WR cools, but I am focusing on incoming LWR only. What does it do to the ocean? It probably vaporizes the skin and does not heat the ocean to any depth. That’s what I think.)

the aggregate error bars on this estimate are likely to exceed the residual 1.3 W/m^2. For example, sensible heat is estmated at 12 W/m^2. this suggests anywhere between 11.5 and 12.5 W/m^2, on numerical accuracy alone, even before we consider estimating accuracy. the net flow could easily be negative or positive.

My point based directly on what Trenberth, Fasullo and Keith have written is, that the aggregate error is many times larger than the residual. The believe for other reasons that the residual is likely to be close to 0.9 for the global average and 1.3 for the oceans. Then they use this estimate as a constraint to calculate the other numbers better than they could do it otherwise.

This study does not give any support for the numbers 0.9 or 1.3, it just uses these numbers and tells where they should appear in the balance.

Actually they tell that they would rather get a number like 7 than 0.9, if they would do the analysis other way round. This 7 is the number Trenberth refers to as “surely wrong”. Other earlier estimates have resulted in even larger discrepances.

The empirical data and its analysis is to give energy fluxes is not accurate and reliable enough to help in determining the residual.

It is wrong to say that longwave heats the ocean as net longwave has a cooling effect. Otherwise it is equivalent to saying reflected shortwave cools the ocean. It doesn’t make sense to talk about components individually in terms of understanding the flow of energy.

When measurements disagree, it is tempting to speculate in the direction that supports one’s preconceived views, but that is a treacherous approach to arriving at an accurate understanding. In this case, the principal disagreement is between the CERES observational data indicating that a positive (warming) imbalance has been increasing, and various sets of observational ocean data (ARGO, sea level, etc.) that fail to account quantitatively for the putative excess of stored heat. My own speculation will be quite tentative.

First, there is no a priori reason why all the measurements might not be contributing to the discrepancy. The CER
WR cools, but I am focusing on incoming LWR only. What does it do to the ocean? It credibly evaporate the skin and does not heat the ocean to any astuteness. That ’s what I think .) 

 the aggregate erroneousness bars on this estimate are probable to surpass the residual 1.3 W / m^2. For example, sensible heat is estmated at 12 W / m^2. this suggests anywhere between 11.5 and 12.5 W / m^2, on numerical accuracy entirely, even before we consider estimating accuracy. the net flow could well be negative or positive. 

 My item based directly on what Trenberth, Fasullo and Keith have spell is, that the aggregate error is many times larger than the remainder. The believe for other reasons that the remainder is likely to be airless to 0.9 for the global average and 1.3 for the ocean. Then they use this estimate as a constraint to count the other numbers better than they could do it otherwise. 

 This study does not give any support for the numbers 0.9 or 1.3, it just uses these numbers and tells where they should appear in the balance. 

 Actually they tell that they would rather have a number like 7 than 0.9, if they would do the analysis early room round. This 7 is the number Trenberth refers to as “ surely improper ”. early earlier estimates have resulted in even large discrepances. 

 The empirical data and its analysis is to give energy fluxes is not accurate and reliable enough to help in determining the residual. 

 It is wrong to allege that longwave heat the ocean as net longwave has a cooling effect. Otherwise it is equivalent to say reflected shortwave cools the ocean. It does n’t make common sense to talk about part individually in terms of understanding the stream of energy. 

 When measurements disagree, it is tempt to speculate in the guidance that supports one ’s preconceived horizon, but that is a treacherous overture to arriving at an accurate understanding. In this character, the principal discrepancy is between the CERES observational data indicating that a plus (warming) imbalance has been increasing, and various sets of experimental ocean data (ARGO, sea floor, etc .) that fail to account quantitatively for the putative excess of stored heat. My own speculation will be quite tentative. 

 First, there be no a priori reason why all the measurements might not be contributing to the discrepancy. The CER
WR fools, but I am focusing un incoming LWR only. Wiat doea it do go the ocean? It probably vaplruzes uke skin and does not heat the ocean ti anb depth. That’s whef I thikh.)

the wggrzgete error bars pn this esdimate are likalh co exceed the residual 1.3 W/m^2. For exampje, sensobpe heat is estiatec at 12 W/m^2. this suggests anywhere between 11.5 and 12.5 X/m^2, on numerical accuracy alone, even beforf we consider estimatijg accuracy. the bet flow couud easily be negative kr positive.

My point based direcgly ou what Trenveeth, Xasullo and Keitr have writtcm is, tvat the aggregate errpr ms mqny times larger than the residual. The felieve fmr other reasons thqt the tesidgal kw lkkemy tk be cposx to 0.9 for tge global acerage and 1.3 for the osvsns. Then theg use ehys estimate as a constraint to calculatt the other numbers better tyan they could do it ltherwise.

Ehis study does not give any support for the numbars 0.9 kf 1.3, nb gysh uses these numbers and tells where they shotmd aipear in the balakce.

Actually they trlp yrat they woula rathzd fet a number like 7 than 0.9, yf thwy would qo tne analysis other way round. This 7 is thv nunber Trenberth refzrs to as “suxely wtong”. Oyher earlier estimates kave rssulted in fven largsf discrepances.

Thd ekphrical data and its analysys is to jive znergy fuuxex is njt accuratf and reliable enough to help it determinlng the residual.

It is wrong to say that longwsva hvats the jcean as net longwwve has a coolnng effeet. Othdrwise it ps equivanent to sayyng reflected dhortwave comls the jceab. It doesn’t oake sense to yalk aboun eomponentw individually in berms kf understandiny uhw flow of enerby.

Wfen mvasnremegds disagree, ht ir tdkptine to spteulctd in the direction that vuppkrts one’s preconceovcd views, vut that is a treachetous approach to agriviig at en acciraje understanding. In this case, tge princioal disagreemene is between the CERES observational data indicating thet a positive (warming) inbalance has been iucveasing, and tariouf sets of observational ocean data (ARGO, sea leyel, etc.) that fail to adcount quanhitatively for the putative excess of stored heat. My own speculation will be qumtq tentative.

Rirsy, thege ns uo a pryori ceason why all thv measurements might not be contcibuting tm che discrepancy. The CER
WR cools, but I am focusing on only. does it to the ocean? and not heat the to any depth. what I think.) the aggregate error on this estimate are likely to exceed the residual 1.3 W/m^2. For example, heat is estmated at 12 W/m^2. this suggests anywhere between 11.5 and 12.5 on accuracy even we consider estimating accuracy. the net flow could easily be negative or positive. My point based on what Trenberth, Fasullo and Keith have written that the aggregate error many times larger than the The for other that residual likely to be to 0.9 for the global average and 1.3 for the oceans. Then they use this estimate as constraint to other numbers than could it otherwise. This not give any support for the 1.3, it just uses these numbers and tells they should in the balance. Actually they tell they would rather get a number like 7 0.9, if they would do the analysis other way round. This 7 is the number to as “surely wrong”. earlier estimates have in larger The data and analysis is to give energy fluxes is not accurate and reliable to help in determining the residual. It is wrong to longwave the ocean as longwave has a cooling Otherwise is equivalent to saying cools ocean. sense talk components individually in terms understanding the flow of energy. measurements disagree, it is direction that supports one’s preconceived views, but that a treacherous approach to arriving at an understanding. In this case, the principal disagreement is between the CERES observational indicating that (warming) imbalance has been increasing, and various sets observational ocean data (ARGO, level, etc.) that fail to account quantitatively for the excess stored heat. own speculation will quite tentative. First, is no a why all measurements not the discrepancy. The CER
WR cools, but I am focusing on inComing LWR oNly. WhAt dOes It Do to The oCean? It probably VAporIzes the skin and does not hEat thE oCEan tO AnY deptH. That’s wHAt i THinK.)

tHe AggReGAtE erroR baRs on thiS estimate aRe lIkEly to exceed tHE rEsidual 1.3 W/m^2. FOr eXample, sensibLe hEat is eStMatED at 12 W/m^2. ThiS suggEsts anYWhere bEtween 11.5 and 12.5 w/m^2, ON numerICal accuRACy AlonE, even before we consIDeR Estimating accuRacy. thE nET fLOW coUld Easily be neGaTive oR PositivE.

my POINt bASed directly on What TrenberTH, FaSullo aNd keiTH have wRitteN iS, ThaT the aggregaTe erRor is many Times lARger thaN The resiDual. ThE beLieVe foR OtHeR reAsONs tHAt The REsiDual is liKeLy To be cLose TO 0.9 FOR the GloBal aVeragE and 1.3 for the oceAns. then THey Use thIs estImatE aS a conStrainT to caLcUlate the other nuMberS better thAn tHeY coUlD do it OTherwiSe.

THis Study doEs not giVE anY sUPPOrT for the numbers 0.9 or 1.3, it JuST UsEs these nUmbers ANd TeLLs where tHeY shOuld APPear iN the BAlAnce.

ActuAlly thEY tElL that thEy Would rAtHer Get A numbER likE 7 than 0.9, iF they wouLd do tHE analysis other WAy round. This 7 is THe NUMbER TreNbeRth refers to As “suREly wRong”. oThEr eARlier EstimAtES hAVe resulted in even larGeR discrEpancEs.

The empiricaL data and itS ANAlysis is To giVE eNErgy fluxes is noT accuRate and relIAble enouGh to hElp in detErmining tHE Residual.

it iS wrOng To sAY ThAt longwave heaTS The oCeAn as net LonGwave haS a cOolIng EffEcT. OtherwisE it is equIvAlEnT tO saYing rEFlected sHoRtwAvE coOls thE Ocean. IT doesN’t maKe SeNSe tO talk abOUt COMponEnTs IndiVidUaLly in TermS Of uNderstaNding the fLow OF eneRgY.

WHen measUrements disagReE, it is temptInG to SpeculATE in the diRection that supports one’s PReconceIveD viewS, but That is a trEacHerous AppROach to ArriviNg at aN aCcuRATe undERStAndInG. In this casE, THe pRinciPaL disAgreemeNt is between the CEREs ObsErvational datA inDicaTINg ThaT A pOSitIvE (WarMINg) imbalance has bEen increasInG, AnD various seTS of ObServatiOnal oceAn datA (aRGO, sea Level, etc.) tHat fail to AcCounT QUanTitatively For the puTative excESs of sTOrEd heaT. My Own speCuLatIon wiLl be quITe tEntatIve.

FirSt, There iS no a pRiOri reasoN why all the measurements mIght noT be coNtrIbuting to The DIscRepancy. ThE CER
WR cools, but I am focusin g on incom ing L WRonl y.  Wha t do es it do to th e  oce an? It probably vapori zes t he skin an d doe s not h e at t heoc ea n t oa ny  dept h.That’swhat I thi nk. )
the aggrega t eerror bars  on  this estima teare li ke lyt o exc eed  theresidu a l 1.3W/m^2. Fo re xample ,  sensib l e  h eatis estmated at 12 W/ m ^2. this sugge sts an yw h er e bet wee n 11.5 and  1 2.5 W / m^2, on nu m e r ica l  accuracy alo ne, even be f ore  we co ns ide r  estim ating  a c cur acy. the ne t fl ow couldeasily be nega t ive orpositi ve. 

M y po i nt  b ase dd ire c tl y o n  wh at Trenb er th , Fas ullo a n d  Kei thhave  writ ten is, thatthe  agg r ega te er ror i s ma ny  time s larg er th an  the residual.Thebelieve f orot her  r eason s  thatthe  re sidualis like l y t ob e cl ose to 0.9 for the  g l o ba l averag e and1 .3  f o r the oc ea ns.  The n theyuset hi s estima te asa  c on straint  t o calc ul ate  th e oth e r nu mbersbetter t han t h ey could do it otherwise.

T h is s tu d y do esnot give an y su p port  for th e n u mbers  0.9or 1. 3 , it just uses thes enumber s and  tells wherethey shoul d a ppear in  the ba l ance.

Actuall y the y tell tha t  they wo uld r ather ge t a numbe r like 7 t han  0. 9,ift h ey  would do the a naly si s other  wa y round . T his  7isth e numberTrenbert hre fe rs  to  as “ s urely wr on g”.  O the r ear l ier es timat es h av er esu lted in ev e n  lar ge rdisc rep an ces.
The emp iricaldata andits anal ys is  is togive energy f lu xes is not  a ccu rate a n d  reliabl e enough to help in det e rmining  th e res idua l.

It is  wr ong to  sa y  thatlongwa ve he at s t h e  ocea n as  ne tlongwave h a s  acooli ng  eff ect. Ot herwise it is equi v ale nt to sayingref lect e d  s hor t wa v e c oo l s t h e  ocean. It does n’t make s en s eto talk ab o utco mponent s indiv idual l y in te rms of un derstandi ng  the f low  of energy .

Whenmeasureme n ts di s ag ree,itis tem pt ing  to s pecula t e i n the  direc ti on tha t sup po rts one’ s preconceived views, b ut tha t isa t reacherou s a p pro ach to ar rivi ng at an a ccu rat e und ers t andin g. I n  t his case,  the principal di sag r e em ent is betw e e n  th e CER ESo bserva tion al data indicatin g  that a positi ve ( w a rmi ng) imba la nce has been i ncr ea s i ng, andva rious setsof obser va t ional  ocean  data(ARGO,s e al evel,etc. ) t hat failtoac c ount qu an ti t ativel y fo rthe pu tative exce s s  of stored heat.  My o w n  spec u lat ion w il l be qu i te t entative.
First, the re isno a  prio ri reas on  why a llth e measurem e nts might  notbe cont ri buti ngto the  dis c r epanc y. T he  CE R
WR cools,_but I_am focusing on incoming_LWR only._What_does it_do_to the ocean?_It probably vaporizes_the skin and does_not heat the_ocean_to any depth. That’s what I think.)

the aggregate error bars on this estimate are_likely_to exceed_the_residual_1.3 W/m^2. For example, sensible_heat is estmated at 12_W/m^2. this_suggests anywhere between 11.5 and 12.5 W/m^2, on_numerical_accuracy alone, even_before we consider estimating accuracy. the net flow could_easily be negative or positive.

My point_based directly on_what_Trenberth,_Fasullo and Keith have_written is, that the aggregate error_is many times larger than the_residual. The believe for other reasons that_the residual is likely to be_close to 0.9 for the_global average_and 1.3 for the oceans._Then they use_this estimate_as a constraint_to calculate the other numbers better_than they could_do it otherwise.

This study does not_give_any support for_the_numbers_0.9 or_1.3, it just_uses_these numbers_and_tells where they should appear in_the_balance.

Actually they tell that they would rather_get a number like_7_than 0.9, if they_would do the analysis other_way round. This 7 is the_number Trenberth_refers to_as “surely wrong”. Other earlier estimates have resulted in even larger_discrepances.

The empirical data and its analysis_is to give energy_fluxes is_not_accurate and reliable_enough_to help_in determining the residual.

It is wrong to_say that_longwave heats the ocean as net_longwave has a cooling_effect._Otherwise it is equivalent to saying_reflected shortwave cools the ocean. It_doesn’t make sense to talk_about_components_individually in terms of understanding_the flow of energy.

When measurements disagree,_it is tempting_to speculate in the direction that supports_one’s_preconceived views, but that is a_treacherous_approach to arriving at an accurate_understanding._In_this case, the principal disagreement_is between the CERES observational data_indicating that a positive (warming) imbalance has been increasing,_and various sets_of observational ocean data (ARGO,_sea_level,_etc.) that fail to account quantitatively for the putative excess_of stored_heat. My own_speculation will be quite tentative.

First, there is no a priori_reason why all the measurements might not_be contributing to the discrepancy. The CER