/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8757079
That graph is very inaccurate. It completely hides the huge amount of uncertainty in estimating rates of forcing and rates of change in forcing. What is the change in radiative balance according to Climate Scientists? Answer:

Change of radiative balance of 0.2 Watts/m^2 +/- 0.6 Watts/m^2 (for 2000 to 2010 for GHG).

Feldman, Daniel R., et al. "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010." Nature 519.7543 (2015): 339-343.

And what is the total rate of change?

0.6 Watts/m^2 +/- 17.0 Watts/m^2 total energy imbalance (3 times that of anthropogenic GHG; for 2000 to 2010 for GHG). Stephens, Graeme L., et al. (2012).

TWO THIRDS OF THE ENERGY IMBALANCE IS NATURAL! (0.4 out of 0.6 w m^2)

There is also a huge error range in the estimate of the energy imbalance:

Range: -16.4 to 17.6 Watts/m^2 !!!!!

“This small imbalance [0.6 W m-2] is over two orders of magnitude [100 times] smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux.”
“The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm–2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 times] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”


Stephens, Graeme L., et al. "An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations." Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.