It seems to me that «Earth's Energy Imbalance» paper is not strictly a science paper; there are also policy warnings e.g. «this example [~ 0.6
C warming in the pipeline]... implies the need for near - term anticipatory actions».
Not exact matches
The ocean's ability to absorb heat and carbon could reduce the
warming already
in the
pipeline by 0.2 to 0.3
C, they wrote.
If we have had 1
C of
warming (giss) since pre-industrial and human made aerosols are masking between 0.5 and 1.1 (Samset et al) and there is
warming «
in the
pipeline» as well — has the possibility of a 1.5
C target already passed?
The current energy imbalance at the surface (as demonstrated by the increasing heat content of the oceans) implies there is at least a further 0.5 deg
C surface
warming in the «
pipeline».
But aren't these way too low, since LOTI shows we are — as of 2017 — already around 0.95
C warmer than the 1951 - 1980 average, and there is more
warming «
in the
pipeline» because of the time lag, and another (estimated) 0.5
C warming when the anthropogenic aerosols dimming effect is removed?
However even the moderate scenarios which have eventual stabilisation give more
warming than 0.8
C. Even
in the extremely unlikely event that there is no further growth
in emissions, the current planetary energy imbalance (estimated to be almost 1W / m2)(due to the ocean thermal inertia) implies that there is around 0.5
C extra
warming already
in the
pipeline that will be realised over the next 20 to 30 years.
That is 2.3
C per doubling or 4.1 incuding
warming in the
pipeline.
IPCC (AR4) has figured that 0.6
C of
warming is still «
in the
pipeline».
Based on no further acceleration of temperature rise and nothing
in the
pipeline, this would imply a
warming of +2.3
C.
Let's assume that the theoretical 0.26
C atmospheric
warming is correct, but that it went into the upper ocean (top 500 meters), where it is hiding to come back out again as added
warming some day (as James E. Hansen has suggested with his «hidden
in the
pipeline» postulation).