I recently wrote three posts (first, second, and third), regarding climate sensitivity. I wanted to compare my results to another dataset. Continued digging has led me to the CERES monthly global albedo dataset from the Terra satellite. It’s an outstanding set, in that it contains downwelling solar (shortwave) radiation (DSR), upwelling solar radiation (USR), and most importantly for my purposes, upwelling longwave radiation (ULR). Upwelling solar radiation (USR) is the solar energy that is reflected by the earth rather than entering the climate system. It is in 1°x1° gridded format, so that each month’s data has almost 200,000 individual measurements, or over 64,000 measurements for each of those three separate phenomena. Unfortunately, it’s only just under five years of data, but there is lots of it and it is internally consistent. As climate datasets go, it is remarkable.
Now, my initial interest in the CERES dataset is in the response of the longwave radiation to the surface heating. I wanted to see what happens to the longwave coming up from the earth when the incoming energy is changing.
To do this, rather than look at the raw data, I need to look at the month-to-month change in the data. This is called the “first difference” of the data. It is the monthly change in the item of interest, with the “change” indicated by the Greek letter delta ( ∆ ).
When I look at a new dataset like this one, I want to see the big picture first. I’m a graphic artist, and I grasp the data graphically. So my first step was to graph the change in upwelling longwave radiation (∆ULR) against the change in net solar radiation (∆NSR). The net solar radiation (NSR) is downwelling solar minus upwelling solar (DSR – USR). It is the amount of solar energy that is actually entering the climate system.
Figure 1 shows the changes in longwave that accompany changes in net solar radiation.
Figure 1. Scatterplot of the change in upwelling longwave radiation (∆ ULR, vertical scale) with regards to the change in net solar radiation entering the system. Dotted line shows the linear trend. Colors indicate latitude, with red being the South Pole, yellow is the Equator, and blue is the North Pole. Data covers 90° N/S.
This illustrates why I use color in my graphs. I first did this scatterplot without the color, in black and white. I could see there was underlying structure, and I guessed it had to do with latitude, but I couldn’t tell if my guess were true. With the added color, it is easy to see that in the tropics the increase in upwelling longwave for a given change in solar energy is greater than at the poles. So my next move was to calculate the trend for each 1° band of latitude. Figure 2 shows that result, with colors indicating latitude to match with Figure 1.
Figure 2. Linear trend by latitude of the change in upwelling longwave with respect to a 1 W/m2 change in net solar radiation. “Net downwelling” is downwelling solar radiation DSR minus upwelling solar radiation USR. Colors are by latitude to match Figure 1. Values are area-adjusted, with the Equatorial values having an adjustment factor of 1.0.
Now, this is a very interesting result. Bear in mind that the sun is what is driving these changes. The way that I read this is that near the Equator, whenever the sun is stronger there is an increase in thunderstorms. The deep upwelling caused by the thunderstorms is moving huge amounts of energy through the core of the thunderstorms, slipping it past the majority of the CO2, to the upper atmosphere where it is much freer to radiate to space. This is one of the mechanisms that I discussed in my post “The Thermostat Hypothesis“. Note in Figure 2 that at the peak, which occurs in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) just north of the Equator, this upwelling radiation counteracts a full 60% of the incoming solar energy, and this is on average. This means that the peak response must be even larger.
Finally, I took a look at what I’d started out to investigate, which was the relationship between incoming energy and the surface temperature. I may be mistaken, but I think that this is the first observational analysis of the relationship between the actual top-of-atmosphere (TOA) imbalance (downwelling minus upwelling radiation, or DLR – USR -ULR) and the corresponding change in temperature.
As before, I have used a lagged calculation, to emulate the slow thermal response of the planet. This model has two variables, the climate sensitivity “lambda” and the time constant “tau”. The climate sensitivity is how much the temperature changes for a given change in TOA forcing. The time constant “tau” is a measure of how long it takes the system to adjust to a certain level.
Figure 3 shows the new results in graphic form:
Figure 3. Upper panel shows the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and Southern Hemisphere (SH) temperatures, and the calculation of those temperatures using the top of atmosphere (TOA) imbalance (downwelling – upwelling). Bottom panel shows the residuals from that calculation for the two hemispheres.
In my previous analysis, I calculated that climate sensitivity and the time constant for the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere were slightly different. Here are my previous results:
SH NH lambda 0.05 0.10°C per W/m2 tau 2.4 1.9 months RMS residual error 0.17 0.26 °C
Using this entirely new dataset, and including the upwelling longwave to give the full TOA imbalance, I now get the following results:
SH NH lambda 0.05 0.13°C per W/m2 tau 2.5 2.2 months RMS residual error 0.18 0.17 °C
(Due to the short length of the data, there is no statistically significant trend in either the actual or calculated datasets.)
These are very encouraging results, because they are very close to my prior calculations, despite using an entirely different albedo dataset. This indicates that we are looking at a real phenomenon, rather than the first result being specific to a certain dataset.
Now, is it possible that there is a second much longer time constant at work in the system? In theory, yes, but a couple of things militate against it. First, I have found no way to add a longer time constant to make it a “two-box” model without the sensitivity being only about a tenth of that shown above, and believe me, I’ve tried a host of possible ways. If someone can do it, more power to you, please show me how.
Second, I looked at what is happening when we remove the monthly average values (climatology) from both the TOA variations and the temperatures. Once I remove the monthly average values from both datasets, there is no relationship between the two remaining datasets, lagged or not.
However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, meaning that there may well be a second, longer time constant with a larger sensitivity going on in the system. However, before you claim that such a constant exists, please do the work to come up with a way to calculate such a constant (and associated sensitivity), and show us the actual results. It’s easy to say “There must be a longer time delay”, but I haven’t found any way to include one that works mathematically. I can put in a longer time constant, but it ends up with a sensitivity for the second time lag of only about a tenth of what I calculate for a single-box model … which doesn’t help.
All the best, and if you disagree with something I’ve written, please QUOTE MY WORDS that you disagree with. That way we can avoid misunderstandings.
w.
DATA: The Excel worksheet containing the hemispheric monthly averages and my calculations is here. The 1° x 1° gridded data is here as an R “save” file. WARNING: 70 Mbyte file!. The R data is contained in four 180 row x 360 column by 58 layer arrays. They start at 89.5N and -179.5W, with the first month being January 2001. There is an array for the albedo, for the upwelling and downwelling solar, and for the upwelling longwave. In addition, there are four corresponding 180 row x 360 column by 57 layer arrays, which contain the first differences of the actual data.
Willis, you said:
“TRY P. SOLAR’S CLAIM OUT ON SOME ACTUAL DATA. Everyone always wants to get all theoretical. Give us an example with some real data of exactly what you (or P. Solar) are talking about. That’s what I did, and it confirmed what I said above. The slope of the linear regression of Y on X is simply the reciprocal of the slope of the linear regression of X on Y.”
Did the data set you had a go at reversing have a very high r2? because that could explain the unexpected result that you got, maybe have a try with some less correlated data?
There is a real point at the heart of this though, when the the ‘x’ variable is subject to error then OLS underestimates the underlying slope (often, by roughly, r) and what used to be called ‘Model II’ regression or more often now called ‘error in varables’ (EIV) regression tries to overcome this problem.
To see the effect really convincingly you need a well populated bivariate cloud (n=1000), could I suggest the free Excel addin ‘NtRand’ , which has a multivariate random number generator:
http://www.ntrand.com/ntmultinorm/
Using Ntrand (the tutorial video is helpful) generate a bivariate cloud of points with a known underlying slope and then see what OLS suggests for the slope!
To get a quick feel for what a Model II regression makes of the slope, try the great free statistical software ‘PAST’ that in its Model->Linear ‘output window’ allows you to plot the Model II RMA (‘reduced major axis’ aka ‘ranged major axis’) regression line:
http://folk.uio.no/%20ohammer/past/
-PAST is also really fun if you feel a wave of Cyclomania coming over you (go to Model-> Sinusoidal).
OK I am sure there is something inside you that says; if this is a big deal when doesn’t anyone apart from P.solar bang on about it? Well maybe there are two reasons (I am not a Guru on this)
1] According to a 1964 copy of Sokal and Rohlf there is a special case of Model II when you can use Model I i.e. OLS – The ‘Berkson case’ when the independent variable is measured with error BUT is under the control of the experimenter..
2] If you want to predict a value of ‘y’ given a value of ‘x’ you must use OLS. and in a lot of cases thats what people want to do rather than find an underlying relationship.
The R documentation for Model II is quite usefull:
http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmodel2/vignettes/mod2user.pdf
And some history of Model II regressions, known by many other names, here:
https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/689/1/S7.pdf
I apologise that I haven’t given you data to try, but I hope this is somehow useful.
Chas: “OK I am sure there is something inside you that says; if this is a big deal when doesn’t anyone apart from P.solar bang on about it?”
Although P. Solar is the one who brought up the issue of independent-variable error, several others of us, too, have led this horse to that particular water, but apparently none was successful in getting him to drink it.
Now, I would have been grateful to someone who threw me a line when I found myself out of my depth. If my experience is any indication, though, Mr. Eschenbach’s default response is instead to resort to blustering in that situation, telling people trying to help, e.g., that they made up what they were trying to tell him or that following a suggestion of theirs would be a fool’s errand. I tried three different times myself with increasing specificity–the last time, as humbly as I knew how, at the grasp-the-pencil-between-the-thumb-and-forefinger level–to penetrate the barrier of prickliness behind which he dysfunctions–all to no avail.
But maybe you’ll have better luck.
That said, it may not in fact be true that the issue is a “big deal” in this case; I haven’t mastered grabbing the data he’s using, so I haven’t determined how much difference the slope of the line segments between the samples and the regression line makes in his case. Maybe P. Solar or one of the others has. But my guess is it won’t make enough difference to undermine the general thrust of Mr. Eschenbach’s post.
Chas: “I apologise that I haven’t given you data to try, but I hope this is somehow useful.”
I, however, did provide data in my last attempt–with, as I said, no evident success. Still, hope springs eternal, so don’t let me dissuade you from trying further.
Lonnie E. Schubert says:
June 15, 2012 at 11:33 am
Myrrh, no offense meant, but do you even understand what a photon is? My superficial overview of your comments gives me the impression you should start your studies there. Heat is energy. A photon is a packet of energy. A gamma photon is essentially the same thing as a photon emitted from a campfire that you feel as heat on you face. The only real difference is that the gamma photon carries MUCH more energy in its packet. UV and visible light fall in between.
———-
Which is precisely why I made the point I did – AGWScience Fiction’s meme producing department has tweaked real physics and created something fantastical by producing memes such as “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same” – it isn’t. The different wavelengths each have their own properties, these properties do different things on meeting matter.
A gamma ray is not at all the same thing as thermal infrared which is the thermal energy of the fire radiating out to you! Gamma is tiny, atomic nucleus size. It works on the DNA Level. It is not Heat which is thermal infrared, pinhead to finger nail size. Gamma is highly energetic which means the wavelengths are more condensed, the frequency is greater and that means they are smaller than a lower frequency, because they all travel at the same speed. In great amount it will Vapourise you! But that is not the same thing as burning you by moving your molecules into vibration and heating you up too much, cooking you, because it operates on the DNA level, not on the level of moving matter into vibration, kinetic energy.
Visible light from the Sun is even tinier than near infrared which is not hot and is microscopic in size, these cannot move your molecules into vibration to warm you up either. Although we talk of ‘sunburn’, UV doesn’t burn us by heating us up, it isn’t hot, we can’t feel it as heat. It also works on the DNA level and if our melanin production can’t keep up when we not used to being in the Sun, it will scramble our DNA so much it wrecks our skin, but, there’s no heat there. UV also used by us to produce vitamin D, essential to our health and we don’t get enough of it in northern areas which is why our skin got lighter as we spread out from Africa, to enable us to capture more of from the Sun.
These are not heating matter up type of energies. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat the oceans, not least because water is transparent to it, but as with molecules of oxygen and nitrogen absorbing it in the atmosphere, even then it is scattered back out as light, not heat; it doesn’t heat the molecules it just briefly energises the electron.
Near Infrared is classed as Light not Heat, why? Because they just felt like it? Heat is in the category Thermodynamics, thermo meaning heat, dynamics from dynamis, meaning Power. The power of heat energy, thermal energy, to do work. It’s a very practical science field – well known and understood and applied scientists working in it know the difference. It takes concentrated power to do work, this is what we get in the direct heat from the Sun, travelling to us in straight lines and directly heating land and oceans and us. This is not the same as the dissipated thermal infrared radiating up from the Earth into the atmosphere, in all directions, not capable of doing work. Visible light is not in that category because it is Light, not Heat. Why?
The biggest category discipline for Light is Optics, the Greek for light is photo. What happens when you take a photograph? The camera captures the visible light that is reflected off the subject. Also sometimes categorised as Reflective, in contrast to heat as Absorptive in heat/light category differences. A near infrared camera works on the same principle, it captures the near infrared light reflecting off the subject. A thermal infrared camera is compelely different, it captures the heat radiating out from the subject.
This is what it is in basic traditional physics, which is no longer taught generally. I’m sorry, but the general population has been dumbed down in basic physics by this promotion of AGW, by first changing how it was taught at infant/junior level. This brainwashing of an imaginary science has been going on for some decades now, all to set up the great money making and power control opportunity to the agenda of some. This is not an easy thought to come to terms with if you’ve been brought up in it.
AJ says: “I’m assuming that the rate of change in ice volume is a proxy for the specific temperature.”
This is where I think you are going wrong. If you look at the Vostok Ice Core temps, or many other long term proxies for temp in various parts of the world that capture the glacial cycles, they seem to be about (negatively) proportional to the ice volume, not it’s rate of change. It’s kind of hard to see the curve with the insolation on the same plot, but if you can manage to picture it, compare the ice volume to a temperature proxy over the same period (pretty much any one will do) and the are basically directly related. No need for differentiation at all.
I don’t think a long response time to Milankovitch forcing necessarily requires a long response time to CO2 forcing or similar: the forcings in question are very different in important ways. But evidently the response time for Milankovitch is very long.
Willis, here is a link to a text file with 1000 random points that were generated to have an R2 of 0.25 and a slope of 1 ( I havent used this file sharing thing before, so hope it works) :
http://minus.com/lbeprvEZqHgmgQ
-Try it in ‘PAST’
One thing to be wary about if using RMA et al: Whilst the slopes of the fitted OLS regression lines decline to zero when the correlation coeff drops ,model II slopes do not.
timetochooseagain,
You should read:
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html
It discusses the whole sad story of Calder properly understanding the insolation-ice metric relationship back in 1974, then the climate science community getting it wrong for ~30 years until Roe came along.
The relationship between the rate of change in ice volume and temperature I find very obvious. I offered a paper that is cited 219 times to support this. Unfortunately Andrew didn’t pick up on this obvious relationship and argued that I didn’t understand the phase shift between sine and it’s integral. In this case tau would be “enormous”, but there wouldn’t be any amplitude in the glacial cycle (i.e. no glacial cycle), which is obviously wrong from a one-box model perspective.
IIRC, Dr. Hansen also realized what Roe implied and said something to the effect that we’re all doomed because the heat in the pipeline will be realized much quicker than expected. I can’t seem to find the quote right now.
Regards, AJ
This Climate sensitivity, is the sensitivity to forcings that change in opposite direction on each hemisphere. Therefore heat-exchange between the hemispheres would cause lower sensitivies than in a case, where the forcing changes in the same direction on both hemispheres at the same time.
Joe Born “But maybe you’ll have better luck.” Willis probably just needs some time to test the idea/data and roll the conclusions around in his head or alternatively and more likley in my opinion he is working on another new and interesting post 😉
AJ says: “You should read:”
I already have.
“It discusses the whole sad story of Calder properly understanding the insolation-ice metric relationship back in 1974, then the climate science community getting it wrong for ~30 years until Roe came along.”
Sad indeed.
“The relationship between the rate of change in ice volume and temperature I find very obvious. I offered a paper that is cited 219 times to support this. Unfortunately Andrew didn’t pick up on this obvious relationship and argued that I didn’t understand the phase shift between sine and it’s integral. In this case tau would be “enormous”, but there wouldn’t be any amplitude in the glacial cycle (i.e. no glacial cycle), which is obviously wrong from a one-box model perspective.”
You are arguing essentially from authority that temperature should correlate with the rate of change of ice volume. I am arguing that the proxy data show otherwise: the temperature and the ice volume are basically directly related. Other than stating that your assumed relationship is “obvious” you have offered no evidence this is the case. I suggested that you check the data, which would show that the temperature and ice volume are related as I described, not as you have. Apparently you refuse. What you say about their being no amplitude if tau is “enormous” would only make sense if you were correct that rate of change of ice volume is a proxy for temperature. It isn’t, so what you say doesn’t make any sense.
“IIRC, Dr. Hansen also realized what Roe implied and said something to the effect that we’re all doomed because the heat in the pipeline will be realized much quicker than expected. I can’t seem to find the quote right now.”
I don’t give a crap what Hansen said or thinks. From the sound of it he had no comprehension of the paper either. At any rate, I just don’t buy for a second that the Milankovitch response time is the same thing as the global TOA forcing response time.
Chas: “Willis probably just needs some time to test the idea/data and roll the conclusions around in his head”
You were right: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/a-demonstration-of-negative-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1014138
Shame on me for the uncharitable thoughts.
Myrrh says:
June 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm
p.s. are they really measuring upwelling thermal infrared only?
[That’s the only significant upwelling longwave there is, by orders of magnitude. -w]
========
Willis, Light and Heat from the Sun as distinct categories are still taught in the real world of traditional physics and understood by applied scientists who know the difference and know the distinct properties and possible effects, so where are the real figures for the real downwelling thermal infrared, heat, direct (beam) from the Sun?
[As used in real world industries, please see my post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/20/lord-leach-of-fairford-weighs-in-on-natures-denier-gaffe/#comment-1014920 ]
Before the advent of photvoltaic cells the visible light from the Sun was insignificant, still is, in the science area of thermodynamics, as the interest is in heat energy which is capable of doing work. Radiation therefore simply referred to that direct heat from the Sun, as one of the three methods of heat transfer, no one who knew anything about thermodynamics confused this with visible light.
On page 19 here is a map of the US showing heat bands of beam energy: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730014021_1973014021.pdf
giving Figure 5 – Solar heat, btu/ft2/average day.
Where is this missing heat?
Myrrh says:
June 22, 2012 at 10:27 am
Thanks, Myrrh. You seem to be under a misapprehension about the CERES data. Their website says (emphasis mine):
SOURCE
In other words, the CERES SW figures include all of the radiation coming from the sun, including the IR.
w.
Please see my posts, the last of which hasn’t appeared yet as I’ve only just posted it, on this subject beginning: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/claim-fates-of-polar-ice-sheets-appear-to-be-linked/#comment-1016040
Myrrh says:
June 23, 2012 at 5:51 am (Edit)
No thanks, not until you answer the issue I raised above. Your claim that I’m not considering or including the thermal radiation is not true, I’ve given references to prove it. Deal with that first, then I may go read something else you’ve written.
w.
I can only conclude, from looking into this further, that it hasn’t included it. It is lying.
For example. What is this actually measuring?:
http://mb-soft.com/public2/energyso.html
First graph – it has excluded all of thermal from the picture and has the measurements in W/m2.
What would happen to that graph if the measurements were all in Btu/ft2?
Shortwave wouldn’t show. Btu is the measure of energy it takes to heat something up, that is what thermal means in the difference in traditional science between heat and light, and light, photo, is not a thermal energy.
Visible light is not a thermal energy. It is not hot. It doesn’t move matter into kinetic energy states to heat it up, how can it be measured in Btu? The graphic which I posted link to showing Btu across the US is not giving shortwave in, it is giving thermal infrared in. Direct heat from the Sun to Earth.
Please now see my post which is where I began discussing this because it was mentioned that the wrong measurements are being used:
dscott says:
June 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm
James Hansen is incompetent. What is the proper unit measurement of Heat? James Hansen doesn’t know because he demonstrated he doesn’t know by using the wrong unit measure.
Myrrh says:
June 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
I’m not sure why I’m trying to counteract such a monumental lack of scientific knowledge, but here goes. We’ll start with a part of the discussion we agree on, which is that visible light is a form of energy. From there we have:
1. Visible light strikes an object.
2. Some is reflected, but in general much of it is absorbed by that object.
Now, we know that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only converted to some other form. So my question to you, Myrrh, is the following:
Since the absorbed light is no longer in the form of visible light energy … just what form of energy has it been converted to?
I, along with the entire scientific community, say it is converted to heat.
That’s why, for example, a laser can cut steel. Bear in mind that a laser has NO INFRARED OF ANY KIND, it is pure visible light of a single frequency. Yet it can cut steel, which according to your theory is impossible … so my question remains:
Since the absorbed light is no longer in the form of light energy … just what form of energy has it been converted to?
Please don’t change the subject, refer me to a previous post, or cite some web page. Just answer the question—since we know that the energy in the light has not been destroyed, and we know it is no longer present as visible light, what form of energy is it in after absorption? I say it is in the form of heat. What do you say?
w.
Light and Heat act on meeting matter in different ways. Light, for example, when it is reflected/scattered by the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the air giving us our blue sky is absorbed by the electrons of these molecules, are you saying that visible light on being absorbed creates heat so is heating up the atmosphere?
Why isn’t it in the AGW energy budget if this is so?
For example, light when it is absorbed in photosynthesis converts to chemical energy, this is not conversion to heat.
And I have to say Willis, I find the constant meme reference to lasers as one of the set reponses has become very irritating, not having a go at you, just saying. We are talking about the direct, beam, energy from the Sun. The Sun is not a laser. It it were none of us would be here to discuss this..
Then of course, we also have in the real world that visible light is transmitted through water, it is not absorbed – because water is a transparent medium for light, therefore it cannot be heating it up. But, the meme produced by the AGWScienceFiction meme factory has deliberately confused this by its play on the word “absorbed” by using the word to described how light is attenuated in the ocean. So we have the nonsense claim that ‘because blue visible light travels deeper in the ocean before it is absorbed it is heating the water lower down’.
Not all absorption creates heat. Chemical energy isn’t heat, it’s chemical energy. Reflection/scattering isn’t heat, it’s reflection/scattering, the energised electron coming back to ground state emits a like energy it absorbed, so the sky full of visible light being scattered all over the place and blue scattered more because it is more highly energetic … And so also scattering emitting blue light is emitting light, not heat.
All their claims, that I’ve researched so far, are like this, created by tweaking real physics. Taking laws out of context and referring to science history in the past by excluding some, muddling up words, giving the properties of one thing to another, stripping things of all properties and so for example we no longer have distinct entities acting in particular ways on meeting matter depending on their particular set of properties, but we have this non-existant ‘all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat on being absorbed’. So, as I was told only a day or so ago, it is the same energy in a gamma ray as we feel thermal from a fire.. All sense of scale has been lost. The differences have been lost.
All sense of scale and process has been excised by AGWSF – it is not describing the real world around us, which has height and breadth and depth because our gases are real gases in a heavy fluid volume around us, but it is describing an imaginary world of ideal gas in empty space. I’ve just posted something on this here, if you’d like expansion on this theme: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/science-held-hostage-in-climate-debate/#comment-1016345
It is only possible to conclude that this is a deliberately created fisics to support AGW to the agenda of some. They introduced this into the education system and now we have a whole generation who have lost the sense of the world around us, which we have only recently in the scheme of things gained. Again, applied scientists are still taught traditional fisics, and I imagine those who are in some expensive private schools.., but for the majority they’d never be able to understand the difference between photovoltaic and solar thermal and wouldn’t be able to create these from scratch. The thing is that these memes have become so ubiquitous that those in other science fields to a particular meme might well spot something amiss in some aspect of AGW fisics, but will take the meme for granted and use that in their own analyses.
It’s a real dog’s dinner of a mess, well, some dog dinners, my dog like his beef as a steak and not in a stew..
Myrrh says:
June 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Stop faffing around and answer the damn question, Myrrh, or go play somewhere else. I’m not interested in the slightest in your miles of circumlocution. Since you obviously have forgotten the question, here is is again.
One or two words of an answer will suffice, a sentence or two will be fine, but don’t bother with another of your long screeds that do nothing but disguise the fact that you are not answering the question. What happens to light when it hits an object, Myrrh, what is it converted to? I say heat. You say … well, nothing so far, but you take a foot and a half of column space to say nothing.
Are you going to answer? If not, I’m through with you. You claim that visible light is incapable of heating an object. And no, I’m not talking about light striking a plant, where it is converted via photosynthesis, and you know that. Nor am I talking about when it hits a solar cell and is converted to electricity, and you know that as well. Stop trying to wriggle out of the question—what is light converted to when it strikes a stone, if not heat?
w.
Stop faffing around and answer the damn question, Myrrh, or go play somewhere else. I’m not interested in the slightest in your miles of circumlocution. Since you obviously have forgotten the question, here is is again.
1. Visible light strikes an object.
2. Some is reflected, but in general much of it is absorbed by that object.
Now, we know that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only converted to some other form. So my question to you, Myrrh, is the following:
Since the absorbed light is no longer in the form of light energy … just what form of energy has it been converted to?
One or two words of an answer will suffice, a sentence or two will be fine, but don’t bother with another of your long screeds that do nothing but disguise the fact that you are not answering the question. What happens to light when it hits an object, Myrrh, what is it converted to? I say heat. You say … well, nothing so far, but you take a foot and a half of column space to say nothing.
===============
I keep forgetting that I’m sometimes talking to people who have a strange idea about heat from such memes as “all matter above absolute zero radiates heat” when absolute zero is minus 273 degrees Centigrade.., and shown pictures of an ice cube radiating infrared …, or simply that visible light absorbed creates heat. Damn it, Willis, why didn’t those pushing visible light creates heat when absorbed use some of the great charitable funds they have to tell that to the population in need of it? Think how many lives they could have saved in Britain alone of those pensioners who died of hypothermia because they couldn’t afford to heat their room, a great campaign could have been devised to let them know they didn’t need to switch on their electric heaters, all they had to do was turn on their televisions and bask in the warmth of visible light as they sat absorbing it.
A while ago now in a discussion I was told by one young disciple to the AGW apologetics team that backradiation was so powerful, after all it raises the temperature of the whole Earth 33°C, that one could leave a chunk of raw meat in an igloo and go off hunting for a few hours and come back to a backradiation cooked dinner. Gosh, how can people possibly freeze in the Antarctic? All that snow madly sending heat to be absorbed by it being so much over absolute zero and all the backradiating it’s doing. Why would someone even ask a question like this: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99635.htm except the whole sense of scale has been so screwed with by these fake fisics memes that have deliberately confused light and heat?
It’s your claim that visible light is a thermal energy heating land and oceans, perhaps it would be easier on both our systems if we simply concentrated on you providing the detail of how it does this and how much heat it generates when absorbed by different matter…
..let’s keep it simple, how much does blue visible light heat the water of the oceans, that great storehouse of heat for the Earth?
Myrrh, I had said:
Since you have once again refused to answer, as I said, I’m done with you. Go play somewhere else. A man like you who refuses to defend his statements is worse than useless. He is a distraction to honest men.
w.
Shrug.
“Now, we know that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only converted to some other form. So my question to you, Myrrh, is the following:
Since the absorbed light is no longer in the form of light energy … just what form of energy has it been converted to?”
I answered and you rejected my answers. You can keep moving the goal posts Willis, but all it shows is disingenuousness on your part, not mine.
The problem remains, you support an unproven claim that shortwave from the Sun, Light, is the direct power that heats land and oceans and that the direct Heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, plays no part in heating same. You can keep using the claim as basic in all your analyses, but Willis, I find it very hard to imagine that you, who have shown an amazing volume of interesting nit picking when looking at data, will ever get rid of that nagging thought…
Bye.
Myrrh says:
June 25, 2012 at 3:20 am
Sorry, Myrrh, I must have missed your answer in the flood of words. Perhaps you could repeat it more simply—just what form of energy has light been converted to after it is absorbed by some solid (or liquid) object, say the ocean or the land?
As you know, I say that the absorbed energy is converted to heat. Note the length of my answer. One word. That way, it’s hard to miss.
Please make your answer of some similar length, so I do not once again miss your words of wisdom among the luxurious verdant verbiage that you usually employ. Just answer in one word, a few words, or even one sentence, and that way I won’t miss it this time.
Thanks,
w.
Myrrh says:
June 25, 2012 at 3:20 am
Myrrh, that is palpable nonsense. I make no such claim, nor have I ever made that claim.
In fact, I provided a citation above to show that the CERES dataset that I am using includes both visible and infrared from the sun.
My reward for providing you with the proof that I included infrared from the sun was that you claimed, without a shred of proof, that the authors of the CERES dataset were lying. Not wrong, not in error, but lying!
And now, you once again repeat your bogus claim that I said infrared from the sun doesn’t warm the earth. It does, and it is included in my calculations.
The figure usually given for the amount of energy at the top of the atmosphere is about 1366 watts per square metre. This is called “Total Solar Irradiance”, or TSI. It is the number used in calculating the energy the earth receives from the sun, by the CERES folks and everyone else.
There is a reason for the word “Total” in TSI, Myrrh … it’s “total” because it is not just the visible light, it is the total of the irradiance at all frequencies, including infrared. Or as one source says (emphasis mine)
But heck, don’t believe me, Myrrh. Do your own research on TSI and tell me what you find … you’ll find that everyone (but you apparently) knows that TSI includes all wavelengths from the sun—X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared. You’re the only one claiming that I and other climate scientists only consider visible light and ignore solar infrared. We don’t.
w.
Sorry, Myrrh, I must have missed your answer in the flood of words. Perhaps you could repeat it more simply—just what form of energy has light been converted to after it is absorbed by some solid (or liquid) object, say the ocean or the land?
As you know, I say that the absorbed energy is converted to heat. Note the length of my answer. One word. That way, it’s hard to miss.
Please make your answer of some similar length, so I do not once again miss your words of wisdom among the luxurious verdant verbiage that you usually employ. Just answer in one word, a few words, or even one sentence, and that way I won’t miss it this time.
Thanks,
==========
Ocean (water) for all practical purposes, nothing. Water is a transparent medium for visible light.
Land = F*ck knows. And not giving ice as giving off heat…
Question since you say absorption = heat.
Atmosphere = How much is visible light heating the sky? (Because it is absorbed by the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen)
http://www.cps-amu.org/sf/notes/m1r-1-8.htm Some reflection/absorption percentages of shortwave over land.
Myrrh says:
June 25, 2012 at 3:20 am
… The problem remains, you support an unproven claim that shortwave from the Sun, Light, is the direct power that heats land and oceans and that the direct Heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, plays no part in heating same.
Myrrh, that is palpable nonsense. I make no such claim, nor have I ever made that claim.
In fact, I provided a citation above to show that the CERES dataset that I am using includes both visible and infrared from the sun.
My reward for providing you with the proof that I included infrared from the sun was that you claimed, without a shred of proof, that the authors of the CERES dataset were lying. Not wrong, not in error, but lying!
And now, you once again repeat your bogus claim that I said infrared from the sun doesn’t warm the earth. It does, and it is included in my calculations.
The figure usually given for the amount of energy at the top of the atmosphere is about 1366 watts per square metre. This is called “Total Solar Irradiance”, or TSI. It is the number used in calculating the energy the earth receives from the sun, by the CERES folks and everyone else.
There is a reason for the word “Total” in TSI, Myrrh … it’s “total” because it is not just the visible light, it is the total of the irradiance at all frequencies, including infrared. Or as one source says (emphasis mine)
Total solar irradiance is defined as the amount of radiant energy emitted by the Sun over all wavelengths that fall each second on 11 ft2 (1 m2) outside Earth’s atmosphere. Insolation is the amount of solar energy that strikes a given area over a specific time, and varies with latitude or the seasons.
But heck, don’t believe me, Myrrh. Do your own research on TSI and tell me what you find … you’ll find that everyone (but you apparently) knows that TSI includes all wavelengths from the sun—X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared. You’re the only one claiming that I and other climate scientists only consider visible light and ignore solar infrared. We don’t.
==========
Please, take some time to read the following.
That is the whole of the AGW claim, Willis. That’s why I call it fictional fisics, through the looking glass with Alice impossible. This is what is now taught in schools. This is what CERES, your link and your opening post, ( Continued digging has led me to the CERES monthly global albedo dataset from the Terra satellite. It’s an outstanding set, in that it contains downwelling solar (shortwave) radiation (DSR), upwelling solar radiation (USR), and most importantly for my purposes, upwelling longwave radiation (ULR)), is saying.
Therefore, Willis, it is your bloody claim. Are you totally unconscious of what you’re saying..?
Access to Monthly Mean CERES AVG Flux Products
AVG Data
Home
Description
Plot Maps
Access Data
Validation
Sites
FSW Global Surface Albedo
Data file format: Files are ascii, written using fortran format ‘(3f8.1)’. Each file contains four header lines defining data source and each column. Data follows in columns, 64800(=360*180) lines. Latitude and longitude are implicit in the line index where:
— line 1 is 89.5N, -179.5W
— line 361 is 88.5N, -179.5W etc. . .
AVG variables grouped together and made available here.
Variable Group Flux Variables(All Wm-2 unless otherwise noted.)
Top Of Atmosphere SW Down SW Up LW Up Albedo(%)
AGW fisics, excludes thermal infrared. Everything is geared to making that disappear.
The meme is SHORTWAVE IN LONGWAVE OUT. CERES SHOWS THIS.
The caps are deliberately to annoy you.. 😉
AGW fisics is the new world paradigm, haven’t you noticed any of this in the discussions?
Picture of the comic cartoon everyone thinks is real world physics:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%e2%80%9cearth%e2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%e2%80%9d-contain-a-paradox/#more-50015
The 100% solar is Shortwave.
At random in the education system: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.LWSW
Note in the picture how it is depicted, by a silly glass window.., that the bulk of longwave has been written out; thermal longwave from the Sun no longer reaches Earth’s surface, it is excluded from this fictional fisics energy budget.
Here is an example of the result of this teaching: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/#comment-610576
Shortwave Light has now become the thermal energy. I’ve lost count of the the number of arguments I’ve had about this on WUWT – it is standard teaching in the impossible through the looking glass with Alice fictional word created by those pushing AGW. (In the real world firstly around 95% of the energy radiated from an incandescent bulb is Heat, thermal infrared, and so only 5% visible light, which is not hot. Secondly, visible light is not hot, you cannot feel it.)
Here’s where I discovered NASA is also pushing the fake fisics:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886
Amusingly, the great Global Warming pages on wiki are doing a disappearing act, here’s one mention of the fictional energy budget that is still gospel – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models
“All climate models take account of incoming energy from the sun as short wave electromagnetic radiation, chiefly visible and short-wave (near) infrared, as well as outgoing energy as long wave (far) infrared electromagnetic radiation from the earth. Any imbalance results in a change in temperature.”
This change at wiki might have something to do with Connolly (sp?) not being as effective as once was, but anyway, they now link to pages which tell the AGW fictional fisics instead of going into the detail of it themselves, that I can now find:
“INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION
Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called “shortwave radiation”) from the Sun drive the Earth’s climate system. Some of this incoming radiation is reflected off clouds, some is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some passes through to the Earth’s surface. Larger aerosol particles in the atmosphere interact with and absorb some of the radiation, causing the atmosphere to warm. The heat generated by this absorption is emitted as longwave infrared radiation, some of which radiates out into space.
ABSORBED ENERGY
The solar radiation that passes through Earth’s atmosphere is either reflected off snow, ice, or other surfaces or is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Emitted LONGWAVE Radiation
Heat resulting from the absorption of incoming shortwave radiation is emitted as longwave radiation. Radiation from the warmed upper atmosphere, along with a small amount from the Earth’s surface, radiates out to space. Most of the emitted longwave radiation warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms our planet’s surface.”
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
OK? That’s the Gospel Truth Fisics according to AGW.
We now have a generation brought up in the education system thinking that light is heat. And that is now 100% of the energy we get from the Sun. And that’s not the least of it, they think the atmosphere is empty space..
Funnily enough, it from one of your discussions that I first began exploring all this – you were looking for the missing heat.. I started reading up on what the cartoon (KT97 and kin) was saying and was horrified, really shocked, to find that they are teaching that shortwave heats the Earth and the direct Heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, can’t get in..
That’s the whole of the greenhouse mnemonic – that thermal infrared can’t penetrate the atmosphere like through the glass of a greenhouse but visible and the near shortwaves can, and that it’s these which heat the ground which then heated up radiates thermal infrared, the upwelling. (Which then backradiates and all that.)
So, Willis, I found some missing heat…
Actually, all of it. Is this what you were looking for…?