From the “settled science” department comes this new revision of Earth’s entire radiation budget. Many WUWT readers can recall seeing this radiation budget graphic from Kenneth Trenberth in 2009:
![erb[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/erb1.jpg?quality=83)
That figure in a slightly different form also appeared in the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1 report with different numbers:
![faq-1-1-figure-1-l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/faq-1-1-figure-1-l1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-1-1-figure-1-l.png
Note that in Trenberth’s 2009 paper, the energy from “back radiation” (from GHG action) value went up from 324 w/square meter cited by the IPCC in 2007 to 333 w/square meter. The net effect of that is increased energy back to Earth’s surface, making it warmer.
It seems odd that would increase so much, so quickly in two years. Even more surprising, is that now, the value has been revised even higher, to 340.3 w/square meter, while at the same time, the “Net Absorbed” value, that extra bit of energy that we get to keep from the sun on Earth, thanks to increased GHG action, has gone DOWN.
I know, it doesn’t make much sense, read on.
Alan Siddons writes in an email:
Reviewing NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) program this week, I noticed a graphic depiction I hadn’t seen before, at
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/Energy_Budget_Litho_10year.pdf .
It was drafted with the assistance of Kevin Trenberth and contains some notable differences from the last effort of his that I’d seen, so I’ve inserted NASA’s new values over it.
Cooler sun than before but a warmer surface. Less albedo and air absorption. Non-radiative cooling is higher than before but surface emission is higher too. “Net absorbed” refers to radiant energy going in but not yet being radiated – a ticking time bomb.
==============================================================
Note that somehow, between 2009 and the present, it was decided (presumably based on CERES measurements) that the Net Absorbed value (which is the extra energy absorbed that would result from increased GHG’s) would go DOWN from 0.9 w/square meter to 0.6w/square meter – an decrease of one third of the 2009 value.
This isn’t a typo, since many of the other numbers have changed as well.
With all the talk of the “settled science” that is certain about increases in Greenhouse gases, it seems that with such a revision, there’s still some very unsettled revisionist work afoot to get a handle on what the “real” energy budget of the Earth is. Perhaps the recent published works on climate sensitivity, coupled with observations of “the pause” have had some affect on these numbers as well. Meanwhile, according to the Mauna Loa data, CO2 concentration has risen from 388.16ppm in November 2009 when we had the big Copenhagen COP15 meeting that was supposed to change everything, to 397.31ppm in November 2013.
So with GHG’s on the increase, their effect has been reduced by a third in the NASA planetary energy budget. That’s quite remarkable.
So was Trenberth’s 2009 energy budget wrong, running too hot? It sure seems so. This is what NASA writes about that diagram:
The energy budget diagram on the front shows our best understanding of energy flows into and away from the Earth. It is based on the work of many scientists over more than 100 years, with the most recent measurements from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES; http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov) satellite instrument providing high accuracy data of the radiation components (reflected solar and emitted infrared radiation fluxes).
This energy balance determines the climate of the Earth. Our understanding of these energy flows will continue to evolve as scientists obtain a longer and longer record using new and better instruments (http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov).
Source: http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/
It seems to be a clear case of observations trumping Trenberth.
So with the retained energy (the net absorbed figure) resulting from GHG’s like CO2 dropping by one third since 2009, can we now call off some of the most alarming aspects of global warming theory?
Related posts:
CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity
==============================================================
UPDATE:
Alan Siddons writes in with some further research. Commenter John West also noted this in comments. Siddons writes:
Well, let me tell you what I found while tracking down that IPCC illustration. I did find it on an IPCC document, Regional Changes of Climate and some basic concepts , but it looked shabby there too, so I surmised that it was a careless copy-paste of somebody else’s work, not a product of the IPCC itself. On that basis I searched for “radiation budget” or “energy budget” and added the illustration’s particular figures to my search demand.
Bingo. The illustration actually came from a May 2013 American Institute of Physics paper, A new diagram of the global energy balance , by Martin Wild, et al.
Here’s a small version for your records.
Other notes by Wild, Decadal changes in surface radiative fluxes – overview and update , yield some insight into his perspective — for instance, this panel,
which seems to indicate that less sunlight creates more compensatory back-radiation but a weaker terrestrial emission, while more sunlight “unmasks” the greenhouse effect. Wild’s conclusions are also notable.
- Still considerable uncertainties in global mean radiation budget at the surface.
- Models still tend to overestimate downward solar and underestimate downward thermal radiation
- Strong decadal changes observed in both surface solar and thermal fluxes.
This last point seems to imply that changes to the Radiation Budget are not merely a result of improved measurements but reflect rather sudden changes in our thermal environment.
================================================================
This leads me to wonder, why did NASA choose the values from Wild et al as opposed to Trenberth from the National Center For Atmosphereic Research?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs January 17, 2014 at 2:15 am: The correct graphic at the end of the overview by John Kehr at the article you linked says all you need to know about the fallacy of the “greenhouse effect” portrayed by Trenberth and the IPCC.
phillipbratby says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 2:47 am
.. The correct graphic at the end of the overview by John Kehr at the article you linked says all you need to know about the fallacy of the “greenhouse effect” portrayed by Trenberth and the IPCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and he explains it in simple enough terms to make it understandable for non engineers/physicists.
I put a link to that essay up on another thread a month or two ago and the warmist I was answering went completely ballistic and left in a huff. Can’t think of a better endorsement for the essay.
I wonder how long they had to play with the figures to end up with an energy balance that wasn’t negative?
phillipbratby at 2.30 am…..
From my occassional reading reading over at SKS, the alarmists postulate that down welling radiation from GHGs actually acts as an insulant on ocean surfaces by altering the temperature gradient in the thin film surface layer, thus reducing conductive heat loss through that layer. The only empirical evidence for this that they cite is from a set of measurements of down welling radiation from clouds taken by a NZ research vessel in the Pacific some years ago. Quite how this retained heat then gets into the deep oceans, as claimed, is explained by hand waving.
Anth0ny:
It seems that Trenberth’s so-called ‘climate science’ is coming apart because it is crashing against reality.
Yesterday, we had Nature GeoScience reporting Trenberth is now claiming the PDO provides effects reported by Tisdale but which Trenberth now claims credit for noticing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/16/the-journal-nature-embraces-the-pause-and-ocean-cycles-as-the-cause-trenberth-still-betting-his-heat-will-show-up/
Today we have a revision of Trenberth’s energy budget cartoon. That, too, has been repeatedly disputed including on WUWT. For example, earlier this week I wrote
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/#comment-1536392
Trenberth’s science?
There is room in the rubbish bin of history which will soon be filled.
Richard
This old news but in the IPCC AR5 WGI final draft, chapter 2, p. 26,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
it was acknowledged that:
” Loeb et al. (2012b) compared interannual variations in CERES net radiation with OHRs
derived from three independent ocean heat content anomaly analyses and included an error analysis of both CERES and the OHRs. They conclude that the apparent decline in OHR is not statistically robust and that differences between interannual variations in OHR and satellite net TOA flux are within the uncertainty of the measurements (Figure 2.12). They further note that between January 2001 and December 2012, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50 ± 0.43 W/m 2 (90% CI).”
That is a reduction of 44 % of the accumulated energy compared to the number in the 2009 version of Trenberth’s energy budget.
I meant to add that amazingly, regardless of this acknowledgment (particularly of the error bar almost as large as the estimated rate), the IPCC is more confident than ever that their theory of AGW holds water.
Too little.
Too late…
AlecM says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 2:46 am
….So, there can be no ‘back radiation’ and no ‘slowing down’ of cooling….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First. Can a CO2 molecule absorb a packet of energy at a certain wavelength? – Yes.
Does it re-emit that packet of energy? – yes.
Can that packet of energy come from the sun?- YES! This is a bad illustration but it gets the point across. link I much prefer this graph since it gives a better picture of relative ‘strength’ of the energies at different wavelengths.
How long before that absorbed energy packet gets transfered via collision or re-emission? – nanoseconds? (This is the point, the rate, that is always glossed over. )
Last the earth’s surface is over 70% water. What does energy at the wavelength absorbed by CO2 do to water? It can not penetrate beyond the surface skin as much more energetic solar energy can. graph
I will give them their ‘back radiation’ but it is about as effective as the warming from a babies bottom compared to a blow-torch. (The sun)
The real fraud is claiming the effects of water as FEEDBACK of CO2. This is the heart of the BIG LIE because they swap cause and effect.
Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ straight from NASA:
Back radiation: 333 W/m^2
Absorbed by surface: 333 W/m^2
Quite interesting surface, I must say. absorption/emissivity of 1? Now, it might be close to that value (typical value for IR I think are 0.98, 0.96, depending on the surface), but definitively it’s not a black body, and using a real value for it will get quite a different value for the net absorbed.
Maybe it’s just me but these graphics appear to made of ‘wishful thinking’, it’s nice to see their thinking sketched out in that format but the rest (the science part) leaves me with the impression that they are stabbing in the dark. Too many variables are treated as constants and also, the incoming energy is a fuzzy composite of IR, UV and visible spectrum, all of which vary and have different absorption and reflection properties. Too much averaging going on for me.
Old’un says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 3:07 am
…From my occassional reading reading over at SKS, the alarmists postulate that down welling radiation from GHGs actually acts as an insulant on ocean surfaces by altering the temperature gradient in the thin film surface layer, thus reducing conductive heat loss through that layer. …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And completely glossing over EVAPORATION. Sheesh!
You add heat to a kettle of water it evaporates. Heck you put a bowl of water out and it evaporates at room temperature or even at 45F/7C which is where I keep the general house thermostat in winter. Evaporation even happens at cold temperatures if the humidity is low enough. They even have a name for it, sublimation.
They really must think we are mushrooms.
Pethefin says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 3:18 am
……the IPCC is more confident than ever that their theory of AGW holds water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It hold water it’s CO2 they have lost.
It was a cartoon when it was first drawn and it just as much a cartoon now.
It relies on;
1. The Earth being flat
2. No day/night cycle
3. Reducing the actual energy to TOA by a factor of 4.
No science required, just the ability to draw. I think the most important equipment for these people are crayons.
@ur momisugly Gail
Nicely put, yes in many ways the so-called scientists get this wrong – in particular they use scalar models, and they treat feedback as a simple multiplier – any engineer knows that feedbacks have a time dimension and are added vectorially as complex numbers because feedbacks have a time lag, Scalar models are hopelessly inadequate to describe a system that has lagged feedback – It is analogous to just doing a DC analysis of an amplifier ignoring its AC behaviour.
@ur momisugly AlecM
I don’t see how that matches the facts, the earths emission spectrum shows significant dips at many wavelengths – the energies emitted at those wavelengths must go somewhere. If they are not thermalised then what happens to them?
Image all the numbers on the chart are money.
Image that you are earning $340.40c a week, and when you do all the sums to try and balance the books, you find you have 6c left at the end of the week.
OK, with absolute numbers like money, this is possible – my wife would certainly expect to get the numbers right.
I on the other hand would tend to only roughly record the exact in and out amounts, and not bother to check my change every time, so if I balanced within $1.00 I’d be happy.
So are the ‘experts’ really certain that everyone one of those interactions in the picture is accurate to within 0.1 ? There a 14 numbers in the picture, so if each one is +/- 0.1, then the result isn’t 0.6, but somewhere between -0.8 and +2.0, which proves nothing.
Top post: “It seems odd that would increase so much, so quickly in two years.”
The difference in observation periods isn’t 2 years, it is ~2 decades.
******
Time periods top post charts:
1st Chart in top post CERES TFK2009: March 2000 to May 2004
2nd Chart ERBE KT1997: 5 yr.s mid-1980s
3rd Chart NASA: Included 1st chart data combined somehow with March – Feb. 2005 Loeb 2008 (not 2009 as noted) et. al. data (not 10 years of data as the chart notes). That might be including Stephens et. al. 2012 ten years of data, dunno.
******
“So was Trenberth’s 2009 energy budget wrong, running too hot? It sure seems so.”
Assessing correctness includes an amalgam of many time period observations of a chaotic system, whoa. The Stephens et. al. 2012 paper covering 2000-2010: ” For the decade considered, the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm–2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14).”
So the 0.6 imbalance is from observing ocean energy content 0-700m deep 1993-2008 from the famous chart:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/NatureNV10.pdf
Conclusion: Be sure to cite a ref. and time period in discussion of earth energy budgets. Things change naturally, by instrument, by author, by time period. And check the orig. papers even NASA charts get things wrong.
The assumption that the energy flux is *the* determining factor for climate is interesting. It should be explored more.
It is a travesty that this change is not stated in the proper scientific unit of measurement – What is that change in Hiroshimas per second?
The 0.6 W/m2/year net absorbed comes from the Argo floats which are measuring about 0.55 W/m2/year being absorbed in the oceans and an estimated 0.03 W/m2/year being absorbed in the land surface/atmosphere/warming glacial ice.
Together 0.58 W/m2/year. The theory really estimates that this should be between 1.2 W/m2/year and 1.4 W/m2/year but they don’t talk about that anymore. Hansen revised it down to 0.9 several years ago but that was not based on any calculations just knowing that the numbers were nowhere close to the climate models. Now we know from Argo that it is even smaller than that made-up revision.
In temp C/year, these numbers are in the range of 0.002C/year.
@bobl: you’ve got it the wrong way round. Well mixed GHGs have a spectral temperature high in the atmosphere, e.g. -50 deg C for CO2 15 micron band plus a bit from the higher temperature stratosphere. Poorly mixed gases, e.g. H2O, have a spectral temperature from much lower down therefore higher temperature. The rest is the atmospheric window from the surface and cloud tops.
The Earth’s temperature and the three main IR emission zones equilibrate so SW thermalised = LW to Space. We live at that null point. There is no surface GHG band IR absorption for self-absorbed GHG bands so the apparent absorption of CO2-15 micron IR is simply low emission temperature.
At the current rate, Trenberth will soon be unable to state if there is any AGW at all.
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy seems to have reached that position on global warming without actually stating it but refusing to confirm Obama’s “worse than ever” predictions. Not very clever.
“Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions asked McCarthy to confirm a statement made by President Obama last year that global temperatures were increasing faster in the last five or ten years than climate scientists had predicted.
McCarthy couldn’t answer the question, saying that she only repeats what the climate scientists tell her. Sessions was not satisfied with her response.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/epa-chief-unable-to-say-if-the-world-has-gotten-warmer/
Clearly she did not want to go on record as contradicting the 15-17 year “pause”.
I think this was the same hearing as that where Professor Judith Curry delivered a superb presentation and written submission. My respect for Judith Curry is increasing all the time. She is clearly not afraid of losing her job for being “off message”.
I believe that something can only be missing if you can prove beyond doubt that it ever existed.
I’m yet to be convinced.
Given that some of these graphics show accuracy to 1 decimal and given that the “net” is less than 1, I wonder where the heat from the hot mantle is? A quick back of the envelope calculation follows. The energy flow in watts/square meter is about 0.2, (give or take 0.1 or so). The following assumes no other mechanism for heat transfer other than conduction (i.e. volcanism is ignored).
800 K temperature at bottom of crust
275 K temperature at bottom of ocean
525 K delta T
5000 m distance
1.7 W/(m.K) Thermal conductivity of basalt
0.1785 W/m² Rate of addition of heat to the ocean
0.2 W/m² Maximum Precision of value given the inputs.
deltaT/distance X thermal conductivity
Cheers
JE
AlecM 2:46am: There is no ‘back radiation’, defined as a real energy flux. It is the atmospheric Radiation Field, the potential energy flux of that emitter to a body at absolute zero.
I have never been able to square up your terse assertion with 5.15 * 10^18 kg of atm. mass > 0K not radiating at all. Surely that amount atm. mass must be radiating a measurable real energy flux bath not a potential energy flux looking up from surface and down from satellite. Which can then be globally avg.d.
The science debate is over the time period, the instrument, and the author to put a value on that real atm. flux toward earth and toward space which cannot physically be zero as you state. The science debate isn’t that this atm. energy flux exists. Well, maybe a debate over what to call it exists also.
Your qdot can be near zero and called zero for practical purposes, but energy flux components in and out of your –Div Fv are not zero, they compute out to a balance to within 0.6 W/m^2 best est. from ocean energy content 1993-2008 (from argo and previous) and compute same as the thermometer surface Tmean ~288K from 1st Law with measured input data.