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.
Bogus.
It’s physically impossible (as in ‘would violate the known laws of physics’) to determine the energy emitted from the Earth from within the Earth itself.
Remember that the Earth also includes the gaseous envelope that surrounds the solid and liquid surface where we live.
Mike.
A paleophysicist answers: No need to wait folks! The answer is 1095 years (approximately).Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner! 🙂
The point of this question is to remind folks that seemingly insignificant energy imbalances (of order one-or-two watts/meter^2), when sustained over time, deposit enough energy to wreak vast changes upon our planet.
That’s the common-sense reason Hansen and his colleagues now are focusing their scientific predictions upon the following three new “hockey sticks”:
(A) accelerating seal-level rise, and
(B) accelerating ice-mass loss, and
(C) accelerating energy imbalance.
In coming decades, Hansen and his colleagues are planning on being proven correct in these three predictions. And given the solid historical track record of Hansen’s 1981 predictions, and the check-for-yourself sensible thermodynamics of Hansen’s new predictions, rational skepticism must now focus its doubt upon those who assert “Hansen’s new predictions are wrong.”
Hansen is confident that by the end of the present solar cycle (in 15 years or so), high-quality observations of the predicted three accelerations will constitute overwhelming evidence that his climate ideas are correct.
And who’s to say Hansen isn’t justified in this confidence?
I never did read the whole paper,
but I did find that 0.58W/m2 that went missing!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-881571
I don’t trust Hansen, period. When I started my own investigation, I asked him if he had ever worked out how much, exactly, the cooling effect was of each of the GHG’s. Do you think I ever got a reply?
Just like all those other clever people who claim to have PhD’s in physics and what not, could not tell me either….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#comment-878388
Note that it was A.Physicist who does not know how much the cooling effect is of each of the GHG’s either. In fact, I doubt if he understands why a GHG is both cooling and warming the atmosphere.
Elf says:”…but because Earth absorbs only 240 W m−2,…”
This has got to be the silliest statement or part of a statement ever put forth. The earth will aborb whatever amount arrives at the surface there is no limiting switch that stops it at 240.
Mr. Cotton again I concur.
@APhysicist
“And who’s to say Hansen isn’t justified in this confidence?”
Maybe, but here’s a question for you: what does his use of erroneous TSI data for the period in question (as commented above) do to his calculation? Genuine question, no snark 🙂
Let’s look at the reality of measuring 0.58 W/M^2 delta and what effect that has on temperature.
Let average solar input = 1366 W/M^2, so, 0.58/1366 = 0.0425% increase in energy input.
Using the S-B relationship (delta radiation energy is proportional to Tn^4/To^4), the new temperature needed to get rid of Hanson’s excess energy, using an average temperature of say 15°C, or 288°K is…… 288.03°K.
That’s an increase of 0.03°C!!!!! and that’s not 0.03° per day or year or decade it’s just that a 0.03°C rise is sufficient to dissipate an additional 0.58W/M^2. Can we measure that?? Is it meaningful?
My head hurts!!
BC
HenryP says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:25 am
HenryP (and others) – to further understand how Hansen and his cronies operate at NASA-GISS, please read this:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/
And remember – our tax dollars fund these clowns…
With respect, HenryP, one of the best and clearest accounts of the mathematical and physical foundations of the link GHG
GHE 
AGW is found in arch-skeptic Richard Lindzen’s 1989 review article ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’.
Heck, if skeptics can’t trust Richard Lindzen’s physics, then whose physics can they trust?
All that Hansen and his colleagues are doing, is tuning-up Lindzen’s physics, with a focus on reducing modeling uncertainties, then making specific (bold!) predictions of:
(A) accelerating seal-level rise, and
(B) accelerating ice-mass loss, and
(C) accelerating energy imbalance.
For everyone who reads Lindzen’s article, it will be plainly evident that Hansen and his colleagues have thoroughly embraced Lindzen’s criticisms.
This is (IMHO) a good example of science-and-skepticism each strengthening the other … to the benefit of all.
As for Hansen’s predictions, by the end of this solar cycle (in 15-18 years or so) humanity will have a very good idea whether Hansen’s ideas are essentially correct … and Lindzen-style rational skepticism most definitely will accommodate that possibility.
pochas says:
February 1, 2012 at 6:35 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
If you read my post you would have observed that I am questioning the precise effect, in the real world conditions encountered in the planet’s atmosphere, of what we are measuring when taking note of DWLWIR.
The misappreciation of its nature and effect (in particular its affect pn and over oceans) may well explain why there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature during the instrument period, whether one looks at data sets produced by GISS or the UEA or satellite sets
.
Very convincing! I am now sure that Hansen has rabies! GK
To get some perspective on error potential, a recent discussion topic:
1. Present NASA TOA solar irradiance, 340.25+/-22.74 W/m2, based on an orbital eccentricity of 0.0167; i.e. a 6.682% difference in irradiace between aphelion and perihelion positions. This orbital variation results in a 45.48 W/m2 total variation in TOA IS, which means that at a static albedo of 0.30, the non-reflected energy naturally varies during the year by 31.84 W/m2, a difference that is 55X the difference Hansen is looking for.
2. Despite the higher TOA SI during summer in the Southern Hemisphere, the Northern Hemisphere is about 2C warmer over the year than the Southern, as a result of different land mass configurations, water and air currents. So a 32 W/m2 difference in TOA SI is MORE than compensated for by geometry and heat redistribution systems.
3. The variance in TOA IS over an 11-year cycle is 0.1% of average TOA, or 0.34 W/m2, or 59% of what he says is “missing”.
4. The amount Earth reflects, the albedo, is “approximately” 0.30, or 102.08 W/m2, i.e. the Earth does not reflect 238.17 W/m2 (though a small percent is refracted). Note that an a 2007 WUWT showed that from 1995 to 2007 the albedo rolled around +/- 5.0 W/m2, or +/-2.5 W/m2 on a day + night basis. This means the Earth is absorbing 31.84+/-5.0 W/m2 over the last 30 year period. This variation is 46X to 64X the amount Hansen et al can’t find.
5. The average TOA IS varies by 0.1% over an 11 year cycle, amounting to 0.24 W/m2 of non-reflected energy, or 41% of the missing energy.
Hansen et al claim to be able to determine the Earth’s energy balance sufficiently to identify a “missing” 0.58 W/m2. The Earth demonstrates an ability to move around more than 32 W/m2 during the year already, and has to move around up to 36 W/m2 at 100% efficiency JUST TO STAY THE SAME year-to-year. This movement must be consistent to 0.29 W/m2 for Hansen’s extended calculations to be meaningful by itself, a feat of 99.2% efficiency. His calculations of input AND output have to be each accurate within 0.12% as well (0.29 W/m2 out of 238.17 W/m2).
Errors accumulate. Where and when the solar input and albedo changes are significantly effect how much energy is received. There is huge variation in the Earth’s system, and enough uncertainty in where (because of “when”) energy goes to question the REALITY of an accuracy to 0.58 W/m2.
I don’t believe this stuff. It’s all a bridge too far.
A physicist says @ur momisugly February 1, 2012 at 8:51 am
Only those who produce stuff where the units are manifestly appropriate to the purported mechanism.
The latest accurate measurements of the solar constant are from SORCE TIM and give a value of 1360.8 watts/m2. This is lower than previous value of ~1367 watts/m2 still quoted on Wikipedia and used by most climate models. It is also 5 watts/m2 less than that used by Hansen in the above graph. This is important also for energy balance calculations since the average incident average solar radiation on Earth is 340 watts/m2 and not 342 watts/m2. So to quote that there is a missing 0.58 watts/m2 “missing” when using a too high value of TSI value seems a bit too ambitious.
See: Kopp, G. and J. L. Lean, A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38
“The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.” http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
I found a little primer on energy covering btu’s, calories, watt hours, etc. as it can get confusing when studying and converting energy, power, heat, force, newtons, croutons, and plutons.
http://www.classroom-energy.com/energy_101/energy_quick_tour/quicktour_1.html
This is from API, the American Petroleum Institute.
No, I am not being paid.
I wasn’t aware that people claimed that changes within the 11 year cause either global warming or global cooling. Perhaps this is just a red herring put out by GISS. I would think that scientists would look for longer term solar oscillations such as the DeVries cycles and see if there are any climate correlations.
It only needs the ocean surface to heat by ~0.1C for it to radiate 0.58W/m2 more, not to mention the extra energy flux from evaporation, convection etc.
And the imbalance of 0.58W/m2 over 6 years is sufficient to heat the ocean by 0.1C to a depth of over 200m, let alone just the surface.
So how come the imbalance still exists, if it ever did?
Here’s how this story is being played in the MSM:
NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans
Jan 31, 2012
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
“A new NASA study tries to lay to rest the skepticism about climate change, especially vocal this year on the GOP presidential campaign trail. It finds, like other major scientific research, that greenhouse gases generated by human activities — not changes in solar activity — are the primary cause of global warming.”
A physicist says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-881771
I am sorry, the link to the PDF does not work. The other info is useless.
But if you know the balance sheet between the warming and cooling properties in the right Si units of each of the GHG’s why don’t you just give it to me?
Note that in the case of the CO2, you must also give me the cooling figures for taking part in photosynthesis.
The other issues you raise I have addressed,
i.e.
1) surveys show that sea levels in South Africa were up to 30 meters higher than now, some time during the past 20000 years
2) the north west passage was open before, 1000 years ago. The vikings used it…
3) the energy imbalance is most probably due to inaccurate methods/ & testing
as reported by Clive Best, earlier,
I suppose it depends whose test and methods you trust
in my 40 year old book the solar constant is given as 1353 W/ m2 (1940 cal/min/cm2)
so how did they get that result, and why is it different now?
their thirty-year predictions from 1981 in ‘Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’ are looking pretty solid right now.
———————————————————————-
Sure, in the same manner a broken clock is right twice a day! Are you counting all of the corrections that have since been made, or just their random half educated guess from thirty years ago?
Or how about his predictions from twenty years ago? Ten? What do [i]they[/i] look like right now? Got any other REALLY selective bits to present?
UNPRECEDENTED temperature drop in the South Atlantic,
largest in the NOAA’s 60 year long records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SA-SST.htm
Max says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“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. :)”
Max, your calculator is right, these guys live and talk about their flat world located further then Mars where the sun shines all day long but with 1/4 of the Earth insulation, no night and day.
Bean says:
February 1, 2012 at 10:28 am
“The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.” http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
================
Which refers to a web page referencing data that is prior to the end of 2008. The more relevant question would be, is the Argo dataset long enough now?
So then, A physicist, does that mean you concur that all current de-carbonisation measures should be suspended until 15-18 years have elapsed, by which time we might have some idea of exactly what problem it is we are trying to solve?