6 Decades of Shortwave Radiation

Scientists developed a very high resolution dataset that goes back 6 decades: TerraClimate (Nature link). I will/may be examining their data (with model stuffing) in the next few posts.

The first thing I downloaded was the srad dataset, all 8.4GB of it, from 1958 to 2021.

srad means Shortwave Radiation (to Surface).

Solar Downwelling Radiation – July 2021

I was a little disappointed that it only covers land. No oceans. But let’s see what we can get out of it anyway …

These numbers suggest this is solar downwelling, not Net Solar (minus solar upwelling). Also dissapointed, but will do.

If this data with model filling is true, the ~3 W/m2 difference (~179 minus ~176) over 6 decades is WAY more than could even be hypothesized by carbon dioxide warming over the last 2 centuries.

Again we see that the solar shortwave is the dominant force in all the global warming we observed.

Sorry, times up.

Best regards, -Z

P.S. No, I have no idea what happened there in the early 1970s.

Code

# Zoe Phin, 2022/06/11
# File: srad.sh
# Run: source srad.sh; require; download; extract; plot

require() { sudo apt-get install -y gmt nco gnuplot python3-xarray python3-netcdf4; }
download() {
    for y in {1958..2021}; do
        wget -O $y.nc "http://thredds.northwestknowledge.net:8080/thredds/fileServer/TERRACLIMATE_ALL/data/TerraClimate_srad_$y.nc"
    done
}
extract() { echo "import xarray as x; import numpy as n
    a=6378.137; e=1-6356.752**2/a**2; r=n.pi/180
    d = x.open_dataset('1958.nc')['srad']
    by_lat=(a*r/24)**2*(1-e)*n.cos(r*d.lat)/(1-e*n.sin(r*d.lat)**2)**2/59035.372
    for y in range(1958,1960):
        for m in x.open_dataset(str(y)+'.nc')['srad'].weighted(by_lat).mean({'lon','lat'}).values:
            print(y,m)" | sed 's/\t//1' | python3 -u | tee .srad
}
parse() { awk '{ printf "%.3f %.6f\n", 1958+NR/12-1/24,$2 }' .srad; }
annual() { awk '{S[substr($0,1,4)]+=$2/12} END {for (y in S) printf "%d %.6f\n",y,S[y]}'; }
plot() { 
    parse > srad.mon
    parse | annual > srad.ann
    parse | yoy 12 > srad.yoy
    paste -d ' ' srad.mon srad.yoy > srad.csv
    echo "set term png size 740,740
        set key outside top center horizontal
        set grid xtics ytics
        set xrange [1958:2021]
        set format y '%.1f'
        plot 'srad.csv' u 1:3 t 'Shortwave Radiation to Surface (W/m²) - 12mo CMA' w l lw 2 lc rgb 'orange'
    "| gnuplot > srad.png 
}
yoy() { awk '{printf "%s ",$2}' | awk -vp=$1 '{ h=p/2;
    for (i=0;i<h;i++) print ""
    for (i=h;i<=NF-h;i++) { s=0
        for (j=i-h+1;j<=i+h;j++) s+=$j/p
            printf "%8.6f\n", s
    } }'
}

Published by Zoe Phin

https://phzoe.com

50 thoughts on “6 Decades of Shortwave Radiation

  1. Too many posts in a row.
    Can’t keep up.
    I’m exhausted.
    Slow down.
    ha ha
    R. Greene
    Professional Complainers
    of America

    Like

      1. That was intended to be a joke
        about your sudden burst of publishing.
        I assumed it would be deleted.
        I recommended your blog
        on one of my blogs today,
        where there have been 252
        page views as of 3:15 pm.
        I don’t expect a thank you,
        but “spam” was unfriendly.

        Richard Greene
        EconomicLogic@Yahoo.com

        Like

  2. Interesting to see that the record warm year of 1998 was a year of rather low srad to surface. The El Niño effect sure must be strong….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Also interesting to see that El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 doesn’t seem to have affected the srad that much as the srad was already low in advance…

    Like

    1. JRA-55 also seems to contradict CERES over the last 20 years.

      Clue: TerraClimate is LAND only.

      P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if fluxes have also gotten politicized!

      Like

  4. It would be interesting to compare your data with those in this study…too much of a headache for me 🙂

    [ Edit: _https://www.arm.gov/publications/other/P012745.pdf ]

    Like

    1. LMAO, this type of rhetoric is what I’m talking about. Look what they are saying by innuendo:

      CO2 really did cause an increase in surface longwave … and this caused all sorts of changes that allowed an equal amount of shortwave to reach the surface … thereby explaining the longwave, but no greater.

      Don’t you see what this is? This is lifting yourself by your bootstraps.

      This is garbage. This is an act of desperation.

      You need energy to get energy, and the energy you got was exactly what you needed.

      Seriously, you can’t see what they are doing? This is not science. This is rhetoric.

      Like

      1. “Just enough” is just balance of energy budget—conservation of energy. The causality is clear because it is unequivocal that humans have caused the increase in CO2.

        Like

        1. lol. So after CO2 did its work, it turns out the sun did it. And this is satisfying to you?

          The canonical description of the GH effect found in all introductory textbooks explains how GHGs can warm WITHOUT changes on the shortwave side. The shortwave remains the same and surface longwave changes.

          But if the longwave changes EXACTLY as shortwave, then I’m sorry, you don’t need the GH effect for that.

          In fact, if GHGs forced surface longwave up, and this had subsequent effects of clearing the skies and/or making surface more absorptive and this allowed more shortwave to reach surface, this would be ADDITIONAL energy – thus we would see longwave changes beyond that explained by shortwave. But we don’t.

          Sorry, you can’t lift yourself up by your bootstraps!

          Like

        2. “The canonical description of the GH effect found in all introductory textbooks.” That is exactly the simplification for introductory learning that is augmented by the work that I linked above. All of science is not contained in introductory texts.

          Like

        3. Doesn’t matter, Tom. You don’t need GHGs to increase shortwave in the same amount as longwave. GHGs should be able to increase surface longwave without shortwave. And if both increase, longwave changes should reflect contributions from both!

          “by the work”
          There is no work, it’s just self-serving rhetoric. They are trying to inject their hypothesis into observations. It’s an affirming-the-consequent fallacy.

          Like

        4. “You don’t need GHGs to increase shortwave in the same amount as longwave.”

          Of course. You can decrease albedo by decreasing reflective aerosols, by increasing black carbon, by reducing ice and snow, and other forcing sand feedbacks described in that presentation. So what? Also, squirrels are mammals. So what? That presentatation traces causality in detail. You yelling “Look, a squirrel!” does not undermine the role of GHGs. If you have any relevant objections to that presentation, lay them out.

          Like

        5. What an effing idiot.

          “You can decrease albedo by decreasing reflective aerosols, by increasing black carbon, by reducing ice and snow, and other forcing sand feedbacks described in that presentation.”

          You need ENERGY for that. And the energy you needed for that is what you got from that – if you believe GHGs did it.

          The paper doesn’t trace causality, you moron. It distributes the effect. As more shortwave gets trgough … there is morr absorption by compunds. You are arguing this abaorption caused themselves to get more shortwave.

          I can’t believe somebody can be this stupid.

          Like

        6. All the observed data shows there is no increase in longwave beyond shortwave. None. So while it’s THEORETICALLY possible, we have no evidence of it happening.

          Like

        7. No, energy is not needed to reduce anthropogenic reflective aerosols nor black carbon.

          But as usual with you, it is not relevant. I’ve seen enough squirrels, thank you.

          The amounts of long wave versus shortwave are exactly what are explained by the presentation I linked. You have utterly failed to provide any concrete, specific counter evidence to that.

          Like

        8. Literally demonstrates exactly what I said, and shows their pathetic narrative to mix up cause and effect.

          ASR is the dominant force, and no, GHGs did not cause extra ASR. GHGs soaked up the extra longwave that came after ASR.

          All this however demonstrates that there is now 3 BS GH effect narratives that contradict themselves:

          1) a) CO2 reduces OLR. b) That did not happen. OK fair enough because …
          2) Surface longwave flux increases and brings OLR back to previous value, so statement #1a never really takes place. OK
          3) However this was all supposed to happen without extra shortwave. But More shortwave ended up at the surface and perfectly explains longwave, so statement #1 must have caused it, but now statement #2 doesn’t make sense as the shortwave perfectly explains surface longwave.

          I bet you still don’t see the problem with this. You think they are doing legitimate science rather than making excuses for their failed theory. With rhetoric of mixing up cause and effect anything is possible.

          “Shortwave and longwave contributions to global warming under increased CO2”

          No, that is not whay they show. They attempt to show where longwave goes after ASR. ASR is the bank account that gets divided. There is no longwave contribution, unless you believe in their “pull” mechanism. There is no pull mechanism. There is a push mechanism from ASR.

          Like

        9. “However this was all supposed to happen without extra shortwave.”

          Wrong. Feedbacks that increase absorption of shortwave always have been a core part of greenhouse gas effect warming of Earth.

          Like

      2. “Don’t you see what this is? This is lifting yourself by your bootstraps.”

        No, it’s called feedback, which always has been part of our understanding of greenhouse gas warming of Earth. The most well known example of that in introductory explanations is reduction of albedo by melting of ice and snow.

        Like

        1. “Increase in net solar will melt more ive and snow. CO2 will not cause more net solar.”

          CO2 causes warming that melts ice and snow. Those are examples of decreasing albedo—decreasing reflection of solar. Decreased reflection is increased absorption of solar.

          Like

        2. Not at the poles, where there is a reverse greenhouse effect (CO2 enhances OLR). Only in places near warmer water.

          Stop using <6% of Earth's surface area as an explanation for the rest. This is not where there majority of absorptive action is taking place.

          The sun too can "melt" and make object more absorptive. And then you can claim CO2 did it.

          Like

      1. You are obviously braindead, and can’t see the trickery.

        They don’t prove that net solar is a feedback, they merely suggest it with assertion because they are desperate.

        In their model, which has NOTHING to do with the SURFACE, CO2 reduces OLR by 4 W/m^2 and then takes 140 years to recover (Fig 1A). Then in Fig 1B, they show solar forcing raising OLR by 4 W/m^2 over 140 years.

        NOWHERE in the paper do they prove how A caused B. NOWHERE!

        Things happening simultaneously does not prove A caused B.

        Furthermore, CERES observations show that OLR has pretty much stayed flat within a 0.15 W/m^2 range for the last 20 years. Their model is a unicorn.

        Despite the fact that word “surface” appears 59 times in the paper, their model is TOA, not the surface.

        This paper is pure witchcraft. They show no causation. They don’t show a diagram or model at the surface. They don’t because it would have to show both CO2 LW forcing AND net solar forcing, but the total forcing (see my CERES article) is almost exactly equal to just the net solar forcing.

        It’s amusing that you don’t see their trickery.

        If we were suddenly bombarded by an asteroid storm, they too can model that concurrent with CO2 rise and by innuendo blame it on CO2 and humans.

        Like

        1. CO2 long has been increasing due to human activities. That was not caused by solar. Humans increased reflective aerosols, then around 1970 started reducing that increase. Neither of those events was caused by solar. Meanwhile, solar reaching TOA has been decreasing since 1960.

          Like

        2. We’re not talking about solar at TOA, but solar at the surface. Net solar at the surface is only slightly greater than in 1960. So explain this with CO2. If CO2 clears the skies and allows more sunshine in, why was there a trough between 1960 and 2000?

          Logic would tell you there is a natural cycle.

          The human contribution is pitiful, which is why you can’t/won’t enumerate it. But if you want to blame humans, you will talk about completely from that perspective. The lack of enumeration will make it seems humans did it all, whereas in reality, it’s a pitiful negligible amount too hard to even enumerate.

          Like

        3. “If CO2 clears the skies and allows more sunshine in.”

          You have erected yet another straw person. No one but you ever has stated that.

          Like

        4. Clearing the skies is more than half the reason for surface net solar.

          Your cult wants to attribute all of net solar increase as a feedback from CO2.

          Don’t tell me otherewise, they clearly model and talk about it as such.

          Like

        5. While there maybe independence from CO2, there is no independence from INDUSTRY. Industry has increased. Pollution has increased (China, India, Brazil, etc) – and the effects are rarely simply at the place of industry or downwind from them.

          Fool, there was a peak in net solar ~1960. You constantly avoid this. There was an increase from ~1920 to 1960, then a decrease from ~1960 to ~1995, then another increase. And your cult wants to only attribute the current rise to industry. Industry has grown during that whole time period. You have no explanation for the rise and fall in the past.

          Fool, your article was trying to link LW changes from CO2 to solar increase. CO2 in their model reduces OLR, and 140 years later brings the change back to ZERO. What they want to do is explain OLR being POSITIVE (which it isn’t), but CO2 alone never makes it positive, even in their model. So what was the effing point in bringing in CO2? huh? ANSWER THAT!

          The point was to associate CO2 with an increase in ASR!

          If they just wanted to show how aerosol, black carbon, etc changes ASR, there was no effing need to bring CO2 into the discussion. But they did, and that’s what I’m commenting on … the innuendo that CO2 caused these ASR changes as a feedback.

          Like

  5. “And if both increase, longwave changes should reflect contributions from both!”

    They do, insofar as there is energy available to radiate, beyond the energy that gets distributed below the skin before steady state/equilibrium.

    Again, so what?

    Like

    1. How do you think they measure these radiative forcings?

      If a sponge absorbed more water, maybe water was added? But your cult claims the sponged caused its own addition of water.

      The pain you feel in your face caused you to get slappped. Get it?

      Like

      1. There is unequivocal empirical evidence that humans have drastically increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The causal direction is clear. You have failed utterly to provide any actual evidence to the contrary.

        Like

        1. CERES shows longwave = shortwave. I guess the NEW CO2 theory is that CO2 clears the skies and makes the surface more absorptive, and that’s how it gains the longwave … from the shortwave. lol.

          I provided plenty of evidence. You just ignored it all. You buy into garbage rhetoric and believe it’s science. You admit you are easy to fool.

          Like

        2. “I guess the NEW CO2 theory is that CO2 clears the skies and makes the surface more absorptive.”

          That’s not new theory, it’s the long-standing theory. The most commonly explained example in basic level explanations is the feedback of albedo reduction by melting of ice and snow.

          Like

        3. There’s a reverse greenhouse effect in the polar regions. The vast majority of this “more surface absorption” is happening in the ocean, NOT where there is ice and snow.

          Like

      2. “The vast majority of this “more surface absorption” is happening in the ocean, NOT where there is ice and snow.”

        Of course there is ice on the oceans.

        Like

        1. There is not a lot of ice and snow in Europe – ”The surface records suggest a continuation of the surface solar brightening beyond 2000 at numerous stations in Europe and the United States, as well as parts of east Asia (Korea). Surface solar radiation variations in Europe after 2000 are dominated by a large positive anomaly in the year 2003 with its unprecedented summer heat wave, exceeding 10 Wm−2 on an annual and 20 Wm−2 on a summer mean basis in central Europe. The brightening seen at sites in Antarctica during the 1990s, influenced by a recovery from the low atmospheric transparency after the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, fades after 2000.”

          Like

  6. Our solar system moves in and out of spiral arms of our galaxy as we spin around the center of the galaxy. This means that we encounter varying degrees og cosmic radiation on our cosmic journey. Meaning that cosmic radiation received on earth does not only vary with the magnetic field of the earth and our sun, but in addition has a cosmic factor. Cosmic radiation has a direct effect on the cloudyness of our planet. At least there is some evidence to support that. Reference is made to the research made by Henrik Svensmark. Now this is some real science – science that investigates cause and effect, as opposed to the pseudoscience og AGW which fakes temperature data in order to keep alive a fake theory which has only resulted in models that predict wrongly. If the theory could be backed up by observations, there would be no reason to tamper with the temperature data sets, now would there…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: