Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The CERES satellite dataset is a never-ending source of amazement and interest. I got to thinking about how much energy is actually stoking the immense climate engine. Of course, virtually all the energy comes from the sun. (There is a bit of geothermal, but it’s much less than a watt per square metre on average so we can ignore it for this type of analysis).
So let’s start from the start, at the top of the atmosphere. Here’s the downwelling top of atmosphere (TOA) solar energy for the northern and the southern hemisphere:
Figure 1. Top of atmosphere (TOA) downwelling solar energy. This is averaged on a 24/7 basis over the entire surface of the earth.
However, we don’t get all of that energy. Much of it is reflected back into space. So I took the CERES solar data and I subtracted the reflected solar. The reflected solar is the total upwelling sunshine at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that has been reflected from the clouds, the aerosols, the soil, the plants, the ice, and the ocean. The TOA solar minus the TOA upwelling solar reflections is the amount of energy available to heat the planet. Here’s the amount of available solar energy around the world.
Figure 2. Map of the global distribution of average available solar energy. This is the solar energy remaining after albedo reflection of part of the incoming sunshine back into space.
Once I had the available energy, I subtracted out the seasonal variations. These are the changes that repeat year after year. Removing these repeating signals leaves only the small variations due to irregular changes in the amount of the reflections. (There is also a very small sunspot-related variation in the incoming solar of about a quarter of a W/m2 on a global 24/7 basis. It is included in these calculations, but makes no practical difference).
So here is the first look at how much energy is available to drive the great planet-wide heat engine that we call the climate, divided by hemispheres:
Figure 3. TOA solar and available solar after albedo reflections. Solar is about 340 W/m2, and about a hundred W/m2 of that are reflected back out to space.
Bear in mind that the amount of energy that enters the climate system after albedo reflections is a function of highly variable ice, snow, and clouds … and despite that, there is only very little variation over either time or space. Year after year, somehow the clouds and the ice and the snow all basically balance out, northern and southern hemispheres … why?
As you can see above, the available solar energy in two hemispheres are so near to each other that I’ve had to make the line representing the southern hemisphere narrower than that for the northern hemisphere so that you can see both. To see the two separately we need to zoom in close, as shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Available TOA solar energy after albedo reflections, northern and southern hemispheres.
Now, I noticed a few curiosities about this graph. One is that despite the great difference between the northern hemisphere (more land, lots of mid-and-high-latitude ice and snow) and the southern hemisphere (more ocean, little midlatitude land or ice or snow), the amount of average incoming energy is within a half a watt (NH = 240.6 W/m2, SH = 241.1 W/m2, black and red dashed horizontal lines)
Second, the two hemispheres generally move in parallel. They increased to 2003 – 2004, stayed about level to 2013 – 2014, and then increased again.
Third, there’s about an apparent lag between the northern and southern hemispheres. Now, I thought well, that makes sense … but then I realized that there is no annual signal left in the data. And I checked, there’s no six-month signal left in the data either. Not only that, but up until about 2011 the south moves before the north, but after that, the north is moving first. Again … why?
Gotta love the joys of settled science …
In any case, I then wanted to compare the variations in available energy with the variations in surface temperature. Now the CERES dataset doesn’t contain surface temperature. However, it contains a dataset of surface upwelling radiation, sometimes called “radiation temperature” because it varies as the fourth power of temperature. Figure 5 shows the monthly changes in TOA downwelling available solar radiation, compared to surface upwelling radiation.
Figure 5. Scatterplot, surface radiation temperatures (upwelling longwave radiation) versus TOA average available solar energy. Each dot represents the situation in a 1° latitude x 1° longitude gridcell, covering the entire planet. So there are 64,800 dots in the graph above.
So … what is happening in this scatterplot? Obviously, what’s happening depends on the temperature … and maybe more. To understand it, let me give you the same data, divided by hemisphere and by land versus ocean. To start with, here’s what might be the most revealing graph, that of the land in the southern hemisphere.
Figure 6. Scatterplot, southern hemisphere land-only surface radiation temperatures (upwelling longwave radiation) versus TOA average available solar energy.
On the right we have we have the southern parts of Africa and South America … and on the left, we have Antarctica. You can clearly see the different responses between what happens below and above freezing.
Next, here’s the land in the northern hemisphere.
Figure 7. Scatterplot, northern hemisphere land-only surface radiation temperatures (upwelling longwave radiation) versus TOA average available solar energy.
There isn’t anywhere in the northern hemisphere that the land gets as cold as Antarctica. In part, this is because the South Pole is land and the North Pole is water, and in part because much of Antarctica is a high elevation perpetually frozen plateau.
What all of this shows is that the response of the planetary surface to increasing solar radiation is in part a function of temperature. The colder the average temperature, the more the system responds to increasing solar radiation.
With that in mind, I took Figure 5 and calculated the slope of just the part of the world that on average is not frozen. Figure 8 shows that result.
Figure 8. As in Figure 5, and including the trend of the unfrozen parts of the globe.
Now, I found this to be a most curious graph. Here’s the curiosity. The greenhouse effect is the reason that the surface of the planet is warmer than we’d expect from simple calculations of the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth. This is because the greenhouse gases absorb the upwelling surface radiation, and when they radiate, about half of the radiation goes up, and half goes back towards the earth. As a result, the earth ends up warmer than it would be otherwise.
If the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” were 100% perfect, for every additional watt per square metre (W/m2) of sunlight entering the system, the surface would radiate two W/m2—one W/m2 from the sunlight, and one W/m2 from the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. Based on the ratio of the incoming radiation and the radiation from the surface, we can say that the overall greenhouse multiplier factor of the perfect greenhouse is 2.0. (See my post The Steel Greenhouse for a discussion of this.)
Of course, in a real world, the multiplier factor will be less. We know what the long-term overall average multiplier factor for the planet is. We can calculate it by dividing the overall average upwelling longwave radiation from the surface by the overall average available solar energy. The average upwelling surface longwave radiation is 398 W/m2, and the average available solar energy is 240 W/m2. This gives a greenhouse multiplier factor of 398 / 240 = 1.66.
And that’s the curiosity because in Figure 8 the average multiplier factor is 0.72, well below 1.0. Because this multiplier is less than one, it would imply that the world should be much colder than it is …
How can we resolve this apparent contradiction? To me, it is evidence of something that I have said for many years. This is that the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the amount of downwelling radiation is not a constant as is assumed by mainstream climate scientists. Instead, it is a function of temperature. At temperatures above freezing, the surface upwelling radiation increases by about three-quarters of a W/m2 for each additional W/m2 of incoming solar radiation.
But when the earth is quite cold, such as is the case in Antarctica, the surface temperature is much more responsive to changes in incoming radiation. Here’s the situation in Antarctica:
Figure 9. As in Figure 8, but showing the situation in Antarctica
Note that this sensitivity is not a result of the land ice on Antarctica melting and changing the albedo. Almost all of Antarctica is frozen year-round.
Now, there is one other way we can look at this situation. We’ve looked above in Figures 5 to 9 at the long-term, basically steady-state situation shown by the average state of the 68,400 one-degree by one-degree gridcells that make up the surface of the planet. However, instead of the steady-state long-term average shown above, we can also look at how things change over time. Figure 10 shows the change in time of the anomaly in temperature over the period of the CERES satellite observations, as compared to the anomaly in average TOA solar energy.
Figure 10. Monthly surface longwave and TOA solar radiation.
You can see that other than the jumps in surface radiation due to the warm El Nino events of 2009/10 and 2016/17, there is a close relationship between available sunshine. A cross-correlation analysis (not shown) verifies that there is no lag between the changes in the solar input and the surface response.
We can also determine the nature of the short-term relationship between these two variables by using a scatterplot, as shown in Figure 11 below:
Figure 11. Scatterplot, monthly averages of available top-of-atmosphere available solar energy and surface upwelling longwave radiation.
As we would expect, the trend is smaller in the short-term data monthly changes shown in Figure 11 than the trend in the longer-term gridcell average data shown in Figure 8 (0.58 versus 0.72 W/m2 surface change per W/m2 solar input change).
CONCLUSIONS:
• Overall, the response of the non-frozen surface to increasing solar radiation is an average increase of about 0.7 W/m2 of upwelling surface radiation for each 1 W/m2 increase in available solar energy.
• Below freezing, this response increases with decreasing temperature, until at typical Antarctic temperatures of -20°C to -60°C the response is about 5 W/m2 for each 1 W/m2 increase in available solar energy.
• Per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, the change in surface temperature corresponding to a 1 W/m2 change in surface longwave radiation ranges from 0.2°C per W/m2 at 0°C, to 0.16°C per W/m2 at about 30°C.
• Given a change of 0.7 W/m2 for a 1 W/m2 change in incoming solar energy, this would indicate a temperature change in the unfrozen part of the planet of from 0.11°C per additional W/m2 at 30°C, to 0.16°C per additional W/m2 at 0°C.
• The increased downwelling radiation estimated for a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2. Ceteris paribus, this would indicate that if solar radiation increased by 3.7 W/m2, we would see a temperature increase of 0.4°C to 0.6°C depending on the surface temperature.
• Finally, as a side note, the average change in TOA downwelling total solar irradiance (TSI) due to the change in sunspot activity is on the order of 0.26 W/m2 peak to peak (global 24/7 average). However, only 240/340 = 70% of this is available, the rest is reflected back to space. Given the relationship of 0.72 W/m2 surface change per each additional W/m2 of TOA available solar energy, and a maximum temperature change per watt of 0.16 °C per W/m2, this would indicate a maximum effect of 0.26 * 240/340 * 0.72 * 0.16 = 0.02 °C from that change in TOA solar radiation …
It’s a lovely evening here on our hill above the sea, a few clouds, cool air … I wish all of you the joy of this marvelous life.
w.
AS USUAL, I politely ask that when you comment on someone’s words, you QUOTE THEIR WORDS EXACTLY. This is a long and complex post, and misunderstandings are the bane of the intarwebs. The only way for the rest of us to be sure what or who you are talking about is for you to quote their words exactly.
DATA: This is all done with the CERES satellite TOA and Surface datasets, which are available here under the heading:
Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF)
Climate Data Record (CDR) of monthly TOA fluxes and consistent computed surface fluxes and clouds suitable for analysis of variability at the intra-seasonal, inter-annual, and longer time scales.
“The increased downwelling radiation estimated for a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m2.”
It’s not a downwelling radiation. It’s OLR at TOA. Not equivalent
“this would indicate that if solar radiation increased by 3.7 W/m2, we would see a temperature increase of 0.4°C to 0.6°C depending on the surface temperature.”
It’s not TCR or ECS since it’s not TOA fluxes.
Willis,
Let me test my understanding here. Your conclusions are a bit opaque to me, no doubt my flaw.
I think that you are saying that this is evidence that for a doubling of CO2, with all other things being equal, we should expect no more than a 0.6°C increase in surface temperature in the coldest regions, 0.4°C in the warmest. The significance of that would be that the CAGW orthodoxy claims we would see 3°C or at least 1.5°C for a doubling of CO2.
Is that the correct take-away?
If so, it seems that an 8-fold increase in CO2 from the current 410ppm to 3280ppm, or a doubling, then a doubling again, and then a further doubling, would increase surface temperatures by about 1.8°C in the coldest regions, and 1.2°C in the warmest. The penguins would enjoy a heat wave from -30°C up to -28.2°C, melting nary an ice cube. In the tropics, a 30°C day might become a 31.2°C day. And even then, in the tropics a little more cloud cover will form from the increased evaporation, potentially reducing the rise (an example of not all things being equal).
Yep.
w.
Oh, where to start?
There is not 240 SW available at the surface, only 160 because of the reflection + maybe 40 indirectly as LW, first absorbed by the atmosphere, 200 total. Then the energy transport from the surface is more like 500, evaporation included. So, Gain=500/200=2.5 not 1.66
And this is only the beginning…
lgl May 6, 2018 at 7:50 am
There are many ways to measure gain in the system. On the input side you could look at the gain from TOA solar, from TOA solar after albedo reflections, or from TOA solar after albedo reflections and atmospheric absorption. On the output side you could look at total radiation, only radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere, total radiation plus sensible heat, total radiation plus sensible and latent heat.
I picked one combination. You may want to pick another. I encourage you to do so, and come back with your results and graphs written up for us to examine and discuss.
w.
Well, I don’t have your skills, nor your tools, and don’t know where to find the latent heat during CERES period, so I have used another dataset. http://virakkraft.com/Net_SW-vs-Total_Up_surface.pdf
lgl May 6, 2018 at 1:14 pm
lgl, I started to replicate that and I realized that you have the same variable in both the numerator and the denominator. You’ve shown absorbed solar at the surface versus “LWup+Latent+Sensible”, which is the total energy lost from the surface.
But in a steady-state condition, total surface energy lost must equal total surface energy gained … and total surface energy gained is the sum of absorbed solar and absorbed longwave ± advection.
So what you are showing is absorbed solar over (absorbed solar plus absorbed longwave ± advection) … generally, I try to avoid including the same variable in the numerator and the denominator. It leads to an apparent relationship where none may exist, and tends to produce straighter lines …
Best regards, and if you produced that graphic I’d say you do have skills and tools …
w.
PS—the CERES data doesn’t contain a latent heat or a sensible heat loss dataset.
And because Total_up=Total _absorbed the amplification of the solar input is Total_up over Solar_absorbed OR Total_absorbed over Solar_absorbed. Doesn’t change the fact that the amplification is around 2.5
lgl May 6, 2018 at 3:27 pm
I say again:
Next, regarding your graph, here’s the issue. Suppose I set x to uniform random numbers from 0 to 100, with “uniform” meaning that they are picked at random from within that interval.
Next I set y to 100 random normal numbers with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 10. You’ll agree that there is no relationship between the two groups of random numbers x and y.
Now let me do what you did, and plot (x + y) against x … or in your case, (total longwave absorbed + total solar absorbed) versus (total solar absorbed). Here’s the R computer code and the result:
x = runif(100, 0, 100)
y = rnorm(100, sd = 10)
plot(x + y ~ x)
As you can see, despite the fact that there is absolutely no relationship between the two groups of random numbers x and y, graphing them that way gives the strong impression that such a relationship exists.
And this is what you’ve done in your graph.
w.
Doesn’t matter. I have plotted the initial or “raw” input versus the resulting input, and that is the amplification.
This is probably over your head, but, the Trenberth cartoon is just fundamentally meaningless. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to direct radiation, not to averaged radiation. Dividing 1366 W/m2 by 24/7 renders any subsequent Stefan-Boltzmann calculation physically MEANINGLESS.
Just because some piker at NASA does it too, don’t drink the Kool-Aid, it is not real. What really happens is far more complex. Averaging radiation by 24/7 is not what the Sun does, and is not what the atmosphere does, not even close.
“This is because the greenhouse gases absorb the upwelling surface radiation, and when they radiate, about half of the radiation goes up, and half goes back towards the earth. As a result, the earth ends up warmer than it would be otherwise.”
When CO2 absorbs LWIR it immediately thermalizes it, except high in the atmosphere where pressure is much lower.
The logarithmic effect of CO2 is essentially saturated at concentrations far below the 400 ppm we have today. CO2’s significant effect is at the TOA, where it increases the altitude at which the atmosphere can radiate freely to space, thus decreasing the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates freely, thus increasing the heat content of the atmosphere. The magnitude of this effect has never been successfully calculated.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
Michael Moon: When CO2 absorbs LWIR it immediately thermalizes it, except high in the atmosphere where pressure is much lower.
Surely that could do with some elaboration. The amount thermalized must be a monotonic function of pressure — is that function known? And is it, as I suppose, monotonic? How “high” in the atmosphere must one ascend to find the region where more than 25% is radiated? Though not dense, there is a lot of CO2 from that level upwards. And if that level is not too cold, there is a lot of H2O from that level upwards as well.
Michael Moon May 6, 2018 at 7:52 am
Sorry, stopped reading your comment right there, although the reason why I did so appears to be over your head …
w.
Yeah I started to quote the same words and was going to ask how Mr Moon thinks there could be any hope of discussion after that lead in. But it seemed like a waste of time.
Well, to be fair, most of the atmosphere is over our heads.
Mostly.
I have mentioned this flaw in the Trenbeth cartoon once or twice before, but it seems to be the Zombie Graph, unkillable. Anyone on here who uses this flawed concept of averaging the incident radiation on the Earth’s surface and then using this average in a calculation involving Stefan-Boltzmann has demonstrated his or her ignorance of physics. S-B uses the fourth power of temperature, so dividing the flux by 4 and back-calculating a resultant temp is unPhysical.
Michael Moon May 6, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Huh? Yes, S-B uses the fourth power of temperature, but unlike temperature, flux is conserved. So we can indeed average the flux and convert that to an average temperature. What you cannot do is average temperature and convert that to a flux …
I also don’t understand your objection to dividing the (presumably solar) flux by 4. The earth intercepts the sun over an area equal to a circle the size of the earth that is perpendicular to the sunlight. But we are interested in the average solar flux per unit area of the earth’s surface. The area of intersected sunlight is πR^2, and the area of the earth is 4πR^2. So we need to divide the TOA perpendicular sunlight (~1360 W/m2) by 4 to give the average flux per unit area of the surface (~340 W/m2).
Finally, accusations that just about everyone but you is demonstrating their “ignorance of physics” is not the way to get people to listen to you. I stopped reading your previous comment when you claimed that your undeniable genius was “probably over my head” and haven’t looked at it again. And I almost didn’t answer this one because of your further claims that you are so much smarter than everyone. It does NOT further your cause …
w.
Well said Michael.
t’s finally dawned on me that Willis is always ‘averaging’ things that cannot be ‘averaged’ and mis-describing things then ‘measuring’ them (like the PLANET Earth as a black body…chortle) then wheeling out a few formulae which don’t much apply and then applying some meaningless ‘derivatives’ and producing a fuzzy looking graphs.
But let me leave you with these fascinating and useful facts….
Did you realise for example that the average height of a male human being is 5′ 9″ and 3/4?
Or that the global average temperature of a cup of coffee is 152˚F?
it is hardly fair to level that accusation at willis given he is only using the “data” provided by the “experts”.
charles nelson May 6, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Charles, you are revealing yourself a vicious, underhanded person. I specifically asked you to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS you are discussing. Instead, you uncap your electronic pen and start spreading your uncited, unreferenced, slimy excrement around in the futile hope that some of it will stick to me.
Bad news, Charles … it’s your excrement, and it only sticks to you.
Either grow a pair, man up, and quote EXACTLY what you think I did wrong, or go bother some other website. Those kinds of sleazy unsupported nasty accusations are not appreciated here.
w.
PS—A friendly word of warning. Michael has little understanding of what can and cannot be averaged … believe him at your own risk.
Scatter plots representing how the planet responds to solar forcing are very revealing. The plots you have shown here are nearly identical to those I’ve produced from the ISCCP data. Most interesting is identifying what is linear to what, specifically that surface BB emissions are far more linear to total solar forcing then the surface temperature is. Many more scatter plots can be found here:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens
Each link points to a different scatter plot.
Willis Eschenbach, thank you for another enlightening essay.
How well is the reflected light sampled and measured? I am thinking of the light that “glances” off the N and S pole regions and off the oceans right after sunup and right before sundown, and likewise on land when the land is snow-covered. It isn’t reflected back “up” reversing the direction of the rays striking the surface.
matthewrmarler May 6, 2018 at 8:41 am
Thanks for the kind words, Matt, always good to hear from you. As you point out, measuring the albedo is difficult. A satellite can only measure what is reflected back at the satellite, not what is reflected into space at other angles. As a result, a complex algorithm is required to derive an accurate figure. There’s a good description of some of the algorithms and issues here.
Best regards,
w.
Thank you for the link.
Hi Willis,
In establishing your “perfect greenhouse” number of 2 you state, “This is because the greenhouse gases absorb the upwelling surface radiation, and when they radiate, about half of the radiation goes up, and half goes back towards the earth.”
It was my understanding that most of the energy absorbed by the greenhouse gasses is transferred to the non-greenhouse gasses by conduction, not re-radiated in any direction. This then results in a physical transport of the energy upward through conduction and convection where at top of atmosphere greenhouse gasses would facilitate the outgoing radiation.
Thus an increase in greenhouse gasses at bottom of atmosphere would increase the transfer of energy to the non-greenhouse gasses and at top of atmosphere it would increase the rate of energy transfer back to the greenhouse gasses for out radiation with an increased conduction/convection component in the middle. It is not obvious to me what the net effect of that process would be but it seems that the number for a “perfect greenhouse” should be substantially less than 2.
Your thermostat theory of tropical storms would tend to say that you also believe that conduction/convection are major players in the greenhouse. Why should they be ignored here?
Thanks, John. A “perfect greenhouse” is an abstraction that cannot exist in a real atmosphere. The only real example would be the “steel greenhouse” I described in my post of the same name.
As to the tropical storms, they are not ignored. Instead, they are among the main reasons why the surface response to increasing sunlight is so small.
w.
Doesn’t the temperature of Antarctica occasionally dip below the freezing point of carbon dioxide? What happens then? Does it “snow” out of the atmosphere and collect on the surface?
Good question, Mark. There was a discussion of this here on WUWT a while back, hang on … OK, it’s here.
TL;DR version?
No.
w.
My calculations per doubling of CO2 is 0.4C difference. This is based on total energy specific heat content of all the gases in atmosphere. I have submitted paper to Anthony Watts.
Alan
provide us with the link to your study?
I know A@ur momisugly is very strict and your study / paper might not get published.
Upwelling Surface Longwave Radiation
Available Solar Energy After Albedo Reductions
Willis, as the quintessential average joe, i’ve yet to come across the above terminologies. i have heard of the terms Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Absorbed Solar Radiation. Are these terms (OLR & ASR) essentially the same as the terms that you’ve presented? (yes, no, maybe so?)…
Thanx for all your hard work and dedication. i noted your absence in a couple recent solar threads. (i assume that the preparation of this post is the reason why?) It’s quite a piece…
No and no. Outgoing longwave radiation is measured at the top of the atmosphere. Upwelling surface radiation, sometimes called “USR”, is measured at the surface.
Absorbed solar radiation is also measured at the surface. On the other hand, available energy after albedo reflections is measured at the TOA.
As to not posting on the solar threads, it’s partly because of this post, partly because I’ve had house guests, and partly because I get tired of the recurrent abuse I get on solar threads …
w.
PS—my intention is to write for what I call the “scientifically interested layman”, which sounds like your average joe …
i may be wrong, but i could believe this essay of yours is more than capable of being written up and submitted to a journal willis.
bitchilly May 6, 2018 at 3:34 pm
The problem is that if I want to write in the dense, long-paragraph, gothic black-letter style of scientific papers, I feel like I have to grab an icepick and give myself a frontal lobotomy. Then I remember the old saying that goes “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy” and it goes downhill from there …
On a more serious note, I am interested in affecting the course of the scientific discussion regarding climate, and this blog is where a good chunk of that conversation takes place. This post will be read by interested scientists on both side of the question within a few days of me writing it, and it is not paywalled.
Compare that to the impact of publishing this in some relatively obscure scientific journal … I say obscure since a) it’s hard to get skeptical ideas published in the big journals, and b) I have no credentials of any kind, and for unknown reasons the jounals seem to care about that. Well, I do have credentials: a Ham Radio License (H44WE), an Openwater I, Openwater II, and Rescue Diver’s certificate, a Coast Guard Inshore Captain’s License, and the like … but curiously, in the modern scientific world such practical things seem to mean nothing.
And in the arena of scientific credentials, I took exactly two college science classes, Introduction to Physics and Introduction to Chemistry … not impressive.
Now, if there’s someone out there with a PhD who wouldn’t mind doing the writing and sparring with the reviewers, I’d be glad to pair up with them and give them first author position … I worked before with Dr. Craig Loehle on that basis and it came out fine.
Regards,
w.
Willis
Your available solar energy (240 W/m^2) is equal to the absorbed solar radiation. At TOA, available solar energy is 342 W/m^2. At surface, it’s less than 240 W/m^2 due to absorption of the atmosphere
“I get tired of the recurrent abuse I get on solar threads …”
Illegitimi non carborundum est.
P.S. Another great post, keep up the good work.
point taken willis. keep up the great work.
Willis, fig 4 strikes me as perhaps the most significant finding. There is no reason the hemispheres should be in balance. But they are. This points to new science.
This would also be an interesting check to apply to climate models.
Indeed, ferd. See here for Peter Webster’s paper on the subject.
w.
Just one of the many ways in which the GIGO GCMs don’t do clouds. “Parameterization”, ie making stuff up, simply doesn’t cut it.
WOW!
This N-S symmetry is a Big Deal. As is the fact that climate models do not have this symmetry.
Frankly this symmetry calls the entire calls the entire radiative theory of surface temperatures into question.
For this symmetry to exists there MUST be a higher controlling mechanism over and above the radiative process.
In effect this symmetry is like the wobble in a planets orbit that signals there is an as yet undiscovered body.
This symmetry is not predicted by the climate models. Moreover it should not exist under current theories of climate.
This symmetry is STRONG evidence that CO2 is NOT the climate control knob. Something else is regulating climate and the N-S symmetry is its signature.
WOW. A very big deal!
“This is because the greenhouse gases absorb the upwelling surface radiation, and when they radiate, about half of the radiation goes up, and half goes back towards the earth. As a result, the earth ends up warmer than it would be otherwise.
If the poorly-named “greenhouse effect” were 100% perfect, for every additional watt per square metre (W/m2) of sunlight entering the system, the surface would radiate two W/m2—one W/m2 from the sunlight, and one W/m2 from the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. Based on the ratio of the incoming radiation and the radiation from the surface, we can say that the overall greenhouse multiplier factor of the perfect greenhouse is 2.0. (See my post The Steel Greenhouse for a discussion of this.)”
William Happer mentioned how an activated CO2 molecule is extremely slow to re radiate, as compared to giving up its energy to adjacent water vapor, N2, O2, molecules through collisions(thermalization) That means that convection immediately takes over. However, through collisions, and packets of captured radiant energy, the CO2 molecule can again collect enough energy to re radiate. The process repeats. These radiant/thermal energy transfers are buzzing near instantaneously.
I puzzle over how a doubling of CO2 in our mixed gas atmosphere can change the temperature profile to the degree that we can measure it.(As I understand it, a change to the dry lapse rate has not in fact been measured) I currently think the ideal gas law is most informative for thick mixed gas atmospheres, while the steel greenhouse is not.
Willis says…Or consider how much ricin it takes to kill a human being … 0.002% of your body weight.
The fact that something is small does NOT mean that we can safely ignore it.
What a weary and ignorant argument…
If I was safely and happily consuming ….0,0018% of my body weight in Ricin…do you think the extra little bit would kill me?
Really?
Charles,
Weary and ignorant? Why would you say that?
I don’t know if the quoted number 0.002% of body weight is an accurate number for ricin lethal dose in humans, but obviously it refers to the average response by some percentage of humans and not a certain result at an exact dose. If 50% of humans would die after ingesting 0.002% of body weight in ricin, then you would certainly not be happily consuming 0.0018% (or 90% of the dose that kills humans 50% of the time). You would probably recover, but you would be very sick. An extra little bit would increase your probability of dying. At some point there would be an amount that nobody would survive. Unless you have a genetic mutation that allows you to metabolize ricin that is.
One can see “strange attractor” shapes in many of the scatterplots…..
Poor Mr. Feht is going to accidentally click on Willis’s article, see the dreaded “Eschenbach” name, and BE FORCED to click the back button in revulsion — an utter waste of precious time and energy.
Another day ruined for the man.
Thanks Willis. Thanks a lot.
“Now, I found this to be a most curious graph. Here’s the curiosity. The greenhouse effect is the reason that the surface of the planet is warmer than we’d expect from simple calculations of the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth. This is because the greenhouse gases absorb the upwelling surface radiation, and when they radiate, about half of the radiation goes up, and half goes back towards the earth. As a result, the earth ends up warmer than it would be otherwise.”
How exactly can that even remotely be true? We have an atmosphere. Radiation is not the only way it can absorb energy to be warmed. It warms through conduction when the air passes over the heated ground. It then rises, taking that added energy into the atmosphere. Having that atmosphere all by itself is going to increase the temperature at the ground surface.
No. It all boils down to how much energy enters the earth (AND it’s atmosphere) and how much leaves the earth (AND it’s atmosphere). This can only happen through radiation. Conduction and Convection can move energy through the atmosphere so it can make some places warmer than they would otherwise be (e.g. the poles) and vice versa but convection and conduction cannot ADD energy to the earth’s surface and the atmosphere overall.
Like it or not, the most likely explanation for the earth’s average surface temperature of around 15 deg C (rather than -18 deg C) is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect impedes the flow of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) so that incoming solar radiation is greater than OLR. This means the earth continues to warm until OLR reaches equilibrium with incoming solar radiation.
As Willis notes it is claimed this equilibrium is reached when the earth’s surface is emitting 398 w/m2 compared to about 240 w/m2 solar giving a multiplier effect of 1.66. The effect of doubling CO2 will according to MODTRAN reduce OLR at the top of the atmosphere by 3.7 w/m2. To maintain equilibrium this would require the surface flux to increase by about 6 w/m2 (3.7 x 1.66) which leads to the NO FEEDBACK surface temperature increase of about 1 deg C.
No. Convection and evaporation rule the surface-to-atmosphere heat transfer.
edimbukvarevic May 7, 2018 at 11:43 am
I have several problems with that graphic. First, it claims that the total amount reflected by albedo is 119 W/m2. This disagrees with every reference I’ve seen. CERES puts total reflection at 99 W/m2, a significant difference.
More importantly, the diagram shows only a total of 173.4 W/m2 entering and leaving the surface (57.8 W/m2 radiated to space, 20.4 W/m2 absorbed directly by atmosphere, 30.6 W/m2 convection and turbulence, and 64.6 W/m2 latent heat).
However, the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody temperature corresponding to 173.4 W/m2 is -38°C, or if we assume an average emissivity of 0.95 it’s -35°C … and we know that is not the case. The globe is not frozen solid.
Where is the problem? The problem is that this is an analysis of how the globe would look if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is no acknowledgment of any downwelling longwave radiation absorbed by the earth. It is ignored completely. That’s why in this diagram the surface of the planet is well below freezing—because a major component of energy entering the surface is ignored.
In short, this is a diagram of an imaginary earth, one without greenhouse gases, and as such, it has little to do with the actual planet … plus, they’re just plain wrong about the albedo.
Regards,
w.
Willis, I picked that graph from wikipedia and didn’t check the numbers. I kinda liked it because it’s an energy flow diagram, in which the width of the arrows is shown proportionally to the flow quantity (Sankey diagram). Now that you point it out, I see that it indeed shows that the reflected solar is 119 W/m2. Other budgets claim around 100 as you say.
Regarding your second point, it shows the net radiative heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere – it doesn’t ignore anything. Like this one:
All the references show that convection and evaporation rule the surface-to-atmosphere heat transfer.
Here the radiative surface-to-atmosphere heat transfer is around 18 W/m2 (358.2 – 340.3) and the non-radiative is around 105 W/m2.
edimbukvarevic May 7, 2018 at 3:54 pm
Thanks for the two new graphics, edim. However, the upper one is just as bad as your first graphic. Look at the total amount of energy both entering and leaving the surface. In your new diagram (the upper of the two) it is 173 W/m2 entering and 173.4 leaving the surface … but if that were true the surface temperature would be -38°C … sorry, amigo, but that one is junk too.
On the other hand, although the lower of your two new graphics does show the downwelling radiation to the surface, it suffers from another flaw—it is not energy balanced.
According to that one, the atmosphere (including clouds) radiates 200 W/m2 upwards and 340 W/m2 downwards …
It is essentially the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. One of the first things I noticed when I started studying the climate was that the K/T diagram was unbalanced. Upon further study, I realized that you need a minimum of two thermally isolated atmospheric layers to have a balanced system, so I calculated the flows necessary to make that work. Here’s Trenberth’s diagram …
You can see that in his the atmosphere does NOT radiate the same amount upwards and downwards.
And here is mine …
Note that it is balanced at all levels. Energy in equals energy out, and for the atmospheric levels, emission upwards equals emission downwards.
Finally, you started out by saying:
However, this is not true. Radiation moves almost four times the energy from the surface to the atmosphere as do convection and evaporation. You are confused by net energy, but net energy is not how the surface loses energy. It loses energy by radiation (~ 400 W/m2) as well as by conduction & convection (about 100 W/m2).
On the other side of the ledger the surface gets more than twice as much energy from downwelling longwave radiation (340 W/m2) as it does from the sun (160 W/m2).
Note that on average, this means the planet receives about half a kilowatt per square meter of radiant energy … go figure.
My best to you.
w.
Willis,
It is not junk – it shows the energy (heat) flows. Radiative heat transfer is radiation from the warmer surface minus the radiation from the colder surface.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#Radiative_heat_transfer
“In your new diagram (the upper of the two) it is 173 W/m2 entering and 173.4 leaving the surface … but if that were true the surface temperature would be -38°C … sorry, amigo, but that one is junk too.”
This is junk. Why would it be – 38 °C? It can be (almost) anything. 173.4 W/m2 is not thermal radiation from the surface according to S-B. It is total heat transfer from the surface to atmosphere and space. The surface still radiates according to S-B (~398 W/m2).
“You can see that in his the atmosphere does NOT radiate the same amount upwards and downwards.”
The atmosphere does not have to radiate the same amount upwards and downwards. Why would it? It has to radiate upwards to space what it gains from the surface (mostly non-radiatively) plus what it absorbs directly from the sun.
The Earth’s surface gets its heat from the sun (around 165 W/m2), it radiates directly to space around 40 W/m2, the rest it transfers to atmosphere, mostly by non-radiative means (around 105 W/m2) and around 20 W/m2 by thermal radiation.
You are confused by the atmospheric radiation to surface (back radiation) – it is NOT a heat input to the surface. Its origin is the surface itself.
Regards.
edimbukvarevic May 7, 2018 at 5:57 pm
Thanks, edimbukvarevic, So … here’s your diagram;
Your claim is that in this diagram the surface is radiating at ~398 W/m2. Since according to the same diagram the surface is receiving only 173 W/m2 total, I fear that dog won’t hunt … it cannot be radiating 398 W/m2 and only receiving 173 W/m2. Not possible.
It has to because of simple physics. The radiation is not directional. It is emitted in all directions, with about half going upwards and half downwards.
Hang on. Above you correctly said that the surface transfers some 398 W/m2 of energy to the atmosphere by radiation. Now you say it only transfers 20 W/m2 to the atmosphere by radiation. You were right the first time. Again you are confusing energy flows with heat flows.
Well, if you wish to be pedantic, its origin is in the sun.
And while it is not a heat input to the surface, it is an ENERGY input to the surface of about 340 W/m2. If you trouble to look at your second graphic above, you’ll see the energy flow that you claim doesn’t exist as a big red arrow pointing at the surface …
To be clear: the surface receives about half a kilowatt per square metre of energy. About 160 W/m2 of this is radiation from the sun. About 340 W/m2 of this is radiation from the atmosphere.
Since the system is in steady-state, the surface also loses about half a kW/m2. About 400 W/m2 is lost by radiation, and about 100 W/mw is by sensible and latent heat.
As is shown in your second graphic above …
w.
John
I think Willis claims the effect of doubling CO2 will be +1 degC all feedbacks included (perhaps without the very slow ice sheet adjustments)
Willis,
Doesn’t your two-layer atmosphere diagram here contradict this from the head post:
“Of course, in a real world, the multiplier factor will be less” (than 2)?
The atmosphere acts more like a multi-shell steel greenhouse than a single-shell. (except absorption <1 in each shell)
Willis,
“Your claim is that in this diagram the surface is radiating at ~398 W/m2. Since according to the same diagram the surface is receiving only 173 W/m2 total, I fear that dog won’t hunt … it cannot be radiating 398 W/m2 and only receiving 173 W/m2. Not possible.”
Of course it’s possible. It’s radiating according to its temperature (and emissivity). The atmosphere is also radiating according to its temperature and emissivity back at the surface. This back radiation needs to be subtracted from the surface radiation to get the (net) radiative heat transfer at the surface. Add the non-radiative fluxes and it all balances out.
“It has to because of simple physics. The radiation is not directional. It is emitted in all directions, with about half going upwards and half downwards”
I am not sure what you’re claiming. What the atmosphere radiates looking up from the surface and what it radiates looking down from the TOA does NOT have to be the same amount.
“Hang on. Above you correctly said that the surface transfers some 398 W/m2 of energy to the atmosphere by radiation. Now you say it only transfers 20 W/m2 to the atmosphere by radiation. You were right the first time. Again you are confusing energy flows with heat flows.”
It only transfers around 20 W/m2 to the atmosphere beacause it radiates around 40 directly to space and the atmosphere radiates back around 340.
Roughly, 400 – 340 – 40 = 20.
edimbukvarevic May 8, 2018 at 2:44 am
It’s most assuredly not possible in a steady-state condition. If an object radiates more energy than it is receiving, it will cool. If as you claim it is radiating more than twice what it is receiving, it will cool very rapidly. Simple physics.
Since the earth is in generally a steady-state condition, the surface on average cannot be radiating more than it is receiving.
w.
Willis, heat (or energy) fluxes are balanced at the surface. Radiative fluxes are not and do not have to be, because there is convection and evaporation. Roughly:
165 = (400 – 340) + 85 + 20
165 = 60 + 85 + 20
The surface absorbs around 165 W/m2 solar. The cooling fluxes are around:
60 W/m2 radiative heat exchange (400 – 340) and only 20 W/m2 is to atmosphere, the rest (40 W/m2) is radiated directly to space,
85 W/m2 evaporation and
20 W/m2 convection.
edimbukvarevic May 7, 2018 at 11:43 am
You didn’t read (or understand) my comment. I made the point that convection and conduction move energy through the atmosphere. HOWEVER, convection and conduction cannot ADD energy to the atmosphere.
That can only be achieved by increased solar radiation or a reduction in OLR. Greenhouse gases reduce the flow of OLR to space.
John, it was your point that convection only move energy through the atmosphere and that it cannot add energy to the atmosphere that made me reply. That statement is wrong. Convective surface-to-atmosphere heat flux adds roughly as much energy to the atmosphere as the radiative one (LWIR). Evaporation from the surface adds roughly five time as much.
But that’s just moving energy around. You need to think of the climate system as a whole – i.e. oceans, surface, atmosphere …etc. Solar energy enters at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) and leaves at TOA.
Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, energy would be radiated directly to space from the surface. Greenhouse gases impede the flow form the surface which means that incoming energy from the sun will be greater than Outgoing radiation (OLR) to space. This means the surface and lower atmosphere will warm (basic thermodynamics) until Incoming = Outgoing.
The fact that energy is also moved around by conduction and convection is not really that relevant to this process. Energy can only be emitted to space by radiation. Greenhouse gases do play a role in the rate at which energy is lost to space.
The non-condensing ones, play a very minor part, as Deserts show.
What sets Tmin, is dew point, and that’s independent of the non-condensing GHG’s, and that’s why CS is much lower than estimated by most.
It occurs to me that the curve you perceived in your data. . . .5w/m2 per 1w/m2 in Antarctica and the .72w/m2 per 1w/m2 in the unfrozen areas of the globe is reflecting the effect of convection, particularly the global convective cells transferring heat to the poles thus there is not much of a lapse rate at the poles so convection is severely limited at the poles while the additional 1w/m2 at mid latitudes and the equator are going to convect strongly and move more heat to the poles. Nothing fancy just heat doing what heat does.
seems to maybe an interesting correlation between net available solar energy in figures 4 and 10 and ENSO over the years, which you noted. Would maybe make sense after albedo, but I am a bit puzzled over what that could have to do with TOA incoming. . . .is figure 10 correctly described?
I don’t know whether the satellite is picking that number or it is calculated. To get 239.7 w/m^2 you need a TSI of 1370. The NOAA TSI as of 1.22.2018 going back to 1985 as no higher than 1363/1364 with most of the readings between 1360 to 1362. At 1360 the calculated W/M^2 is 238.
Then are you assuming the orbit of the earth makes no difference in the calculation? It does when when I do the numbers.Are you using calculus to obtain an instantaneous value? And where? The S-B is too simple for that. It appears that it requires a static situation. Are you assuming TSI is an average at TOA or is it selected at some point. If it’s 1370 w/m^2 at perihelion then at aphelion it’s 1291 w/m^2. (1291 x (1-a)/4 = 226 w/m^2.
At whatever number you use the difference is about 4 C.
rishrac May 6, 2018 at 9:32 pm
I don’t understand that. This is exactly why I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING. As far as I can tell, you’re the first person to mention 239.7 W/m2 … what does it represent, and how is it related to total TSI? Here’s what I’ve been using, direct from the CERES TOA datasets:
> local_tsi = round(getweightedmean(solar),2); local_tsi
[1] 340.03
> reflections = round(getweightedmean(toa_sw_all),2); reflections
[1] 99.17
> available_energy = round(getweightedmean(solar – toa_sw_all),2); available_energy
[1] 240.87
> total_tsi = local_tsi * 4; total_tsi
[1] 1360.12
Regards,
w.
You don’t recognize this formula… ( 1370 x (1-a))/4 = 239.7 w/m^2. Which the next formula for black body radiation is (239.7)/(5.67 x 10-8) and the 4th root = 255 K. This is unfamiliar to you?
I have not seen any TSI that varies from 1370 w/m^2 to 1291 w/m^2. And that is the inverse power formula relating to the orbit of the earth. Are you telling me that the 4 C drop at aphelion is averaged? Or that the 1370 is averaged? Of course it’s really about 1360 w/m^2 which brings down the black body radiation to (1360 x (1-a))/4 = 238 w/m^2. So, (238)/(5.67 x 10-8) 4th root = 254.5 K. They’ve cooled the past and warmed the present. It’s a moving wave.
That 4 C drop causes climate changes that can not be averaged. And because of that, co2 responds to temperature.
In fact it was on this site last year or the year before the TSI was being reported monthly. And never ever was there a drop in TSI to reflect the orbit. In fact it has been discounted as the “orbit is nearly perfectly round and is not important “
rishrac May 8, 2018 at 4:51 pm Edit
If you had quoted the formula I would have recognized it. OR if you had said what the 239.7 represented it would have been clear. Since you did neither, don’t blame me because your writing is opaque …
I have no clue what this means. I certainly didn’t say TSI varies from 1370 W/m2 to 1291 W/m2. In fact, it varies from 1406 to 1316 over the course of the year, with an average of 1360 W/m2.
QUOTE MY WORDS, YOU HOCKEY PUCK? Where did I say something about a 4°C drop?
What “1370” are you referring to? You are the first person in this thread to mention 1370, so why are you asking me about it?
I’m using the CERES figures. I gave them to you above. I have no idea what you are babbling about. Who cooled what past? Certainly not the CERES data …
Again, WHAT 4°C “drop” are you on about?
Again, I have no idea what or where you got that quote. You just pull this stuff out of your fundamental orifice and expect us to recognize it … bad news, rishrac, nobody out here can read minds or tell where some random quote came from. Cite your claims and quotes, explain your numbers. At present, you are making no sense at all, and that is on YOU, not on me.
w.
PS—Measurements of TSI are often adjusted to reflect what they would be if the orbit were perfectly circular. It’s the only way to see the tiny variations in the TSI. Otherwise these tiny variations would be swamped by the ~90 W/m2 peak-to-peak annual variation in TSI. Obviously, you didn’t know that. Now you do.
Nope, hadn’t thought of that, thanks.
This site has daily tsi info, it does vary a reasonable amount, not sure if its 4C worth or not.
https://www.pmodwrc.ch/en/home/
It’s what I use to calculate station insolation. I calculate a unit value based on station lat, and then I can swap in whatever has the best solar, I use this, but since it’s of limited length(all of the space based ones are of course), I also average it, and use that for dates prior to the start of the series. Basically I produce two station insolation sets, one with the average, the other with only the average, no mixing of average and actual.
At the south, the stratosphere is near the Earth’s surface.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
At Concordia Station, only -68 C.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/concordia-station/ext
If anyone here had a FLIR camera I would have some work to be done. I found this sweet video on taken in Austria on youtube. Since date and time are provided, I could even determine surface temperatures at that place (5-10°C). Of course they were not interested in climatology, rather they just wanted to show their product.
What I’ve found is that when surface air temps are about 50°F, zenith temps are near -40°F. That lines up with this video. And clouds of any kind increase that temp. High thin ones a little, thick cumulus clouds return temps only 20 or 30°F cooler than surface temps. I routinely see clear sky temps 90° – 100°F colder than the surface.
What I want to see a FLIR video of the sky in the middle of the night when the cooling rate drops to near zero.
I expect to see it go from frigid to lighting up from water vapor latent heat being released.
Well that is the interesting question. We are missing any information on the altitude of these clouds. Probably they are relatively low, but even if they were just 1000m above the soil, they would be warmer than they should be. So is it IR emitted, or IR reflected???
If you have a chance to look at higher level opaque clouds, that cloud answer the question. Their emissions will sink according to their altitude and falling temperatures, but terrestrial IR reflected would stay quite stable. I would bet, that an opaque cloud at altitude will appear warmer in FLIR than it can be.
I’ve been “looking” with an 8u-14u ir thermometer for a few years now, and I presumed it was some of each(but good question), but they are always cooler than the surface, and all get cooler the higher/thinner they are.
I’ll have to try and see about looking at some opaque cloud temps. But I think I would have to compare thin vs thick clouds at the same altitude.
But finding any comparable clouds would be a first step.
Willis,
“This gives a greenhouse multiplier factor of 398 / 240 = 1.66.
And that’s the curiosity because in Figure 8 the average multiplier factor is 0.72, well below 1.0. Because this multiplier is less than one, it would imply that the world should be much colder than it is …
How can we resolve this apparent contradiction? To me, it is evidence of something that I have said for many years. This is that the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the amount of downwelling radiation is not a constant as is assumed by mainstream climate scientists. Instead, it is a function of temperature. At temperatures above freezing, the surface upwelling radiation increases by about three-quarters of a W/m2 for each additional W/m2 of incoming solar radiation”.
This is an interesting finding, but I think that you are reading wrongly into it, or too much into it. While I totally agree that sensitivity is very likely dependent on the temperature, keep in mind the procedence of your data. The “adding of 1 extra W/m2 of available solar”, in your data, means actually moving to an area closer to the ecuator. It is not like if in the same area you suddenly increase the strength of solar energy. We all know that our planet’s radiation balance may or may not be in equilibrium as a whole, but it certainly is NOT in balance regionally. The tropical area is a clear net absorber and the poles are net emitters. This means that there is a great deal of heat being transported from the tropics to the poles, every second of the day. Your 1W/m2 increase of solar energy by moving closer to the ecuator comes together with an increase of how much heat the atmosphere and oceans are removing from the area and taking it further away towards the poles, it is an energy that depends a lot on the latitude. IF, to say something, in the new region with 1 more W/m2 of solar energy the oceans and atmosphere are removing 0.5W/m2 extra energy, then you are left with only 0.5W/m2 actual increase that would trigger the 0.72W/m2 response, meaning that the factor would be greater than one, not smaller. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but for sure the effect exists and you are kind of ignoring it. It is NOT the same thing than what happens when you increase incoming energy by increasing GHGs in a given place, where you can assume that the ammount of energy taken away by atmosphere and oceans towards the poles stays the same.
I don’t know how to better explain the idea, I hope you understood what I mean. Best regards.
This is where all that stored energy in water vapor comes in, its stored until air temps near dew point, and then its released to replace the energy leaving the surface, as it’s trying to stop air temps from falling anymore than it has.
This is a very nonlinear process, and changes the rate of temp change at night. This process stops the temps from falling a lot more.
At this site, on this night in Australia it stopped ~18°F of additional of cooling.
micro6500, I am afraid we are talking about completely different phenomena. You are talking about how much temperatures change due to the radiation of energy or lack of incoming radiation. I am talking about the energy that moves away from some area due to the circulation of atmosphere and oceans and the fact that the air/water entering is hotter/colder than the air/water exiting. Willis’s initial calculation of the 0.72 factor assumed that the only thing that changed as he moves from one area to another in terms of energy are the incoming solar energy vs the outgoing longwave radiation, but this is not true, different areas have different ammount of energy loss/gain due to the movement of water and air into and out of such regions.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Nylo May 7, 2018 at 2:00 am
Nylo, see Figures 10 and 11, which show the same result (multiplier far less than 1) as the earlier Figures. In 10 and 11 we are indeed changing the strength of solar energy as you want.
And the agreement of those two ways of looking at it adds credence to the earlier Figures.
Best to you, as always,
w.
Thanks Willis. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the 0.58 trend of figure 11 the wrong way to read things? I mean, you are saying that a watt per square meter of solar seems to cause 0.58 watts per square meter of surface radiation, when we know that the causality goes the other way round with El Nino events: changes in surface temperatures trigger changes in available solar energy (by modifying cloud cover). The delay between the two could be the reason why you see a weak positive correlation instead of negative.
In addition, given that we know that El Nino is initiated by a modification of air currents and reduced upwelling of colder waters, we can safely assume that temperature variations in El Nino are mostly caused by changes in how much heat is being transferred from the ecuator to somewhere else, be it the poles, or in this case, to the bottom of the ocean. By inhibiting cold water upwelling it is temporarily reducing the temperature difference between the water that enters the area and the water that leaves the area. The thing is that if the change in available solar energy is not the only thing that is changing in the energy balance, then it is not correct to assume that it is the only thing triggering the change in surface emissions.
Best regards.
Have you read this one: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2014RG000449 . Very interesting paper coming to very similiar conclusions and a test of GCM: ” …models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproducethe same degree of hemispheric symmetry.”
Symmetry is not compatible with the LIA being a northern hemisphere only climate feature.
Did any climate theory predict hemispheric symmetry? If so it needs to be dusted off and moved ahead of the radiative transfer theory.
ferdberple
my results of analyses of 54 weather stations shows no warming in the SH.
interesting paper frank. thanks for the link. some strong claims in there for a period of monitoring that doesn’t even cover quarter of a pdo or amo.
Did any climate theory predict hemispheric symmetry? If so it needs to be dusted off and moved ahead of radiative transfer.