To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[CrusaderFrank]

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??

People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere. The oceans always heat the atmosphere, and small differences in how much heat is transferred have significant effects on air temperature trends.

You keep using the word "Science" yet you never produce any lab work, as if we're supposed to accept your "theory" on faith

 

[flacaltenn]

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??

People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere. The oceans always heat the atmosphere, and small differences in how much heat is transferred have significant effects on air temperature trends.

You keep using the word "Science" yet you never produce any lab work, as if we're supposed to accept your "theory" on faith

"Labwork" at this level UncleFrank -- would look a lot like the effort put into the Cern Hadron accelerator. It's NOT reproducible in the lab without having a world size lab. You're just gonna have to be content with speculations and extrapolations of known physical and chemical properties.. That's the bottom line..

Or until I get funding to make my "GW warmer" chiller tank and get Mammy, Crick and OldyRocks to volunteer..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And just how does that fit the outrageous claim that the OCEANS are responsible for the pause from 2000 to 2014??? That they suddenly started to consume energy at a higher rate therefore REMOVING it from the atmos exchange??

People who understand the science will point out that the oceans don't "consume energy at a higher rate". That's entirely your strawman, so nobody else cares about it.

The oceans are absorbing nearly the same amount of energy each year. There is a slowly increasing trend there from increasing backradiation, but that trend isn't significant over a few years. What can change a lot from year to year is how much heat the oceans release back into the atmosphere. The oceans always heat the atmosphere, and small differences in how much heat is transferred have significant effects on air temperature trends.

You keep using the word "Science" yet you never produce any lab work, as if we're supposed to accept your "theory" on faith

"Labwork" at this level UncleFrank -- would look a lot like the effort put into the Cern Hadron accelerator. It's NOT reproducible in the lab without having a world size lab. You're just gonna have to be content with speculations and extrapolations of known physical and chemical properties.. That's the bottom line..

I think they said you need a lab the size of the solar system. There are far too many variables in the process, so it's impossible to replicate the exact conditions under which a puff of CO2 will FORCE heat deep deep into the ocean

 

[Wuwei]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't.

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.

Stupid and false is what this "excuse" for the surface temperature hiatus was all about. Knowing that the IPCC was gonna acknowledge and address "the pause" in their upcoming report -- BTK (trenberth ocean heating paper) RUSHED a "mini paper" (actually a letter form submission) to the publisher with their fractured "re-analysis" of deep heating ocean.. Phony artifacts and all to make the claim that they "found" ACCELERATIONS in the rates of ocean heating just prior to the "pause". Like in the previous couple decades. Those accelerations are not IN the NOAA "rawer" version of deep ocean heating. This EXCUSE got VERY WIDE coverage in the media -- thanks to the activist team of authors and their syncophants. Like -----

The relentless increase of ocean heat

[[Judith Curry summarizes the TORRENT of propaganda about the Oceans "eating the global warming heat" during the "non-existent pause" by quoting Joe Romm quoting the nutcase Dana Nuticelli from skepshitscience... ]]

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

****************************************

Go back a page and look at the NOAA version of ocean heating to 700m.. There WAS a positive and fairly CONSTANT run-up in ocean heating prior to "the pause".. I acknowledge that delays are expected in a system so vast -- so it's PLAUSIBLE that the oceans ate some heat. AND MAYBE had a delayed effect on surface temperatures. Even WITHOUT the mania of Trenberths' self-injected re-analysis biases and artifacts which were intended to give the impression that these effects were exactly CONCURRENT with the pause.

But here's the importance of this battle over the excuse..

1) We have no credible sufficient data to see if that run-up from the 1970s was UNIQUE in any way or what the immediate prior rates were to the detail needed to find a "global warming" signature at 700m..

2) If it WAS a very delayed effect on absorbing and storing heat -- the likely mechanism was that the ocean appetite got stimulated not by GH radiative imbalance -- but with a combo of that with direct solar insolation which was the actual "meal" consumed..

If the 2nd point is true -- then there might exist a HUGE NEGATIVE feedback on greenhouse warming that would wreck havoc with the folklore of accelerated, irreversible, run away GW.. That thing we were told is CERTAIN if certain trigger temps are met.

All I know -- is that the public was fed a huge dose of propaganda and BS from the SAME HANDFUL of activist scientists hiding out in lab coats with high credentials..

You are reading way more into my simple post than I intended. I was not concerned with "missing heat", the "pause", or any controversial subject. I am a stickler for understanding the correct mechanism for climate. Period. Not climate change.

A lot of the kids on this forum have the impression that scientists think back radiation HEATS the ocean. It does not do that. The ocean is already hot from LW radiation. As I said in my post, back radiation prevents the ocean from loosing so much heat at the very top skin, as it would if there were no GHGs.

I was referring to Frank's phrasing of CO2 "driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean". It would be more correct to say that GHG's prevent "gobs of heat from radiating out of the ocean." I guess the point is too subtle for most.

Furthermore his "tiny poof" of CO2 has 1/4 of the mass of H2O vapor. They are both tiny poofs if that is the way people want to think. The amount of CO2 is not trivial compared to H2O.

 

[Wuwei]

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

 

[flacaltenn]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't.

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.

Stupid and false is what this "excuse" for the surface temperature hiatus was all about. Knowing that the IPCC was gonna acknowledge and address "the pause" in their upcoming report -- BTK (trenberth ocean heating paper) RUSHED a "mini paper" (actually a letter form submission) to the publisher with their fractured "re-analysis" of deep heating ocean.. Phony artifacts and all to make the claim that they "found" ACCELERATIONS in the rates of ocean heating just prior to the "pause". Like in the previous couple decades. Those accelerations are not IN the NOAA "rawer" version of deep ocean heating. This EXCUSE got VERY WIDE coverage in the media -- thanks to the activist team of authors and their syncophants. Like -----

The relentless increase of ocean heat

[[Judith Curry summarizes the TORRENT of propaganda about the Oceans "eating the global warming heat" during the "non-existent pause" by quoting Joe Romm quoting the nutcase Dana Nuticelli from skepshitscience... ]]

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

****************************************

Go back a page and look at the NOAA version of ocean heating to 700m.. There WAS a positive and fairly CONSTANT run-up in ocean heating prior to "the pause".. I acknowledge that delays are expected in a system so vast -- so it's PLAUSIBLE that the oceans ate some heat. AND MAYBE had a delayed effect on surface temperatures. Even WITHOUT the mania of Trenberths' self-injected re-analysis biases and artifacts which were intended to give the impression that these effects were exactly CONCURRENT with the pause.

But here's the importance of this battle over the excuse..

1) We have no credible sufficient data to see if that run-up from the 1970s was UNIQUE in any way or what the immediate prior rates were to the detail needed to find a "global warming" signature at 700m..

2) If it WAS a very delayed effect on absorbing and storing heat -- the likely mechanism was that the ocean appetite got stimulated not by GH radiative imbalance -- but with a combo of that with direct solar insolation which was the actual "meal" consumed..

If the 2nd point is true -- then there might exist a HUGE NEGATIVE feedback on greenhouse warming that would wreck havoc with the folklore of accelerated, irreversible, run away GW.. That thing we were told is CERTAIN if certain trigger temps are met.

All I know -- is that the public was fed a huge dose of propaganda and BS from the SAME HANDFUL of activist scientists hiding out in lab coats with high credentials..

You are reading way more into my simple post than I intended. I was not concerned with "missing heat", the "pause", or any controversial subject. I am a stickler for understanding the correct mechanism for climate. Period. Not climate change.

A lot of the kids on this forum have the impression that scientists think back radiation HEATS the ocean. It does not do that. The ocean is already hot from LW radiation. As I said in my post, back radiation prevents the ocean from loosing so much heat at the very top skin, as it would if there were no GHGs.

I was referring to Frank's phrasing of CO2 "driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean". It would be more correct to say that GHG's prevent "gobs of heat from radiating out of the ocean." I guess the point is too subtle for most.

Furthermore his "tiny poof" of CO2 has 1/4 of the mass of H2O vapor. They are both tiny poofs if that is the way people want to think. The amount of CO2 is not trivial compared to H2O.

I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.

That heat storage is real.. And we have some measurements. WHERE it came from is vitally important to the whole premise of GW theory. And to allow Trenberth to claim it as a GW consequence is not right. When in reality --- it probably is a NEGATIVE feedback on the whole "run-away heating" claim from OTHER mechanisms. And the activist jerk with the credentials and the lab coat FAILED to account for it in his own epic "power diagram". How could "climate science" miss and ignore a Power component in the GHouse accounting that large and significant for so long and then falsely claim it as a CONSEQUENCE of down-dwelling IR???

90% of the "excess heat" into the oceans?? What took the jerks so long to figure that out???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

We're in the same boat, for the past decade I've been asking for an experiment controlling for a poof of CO2 and all I get back is evasion and squid ink

 

[Wuwei]

I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.

That heat storage is real.. And we have some measurements. WHERE it came from is vitally important to the whole premise of GW theory. And to allow Trenberth to claim it as a GW consequence is not right. When in reality --- it probably is a NEGATIVE feedback on the whole "run-away heating" claim from OTHER mechanisms. And the activist jerk with the credentials and the lab coat FAILED to account for it in his own epic "power diagram". How could "climate science" miss and ignore a Power component in the GHouse accounting that large and significant for so long and then falsely claim it as a CONSEQUENCE of down-dwelling IR???

90% of the "excess heat" into the oceans?? What took the jerks so long to figure that out???

It's hard for me to believe that those scientists missed understanding that the ocean is an important part of the global energy budget. Also what is fundamentally important are the deep ocean and high air currents, major mechanisms for distributing heat. I generally don't keep up with what the IPCC is doing. I see too much fundamental misunderstandings at a general level, let alone all the gotcha charts and graphs that people dig up to plaster each others faces with.

 

[Wuwei]

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

We're in the same boat, for the past decade I've been asking for an experiment controlling for a poof of CO2 and all I get back is evasion and squid ink

It seems to me that you are the one trying to evade a fundamental fact of climate. If you don't understand the IR radiation properties you don't understand anything about climate.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was making certain that you knew that MORE THAN KIDS are making that claim... That is was a planned excuse from TOP Govt scientists that planted that claim on the front page of newspapers and science journals.

That heat storage is real.. And we have some measurements. WHERE it came from is vitally important to the whole premise of GW theory. And to allow Trenberth to claim it as a GW consequence is not right. When in reality --- it probably is a NEGATIVE feedback on the whole "run-away heating" claim from OTHER mechanisms. And the activist jerk with the credentials and the lab coat FAILED to account for it in his own epic "power diagram". How could "climate science" miss and ignore a Power component in the GHouse accounting that large and significant for so long and then falsely claim it as a CONSEQUENCE of down-dwelling IR???

90% of the "excess heat" into the oceans?? What took the jerks so long to figure that out???

It's hard for me to believe that those scientists missed understanding that the ocean is an important part of the global energy budget. Also what is fundamentally important are the deep ocean and high air currents, major mechanisms for distributing heat. I generally don't keep up with what the IPCC is doing. I see too much fundamental misunderstandings at a general level, let alone all the gotcha charts and graphs that people dig up to plaster each others faces with.

It's only been since 2013 or so that I've seen headline papers in the field ADMITTING that there are significant delays in the climate system that would better explain the contributions of solar insolation deltas to equilibrium and the movement of heat from equator to pole. And virtually ignoring the storage in the system. Prior to that time, every factor that could not IMMEDIATELY affect the thermal equilibrium of the system was systematically rejected. IPCC is still doing that by comparing the immediate solar values to current temperature anomalies. It's a wonder to me that ANY simulations would perform reasonably with those kind of rudimentary expectations.. If it wasn't a direct correlation to the CO2 curve or "look like" the temp anomaly chart -- it was ridiculed and dismissed. Been the M.O. of the IPCC since their inception..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2. Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling... 1/2 of what is expected.

 

[flacaltenn]

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

We're in the same boat, for the past decade I've been asking for an experiment controlling for a poof of CO2 and all I get back is evasion and squid ink

I think those numbers are good UncleFrank. The poster is asking what number is missing that keeps you from turning into an instant popsicle? The sun warms that much. The Earth is bleeding off more than twice that amount. .. Why are we still here?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank, you never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?
Both numbers have been measured empirically countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling. So what have they missed? And these are supposed to be professionals... so they just make up things? Where is their extra energy coming from?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth's energy balance

6, 1 December 2015, Pages 195–203


Invited critical review

The Earth's energy balance

• Graeme L. Stephensa, b, ,
• Tristan L'Ecuyerc

Check access


Purchase $35.95

• 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.024
Get rights and content


Abstract
This paper reviews the status of our understanding of the Earth's annual, global mean energy balance, the hemispheric energy balances and the symmetry observed about the equator, and explores the influence of latitudinal changes of energy both on the annual mean and seasonal transports of energy from low latitudes to higher latitudes. Based on the best available information we show that our planet continues to be out of balance with additional heat being added to it at the rate of 0.6 ± 0.4 Wm− 2. This heat appears to be taken up primarily by the oceans of the SH and perhaps mostly equatorward of 37 S. The nature of the adjustments applied to our best estimates of individual, annual mean fluxes of energy to produce a balance are described and the results of applying a more formal constraint for these adjustments are discussed. The energy balances of the Southern and Northern Hemispheres are then shown to be practically identical which in turn suggests the transport of energy across the equator in the net is close to zero. In fact the hemispheres are not identically symmetrical with the SH being slightly out of balance absorbing the additional heat and transporting a small amount of net heat across the equator to the balanced NH. The symmetry in absorbed solar and the near symmetry in OLR are remarkable in their own right and are a result of the effects of clouds both on solar reflection and OLR that act to offset land–ocean interhemispheric differences. We then demonstrate important interhemispheric seasonal influences on the heat transported to the winter pole that conspire to make these seasonal transports lopsided. This asymmetry is a direct result of the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit that induces larger energy losses from the southern winter hemisphere. This in turn produces a latitudinal asymmetry in the location of on the tropical trough zone, a region from which energy is always moved to the winter pole, requiring it be located deeper into the NH.

Looks as if the scientists are not ignoring it at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2. Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently the we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling...

You are on the right course here. But the 1st doubling since the Industrial Age isn't even done yet. Probably WILL be just over 1degC.. Which BTW -- as you say -- the empirical accurate modern measurements of temp confirm.

Even if it EXCEEDED that amount because of additive natural variations over that time frame ---- the basic physics/chemical calculations of 1degC/doubling that we started with ---- are not the CRISIS that has been declared by the GW circus..

But we pretty much know the spectral (frequency) emission/absorption properties of all the atmos constituents. What we DON'T KNOW accurately is the spectral variance of that big nuclear furnace in the sky. Can only ACCURATELY see that from space. And we've only been measuring that for about 30 years. Those matter bands of frequencies are narrowly tuned in a LOT of cases and a shift in the solar frequency distribution could easily cause a W/m2 or two of difference thru the atmos..

 

[Wuwei]

It's only been since 2013 or so that I've seen headline papers in the field ADMITTING that there are significant delays in the climate system that would better explain the contributions of solar insolation deltas to equilibrium and the movement of heat from equator to pole. And virtually ignoring the storage in the system. Prior to that time, every factor that could not IMMEDIATELY affect the thermal equilibrium of the system was systematically rejected. IPCC is still doing that by comparing the immediate solar values to current temperature anomalies. It's a wonder to me that ANY simulations would perform reasonably with those kind of rudimentary expectations.. If it wasn't a direct correlation to the CO2 curve or "look like" the temp anomaly chart -- it was ridiculed and dismissed. Been the M.O. of the IPCC since their inception..

One of the most obvious phase shifts between forcing and effect is the seasons. Although the winter solstice is around Dec 22 the increasingly longer days of sunshine following that should make the earth start to get warmer. But no, the cold part of winter is in Jan and Feb.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations

• Graeme L. Stephens,
• Juilin Li,
• Martin Wild,
• Carol Anne Clayson,
• Norman Loeb,
• Seiji Kato,
• Tristan L'Ecuyer,
• Paul W. Stackhouse Jr,
• Matthew Lebsock
• & Timothy Andrews

• Affiliations
• Corresponding author

Nature Geoscience

5,

691–696

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1580
Received

08 November 2011
Accepted

13 August 2012
Published online

23 September 2012
Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth's climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

Yes, we have much yet to learn. However, many here would shut down any research on the subject, simply because they know the results would show that we are increasing the heat on this planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Earth's energy balance

6, 1 December 2015, Pages 195–203


Invited critical review

The Earth's energy balance

• Graeme L. Stephensa, b, ,
• Tristan L'Ecuyerc

Check access


Purchase $35.95

• 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.024
Get rights and content


Abstract
This paper reviews the status of our understanding of the Earth's annual, global mean energy balance, the hemispheric energy balances and the symmetry observed about the equator, and explores the influence of latitudinal changes of energy both on the annual mean and seasonal transports of energy from low latitudes to higher latitudes. Based on the best available information we show that our planet continues to be out of balance with additional heat being added to it at the rate of 0.6 ± 0.4 Wm− 2. This heat appears to be taken up primarily by the oceans of the SH and perhaps mostly equatorward of 37 S. The nature of the adjustments applied to our best estimates of individual, annual mean fluxes of energy to produce a balance are described and the results of applying a more formal constraint for these adjustments are discussed. The energy balances of the Southern and Northern Hemispheres are then shown to be practically identical which in turn suggests the transport of energy across the equator in the net is close to zero. In fact the hemispheres are not identically symmetrical with the SH being slightly out of balance absorbing the additional heat and transporting a small amount of net heat across the equator to the balanced NH. The symmetry in absorbed solar and the near symmetry in OLR are remarkable in their own right and are a result of the effects of clouds both on solar reflection and OLR that act to offset land–ocean interhemispheric differences. We then demonstrate important interhemispheric seasonal influences on the heat transported to the winter pole that conspire to make these seasonal transports lopsided. This asymmetry is a direct result of the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit that induces larger energy losses from the southern winter hemisphere. This in turn produces a latitudinal asymmetry in the location of on the tropical trough zone, a region from which energy is always moved to the winter pole, requiring it be located deeper into the NH.

Looks as if the scientists are not ignoring it at all.

Ooowwwweee.. A NEW Energy Diagram. It's about time !!! Think THESE folks show the amount going into ocean storage???

 

[Wuwei]

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

The spectra of all gases are well known. Otherwise the IR from the earth is a broad band given by the black body curve. Practically everything on earth has an emissivity above 0.95 so that emission is very close to the textbook BB curve.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2. Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently the we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling...

You are on the right course here. But the 1st doubling since the Industrial Age isn't even done yet. Probably WILL be just over 1degC.. Which BTW -- as you say -- the empirical accurate modern measurements of temp confirm.

Even if it EXCEEDED that amount because of additive natural variations over that time frame ---- the basic physics/chemical calculations of 1degC/doubling that we started with ---- are not the CRISIS that has been declared by the GW circus..

But we pretty much know the spectral (frequency) emission/absorption properties of all the atmos constituents. What we DON'T KNOW accurately is the spectral variance of that big nuclear furnace in the sky. Can only ACCURATELY see that from space. And we've only been measuring that for about 30 years. Those matter bands of frequencies are narrowly tuned in a LOT of cases and a shift in the solar frequency distribution could easily cause a W/m2 or two of difference thru the atmos..

So, we are nowhere near doubling, yet we have already hit 0.9 degrees above the pre-industrial average. How do you square that with only 1 degree for a doubling?

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say - CNN.com

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.