Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is very precise and sensitive.
As an example of what that sensitivity can reveal about the climate system, consider Figure 1, which shows the upwelling (outgoing) longwave (LW) and reflected solar shortwave (SW), month by month, for 13 years (N=156). Since these are individual CERES datasets, their trends and values should be valid.
Figure 1. Upwelling longwave (shades of blue) and upwelling reflected shortwave (shades of red) for the globe as well as the two hemispheres separately. Cyclical seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, there are several very curious aspects to this figure. The first and most surprising issue is that the hemispheric values for shortwave, and also the hemispheric values for longwave, are nearly identical from hemisphere to hemisphere. Why should that be so? There is much more ocean in the southern hemisphere, for example. There is solid land at the South Pole rather than ocean. In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre. Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.
So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
The next thing of interest is the stability of the system. The trends in all six of the measurements are so tiny I’ve expressed them in W/m2 per century so that their small size can be appreciated … if the trends continue, in a century they may change by a watt or two. Note that despite the small spread of the measurements, none of the trends are significant.
The next thing of interest is that in addition to the values being similar in both hemispheres, the trends are also quite similar. All of the trends are very slightly negative.
Finally, despite the great difference in the size of the LW and SW signals (240 vs 100 W/m2, Figure 1), the size of the variations in the two signals are quite similar. Here is a boxplot of the three pairwise comparisons—the anomaly variations in global, and northern and southern hemisphere.
Figure 2. Boxplots of the variations in the longwave and reflected shortwave shown in Figure 1, for the globe (left panel), the northern hemisphere (center panel) and the southern hemisphere (right panel).
Since these are boxplots, we know that half of the data lies inside the colored boxes. This means that half of the time, the longwave and the shortwave are within ± one-half watt of the seasonal value. Plus or minus one-half watt half the time, and within a watt and a half for 95% of the time, for a total of 156 months … this to me is amazing stability.
Given the myriad differences between the northern and southern hemispheres, my explanation of this amazing stability is that a) the temperature of the planet is regulated by a variety of threshold-based processes, and b) the set-point of that regulation is controlled by globally consistent values for the physics of wind, water, and cloud formation.
Now, there certainly may be some other explanation for this amazing stability and symmetry of the climate despite the large differences in the geometry and composition of the two hemispheres. That’s my explanation. If you have a better one … bring it on.
Best regards to all,
w.
NOTE ON DATA AND CODE: I’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’ve cleaned up my R computer code. I’ve put all the relevant functions into one file, called “CERES Functions.R”. That file of functions, plus the data, plus the code for this post, are all that are required to duplicate the figures above. I just checked, it’s all turnkey.
DATA: CERES 13 year (220 Mbytes, has all the CERES data in R format.)
FUNCTIONS: CERES Functions.R (Has all the functions used to analyze the data.)
CODE FOR THIS POST: Amazing Stability CERES (Has the code to create the figures and calculations used above.)
Willis, is it possible the bulk of the transmission, reflection and absorbtion all take place in the atmosphere and don’t depend on the Earths oceans or land?
ok Willis, not a scientist
but I’ll bite
If you expect two things to be different but they are the same, maybe the expectation is flawed
If you expect two things to be different but they are the same something that they have in common is making them the same(probably)
rotation, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric composition, atmosheric layers, interference, back pressure
this accounting malarky seems to me to be counting ‘things’, like tennis balls coming in and different sized tennis balls leaving. are they really ‘things’
anyways, back to my day job
Wow–what Willis is talking about has no relationship to the number of days in 4 year, Gerald. Or in 20.
After a while, averages tend to diminish the denominator.
Time to move on.
(I just wonder how Warmistas can claim it’s all “settled science”; Willis has certainly exposed a number of unsettling aspects of climate in his recent posts. Very provocative!)
Willis says:
Shouldn’t be too hard. All anybody has to do is solve the equations of motion of two nonlinear fluid systems coupled on a rotating sphere and subject to differential heating, turbulent mixing, random phase changes, low frequency inputs on unknown time scales and radiative transfer processes across the spectrum. I keep hearing that this is “simple physics”.
Willis
You rightly observe that the difference between the two hemispheres is enormous and they undergo significant seasonal changes.
What about a similar hemispheral plot (month by month for 13 years) showing CO2 and humidity/water vapour?
To put all of this in perspective, surely one needs to consider, at the same time, the changes in the main GHG components since the cAGW theory rests upon these as driving energy imbalance and thence temperature change.
it seems to me that forgetting the fudging (which leads to 0.85 w per sq m warming), the take home from your two posts is that there is either something significantly wrong with the data (its measurement), or, if the data is correct, the energy imbalance is nothing more than a signal incapable of performing real work in the real environ in which it finds itself.
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year.” NASA
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html
[…]
I notice there was no uproar at the NASA ‘fact’ and that says more than the hostility directed towards me.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Why would there be an uproar at a statement which is patently true?
If the earth was orbiting the sun but [i]not[/i] rotating on its own axis then there would be one “day” each year because, as it orbited the sun, every part of the earth would face the big gas ball at some point.
If the earth was rotating on its own axis but [i]not[/i] orbiting the sun then there would be one day for each rotation.
Because it is doing both, each full orbit will involve either one more, or one less, day than the rotations create on their own depending on which direction the rotation is in relation to the orbit.
In the case of the Earth, the result is that an observer on the surface will see the sun rise and set 365 times (that’s 365 “days”, ignoring the 1/4) during one orbit even though the Earth has turned 366 times on its axis in the same time.
I can only surmise that Gerald has an unusual variation of OCD. Keep that in mind when responding. However, his comments did get me thinking a little about the characteristics of the CERES orbit. I’m sure it is documented somewhere but I’m not sure where. However, it must be taken into consideration when the data itself is collected/computed. I’m sure it has been looked at many times given the huge error problem, but it certainly could induce errors bigger than what Willis has been able to find in the year to year changes. Just thinking out loud …
Following up on the biosphere changes, keep in mind that not all of the energy is turned to heat when plants die. The reason we have fossil fuels today is that some of that energy persists as the mass of dead plants/animals gets buried. I’m sure the number is quite small but since we’re dealing with small numbers here, it could be a higher percentage than one might think.
I see all these websites where kids ask the most basic questions it is possible to ask – how long does it take the Earth to turn once and how many times does it take to turn in a year ?. Not a single academic website gets the answers right,not one !.
Now you’re just being silly. Sidereal vs synodal decomposition is covered in college level astronomy texts and websites, partly because it is actually geometrically a very difficult concept. Furthermore, I agree with Willis that your snotty tone does not usefully contribute to any discussion, especially when you erect straw men such as this to bash vigorously (as for the life of me, I can’t see why this is relevant to climate science). The orbital variation Willis describes, however, is relevant and continues to be a puzzle to me, all the more so now that Willis has pointed out the remarkable NH/SH symmetry. That is beyond puzzling. The difference between NH and SH TOA insolation is profound — around 91 W/m^2. The NH surface albedo and SH surface albedo cannot possibly be the same as they have very disproportionate land vs sea surface areas. The temperature itself countervaries with the TOA insolation. Yet the upwelling shortwave radiation is the same withing a W/m^2?
I would have said that this is just plain impossible. It would require a massive coincidence of orbital shape and surface albedo to accomplish as a passive match. I think Willis is quite correct that it must be a dynamical process, and the only one available that I can think of offhand is cloud variation. But how do the SH clouds + surface know how to match the NH clouds + surface? That’s an interesting one, given the lags and slow transport between hemispheres…
rgb
Is it possible to see the same charts, but for each season without smoothing?
Andy G55 at 2.04am says
‘There MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the earth to function’
I am just catching up with this thread and despite Willis’s courteous and thoughtful response to the above, I think that Andy has penned the most important line that I have read in the two years since, as a layman, I started taking an interest in global warming.
Please develop your argument further Andy – it is a concept that is too important to be allowed to to lie fallow.
RGB:
Perhaps the magnetic field is important. It constrains energetic particles across the hemispheres. And energetic particles are generated in storms.
Hypothesis (or guesswork)
An increase in clouds leads to a release of highly charged particles (storms).
Some are fired by the magnetic field towards the poles.
These provide nuclei for cloud formation at symmetrical latitudes on the far side of the equator.
‘There MUST be more energy coming in than going out for the earth to function’
Old-un, it is the flow of energy that allows the earth to function – there is no requirement for any accumulation of energy, and since it cannot be transformed into anything else (laws of conservation, etc, ignoring nuclear transformations for now) then energy in must equal energy out (again, ignoring internally generated energy from nuclear activity within the Earth).
So while I think Andy G55 is correct in that in the short term (a few 100 million years or so) energy can be accumulated or lost, long term it must balance. And I suspect that in the short term, the fluxes pretty much cancel out (i.e. plant growth today closely matches plant decomposition from recent history).
Ok, so the question that hasn’t been asked of Gerald is:
What does your opinion of the planetary rotational error you express have to do with climate modeling? You have failed to show any connection? Do you have one? How can Willis, or anyone for that matter, take into account that which you have yet to explain is the issue by not accounting for what you have espoused as a problem???
Please, enlighten those of us who evidently do not have the grey matter that you posses!
Very interesting illustration of how measured data does not support modeled cAGW theory. I think outgoing LW anomaly would be increasing over the period examined if CO2 concentration had anything to contribute to the Earth’s energy budget. Others such as Joe Born on Jan 7, 2013 @ur momisugly 3:02am seem to say that GHG radiation can only be unidirectional: it increases heating of the surface/ocean while being incapable of increasing atmospheric radiation to space. Can that be right?
The proof of this theorem is left as an exercise for the student.
Haven’t you guys caught on? Gerald is a bot!
Thanks Willis. Good questions.
Why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?
Are they the same?
I’ll keep tuned to your inquire.
If a tree falls in the forest can anyone measure the IR it releases?
I also think it’s important to have in mind that upwelling IR and reflected solar come mostly from the atmosphere and clouds – NOT from the the surface. According to annually averaged Earth’s energy budgets, like this one:
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/sites/default/files/article_images/components2.gif
IR_________Reflected Solar, (atmosphere+clouds/surface)
91%/9%_____87%/13%
Gerald Kelleher says:
Gerald, the difference between sidereal and solar rotation rates is not of significant importance for the energy balance on Earth. The exposure to Solar radiation and internal energy of the Earth are the only (average) sources of net input energy to the surface and atmosphere of Earth. Thus the fact that Earth rotates ~1/4 rotation more per year for sidereal vs solar would not have an effect on energy balance. The interaction does not care where the star field is, only the Sun.
“Thus the fact that Earth rotates ~1/4 rotation more per year for sidereal vs solar”
Wow – Leonard got it wrong – perhaps Gerald has a point? (Leonard, you missed one sidereal day per year).
Edim says at January 7, 2014 at 7:22 am
So it is either a measurement error or we should look at how clouds are connected across the globe.
Sounds simple enough.
“So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?”
Longwave is easy. The longwave passes through a medium called the atmosphere. That longwave is reflected back to the surface, absorbed and scattered. Over time of course it all eventually exits the atmosphere at the ERL. the effective radiating level. Above the ERL there is a control knob a governor if you like. This control knob is well mixed, that is, it is fairly uniform: this control knob is called CO2. As that C02 increases the ERL moves up to a higher colder height. When the ERL is raised, the system loses energy less rapidly as fundamental physics says it must. This results in a surface that is generally warmer ( but not uniformly warmer). So at the surface you will find patches that warm more and patches that warm less. Some of the excess energy can be stored in the great capacitor we call the ocean. But at the control surface, the ERL, re radiation to space is more uniform. You can even see this if you look at spatial variation of temperature as a function of height. Look at the temperature variation at the surface (LST) now look at 2 meters, then look at 30, the TLT, etc.
Next, you have to understand how CERES produces data.
have you read the the ATBDs?
In short, you’re looking at processed data. Until you read through all the documents and understand how a voltage at the sensor is turned into a data point, you really don’t understand what you are looking at. The assumptions, the smoothings, the corrections. It is more than a weekends effort. more than a year.
Here is an example
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/r2_2/ceres-atbd2.2-s4.6.2.pdf
Here is another example
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/ATBD/pdf/r2_2/ceres-atbd2.2-s4.5.pdf
Finally, if you want to use this data you have tacitly endorsed all the physics used to derive it.
At the sensor all you have is a voltage. That voltage becomes data ( say a flux ) by applying physics. laws. When you use the data, you accept the laws. So, for intellectual consistency you need to understand those laws and make sure that they don’t conflict with other views you hold.
In short, before you attempt to use any data from a satillite you need to read the ATBDs.
You’ll be amazed at the amount of climate science physics you have to accept to use the data. You’ll also be amazed at how many end products depend on multiple data sources to compute the final data. So, for example, CERES products might depend on modis products or VIRS.. and then you need to go look at those ATBDs
The full list is here for CERES
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/atbd.php
There are only two ways that the mass of an atmosphere can transfer energy, namely, radiation and conduction.
In order to maintain radiative balance between surface and space the total combined effect of radiation and conduction must be stabilised at a level determined by the need to match energy out with energy in at any given level of insolation from outside the system.
Convection is the process whereby the system corrects itself if there is too much or too little of either radiation or conduction.
Everything flows from that.
Convection (utilising the gas laws) is the global thermostat and it achieves its effect by speeding up or slowing down to ensure that precisely the right amount of thermal (kinetic) energy is delivered to the effective radiating height in the atmosphere wherever that height might be at any given moment.
The phase changes of water, especially evaporation, act as a lubricant for the process because water vapour is lighter than air which makes it easier for convection to do its job.
Convection is not difficult in itself but its complex behaviour within the system certainly is.
steveta_uk says:
January 7, 2014 at 7:05 am
I’m not sure I can fully agree. Firstly, the explosive ‘growth’ – literally speaking – of certain flora and fauna can ‘capture’ or bind up large sums of energy. I dunno, perhaps think tropical rainforest, algal blooms, or in geological terms, perhaps the massive beds of cretaceous chalk beds or carboniferous limestone and coal beds? Again, in geological terms (multi-mya +) the biospheric energy ‘system’ may be considered in balance ‘at the time’ – but clearly, the changes from one geological era to another could have been vastly significant – so why should there be a net balance over billions of years?
As a geologist, it seems entirely logical to consider that past geological changes (plate tectonics, eruptions, etc) could and would have caused significant energy ‘shifts’ or imbalances, and therafter, associated climatic changes – think of landmass changes within the hemispheres, for example. It does not really seem likely that it would work well the other way round without very large incoming/outgoing radiation changes? Given that even the very recent ice-ages have still not really been adequately explained AFAIK, it is hard to conceive of a dynamic system that isn’t inherently variable and ‘somehow’ adjusts itself, if we make the reasonable assumption that solar (incoming) energy is essentially fixed over that timescale?