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.
HenryP says:
February 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
the data quality description is: as it stands, not what we want or hope it will be (objectives).
As it stands it is: 0.48 W/m2. (0.04%). Remember also the 4.5 W/m2 by which previous results must be reduced. (0.33%)
You do not appreciate the difference between accuracy and precision, or absolute and relative calibration. No amount of quoting what you do not understand will change that. Let me give you an example: The amount of heat measured depends on the size [the area] of the entrance hole to the cavity. The accuracy of the measurements depends then on the accuracy with which that area is measured. But since the area does not change the error in determining its size is constant and therefore has no bearing on the error in the variation from day to day or from year to year of the TSI measured. For the variability of the climate, the absolute accuracy [set by the error of the area of the entrance hole] is irrelevant. What matters is how precisely the variation from day to day or from year to year is measured, and that is to 0.001%/yr.
Once in use, they hope to re-calibrate to get better precision.
Again you confuse precision with accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
HenryP says:
February 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
it is not clear to me if, how and when the correction of 4.5 W/m2 was applied. (I believe the average for TSI should now be 1361.5 W/m2)
The 4.5 W/m2 difference is due to the earlier instruments construction which allow stray light to enter the cavity so is not a function of time, but of instrument. It is not an ‘uncertainty’, but a straightforward systematic error that can be corrected simply by subtracting the 4.5 from all readings by instruments with that error, no matter when they were made.
Sorry Leif
Miracles do happen, but what with errors being recently discovered in the order of 4.5 W /m2, on a total of 1361, you are not going to make me believe that they now you can easily achieve a variation of <0.01% with your measuring equipment.
In fact, the mystery of the 4.5 (not coming inwards) could help explain the 0.58 that they claim is not going outwards. It has almost got the correct ratio.
HenryP says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Miracles do happen, but what with errors being recently discovered in the order of 4.5 W /m2, on a total of 1361, you are not going to make me believe that they now you can easily achieve a variation of <0.01% with your measuring equipment.
It’s 0.001%. You may have some ulterior motive not to believe what the experimenters themselsves find.
In fact, the mystery of the 4.5 (not coming inwards) could help explain the 0.58 that they claim is not going outwards. It has almost got the correct ratio.
It is not a mystery. It is totally understood. And was due to a mistake in the construction of the earlier instruments allowing stray light to enter the cavity, thereby registering more heat than there actually should have been given the area of the entrance aperture. A mistake not repeated in the SORCE/TIM instrument.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm
“Again you confuse precision with accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision”
=================
Why parse words when it is settled.
All this dancing around the the truth, which is, it is not fully understood.
u.k.(us) says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All this dancing around the truth, which is, it is not fully understood.
You cannot transfer your ignorance to others…
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm
u.k.(us) says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All this dancing around the truth, which is, it is not fully understood.
You cannot transfer your ignorance to others…
====================
So. ignorance is me, and Leif can not tell when he is being played for a response.
Ignorance is an uninformed intellect.
Take your pick.
u.k.(us) says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm
All this dancing around the truth, which is, it is not fully understood.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#quality :
“The 4.5 W/m^2 by which the TIM reads lower than prior instruments has been resolved as being largely due to internal instrument scatter in those prior instruments causing erroneously high readings (see Kopp & Lean, GRL, 38, L01706, 2011).”
u.k.(us) says:
February 4, 2012 at 4:22 pm
So. ignorance is me, and Leif can not tell when he is being played for a response.
I don’t play with this [or like being play with], just report the best I can in the interest of educating.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm
“I don’t play with this [or like being play with], just report the best I can in the interest of educating.”
===========
I know you do Leif.
I am ignorant, yet enjoy winding you up 🙂
Keep us informed !
[Moderator’s Note: Poking at lions through the bars is not nice and occassionally ends very badly. -REP]
SAN FRANCISCO — The big cat exhibit at the San Francisco Zoo was cordoned off as a crime scene Wednesday as investigators tried to determine whether a 300-pound Siberian tiger that killed a visitor escaped from its high-walled pen on its own or got help from someone, inadvertent or otherwise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22395368/ns/us_news-life/t/tiger-escapes-sf-zoo-kills–year-old-visitor/#.Ty34KMU2-uI
=============
Point taken, though.
“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:40 pm
HenryP says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Miracles do happen, but what with errors being recently discovered in the order of 4.5 W /m2, on a total of 1361, you are not going to make me believe that they now you can easily achieve a variation of <0.01% with your measuring equipment.
It’s 0.001%. You may have some ulterior motive not to believe what the experimenters themselsves find.
In fact, the mystery of the 4.5 (not coming inwards) could help explain the 0.58 that they claim is not going outwards. It has almost got the correct ratio.
It is not a mystery. It is totally understood. And was due to a mistake in the construction of the earlier instruments allowing stray light to enter the cavity, thereby registering more heat than there actually should have been given the area of the entrance aperture. A mistake not repeated in the SORCE/TIM instrument. """""
Given that thermal detectors inherently can respond from down to but not including DC (let's you turn the power on), and up to but not including infinity (frequency), the optical design of a cavity trap essentially permits "nothing" to exist in the hemisphere in front of the capture aperture, because any such thing will reflect some sort of energy that can enter the aperture. That even includes the rim of the aperture itself. So how do you stop the sun from heating the rim of the aperture, which will result in the capture of solar energy that is actually outside the area of the aperture itself.
The inverse problem of building a good black body emitting cavity has the same kinds of almost insoluble problems.
It doesn't surprise me a bit, that the people making these things are constantly discovering "gotchas" that need to be revised later.
I don't believe that anything I have ever designed (and had built) wasn't immediately improvable as soon as it was made. The old Silicon Valley saying: "If it works; it's obsolete." is just as true today, as it has ever been.
George E. Smith; says:
February 4, 2012 at 8:30 pm
So how do you stop the sun from heating the rim of the aperture, which will result in the capture of solar energy that is actually outside the area of the aperture itself.
By having ‘nothing’ in front of the aperture and by not letting light from the rim enter the cavity. Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf shows the design. What is more, one can calibrate the instrument [at NIST] by exposing it to a known amount of radiation. This calibration is key to the measurement.
Leif Svalgaard says:
[this] error that can be corrected simply by subtracting the 4.5 from all readings by instruments with that error, no matter when they were made.
Henry@Leif
I suppose you can do that and it looks simple enough, until of course somebody forgets or somebody new steps in who does not know.
The fact remains that in the (NASA) graph that accompanies this story, the 4.5 has not been substracted.
Do you agree with me on that?
So the graph is wrong.
It looks to me like they did not want to throw away their old plots, so they carried on with the higher values. Possibly somebody new started working with this and he collected the data from the argo floats.
He went with the the old sun plots as being the gospel truth. Nowhere in the graph does it say that you have to subtract 4.5 W/m2.
0.6/4.5 is almost equal to 240/1361
So there is your missing 0.58 W/m2.
It was the error that was forgotten/ignored
i.e. the argo floats cannot measure what is not there in the first place.
Are we all agreed?
HenryP says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
The fact remains that in the (NASA) graph that accompanies this story, the 4.5 has not been subtracted.
As long as one is consistent, it doesn’t matter if the 4.5 has been subtracted. It is often convenient to stay with the old value [as long as it doesn’t matter]. I do it too.
So there is your missing 0.58 W/m2. It was the error that was forgotten/ignored
i.e. the argo floats cannot measure what is not there in the first place.
Are we all agreed?
No, I don’t think that is the explanation. Nobody would make such an error: scientists are not morons.
Leif says:
No, I don’t think that is the explanation. Nobody would make such an error: scientists are not morons.
Henry@Leif
It is nothing to do about being morons. It could be about having to justify your salary by deliberately ignoring the mistake that you knew your collegue made. It could be that the guy who did the argo floats knew nothing about the 4.5 W/m2 error in the TSI charts. I mean, I and all who are reading this story probably also knew nothing about this until yesterday. I happened to pick in on it purely by accident.
Anyway, the fact remains that the graph that accompanies this story is not correct. Remember: here we are in the court of public opinion. You cannot simply say whether this statement is right or wrong?
The next question of the lawyer in me is: how would you know 100% for sure that the guy who compiled the results of the Argo floats, and probably compiled the rest of the report as well, knew about the 4.5 W/m2 error?
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 1:29 am
The next question of the lawyer in me is: how would you know 100% for sure that the guy who compiled the results of the Argo floats, and probably compiled the rest of the report as well, knew about the 4.5 W/m2 error?
Everybody in this business knew about the 4.5 since about 2003. What is new is that now we know why. And the TSI value is not used for the Argo floats anyway.
Leif, read the whole post again.
It is all about the difference about what goes in and what goes out.
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 5:26 am
Leif, read the whole post again. It is all about the difference about what goes in and what goes out.
But this has nothing to do with whether TSI is absolutely correct as only differences are considered. So what is the point?
Henry@leif
1) the graph is wrong
2) we don’t know who put the whole report together (the plusses and the minuses) and if he was (made) aware of the error in the values for TSI
so how can you say: what is my point?
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 8:42 am
1) the graph is wrong
The graph shows that the solar cycle forcing is 0.25 W/m2. This is not wrong as it is derived from a difference between two TSIs.
2) we don’t know who put the whole report together (the plusses and the minuses) and if he was (made) aware of the error in the values for TSI
As per my response to 1) the errors cancel out.
Henry @ur momisugly leif
the solar forcing of 0.25 is shown to illustrate how it compares with their 0.58 that is missing from the budget, i.e it stayed on earth and it cannot be due to the variation in the sun….so it must be us. That 0.25 is not used in their calculations!
the 0.58 missing is calculated using
TSI/4 minus the various observations in W/m2 on earth
but the TSI reported in the graph is wrong and we donot know if the compiler knew that….
on top of that,
the error of 4.5 on TSI is exactly in the range of the missing 0.58 forcing in the budget.
Does that not make you suspicious?
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 10:03 am
the 0.58 missing is calculated using TSI/4 minus the various observations in W/m2 on earth
The observations on earth are not W/m2 but temperatures… and TSI/4 was not used, temperatures were used.
Does that not make you suspicious?
No
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 10:03 am
the 0.58 missing is calculated using TSI/4 minus the various observations in W/m2 on earth
If you care to actually read the paper http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf you’ll see the caption to Figure 17:
“Radiation & Climate Experiment normalized to match means over the final 12 months of the Frohlich and Lean data. Recent estimates of mean solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean, 2011) are smaller, 1360.8±0.5 W/m2, but the uncertainty of the absolute value has no significant effect on the solar forcing, which depends on the temporal change of irradiance. ”
As I said, in the change of irradiance the 4.5 W/m2 difference cancels out.
Leif, your units don’t work out,
T – T = 0,58 W/m2
???