Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
03-16-2010, 08:38 AM
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Derek Alker March 2010.
(English factory worker, never paid a penny by anyone for
anything I have done with regards to my AGW skepticism.)
We have all seen, or are at least aware of the below K. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl Global Energy Flows or budgets.
The importance to the whole basis of the discussions, modeling, and science regarding
the supposed greenhouse effect “theory”, man made global warming “theory”, and
following governmental CO2 regulations / controls / taxes based upon these diagrams and their variants can not be stressed enough.
These global energy budgets are the most basic building blocks that the greenhouse effect “theory”, climate modeling, and
man made global warming, or climate change as it is frequently referred to now are based upon.
At the global warming skeptics forum, http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-2.html
Terry Oldberg posted on 24th March 2010
” the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram errs in confusing the radiation intensity which it calls
the "back-radiation" with a heat flow.
By this error, the diagram produces the effect which UCAR calls "the greenhouse effect."
I've discovered a diagram that is similar to the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in an essay
by Gavin Schmidt of NASA-GISS on "the greenhouse effect."
Like the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, Schmidt's diagram confuses the radiation intensity which
the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram calls the "back-radiation" with a heat flux.
By this error, Schmidt creates "the greenhouse effect."
A Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is the first figure in the IPCC's 2007 report on
"The basis in physical science." Thus, it seems that
UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC are thinking along identical lines.
As it seems to these organizations that the "back-radiation" is a vector,
it seems to them that the "back-radiation" participates in a conservation principle
when there is no such principle.
In their confusion, these organizations add the radiation intensity to the heat that
must flow from Earth's surface to maintain a heat balance.
This addition of a CO2 sensitive radiation intensity creates a "greenhouse effect" that is not real.
It is not real because radiation intensities do not participate in heat balances. “
This post raises some serious and very basic issues that must be considered.
It is worth taking some time to look at the budgets he questions with a bit more consideration than many have previously given them.
It is useful at this point, if you are not already familiar with these budgets,
to take some time to look over and get a feel for the below plot,
which is representative of all the global energy budgets in question.
Immediately you may well say,
1) Where's night. ?
2) What's a W/m2. ?
1 - How to view the earth from an energy flow point of view. ?
The K/T global energy budgets view the earth in a instant, and 2D manner,
yet the earth is 24 hour and 3D.
How do I view earth. ?
I tend to think of the earth as an object (that is nearly spherical) in space,
it is permanently half illuminated by the sun, and revolving on it's own axis once every 24 hours.
The earth also orbits around the sun in an elliptical manner once a year.
The ellipse the earth follows varies over time from nearly circular, to a pronounced elliptical path.
To try to describe the relative sizes and distances of the earth and sun to each other,
I have come up with this (scaled) simile.
If the sun is represented by a 1 meter beach ball, then the earth is a 9.17mm marrowfat pea, 107.2 meters (a football pitch) away.
This mental image I have of earth in space (which I understand to be the correct image)
does not seem to tally too well with the above (as they are more normally and frequently referred to as),
K/T global energy budget/s, or the various versions of them.
My first concern is that if the earth is viewed in a more realistic manner, ie, from a viewpoint in space,
then it is immediately obvious that the day side and the night side have completely different budgets.
The dayside has a large solar input, whilst the night side has no solar input, excepting maybe, on the night side,
if we are being pedantic a 2.7 degrees Kelvin "background warming" from space.
Whilst some time ago trying to mentally view earth from space and thinking about what
was coming in and going out of the planet heat flow wise, this occurred to me.
I think there is a lot more heat input into the atmosphere on the night side of the planet than
merely the land cooling, and the possible from space "background warming" of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
Stephen Wilde has suggested that The Hot Water Bottle effect effects global temperatures on longer time scales, due to oceanic phases,
but I suggest there is also a far more prominent daily effect from the oceans as well.
I would suggest the view point I use above would be a good starting point for IR budgets to be considered from.
To get anything like a realistic global energy budget then a view point from space seems to be a necessity.
Recently at the Watts Up With That? blog Willis Eschenbach posted this,
Please note and consider the sun's eye view point he uses – it is brilliant, clear, and simple.
I also noted this discussion of heat flow types, and heat pipes at.
With a from space view point in mind this diagram from Willis Eschenbach's post at WUWT shows
how poor the view used in the K/T IR budgets really is, and
that the one used should be, from space.
I would suggest the view point used in the global energy budgets is plainly inadequate, and grossly misleading.
(certainly as compared to a "from space" viewpoint)
At this juncture it is relevant to mention that the earth's core is eight times hotter than the sun's surface.
The semi liquid mantle transports heat away from the earth's inner and outer core to the earth's crust.
Heat escapes by conduction and the various forms of volcanic activity to the earth's atmosphere either directly into the air, or
via the water on the earth's surface, mostly the oceans.
Oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface.
There are obvious localized "hot spots" of volcanic activity, but there is also a general all over heat loss,
which is why it gets warmer the deeper you go in any mine, of any sort, anywhere, on this planet earth.
The geothermal input of heat to the atmosphere and oceans is simply ignored in energy budgets,
it is thought to be so small as to be insignificant.
This maybe true except for large volcanic episodes, but how often are there
increased periods of volcanic activity deep under the oceans surfaces we simply do not see. ?
One example many are not aware of should suffice, the discovery of the Gekkel Ridge in the Arctic ocean in 2008.
" Temperature readings taken from three of the vents registered in excess of 300 degrees C.
And all of the vents are full of vent fauna.
The beauty of the vents was particularly striking. The composite reminded this American of New England in the fall!
And yes, we have found what looks to be one of the biggest hydrothermal deposits in the world! "
There are suggestions that the Gekkel ridge may have been particularly active in 2007,
the year of particularly low arctic ice levels.
I am not so sure that geothermal inputs can or should be ignored as easily and completely as they are.
All the other main variables in the IR budgets seem to vary (though the IR budgets largely do not allow for these variations), but
geothermal inputs are consistently just ignored, as is any variation of them.
2 - My MAIN concerns however are the W/m2 figures used and
the omissions in budgets the use of the W/m2 unit allows or rather has “created”.
The figure is an instantaneous figure, in that it is W/m2 (Joules per second).
Because of this (Joules per second) the figure does not given any idea of the comparative sizes (volumes) of the flows involved,
because it does not express how long the flows occur for.
What the K/T IR budgets show are "cross sections" of the flows, but not their durations individually or relatively to each other.
In this most basic of respects the IR budgets are totally lacking because they use an unsuitable (instantaneous only) figure, W/m2.
W/m2 does not consider the temperature (or frequency) of the flows involved,
they have effectively been made temperatureless, so
it seems reasonable to just add the various flows together in the budgets.
Basically, anything emits IR according to it's temperature, ie Planck curve.
So, IR budgets are calculated by some sort of frequency figure (astronomers use this figure to calculate a distant star’s temperature)
converted to W/m2 (which does not tell an astronomer a distant star’s temperature).
When you compare W/m2 you are NOT comparing temperature but the energy of the flows.
So, a large cooler flow can look the same as a small hotter flow.
The budgets just add such flows together.
This violates the second law of thermodynamics, and
is the basis of the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer earth's surface fallacy
Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is centrally dependent upon.
At any point in the IR budget the inputs to that point are added together to give a summed total,
and what is emitted at that point is simply subtracted from the summed input total.
Because the W/m2 is a "temperatureless" figure this appears reasonable,
but in fact we all know it is completely ludicrous.
We all know that heat flows just do not work like that,
we see this all around us every day, so why do we just accept it in a global energy budget. ??????
An example from the above K/T budget to illustrate this fallacy that the budgets are all built upon.
At the earth's surface it receives incoming solar input of 161 + 23 W/m2 according to the above K/T budget.
Also according to the budget the earth's surface receives 333 W/m2 atmospheric back radiation.
These figures add up to 517 W/m2.
Amazing isn't it, that more than twice as powerful than the sun is atmospheric back radiation from clouds alone...
This can only be achieved by adding the heat flows and radiation flows together by addition, rather than relatively.
You might like to ponder that for a short while.
I'm pretty sure direct sunlight is warmer than being under a cloud.
What is more "troublesome" though is that atmospheric back radiation is supposedly so powerful at heating the earth's surface.
The earth's surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it
(it gets colder when you go up a mountain), so
how does the cooler atmosphere's back radiation warm the warmer earth's surface. ??????
This can not happen, it is a physical impossibility, and violates the second law of thermodynamics,
which basically states a cooler thing CAN NOT warm a warmer thing.
In this thread Another Look at Climate Sensitivity at the Watts Up With That ? blog,
Terry Oldberg commented / posted at (09:44:22) :
" In the language of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as an “energy flow.” The only energy that “flows” is heat.
In a Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, some of the “flows” are heat. Others are radiation intensities.
It is clear that the “back radiation” is not heat for it “flows” from cold to hot matter;
if it were heat, it could not flow in this manner, under the second law of thermodynamics.
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows, we do not have one for radiation intensities.
Thus, the proposition that the K-T diagram portrays some kind of “balance” is false. "
It is worth highlighting the below part of the posted comment above with regards to the
"back radiation" warming of the earth's surface that AGW centrally depends upon.
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows,
we do not have one for radiation intensities.
In short the heat flows in the budgets should have temperatures and be added together relatively,
not by simple summed addition regardless of temperature.
The budgets, as can be seen, simply add together the temperatureless W/m2 figures.
The K/T budgets DO NOT balance, they are left with a 0.9 W/m2 "net absorbed" at the earth's surface.
This is what is supposedly causing global temperatures to rise.
"Unfortunately" global temperatures have not risen as "projected" by the AGW unproven hypothesis,
the K/T budgets and / or it's General Circulation Models (GCM) climate models.
So AGW says that this missing heat has "gone somewhere".
AGW explains this "gone somewhere" as being heat that has sunk into the oceans,
later to reappear when it will dramatically and drastically raise global temperatures.
(Please be careful at this point, you are supposed to be alarmed and scared
- maybe even throw away your whole lifestyle because of it.
DON'T PANIC - well not just yet anyways...)
There are a couple of problems with this explanation of the missing heat and it's whereabouts
according to AGW's version of events.
1) How does the warmer water sink in the oceans to remove the heat
it supposedly absorbed from the atmosphere. ?????
2) IF the atmospheric back radiation heats the oceanic waters,
it is beyond dispute that it can not in IR form penetrate the water to any depth.
See the Segelstein illustration below. The plot shows the frequencies of atmospheric back radiation (greater than 4um mostly)
CAN NOT penetrate the oceans waters to a depth any greater than a single millimeter.
The yellow band in the plot is that of natural sunlight (1 to 3um),
which can warm the world's oceans to considerable depth.
This is the reason for the "skin effect" "discussions".
Unfortunately (from AGW's point of view) no one has explained in a coherent way yet,
how this "back radiation" does anything other than increase water vaporization from the oceans surface.
Simply the heat AGW can not explain (0.9 W/m2 "absorbance") CAN NOT be in the oceans,
it never got in there in the first place, because of
the latent heat transport caused by the vaporization of water at the oceans surface.
There is however from what I understand to be an even larger problem / omission from IR budgets,
namely the latent heat of vaporization of water.
Water has a very high specific heat content and capacity.
Due to this fact the oceans have 800 to 900 times the heat content / capacity of the atmosphere.
This is easily confirmed in your bathroom,
run a hot bath, and you have a hot steamy bathroom,
run a cold bath, and you have a cold bathroom.
H2O (atomic weight 1+1+16 = 18) is a very light atmospheric gas,
hence moist air is lighter and tends to rise, compared to heavier drier air.
Water also has several states it is commonly found in within the atmosphere,
namely solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (water vapor).
Very important excerpt,
" Water is an unusual compound. Its molecular weight (18) is half that of nitrogen (28) and less than half oxygen (32).
Water should by all rights be a gas.
The reason water is liquid or ice normally, is that water molecules are naturally attracted to each other and
form large aggregates which are substantially heavier than air.
In fact, in order for an associated water molecule to break free and escape into the air,
a specific amount of energy must be absorbed.
This is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization. "
This is another "misconception" we may have mostly not realized we have accepted,
evaporation implies 100 degrees celsius, but the vaporization (and hence latent heat transport)
of water happens over a vast temperature range.
Vaporization of water (and hence latent heat transport within the atmosphere) happens
all around us, all day, and a lot of the night, almost everywhere, constantly across the globe.
Yet still the slowest form of heat transport, radiation, is supposedly dominant globally in heat flows
- this is a sad, sad "joke".
No other atmospheric constituent of any note exists in other states,
so no other atmospheric gas moves latent heat to the best of my knowledge.
Water transports massive amounts of heat within the atmosphere in the form of "trapped" latent heat,
these movements are not by radiation, and so are not represented (realistically) in energy budgets.
The 80 W/m2 figure given for "latent heat" is a complete misrepresentation of the amounts involved
- it is a very bad "joke" at best.
Water not only transports massive amounts of latent heat around in the atmosphere (mostly upward)
it also transports massive amounts of sensible (actual) heat around in the atmosphere (mostly downward), namely “cold”.
"Cold", in the form of cooling rain (and more obviously hailstone), is patently transported down in the atmosphere,
yet no one seems to consider these massive "heat", or rather relatively "cold" movements / flows.
This "cool movement" is wholly absent from the IR budgets,
but must play a significant role in the energy movements overall. ?
On further reflection, it may become obvious why such “cool movements” are
not included in the present crop of heat budgets.
If the budgets did include such cool movements,
they would be added to the earth's surface total received as a W/m2 figure.
Adding W/m2 of "cool" to the earth's surface received W/m2 violates the laws of energy conservation, because it creates "energy".
Cool rain / hailstone (heck even mist and fog) does not add to the warmth of the earth's surface, it cools the earth's surface.
Energy budgets would add this W/m2 figure,
meaning cool rain would warm the earth’s surface this would patently create energy from nothing,
in exactly the opposite amount as to that that should have been
subtracted from the earth’s surface by the cooling rain.
The law of energy conservation surely dictates they should be added relatively, not cumulatively.
The W/m2 figure does not allow for the relative nature (temperature differences) of the various types of flows, expressed in W/m2.
In this most basic of respects the budgets are
massively, and physically impossibly "energy creationalist".
Because of the volumeless, temperatureless, and “creationalist” W/m2 figures used in global energy budgets,
the misrepresentation and gross underrepresentation of latent heat movements can be achieved.
Sensible “cold” heat movements have also seemingly been simply ignored.
This has been successfully achieved, but is it correct.
Patently, obviously, NO.
Ask an engineer which is the bigger the heat loss from radiation from an object, or
the heat loss associated with conduction, convection, and latent heat from a wet surface. ?
An engineer would have little hesitation, latent heat mostly, and
by an order of magnitude (at least), larger than by radiation.
IR budgets assume a 60% / 40% split, between radiation and conduction, convection and latent heat movements...
A simple example / question should illustrate. Do you cool better by
1) radiating heat, or
2) by the heat lost by removal of latent heat from your skin by sweat vaporizing / evaporating. ?
(remembering it was sweated by you at body temperature)
It is amazing that IR budgets have been considered useful for so long by so many.
The Global Energy budgets are worse than bunkum because,
1) - The viewpoint used in IR budgets is simply wrong for what they try to depict and describe.
At best the viewpoint used is misleading, but more likely the view is partial and inaccurate,
being an instant and 2D view of a 24 hour and 3D planet.
2) - They completely misrepresent the real heat movements, depicting
a ludicrous and physically impossible scene where radiation losses and movements dominate
conduction, convection, and latent heat movements within the atmosphere.
3) - They hide / misrepresent the individual and comparative sizes (volumes) of the various energy flows.
4) - They do not take into account the temperature and
the effects of the relative temperature differences of the energy flows.
I do not think any of the above points are minor, but, no one seems to have noticed.
AGW (to put this very mildly) would have a “difficult time” without the K/T global energy budgets,
as would the present versions of climate modeling and the greenhouse effect so called "theory".
I wonder if that is the reason/s why "no one" has, or has been allowed, to notice.
I have also recently posted (post number 8 ) at Jo Nova's blog,
and I'll indulge myself here in an improved version of the post.
(AND, yes for those in the "know" I am having a prod at
"I ain't talking about greenhouse effect - my husband tells me it is not worth it - he's an ex Stamford Professor or something don't you know"
- if EVER there was an arguement from "authority" that was it. I expected better. [I've kept the email in question])
" how to show who was involved, and what they did in the building of the false science of AGW.
Gavin Schmidt – Misinterpreting a radiation flow as a heat flow from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface,
ie “back radiation” – therefore the present versions of the so called “greenhouse effect”.
Please see this post.
James Hansen – Assuming a very strong positive water vapour feedback initiated by CO2 rising concentration in the atmosphere
– therfore the warming blanket as modelled in all climate GCMs.
Please see http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-309.html
Micheal Mann – Tree rings, and the last thousand years of global climate “reconstructions” contratary to all known human history covering the same period
– Fraudulently attempting to create the illusion recent climate variations are “unnatural”.
Phil Jones – Adjusting most of the global temperature record (HADcrut) AND, #
aiding MET office to provide the required cooling factors (after the fact) for the GCMs,
because James Hansen’s warming mechanism produced too much warming.
I havn't done this one yet, but there is plenty about regarding climategate,
I would particularly recommend Lord Monckton's
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken.
The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
|Messages In This Thread|
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ??? - Derek - 03-16-2010 08:38 AM
|Possibly Related Threads...|
|Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming||Sunsettommy||0||1,980||
07-26-2011 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
|Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget||blouis79||12||7,667||
10-06-2010 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)