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.
@The Elf
You stated:
I presume there is a typo, but it isn’t clear to me what you meant to write.
It is Willis Eschenbach (ashcreek, as in European ash, the tree), not Eisenbach (ironcreek). Are you German?
Willis I don’t believe was claiming expertise on the observed error of 1 watt/m2. He was referring to a figure in Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty, whose authors are Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling, Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden & Graeme L. Stephens. Presumably they would be the experts. I apologize for not linking the reference directly. I assume my oversight was the cause of the misunderstanding.
Genghis: “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 consensus is that molecules have a catch and release program for photons that preferentially directs re-emissions to large bodies of water. Only large bodies of water. Spitting on the sidewalks won’t stave off boiling planetary doom. Learn 2 physics before you speak.
The Elf says:
January 31, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Werner Brozek: The ocean has a vastly greater heat capacity than the ocean
You really should proofread your work better before submitting it. But I knew what you meant.
I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 3 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 3 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0027 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?
I do not believe even Argo. It is still run by NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
All sensors with supposed cooling bias have been deleted from the dataset, because.. because it can’t be so that it is cooling.
“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.
So Hansen wants to change the Aerosol fudge factor again. Probably so he can say that Chinese or other pollution masks the CO2 greenhouse effect. This way he tries to save the high CO2 doubling climate sensitivity estimates of the IPCC ; unchanged since 1990, ranging from 2 to 4.5 deg C; and falsified by observations (temperatures rising too slowly). A correction downwards would be overdue; so the warmists need to use the Aerosol card again to prevent that.
Liberal science.
The Elf
Hansen needs to quit the hand jiving and out gassing. How many watts go into the biomass?
Energy in, carbohydrate out. That is the only energy *storage* in the system, and it has no temperature value. Every thing else is equilibration and energy *flow*. It’s easy. Measure TSI, measure total Earth irradiance. Argo only scratches the surface of ocean heat content.
More CO2 = More Sugar!!!
The Elf says: “The ocean has a vastly greater heat capacity than the ocean (I’m sure you meant land), and it is storing the great bulk of the the excess energy. ”
If the ocean is storing all that excess energy, then it has to be warmer and therefore it must be expanding. However, as Envisat shows ( http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png ) the sea level since 2005 has been flat-to-falling (especially if you take into account the rather large peak due to the strong 2010 El Nino). I don’t think the ocean has been storing much excess energy in the past 6 years…. looks more like it is slowly losing energy to me, based on this sea level data from the most advanced and newest satellite in orbit that measures sea level.
Hey Elf – Does all that kool aid give you gas? Myself, I get gassy just laughing at the sheer arrogance it takes to believe Hansen has even a clue… But keep chugging, I’m sure it’s delicious.
From the paper:
“The amplitude of solar irradiance variability, measured
perpendicular to the Sun-Earth direction, is about 1.5Wm−2
(left scale of Fig. 17), but because Earth absorbs only
240Wm−2, averaged over the surface of the planet, the full
amplitude of the solar forcing is only about 0.25Wm−2.”
As a non scientist that tries to understand how science works, should I be disturbed by a NASA dude that says: “this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming”
It appears to me that he is done doing science if he has come to that conclusion. I thought a real scientist looked for really cool ways to prove he/she was wrong. Isn’t that what science is all about?
I think it is going to be hilarious when they finally prove that the “A” in “AGW” is the environmental movement for cleaning up the air in the west and Gorby for watching the Soviet bloc disintegrate around him.
The “lost energy” is hidden in layers of obese human fat @ur momisugly 3,500 calories per lb equaling 13.978btus equaling 4 watts, times 7 billion people equals 28,000,000,000 watts per pound per population.
If we are all an average 10 lbs overweight that would be 280,000,000,000 watts of heat hidden in fat.
There, that should cover the mystery.
ps: for god’s sake don’t try to exercise it off, it would release extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and the heat, my god, the heat….!!! Sequestered heat in fat is good for global warming. We are all saving the planet pound by pound. Sleep well. sarc/off.
The energy has to go somewhere… why not us.?
I was only joking above but as Richard G points out: solar energy can be stored the biomass.
After all, the global warmers are complaining about our burning of the “old biomass” which they claim is causing all our worldly problems.
The earth, like a machine, processes whatever little sticks we throw at it. Just like when I eat food, my body breaks everything down and uses what it needs via complex conversions well beyond our current understanding in many of those intricate chemical reactions.
Earth will re-balance herself in due time.. for Hansen’s balance, it may take him a little longer.
Is the science settled now?
More Fairy Tales from Hansen Christen Anderson.
I think it is going to be hilarious when they finally prove that the “A” in “AGW” is the environmental movement for cleaning up the air in the west and Gorby for watching the Soviet bloc disintegrate around him.
That’s my view too.
Decreased tropospheric aerosols causing increased surface warming due to increased solar insolation. With a particularly large effect in the early morning increasing Tmin.
Otherwise, most people won’t understand the significance of measured versus calculated versus estimated.
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.
Their aerosol fudge factor has no basis in reality. Global aerosol levels have declined over the last 20 years. Thus causing a net warming.
I’m just going thru this paper right now, but the thing that immediately jumps out is the blatantly political/religious advocacy language used throughout. Multiple references to “humanity’s faustian bargain”. In a scientific paper? Really?
“Peer review” doesn’t require even the appearance of scientific objectivity any more, evidently.
The paper is nonsense when it says – “but because Earth absorbs only 240Wm−2, averaged over the surface of the planet,”
The Earth does not absorb only 240 W/sq m “average” – you can’t average out the Sun’s irradiance.
It is either daytime with much higher levels than 240 W/sq m over a large part of the globe or it is zero.
It is the ole divide by 4 nonsense based on the so called blackbody radiation balance and the geometry of a disk versus a sphere.
This stupidity is impossible – we all know the Earth is not at a static equilibrium for either temperature or energy balance. The Earth does no behave anything like a “superconducting” blackbody.
They get the so called “effective temperature” wrong – it is the temperature associated with the outgoing IR radiation yet they claim it is OK to cut the solar insolation by 4.
If they had half a brain they would concede the Sun can heat the Earth up to much higher temperatures and the really amazing thing about the atmosphere is how it protects us all from the intense energy barage during the day (convection being the major component) and yet the oceans and atmosphere slow down heat loss at night.
I just wish these fools would simply give up – I certainly do not accept their voodoo science with their unbelievable precision.
TSI is just not a good measure of how all the different solar component outputs change, and how these different solat componenets effect the earth’s climate and weather…so therfore proves little at all in the debate imo.
[quote] Juraj V. says: I do not believe even Argo. It is still run by NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
All sensors with supposed cooling bias have been deleted from the dataset, because.. because it can’t be so that it is cooling.[/quote]
Indeed, It appears from a quick reading of that web article, that when Josh Willis noticed cooling ocean temps from the Argo floats, and he could not reconcile those results with the climate models, he presumed the float measurements must be wrong, not the climate models. He assumed the actual measurements were wrong, because climate models could not possibly be wrong. He went out on the ocean and took futher measurements with XBT instruments (question, was he measuring the same ocean by then?) and decided his new measurements were too high. So, now some magic number appears that discounts the cool temps from Argo by taking some arbitrary fraction from the “wrong” XBT high temps to adjust all the data upwards from floats that showed cooling, and all in order to match the climate models. And then he Willis reports “everyone was happier.” Good God! Am I misreading this article? If not, then why are these people still being paid by taxpayers?
[quote] From NASA’s “Correcting the Cooling” web site, subsection “Smoothing the Bumps”:
In mid-2008, however, a team of scientists led by Catia Domingues and John Church from Australia’s CSIRO, and Peter Gleckler, from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, revised long-term estimates of ocean warming based on the corrected XBT data. Since the revision, says Willis, the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement. “That makes everyone happier,” Willis says.[/quote]
“FrankK says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:27 pm
More Fairy Tales from Hansen Christen Anderson.”
If you refer to the Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen it should properly be “Hansen Christian Andersen”.
Just what is a layman supposed to believe? Here in Milford Haven, Wales UK, since late November through December and most of January the day/night air temperature barely
changed from +10C. Today, as I type at 8:00am local, the temperature is -2C.
And still no tutorials anywhere to explain to the interested layman how radiation from
6kg of CO2 in the atmosphere of a 1m^2 column of air over water can change the
temperature of the first 6mm of that water when the first 2mm of that water evaporates
every day. The numbers don’t add up.
Thank God the planet absorbs more energy than it returns to space. If it didn’t we’d all starve to death.
I can understand how incoming could be accurately measured by an orbiting satellite. The Sun’s rays will be fairly constant across the circular plane which the Earth’s face presents so a sensor reading at one location in space can be extrapolated across the sphere.
Outgoing is a completely different story though. The outgoing varies across the entire sphere so the “looking down” approach can only be accurate at that spherical location.
Perhaps an averaging approach using an orbiting argo like network would provide accuracy? I’m interested in knowing how they manage to estimate the outgoing figure with such accuracy to make these imbalance deductions.
I thought at least 17 years where needed to make claims about the climate, I guess that rule is only used if there is no significant warming,