Comment Re:Energy balance over temperature (Score 1) 442
Here's the important bit though. As the IPCC's most recent AR has observed, the satellite measurements show that for the duration of the CERES project, there has been NO TREND in the energy imbalance. The earlier ERBS data showed the same as well. Our satellite measurements have shown significant and very steady trends in energy balance cycling monthly, but the average over the years and decades we've measured is just a steady and consistent average neither shifting noticeably up or down. Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over that same time have climbed like nobody's business. All our models and expectation for X degrees of warming for so much CO2 kinda hinges pretty heavy on CO2 pushing up the energy imbalance. If it's not, and observations suggest that. We may not need to be so worried as some of the panic ridden crowd wants.
Is that your interpretation of those results, or the scientists?
Every time I look one of these "I read the study and it is clear to me that the majority of climate scientists are wrong" slashdot posts, I find that there is a good scientific explanation for how the data still fits into the prevailing AGW theories.
You seem to be making the weakest of 'appeal to authority' arguments ever. Your just waving your hands saying there must be experts out there somewhere that have an explanation, but I'm not even gonna bother pointing out either the expert or the explanation.
If you want to go ahead and look at the latest IPCC report, they have temperature predictions out to the year 2100. Based on their scenarios, the temperature out at 2100 is expected to range from just a bit cooler than today, all the way up to 4.5C warmer than today. The scenarios are based on expected forcing, ie the energy imbalance, over those years. With the last 30 years(the entirety of the satellite record) showing a very much linear energy increase in energy to the system, that helps us make a guess which of the scenarios the IPCC used we might want to look at as an expected case or best guess. It turns out the IPCC's two lowest scenarios fall just below and just above a linear increase of forcing through to 2100. These are RCP secnario's 4.5 and 2.6, adn if you look in chapter 11 of the IPCC fifth AR you can find figure 11.9 is temeprature projected for Scenario 4.5, and it even graphs the observed temperature against the projected for us, and low and behold the observed tracks right along the lower limit of the projections. That's kind of exactly what we might expect from the observations of the energy imbalance from satellites matching that same point on the scenarios main variable. If you look in Chapter 12, you can see where they plot out to the year 2300, and even there scenario 4.5 hits around the 2C mark and scenario 2.6 is under 1C, so if we observe that current energy trends with our current increasing CO2 match the middle ground of those scenarios, it is rather in keeping with mainstream science to say, hey that's a good best guess. Incidentally, that also averages out at the 1.5C that the article is all excited for us to work hard to meet.
For all the people saying we need to panic in case CO2 levels force the very non linear worst cases from the IPCC on us, I think it fair to observe the current record. To notice that the CO2 levels since 1900 have risen very rapidly indeed, as rapidly as we project them to continue increasing in the IPCC worst case scenarios. During that timeframe though, the energy imbalance/forcing has NOT been none linear, but instead from the entirety of the satellite record has been increasing very linearly indeed, and with peaks and troughs of that linear average dominated by volcanic activity. In chapter 12 and figure 12.15 you can compare for yourself the actual mainstream basis for the scenarios the IPCC used, it graphs both historical and projected Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. Note also that the historical older than 1980 though is reconstructions with admitted large margin of error as it's mostly based on ocean heat reconstructions, and scientists regret those data sets are not very extensive and more importantly, are until recently only include temperature at the shallowest layers of the ocean so trends in deeper currents are lost. If you take the 'best', 1980 onward of observed satellite energy in and out measures, I not only don't think I'm a skeptic to suggest the lower estimates for the future are better. I think you'll find a lot of the mainstream climate scientists agreeing right with me. If you go read the latest journal articles on CMIP5 simulations and comparisons to observations, you find a whole lot of notes and observations that are right in line.
Or more shortly, if you want to dismiss my reference and summary from a peer reviewed journal article with a vague, I'm sure the experts have explained that away, you need to try harder and maybe read what those actual experts are really saying rather than the summary for policy makers written by the political characters afterwards.