Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, Jeffrey Kiehl, 2009: Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl

National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Abstract

An update is provided on the Earth's global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997, Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m−2. Revised estimates of surface turbulent fluxes are made based on various sources. The partitioning of solar radiation in the atmosphere is based in part on the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) FD computations that utilize the global ISCCP cloud data every 3 h, and also accounts for increased atmospheric absorption by water vapor and aerosols.

For all the technology the satellites offer, these presumptive (of AGW=enhanced CO2) 'adjustments' still have to be made, rather than the data being able to be used in its raw form.  This does not inspire full confidence in the results.

As to the previous comments about warmth from the prolonged El Nino period (1976-1998), if the acquired atmospheric heating has not been retained, it has been lost from the atmosphere to space. Therefore the climate system as a whole has cooled as a result of this effect (TomC has explained this previously, I believe).

But why should the partition of heat between atmosphere and ocean components not be able to vary over finite periods? Is this not what climate variability is all about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/26/global-warming-met-office

The latest Meto report doesn't see any 'levelling off' , just the opposite in fact!

There was a good interview on Radio 4 this morning with, I think, Vicky Pope.  I thought the timing was interesting as we are entering a quite unusual early winter cold spell.

Anyway, the core of the discussion was around the slowing of the warming trend but that it was explained by the less active sun.

I still, after several years and so many examples, find it breathaking how people like you, four, can make such serious allegations of people you have never met and probably never will.

You'd never say such things of people to their face, you have zero evidence for what you alledge. Why do you keep doing it??? Presumably you listened to what Dr Pope had to say on R4 this morning rather than simply jeking your knee??? Where is the beef???

It's completely unscientific, unsupported, prejudiced and ignorant posts like this that really irritate me.

You don't agree with the message so you find some flimsy excuse to be disparaging again.

Tedious but sadly predictable.

Was 2010 warmer due to C02 induced AGW?

Well, let's try to work it out from first principles...

• Low solar activity - in fact an extremely low and extended solar minimum, as I understand it
• La Nina conditions in the Pacific since April/May
• Levels of CO2 40% above the pre-industrial levels

So, we have two natural forcings that are working to reduce temperature and one that is acting to raise temperature.

Yet we have 2010 as the joint second warmest in the record.

So, in your expert opinion why isn't 2010 at most just an average year in terms of global temperatures?

I wonder why Four disappears when you ask a simple question?

Just though I would lighten things up a bit. 

Hope we get some in Dublin later.

I know it's off topic and breaking thread boundaries Gandalf, But is there any chance of a view on the Dublin position as regards snow, on the analysis thread.Well done by the way,some good stuff there.

“The buoys measure sea temperatures as being slightly lower than ships, which were used more in the past, according to Matthew Palmer, an ocean scientist at the Met Office.

“We’ve effectively underestimated the rate of warming over the past decade,” Palmer said”

Er, no. They’ve effectively overestimated it before the past decade. They should be adjusting the earlier years downward not the later years up. The new methods are supposed to be more accurate than the old methods aren’t they ?

I've read around the 'Argo issues' over the past 5 years (since the data was leapt upon as soon as it was showing what some folk would 'like' to see) and so know that there is a lot of info to be read about the system. Apart from the 'faulty' systems on board some of the Buoys most (now properly calibrated) are proving as useful as envisaged.

It's not a matter of 'improving' ships data , it's a whole new system. Some info 'overlaps' the ship data but I'm lead to believe their remit is much larger than ship data was ever meant to be?

Sadly we've been receiving 'good data' from most of the buoys (now calibrated) for over 3 years now so I worry as to why folk wish to revisit this again?

If the folk bleating about 'missing heat' really want to find it (and not just an answer that suits) then be patient with Argo 'cause the ocean depths is my best guess for where it's at and it'd be handy to know that before it resurfaces at the 'upwelling points' and rapidly accelerates our current rate of warming.

Seeing as most deep ocean currents take less than 100yrs to do their 'round trip', and we've been altering the atmosphere to a warming one for 150yrs, we will run into our 'lost heat' soon enough (remember the 30/40's warming spurt?).

C'mon, Stephen, think about it...

He does, but only in his own terms and to suit his pre-determined agenda. 

It's bad enough that we have to endure poor science and politically-motivated denial but when the facts are challenged or ignored when they don't give the answer people want....

Well I've tried but I can't see a good reason for adjusting either set. Each is what it is and should stand unaltered.

Why would it be right to adjust the Argo data upwards rather than the ship data downwards ?

Have I missed something ?

Precisely, it depends on if you have an agenda.
In which case everything can be made to fit it one way or the other.

Well you would certainly know about personal agendas.

Now, any chance of answering my question in post #185 above or are you just programmed to deliver irrelevant one-liners?

The other nag is that we were told, mid noughties , to expect some flat lining/cooling up to 2015 before warming would 're-start' with a vengeance. Here we are, in the middle of that period, looking at a record warm year whilst reading reports about how we've underestimated the warming......

The Arctic sciences were taken by surprise by 07' (well it's timing) and now we seem to be looking at another group who seem to have under cooked their projections. How many other disciplines need we see surprised by the 'speed' of the changes before we accept that maybe we should not be looking for a slowdown in the rate of change (both within the Arctic system and within the atmosphere) but a 'step change in it?

Once we have enough ocean data will things be a lot clearer as to why we see this happening (Esp. with a low energy sun .Nina' and low solar) right now?

If the 'globally cooled period' was not something that troubled the oceans in the same way as it did the land then maybe we have 40years of 'warming' that we did not account for and is now making it's presence felt? Maybe the deep ocean currents are starting to show their hand? It certainly isn't the "Sun wot done it" now is it?

Do you realise that a circuit of the Thermohaline Circulation is 1000 years or so ?

On that basis your fears have already been more than fully realised. We are now seeing the return of MWP warmth which is temporarily masking the effect of the less active sun.

Now, any chance of answering my question in post #185 above or are you just programmed to deliver irrelevant one-liners?

four wrote:

The Met office didn't say anything about the points you made, but implied the warmer 2010 is caused by increased CO2.
There's a continual agenda to portray CO2 as the major driver of climate, when evidence is mounting that it's a minor if not insignificant one.

I don't think anything is irrelevant in this thread, it's the catch-all hoax thread
How do you know I aren't getting £10,000 everytime I post a sceptic post here?
Maybe there's a bonus everytime Gandalf and Devonian fly into a strop (will  check later)

Gandalf The White wrote:

So you decline to answer the question then?

In post #183 you said: Was 2010 warmer due to C02 induced AGW?

I asked you to suggest how else it might be warmer if the natural cycles are working to deliver cooling.

The fact that you won't engage suggests either you don't have a case or you don't have a clue. 

I wonder which one it might be?

No there isn't.

Though this sentiment maybe explains the problem

Co2 is portrayed by science as the most significant factor in underlying warming occuring over and above any warming (or other climatic change) that may occur naturally.  At no time has anyone except deniers suggested it's currently a major driver of climate - though it may have been more significant a few hundred million years ago.

See the difference?

In another thread the idea of latent heat from the oceans is well covered.
The oceans are cooling now due to the cooling influences you mention, not at the start of the year.