A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters examining satellite instruments’ measurements of how Earth’s energy budget has changed is being falsely portrayed by the media as showing human greenhouse gas emissions are trapping a record amount of heat.
The data discussed in the article titled “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rateassessments does show the amount of heat “trapped” recently has increased, but the alarming implications of that fact are being misportrayed by the mainstream media.
For example, one media story from the Guardian trumpeted:
But like many climate stories in the media today, when you peel back the layers of hype and fearmongering, you’re left with something that isn’t alarming at all.
First, the period they study is rather limited, 2005 through 2019, which is less than half of the 30-year time span required for a sound climate dataset, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer analyzed the study and reports:
“They also point out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is responsible for some of what they see in the data, while anthropogenic forcings (and feedbacks from all-natural and human-caused forcings) presumably account for the rest.
“One of the encouraging results for [the study] is that the rate of increase in the accumulation of radiant energy in the climate system is the same in the satellite observations as it is when computed from in situ data, primarily the Argo float measurements of the upper half of the ocean depths.
“It should be noted, however, that the absolute value of the imbalance cannot be measured by the CERES satellite instruments…”
In essence, what Dr. Spencer says is the data showing the rate of change is accurate as far as it goes, but the absolute value of the change can’t be accurately measured.
Concerning the media’s coverage of the study, Spencer says:
“The main problem I have is with the media reporting of these results. The animated graph in the Verge article shows a planetary energy imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 in 2005 increasing to about 1.0 W/m2 in 2019.”
“First of all, the 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 (Watt per square meter) energy imbalance is much smaller than our knowledge of any of the natural energy flows in the climate system. … approximately 1 part in 300. [Emphasis mine]”
“Secondly, since we don’t have good global energy imbalance measurements before this period, there is no justification for the claim, “the magnitude of the increase is unprecedented.” [Emphasis Spencer’s]
“To expect the natural energy flows in the climate system to stay stable to 1 part in 300 over thousands of years has no scientific basis, and is merely a statement of faith. We have no idea whether such changes have occurred in centuries past.”
“What bothers me is the alarmist language attached to (1) such a tiny number, and (2) the likelihood that no one will bother to mention the authors attribute part of the change to a natural climate cycle, the PDO.”
Indeed, the small amount of energy change of 0.5 to 1.0 watts per square meter from 2005 to 2019 cited in this study is even lower than the average change of sunlight we receive during an 11-year solar cycle.
NASA says,
“Overall, TSI varies by approximately 0.1 percent—or about 2 watts per square meter between the most and least active part of an 11-year solar cycle.” [Emphasis mine]
Data show the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth naturally varies by an amount at least DOUBLE that of the energy “imbalance” estimated in this study. Also, one cannot show this imbalance is unprecedented because no data of this type exist before 2005 to compare it to.
The hype over this study is based on nothing more than the media grabbing a few choice phrases from it and turning them into a misleading five-alarm fire.
We are being told the United States must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions based on a study using data covering a very short time period; a study indicating such a small amount of change that it falls below the natural variance caused by the sun, the biggest driver of the Earth’s energy budget!
Neither this study nor the media hype surrounding it provide evidence the recent increase in the Earth’s radiant energy is either due primarily to human causes or is catastrophic.
The United States has done more than any other nation to reduce CO2 emissions during the time period of the study.
As a result, the study provides no reason for believing further reductions in America’s greenhouse gas emissions will impact the Earth’s energy budget or correct any supposed energy imbalance; an imbalance that hasn’t been established, and that may not exist.
Read more at Climate Realism
NASA needs to get back to landing man on Mars and quit pushing false rumors about this Global Warming/Climate Change Scam
Watts and Spencer are GHG Theory “lukewarmists”
i.e. The believe the theory but that it is not dangerous.
They believe that the atmosphere can “trap” heat.
Heat is energy. Can a person “trap” sunlight?
Years back, Spencer said that CO2 was like a blanket and trapped heat.
A blanket is a solid and can slow down the loss of heat, but CO2 is a gas, and all gasses expand and rise when heated. Thus CO2 is a coolant. IMO.
The Earth is trapping heat. All that heat in the molten core is largely trapped. When some of it rises up in the Antarctic, some people can blame the resulting loss of ice on carbon dioxide and use it crank up the pressure for the further rise of totalitarianism in their favour.
What’s worse is that fools believe it.