What is going on with Earth's longwave energy imbalance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnbbahm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Energy
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Earth's energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 since 2000, as reported by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System satellite observations. This increase is attributed to a rise in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) by 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2, partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The dynamics of greenhouse gases suggest that while OLR should decrease, feedback mechanisms and additional positive feedbacks complicate the relationship, leading to a net positive energy imbalance and ongoing warming. The data indicates challenges in identifying any positive forcing in the longwave spectrum without an initial perturbation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of energy imbalance in climate science
  • Familiarity with satellite data analysis techniques
  • Knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship
  • Basic concepts of greenhouse gas effects on radiative forcing
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite data
  • Study the Stefan-Boltzmann law in relation to climate feedback mechanisms
  • Explore the role of greenhouse gases in radiative forcing and OLR changes
  • Investigate the implications of energy imbalance on global warming projections
USEFUL FOR

Climate scientists, environmental researchers, and policymakers interested in understanding the dynamics of Earth's energy balance and its implications for climate change.

johnbbahm
Messages
306
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
Recorded increase in Outbound Longwave Radiation (OLR) since year 2000.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000: 2024
Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
Added greenhouse gases are supposed to be decreasing the OLR.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
If the ASR from effective albedo, etc., decreases more than the OLR increases (a natural negative feedback due to the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship) then you still have a net positive energy imbalance, hence net warming.
 
I thought of that also, but for it to be feedback, it has to be feedback from some earlier warming input.
The earlier warming input would have to be forced by an energy imbalance, but if the OLR is increasing,
it cannot be added greenhouse gases that caused the forcing, as their forcing would show up as reduced OLR.
 
Say a “unit” of greenhouse gas forcing temporarily decreases OLR and causes temperatures to rise. Eventually OLR has to catch up and counteract the earlier imbalance; else the system would keep warming indefinitely.

In the real climate system, there are additional positive feedbacks that amplify the “original” radiative imbalance, and hence the OLR has to make up for them as well. That’s why the OLR at later times is not just the same as original but actually larger even though the original forcing initially caused a decrease in OLR.
 
olivermsun said:
Say a “unit” of greenhouse gas forcing temporarily decreases OLR and causes temperatures to rise. Eventually OLR has to catch up and counteract the earlier imbalance; else the system would keep warming indefinitely.

In the real climate system, there are additional positive feedbacks that amplify the “original” radiative imbalance, and hence the OLR has to make up for them as well. That’s why the OLR at later times is not just the same as original but actually larger even though the original forcing initially caused a decrease in OLR.
From the data it is difficult to see if any positive forcing happened at all, in the longwave spectrum. Without the initial perturbation, there would not be anything to feedback upon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
34K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
38K
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
24K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
28K
Replies
4
Views
3K