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.
HenryP says:
February 5, 2012 at 10:38 am
your units don’t work out, T – T = 0,58 W/m2
You can express [as Hansen does] a temperature difference in W/m2. No problem with units.
Let “but the uncertainty of the absolute value has no significant effect on the solar forcing, which depends on the temporal change of irradiance” sink in. For conversions of units see the paper.
One watermelon on a forum told me that AGW had to be true as he saw the Mythbusters test on global warming theory: Does CO2 warm air? So there, proof of CAGW as far as he/she was concerned! It has to be true as Mythbusters said so. And Frank Zappas Studebacher Hoch said the lords prayer could be written on the head of a pin, so it has got to be true too! Lol, Ha ha . Good one eh?
Leif Svalgaard says
If you care to actually read the paper http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
Henry@Leif
Sorry, had no time yet. Work has to come before hobby….
May have to wait a bit.
Henry@Leif
Looking only at a quick glance,
do you think I am right in judging that all the forcings shown in fig 18 were the only ones that were evaluated?
HenryP says:
February 7, 2012 at 9:40 am
do you think I am right in judging that all the forcings shown in fig 18 were the only ones that were evaluated?
Those were the bigger ones worth looking at.
Leif, for one thing, there is no forcing included for the change in earth’s albedo,
which we know varies a bit and can be a cause of a considerable difference of the W/m2 coming in.
There is a way they can measure that, via the dark side of the moon, if I remember correctly.
The last report I saw (2007?) was that it was increasing in the past decade. (MORE CLOUDS). That means less W/m2 coming in. A small variation in the 30% can easily account for the 0.58 W/m2.
Without this parameter included, the discussion we had before was a waste of time.
He (Hansen) also conveniently forgot to work out how much energy is consumed by photo synthesis and how much that increased in the past decades, both on land and in the sea….
I refer back to my first comment on this thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-881571
to which I did not have any responses.
So unless he or you (if you want to defend his report) can come with testable evidence to prove that, for example, these 2 forcings and the differences noted in these over the past decade are “very” small in relation to the others, I have to conclude that his report is a load of nonsense all based on the nonsense he wrote in previous years….
Never mind the fact that I have clearly proven that the warming of the planet is not caused by an increase in CO2 or GHG’s because the mechanism he (Hansen) proposes in this report would imply that the warming would have to be caused by increasing minima pushing up the average temp.
That does not happen, e.g.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
In fact, I just finished analysing all the daily results since 1976 from the weather station at the airport in Cape Town, and found very much the same pattern as that here in Pretoria, and indeed the rest of the southern hemisphere (SH):
On average,
Maxima rising at 0.07 degrees C/ annum
Means (average temp) rising at 0.006 degrees C/annum
Minima going down at –0.009 degrees / annum
Now, if it had been the other way around, minima pushing up the means, I would have to agree that it was the “greenhouse” gases that did it. As it stands, anyone with brains can understand that it was more sunshine and/or less clouds that pushed up the average temperature.
HenryP says:
February 7, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Without this parameter included, the discussion we had before was a waste of time.
My only concern was to correct your flawed ideas and numbers about TSI. If you have taken to heart and mind what I said, the discussion was not a waste of time.
Leif, I am amazed that you did not challenge me at all on my last comment where I actually brought 3 arguments.
Anyway, thx. It was an interesting discussion.
Faint sunlight (0.1% of what Earth gets) enough to drive weather, clouds on Saturn’s moon Titan
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/like-ogres-titans-atmosphere-may-have-layers.ars
And this in an atmosphere where methane, a much more potent GHG, is one of the most abundant GHGs in it.
kramer says
methane, a much more potent GHG…
Henry@kramer
Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
see footnote here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
So how do you know for sure that the CH4 is warming more then what it cools?
I don’t.
From what I’ve learned on GHGs, methane is ~25x more potent a GHG than CO2.
As such, it just seems kind of odd to me that this moon, which gets 0.1% the TSI of Earth and has lots of methane in its atmosphere can be affected by the solar cycles. It’s not what I expected based on what I’ve read about Earth, solar cycles, and CO2
kramer says: From what I’ve learned on GHGs, methane is ~25x more potent a GHG than CO2.
Henry@kramer
here we will ask you to prove this, by physical measurements in the right dimensions.
Warming of the planet(s) by GHG’s is a myth,
it is not supported by the results from actual measurements.
As I said earlier on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/jim-hansens-balance-problem-of-0-58-watts/#comment-887210
“Never mind the fact that I have clearly proven that the warming of the planet is not caused by an increase in CO2 or GHG’s because the mechanism he (Hansen) proposes in his report would imply that the warming would have to be caused by increasing minima pushing up the average temp.
That does not happen, e.g.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
In fact, I just finished analysing all the daily results since 1976 from the weather station at the airport in Cape Town, and found very much the same pattern as that here in Pretoria, and indeed the rest of the southern hemisphere (SH):
On average,
Maxima rising at 0.07 degrees C/ annum
Means (average temp) rising at 0.006 degrees C/annum
Minima going down at –0.009 degrees / annum
Now, if it had been the other way around, minima pushing up the means, I would have to agree that it was the “greenhouse” gases that did it. As it stands, anyone with brains can understand that it was more sunshine and/or less clouds that pushed up the average temperature.”
To all, there is an error on my part in this comment of mine above. The article does not say anything about solar cycles. The main gist of the story is that faint sunlight (0.1% of what Earth gets) is enough to drive weather and clouds on Titan.
Kramer says
The main gist of the story is that faint sunlight (0.1% of what Earth gets) is enough to drive weather and clouds on Titan.
Henry@kramer
but we don’t know how much heat ( driving weather) is coming from the core of Titan?