Three Clocks

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I got to wandering through the three main datasets that make up the overall CERES data, and I noticed an odd thing. The three main datasets are the all-sky downwelling solar, upwelling reflected solar, and upwelling longwave radiation, measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Here are those three datasets:

ceres three main datasets actualFigure 1 the three main datasets that make up the CERES all-sky data. Note that as you’d expect, total input (solar ~340 W/m2) equals total output (100 W/m2 reflected plus 240 W/m2 radiation).

What I’d never noticed before is that the three datasets are all running on different clocks. One peaks in December, one peaks in January, and one peaks in July. Not only that, they all have different cycles of rising and falling … go figure.

A word of foreshadowing. I have no particular point to make in this post. Instead, it is a meander, an appreciative inquiry into the components of the shortwave (solar) and longwave (thermal infrared) top-of-atmosphere radiation. And at the end of the day, I suspect you’ll find it contains more questions and wonderment and curiosities than it has answers and insights. So hop on board, the boat’s leaving the dock, there’s a forecast of increasing uncertainty with a chance of scattered befuddlement … what’s not to like?

First, the solar input. Although a lot of folks talk about the “solar constant”, over the course of the year the sun is anything but constant. Because the Earth’s orbit is not circular, annually the Earth moves closer and further from the sun. This gives an annual change of about 22 W/m2, with a high point in early January and a low point exactly six months later in early July. So that’s one clock—peaks in January, bottoms out in July, six months rise, six months fall.

top of atmosphere solar radiation ceres global actual loessFigure 2. Downwelling solar. Top panel shows actual data. Middle panel shows the regular seasonal variation. The bottom panel shows the residual, calculated as the data minus the seasonal component. Horizontal gold dashed lines show ± one standard deviation of the residual data. This range encompasses about 2/3 of the data. Vertical dashed and dotted lines show January (dashed) and July (dotted).

The sun, of course, is very stable, so the actual variation looks just like the seasonal variation. Note that the standard deviation of the residuals is only about plus or minus a tenth of a watt, which is a variation of about 0.03%, three hundredths of one percent of the size of the signal. In passing, the cyclical variation of about ± 0.03% you see highlighted by the blue line in the bottom panel is the TSI (total solar irradiation) variation associated with the sunspot cycle … but I digress, if one can do that while aimlessly meandering …

The next dataset, reflected solar, is on a slightly different clock. While reflected solar naturally varies with the strength of the sun, it actually peaks in December rather than January.

top of atmosphere reflected solar ceres global actual loessFigure 3. Reflected (upwelling) solar. Top panel shows actual data. Middle panel shows the regular seasonal variation. The bottom panel shows the residual, calculated as the data minus the seasonal component. Horizontal gold dashed lines show ± one standard deviation of the residual data. This range encompasses about 2/3 of the data.  Vertical dashed and dotted lines show January (dashed) and July (dotted).

To me, this is a very curious signal. To start with, it is at a minimum in August, and a maximum in December. So it rises quickly for four months, then falls for eight months, and repeats. Odd.

In addition, it’s curious because it is so stable. Of the three datasets (downwelling solar, reflected solar, and longwave), the reflected solar is the only one that is unconstrained. The downwelling solar is basically fixed. And the upwelling longwave is physically constrained—in the long run (although not the short run) what goes out is limited by what goes in.

But the variations in reflected solar, both geographical and temporal, are not fixed. Given the varying annual snow, ice, and cloud cover in the polar regions, plus the varying tropical cloud cover, plus the differences in clouds over the extra-tropical areas, there’s nothing obvious that constrains reflected sunlight to be the same, year after year … and yet, as Figure 3 shows, the standard deviation of the residuals is only half a watt per square metre, that’s plus or minus half a percent. And that means that 95% of the months are within one watt of the seasonal average to me. To me, that’s a wonder.

Finally, here is the longwave. Upwelling longwave is basically a function of temperature, so it peaks in the northern hemisphere summer. Of the three datasets, longwave varies the least over the course of the year.

top of atmosphere upwelling longwave ceres global actual loessFigure 4. Upwelling longwave radiation. Top panel shows actual data. Middle panel shows the regular seasonal variation. The bottom panel shows the residual, calculated as the data minus the seasonal component. Horizontal gold dashed lines show ± one standard deviation of the residual data. This range encompasses about 2/3 of the data.  Vertical dashed and dotted lines show January (dashed) and July (dotted).

Again, we see only a small variation in the residuals, only ± half a watt per square metre, or about ± 0.2%, two tenths of a percent of the size of the signal. And again the signal is not symmetrical, with the peak in July and the minimum five months later in December. So globally, longwave rises for seven months, then drops for five months.

Having looked at that, I got curious about the strange shape of the seasonal variations in the reflected solar. So I decided to take a look at the latitudinal variations in the solar, reflected solar, longwave, and albedo.

area weighted simple toa radiation by latitudeFigure 5. Top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation by latitude. Area weighted. Note the units are terawatts (10^12 watts) per degree of latitude. Area-weighting is done using the official CERES latitude areas, which are for an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere. It makes no visible or numerical difference at this scale, but Gavin Schmidt busted me for not using it, and he’s right, so why not use the recommended data? The radiation in W/m2 is averaged for each degree of latitude. That average value is multiplied by the surface area of the degree of latitude (in square metres / ° latitude). The square metres cancel out, and we are left with watts per degree of latitude. 

You can see the increased reflection from 0-10°N of the Equator. This is the sunlight reflecting from the massed cumulonimbus of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). These tropical thunderstorms of the ITCZ provide the power driving the global equator-to-pole circulation of the atmosphere and the ocean. The increased reflection from 0-10°N is important because of the strength of the incoming sunshine. Half of the incoming TOA solar energy strikes the planet between 25°N and 25°S.

It’s also clear that the albedo in the southern polar regions is much higher than that of the northern polar regions. To investigate the effects of that difference on the radiation datasets, I decided to re-do Figure 5, the radiation by latitude, and look at the differences between June and December. Figure 6 shows June (darker of each pair of lines) and December (lighter lines) for the TOA solar, reflected, and longwave radiation.

area weighted jun dec toa radiation by latitudeFigure 6. As in Figure 5 (without albedo), but for June and December. For each pair of lines, the darker of the pair is the June data, and the lighter is the December data. The dotted blue line is the reverse (north/south) of the light blue line, and is shown in order to highlight the difference in reflected solar near the poles.

OK, so here we finally can see why the shape of the reflected solar data is so wonky. In December, there is much more solar reflection from the Antarctic region, with its very high albedo. December reflections at 70°S are about 500 TW/°. On the other hand, in June at 70°N the reflections are much smaller, only about 350 TW/°. As a result, when these regions swing into and out of view of the sun, we get large differences in reflected sunlight.

But the real surprise for me in Figure 6 was the upwelling longwave. The downwelling and reflected solar profiles are quite different from June to December … but to my shock, the upwelling longwave hardly changes at all. Say what? Heck, in the extra-tropical southern hemisphere there’s almost no difference at all in longwave radiation over the year … why so little change in either hemisphere?

And that, to me is the joy of science—not knowing which bush hides the rabbit … or the tiger.

Finally, Figure 7 shows the TOA net radiation imbalance. This is the downwelling solar energy, less what is reflected, less what is radiated.

top of atmosphere toa imbalance ceres global actual loess

Figure 7. Net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance. Note that this is an anomaly, because there is a known error of about a 5 W/m2 difference in the incoming and outgoing CERES radiation data. So while we can use it for trends and standard deviations, it cannot tell us if there is an overall persistent imbalance in the TOA radiation. Positive values show the system gaining energy, and negative values show it losing energy. Panels as in previous figures, showing the data (top panel) along with the seasonal and residual components of the signal.

I see that this has the reverse of the four-month rise, eight-month fall pattern of the reflected data. The TOA imbalance falls for four months, and then rises for eight months.

Once again, however, the most surprising aspect of this net imbalance data is the amazing stability. There is no trend in the data, and the standard deviation of the residuals is only a bit above about half a watt per square metre.

Remember that this is a system that is moving huge, unimaginable amounts of energy, with average downwelling total surface radiation of half a kilowatt, and peak surface solar insolation of about a kilowatt. More importantly, it is a system with the significant albedo variables being nothing more solid than the ephemeral, seasonal, mutable phenomena of clouds, wind, snow, ice, and vegetation.

In such a system, it is something eminently worthy of study that over the thirteen years of the CERES dataset, for reflected solar and upwelling longwave, 95% of the months are within one watt/m2 of the seasonal average. Within one lousy watt! We assuredly do not know all the reasons why that might be so …

Anyhow, thanks for coming along. Looks like the weather forecast for the voyage was about right. 

All the best to each of you,

w.

Standard Proclaimer: If you disagree with something that I or anyone has said, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS that you disagree with. Only then can we understand what it is you object to.

[UPDATE]:

DATA AND CODE: The code is in a zipped folder here. Unzip it and put the individual files into the workspace. You’ll also need the CERES TOA data in the same workspace (WARNNG: 230 Mbytes). The main file is called “Three Clocks.R”, I think it’s all turnkey.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ssat
March 9, 2014 7:51 am

Note that this is an anomaly, because there is a known error of about a 5 W/m2 difference in the incoming and outgoing CERES radiation data.

With no trend over 13 years while CO2 upward trend continues, this suggests that the measurement error is a miscalculation and that the TOA anomaly is identical to the true TOA imbalance.
And if so, the variables for increasing CO2 are (decreasing) average emissivity and (increasing) average radiating height with the latter causing higher BOA temperatures due to lapse rate.

Tom in Florida
March 9, 2014 7:52 am

Kate Forney says:
March 9, 2014 at 7:28 am
“I ask this because I have some suspicion about medically-recommended metrics such as cholesterol, blood pressure and the obviously flawed Body Mass Index, which must be at best only rough guides, yet doctors seem to hesitate little in recommending powerful medications in the hope of adjusting observed values, with what seems to be an incomplete, at best, understanding of the underlying process. ”
==========================================================================
If I may give you some insight I developed as a former physician recruiter. Keep in mind this is not every single doctor but the general practice of AMA trained MDs is to treat the symptom first. Kind of like continuing to put speedy dry on a wet floor without first turning off the spigot. I have found that DOs, Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, are trained in a different approach which is to focus on the cause first. Please do not confuse these fine doctors with homeopaths or herbal medicine. I have had similar experiences as you with MDs (again not all) who want to immediately prescribe a medication. I now seek out DOs and use them unless one is not available.
I want to say once again, this is a general statement and not a criticism of individual MDs.

March 9, 2014 8:02 am

Thanks, Willis. A fantastic day-trip into little-explored oceans of knowledge.
Does your CERES data analysis reveal a new cycle?
“it rises quickly for four months, then falls for eight months, and repeats.”

David C. Greene
March 9, 2014 8:17 am

This is an excellent presentation, a rarity in current “scientific” discourse. I can only add another question: Is the radio-thermal energy that drives volcanoes and geysers so insignificant that it is not part of this discussion?

March 9, 2014 8:24 am

Willis,
Always enjoy and look forward to reading your posts on WUWT (including this one).
But in this analysis you remain silent on how you have computed the “seasonal component” for all 3 datasets (filtering, average removal, curve fitting, modelling?). Details matter greatly when looking at small residuals from large signals…
Nevertheless, I always learn new and important “data facts” from your posts, such as: the long term (>10 years) variations of the solar constant are around 1/5th of a W/m2.
Many thanks

Nylo
March 9, 2014 8:34 am

Willis, I know of another popular climate change related graphic which goes up and down during the year, but for different lengths of time: that of the CO2 at Mauna Loa. It peaks in May, and bottoms in October. That’s 7 months up, followed by 5 months down. Very similar to the upwelling radiation cycle, which is 7 months up, 5 months down, but with the changes 2 months after, July and December instead of May and October.
Now, looking at your graphic, the 5 months in which CO2 goes down in Mauna Loa are the 5 months in which the seasonal component of the upwelling radiation cycle is above 0 W/m2. Despite we are told that the annual variation of CO2 is mostly due to the cooling and warming of southern oceans, releasing and taking CO2, this seems to suggest something else. CO2 is reduced when the upwelling radiation is highest. And upwelling radiation is highest when the planet is hotter. Although the southern oceans do cool and warm in opposite cycles to that of the rest of the planet, their cycle is not 5 months up – 7 months down, and the peaks are NOT happening in May and October. So it looks to me that the biosphere’s photosinthesis cycle is much more important for the CO2 cycle than the cooling and warming of southern oceans.
Now there is an interesting thing about the CO2 cycle in Mauna Loa that I observed a long time ago. We all know that CO2 is increasing at an increasingly faster rate. This is logical, because we are increasing our CO2 emissions all the time. But I wondered if this was happening in the same way at all times of the year. Given that we have increased our emissions throughout all the year (the increase of our emissions between May-October is similar to the increase between October-May), we should see a similar effect through the year. I.e. if we are now gaining about 1,5 ppm more per year than we were at the beginning of Mauna Loa measurements (we used to gain 1 ppm in the 50’s and we are now gaining between 2 and 2,5 ppm per year), this should mean roughly 0.85 higher increase during the months it increases (October-May) and about 0.65 lower reduction during the months it reduces (May-October). But we don’t see that. The CO2 reduction between May-October is still the same that it used to be in the 50’s: around 5 ppm. It is the increase from October-May the only one that is changing, from around 6 ppm then to around 7.5 ppm now.
How is it possible that, despite we are sending a much greater ammount of CO2 to the atmosphere between May and October than we did in the 50’s, the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere in those months is still reducing in the same ammount as it did in the 50’s, whereas the CO2 increase from October to May has indeed changed quite a lot? The only logical explanation is that the biosphere has kept up to the game in those months, which are the months of NH greening. We are sending a lot more of CO2, but the plants are sequestering it also a lot more… during the time of the year that they can do it: May-October. Plants so far have kept up to the game during their season, the problem is the limited ammount of time during the year that they can do so.

piercello
March 9, 2014 8:50 am

Missing word:
“To investigate the effects of that difference on , I decided to re-do Figure 5,”
located in the ¶ just prior to fig. 6.
Another nice post, with particularly fine clarity in the captions accompanying the figures. Well done!
[Thanks, fixed the lacuna, much appreciated. w.-]

3x2
March 9, 2014 9:13 am

Mike Flynn says: March 9, 2014 at 1:14 am
Willis,
I note you have not responded to charles nelson. […]

What you need to keep in mind is that the ‘net’ might well be international but people are not. Time differences alone account for responses or lack thereof but don’t forget that people also have lives outside WUWT. Willis could be out on a picnic with his family right now for all I know.
I remember someone, years ago when I was one of the first to post under a particular article, suggesting that some of us need to ‘get a life’. The assumption was that I was hanging around on WUWT at some silly hour waiting to post. Truth was that it was 8am on a lovely English Autumn (Fall) morning. I would not have expected a response from Anthony as it was probably way after midnight in California and he was probably in bed fast asleep.
Grab an “international clock app”. Willis in California, JoNova in AUS. You elsewhere.

Crispin in Waterloo
March 9, 2014 9:17 am

@Willis
I really need to save and share your Figures 5 and 6 but please turn them 90 degrees left putting the Latitude on the bottom, and add a new left axis scale 0-100 for the Emissivity. Then remove the “times 10”. I want it to match other sorts of presentations of input and output and temperature such as those in Lord Monckton’s hotspot paper (which are relevant to your observation). Obviously I have no way to reproduce them myself.
The findings (plural) are very interesting and your observations about them appear valid.

John A
March 9, 2014 9:25 am

Willis,
Can you explain why the reflected solar peaks before the incoming solar and bottoms out after the incoming solar (figure 1). It’s a bit of a head-scratcher for me…

O. Olson
March 9, 2014 10:12 am

I love this stuff. And to Willis’ credit I understand nearly all of his posts even without the benefit of a university degree.
But just for the sake of clarity, in the paragraph above Fig. 6 I assume you meant “June” and December?
“, I decided to re-do Figure 5, the radiation by latitude, and look at the differences between July and December. Figure 6 shows July (darker of each pair of lines) and December (lighter lines) for the TOA solar, reflected, and longwave radiation.”
“Figure 6. As in Figure 5 (without albedo), but for June and December. For each pair of lines, the darker of the pair is the June data, and the lighter is the December data. The dotted blue line is the reverse (north/south) of the light blue line, and is shown in order to highlight the difference in reflected solar near the poles.”
[Good catch, thanks, fixed. -w.]

John Law
March 9, 2014 10:58 am

Willis, it looks like you and the IPCC are on different planets!

March 9, 2014 11:08 am

I think you would find such plots more informative if you did them by region rather than as global averages. Work with the polar regions where solar input of energy is being delivered by wind and water, and OLR is being restricted by the least amout of water vapor and possibly (but not likely) by CO2.

March 9, 2014 11:48 am

Something’s not quite right here Willis – or it could be something wrong somewhere else, of course.
Fig. 2 “Top Of Atmosphere(TOA) Solar Radiation” is shown to vary, during the year, from approx. a bit more than 350 to a bit less than 330 W/m². But in my book TOA Solar Radiation should be 4 times as much, namely an average of ca. 1368 W/m².
Just ask the boys who insist on dividing the Solar Constant by 4 so they can average it all so that as long as we accept that to be right, we’ll never find out what really happens. – But that’s another story – which we have touched on before.
I have only glanced at other comments so far and somebody may have mentioned this already.

Matthew R Marler
March 9, 2014 12:27 pm

fhhaynie: I think you would find such plots more informative if you did them by region rather than as global averages. Work with the polar regions where solar input of energy is being delivered by wind and water, and OLR is being restricted by the least amout of water vapor and possibly (but not likely) by CO2.
That would be nice, but too much of the reflected sunlight is not reflected straight up If it can be done at all it requires solving a complicated set of simultaneous equations as in a CAT scan — but measurements of different regions are made hours apart. That’s my understanding — please correct me if I am wrong.
Willis, another interesting read. Thanks.

Reply to  Matthew R Marler
March 9, 2014 1:28 pm

Mathew,
In the dark of winter, there is no direct solar input of energy to the surface to be reflected. The energy is being delivered by currents of air and water. The radiative transfer of energy is all toward space. In summer, the direct radiation from the sun is mostly reflected out to space because of the low angle. The rate of change in skin surface temperature (SST) is a pretty good measure of the amount of radiation absorbed by the frozen surface. The difference between the black body radiation from the surface and OLR at TOA is a measure of the “green house effect” of water vapor, clouds, and possibly CO2.

RACookPE1978
Editor
March 9, 2014 3:01 pm

Hmmmn.
To focus on specific questions:
1.

First, the solar input. Although a lot of folks talk about the “solar constant”, over the course of the year the sun is anything but constant. Because the Earth’s orbit is not circular, annually the Earth moves closer and further from the sun. This gives an annual change of about 22 W/m2, with a high point in early January and a low point exactly six months later in early July. So that’s one clock—peaks in January, bottoms out in July, six months rise, six months fall.

I am very willing to be corrected, but I have long understood that the true solar TOA value is
TOA (day-of-year) =TSI*(1+0.0342*(COS(2*3.141*((DOY-3)/365))))
Where TSI = 1361 Watts/m^2 per Lief’s latest note to us here at WUWT) and
the 2*pi/365 formats the cosine curve into Excel’s radian format.
Maximum is 3 January at 1410 watts/m^2
Minimum is 5 July at 1314 watts/m^2.
Given that both the maximum and minimum are rather “slow” changes, obviously January is “high” over a period of a slowly changing peak of about 4 weeks, and July is the minimum at the same slowly changing 4 week “low point.”
1A. Earth’s albedo: Almost all of the earth’s land surface is in the northern hemisphere, which is being irradiated according to the solstices’ variation points: “Zero” on March 22 and Sept 22 (or thereabouts) and maximum southern tilt on Dec 22 (southern end exposed to the sun) and June 22 (northern end exposed to the sun.) Note that these dates “ALMOST” – but not quite! – mimic the minimum and maximum solar exposures! (The change from peak northern and southern hemisphere exposure and peak TOA values is said to be an important part of the overall cycle changes that cause Ice Age buildups.)
2. Although sunlight at TOA is a geometric function of declination angle and the earth’s tilt and year-long rotation period, the “heat absorbed” and the final earth temperature (proportional to the re-radiated long-wave radiation measured at CERES) is going to be more like the daily earth temperature record.
And, each day, the earth’s actual hourly temperature repeats that same cycle: Maximum NOT at maximum solar exposure (12:00 noon) and minimum at least solar exposure (24:00 or 0:00 hours) but maximum slightly afternoon (14:00 hours) and minimum just before dawn at 4:00 – 5:00 AM). The hourly temperature change is most definitely NOT a simple sine or cosine wave differential from the easy solar cycle!
Now, “translate” each of 24 hours into a 12 month cycle.
For the north, final temperatures will be most like the “land” temperatures we recognize above. Maximum solar exposure in late June at latitude +23.5 degrees, and, naturally, one “hour” later (or 2/24 months later) would be Mid-July to early August for maximum temperatures in the north, right? Maximum land temperatures => maximum long-wave radiation outbound, right?
Now, for the soutehrn end.
The maximum solar exposure is 22 December, but maximum solar oputput – the +1.5% increase above in TOA value above – occurs slightly later on 3 Janury.
But, of all the land area down south, South America and Africa are themselves in the northern hemisphere for a good part of their land mass. (Africa in particular – the Equator cuts under the Sahara; India is all northern hemisphere, and as much as I hold the OZZIES and NEZZIES in high regard, neither is very large. And almost NO southern land mass has any ice caps except the few Andes peaks.) Thus, Antarctic’s total ice area (at sea ice maximum) is 14.0 (land area) + 3.5 (ice shelves) + 19.5 (sea ice) = 37.0 Mkm^2 of reflective surface. At minimum sea ice, 14.0 Mkm^2 + 3.5 + 3.5 Mkm^2 = 21.0 Mkm^2 of sea ice down south.
Larger than all of the rest of the southern land areas combined.
To compare, up north, at minimum, sea ice is about 3.0 Mkm^2 (all above 78-80 north latitude) and 14.0 Mkm^2 at maximum, all above 72 north latitude. (At maximum, there is a bunch of land ice as well.) The Great Lakes, Baltic Ocean, Bering Straits, etc. But much, much less northern ice in all.
So, total land area in the southern hemisphere = 35 Mkm^2 of “land” albedo at 0.30 and 37.0 Mkm^2 of “ice albedo” at 0.83 (at maximum sea ice) and about 21.0 “ice” albedo (at minimum sea ice). Total southern hemisphere area = 514 Mkm^2.
Thus, would you not “expect” the southern hemisphere to “reflect” this tremendous mismatch in solar heat storage? That 475 difference in ocean albedo od 0.065 plus its thermal inertia would keep the southern land hemisphere very, very slow to respond to solar exposure changes.
Thus, I would almost question the CERES results if they did not have different cycles at different peak times.

Doug Jones
March 9, 2014 4:08 pm

Crispin in Waterloo wrote:

I really need to save and share your Figures 5 and 6 but please turn them 90 degrees left putting the Latitude on the bottom, and add a new left axis scale 0-100 for the Emissivity.

A simple trick (not found in Nature)- open the image in a new window, then ctrl-alt-(left arrow).
ctrl-alt-(up-arrow) to return to normal.

RACookPE1978
Editor
March 9, 2014 4:26 pm

John A says:
March 9, 2014 at 9:25 am (replying to)
Willis,
Can you explain why the reflected solar peaks before the incoming solar and bottoms out after the incoming solar (figure 1). It’s a bit of a head-scratcher for me…

The rotating sphere but slowly titling-back-and-forth-3D geometry under a slowly changing solar exposure at TOA is a bit complex, but there is no particular reason why the reflected energy should ever peak near the yearly radiation TOA dates.
Let’s look at the 22nd of each month, starting on Dec 22.
Dec 22, day-of-year = 357. Radiation at TOA high at 1406 watts/m^2, but NOT yet at its maximum. Earth’s tilt at a maximum towards the south pole, but southern sea ice at 10.4 Mkm^2 is not yet at its minimum. (Total southern ice about 28.0 Mkm^2, edge of southern sea ice in 2013 about -62.9 degrees south.) Northern sea ice and much of its northern land ice is still in the dark nearly all of every 24 hours.
Jan 22, day-of-year =22. Radiation past its peak at 1405 watts/M^2 -> still very high. Earth’s tilt reducing towards zero, but still strongly to the south pole. Northern sea ice all in the dark, northern land ice about 50-50 in the dark all the time. Southern sea ice not yet at its minimum in 2013 at 4.6 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 22.1 Mkm^2; edge is at latitude -65.9.
Feb 22, day-of-year = 53. Radiation at TOA decreasing from its peak at 1391 watts/m^2 but still above the yearly average value of 1361. Northern sea ice is just beginning to see some daylight once each day at noon. Northern sea ice still increasing (land ice area about the same as before) at 15.3 Mkkm^2 (2012 data). Southern sea ice near its minimum for the year at 3.9 Mkm^2, total southern sea ice also near minimum (obviously) at 21.4 Mkm^2, edge of southern sea ice about -66.4 latitude.
Mar 22, day-of-year = 82. Radiation down to near “yearly average” at 1371 watts/m^2. Earth’s tilt = 0, Northern and southern hemispheres getting equal hours of sunlight at last. Northern sea ice nearing its maximum now (much later than southern sea ice’s minimum date!) at 15.1 Mkm^2 at latitude 70.5 north. Northern land ice melting in temperature latitudes, still strong further north across Canada and Siberia and Alaska. Further south, northern land areas beginning to green up and grow darker. Southern sea ice growing now 5.5 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 23.0 Mkm*2, edge of southern sea ice at – 65.5 latitude.
April 22, day-of-year = 113. Radiation continues to decrease towards mid-summer minimum at 1347 watts/m^2. Tilt going towards the north pole. Northern sea ice just past its maximum, now at 14.1 Mkm^2, with a southern edge at 70.9 latitude. Most of the northern land ice is melted, some remains in the Arctic shores. Southern sea ice is increasing, now 8.3 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 25.8 Mkm^2, edge = -64.0 south latitude but it is still getting considerable solar exposure every day.
May 22, day of year = 143. Radiation at TOA now down to 1326 watts/m^2. Northern sea ice decreasing from 12.6 Mkm^2, northern edge = 71/9 latitude, almost no land ice at all across Siberia and Canada. Southern sea ice increasing, now at 11.66 Mkm^2, total southern ice now 29.2 Mkm^2, but much of the southern ice is not exposed to the sun most of the day. Maximum sun elevation at the edge of southern sea ice at latitude -62.3 is only 7.2 degrees at noon.
June 22, day-of-year = 174. Radiation still decreasing, but near its low point at 1315 watts/m^2. Northern sea ice decreasing at 10.2 Mkm^2, edge at latitude 73.7 degrees north, but it is exposed all day. No northern land ice to speak of. Southern sea ice increasing, now at 14.8 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 32.3 Mkm^2. Maximum earth tilt AWAY from the southern sea ice, but the edge of that southern sea ice = -60.8 latitude and the solar elevation at noon = 5.7 degrees, so some energy is still being reflected in the southern hemisphere.
July 22, day-of-year = 204. Radiation at TOA is past its lowest point, but just barely at 1317 watts/m^2. More importantly, northern sea ice albedo is now near its yearly low due to melt ponds, acculumated dirt and soot, and the lack of much fresh snow since May. Judith Curry’s measurements show mid-summer northern sea ice albedo at only 0.46 over June-July, far down from the mid-winter maximum of 0.83 albedo. Thus, both northern sea ice and northern ocean water at low solar elevation angles are nearly the same this timeof year! Northern sea ice is still exposed to 24 hours of sun, but its edge is at 76.3 latitude and is headed north rapidly as area decreases, at noon the sun is now only 33.2 solar elevation angle, northern sea ice area = only 7.4 Mkm^2. Southern sea ice increasing, and sun’s tilt is coming back towards the south pole, but is still to the northern hemisphere. Southern sea ice = 17.3 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 34.8 Mkm^2 with an edge at -59.7 degrees latitude. SEA at noon is now 10.0 above the horizon, and that angle will continue to increase.
22 Aug, day-of-year = 235. TOA radiation up to 1330 watts/m^2 but it is still below the yearly average. Northern sea ice now down to only 5.2 Mkm^2 in 2012, edge at latitude 78.5. Highest SEA now only 21.7 degrees at noon. Southern sea ice now up to 19.03 Mkm^2, total southern ice = 36.5 Mkm^2 at latitude -59.0 latitude, so both are nearing their maximum for the year, but are not yet at it. Southern sea ice at the edge is now getting 19.3 SEA degrees above the horizon.
Sept 22, day-of-year = 266 – the most intersting day of the year! Radiaiton at TOA is now close to the yearly average: 1352 watts/m^2. Northern sea ice at its yearly minimum – in 2012 that was 4.0 Mkm^2 ice extents. Maybe a little bit of northern land ice, but very, very little. Earth’s tilt back to 0.0, both poles exposed to 12 hours of sun, both get 12 hours of darkness. Southern sea ice approaching its maximum at 19.6 Mkm^2, total area = 37.1 Mkm^2, edge of the southern sea ice = -58.7 latitude in 2013. Southern sea ice is has 30.7 solar SEA at noon, Arctic sea ice now only has 10.7 SEA at noon. Thus, at noon, the “newly melted” Arctic ocean surface is exposed to only 108 Watts/m^2 at sea level; but every meter of that 1.9 million “excess” Antarctic sea ice (excess over the yearly “normal” in September) is exposed to 501 Watts/m^! A 5 to 1 ratio of Antarctic to Arctic exposure per square meter on the same day of year!
Oct 22, day-of-year = 296. The earth’s tilt is to the south, moving more towards the south pole every day. Northern land ice is increasing, but northern sea ice is in darkness even at noon at latitude 76.2 at a total of 7.4 Mkm^2. Southern sea ice is still near maximum (at maximum on some years) at 18.7 Mkm^2 sea ice, 36.2 total ice, with a sea ice edge at latitude -59.1. At noon, even though the Arctic sea ice is in the dark, the southern sea ice is sees 42.0 degrees SEA, and received a total 723 watts/m^2 at noon. At that SEA, 128 watts are absorbed by the sea ice, and 595 watts are reflected back into space to cool the planet. Regardless of how much (or how little) Arctic ocean water is exposed by melting sea ice from the “normal” there is no sunlight to heat the ocean water, and cooling increases because of greater open ocean evaporation, convection losses, and radiation losses.

DonV
March 9, 2014 6:50 pm

Willis, Looking at this data what struck me was that it looks a lot like sound does on an oscilloscope. Unfortunately it is filter sound. It is only the sound put out by the sub-sub-sub woofer. If the weather engine is set up to self-regulate on a day or even hourly time scale, that “sound” is the real music that is being played out every day, that would have all the interesting bits in it. That is the sound that shows just how self-stabilizing the whole climate system is. If we had a musical picture of the hourly, daily, monthly and then annual symphony we would most likely see regular oscillation that continuously self corrected and therefore really CAN’T go into thermaggedon by 1% changes in the contribution by a gas farter in the back row named CO2.