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.
Richard111 says:
February 1, 2012 at 12:08 am
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
Actually, the radiation from C02 will not penetrate even 2MM into the ocean, the the warming effect of C02 radiation on the ocean is zero for all practicle purposes. The optical depth of the radiation from C02 evaporates before the photons can actually warm.
Rather complicated process, but a chemical certainty that C02 radiation cannot warm water.
As far as the energy imbalance:
We may have an energy imbalance. However, the reason for that is not as straightforward as Dr. Hansen proclaims.
We do not yet have the ability to measure how much H20 vapor is in the mesosphere. H20, even at reduced pressure, far outweighs C02.
When we can get an accurate handle on strat and meso H20 vapor quantities, let’s talk. Till then, a great deal of supposition without qualification.
Igsy, the principles of rational skepticism suffice to answer your question as follows:
Q: Might a rational citizen quit smoking now, to diminish a chance of lung cancer in 15-18 years? A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: Might a rational investor discount the market value of 20-year bonds in carbon-based power plants, in proportion to the probability that Hansen’s predictions may be proved right? A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: Can climate-change skeptics rationally assert “The probability that Hansen’s climate-change predictions are right is negligible?” A: No, they cannot.
Richard G says:
January 31, 2012 at 8:33 pm
I agree. This is a vitally important part of the equation, and one that is almost impossible to work out to any relevant degree. It could be the real ‘missing heat’, after all. If so, that is great! More plants = more food, more raw materials, etc. All we are really doing is turning all that useless (at least where it is) black stuff into useful things again.
I could not agree more! Clearly, if you assigned these wackos a simple task of detailing the energy budget of a city or a neighborhood or a single street or even a house (test it on a small greenhouse!), they could not complete the task within single degrees let alone thousandths of a degree. They are off by an order of magnitude of accuracy before they even begin.
There are several human foibles that are becoming clear now. For one, the astonishing arrogance that the Earth’s so-called energy budget can be thoroughly measured, accurately quantified and then modeled and plotted! Not today or 500 years from now folks! And we can forget today especially because of the politics that are infesting every molecule of these megalomaniac AGW Scientologists, every single one of them.
Beyond this stunning arrogance lies something else, I don’t know, gullibility or ignorance of those willing to play along with this shark jumping. Whatever the underlying reason, even entertaining this madness is doing one thing, enabling them to continue. That’s right, if you humor a psychopath, you are not helping them. Just like supplying a junkie or alcoholic with heroin or booze cannot ever be helpful.
Finally, consider the absolute conflict of interest right in front of our eyes. The same people that take the supposedly objective measurements or are in charge of maintaining the objective databases, are also busy subjectivelyadjusting them and interpreting them. And then these same people are leading the advocacy charge to pass legislation to alter policy, and/or using existing FedGov agencies to force policy, and/or using lawsuits to block activities, and/or picketing and getting arrested doing the same!
Honestly, it is impossible to imagine how climate research and policy could be any less Scientific than it is today. And it is our own fault because long ago, Sagan, Ehrlich, and Hansen were for some reason taken seriously and never humiliated like they should have been. Now Science, and the Scientific Method, and Logic, and Common Sense are all in dire straits.
I keep looking for the warming……and it just isn’t there.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/trend:1.0/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2012
Maybe one has to ask the question this way?
Did the earth cool from 1940-1970? Or was it warming then as well?
Or…..what is an AGW person mean when they say it is warming. Is 10.0C warmer than 9.0C?
I just don’t get it why it is so hard to just admit it isn’t warming and get on with life.
When it does start warming again, which I really would like to see, I will admit it as to me 10.0C is warmer than 9.0C.
Now they just need to demonstrate where all that extra warming went, since it apparently did not warm the globe any more than trivially.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2013/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2013/trend
From a physical point of view, the analysis of Hansen et al. (2011) is senseless stuff. Their Eq. (1) given by
S = DT_eq/F (1)
is based on the so-called climate feedback equation which has its origin in the global energy balance model of Schneider & Mass (1975). Here, S is the so-called climate sensitivity parameter, DT_eq is the change of the global surface temperature, T_s, from the equilibrium of the undisturbed system to that of the system disturbed by the anthropogenic forcing F.
This global energy balance model reads
R dT_s/dt = Q – T_s/S , (2)
where R is the thermal inertia coefficient only valid for a layer, but not for a surface, and Q is called the radiative forcing. The term on the LHS of this equation is not entirely correct. It must read R dT_m/dt, where T_m is the volume-averaged temperature for this layer (Kramm & Dlugi, 2010). Generally, to replace T_m by T_s is invalid. Furthermore, Eq. (2) is based on the assumption that the atmosphere is always in a stationary state. This means that the energy flux balance must fulfill following condition (Kramm and Dlugi, 2010, 2011):
R_L(TOA) = A S_o/4 + H(ES) + E(ES) + DR_L(ES) . (3)
Here, A S_o/4 is the absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere (where S_o is the solar constant and A the planetary absorptivity in the solar range), and R_L(TOA) is the outgoing infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Furthermore, H(ES), E(ES), and DR_LES) are the fluxes of sensible and latent heat as well as the net radiation in the infrared range at the earth’s surface (ES), respectively. If the planetary radiation balance at the TOA is fulfilled as suggested by Trenberth et al. (2009) and many others (see Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011), i.e.,
(1 – alpha_S) S_o/4 – R_L(TOA) = 0 , (4)
where alpha_S is the planetary albedo of the entire earth-atmosphere system in the solar range, then the energy flux balance at the ES is given by
(1 – alpha_S – A) – H(ES) – E(ES) – DR_L(ES) = 0 . (5)
If the outgoing infrared radiation is reduced by F due to the anthropogenic effect, Eq. (3) may be written as
R_L(TOA) – F = A S_o/4 + H(ES) + E(ES) + DR_L(ES) – F (6)
This would mean that the net radiation at the ES would be reduced by F. However, this does not automatically mean that the surface temperature must increase to re-establish a planetary radiation balance at the TOA (see Eq. (4)), as already argued by Ramanathan et al. (1987). Since the flux terms H(ES), E(ES), and DR_L(ES) are global averages of the corresponding local quantities, none of these flux terms is a function of the global surface temperature. Furthermore, there is no constant ratio between the H(ES) plus (E(ES) on the one hand and DR_L(ES) on the other hand. A reduction of DR_L(ES) by F can easily be compensated by H(ES) and/or E(ES) to fulfill the energy flux balance (5). The same is true in case of any other of these flux terms. Moreover, the uncertainty inherent in the determination of the fluxes of sensible and latent heat is so large that F may be assessed as peanuts.
In the capture of their Figure 17 Hansen et al. (2011) repeated here by the first figure stated:
“Recent estimates of mean solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean, 2011) are smaller, 1360.8±0.5 W/m^2, but the uncertainty of the absolute value has no significant effect on the solar forcing, which depends on the temporal change of irradiance.”
This argument is highly awkward. If R_L(TOA) is reduced by F, Eq. (4) must be written as
(1 – alpha_S) S_o/4 – R_L(TOA) + F = 0 . (7)
Thus, the amount of F = 0.58±0.15 W/m^2 is notably smaller than that of the quantity
alpha_S (S_o,old – S_o,new) /4 = 0.88 W/m^2 .
Here, S_o, old = 1366 W/m^2 and S_o, new = 1361 W/m^2.
Finally, it is worthy to take a look on the 240 W/m^2, according to Hansen et al. (2011), the solar energy averaged over the planet’s surface. First of all, this the amount of the solar radiation that affects the entire earth-atmosphere system, i.e., (1 – alpha_S) S_o/4. According to Trenberth et al. (2009) and many others the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is much smaller. Customarily, a value of alpha_S = 0.3 for the planetary albedo is used. This means that the solar constant that corresponds to 240 W/m^2 must be:
S_o = 1371 W/m^2
This is a value which was delivered by early satellite observations (NIMBUS7/ERB; see http://www.acrim.com/).
The accuracy in the quantification of the global energy flux balance as claimed by Hansen et al. (2011) is, by far, not achievable. This is a simple fact that is based on physics, rather than on faith in anthropogenic global warming.
A Physicist and I suspect others: What are you suggesting we do to avert the coming catastrophe? Convert the worlds entire energy supply to low density sources (windmills etc.)? Since you are convinced this is going to happen if we do nothing, why don’t you and others suggest alternatives that don’t involve subjecting the whole of Western civilisation to abject poverty?
Jim
James Hansen is a huge fan of nuclear power in general, thorium reactors in particular: see for example Hansen’s Why America Needs Nuclear Energy.
It’s not that Hansen fantasizes that nuclear power is perfectly safe, but over the long haul, it’s a whole lot safer than messing with the planetary biosphere.
Yeah, tough decisions are coming. In fact, they’re here now.
@ur momisugly a physicist: Q: Can climate-change skeptics rationally assert “The probability that Hansen’s climate-change predictions are right is negligible?” A: No, they cannot.
Q: Can you rationally aassert that the probability of the Svensmark hypothesis being correct is negligible? No. Several very legitimate experiments, including CERN CLOUD (71 scientists from 17 countries) show a possible mechanism if not detailed methods.
It seems to me that your question is an argument from authority. We should believe and act upon Hansen, but ignore Svensmark, for example.
In grade school, my teachers asserted that geological science was settled, and the continents were fixed and immovable. Out of school I was reading about Wegner and continental drift.
IMHO, we are all a bunch of Newtonian physicists trying to explain time dilation. The depth of the chaotic influences on climate are not at all well understood by ANYONE in the field, despite the hubris imparted by so called modern technology and government funding. The rise of the Inca civilization in the Urubamba Valley in Peru is suspiciously correlated with the Medieval Warm Period in Europe. Any casual visitor today can see the incredible irrigation systems built high on the mountains that are today desiccated highlands. The high priests were the incontrovertible masters of the earth and when the rains stopped coming, metaphorically demanded that the climate Gods be appeased by throwing another virgin in the volcano. How is your suggestion different? Or more effective?
Gerhard Kramm says:
February 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Absolutely great analysis. I can find nothing wrong with your methodology, and certainly nothing wrong with your conclusion.
Thank you.
JimJ says:
February 1, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“A Physicist and I suspect others: What are you suggesting we do to avert the coming catastrophy?”
I suggest they collectively give up ALL petroleum products. TODAY. NOW. To not do otherwise would make them hypocrites of the first degree. And also please do NOT use energy derived from fossil fuels either. Find your own alternatives, and leave the rest of us trying to make a living in the private sector alone!
A physicist says:
February 1, 2012 at 5:38 pm
JimJ says: A Physicist and I suspect others: What are you suggesting we do? Jim
James Hansen is a huge fan of nuclear power in general, thorium reactors in particular: see for example Hansen’s Why America Needs Nuclear Energy.
It’s not that Hansen fantasizes that nuclear power is perfectly safe, but over the long haul, it’s a whole lot safer than messing with the planetary biosphere.
Yeah, tough decisions are coming. In fact, they’re here now.
————————
Yes thorium is a shining possibility. But that is a facile and incomplete suggestion. To understand the magnitude of the problem, fly over any large city, LA, Bejing, London, Istanbul, Buenos Aires, or a thousand others, and look down at the millions of cars, homes with heating systems and industries that depend on fossil fuels. That is he real problem. What does Hansen have to say about how to economically and politically make the transition? Nothing? Didn’t think so.
One of the reasons that many of us are skeptics, apart from the infantile state of the science, is that the “climate conferences” seem to represent nothing more than the resurgence of the Bolshevicks, intent on punishing the bad (energy intensive) societies for the benefit of the have-nots, without suggesting positive and progressive ways forward for humanity as it exists today and guided by an unelected global bureaucracy of high priests.
In the next hundred years, LOTS of things will change in our use and understanding of energy. I for one am not willing to throw my virgin daughter into the volcano, live in an unheated cave (no fires allowed) and ride a bicycle just because some God of Climate says I have to but can’t explain demonstrably why. /rant off
Mind you, according to my book, apparently also reported in Nasa report R-351
the solar constant varies by 2%.
I reckon that that variation could be applicable at anytime, depending on the activity of the sun?
So the reported 1.940 cal/min/cm2 +/- 2% (in R-351) translates to 1353 W/m2 +/- 2%,
meaning, at any given time it fluctuates between 1326 and 1380 W/m2
So incoming (above the atmosphere) also varies between 332 and 345 W/m2
I donot know if it varies by that much, that you can simply work on an average.
I therefore agree with what Clive Best has suggested in his earlier post:
“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”
Eitherway, even if there is a missing 0.58 W/m2, I know where it went: less de-forestation and destruction of the environment and increasing greenery.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-881571
HenryP says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Mind you, according to my book, apparently also reported in Nasa report R-351
the solar constant varies by 2%.
Actually not, you are off by a factor of ten.
Henry@Leif
Another book gives the solar constant also 1360 W/m2 like also reported by Clive Best,
but it does not give me a range of variation.
Where did you find the variation reported as 0.2% ?
Henry@Leif
BTW, I checked Nasa R-351
On pg 73 it reports the error as 0.03 cal/min/cm2
which on the 1.94 cal/min/cm2 works out to 1.6%
I suppose subsequent books on physics have therefore rounded this value to 2%
I am stating what R-351 has reported. If it has been superseded, please let me know.
Gerhard Feb 1 4:49pm
Excellent post: if others don’t like reading equations they may find my explanation of the same thing helpful at http://climate-change-theory.com
Hansen’s hopeless error is perhaps the single most important, and yet easiest to pinpoint problem (meaning blunder) in the whole AGW debate. He left out those terms for conduction, convection, evaporation etc instead of subtracting them from the energy left for radiation.
Marcoinpanama, rational skepticism appreciates that the following two questions are separate:
GHE 
AGW a sobering scientific reality?
Q2: these arguments are skeptical to be sure, but they are not rationally skeptical.
Q1 Is the Hansen-style link GHG
Q2 How can we best make a transition to a safe planetary energy economy?
Thus, to the extent that skepticism is rational, the answer to Q1 has nothing to do with the answer to Q2.
Whereas, the answer to Q2 has everything to do with the answer to Q1.
A considerable proportion of arguments here on WUWT posit a reverse dependency Q1
@ur momisugly Gerhard Kramm
Thank you for that logical and clear analysis.
I would be interested in an alarmist’s thoughts on Gehrhard’s post.
A physicist says:
February 2, 2012 at 3:13 am
Have you stopped using petroleum products yet?? And energy from fossil fuels…
This is the first paper I’ve read from Hansen in years that might have a chance of advancing the science. Rather than just asserting the debate is over, he seems to be conceding they have yet to make the case and addresses problems with the models. He concedes some important points. The models have correlated errors in their ocean components, and it is because they are not independent as is assume and required for ensemble statistics:
“One plausible explanation for why many models have sim- ilarly slow response functions is common ancestry. The ocean component of many atmosphere-ocean climate mod- els is the GFDL Bryan-Cox ocean model (Bryan, 1969; Cox, 1984). Common ancestry of the ocean sub-model is true for some of the principal models contributing to the IPCC (2001, 2007) climate studies, including (1) Parallel Climate Model (PCM), which uses the NCAR CCM3 at- mosphere and land model with the Department of Energy Parallel Ocean Program ocean model (Washington et al., 2000), (2) GFDL R30 coupled climate model (Delworth et al., 2002), which uses version 1.1 of the Modular Ocean Model (Pacanowski et al., 1991), and (3) HadCM3 with at- mosphere model described by Pope et al. (2000) and ocean model described by Gordon et al. (2000).”
Hansen even speculates about how the models can be so right, when they are so wrong, quite and intellectually honest concession, but he could have benefited from a more expansive review of the diagnostic literature than just aerosols. The correlated positive surface albedo bias of Roesch (2007) could fill the role on its own, with enough left over to balance the correlated under representation of the increase in precipitation seen in the observations Wentz (2007).
To Hansen: a tentative welcome back to the effort to actually move the science forward. If the model community will admit and conscientiously address the diagnostic issues, our understanding of this nonlinear dynamic system may be in a much better state in a couple more model generations. Perhaps it is too much to hope that this a harbinger of a time when scientists are once again on the same skeptical, no-holds-barred “team”. These should be such exciting times for climate science.
HenryP says:
February 2, 2012 at 2:14 am
I am stating what R-351 has reported. If it has been superseded, please let me know.
R-351 was issued before we had precision measurements from space.
For a modern view, see
http://st4a.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nagoya_workshop_2/pdf/1-1_Lean.pdf