.....

[bluewave]

......

[Snow_Miser]

Even assuming that the Climate is Highly Sensitive to CO2, and that there are no amplifying factors from Clouds or another source, this study still comes to the conclusion that the sun would be able to slow down warming somewhat. A good question to ponder on is how much more the warming trend may be slowed down, or even reversed from a Grand Minimum, if the model assumes lower sensitivity to CO2, and a large forcing from the sun because of various amplification factors.

[donsutherland1]

Thanks for posting this new report, Bluewave. I guess, given the persistence of a large energy imbalance despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least early in the 20th century, the idea that a grand solar minimum would only slow but not stop the ongoing warming probably should not be a big surprise.

[Snow_Miser]

Thanks for posting this new report, Bluewave. I guess, given the persistence of a large energy imbalance despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least early in the 20th century, the idea that a grand solar minimum would only slow but not stop the ongoing warming probably should not be a big surprise.

 

The surface imbalance is estimated to be 0.6+/-17 w/m^2. I'd hardly call that a certain and persistent large energy imbalance.

 

 

Kind of odd how the surface imbalance has such a wider error margin when compared to the TOA imbalance.

[skierinvermont]

The surface imbalance is estimated to be 0.6+/-17 w/m^2. I'd hardly call that a certain and persistent large energy imbalance.

 

 

Kind of odd how the surface imbalance has such a wider error margin when compared to the TOA imbalance.

 

 

Not sure where you got that from. The surface energy imbalance is estimated to be about .5W/m2 by numerous studies, depending on the time period chosen. Over long periods the margin of error is very small (<.1Wm2), over short periods of 5-10 years the margin of error is usually .2-.4W/m2. 

 

See Loeb 2012 and Levitus 2012. Estimates are derived primarily from OHC data. OHC is known to be increasing rapidly (at about .5W/m2) due to XBT, MBT, ARGO, tide guage, and altimetry data. 

[Snow_Miser]

Not sure where you got that from. The surface energy imbalance is estimated to be about .5W/m2 by numerous studies, depending on the time period chosen. Over long periods the margin of error is very small (<.1Wm2), over short periods of 5-10 years the margin of error is usually .2-.4W/m2. 

 

See Loeb 2012 and Levitus 2012. Estimates are derived primarily from OHC data. OHC is known to be increasing rapidly (at about .5W/m2) due to XBT, MBT, ARGO, tide guage, and altimetry data. 

 

This graph is from Stephens et al. 2012. They basically find that there is more longwave radiation reaching the Surface than initially thought, thus the error margin for the Surface Energy Imbalance are more than a magnitude larger than the actual Energy Balance Signal itself.

 

They also note in the paper that the CERES error margin is +/- 4 w/m^2 for the TOA Imbalance, but they constrain the TOA Imbalance better with OHC changes. I've shared my doubts about this, especially given that ARGO themselves say that the timeframe that it has been in operation is far too small to base meaningful conclusions off of.

 

“The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.”

 

The quality of the OHC data gets significantly worse before 2003.

 

It does seem like they took into the latest observations of TSI from SORCE when determining the Energy Flows, which is definitely a plus.

[skierinvermont]

This graph is from Stephens et al. 2012. They basically find that there is more longwave radiation reaching the Surface than initially thought, thus the error margin for the Surface Energy Imbalance are more than a magnitude larger than the actual Energy Balance Signal itself.

 

They also note in the paper that the CERES error margin is +/- 4 w/m^2 for the TOA Imbalance, but they constrain the TOA Imbalance better with OHC changes. I've shared my doubts about this, especially given that ARGO themselves say that the timeframe that it has been in operation is far too small to base meaningful conclusions off of.

 

“The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.”

 

The quality of the OHC data gets significantly worse before 2003.

 

It does seem like they took into the latest observations of TSI from SORCE when determining the Energy Flows, which is definitely a plus.

 

Satellite flux data is no where near precise enough to estimate TOA or surface net fluxes. Of course estimates derived from this method will have large MOEs.

 

Estimates derived primarily from OHC data (also sometimes factoring estimates of the small amount of heat gained by the land and atmosphere) have small margins of error.

 

For example Levitus 2012 finds large positive heat fluxes with high confidence:

 

1955-2010: .27W/m2 +/- .03W/m2

 

For 1990-2009 they find .45W/m2 with error bars of probably about +/-.05W/m2 (I am deriving this from the chart below).

 

Perhaps the chart below tells the story better. The surface energy flux of the earth is unequivocally large and positive. None of the above figures nor this chart include heat gained below 2000m, by the land masses or by the atmosphere, which would probably add 10-20%.

 

[Snow_Miser]

Satellite flux data is no where near precise enough to estimate TOA or surface net fluxes. Of course estimates derived from this method will have large MOEs.

 

Estimates derived primarily from OHC data (also sometimes factoring estimates of the small amount of heat gained by the land and atmosphere) have small margins of error.

 

For example Levitus 2012 finds large positive heat fluxes with high confidence:

 

1955-2010: .27W/m2 +/- .03W/m2

 

For 1990-2009 they find .45W/m2 with error bars of probably about +/-.05W/m2 (I am deriving this from the chart below).

 

Perhaps the chart below tells the story better. The surface energy flux of the earth is unequivocally large and positive. None of the above figures nor this chart include heat gained below 2000m, by the land masses or by the atmosphere, which would probably add 10-20%.

 

 

Right. Satellite derived estimates are highly uncertain, thus the reason for the larger uncertainty. The uncertainty associated with the increased longwave radiation into Earth's Energy Budget also accounts for a large portion of the uncertainty.

 

I highly doubt that there is that much certainty with the 0-2000 m trends in OHC. +/-0.05 w/m^2 would imply an incredibly small temperature error. I don't buy that small of a temperature error with such sparce data reports across the ocean from 1000-2000 meters. The graph below represents the total number of data reports for the year 1985.

 

 

I can't buy a +/-0.05 w/m^2 or even a +/-0.03 w/m^2 uncertainty with the lack of data coverage in the deep ocean above. The upper ocean's data coverage was even pretty poor. There is virtually zero coverage of the Pacific Ocean, no coverage of the Indian Ocean, no coverage of the Arctic Ocean, and even large parts of the Atlantic are not covered well. The 1955 charts were even more sparse in terms of the data coverage.

 

Graph from here.

[skierinvermont]

Saying "I  can't buy XXX" is not a scientific response. Evaluate the mathematical MOE calculations in Levitus 2012 based on the sampling. 

[Snow_Miser]

Saying "I can't buy XXX" is not a scientific response. Evaluate the mathematical MOE calculations in Levitus 2012 based on the sampling.

It's perfectly scientific to question something instead of blindly accept it.

[GaWx]

It's perfectly scientific to question something instead of blindly accept it.

Agreed 100%! I couldn't have said it any better. Robust discussion, questioning, and debate should always be encouraged rather than discouraged. The potential effect of a solar grand minimum is one topic that should encourage good discussions due to the uncertainties and the fact that it has been about two hundred years since the last one (if you count Dalton) and nearly 300 years if you don't.

[skierinvermont]

It's perfectly scientific to question something instead of blindly accept it.

 

 

Agreed 100%! I couldn't have said it any better. Robust discussion, questioning, and debate should always be encouraged rather than discouraged. The potential effect of a solar grand minimum is one topic that should encourage good discussions due to the uncertainties and the fact that it has been about two hundred years since the last one (if you count Dalton) and nearly 300 years if you don't.

 

 

Only if sound reasoning is provided. SL has provided no logical reasoning or critique of the methodology in Levitus 2012. MOE is a mathematical calculation based on sampling. You actually have to read and respond to the paper. Saying I don't buy XXX and posting a map is not a scientific response and cannot be taken seriously.

[Snow_Miser]

Only if sound reasoning is provided. SL has provided no logical reasoning or critique of the methodology in Levitus 2012. MOE is a mathematical calculation based on sampling. You actually have to read and respond to the paper. Saying I don't buy XXX and posting a map is not a scientific response and cannot be taken seriously.

 

I gave sound reasoning. I don't think the error margins could possibly be that small, given the huge amounts of areas in the ocean where there is absolutely no data at all. You're telling me that we can get a reasonable Global approximation of Heat Content changes, when nearly all of the data comes from portions of the North Atlantic? Really?

[ORH_wxman]

 

I gave sound reasoning. I don't think the error margins could possibly be that small, given the huge amounts of areas in the ocean where there is absolutely no data at all. You're telling me that we can get a reasonable Global approximation of Heat Content changes, when nearly all of the data comes from the North Atlantic? Really?

 

You'll have to run a statistical analysis to show how its not believable otherwise you might as well be telling us magical fairies are to blame. I have a bit of doubt too about its robustness with the data coverage (esp lack of Pacific data) but in order to actually have a robust case, you need to run a statistical set proving the co-variance is too low between ocean basins or that he has certain assumptions that when discounted, show a less robust statistical trend.

Saying "it just doesn't look believable" is not enough in science.

[Snow_Miser]

You'll have to run a statistical analysis to show how its not believable otherwise you might as well be telling us magical fairies are to blame. I have a bit of doubt too about its robustness with the data coverage (esp lack of Pacific data) but in order to actually have a robust case, you need to run a statistical set proving the co-variance is too low between ocean basins or that he has certain assumptions that when discounted, show a less robust statistical trend.

Saying "it just doesn't look believable" is not enough in science.

Well, I wasn't saying that Heat Content had not increased since 1955. It likely has. What I was objecting to was how certain the dataset was in relation to being able to accurately calculate Earth's Energy Imbalance. The large amounts of data that are missing in the image above definitely make it a questionable dataset for me at least.

These are the Heat Content trends in the Northern Hemisphere from 2005-2012. We can get a fairly accurate depiction because ARGO is more reliable than pre-ARGO.

We can see that there is a lot of variance with the trends in the temperature anomalies in the Heat Content data. A lot of that variance is lost with such a sparse dataset before ARGO.

I agree though, a statistical analysis would definitely be interesting and useful to quantitatively determine the usefulness of OHC data rather than qualitatively assess it.

[ben4vols]

Thanks for posting this new report, Bluewave. I guess, given the persistence of a large energy imbalance despite the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least early in the 20th century, the idea that a grand solar minimum would only slow but not stop the ongoing warming probably should not be a big surprise.

 

It isn't much of a surprise that a highly flawed model had a ridiculous output. 

[skierinvermont]

What you will probably find if you actually read Levitus 2012 is that pre-ARGO it is primarily a 0-700m dataset and includes very little increase in OHC below 700 or 1000m. But you actually have to read it and find fault with the methodology to say that. I'm not done reading it at the moment. When I am, I can probably give you a better description of how OHC and associated error bars were calculated pre-ARGO.