Trends in the Earth's Energy Imbalance

 

A study was published last year that used two independent methods to estimate the rate at which the Earth's Energy Imbalance is increasing between mid-2005 and mid-2019. The first method used in situ measurements to calculate the planetary heat uptake. This method found the trend for 0–2,000 m ocean heat content anomaly to be 0.43 ± 0.40 W/m^2/decade. The second method used satellite measurements to calculate a CERES TOA energy flux of 0.50 ± 0.47 W/m^2/decade. These two trends were statistically identical to each other - the difference between them was 0.068 ± 0.29 W/m^2/decade. 

The average value for EEI for the entire study period was 0.77 ± 0.06 W/m^2. In a previous post, I used three different estimates for EEI, this paper, one from Hansen (2005-2010) and one from von Schuckmann (2011-2018). I plotted all three of these values in the center year for the estimate in yellow as "studies."  In the above graph, I plotted the values for CERES and in situ measurements as dotted lines and the average of the two as a black line with a trendline. The three estimates fall roughly on that line. It seems to me we have a pretty good estimate of how much more energy is entering the climate system than is escaping into space. Calculating sensitivity from Loeb's study requires us to average the ΔFc for 2005 to 2019 (the dates used in the study).[1]  However, we also need to correct for the fact that increases in CO2 forcings (ΔFc) have totaled 2.11 W/m^2 while total forcings (ΔFt) including other GHGs and aerosols have been 2.17 W/m^2. In other words, CO2 forcings have been responsible for about 97% of the total increase in radiative forcing (ΔFt), such that ΔFc = 0.9724 x ΔFt. Making this adjustment, the increase in radiative forcing, this this is what we get:

2005 - 2019 (Loeb)
ΔFc = 1.838 W/m^2
ΔFt = 1.890 W/m^2
EEI = 0.77 W/m^2[1]
ΔT = 0.991 C
λ = 0.885 C/W/m^2
ECS = 3.28 C

This result is predictably right in line with my previous results. The Loeb study, however, does point out that not all of this trend is due to climate forcings from greenhouse gases. The PDO (whatever that turns out to be) shifted to its positive phase in 2014, and this was followed by an El Nino year beginning in 2015. So internal variability accounts for some of the upward trend in EEI here, which is good news. I don't like the idea of the earth's energy imbalance increasing by 0.5 W/m^2 every decade.


Reference:

[1] Loeb, N. G., Johnson, G. C., Thorsen, T. J., Lyman, J. M., Rose, F. G., & Kato, S. (2021). Satellite and ocean data reveal marked increase in Earth’s heating rate. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL093047. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093047

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more