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.
So if there is a pause the system must be balanced at the moment and values are wrong?
AlecM
I’d have to look at the spectrum again, but if I recall correctly, there are emission dips at all the common molecular absorbance wavelengths, both in IR and visible spectra. What you assert implies that emission spectra would be independent of gas concentration, if that was true then you wouldn’t be able to do IR imaging of clouds. I don’t tnink the evidence supports your position as you’ve described it. Having said that I will also say, I haven’t looked at what you’ve suggested in any depth or checked the theoretical emission temperature against the spectra, so I could well be wrong about this.
Gail Combs says:
January 17, 2014 at 3:44 am
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
If it’s liquid, then it’s evaporation. Sublimation is solid to vapor, for example, camphor (moth balls).
Great link to the John Kehr site. I notice he uses energy “balance” instead of “budget”. The only energy budgets I ran into before learning that climate science had the earth down to multiple decimal places was in cost accounting.
When I use my infra red thermometer to measure the temperature presumably I am measuring back radiation when I point it upwards away from the sun. (from a shaded position)?
How do I relate my temperature readings to watts? E.g. -40°C and 6°C.
So the figures are exact and there is no error range? I recall a similar set of work on the radiation budget that indicated the .6 figure but the range was +- 17 W/m^2, making the measurement completely useless.
bobl says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 4:06 am
…. any engineer knows that feedbacks have a time dimension….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I am a lowly chemist and even I can understand the time dimension. You don’t slap a steak on the grill and expect it to be instantly cooked now do you?
As I said leaving out time is one of the big lies in Climastrology.
Question to anyone who knows?—How much energy goes into creating the winds?
Bob Greene says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 5:09 am
….If it’s liquid, then it’s evaporation….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry when I said cold temperature I was thinking -20F and snow in New England. I should have been more clear.
hunter says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 4:28 am
The assumption that the energy flux is *the* determining factor for climate is interesting. It should be explored more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except it is not. Think of the rearrangement of the continents that gave the earth this temperature profile. Not to mention the Milankovitch cycles.
It is how the energy gets circulated that matters.
You do a disservice to this w/ the snarky tone in the article.
While I think Trenberth overstated his case previously, there are good reasons for these numbers to change from one 10 year period to another: Change in cloud cover, change in surface conditions, change in solar output (both intensity and the compositional spectrum).
The good news is that some people out there are still willing to do the science.
Bill Marsh 5:14am: “So the figures are exact and there is no error range?”
The Stephens et. al. 2012 energy balance cartoon for decadal 10 years 2000-2010 does a good job at showing the error ranges if you ask me, the orig. paper:
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~tristan/publications/2012_EBupdate_stephens_ngeo1580.pdf
The 0.64 W/m^2 imbalance (from ocean energy increase assessments in joules) error ranges are in the link I posted above also, repeated for convenience:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/NatureNV10.pdf
It is possible the 17 W/m^2 you recall could be from individual radiometers which have improved with the recent calibration efforts thru about 2005 to about +/- 2-4 W/m^2 but those are beasts wrangle with, really need to be an expert in that field to understand the calib. process validity when riding one out.
Remember thermometers are likewise calibrated but everyday use shows we’ve mastered that art so well few doubt even inexpensive individual thermometer accuracy any more.
@Trick: we live at the null point of the atmospheric controls system that maintains SW In = LW Out.
238.5 SW thermalised in the atmosphere convects and radiates to ToA. Because the 160 W/m^2 SW that thermalises at the surface all leaves the surface, there’s no net average surface heating.
Of 63 W/m^2 surface IR, 23 W/m^2 is absorbed by non self-absorbed H2O IR bands thereby increasing its path length to Space. It does not increase gas temperature but part of it will increase cloud temperature. The other 40 W/m^2 goes directly to Space by the Atmospheric Window. The higher the surface temperature, the lower the non self-absorbed H2O IR absorption.
The O2 and N2 play a role in convection, but not in radiation. This is because they can only radiate and absorb in the SW via electron orbital processes, high energy.
There is no such beast in IR or any other radiative physics as ‘back radiation’. The really important parameter in the climate system is clouds and latent heat. The former control SW thermalised at the surface, also surface IR in the AW. A cloud reduces it by about 85%. The Meteorologists imagine the clouds heat the surface, but in reality, they reduce its IR cooling rate! Latent heat causes time delays in the convection.
The game that Trenberth et al have played is to pretend there is an extra 157.5 – 23 = 134.5 W.m^2 surface IR heating the first ~ 30 m of atmosphere (at present, less in the past because it’s a T^4 Law). If true, this would lead to the Catastrophe, defined as heating the lower atmosphere above its condensation temperature thereby near doubling lapse rate near the surface. That temperature rise would soon boil the seas and make us another Venus.
However, this cannot happen because there is no ‘back radiation’, no ‘positive feedback’: the system is stabilised by extreme negative feedback processes which mean CO2 climate sensitivity is, in my view, <0.1 K.
timspence10 says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 3:38 am
…. also, the incoming energy is a fuzzy composite of IR, UV and visible spectrum…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes that is another BIG LIE. We keep hearing the Total Solar Insolation (TSI) does not vary link but the fact is the mix of wavelengths does link and the effects of those changes gets swept under the rug.
Different wavelengths have different effects from Ozone link at the Top of the Atmosphere to Deep in the sea
DrTorch says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 5:33 am
You do a disservice to this w/ the snarky tone in the article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you read John Kehr (Chem. Engineer) essay to see why the snarky tone from the engineers. Trenberth doesn’t have the scientific background to do the ‘Cartoon” correctly and it is glaringly obvious to the engineering educated.
Please note John gave a presentation on October 2nd, 2012 to the Right Climate Stuff group “which is largely composed of a group of NASA engineers and scientists. One of the things that they were interested in me doing was going to Houston to give then a presentation about my book… There was a mix of current and retired NASA scientists and engineers plus a mix of others that were there.”
Trick says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 5:35 am
…Remember thermometers are likewise calibrated but everyday use shows we’ve mastered that art so well few doubt even inexpensive individual thermometer accuracy any more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not in my old labs. You would be surprised at how badly out of wack “scientific’ thermometers can be straight from the manufacturer!
AlecM 5:39am: “The O2 and N2 play a role in convection, but not in radiation. This is because they can only radiate and absorb in the SW via electron orbital processes, high energy.”
SWin – LWout = 0 null point (your -div Fv components) is the balance at TOA control volume (cv).
SWin – (LWout-LWin) = 0 null point (your -div Fv) is the balance at surface control volume thermometer AGL.
Whatever you want to call the LWin term, -LWin into surface cv exists, is measurable and is from the planet’s 5.15 * 10^18 kg of atm. mass > 0K radiating into the surface control volume –Div Fv radiation bath setting surface Tmean. There is no pretending in this science, all measurable.
Check Bohren 2006 text and you will find experiment showing N2 and O2 radiate and scatter over the entire spectrum meaning they contribute (miniscule but non-zero) to the absorption in surface cv bath balance in earth atm. near surface (the -LWin). Basically all gas as matter will attenuate a photon beam thru the gas the size of a planet atm. Tyndall missed that in his small tube b/c his instrumentation calibration couldn’t detect absorption in pure air by scattering. These days we can do better job.
“…thereby near doubling lapse rate near the surface.”
Don’t worry about that physically, it will not be a catastrophe since on a sunny clear day around Noon in Phoenix the lapse on asphalt from your feet to breathe level is about 500x normal in every day life and so far no catastrophe. Your lungs would hurt as much as your bare feet if the surface lapse therein was normal.
AlecM says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:46 am
@Gail Combs: as well as the above, which shows surface IR has been exaggerated about 7x, the next biggest mistake in Climate Alchemy is to fail to understand that there can be no gas phase thermalisation of GHG-absorbed IR. This is simple statistical thermodynamics, the Law of Equipartition of Energy.
You have this backwards, the Law of Equipartition of Energy requires that there be gas phase thermalization of GHG-absorbed IR. Also equipartition in gases at room temperature only strictly applies to the translational and rotational modes not the vibrational modes which are where the IR is absorbed.
Gail 6:00am: “You would be surprised at how badly out of wack “scientific’ thermometers can be straight from the manufacturer!”
How bad? Surprise me. I look at couple indoor/outdoor & my car thermometers and find they compare with news accounts and thermostats, rounded to integers.
@Trick: Rayleigh scattering is lossless. the whole atmosphere is awash with IR and visible EM energy but none can be thermalised in the gas phase. However, it will thermalise at aerosols and there is experimental evidence of this in Asia. However, it is a second order effect.
My key thinking is three-fold. Firstly Tyndall’s experiment has been misunderstood. Secondly, the two stream approximation works in the atmosphere but cannot apply at an optical heterogeneity; the Earth’s surface and clouds. Thirdly, ‘back radiation’ is a failure to understand the difference between a Radiation Field and the net flux between two emitters set by the difference between the two or more RFs.
The error bars on all the graphs are significant. Other peer reviewed papers conclude that the enegy imbalance is about 0.7+\- 15 w/m^2. In other words, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Which is an alternative explanation for Trenberth’s missing heat—there isn’t any missing.
Trick says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 6:14 am
How bad? Surprise me….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In a one case a couple of degrees.
It was enough to royally screw-up the extrusion plastometers so the batches read within spec on one machine and way out of spec on another. I went nuts trying to get three different machines to match. One in production, one in the QC lab and one in R&D. Whole thing cause a really big stink politically too.
I never trusted a thermometer without calibration since.
AlecM 6:23am: “Rayleigh scattering is lossless..”
Maybe so but only because the sky is blue as seen within the atm., this is not what I mean by scattering though. The mass of an atom or molecule will scatter or annihilate a photon of any wavelength during an encounter – this entropy increasing process doesn’t happen to the extent measurable in Tyndall style sized exp. and instrument.
This mass scattering process IS measurable in any atm. gas composition even pure air, no photon beam of any wavelength makes it thru the whole distance horizon to horizon lossless due to mass scattering; the photon beam WILL be attenuated. This makes exoplanet atm. measurement possible. Makes atm. EM radar, remote sensing signals fight through tough conditions, not lossless.
”Tyndall’s experiment has been misunderstood.”
Discussion in a science based blog/text/paper agrees with understanding basics of Tyndall by scientific method, if you don’t, you are welcome to your own science opinion but not your own science facts. To help parse your posts efficiently, best to announce where you disagree with Tyndall and why rather than confuse facts known to science.
”..the two stream approximation works in the atmosphere..the net flux between two emitters..”
This is ok with science of Tyndall, once you agree emitters have non-zero flux, since you call them emitters, as they radiate since all matter >0K does.
…but cannot apply at an optical heterogeneity…
Makes no sense to me. Please explain, with cites if interested in follow-up discussion.
Gail 6:48am: LOL, ok I can buy that. Stinks do happen in real life.
timspence10:
re your post at January 17, 2014 at 3:38 am
I agree.
My earlier post about Trenberth’s “science” has at last come out of moderation so you may have missed it. This link jumps to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/nasa-revises-earths-radiation-budget-diminishing-some-of-trenberths-claims-in-the-process/#comment-1538857
Richard
Trick says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 7:05 am
.. LOL, ok I can buy that. Stinks do happen in real life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes nothing like a Million dollar ‘Stink” and irate customers to make the bean counters readjust their thinking about QC as a money sink. The thermometer was bad enough but caught quick. It is the bad or worse wrong incoming chemicals that really bites the bum. The trichloroethane switched for trichloroethylene was another memorable one. Made the bean counters really rethink ISO and Just – in – Time.