What is a Watt???
01-29-2011, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2011 04:42 AM by Derek.)
RE: What is a Watt???
Whilst looking into the subtle and confusing differences between heat flow density and intensity that it occurs to me is happening in
the SI and Wiki definitions / explanations of the physics that are associated with the term W/m2 as applied to the K&T type plots, and
therefore by default the computer climate models I have come across the following Wikipedia page and figure.
" This figure is a simplified, schematic representation of the flows of energy between space, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface, and shows how these flows combine to trap heat near the surface and create the greenhouse effect. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2) and derived from Kiehl & Trenberth (1997).
The sun is responsible for virtually all energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Direct overhead sunlight at the top of the atmosphere provides 1366 W/m2; however, geometric effects and reflective surfaces limit the light which is absorbed at the typical location to an annual average of ~235 W/m2. If this were the total heat received at the surface, then, neglecting changes in albedo, the Earth's surface would be expected to have an average temperature of -18 °C (Lashof 1989). Instead, the Earth's atmosphere recycles heat coming from the surface and delivers an additional 324 W/m2, which results in an average surface temperature of roughly +14 °C .
Of the surface heat captured by the atmosphere, more than 75% can be attributed to the action of greenhouse gases that absorb thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. The atmosphere in turn transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the Earth's surface (62%), where the amount transferred in each direction depends on the thermal and density structure of the atmosphere.
This process by which energy is recycled in the atmosphere to warm the Earth's surface is known as the greenhouse effect and is an essential piece of Earth's climate. Under stable conditions, the total amount of energy entering the system from solar radiation will exactly balance the amount being radiated into space, thus allowing the Earth to maintain a constant average temperature over time. However, recent measurements indicate that the Earth is presently absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more than it emits into space (Hansen et al. 2005). An overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that this asymmetry in the flow of energy has been significantly increased by human emissions of greenhouse gases . "
I also came across this figure, on this Wikipedia page, which "says" much the same thing.
Given the subject of this thread, when taken IN CONTEXT,
the confused and confusing use of the term W/m2, the incorrect use of the unit of power, and the incorrect use / apparent "interchangeability" of power and energy,
as well as now mentioning / adding density and intensity,
then the source of the confusion seems rather clear to me.
The K&T type plots, the "greenhouse effect" they depict, and computer climate modeling. ie, Anthropogenic (man made - literally) Global Warming pseudo science.
AND, finally for this week,
Sunsettommy has posted the below in the charts thread, post 145.
Alan Siddons has produced the plots from the view point of accepting that W/m2 is correctly used as a unit of power in the K&T type plots,
and then proceeds to show how ridiculous (and unphysical) they actually are.
Given my approach has been to show that the W/m2 unit of power is used incorrectly, then this is a nice contrary approach / view,
to the problems of computer climate modeling and the K&T type plots, as well as the "greenhouse effect" I have been trying to expand upon.
This I have been trying to do by asking the question what is meant and described by the use of W/m2 in the context of the K&T type plots, computer climate modeling, and
the as explained by AGW (that it is wholely dependent upon) so called greenhouse effect "theory"..
These were from Alan Siddons:
This one converts W/m² to temperatures (in Celsius) to show how stupid the whole budget is.
Notice how radiation from the 1.8 degree atmosphere raises the surface, which was initially at minus 39.8, to 14.8 degrees! That's impossible.
The next one is meant to illustrate that you cannot send light of a certain intensity through
a series of reflections, absorptions and re-emissions and expect that it will end up BRIGHTER than it started.
Again, K-T violates all known laws of physics.
End of quote.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: What is a Watt??? - Derek - 01-29-2011 04:18 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)