Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve been investigating one of my favorite datasets in the last few days, the CERES satellite-based top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation dataset. In particular, I’ve taken month-by-month global and hemispheric averages of the data. The dataset consists of observations of three variables—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling longwave (infrared) radiation, and upwelling shortwave radiation (reflected sunlight). From these I derive a further dataset. This is the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) imbalance. It is calculated as downwelling solar minus upwelling (reflected) solar minus upwelling longwave. That gives a fascinating look at the overall radiation picture.
I got to thinking about this because of a curious claim in a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change entitled Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods (paywalled). I did love the whole concept of “model-based evidence”, but that wasn’t what caught my eye. It was this statement (emphasis mine):
There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2 (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system (refs 4, 5). Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade. [References are listed at the bottom of this post.]
Anyhow, here’s some news regarding that claim of a consistent TOA imbalance, from the CERES satellite dataset:
Figure 1. CERES satellite-measured top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation levels, starting in January 2001. Numbers on the horizontal axis are months. Shown are the solar energy entering the system (red line), solar energy leaving the system (dark blue line) and longwave (infrared) energy leaving the system (light blue line). The overall monthly imbalance at the TOA is shown at the bottom in purple. The 12-month running average for each variable is shown as a thin line. Curiously, the variations in upwelling longwave are about 6 months out of phase with the downwelling radiation. All radiation values are positive. TOA Imbalance is solar less reflected solar less outgoing longwave, i.e. inflow less outflow. Twelve-month averages vary too little for the changes to be visible at this scale.
Now, there are a number of things of interest in this chart. The first is the fact that while the seasonal variations are fairly large, tens of watts per square metre, the annual variations are so small. At this scale we can hardly see them. So let’s expand the scale, and take a more close-up look at just the variations in the overall TOA energy imbalance (purple line at bottom of Figure 1). Figure 2 shows that result.
Figure 2. Closeup of the overall energy imbalance. Horizontal scale is months. Narrow line shows running centered 12-month averages of the TOA imbalance data. All radiation values are positive. TOA Imbalance is solar less reflected solar less outgoing longwave, i.e. inflow less outflow.
Here, we can begin to see the small variations in the 12-month running average. However, the average itself is around five watts per square metre … not good. That much out of balance is not credible.
This shows the difference between precision and accuracy. You see that the measurements are obviously quite precise—the 12-month running average only varies by about three-quarters of a degree over the whole period.
However, in absolute terms they’re not that accurate, we know that because they don’t balance … and it’s very doubtful that the earth is out of balance by five watts per square metre. That’s a very large amount, it would be noticed.
Now, I’ve previously discussed how James Hansen deals with this problem. He says:
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-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (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, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).
As a result, Hansen used the Levitus data rather than the CERES data to support the claims of a ~ one watt per square metre radiation imbalance. However, all is not lost. The precision of the CERES data very good. In Figure 2 we can see, for example, how one year’s TOA radiation imbalance is different from another. So let’s expand the scale once again, and take an even closer look at just the 12-month running averages, for all four of the radiation measurements shown in Figure 1.
Figure 3. An even closer look, this time at just the tiny variations in the 12-month running averages of the CERES data as shown in Figure 1. All radiation values are positive. TOA Imbalance is solar less reflected solar less outgoing longwave.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
The first thing I noticed is the precision of the measurements of the downwelling solar radiation (red line). As you might expect, the sun is quite stable, it doesn’t vary much compared to the variations in reflected solar and upwelling longwave radiation. And the observations reflect that faithfully. So it seems clear that their instruments for measuring radiation are quite precise.
Next, I noticed that the change in the imbalance (purple) is more related to the change in reflected solar (dark blue) than to the variations in upwelling longwave. I’ve highlighted the reflected solar (dark blue) in the graph above. This is confirmed by the correlation. The R^2 between TOA imbalance and reflected solar is 0.67; but between TOA imbalance and upwelling longwave, R^2 is only 0.07.
This seems like an important finding, that the imbalance is mostly albedo related, and that because of variation in the albedo, the variations in the reflected solar energy were on the order of ± three tenths of a watt within a few years.
Finally, I am once again surprised by the overall stability of the system. Twelve-month averages of all three of the variables (the TOA balance, reflected solar, and upwelling longwave) are all stable to within about ± 0.3 watts per square metre. Out of a total of 340 watts per square metre going each way, that’s plus or minus a tenth of one percent … I call that extremely stable. Yes, with a longer sample size we’d likely see greater swings, but still, that’s very stable.
And that brings me back to the quotation from the paper where I started this post. They say that there is
… a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade …
Now, according to their references [2] and [3], this claim is based on the idea that the excess energy is being soaked up by the ocean. And this claim has been repeated widely. I’ve discussed these claims here. The claims are all based on the Levitus ocean temperature data, which shows increasing heat in the ocean. Here’s my graph of the annual forcing needed to give the changes shown by Levitus in ocean heat content:
Figure 4. Annual forcing in watts per square metre needed to account for the energy going into or coming out of the ocean in the Levitus data. Data is for the top 2,000 metres of water. Note that despite average values being used, both by Hansen and also in the study under discussion, neither the mean nor the trend are statistically significant. Further discussion here.
For current purposes, let me point out that Figure 4 shows that in order for the ocean to gain or lose the energy that is shown in the Levitus data, it requires a very large year to year change in the amount of energy entering the ocean. That energy has to come from somewhere, and it has to go to somewhere when it leaves the ocean. Since the solar input is about constant over the period, that energy has to be coming from a change in either the upwelling longwave or the reflected solar … and we have precise (although perhaps inaccurate) data from CERES on those. Fortunately, the lack of accuracy doesn’t matter in this case, because we’re interested in the year to year changes. For that all we need is precision, and the CERES data is very precise.
So … let me compare the forcing shown by the Levitus ocean heat content in Figure 4, with the CERES data. Figure 5 shows the difference.
Figure 5. Forcing given by the Levitus ocean heat content data, compared to the CERES data shown in Figure 3.
As you can see, they have a couple of big problems with their claims of a consistent 1 W/m2 imbalance over the last decade.
First, it is contradicted by the very data that they claim establishes it. There is nothing “consistent” about what is shown by the Levitus data, unless you take a long-term average.
The second problem is with the Levitus data itself … where is the energy coming from or going to? While the CERES TOA imbalance is not accurate, it is very precise, and it would certainly show a fluctuation of the magnitude shown in the Levitus data. If that much energy were actually entering or leaving the ocean, the CERES satellite would surely have picked it up … so where is it?
I’ve discussed what I see as unrealistic error bars in the Levitus data here. My current comparison of Levitus with the CERES data does nothing to change my previous conclusion—the precision of the Levitus data is greatly overestimated.
Finally, the idea that we have sufficiently accurate, precise, and complete observations to determine the TOA imbalance to be e.g. 0.85 watts per square meter is … well, I’ll call it premature and mathematically optimistic. We simply do not have the data to determine the Earth’s energy balance to an accuracy of ± one watt per square metre, either from the ocean or from the satellites.
Best regards to all,
w.
MY OTHER POSTS ON THE CERES DATA:
Observations on CERES TOA forcing versus temperature
Time Lags In The Climate System
A Demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity
DATA:
CERES data: Unfortunately, when I go to verify it’s still available, I get:
The Atmospheric Science Data Center recently completed a site wide redesign.
It is possible that the page you are looking for is being transitioned. Please try back later.
If the page you have requested is still not available, it may have been renamed or deleted.
It is recommended that you use the Search interface on the ASDC Web Site to find the information you were looking for.
Since I got there via the aforementioned “Search interface on the ASDC Web Site”, I fear we’re temporarily out of luck.
[UPDATED TO ADD] I’ve collated the global and hemispheric monthly averages from R into a “.csv” (comma separated values) Excel file available here.
REFERENCES FOR THE NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE ARTICLE:
2. Hansen, J. et al. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.
Science 308, 14311435 (2005).
3. Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T. & Kiehl, J. Earth’s global energy budget.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 311323 (2009).
4. Trenberth, K. E. An imperative for climate change planning: Tracking Earth’s
global energy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 1927 (2009).
5. Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. Tracking Earth’s energy. Science 328,
316317 (2010).
I have a minor quibble with the term imbalance and energy budget. They give the impression that we know a heck of a lot more than we do. The energy is perfectly balance. We don’t know all the buttons to sort so that we can come up with a closed energy balance. This is like something I heard in at quantum mech course: the hydrogen atom has solved its wave equation, we can only come up with poor approximation. Until we get better handles on energy balances, climate science is but a poor estimate
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:52 pm
To view the calibration activities just look. But before that understand that for some measures a calibration to “ground measures” isnt even the correct thing to do.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
(my bold)
Possibly not.
However, when you’re collecting data that you wish to use (or is likely to be used) to verify a model, calibrating that data to the model output is absolutely, unequivocably, and without question, the wrong thing to do.
Don K says:
August 31, 2013 at 4:10 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm
==========================
Sea water that would normally absorb almost all incoming solar will reflect as much as 90% at angles of incidence less than 10 degrees: conditions that can be found in polar regions for several months of the year.
==========================
It’s important to get terminology correct as otherwise misunderstandings can arise, the angle of incidence never gets less than 10º, the angle of incidence is measured relative to the normal.
I’ve seen charts that show a fairly sharp breakover from absorbtion to reflection between incidence angles of 40 and 50 degrees for both water and ice. For water at least, that fits well with what I observe when I approach pools of rainwater. Initially, I see reflections of objects beyond the pool. When I get close, the reflections fade fairly abruptly (reduced reflection I assume) and objects under the surface become visible. I’ll try to remember to check the situation for ice the next time we have an ice storm.
Try it wearing polaroids too there’s a big difference in the behavior of the two polarisations, for example at the Brewster angle (53º) all of the p-polarised light is absorbed so all of the reflected light you see is s-polarised. At an angle of incidence of 80º about 30% of p is reflected whereas about 55% of s is reflected.
I’m in the same boat as Clive in being stuck on Hansen’s introduction of calibration factors to set the measured imbalance to about 1 W/m^2 (0.85) to match the level “suggested by models”, then for others to cite output of their models based on the “measured” data. Reminds me of an analogy one of my professors used to describe a similar situation: It’s like walking out the back door with a basket of eggs, going around the house, setting the basket on the front porch, walking back around the house, coming back in through the back door, walking through the house to the front door, opening it up, finding the basked and enthusiastically proclaiming “Gee, there really is an Easter Bunny!”.
A slight imbalance is one factor that could explain the recovery from the LIA. All it takes is a small, consistent imbalance to produce the 300+ years of warming we have seen. The energy gets stored in the oceans and is released in uneven quantities over many ENSO cycles.
In addition, ENSO itself leads to imbalances of short term periods that would tend to hide the long term trend. When +PDO conditions exist the added release of heat would increase the OLR and during -PDO conditions the imbalance would reverse and energy would be stored in the oceans.
Like many of the other satellite systems like ERBE, GRACE, the Cryosats, Sea Level monitors, it appears CERES just not provide the level accuracy required to do the job. The data has to get tuned/rewritten to what the result that is desired/expected. Not good enough in my opinion and, technically, irresponsible.
But what we can say is that we can only track energy accumulating on Earth at 0.5 W/m2/year.
But we are supposed to be seeing is +2.1 W/m2/year (direct anthro/GHG forcing), plus +1.4 W/m2/year (feedbacks given a 0.7C temp increase) less a term which has not really been outlined very well to date but pops up every now and again nonetheless —> Less a term -?.? W/m2 Radiative Feedback (the more the Earth warms, the faster the radiation is emitted by the Earth, something like real physics is actually based on and seems to apply everywhere in the universe except black holes).
So,
0.5 W/m2/year = 2.1 + 1.4 – ?.? = 2.1 + 1.4 – 3.0.
With an extra 3.0 W/m2/year of energy escaping from the Earth, the equation balances. Climate science has gone out of its way to avoid talking about this negative radiative feedback. It completely destroys the proposition that temps increase 3.0C per doubling of course.
Keith Minto says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Many thanks for the info, will have a read
I have long considered the “Other factors” question. A few people here have questioned whether life can absorb that energy and Willis is wrong here, some of that energy used to turn simple chemicals into complex compounds does not get converted back to heat, it gets buried and turns into coal or oil or calcium carbonate and a bunch of other compounds. But there are also other energy absorbers, for example while storms shift heat, but they also convert heat into motion and electricity. I calculate that the heat loss due to the kinetic energy of rainfall hitting the earth alone lies between 0.3 and 2 Watts per square meter. This is a significant fraction of 5 Watts. This energy is not returned as heat, it is expended into the gravitational and planetary rotation systems. Raindrops at terminal velocity hitting the earth is not the only kinetic energy, Wind drag, and event ocean thermal expansion and contraction expend energy into the kinetics of our planet. If you take the sum of all the wind energy on the planet I’d wager that it’d be pretty large, since a small windmill can extract maybe 2-300 watts out of a square meter when the wind is blowing. Not all wind is thermal though, how much is converted from heat I’m not sure, but I’d wager it’s a substantial fraction of 5W per square meter.
I actually think the imbalance of 5 Watts per square meter when taking account of all the kinetic losses is quite reasonable.
May I make a request? I am color challenged and find reading graphs that are in color difficult. If you can add dots/dashes, squares, circles or anything to help us challenged by colors to discern which line is which, that would be appreciated. I get what is going on from the text, but it would be easier to understand quickly if I didn’t have to physically identify the line with the legend.
Thanks
Bob
PS, I might add that lightning comes from heat and its expended as other than heat to some extent, waves also expend kinetic energy, but they are probably an end effect of wind drag anyway (same energy in a different form).
David Douglas: Four years ago Bob Knox and I published a paper “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance” Go to http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf
We discuss the Ceres data and most of the things that Willis mentioned — some in more detail. We even address Response Time (Section 5.3) and “temperature in the pipeline”.(section 5.4)
Thank you for the link to your paper.
Willis Eschebach, thanks again for a good post. It would probably be worthwhile for you to respond to David Douglas: acknowledge priority or highlight differences, or both.
About this: I did love the whole concept of “model-based evidence”, but that wasn’t what caught my eye.
Have you given any thought to the models built-in to the “measuring” instruments? It is hard to find any “evidence” that is not “model-based.” What you have is a great range of models from simple (Pythagorean theorem) to complex (Newton’s laws plus the law of gravitation are sort of “moderately complex”), some better tested than others. Even the use of a tape measure depends on a concept of the manufacturing process; more so for laser and acoustic range-finders. Consider, for example, the “evidence” that a set of CERES numbers were collected at the time and place claimed in the data set; then, to repeat myself, the claim that they are somewhat similar to what they claim to measure.
Willis Eschenbach: Actually, the best you can do is break even, it all goes back to heat.
Some is stored in biomass for extremely long periods of time. The part that we call fossil fuels we are turning back into heat, but much remains in soil and at the bottom of the ocean. Even in the presence of recurrent forest fire there is net accumulation across centuries. Some fraction of the stock persists in houses and furniture.
This issue is one I wrote about in this article:
http://drtimball.com/2011/reflected-sunlight-shines-on-ipcc-deceptions-and-gross-inadequacies/
In the article I quote Erhard Raschke of the University of Hamburg from an article titled “How well do we compute the insolation at TOA in radiation climatologies and in GCMs.”
Raschke wrote,
“Solar radiation is the prime source for all processes within our climate system. Its total amount, the total solar irradiance (TSI) reaching the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), and its variability are now quite accurately known on the basis of multiple satellite measurements and extremely careful calibration activities (Fröhlich and Lean, 2004)… Computations, therefore, should be relatively easy.”
However, he shows there is no agreement. He compared 20 models and their input values for TOA (Figure 1), He concludes,
“…it can be speculated that such different meridional profiles of the solar radiative forcing at TOA should also have impact on the computed atmospheric circulation pattern, in particular when simulations over periods of several decades to several centuries are performed. Therefore, related projects within the World Climate Research Program should take appropriate steps to avoid systematic discrepancies as shown above and to estimate their possible impact on the resulting climate and circulation changes.”
In my article you will see a diagram Raschke produced comparing the range of error for each computer model. It is another illustration of why the models don’t agree and don’t work.
Something to throw in here NASA used to have a data set of TOA fluxes as well as mid troposphere and surface…called the FD data set, and this goes back through two decades when it was clear to see the TOA effect of reflected short wave – which tallied also with the cloud changes from the ISCCP data….for the decades of warming, 1980-2000, it was clear to see the fall in reflected SW. ISCCP showed a 4% reduction in reflective low level cloud over this period. Since 2001, the cloud bounced back by 2% and has remained stable.
These changes dwarf the computed effect from CO2 – roughly by 4:1, hence the figure I gave in my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ of a natural component of about 80%.
a further point: whilst recently reviewing discussions around the computer codes that convert the TOA forcing from CO2 to watts at the surface…..I noted that the SW flux of visible light DROPS significantly – by 0.5 watts per square metre….due it seems to CO2 absorbing SW radiation. I was not aware of this……has anyone looked into it? That is a lot of energy NOT going into the ocean.
Willis,
An excellent post, thank you for providing it. I certainly agree that the CERES data is extremely useful.
You cite Loeb et al 2009, but not Loeb et al 2102: Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty (Nature Geoscience). I think it is an interesting and useful paper. Available here: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
Recognising, as you have, that TOA measurements are precise and consistent, but lack sufficient absolute accuracy, Loeb et al. use 0-1800 m ocean heat content data (I think from Lyman, at PMEL) to calibrate the CERES data.
Loeb et al 2012 arrives at a mean TOA radiative imbalance of 0.5 +/- 0.43 W/m2 over 2001-2010. That figure is consistent with estimates based purely on in situ ocean etc. measurements – perhaps a little below the average. It is certainly below what Trenberth claims. Using IPCC AR5 forcing estimates, it is consistent with equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity being about 1.8°C – or rather lower if the AR5 estimates of aerosol forcing turn out to be still excessively negative deespite being much lower than the AR4 estimates.
There is another paper, Stephens et al 2012: An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations (also Nature Geoscience) that uses a similar approach and comes up with a marginally higher TOA imbalance estimate of 0.6 W/m2 over 2005-10, when Argo ocean data was available. It is also well worth looking at. See http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
If you have any comments on these two papers I would be interested to know.
As always, Willis, you bring much to the scientific table using real data and a remarkably unerring logic. As an engineer, with all the confounding issues involved – angle of incidence reflection losses in higher latitudes on TOA, clouds and the land surface, other factors – biochemical, kinetic, even endothermic chemical weathering of rocks – 6 watts/m^2 is not an imbalance at all. I realize they try to correct for all these unmeasured energy details for their finished data, but from an engineer’s perspective, to think they have a meaningful residual when they are finished is pure rubbish (which of course even your title expresses neatly). Were I to be trying to sort all this out, I would, like you, be amazed how close they come to a balance. It tells me there is a balance. Certainly over the long term strings of positive and negative balances occur.
Does CO2 absorb incoming solar shortwave and having done so is it then constrained from accepting even more energy from upward longwave?
Note that solar shortwave penetrates the ocean surface far better than does longwave so intercepting incoming shortwave and replacing it with radiated longwave could overall reduce the net thermal effect on the oceans from incoming sunlight.plus any downward lomgwave from GHGs.
CERES_EBAF-TOA_Ed2.7 data from March 2000 to February 2013 (13 full years) are available from http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp
Unfortunately the documentation says:
“Despite recent improvements in satellite instrument calibration and the algorithms used to determine CERES TOA radiative fluxes, a sizeable imbalance persists in the average global net radiation at the TOA from CERES satellite observations. As in previous versions of EBAF (Loeb et al. 2009), the CERES SW and LW fluxes in EBAF Ed2.7 are adjusted within their ranges of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the Earth–atmosphere system, as determined primarily from ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) data.”
Which means, curret version of NET TOA radiation imbalance dataset is contaminated, that is, next to useless. Anyway, here it is.
2000.208 6.9745
2000.292 2.0835
2000.375 -5.8146
2000.458 -9.7721
2000.542 -7.832
2000.625 -4.3578
2000.708 -0.1842
2000.792 2.2183
2000.875 4.1848
2000.958 5.9972
2001.042 9.5239
2001.125 9.0422
2001.208 7.8282
2001.292 1.1767
2001.375 -5.9905
2001.458 -8.7872
2001.542 -8.0322
2001.625 -5.5352
2001.708 0.4253
2001.792 1.4714
2001.875 3.6441
2001.958 5.1613
2002.042 7.8922
2002.125 8.4031
2002.208 7.285
2002.292 0.9009
2002.375 -5.6008
2002.458 -10.0329
2002.542 -9.9545
2002.625 -6.1461
2002.708 -0.5951
2002.792 2.8104
2002.875 3.7323
2002.958 5.4567
2003.042 7.1765
2003.125 8.6104
2003.208 6.7166
2003.292 1.3293
2003.375 -6.3683
2003.458 -9.5625
2003.542 -8.7051
2003.625 -4.2349
2003.708 0.1104
2003.792 1.8631
2003.875 3.7047
2003.958 5.3542
2004.042 8.204
2004.125 8.8297
2004.208 5.7515
2004.292 2.0141
2004.375 -6.7303
2004.458 -10.8667
2004.542 -7.8504
2004.625 -4.6196
2004.708 0.3932
2004.792 1.8006
2004.875 4.0071
2004.958 6.7491
2005.042 7.641
2005.125 7.9716
2005.208 6.67
2005.292 1.0863
2005.375 -4.7086
2005.458 -10.1034
2005.542 -9.5618
2005.625 -5.2517
2005.708 0.0892
2005.792 1.6977
2005.875 3.4561
2005.958 6.4844
2006.042 8.0788
2006.125 8.7262
2006.208 6.9068
2006.292 1.9731
2006.375 -4.6429
2006.458 -9.6121
2006.542 -9.1509
2006.625 -5.3122
2006.708 0.0773
2006.792 1.5125
2006.875 4.2012
2006.958 5.6588
2007.042 6.5037
2007.125 8.5991
2007.208 6.1116
2007.292 1.7488
2007.375 -6.0941
2007.458 -9.1899
2007.542 -8.9325
2007.625 -5.2988
2007.708 -0.957
2007.792 2.0842
2007.875 3.2598
2007.958 4.6298
2008.042 8.0599
2008.125 8.3011
2008.208 7.7134
2008.292 1.533
2008.375 -4.8795
2008.458 -9.1839
2008.542 -8.1607
2008.625 -3.54
2008.708 -0.1311
2008.792 2.9623
2008.875 3.447
2008.958 6.7473
2009.042 8.3706
2009.125 9.3778
2009.208 7.9245
2009.292 1.7404
2009.375 -4.968
2009.458 -8.0428
2009.542 -8.7639
2009.625 -4.8269
2009.708 -0.5369
2009.792 1.8617
2009.875 2.9589
2009.958 5.9788
2010.042 6.1916
2010.125 7.7567
2010.208 6.0063
2010.292 1.9205
2010.375 -6.2315
2010.458 -10.0205
2010.542 -9.28
2010.625 -5.7674
2010.708 -0.4305
2010.792 1.774
2010.875 2.8114
2010.958 5.5093
2011.042 8.2175
2011.125 8.0628
2011.208 7.1592
2011.292 1.9948
2011.375 -4.7526
2011.458 -10.0156
2011.542 -9.0773
2011.625 -5.1099
2011.708 -0.6739
2011.792 3.3087
2011.875 3.8373
2011.958 4.682
2012.042 8.3742
2012.125 10.5136
2012.208 6.7817
2012.292 2.3536
2012.375 -4.6701
2012.458 -9.2219
2012.542 -8.3659
2012.625 -4.4028
2012.708 -0.1318
2012.792 2.8506
2012.875 4.4281
2012.958 6.7845
2013.042 6.5136
2013.125 8.1878
I second what Dr. Bob says
(August 31, 2013 at 7:47 am), being also in the color-challenged set.
The colors red, yellow, bright blue, and black give you four choices and
if dashed give four more. Green is good but not with red. I cannot
tell apart your blue and cyan(?)
thanks
Bob
Thanks Willis for another great discussion.
I have wondered about the apogee/perigee differential that rgbatduke brought up. I somehow came up with the same 7% difference in solar input. It always seemed to me that the SH should have the more extreme seasons, with its summer pointed toward the sun at perigee and its winter away from the sun at apogee. Yet the seasonal differences seem to be tempered by the dominance of ocean there. I wonder what effect the recent intrusion of more sea ice from the south will have.
Look forward to your “more later”, Willis.
Well. You have data for 58 months, between January 2001 and October 2005, Willis. I do not know the exact data source you have obtained it, but it obviously differs from net TOA imbalance given in CERES_EBAF-TOA_Ed2.7. I suppose yours is closer to the radiative imbalance actually measured by satellites, because the “corrections” applied in 2.7 relative to your dataset (based on OHC to make it “consistent” with it) are much noisier than the original. That is, they have destroyed precision to improve (an imaginary) accuracy using an unrelated and noisier data source.
Anyway, here are their “corrections” to be subtracted from raw data in watts-per-square-meter:
2001.042 5.1891
2001.125 4.9288
2001.208 4.6438
2001.292 5.0623
2001.375 4.7435
2001.458 4.6112
2001.542 4.3682
2001.625 4.6252
2001.708 4.7817
2001.792 5.0286
2001.875 5.7329
2001.958 5.1387
2002.042 4.8298
2002.125 4.4789
2002.208 4.4900
2002.292 4.8251
2002.375 4.7208
2002.458 4.5819
2002.542 4.7915
2002.625 4.2741
2002.708 4.2031
2002.792 4.6616
2002.875 5.0487
2002.958 5.3563
2003.042 4.9105
2003.125 4.9026
2003.208 4.9044
2003.292 4.6307
2003.375 4.8333
2003.458 4.7595
2003.542 4.8151
2003.625 4.2619
2003.708 4.0666
2003.792 4.9849
2003.875 5.3563
2003.958 4.8828
2004.042 5.4760
2004.125 5.0993
2004.208 4.0905
2004.292 4.6529
2004.375 4.5833
2004.458 5.1237
2004.542 4.8224
2004.625 4.3746
2004.708 4.3698
2004.792 5.1434
2004.875 5.8979
2004.958 5.6669
2005.042 5.6670
2005.125 4.7104
2005.208 4.6480
2005.292 4.6027
2005.375 4.6106
2005.458 4.4864
2005.542 4.2788
2005.625 4.0807
2005.708 4.1388
2005.792 5.1723
The “counterphase” behavior of outgoing LWIR relative to TOA is not as mysterious as it might appear to theoreticians. It is the result of most of the land mass–which heats to higher levels than the oceans–being in the Northern hemisphere. Summer there happens to occur near aphelion in the current stage of Milankovitch cycles. As seen in satellite measurements, the global average temperature thus persistently peaks when TOA insolation is near its nadir.
“”””””……Phil. says:
August 31, 2013 at 5:35 am
Don K says:
August 31, 2013 at 4:10 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm
==========================
Sea water that would normally absorb almost all incoming solar will reflect as much as 90% at angles of incidence less than 10 degrees: conditions that can be found in polar regions for several months of the year.
==========================
It’s important to get terminology correct as otherwise misunderstandings can arise, the angle of incidence never gets less than 10º, the angle of incidence is measured relative to the normal…….””””””
Well what you read in the textbooks, is not always what you observe in the real world/universe/whatever.
According to regular Fresnel polarized reflectance theory, the total reflectance is almost constant from zero angle, up to about the Brewster angle, which as Phil says is about 53 deg (for light incident from the air side) 36 deg 52′ for incidence from the water side. The cognoscenti, of course recognize those two angles, as the angles in a 3-4-5 Pythagorean right triangle.
Now in the real world, you will only observe those values of reflectance, if the water surface is horizontal, aka “flat”.
Fat chance in open polar waters.
If the wave normal, tilts towards the sun, the incidence angle is reduced, and the reflectance will drop, if it previously was larger than the Brewster angle. But what gose up, must come down, so the wave has a back side tilted away from the sun, thereby increasing its reflectance.
However, if you look at the geometry of the back side reflectance, and typical wave patterns, you will realize, that the back side reflected light, does not necessarily escape.
At the increased incidence angle, the reflected ray, can still be directed downwards, rather than upwards, and in either case, there is another forward wave slope immediately behind it, to capture some of that backside reflected light.
Consequently you can show, that wave action, always increases the water absorption for low altitude light sources. So you tend to not see very high reflectance from non flat seas.
Berényi Péter says:
August 31, 2013 at 11:19 am
Thanks, Berenyi. I’d just found that dataset myself, and had been wondering why the difference. I couldn’t disagree more with that approach. It seems to me that what they should do is just do the very best job they know, with no ad-hoc adjustments to match Hansen’s figures. That’s bogus, it makes their dataset mostly worthless when they do that.
They make no bones about it, they come right out and say that at present it’s stepped on to squeeze the error down to the 0.85 W/m2 from Hansen’s paper of nearly a decade ago now … their justification is here.
Pathetic attempt to shore up the “consensus” …
w.
Willis, On return from GB, here is part of the answer to the accuracy problem.
The merging of these results looks subjective and it could have a large bias.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/The%20problem%20-solar%20irradiance.JPG