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?
There is a very similar figure 2.11 IPCC WG1 ch,2 with an imbalance 0,6 W/m2 and error estimates of absorbed solar 161 +/- 5 W/m2 “Back Radiation” as 342 -4/+6 W/m2.
Imbalance less than 10% of error.
Matt G 11:48am: “This energy diagram will always be wrong while it doesn’t take into account the different wave frequencies affect on matter.”
The SW and LW joule totals as shown for 1sec. in the cartoons are as integrated over the spectrum, this is so well observed in the field the integration explanation gets dropped all too often.
Carbomontanus at 11:03 am
It’s the electrical current in the filament, not the some combination of foil & glass, that heats the system in the experiment you referenced:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/slaying-the-slayers-with-watts-part-2/
There are seven combinations of bulb, foil, glass and black anodized foil in the experiment and none of them measure how long it takes the bulb to cool off after the current is shut off. Did I miss it?
If you time how long it takes to cool off with and without the foil after reaching equilibrium, you will find that the foil slows down the cooling process. That’s all it does. It doesn’t warm things up. It’s not a heat source.
Your body’s metabolism warms you up, not the pullover.
The sun warms the surface, not the atmosphere.
This may seem like a silly point, but claiming that the air does the warming is a misnomer that leads to wrong assumptions. Back radiation from the atmosphere cancels out some of the radiation from the surface and so it cools off more slowly, but if it weren’t for the sun, the surface would never warm up.
Want proof? On a warm muggy overcast night, it may stay that way nearly all night long, but it won’t get any warmer. However, in the morning when the sun comes up …
With reference to uncertainty and measurement:
From a comment I made here:
In the past
only in 2010
The uncertainty in 2010 (~3Wm-2) is still about an order of magnitude greater than the net absorption (0.6Wm-2), so how can this be distinguished from zero?
Thanks to DonV for the reference.
Awaiting Moderation, well I hope I don’t get permanently banned.
I don’t see how the math withstands close inspection.
Just considering the atmosphere, we have heat flows into the atmosphere (NASA’s new values) adding up to (77.1 + 18.4 + 86.4 + 358.2) = 540.1 w/m2, and heat flows out of the atmosphere adding up to (169.9 + 340.3) = 510.2 w/m2. This means the atmosphere itself should be warming from a net flux of about 30 w/m2. Unobserved.
The Earth surface is a different story. Heat flows in add up to (163.3 – 18.4 – 86.4 – 398.2 + 340.3) = 0.60 w/m2. Now, maybe this is consistent with Global Warming, but I would point out that it represents 0.6% of the energy lost from reflection (clouds and surface). Is anyone going to seriously claim that we know the Earth’s albedo to that level of accuracy? Basically, we have no basis for concluding that the Earth’s surface temperature is doing anything at all.
But I have a more basic problem with maths that claim the Earth receives twice as much radiant heat from atmospheric backscatter than it does from the sun. Backscatter should only amount to a small adjustment on the incoming radiant power, due to the T (4th power) dependency.
And I’ll betcha I know why they adjusted the reflected radiance from 101.9 to 99.9 w/m2. Because if they hadn’t, the total outbound radiance would be 341.8 w/m2, which is larger than the insolation value (and the Earth would be cooling). So, we know our albedo within 2% error? And it has no natural variation?
It all comes down to the ratio of absorption coefficient to emission coefficient. Depending on that ratio, the temperature of the Earth could be nearly anything, from freezing to boiling. A 10% variation in that ratio amounts to a 7-kelvin (13 deg F) variation in the resulting equilibrium surface temperature.
Jake Haye said at 10:47 am
They forgot to add an arrow for flow into the ‘deep oceans’.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Steve Case:
Thankyou for providing one of the clearest demonstrations of the radiative greenhouse effect I have read.
In your post at January 17, 2014 at 12:29 pm you say
I ignore that scientists seek falsification (pseudoscientists seek proof), and take your comment as example.
As you say
On a warm muggy overcast night, it may stay that way nearly all night long, but it won’t get any warmer.
You do not add that
on a clear night the temperature drops often rapidly.
And, of course, the difference is that radiation from the surface can reach space more easily on a night which is not overcast.
And when the Sun comes up the surface is also heated from the Sun but the effect you report does not cease.
So, you have provided an excellent example of the radiative greenhouse effect and how it can vary at a locality. Thankyou.
Richard
Phil no dot 12:31pm: “The uncertainty in 2010 (~3Wm-2) is still about an order of magnitude greater than the net absorption (0.6Wm-2), so how can this be distinguished from zero?”
Because the 0.6 is derived from Argo and previous thermometers (quality controlled ones) hung in the ocean 0-700m converted to joules and not from radiometers. See the link I posted couple times above.
******
Steve 12:39pm – I liked that inference also. LOL. Now it’s the missing arrows.
Rob Long: It would be remarkable if reliable measurements could be made to this level of accuracy given all the variables involved.
Expect to see this number changed again and again.
Agreed.
These are spatio-temporal averages of diverse kinds of instrumentation not ideally located for the purposes. I am glad that the people doing the work are as careful as they can be, but the small changes are not really of much importance. To pick on one: the change from 78 to 77.1 in the amount absorbed by the atmosphere is not worth thinking about; an important consideration is what would happen to that absorbed radiation (ca 20 – 25% of incoming) if the CO2 concentration in that region of the atmosphere were to double, ,a consideration that I think is ignored in the climate change warnings.
Steve Case: If you time how long it takes to cool off with and without the foil after reaching equilibrium, you will find that the foil slows down the cooling process. That’s all it does. It doesn’t warm things up. It’s not a heat source.
Very good, ditto with the cloudy night (and RSC’s complementary clear night.) It is remarkable how many people do not understand that if you slow the rate of surface cooling the net result is a warmer surface mean, as long as there is a warming agent with constant (or sinusoidally varying) input.
For a lot of reasons an increase in CO2 might not produce a warmer Earth, starting from where the Earth is today, but this basic mechanism of heat retention by GHGs and hence higher net surface mean temp is hardly a spiritual mystery. The basic mechanism has been well-studied in the lab and the hypothesized heat flows through the atmosphere have been measured. Our problem is that we don’t have sufficiently complete knowledge of all mechanisms in all times and places, and none of our measurements is sufficiently accurate to support accurate forecasts.
@AlecM
The Meteorologists imagine the clouds heat the surface, but in reality, they reduce its IR cooling rate!
Yes, this is how I look at it, however you can look at the radiation flows and describe the reduced radiation loss and subsequent warming as an (Incoming + Reflected) Component less the outgoing ( Climate science view) or Incoming – (Outgoing – Reflected) traditional view. The Argument being that in warming the surface and then re-emitting the total energy emitted in the CO2 stopband is increased. Provided one understands that the total can only redistribute the energy between wavelengths. For example turn Shortwave radiation into longwave radiation. On the other hand, the warmists seem to conveniently forget that reflected IR is also broadbanded as it thermalises at the surface, and any increase in surface temperature results in huge losses (as shown in the diagram).
Positive Feedback posits that these losses will decrease as the temperature differences increase, I say the overall losses will increase, certainly emission via the atmospheric window, convection and latent heat losses MUST increase with surface temperature. Heat engines become more efficient as temperature difference increases, not LESS as the IPCC implies
One of the big problems though that is not really addressed properly, is that anything that increases reflection lets say water vapour also tends to reduce the shortwave Incoming.
Anyway – ultimately there is no imbalance, net energy must be zero, the argument is only in just what happens to the 0.6W that is “retained” by the earth and does it cause warming (one of) my arguments is that Climate science has not properly considered all the ways energy is extracted by the system and stored in the biosphere mostly via endothermic chemical reactions (Gail – Chip in here since you are the chemist) the sunlight absorbed by organisms photosynthesizing is huge. We consider that photosynthesis has increased some 6% due to CO2 fertilisation – How much extra sunlight does that also take? There is much energy in winds, which is also turned into waves both of which are so large they can even be harvested, and in part these energies are heat driven. The Energy for such things has to come from somewhere, not all kinetic energy becomes heat again in the end, much of it gets expended in opposing gravity and inertia of the planetary gravitational systems. Rain/wind/waves hitting the planet try to move the planet or stop its rotation (or speed it up) by infinitesimally small amounts. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If that 0.6W does not go into warming, then there can be no warming .
In any case, its unthinkable that just 0.6W will do anything given the degrees of freedom in the climate to dissipate it – it’s just insane to think otherwise. So I tend to agree, a small fraction of the imbalance goes to warming and the feedback is heavily negative – Even the warmist view that we”l get bigger storms – storms use energy, energy that once used by the storm, is no longer heat – you can’t have Armageddon by storm and Atmospheric heating at the same time.
A Recent paper said precipitation would increase 20% but upon analysis 0.6W per square meter is only enough energy to increase precipitation by 2% and then of course because the energy is used up in the hydrological cycle there can be no energy for warming, either rain increases by 2% or warming increases by 0.6W but you cant have both at the same time. These climate papers regularly violate energy conservation this way.
Sorry Alex long post…
Bob
The ocean is warming, isn’t it? by Kevin E. Trenberth (linked by Trick)
Stephens et al. 2012 (also linked by Trick):
From the second column of page 1:
From figure B1:
(Converted to a 95% CI, the uncertainty is 0.6/0.58 ±0.48 Wm-2.)
Yet, when I look at the sources, I find this:
13. Lyman, J. M. et al. Robust warming of the global upper ocean. Nature
465, 334–337 (2010).
From the abstract:
(Converted to a 95% CI, the uncertainty is 0.64 W m-2 ±0.63 to 0.89 W m-2 or no significant linear warming.)
14. Willis, J. K., Lyman, J. M., Johnson, G. C. & Gilson, J. In situ data biases and recent ocean heat content variability. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol.
26, 846–852 (2009).
From the abstract:
Please help me. I am having trouble understanding this.
To summarize:
Ocean Warming Tenberth: 0.64 ± 0.29 Wm-2 citing Lyman et al 2010.
Stephens et al 2012: 0.6/0.58 ±0.48 Wm-2 citing Lyman et al 2010 and Willis et al 2009. (converted to 95% CI)
Lyman et al 2010: 0.64 ±0.63 to 0.89 Wm-2 (converted to 95% CI)
Wilis et al 2009: 0 significant warming or cooling 2003-2006.
I’m lost!!!
I am sorry Trick, try another trick. That was completely incomprehensible. “H?” “Control volume?” You lost us…
As Somebody said:
Makes one wonder why Trenberth called it a “travesty” that “we are not close to balancing the energy budget.” How much more balanced did he expect to the estimated energy flows to get? The estimated imbalance is small even compared to the changes in the central estimates of the energy flows so it has to be tiny compared to the error bars. (Note that the sub-numbers on Wild’s graphic can’t be error bars or the range on the imbalance would have to be much larger. The sub-numbers must be estimates of the high and low magnitudes of these flows.)
Perhaps the travesty that Trenberth was referring to was the large size of the errors. The estimates leave plenty of room to fudge numbers so that they balance (fudging in an estimate of global warming as well, the supposed “imbalance”) but this isn’t actually balancing anything. It isn’t actually knowing where the energy is going. It is just fudging the numbers. This interpretation is backed by Trenberth’s response to Wigley’s objection:
Trenberth had already classified reduction in human GHG emissions as “geoengineering” (See Daniel Compton’s 2009 analysis of Trenberth’s emails.) Trenberth was admitting here that they didn’t have any idea what was actually happening and so they shouldn’t be pushing for GHG reductions. I’m sure he looks back on that as a moment of weakness, allowing scientific integrity to briefly overwhelm his religious convictions.
I have never seen that atmospheric gases are source of energy to some warmer. Nor gases can’t be blankets, in free flowing enviroment. They could be blankets only when they don’t move…between glasses. How long this totally crap can continue!
Gail Combs says:
January 17, 2014 at 9:47 am
Gail, I don’t think your understanding is quite right. Incoming energy heats the surface, the surface raises to a temperature and radiates that heat away as IR, the photon leaves the surface and interacts with a CO2 molecule raising it’s excitation state, nanoseconds later the photon is re-emitted as emission but there is an almost 50% chance that photon will be aimed toward the ground, when that photon strikes the ground it can add to the incident energy and make the ground warmer. That thermalisation can be then retained. CO2 doesn’t lag the emission, it’s the fact that the reflected energy keeps the temperature of the surface higher for longer due to this insulating effect, that is it’s the earth’s surface that lags it (as heat not EM energy). Think of a thermos flask, does it keep your coffee warmer for longer?
Climate science tries to follow energy flows, they see this effect as being equivalent to an extra energy input that adds to the incident energy so the surface reaches a given temperature, while that’s an equivalent description mathematically for the system internally, it’s wrong conceptually, the system is warming because of a restriction in it’s losses – the surface is NOT an energy source it’s temperature is dependent on Nett input – Nett losses and nothing else. The only real input source is the external input IE the sun. (well if we neglect the small amount from the earths core it is)
Traditional thermodynamics doesn’t deal with these “Internal flows” it just deals with (Nett in – Nett out) and models the internal recycling as a reduction in the nett emission (loss) of the system because, thats what you see in practise. All this juggling with internal flows is pointless.
Alec, did I get that right?
Gail, I would love to work with you to come up with an estimate for energy loss through chemical reactions though!
Steve Case says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 12:29 pm
…Want proof? On a warm muggy overcast night, it may stay that way nearly all night long, but it won’t get any warmer. However, in the morning when the sun comes up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I have seen it get warmer over night but that is from hot air moving into the area from the southwest.
You might like to see this graph: temp of sand and air over time during a solar eclipse.
Michael Moon 2:22pm: ”H?” “Control volume?”
H from chemistry 101 is the symbol for Hydrogen. The sun fuses H to He (look that up) using H up to warm the surface and atm. of the Earth and sundry other planets and moons in the process.
Control Volume from Thermo. 101, this is useful to control for energy in and out volume of interest setting surface Tmean. You can see it in the cartoons, also called their border. This is why they call it a balance.
Thx for asking Michael but you could have looked ‘em up on your own. Really. Here for practice: Put H into google.com, see the top link. Put ‘control volume’ into google.com, see the top link. Pretty easy. You can learn a lot that way but check the wiki cites for the really good & right stuff.
[Gail Combs January 17, 2014 at 3:36 am
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.
…
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. )
]
The half-life for re-radiation from a CO2 molecule is about 1 millisecond.
The mean time between collisions in an ideal gas at tropospheric temperatures and pressures is about 10^-9 sec. [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/frecol.html#c1]. This time increases at higher altitudes due to lower temperature and pressure.
So in the lower atmosphere effectively all of the CO2 molecules pass on as heat, the energy absorbed from photons. However that energy, now mostly stored in the Nitrogen and Oxygen, is re-radiated at a rate determined by the emissivity of Nitrogen and Oxygen, which is of course very low. Thus the light is almost entirely converted to heat, and remains heat.
Things change around the tropopause, where the pressure is so low that the CO2 re-radiates the photon faster than the mean collision rate. Thus in the tropopause about half the photons emitted by the CO2 head out to space.
I presume that a similar story can be told about water vapour, though it is not well-mixed.
In summary: radiant heat from the earth is absorbed by the atmosphere, conducted and convected up to the tropopause, and then radiated to space.
bobl says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm
I understand that the photon can head towards the earth and therefore retard the speed of cooling. That is why I mentioned on a micro level vs on a macro level. However you are still talking about rather short time spans as that graph I just linked to showed.
The data is from the desert so H2O is not as much of a factor, leaving atmosphere and CO2. When the sun starts to be obscured the temperature of the air responds within in a minute or two and the temperature of the sand within fifteen minutes. The air temperature drop is over 10C while the sand retains the heat better (more mass) and only drops about five degrees. The air responds much more quickly to the increase in sunlight and the sand lags again by about 10 to fifteen minutes.
I am sure if this was repeated in clearing in a humid tropical area the response would be completely different because of water.
CO2 might be retarding the cooling by a small amount but it is a bit player compared to water.
Sleepalot @ur momisugly July 21, 2012 at 4:53 am pointed out the actual effects of the GHG water vapor on the temperature by comparing high vs low humidity.
#2 The effect of the addition of water vapor (~ 4%) is not to raise the temperature but to even the temperature out. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the GHG H2O is added to the atmosphere in this example. The average temperature is about 4C lower in Brazil despite the fact that Algeria is further north above the tropic of Cancer. Some of the difference is from the effect of clouds/albedo but the dramatic effect on the temperature extremes is also from the humidity.
I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only. You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high.
This data would indicate GHGs have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the GHG is H2O.
The latent heat of evaporation could be why the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria. As one of the commenters here at WUWT mentioned using temperature without humidity to estimate the global heat content is bad physics.
More details:
The data is from May which is midway between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice and therefore the sun would be midway between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer (the latitude line at 23.5° North) so the solar insolation at both locations would be roughly equal with a bit more expected in Barcelos, Brazil.
ALTITUDE:
Barcelos, Brazil elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
Adrar, Algeria ~ Elevation: 280 metres (920 feet)
One would expect a drop in temperature of ~ 4C due to altitude for Adrar, Algeria so the difference between locations, taking into account altitude is ~ 8C higher in Adrar which is further north but with much lower humidity.
You will have no problem convincing me that water is a major player in our climate however CO2 is a flea on the rump of an elephant in comparison. It’s only use is as a hammer to beat more money out of the general population.
Michael D says: @ur momisugly January 17, 2014 at 2:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for supplying the missing pieces.
Re-radiation is often talked about as if the atmosphere was 100% CO2 and nitrogen and oxygen did not exist.
Carbomontanus says:
January 17, 2014 at 11:03 am
About that light globe,
1 The light globe is an energy source, the earths surface is not, having said that
2. The temperature of the globe (filament) it dependent only on the energy in Vs the energy out, if you retard the energy out then the reduction in radiation losses will make the heating process more efficient which allows the filament to heat more – the filament has a negative temperature coefficient – viz current falls. Noone here is denying that insulation works, however the total energy in that system never exceeds the volts x amps x time that you put in, your aluminium insulated lamp in this experiment has strictly LESS energy in it than the uninsulated lamp does. Temperature is NOT energy.
The only part of the energy budget that is influenced by CO2 is the atmospheric window. yes/no? That means the vast majority of the energy budget has nothing to do with CO2. Does this mean anything?
Phil no dot 2:21pm: “Please help me. I am having trouble understanding this.”
Not a unique experience. Nice work actually looking up the source papers. You don’t clip out the numbers in Joules just W/m^2. My guess the temperature & joule info. and data from the upper ocean would have more confidence i.e. smaller +/- ranges. This after all is why they didn’t do it with CERES data W/m^2, see couple earlier CERES posts about W/m^2 confidence – accuracy vs. precision discussion by Willis (CO2 and CERES thread).
Try doing the same work with the energy content joules data, don’t convert W/m^2, see if that helps. Talking about the joule ranges shown in Trenberth 2010 Nature Fig. 1, seem to get visually smaller as the Argo data comes in (2003 or so).