhere.
Essentially GHGs block certain wavelengths from escaping to space but the energy so blocked is converted to enhanced convective overturning in which it becomes potential energy rather than sensible heat.
It reappears as sensible heat at the surface beneath the nearest descending column, is converted back to the full range of wavelengths and leaves to space from the surface past the GHGs that initially blocked it.
The rate of convective overturning increases until the effect of GHGs is negated but the effect is too small for us ever to measure it as compared to solar and oceanic effects.
Good to hear from you Stephen.
EM Smith has a post you would probably be interested in.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/polar-night-jet-and-uv-driven-albedo/