From NASA Goddard, Jim Hansen reports on his balance problem:
Earth’s Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity

A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity — not changes in solar activity — are the primary force driving global warming.
The study offers an updated calculation of the Earth’s energy imbalance, the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth’s surface and the amount returned to space as heat. The researchers’ calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, led the research. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics published the study last December.
Total solar irradiance, the amount of energy produced by the sun that reaches the top of each square meter of the Earth’s atmosphere, typically declines by about a tenth of a percent during cyclical lulls in solar activity caused by shifts in the sun’s magnetic field. Usually solar minimums occur about every eleven years and last a year or so, but the most recent minimum persisted more than two years longer than normal, making it the longest minimum recorded during the satellite era.

Pinpointing the magnitude of Earth’s energy imbalance is fundamental to climate science because it offers a direct measure of the state of the climate. Energy imbalance calculations also serve as the foundation for projections of future climate change. If the imbalance is positive and more energy enters the system than exits, Earth grows warmer. If the imbalance is negative, the planet grows cooler.
Hansen’s team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).
“The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn’t a surprise given what we’ve learned about the climate system, but it’s worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming,” Hansen said.
According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the future.
Climate scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth’s energy imbalance for many years, but this newest estimate is an improvement over previous attempts because the scientists had access to better measurements of ocean temperature than researchers have had in the past.
The improved measurements came from free-floating instruments that directly monitor the temperature, pressure and salinity of the upper ocean to a depth of 2,000 meters (6,560 feet). The network of instruments, known collectively as Argo, has grown dramatically in recent years since researchers first began deploying the floats a decade ago. Today, more than 3,400 Argo floats actively take measurements and provide data to the public, mostly within 24 hours.

Hansen’s analysis of the information collected by Argo, along with other ground-based and satellite data, show the upper ocean has absorbed 71 percent of the excess energy and the Southern Ocean, where there are few Argo floats, has absorbed 12 percent. The abyssal zone of the ocean, between about 3,000 and 6,000 meters (9,800 and 20,000 feet) below the surface, absorbed five percent, while ice absorbed eight percent and land four percent.
The updated energy imbalance calculation has important implications for climate modeling. Its value, which is slightly lower than previous estimates, suggests that most climate models overestimate how readily heat mixes deeply into the ocean and significantly underestimates the cooling effect of small airborne particles called aerosols, which along with greenhouse gases and solar irradiance are critical factors in energy imbalance calculations.
“Climate models simulate observed changes in global temperatures quite accurately, so if the models mix heat into the deep ocean too aggressively, it follows that they underestimate the magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect,” Hansen said.
Aerosols, which can either warm or cool the atmosphere depending on their composition and how they interact with clouds, are thought to have a net cooling effect. But estimates of their overall impact on climate are quite uncertain given how difficult it is to measure the distribution of the particles on a broad scale. The new study suggests that the overall cooling effect from aerosols could be about twice as strong as current climate models suggest, largely because few models account for how the particles affect clouds.
A chart shows the global reach of the network of Argo floats. (Credit: Argo Project Office)
“Unfortunately, aerosols remain poorly measured from space,” said Michael Mishchenko, a scientist also based at GISS and the project scientist for Glory, a satellite mission designed to measure aerosols in unprecedented detail that was lost after a launch failure in early 2011. “We must have a much better understanding of the global distribution of detailed aerosol properties in order to perfect calculations of Earth’s energy imbalance,” said Mishchenko.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just put the man in jail and be done with it!
I always knew Hansen was a bit unbalanced.
Anyone who claims that they can measure the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation to three significant digits is already beyond recovery.
The researchers’ calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
Then why is the slope for this period negative using their own data?
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012
#Selected data from 2005
#Selected data up to 2011
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000918387 per year
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2005/to:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2005/to:2011/trend
“…the reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).”
But the chart shows the 365 day mean ranging from about 1365.25 to 1367.5. Maybe my calculator is broken, but the ol’ chompulator says that’s a range of 2.25 W/m2, not 0.25. I guess the Sun is a lot brighter than I am. 🙂
“Climate models simulate observed changes in global temperatures quite accurately…” by being wrong about ocean mixing and wrong about aerosols. But our findings are accurate to the hundredth of a watt. Except for cloud estimates. And…
Credibility alert!
How many watts go into biomass carbohydrate bonds and are actually stored chemically? I think he confuses storage with equilibration.
So if the land temps are not cooperating, then we use the Argo. And if Argo stops cooperating, then we use the satellite. And if the sats stop cooperating, we do something else. Rinse, repeat.
In the “Decimals of Precision – Trenberth’s missing heat” post, Willis Eschenbach mentions that “the error estimate for their oceanic heating rates (measured by the Argo buoys) … is on the order of about plus or minus one watt/m2”. Yet, this post states that Hansen claims “0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter.” So, the error in the measurements by the Argo buoys would seem to be greater than the claimed warming. WUWT?
(P.S. The time periods for the claimed error and warming aren’t clear to me.)
Hey Max, you from Australia? I think we must have had the same maths teacher ?
According to my eyeballing, isn’t the difference between max and min solar cycles around 1.25 W/m2 and not 0.25 as specified by Hansen?
Anthony, seems like you’re not the only Watt that Hansen has a problem with.
Hunting for a mere 0.58 W/sqm is a clarion sign of desperation,
much like their instant glomming onto bad-weather news.
Thirty years ago they predicted catastrophe by now,
and they expected the ‘greenhouse signature’ to have shown up already.
Now that it hasn’t, you don’t hear that phrase much.
Worse yet, the Japanese CO2 satellite
has its highest reading over jungles, not cities.
That’s probably why ours conveniently crashed.
From space, the CO2 line is no colder, so ignore it.
Hell, that’s supposed to be the damned forcing they wail about,
but in spite of higher CO2, it’s not there, so there’s nothing
for their precious positive feedback to eat.
Anybody who truly loves the Earth
would be glad to hear there’s nothing to worry about.
Much more likely that Hansen’s calculations are out of balance than the earth. Where are the double blind controls to prevent Hansen’s and other scientist’s personal expectations from contaminating the records? Unless these are in place the entire GISS record is in question.
“…carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million…”
They want us to believe that “climate change” is bad, so why are they so anxious to change the climate themselves by reducing CO2? Where’s the evidence that cooling the climate is any better than warming it? Climate can change in two directions. So if one direction is “good” and the other “bad”, there was no reason to change the term from “global warming” to “climate change”. They did that to hedge their bets, which is not only evidence of a lack of confidence in their climate predictions but undermines any notion of a consensus. Not only can they not tell us how much the climate is going change, they seem to have little confidence in which direction the change is going to occur. This branch of science seems more concerned with deceiving people with propaganda to keep the grant money flowing than discovering truth.
This is watch the pea time. They are switching from temperature measurements to energy estimations. Hanson knows that the temps aren’t cooperating with his predictions, so he and Trenberth are producing models that predict that the energy is going into the oceans for now, for a delayed more powerful warming effect about 20 years from now or just before any important budget considerations.
The deep oceans are almost the perfect hiding place for Hansen’s missing heat. There are almost no temperature records for them.
Something is wrong with Hansen’s fuzzy math! If the sun’s output has decreased how come the 0.58 watts excess hasn’t changed?? Hansen’s fuzzy math is wrong!!
Apart from the other nonsense, the graph of TSI:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/619624main_solar%20irradiance%20graph.jpg
that show the latest minimum being lower than the other ones, does not take into account the realization that the decrease is artificial, due to uncompensated sensor degradation. A corrected graph is shown on slide 21 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
There is nothing Mother Nature could possibly do that Jim Hansen would not bend, through tortured calculations, into evidence of man-made global warming. The real mystery is why “we the people” keep paying his salary. I think the answer to that one is that “the the pirates have captured the counting house”.
There’s that word “unequivocal” again.
Max,
To get global radiative forcing you have to divide by 4 because the Earth is a sphere and remove about 30% to account for albedo. Presumably he’s using annual averages too.
Werner Brozek: The ocean has a vastly greater heat capacity than the ocean, and it is storing the great bulk of the the excess energy. Max, from the paper in question: “The amplitude of solar irradiance variability, measured perpendicular to the Sun-Earth direction, is about 1.5 W m−2 (left scale of Fig. 17), but because Earth absorbs only 240 W m−2, averaged over the surface of the planet, the full amplitude of the solar forcing is only about 0.25 W m−2.” Phil: So Willis Eisenbach is an expert on these studies? On this blog on 31 Dec 2011 he authored an error-riddled post (one could spend days debunking it, but what a waste of time that would be). Near the end of that post Willis criticizes von Schuckman et al. (2011) for not kriging the Argo data, but the objective analysis they use is mathematically equivalent to kriging. The terminologies are just different, geologists call it kriging, meteorologists and oceanographers call it objective analysis, optimal interpolation, or objective mapping. By the way Hansen et al. (2011) is available at http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.html for anyone to download, read, and learn something.
One feature of modern life, especially in the US during the last half century, is the great expansion of paving and maintaining of roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways. One estimate that I saw recently suggests that this amounts to over 60,000 square miles of paved surfaces today.
During the wintertime, snow covers much of the US, including those paved surfaces. The NCDC says that the snow covered almost ¼ of the US during December 2011, and by extension, that’s around 15,000 square miles of those paved surfaces. Cities and towns, as well as businesses and homeowners spend a lot of money and effort in snow removal, to keep those paved surfaces usable during the winter.
Since snow has a much higher albedo than non-snow covered surfaces, it is reasonable to expect that plowed road would absorb more heat, which would contribute a small amount to rising temperatures. Here’s a chart from Wikipedia showing relative albedos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg , with snow in the 0.6 range compared to land in the 0.2 range.
15,000 square mile times 2.5 million square meters per square mile is a little less than 40 billion square meters. My guestimate is that this gives about 2 trillion Watts of heat absorbed by those plowed, paved surfaces every year, which wasn’t the case 50 years ago. And, that’s just in the US.
It seems to me that that should cause a measureable increase in winter temperatures. Can anyone out there put a number to it?
I don’t know guys…Jim’s numbers look pretty robust to me./sarc off
“Earth has absorbed more than half a watt more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six year study period.”
I read it as 1/2 watt per square meter IN a six year period, not 1/2 per square meter per year for six years. Meaning 1/12 of a watt per square meter per year!
To claim that level of precision is incredible (not credible), the guy has lost it completely.
I wonder how close this amount of energy if compared to the human population increase in the 6 years times total energy (biomass) of an average human?
“From NASA Goddard, Jim Hansen reports on his balance problem”
It’s likely a very, very deep inner ear infection, large and centered between both ears.
Come back when you understand how gases radiate, Jim. Until you’ve realized that you can’t apply S-B surface area equations to three dimensional gaseous matter without integration and that mixtures involving water with its continuous state change processes modify, bypass and constrain that behaviour at the molecular level you’re just having a laugh. Quit playing spherical “Rubik’s Cube” shell games and snakes and ladders, I’m tired of reading this nonsense!