Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’m a visual guy. I understand numbers, but not in tables. I make them into graphs and charts and maps so I can understand what’s going on. I got to thinking again about total absorbed radiation at the surface. Total radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface is a mix of longwave (thermal) and shortwave (solar) radiation. In my last post, Putting It Into Reverse, I looked at the correlation of that absorbed radiation with temperature.
So, being a visual guy, I created a global map of where this total radiation is being absorbed at the surface. But before showing that result, let me digress for a moment about the downwelling shortwave (solar) and downwelling longwave (thermal) radiation. (Note that “downwelling radiation” is radiation headed toward the Earth’s surface and “upwelling radiation” is headed to space.)
Solar radiation starts out as relatively constant at the top of the atmosphere. It’s around 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) as a 24/7 global average. It only varies about ± 0.1 W/m2 over the sunspot cycle.
Next, at any given time and location, somewhere between a little and a lot of the incoming solar is reflected by clouds and aerosols. The amount reflected varies by date, season, temperature, location, altitude, and local weather.
Next, of the remaining solar after reflection at that location, somewhere between a little and a lot of the downwelling solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, mostly by clouds, water vapor, and aerosols (smoke, haze, volcanic aerosols, mineral dust). Again, the amount absorbed varies by date, season, temperature, location, aerosol type, and local weather.
Finally, when the sunshine reaches the surface, somewhere between a little and a lot of it is reflected back into space by the surface itself. Again, the amount reflected varies by date, season, water state (liquid vs ice vs snow), windiness, ground cover, location, altitude, and local weather.
In short, the amount of sunshine absorbed by the ground varies hugely in space and time on all scales.
Downwelling thermal radiation, on the other hand, is radiation emitted by several things in the atmosphere above us—by greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2, by aerosols, and by clouds.
The big variations in downwelling radiation are due to varying amounts of clouds, water vapor, and aerosols. CO2 is a fairly well-mixed gas, while on the contrary, water vapor can vary in a short distance from almost none to amounts large enough to condense. Again, the amount of thermal radiation emitted by water vapor, greenhouse gases, aerosols, and clouds varies by date, season, windiness, location, and local weather.
And as with solar radiation, clouds are the big variable. Clouds are almost a perfect blackbody with respect to thermal radiation. On a clear winter night when a cloud comes over, you can instantly feel the warmth. And as above, the amount of thermal radiation emitted by clouds varies by date, season, temperature, location, and local weather.
In short, just as with sunshine, the amount of thermal radiation absorbed by the ground varies hugely in space and time on all scales.
So with that as prologue, here is Figure 1, showing the total amount of radiation (shortwave + longwave) absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Figure 1. A 1° latitude by 1° longitude map of the total amount of radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface.
I gotta admit, I looked at that graphic when I first made it, scratched my head, and said “How very curious!”. I love surprises in science, and this was one of them.
Here’s what I found odd. The southern hemisphere is mostly water, with a block of ice-covered rock at the bottom. It’s very different from the northern hemisphere, which has much more land, and water instead of icy rock at the top.
From Figure 1, per square meter, the ocean is absorbing about 20% more downwelling radiation than the land. So you’d think that the southern hemisphere, with significantly more ocean, would be absorbing significantly more energy than the northern.
But it’s not. In fact, the two hemispheres are the same to the nearest tenth of a W/m2 … which is why I scratched my head and said “How very curious”.
Naturally, I wanted to know whether this was just a coincidence, or whether this hemispheric equality is an enduring feature of the climate system. So I looked at the changes over time. Here are annual averages for the period of the CERES satellite data.

Figure 2. Annual averages, total absorbed radiation, shortwave, and longwave.
Curiouser and curiouser. Year after year, the annual northern and southern total energy absorbed are nearly identical—half of the years, the two hemispheres were within a tenth of a percent (~ half a watt per square meter) of each other.
The longwave and shortwave components are equally interesting. Every single year, slightly more longwave radiation than shortwave is absorbed in the northern hemisphere. However, the reverse is true for shortwave radiation. Possibly because of the larger amount of ocean, in the southern hemisphere, more solar energy is absorbed than longwave. In any case, when longwave and shortwave are added, the total radiation absorbed by the two hemispheres are nearly identical.
Now, I started out by saying that because both solar and thermal radiation are functions of a variety of factors, with clouds leading the pack, they constantly vary in time and space. So a priori, we have no reason to assume that the two hemispheres would absorb the same radiation at the surface, and every reason to assume that they would not.
I mean, we have volcanoes and floods and droughts and forest fires and a whole bunch of things that affect downwelling longwave and shortwave radiation … and despite that, each hemisphere receives the same amount of radiation as the other, year after year.
Setting that oddity aside for a moment, the climate can be profitably analyzed as a giant heat engine. It turns incoming solar energy into the endless physical work of driving the motion of the oceans and the atmosphere against turbulence and friction. These oceanic and atmospheric movements carry heat polewards from the tropics, where it is radiated into space.
This unexpected stability over time of the total energy absorbed by the surface clearly indicates that this is a heat engine with a governor. And not only is there a governor. The governor works in part by controlling the climate heat engine’s throttle.
A “throttle” is any mechanism that regulates the amount of energy entering a heat engine. In your car, the throttle is what is controlled by your gas pedal. The clouds perform that function for the climate. They control the amount of energy entering the system by rejecting some of that incoming solar energy back into space. And not just a small amount. Hundreds of watts per square meter. Here’s an example, a day’s record from a moored TAO buoy on the Equator at 110° West (eastern Pacific Ocean).

Figure 3. Downwelling solar energy by the time of day, December 30, 1998.
You can see the clouds changing the amount of downwelling solar energy by several hundred watts per square meter within an hour or so.
And this throttling of the incoming solar energy must be a major part of what is behind the year-after-year stability of the amount of solar energy absorbed by each hemisphere individually and by both hemispheres together.
My hypothesis is that a hierarchy of emergent climate phenomena, mainly in the tropical oceans but elsewhere as well, regulate incoming energy. As can be seen in Figure 3 above, a typical tropical day starts out clear.

Figure 4. Typical tropical ocean early morning conditions. Cloudless sky.
Once a certain temperature threshold is passed, a cumulus cloud field is quickly established. This immediately reduces the amount of solar energy making it to the surface.

Figure 5. Typical tropical ocean late morning conditions. Cumulus field is developing. Cumulus clouds form at the top of the ascending parts of the circulating cells of air.
Then, when a higher temperature threshold is passed, some of the cumulus clouds develop into towering thunderstorms. These cause further reflective losses, as well as directly refrigerating the surface.

Figure 6. Typical tropical ocean afternoon to night conditions. Thunderstorm field develops.
All of these emergent transitions increase the amount of sunlight that is either reflected back to space or absorbed before it gets to the surface. And the timing of emergence, the number, and the strength of those phenomena are all temperature-threshold regulated.
The net result of all of this is that as temperatures go up, clouds form in response and cut down the total energy being absorbed by the surface. The following graph shows a gridcell by gridcell scatter plot of the temperature versus the surface net cloud radiative effect (CRE). The surface net cloud radiative effect (CRE) is the average change in total surface downwelling radiation that results from the presence of clouds.

Figure 7. Scatterplot, gridcell by gridcell temperature versus net cloud radiative effect (CRE). Gridcell size is 1° latitude by 1° longitude. There are a total of 64,800 gridcells shown above.
As you can see, when the temperature gets high, the clouds act strongly to reduce the energy reaching the surface. In many gridcells, clouds are cutting out more than 50 W/m2 of downwelling energy at the surface.
In any case, that’s my explanation for why, despite the hugely variable nature of clouds, water vapor, and aerosols, both in time and space, about the same amount of total radiation is absorbed by the two hemispheres every year. Temperature-threshold-dependent emergent climate phenomena act to cap the possible energy absorbed.
I’m more than happy to hear alternate theories for the unusual stability of the absorbed radiation at the surface. Please don’t say “thermal inertia” unless you can explain how “thermal inertia” is controlling the amount of downwelling solar energy.
Late summer afternoon here in our clearing in the redwood forest. Can’t see the ocean today, foggy at the coast, but no clouds here. My nine-month-old grandson cries in the kitchen, my daughter consoles him. My three-year-old granddaughter explains how she dropped her sock in the cat water. She wants me to play Arlo Guthrie’s “City of New Orleans” on the computer. Done, little lady, done.
The sun is slanting across the house clearing to the tall redwood forest trees visible through my window.

Bedtime for the girlie. She wants to fade out to “Mercury Blues“. I’m not complaining.
My best to each and every one of you, may your lives be full and overflowing.
w.
PS—When you comment, please QUOTE the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your restatement of them. Thanks.
Ah! Arlo Guthrie. I had a record of him and Pete Seeger in concert. Also, several Arlo records. They got put in a donate/trash container when we moved to a much smaller house. I have managed to get some on mp3 but need to do more.
Nice article by the way. Goes along with the recent articles on enthalpy and temperature. You explain why we need to move to something more that just temperature. Temps don’t explain total energy in the atmosphere very well.
Temperature is not a measure or a metric of energy. Averaging temperatures is non scientific.
Looks like Willis has headed for the hills.
Too much back radiation can do that to you.
Why do you lukewarmists continue to give credibility to climate change warmist alarmists?
leitmotif, I’ve not “headed for the hills”. That’s your sick fantasy.
What has actually happened is that I’ve chosen not to discuss these matters with you. In addition to being impervious to logic, you are an unpleasant insulting ℁s. Not enough hours in the day to deal with that combination.
w.
I’ve chosen not to discuss these matters with you.
That’s what usually happens when you have no evidence to back your claims.
When are you going to produce evidence that back radiation is a real forcing and can raise the surface temperature?
Or do you consider that request an insult, too?
Leitmotif, I’ve provided scads of evidence—”back radiation” is routinely measured all over the world. I’ve shown records of DLR from TAO automated buoy records, from SURFRAD records, and from decades of individual studies by individual scientists.
None of this has made the slightest difference to your warped world view.
The world is currently something on the order of 50°C warmer than we’d expect due to Stefan-Boltzmann equations (as can be verified by looking at the temperature of the moon). I have no clue how you explain that. I and most every other person studying the subject say it’s because of greenhouse gases.
But even that hasn’t changed your mind.
Heck, you can feel the effect of downwelling longwave radiation (aka “back radiation”) on any clear night in the winter when a cloud comes over. Because the cloud is radiating more downwelling longwave than the atmosphere, you can feel the warmth immediately. I’ve felt it many times.
But either you’ve never noticed that or haven’t understood that.
Which is why I’ve “chosen not to discuss these matters with you”.
It’s not because I lack evidence. I have plenty of that, from all over the planet.
It’s because you are completely and totally impervious to evidence.
Pass.
w.
I’ve provided scads of evidence—”back radiation” is routinely measured all over the world.
So where is this evidence? Why did you not reply to Lit’s post on pyrgeometers in this post? Did you forget?
Lit said about you, Willis, “Your whole reasoning is bunk, it´s based on your lack of understanding of the instrument.”. But Roy Spencer agrees with you Willis so I suppose that makes you feel empowered.
None of this has made the slightest difference to your warped world view.
Would that be the warped world review that requires evidence when someone makes an assertion?
The world is currently something on the order of 50°C warmer than we’d expect due to Stefan-Boltzmann equations (as can be verified by looking at the temperature of the moon). I have no clue how you explain that. I and most every other person studying the subject say it’s because of greenhouse gases.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations cannot be used for gases. If you think that then you are an idi0t.
Heck, you can feel the effect of downwelling longwave radiation (aka “back radiation”) on any clear night in the winter when a cloud comes over. Because the cloud is radiating more downwelling longwave than the atmosphere, you can feel the warmth immediately. I’ve felt it many times.
NURSE!!!
It’s because you are completely and totally impervious to evidence.
Good one Willis. Produce a rebuttal that accuses me of what I accuse you of.
Willis, why do you keep repeating this sophistry about the DLR being a real forcing that increases surface temperature.?
I admire your energy but not your application. You are like a spaniel chasing a leaf in the wind. You are never gonna catch that leaf.
Thanks, Leitmotif. You’ve provided a perfect example of why I’ve chosen not to discuss this with you.
w.
Thanks, Leitmotif. You’ve provided a perfect example of why I’ve chosen not to discuss this with you.
Thanks, Willis, you’ve provided a perfect example why you are the back radiation bullsh1tter of the 21st century.
Either provide some evidence that back radiation (DLR) is a real forcing that increases the surface temperature or shut up for good. I am sick of you bringing out these ridiculous posts every few months which amount to no more than sophistry.
I CHALLENGE YOU!
I expect to see a post from you with that evidence in September or I will just assume you cannot produce it.
I am sure lots of people on this blog would be interested in seeing you drilling me into the ground. What a victory that would be for you, Willis.
Are you up for that challenge, Willis, or will you just fall back on your “He’s too rude to argue with. He’s hurt my feelings. Woe is me.”
Somehow I think you will do what you always do, Willis, duck out.
Leitmotif, AS I POINTED OUT, downwelling IR is routinely measured worldwide. I gave you the examples of the evidence of the TAO buoys and the SURFRAD sites, both of which measure downwelling IR 24/7/365. You’ve provided no response to that evidence. Instead, you’ve falsely claimed I’ve provided no evidence.
As to providing evidence that back radiation increases the surface temperature, I doubt that you’d consider anything I provided as evidence. However, everyone, both skeptics and alarmists, well, everyone except for you, say that the presence of GHGs is why the earth is not at something like the temperature of the moon.
If you have an alternate explanation for the current warm earth temperature, I’d like to hear it.
Finally, you seem to believe that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because it contravenes thermodynamic laws.
However, as I showed in The Steel Greenhouse and People Living In Glass Planets, no such laws are contravened. If you think there are errors in either of those, please QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT I SAID and demonstrate (show, not claim) that I’m wrong.
Regards,
w.
Leitmotif, AS I POINTED OUT, downwelling IR is routinely measured worldwide.
Did you read Lit’s post on here about pyrgeometers? Did you understand it?
He said, ““Your [you Willis] whole reasoning is bunk, it´s based on your lack of understanding of the instrument.”.”
Maybe you don’t read all the comments in your post, Willis, but I have already pointed out further up this thread where you offer The Steel Greenhouse as evidence in a reply to rick will
“The steel greenhouse was debunked by Joseph Postma many years ago.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2014/11/18/the-pseudoscientific-steel-greenhouse-debunks-the-climate-greenhouse-effect/
This was the Joseph Postma that you couldn’t remember although you were all over his blog.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/surface-response-to-increased-forcing/
Joseph Postma is an astrophysicist. You are not.
As Postma pointed out, you have no training.”.
This is the original debunking of your ridiculous Steel Greenhouse.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/
You double the output of the sphere to 470W/m^2 and then you stop at one iteration. You do not understand that you cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide forcings. You are a plank who doesn’t understand Planck. You are a total disaster for sceptics.
And then you continue to try and defend this ridiculous piece of junk by claiming victory because of the attitude of Joseph Postma and other experienced posters when they point out your shortcomings. I actually felt embarrassed for you.
I’ve never seen a better example of sophistry than your Steel Greenhouse. What a load of old junk.
And what is worse, the lukewarmists on WUWT agree with you. Because that is what lukewarmists do.
Pass. You’re free to believe that the people measuring downwelling longwave radiation around the planet are all totally deluded and wrong about what they are measuring.
Me, not so much.
As to Joe Postma, Astrophysicist, I pointed out the errors in his reasoning at the time. Rereading it, I see he claims that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy to the surface of the earth, viz:
I say yes, the atmosphere [“shell”] radiates energy, some of which is absorbed by the surface of the earth [“sphere”], just as the surface constantly radiates energy, some of which is absorbed by the atmosphere.
Both are real physical flows, and it is the net of these two flows which is the radiative heat flow.
I will gladly leave it to the reader as to which of us is right.
With you, however, I have no such hope of an unbiased examination of the evidence. I could bring Hermes the God Of Science to give evidence, and you’d say, “Hermes isn’t an Astrophysicist, and Joe Postma is, so there!”
Rave on,
w.
PS—Again, I encourage the reader to read my two main posts on the subject:
The Steel Greenhouse
People Living In Glass Planets
Do the math. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Instead, the “shell” reduces the heat loss from the planet. This leaves the planet warmer than it would be without the shell.
PPS–Anyone using the word “debunks” or “debunked”, as Astrophysicist Posta does, has an axe to grind and is busy grinding it …
Pass. You’re free to believe that the people measuring downwelling longwave radiation around the planet are all totally deluded and wrong about what they are measuring.
Me, not so much.
Duh, isn’t that what this is all about. For the last time did you read Lit’s post on pyrgeometers? Did you understand it? Did you accept it? If not then you are just a warmist numpty like all of your supporters.
Funny how originally you didn’t want to converse with me and now you just can’t get enough of me?
Willis, you were the same 8 or 9 years ago, still holding on to your sophistry.
You had the sphere emitting 470W/m2 after it was enclosed in a shell! I laughed so much I nearly bought my own beer. You created 235W/m2. First law of thermodynamics instantly trashed.
As to Joe Postma, Astrophysicist, I pointed out the errors in his reasoning at the time. Rereading it, I see he claims that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy to the surface of the earth, viz:
But you didn’t, did you? You were totally ridiculed not just by Joe but by CW and Rosco who have been a feature on that blog as long as I can remember.
Joe said, “the shell doesn’t pass any heat to the sphere since it is passive, and, it is cooler than the sphere. The shell doesn’t lose any energy with internal emission since internally it is an enclosed space. The only loss of power from the shell occurs on its exterior.”
You, Willis, disagreed. All you did was concentrate on how small in area increase the shell was over the sphere. DISTRACTION!
Willis: When someone like Joe Postma and CW starts attacking my history, I know I’ve won the argument. If they actually had scientific arguments, they’d bring them up …
Game over, guys.
Joe: First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.
Does the shell pass energy as work, heat, or matter, to the sphere? Alternatively, does the sphere pass additional energy as work, heat, or matter to itself? No.
Therefore the presence of the shell can’t cause the sphere to increase in temperature beyond its actual active internal heat source.
Do the math. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Instead, the “shell” reduces the heat loss from the planet. This leaves the planet warmer than it would be without the shell.
No. See above, numpty.
I will gladly leave it to the reader as to which of us is right.
Oh, Willis has got a new scientific method – THE READER!
Keep going, Willis, I’m loving this exchange.
Willis, the guy who controls the First Law of Thermodynamics. The sphere doubles its output then stops dead on the first iteration when accordingly it should keep increasing.
First Perpetual Motion Machine is on its way.
Do a course in Thermodynamics, Willis, your degree in Psychology is sadly lacking.
PS—When you comment, please QUOTE the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your restatement of them. Thanks.
Willis, you can only defend BS with gas masks. Get an education in thermodynamics then we can talk sense. Otherwise continue to talk b0ll0cks.
Remember when Joe Postma took you down all those years ago?
Classic!
Willis
Maybe earth itself also has a gas throttle?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
Looks to me like you graphed how CRE changes with temperature, but you did not show how a change in climate state (say an increase in GMST of 1 C) would affect that curve. That’s the part you should be interested in. I don’t believe you calculated that there was any cloud throttling of temperatures when GMST increases beyond a certain threshold.
We can see from paleoclimate studies that GMST isn’t throttled. The last time CO2 was 400 ppm, for instance, temperatures were actually warmer than today. And with an energy imbalance of ~0.8 W/m^2, more warming is built into current CO2 levels.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008EO490001
Also, while cloud feedbacks are difficult to quantify, it appears significantly more likely that cloud feedbacks are a net positive feedback.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2026290118
I don’t think you calculated what you believe you calculated, and I think there’s substantial evidence that there’s no threshold above which warming is throttled.
If the average global total shortwave plus longwave is 508.7W/m^2. what global average surface temperature would that drive?
Ummm … it would drive the global average surface temperature we have.
Is this a trick question.
w.
Sounds like a trick answer.
I have saved your post. The cloud effect and the temperature shows to me that clouds reduces the downwelling radiation when the temperature is above 0 c, what it is for most of the surface. Only in the polar regions it gives more downwelling.
A joke with unexpected result.
I made a very simple calculation of the global temperature if all the CO2 was replaced by a glass spherel. No absorbtion for shortwave and full absorbtion for IR, but with holes in it like the atmospheric window (25%). The temperature would be 14 degr C. Solar radiation to ground is 239W/m2 because of albedo.
Funny that all the simplifications apparantly cancel each other. Is the climate really that simple????
Not quite, your “window “ should be 33.3%.
The window was taken from blackbody radiation from 8 to 12 um and all else fully absorbed. One of the many simplifications.
Willis found a lot of interesting results, that i would like to digest from time to time.
I have to be carefull, because even 4W to 5W difference means 1K in temperature.
“Solar radiation starts out as relatively constant at the top of the atmosphere. It’s around 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) as a 24/7 global average. It only varies about ± 0.1 W/m2 over the sunspot cycle.”
This seems to be some kind of honest mistake. If this value of ± 0.1 W/m2 was reported somewhere I’d like to know please, otherwise, a fine conveyance of the earth’s balancing act.
The solar cycle TOA TSI varies by more than ± 0.1 W/m2 because of the annual ±3.5% orbital variation that changes the TOA TSI seasonally, and from the sun’s actual TSI range during the solar cycle, which last time varied by at least 1.7 W/m2. Divide by four to get a >0.4 W/m2 variation for the 24/7 global average just from solar cycle #24 variation alone.
Thanks, Bob. A couple of comments.
First, I was speaking of the strength of the sun itself, NOT the change in apparent strength due to orbital variations.
Next, you’re correct that my estimate (0.1W/m2 peak to peak) was slightly low. Per the CERES data, over the last two solar cycles, the variations were ~0.3 W/m2 and ~0.2 W/m2. (These are not the momentary peaks. They are the swing of the smoothed data.)
Finally, the max variation in your graphic above was the swing from 1360.538 W/m2 to 1362.2561 W/m2, or about 0.4W/m2 as you said. However, these are from the coldest day to the warmest day, and thus does not represent the swing in the monthly average values or annual values. For example, the swing in the annual values 2000-2021 was 0.26 W/m2 peak to peak.
My point about “nearly stable” remains. Your claimed maximum swing of ± 0.2°C out of 340°C is a swing of only ± 0.05% (five hundredths of one percent). Lost in the noise.
w.
Thanks Willis. The cumulative effect of the decadal swings in TSI that appear lost in the noise make all the difference between La Nina/El Nino and cooling/warming.
The following images show tropical SST step-changes in sync with the solar minima and maxima over the last nine solar cycles. The odds of this sequence occurring are 1.9(10^11):1, basically impossible without solar forcing.
Sorry, Bob, but a) I have no idea what you are calling a “step-up” or a “step-down; b) Your graphic is totally illegible; c) calculating “odds” in climate science is a fool’s errand.
You may indeed be right, but there’s no way to tell from what you’ve presented.
w.
Here’s an old gem from Roger Pielke about chaos, attractors and Lyapunov stability in climate. This gives a nice basis for cloud based emergent homeostasis. It is back in 1993 so must be Pielke senior I guess?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/74/4/1520-0477_1993_074_0631_ctaiat_2_0_co_2.pdf