Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
This is the third in a series ( Part 1, Part 2 ) of occasional posts regarding my somewhat peripatetic analysis of the data from the TAO moored buoys in the Western Pacific. I’m doing construction work these days, and so in between pounding nails into the frame of a building I continue to pound on the TAO dataset. I noticed that a few of the buoys collect data on both shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared or greenhouse) radiation at two-minute intervals. For a data junkie like myself, two-minute intervals is heaven. I decided to look at the data from one of those buoys, one located on the Equator. at 165° East.
Figure 1. Location of the buoy (red square) which recorded the data used in this study. Solid blue squares show which of all the buoys have the two-minute data. DATA SOURCE
It was a fascinating wander through the data, and I found that it strongly supports my contention, which is that the net effect of clouds in the tropics is one of strong cooling (negative feedback).
To start with, I looked (as always) at a number of the individual records. I began with the shortwave records. Here is a typical day’s record of the sun hitting the buoy, taken at two-minute intervals:
Figure 2. A typical day showing the effect of clouds on the incoming solar (shortwave) radiation.
In Figure 2 we can see that when clouds come over the sun, there is an immediate and large reduction in the incoming solar energy. On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that clouds have the opposite effect on the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called downwelling infrared or “greenhouse” radiation). Clouds increase the DLR. Clouds are black-body absorbers for longwave radiation. After they absorb the radiation coming up from the ground, they radiate about half of it back towards the ground, while the other half is radiated upwards The effect is very perceptible on a cold winter night. Clear nights are the coldest, the radiation from the ground is freer to escape to space. With clouds the nights are warmer, because clouds increase the DLR. Figure 3 shows a typical 24 hour record, showing periods of increased DLR when clouds pass over the buoy sensors.
Figure 3. A typical day showing the effect of clouds on the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR).
Once again we see the sudden changes in the radiation when the clouds pass overhead. In the longwave case, however, the changes are in the other direction. Clouds cause an increase in the DLR.
So, here was my plan of attack. Consider the solar (shortwave) data, a typical day of which is shown in Figure 2. I averaged the data for every 2-minute interval over the 24 hours, to give me the average changes in solar radiation on a typical day, clouds and all. This is shown in gray in Figure 4.
Then, in addition to averaging the data for each time of day, I also took the highest value for that time of day. This maximum value gives me the strength of the solar radiation when the sky is as clear as it gets. Figure 4 shows those two curves, one for the maximum solar clear-sky conditions, and the second one the all-sky values.
Figure 4. The clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) solar radiation for all days of the record (2214 days).
As expected, the clouds cut down the amount of solar radiation by a large amount. On a 24-hour basis, the reduction in solar radiation is about 210 watts per square metre.
However, that’s just the shortwave radiation. Figure 5 shows the comparable figures for the longwave radiation at the same scale, with the difference discussed above that the clear-sky numbers are the minimum rather than the maximum values.
Figure 5. The clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) for all days of the record.
As you can see, the longwave doesn’t vary much from clouds. Looking at Figure 3, there’s only about a 40 W/m2 difference between cloud and no cloud conditions, and we find the same in the averages, a difference of 36 W/m2 on a 24-hour basis between the clear-sky and all-sky conditions.
DISCUSSION
At this location, clouds strongly cool the surface via reflection of solar radiation (- 210 W/m2) and only weakly warm the surface through increased downwelling longwave radiation (+ 36 W/m2). The net effect of clouds on radiation at this location, therefore, is a strong cooling of – 174 W/m2.
This likely slightly overstates the radiation contribution of the clouds. This is because, although unraveling the effect on shortwave is simple, the effect on longwave is more complex. In addition to the clouds, the water vapor itself affects the downwelling longwave radiation. However, we can get an idea of the size of this effect by looking at the daily variation of longwave with and without clouds in more detail. Figure 6 shows the same data as in Figure 5, except the scale is different.
Figure 6. As in Figure 5 but with a different scale, the clear-sky (blue line) and all-sky (gray line) solar radiation for all days of the record.
Note that the minimum (clear-sky) DLR varies by about 10 W/m2 during the 24 hours of the day. Presumably, this variation is from changes in water vapor. (The data is there in the TAO dataset to confirm or falsify that presumption, another challenge for the endless list. So many musicians … so little time …). Curiously, the effect of the clouds is to reduce the underlying variations in the DLR.
This warming due to water vapor, of course, reduces the warming effect of the clouds by about half the swings, or 5 W/m2, to something on the order of 30 W/m2.
Finally, to the perplexing question of the so-called “cloud feedback”. Here’s the problem, a long-time issue of mine, the question of averages. Averages conceal as much as they reveal. For example, suppose we know that the average cloud cover for one 24 hour period was forty percent, and for the next 24 hours it was fifty percent. Since there were more clouds, would we expect less net radiation?
The difficulty is, the value and even the sign of the change in radiation is determined by the time of day when the clouds are present. At night, increasing clouds warm the planet, while during the day, increasing clouds have the opposite effect. Unfortunately, when we take a daily average of cloud cover, that information is lost. This means that averages, even daily averages, must be treated with great caution. For example, the average cloud cover could stay exactly the same, say 40%, but if the timing of the clouds shifts, the net radiation can vary greatly. How greatly? Figure 7 show the change in net radiation caused by clouds.
Figure 7. Net cloud forcing (all-sky minus clear-sky). Net night-time forcing is positive (average 36 W/m2), showing the warming effect.
In this location, the clouds are most common at the time they reduce the net radiation the most (mid-day to evening). At night, when they have a warming effect, the clouds die away. This temporal dependence is lost if we use a daily average.
So I’m not sure that some kind of 24-hour average feedback value is going to tell us a lot. I need to think about this question some more. I’ll likely look next at splitting the dataset in two, warm dawns versus cool dawns, as I did before. This should reveal something about the cloud feedback question … although I’m not sure what.
In any case, the net cloud radiative forcing in this area is strongly negative, and we know that increasing cloud coverage and earlier time of cloud onset are functions of temperature. So my expectation is that I’ll find that the average cloud feedback (whatever that means) to be strongly negative as well … but in the meantime, my day job is calling.
A final note. This is a calculation of the variation in incoming radiation. As such, we are looking at the throttle of the huge heat engine which is the climate. This throttle controls the incoming energy that enters the system. As shown in Figure 7, in the tropics it routinely varies the incoming energy by up to half a kilowatt … but it’s just the throttle. It cools the surface by cutting down incoming fuel.
The other parts of the system are the tropical thunderstorms, which further cool the surface in a host of other ways detailed elsewhere. So the analysis above, which is strictly about radiation, actually underestimates the cooling effect of tropical clouds on surface temperature.
All the best, please don’t bother questioning my motives, I sometimes bite back when bitten, or I’ll simply ignore your post. I’m just a fool like you, trying to figure this all out. I don’t have time to respond to every question and statement. Your odds of getting a reply go way up if you are supportive, on topic, provide citations, and stick to the science. And yes, I know I don’t always practice that, I’m learning too …
w.
PS — Here’s a final bonus chart and digression. Figure 8 shows the average of the actual, observed, measured variation in total downwelling radiation of both types, solar (also called shortwave) radiation and longwave (also called infrared or “greenhouse”) radiation.
Figure 8. Changes in average total forcing (solar plus longwave) over the 24 hours of the day.
Here’s the digression. I find it useful to divide forcings into three kinds, “first order”, “second order”, and “third order”. Variations in first order forcings have an effect greater than 10% of the average forcing of the system. For the system above, this would be something with an effect greater than about seventy W/m2. Figure 7 shows that the cooling from clouds is a first order forcing during the daytime.
Variations in second order forcings have an effect between 1% and 10% of the average. For Figure 8 that would be between say seven and seventy W/m2. They are smaller, but too big to be ignored in a serious analysis. With an average value of 36 W/m2, the warming from night-time clouds is an example of a second order forcing.
Finally, variations from third order forcings are less than 1%, or less than about seven W/m2 for this system. These can often be ignored. As an example of why a third order forcing can be ignored in an overall analysis, I have overlaid the Total Radiation (red line in Figure 8) with what total radiation would look like with an additional 7 W/m2 of radiation from some hypothetical CO2 increase (black line in Figure 8). This seven watts is about 1% of the 670 W/m2 average energy flowing through the system. The lines are one pixel wide, and you can scarcely see the difference.
Which is why I say that the natural governing mechanisms that have controlled the tropical temperatures for millions of years will have no problem adjusting for a change in CO2 forcing. Compared to the temperature-controlled cloud forcing, which averages more than one hundred and fifty W/m2, the CO2 change is trivial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tim the Toolman,
Couldn’t I just as well say the following?
So it would seem that you must also conclude that sunlight does not “warm the ocean”.
tallbloke says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:12 am
Tallbloke, I didn’t try to refute it because it made no sense, you didn’t think it all the way to the end. You know very well that radiation goes (approximately) half upwards and half downwards.
If we are actually measuring the upwelling longwave “re-emitted up … by the highly humid air just above the ocean surface”, then you are just kicking the can down the road.
Because if what you say is true, you then have to explain what is happening to the equal but opposite downwelling longwave “re-emitted … down by the highly humid air just above the ocean surface”.
Either way, you have the full amount impinging on the surface, TB, either directly from higher up or as DLR from a layer just above the surface …
In any case, we don’t need to measure the upwelling longwave. We can calculate it from the temperature of the ocean water … and you STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY IT IS NOT FREEZING TEN FEET BELOW THE SURFACE.
Again, it’s not a difficult couple of questions:
1. Is the DLR absorbed by the ocean? Y/N?
2. If no, what provides the ~ 320 W/m2 of energy that is keeping the ocean from freezing ten feet below the surface? Enter answer here: _________
w.
Dang, the strikethroughs didn’t work above.
Lets try again.
Tim Folkerts rewrites “Because no.”…
Correct. Turn off the sunlight and what happens? The ocean cools because it radiates away its energy. Its a cooling effect. Everything is a cooling effect except for the sunlight itself and that has implication on how clouds behave.
From what I’ve seen (eg Dessler) there is a general acceptance in the AGW community that more clouds are probably going to be a positive feedback but I think this is nonsense and people who dont call reduced cooling for what it is…reduced cooling…are helping perpetuate these myths particularly with “casual climate observers”.
On the larger question of whether GHGs play a role in heating the ocean, Willis and I agree. Its the mechanism that we (appear to) disagree on. I think its important to understand the process because without an understanding of the details of the process, how are you expected to understand implication of change that impacts on that process?
Willis understands this concept because he analyses thunderstorms and their effects in more detail than the AGWers who simply average them, parameterise them and stick them in the models. How are those models expected to get it right when the environment within which those thunderstorms are formed changes…particularly when its projected to change outside of conditions we’ve seen?
Tim Folkerts says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:51 am
Thanks, Tim. Actually, upon further investigation I now think that both of us were wrong. We were both looking at the global average, rather than the actual by-latitude figures. From the NASA Monthly Latitude Insolation Calculator, here are the monthly average figures for the insolation at the equator:
Jan, 1680 W/m2
Feb, 1736 W/m2
Mar, 1756 W/m2
Apr, 1700 W/m2
May, 1612 W/m2
Jun, 1552 W/m2
Jul, 1572 W/m2
Aug, 1648 W/m2
Sep, 1716 W/m2
Oct, 1728 W/m2
Nov, 1688 W/m2
Dec, 1652 W/m2
Ann, 1669.6 W/m2
The corresponding figures for the global average are:
Jan, 1412 W/m2
Feb, 1400 W/m2
Mar, 1380 W/m2
Apr, 1356 W/m2
May, 1336 W/m2
Jun, 1324 W/m2
Jul, 1324 W/m2
Aug, 1332 W/m2
Sep, 1352 W/m2
Oct, 1376 W/m2
Nov, 1396 W/m2
Dec, 1412 W/m2
Ann, 1367.2 W/m2
In summary, you were right and I was wrong about the global average, and we both were wrong about the equator. The figures from the TAO buoys at the equator are well below the theoretical monthly averages at the equator, giving room for the known absorption of incoming sunlight you point out above. Both the size and the interannual range of the equatorial theoretical insolation were larger than I had thought, at about 1550 to 1750 W/m2.
Always more to learn, I’ll have to think about the implications of all this for my analysis.
Many thanks,
w.
Let me try to tackle
“R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:35 am
Which shows that Willis’ estimate of 50% of the LW going up into space is way too high as the actual amount is somewhere around 15 to 30%.”
Let us assume we have 360 photons of light that goes at all angles from 0 degrees to 359 degrees. By using sin or cos, we can figure out what fraction of each photon goes in the upward or downward direction and what goes in the horizontal direction. Neglecting the curvature of Earth for a moment, and working in two dimensions, we would find that the total of all components going left would be the same as the total components going right. In addition, the total of all components going up would equal the total of all components going down. And this is where the 50% comes from. Of course, 2 of the 360 rays would have neither an upward nor a downward component.
Also, a 5% figure was mentioned earlier. If we measure to the nearest degree, then 1/360 of all photons go straight up and also 1/360 of all photons go straight down. On the other hand, if we measure to the nearest 1/10 of a degree and talk about 3600 photons being emitted equally in all directions, then 1/3600 go straight up and 1/3600 go straight down.
Alan D McIntire says:
September 16, 2011 at 6:25 am
Alan, are you attempting a Q = mcT here with “5* 10^21*1.01*255= 1.288 * 10^24 joules”? If so, you need to realize that the “T” is the change in temperature and NOT the temperature itself. So the 255 is only correct if it goes from 0 to 255 or from 510 to 255 or some other difference between two temperatures of 255.
Radiation from the Atmosphere
I have noted elsewhere that the MODTRAN web tool hosted by the University of Chicago, seems to be indicating that most of the Earth’s heat energy radiated to outer space appears to have been emitted from the atmosphere.
With its default Tropical Atmosphere, No Clouds or Rain settings, MODTRAN seems to show a surface emission power level of 417 W/m2 (altitude = 0 km) as seen looking down and integrated over the wavenumber range of 100 to 1500 cycles per cm. (I understand the official designation for this is 100 to 1500 kayzers.) At the surface, MODTRAN also shows an incoming radiation level of 348 W/m2 arriving from the atmosphere above. Based on this it would seem that the surface can only be losing *radiant* power at a rate of 69 W/m2. Yet out at an altitude of 70 km, I see a net energy flow of 288 W/m2 actually leaving the Earth.
On a level by level basis, I see progressively more energy escaping to higher altitudes, based on the differences between looking down and looking up. As the high altitude spectrum has a deep hole around the CO2 absorption line at 667 kayzers, I can only assume that MODTRAN believes that H2O is a leaky greenhouse gas and it allows energy to escape to outer space at all altitudes where it is a significant component of the atmosphere.
I assume atmospheric radiation would force air to drop ever lower as it cooled until it reaches the surface, where it would have an opportunity to cool the surface by contact and evaporation.
@ur momisugly The other Tim
One more thinkg that I feel needs to be pointed out, though. Where I say…
“If there were suddenly no GHG’s then instantaneously the surface would be exactly the same temperature despite an instantaneous “drop” of all that energy you believe “warms” it.”
The point is that DLR is absorbed in the top 10um of the ocean. The top 10um has a certain heat capacity and the temperature gradient in the region is such that any heat cannot be conducted downwards into the ocean.
So there is a fundamental difference between stopping DLR and DSR instantaneously. DSR effects the bulk of the ocean where there is a lot of heat capacity whereas DLR only effects the top 10um and that has implications on what the process is in that region based on the time taken to heat the top 10um vs observed changes there.
Willis,
I think you must be mis-interpreting their calculations.
The total energy from the sun (ie luminosity) is 3.84E+026 W. If you divide this evenly over a sphere the radius of the earth’s orbit, you get 1365 W/m^2, which is the solar constant.
Every square meter directly facing the sun will get this energy. Since there is no more than 1365 W/m^2 available, I cannot imagine any way that some areas could get nearly 30% more power than the output of the sun. Your idea to simply multiply the numbers on the chart by 4 are not correct.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 17, 2011 at 10:30 pm
That’s what I thought too, Tim … but when I use their figures for the global average it works out to 1365 W/m2 (actually 1367.2 W/m2). So that seems to indicate it’s real … but I’m always willing to learn, and it still seems strange to me. Maybe the units are not W/m2 … but then why would the global average be 1365?
Always more mysteries,
w.
Upon further thought, Tim, I think you’re right, I can’t just multiply them by 4. The reason that some monthly averages are high is the amount of time under the sun, not the overall intensity of the sun.
Hmmm …
w.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:13 pm
our understanding of their models must be incorrect
Yes. Your understanding of our understanding of the observations (not a model) is incorrect. I take no pleasure, because it means we’re not explaining it clearly enough. Although I suspect there’s an element on your side of it which is also preventing your understanding of what we are saying.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:00 pm
My point that I was arguing in the previous thread is that if you reduce that temperature gradient of the skin layer by adding energy to the top of that layer — perhaps by adding more downward IR — then the conduction upward will be decreased.
And yet you didn’t, despite several requests, shown us any empirical data which demonstrates that:
a) There has been any such additional DLR (might have been offset by something else changing). or
b) That the ocean skin gradient would be affected by a tiny change in DLR (the surface pressure and other lower toposphere and boundary layer factors completely overwhelm the effects of small changes in the IR flux).
and c) all people on your side of the debate are unable/unwilling to discuss the empirical data presented here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/cloud-albedo-what-does-it-respond-to/
TimTheToolMan says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Everything is a cooling effect except for the sunlight itself and that has implication on how clouds behave.
Agreed, see my new post linked below.
people who dont call reduced cooling for what it is…reduced cooling…are helping perpetuate these myths particularly with “casual climate observers”.
Agreed, it causes endless confusion and unnecessary argument.
On the larger question of whether GHGs play a role in heating the ocean, Willis and I agree. Its the mechanism that we (appear to) disagree on. I think its important to understand the process because without an understanding of the details of the process, how are you expected to understand implication of change that impacts on that process?
Agreed, except once again, it’s about the extent to which the GHG’s allow the ocean to cool from the solar input. GHG’s cannot significantly warm the ocean directly, only by changing the air temperature, and this mechanism, while effective over aeons, is a very, very slow way to change the bulk temperature of the ocean and cannot explain the warming rate from 1980-1998. It’s the reduction in low tropical cloud empirically measured by ISCCP and the Earthshine project which explains that.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/cloud-albedo-what-does-it-respond-to/
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 17, 2011 at 9:11 pm
2. If no, what provides the ~ 320 W/m2 of energy that is keeping the ocean from freezing ten feet below the surface.
Since the DLR doesn’t get down ten feet, the ocean isn’t trying to lose 320W/m^2 from 10 feet down. It’s losing the 170W/m^2 put there by the Sun which builds up the ocean temperature. Nearly all the DLR absorbed in the first few nm (answer to Q1) is re-emitted or goes into latent heat of evaporation from the first few nm.
(empirical facts highlighted in bold)
I agree with Tim the Tool Man and you that the whole of the ocean is warmer than it would be with no GHG’s. But as Tim says, you need to understand the mechanism by which the GHG’s bring that about so you can correctly see what changes will do. DLR doesn’t cause warming by direct radiation and the mixing of energy downwards, that doesn’t happen to any significant extent. It makes the air warmer, and this change in air temperature will only change the bulk ocean temperature very, very slowly.
Too slowly to account for the warming 1980-1998. The reduction in tropical low cloud did that, by allowing more Solar shortwave radiation into the ocean.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/cloud-albedo-what-does-it-respond-to/
OK, the useful figure is the actual average insolation. For the buoy above, it was 245 W/m2. The NASA data puts the theoretical average at 417 W/m2.
The maximum data I used (blue line in Figure 4) gives an average of 420. However, that needs to be corrected to give us the mean, rather than the maximum, value. This is a double correction, for both the eccentricity and for the north/south movement of the sun (declination). The net of those is about 0.92. This gives 420 * .92 = 386 W/m2 for the clear-sky value.
So clear-sky is 386 and all-sky is 245, which gives a cloud shortwave forcing of – 141 W/m2.
Add in the + 36 W/m2 of LW forcing, and we get a net cloud forcing of – 105 W/m2, still strong cooling.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2011 at 3:05 am
OK, the useful figure is the actual average insolation. For the buoy above, it was 245 W/m2. The NASA data puts the theoretical average at 417 W/m2.
So clear-sky is 386 and all-sky is 245, which gives a cloud shortwave forcing of – 141 W/m2.
Add in the + 36 W/m2 of LW forcing, and we get a net cloud forcing of – 105 W/m2, still strong cooling.
Is your buoy under the ITCZ? Maybe you’ll get a less seasonally biased result a bit (but not much) further from the equator.
If you are interested in the maximum effect, maybe consider averaging the data from two buoys, one either side of the ITCZ?
“Add in the + 36 W/m2 of LW forcing, and we get a net cloud forcing of – 105 W/m2, still strong cooling.”
A simple and effective way of looking at it…in the tropics at least. You’re ignoring aerosols and any other factors but as a first approximation I suspect its a good one and certainly seems useful.
I wonder if thats a better way of calculating the effect of clouds. Doing it in 5×5″ grids in a similar way temperature is calculated. Has anyone done that?
”
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2011 at 3:05 am
OK, the useful figure is the actual average insolation. For the buoy above, it was 245 W/m2. The NASA data puts the theoretical average at 417 W/m2. …”
You might want to check out my second post on this thread as it has some of the rough global averages.
You must take care fooling around with the variation to the solar insolation due to Earth’s orbit. It has a peak to peak change of around 100w/m^2 but it is a sine function not some straight line function.
The cloud factor is actually the vast majority of the albedo for visible light. Using your original numbers, it showed that the cloud albedo for what you were dealing with had to be around 60% plus for its reflectivity. In LW clouds will block a lot of radiation but the tops will emit radiation based upon their temperature just as cloud bottoms do.
Willis,
“The ocean gets about 170W/m2 from solar, and it’s losing about 390 W/m2 by radiation alone, not counting sensible and latent heat loss … if DLR isn’t being absorbed by the ocean, then why isn’t it frozen?”
If the ocean were a perfect reflector of the DLR accounting for most of the 390W/m^2 that it is “losing by radiation alone” would it still be a mystery to you why it isn’t frozen? It has been warmed by the sun. Radiation, latent heat flux and conductive coupling to the atmosphere is how the solar energy is lost.
Very little of the upward longwave radiation that the ocean is emitting is due to reflection, because the albedo of the ocean is low at IR wavelengths, but since IR penetrates mere microns into the ocean, the argument is that as a skin effect, it is more directly and efficiently converted to upward LR and latent heat, You should be able to conceptualize how efficient upward re-emission would similar to reflection.
Solar short wave radiation penetrates 10s of meters into the ocean and the energy deposited in a much larger thermal mass may be transported thousands of miles before being radiated or being converted to latent heat.
Willis, you wrote: In any case, we don’t need to measure the upwelling longwave. We can calculate it from the temperature of the ocean water … and you STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY IT IS NOT FREEZING TEN FEET BELOW THE SURFACE.
I think you have gotten distracted. I think that you want to show, from your data set, that something intervenes between morning and evening to turn above average am temperatures into below average evening temperatures. You have hypothesized that above average early am temps produce above average mid-day cloudiness which results in below average afternoon insolation, thus producing below average evening temperatures. You have shown that you can infer cloudiness from the temperature profile, which is good, but you can’t test from your data set whether other mechanisms are at work or can be excluded. What you can do, that is more direct and less bound to any particular mechanism, is test whether above average am temperatures are correlated with below average afternoon downward total radiation.
To do this, sort the data by buoy (so each buoy is its own control) and month (to control for seasons, though there is a better way) and (maybe) by year (to remove another source of variation, though you could model it), and then correlate 9 am temp ( or a mean of 8 – 11, or some other composite) with 4 pm downward radiation (or a mean of 3 – 5 pm). If your hypothesis is correct, you ought to get negative correlations mostly, and a strong negative mean correlation across the sample of buoys. If these correlations are mostly clustered around 0, with a near 0 mean, then your hypothesis is not supported.
Of course, you can modify this procedure, but you get the idea.
Radiation is not the only mechanism for differential rate of heat removal/addition am vs. pm, but it is one that you can test from your data. You could also try computing the total energy drained by the evaporation of water, above average am vs below average am (again, sorted by buoy and season.) I think that introduces more problems than it solves, but it is probably worth a try eventually.
“people who dont call reduced cooling for what it is…reduced cooling…are helping perpetuate these myths particularly with “casual climate observers”. “
Actually, I would go a step further and say ““people who don’t call reduced cooling for what it is…
reduced cooling“less energy loss”…are helping perpetuate these myths particularly with “casual climate observers”. “The distinction is even more important for the reverse — is the opposite of “cooling” the same as “warming” or the same as “heating”? “Warming” has the very clear meaning of “raising the temperature”, whereas in thermodynamics, “heating” mean “the net transfer of energy due to a temperature difference.” People who don’t appreciate the difference are doomed to argue semantics rather than science. It is quite possible to heat something without warming it. It is quite possible to warm something without heating it.
Discussing from a vantage point of energy considerations is more fundamental that than discussing from a vantage point of temperature. (For one thing, conservation of energy is such a basic principle, that if there was an experiment that claimed to violate conservation of energy, my first (and second) reaction would be to question the data, not question the theory.)
So “the energy of the ocean is increased by incoming thermal IR photons (which happen to come from GHGs and clouds)” just like “the energy of the ocean is increased by incoming UV/visible/NearIR photons (which happen to come from the sun)”. There is no need for “reduced cooling” or “increased warming”. Either source of energy adds energy to the ocean (which almost sounds redundant, but I think is an important point) and once the energy has been added and converted to thermal energy, it matters not one iota what the original source was. (The only distinction would be if you then want to look at specific parts of the ocean — skin vs bulk; tropical vs polar; …)
Similarly, we can look at the energy loss mechanisms (eg upward IR, convection, evaporation). These all remove energy. If any one of these increases call it what it is “an increase in the rate of energy transfer from the ocean.” Calling it either “increased cooling” or “decreased warming” distracts from what is fundamentally happening!
Willis posits: “The reason that some monthly averages are high is the amount of time under the sun, not the overall intensity of the sun.”
You hit the nail on the head. For instance, the value for the North Pole in June is very close to
___ 1365 W/m^2 sin(23)
since the sun is ~ 23 degrees above the horizon 24/7
The value at the equator for March or Sep is close to
___ 1365 W/m^2 * pi
where I am convinced that pi=3.14 is the appropriate geometric factor, not 4
@ur momisugly tallbloke
a) I wish I had data handy. Remember, I am just a guy interested in science commenting on a blog — I don’t have access to data anymore than you do.
Measuring DLR on a global scale would be very challenging, since there are only limited pyrgeometers around the world collecting. And a quick look around the web suggests they are a bit challenging to keep in calibration and that much of the work has only been done in the last decade. http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=irc
b) The experiment you describe would also be interesting. I suspect that it has been done in various forms over the years (since evaporation is a rather basic concept).
c) Ideally, there are not “people on your side of the debate”, but only scientists interested in deeper understanding. The cloud/abledo effect you describe is clearly as part of the situation and bears further study to see how much affect it has. What papers on the topic have you found and read?
Three notes:
1) Your second graph should be titled “Specific Humidity and Sunspot Number vs Time”
2) The sunspot numbers are odd. SSN drops very close to zero at the end of every cycle, yet your plot shows large variations for the minima.
3. I disagree with the line “Something had to be responsible, because as we know from previous lengthy debates here and on WUWT, back radiationdoesn’t heat the ocean”. If science is not settle by consensus of experts, it is most certainly NOT settled by consensus on blogs.
The other Tim writes (amongst other things) ““Warming” has the very clear meaning of “raising the temperature””
The problem is that warming doesn’t have a very specific meaning in common parlance. You say “raising the temperature” but warming can equally mean warming by putting on a jumper or warming by standing in front of the fire.
Warming by standing in front of the fire is precisely not what GHGs do even though a simplistic energy flow consideration, mathematically, amounts to the same thing. Its only when you properly consider conservation of energy or in a general sense that the energy that comes from the clouds came from the ocean in the first place that an appreciation for the effect can be made.
As an example, what would happen to the earth if somehow it was completely covered in cloud? Some people might be tempted to think that with all that increased DLR and a believed positive feedback associated with more cloud that the earth would actually warm up.