Two years ago, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., released a study claiming that inconsistencies between satellite observations of Earth's heat and measurements of ocean heating were evidence there is "missing energy" in the planet's system.

Click to enlarge
Scientist Graeme Stephens at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is also an artist. This work is entitled "Cumuls Congestus." See more at cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu. Credit: Graeme Stephens
Where was it going? Or, they wondered, was something wrong with the way researchers tracked energy as it was absorbed from the sun and emitted back into space?

An international team of atmospheric scientists and oceanographers, led by Norman Loeb of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., and including Graeme Stephens of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., set out to investigate the mystery.

They used 10 years of data -- 2001 to 2010 -- from NASA Langley's orbiting Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Experiment (CERES) instruments to measure changes in the net radiation balance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The CERES data were then combined with estimates of the heat content of Earth's ocean from three independent ocean-sensor sources.

Their analysis, summarized in a NASA-led study published Jan. 22 in the journal Nature Geosciences, found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in.

"One of the things we wanted to do was a more rigorous analysis of the uncertainties," Loeb said. "When we did that, we found the conclusion of missing energy in the system isn't really supported by the data."

"Missing energy" is in the oceans

"Missing energy" is in the oceans

Click to enlarge
Normal Loeb. Credit: NASA
"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline. This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth," Loeb said.

Scientists generally agree that 90 percent of the excess heat associated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations gets stored in Earth's ocean. If released back into the atmosphere, a half-watt per square meter accumulation of heat could increase global temperatures by 0.3 or more degrees centigrade (0.54 degree Fahrenheit).

Loeb said the findings demonstrate the importance of using multiple measuring systems over time, and illustrate the need for continuous improvement in the way Earth's energy flows are measured.

The science team at the National Center for Atmospheric Research measured inconsistencies from 2004 and 2009 between satellite observations of Earth's heat balance and measurements of the rate of upper ocean heating from temperatures in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. They said the inconsistencies were evidence of "missing energy."

Other authors of the paper are from the University of Hawaii, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the University of Reading United Kingdom and the University of Miami.

US Republican Senator James Inhofe, in reliance on the Bible (Genesis 8:22) for his most recent pseudo-scientific views on global warming, thinks that scientists (in the main) and people (in general) are so wrong and arrogant if they think that human activity could change what God’s plans are for the Earth's climate.

In his new book ‘The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future’ – he (small ‘h’) explains all.

I am sure Raymond Finkelstein QC would have no problem with the ‘free speech’ as espoused by the illustrious Senator Inhofe.

And yes, it would be wrong to “censor” the good Senator, or his book.

Interestingly, it is Inhofe and his fellow travellers that wish to “censor” real science; so much so as to promulgate the withdrawing of funds that would reduce some of the uncertainty surrounding AGW - particularly in areas of ‘attribution’ and ‘climate sensitivity’.

There seems to be an inordinate amount of public opinion (here and in the US) that shares Inhofe’s view of the science and will do all in their religious and ideological arsenal to smear, curtail and deny it.

"CO2 is always the dependent variable". No, it is not.

Multi-year sea ice hit its record minimum extent in the winter of 2008. That is when it was reduced to about 55 percent of its average extent since the late 1970s, when satellite measurements of the ice cap began. Multi-year sea ice then recovered slightly in the three following years, ultimately reaching an extent 34 percent larger than in 2008, but it dipped again in winter of 2012, to its second lowest extent ever.

The other problem is that the science has been so corrupted that no one believes anything even if it may have some truth to it.

We have to look at longer terms.The world has been both much hotter and cooler than now even in the last 1000 yrs.An ice age will be our worst nightmare.Note how the poles are shifting alarmingly and this is affecting our magnetic shield that deflects some of the Sun's energy.The poles are now shifting at 55 km per year.I suppose we can blame that too on CO2 production.

Arjay

We do look at longer terms - you seem to be struggling with Milankovitch cycles. ‘Coolings’ are caused initially and primarily by an increase in the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Just as can happen in the warmings, CO2 can also lag in the coolings, by a thousand years or so, or more.

However, like Anthony Cox/cohenite, you appear to make the mistake of assuming that these coolings/warmings must have a single cause. Not so. It is well known, at least in the scientific community, that multiple factors are involved in climate change; including the change in planetary albedo, GHG concentrations, clouds, aerosols, etc.

If you are really interested, I strongly recommend you read Principles of Planetary Climate – it is a university text for the real aspiring professionals. CO2 can both lead, and lag, a temperature change. It can be both a dependent and independent variable.

Arjay, the contribution of CO2 to the glacial/interglacial coolings/warmings is about 1/3 of the full amplitude, so it would be wrong to assert that CO2 is the major cause of the ice ages – or a shift in the poles as you sarcastically infer. The fundamental driver for longer term climate changes (glacial/inter-glacial cooling and warmings) is the Milankovitch cycles.

However, as [CO2] has significantly contributed to our most recent climate change, it is best understood in terms of a biogeochemical feedback – feeding back to amplify the warming already underway.

Arjay, the only thing “corrupting” science are those people that, for ideological or religious reasons, don’t want to accept the science – they only believe in what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. You do that quite well.