Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Hi All,
Elsewhere I have read in response to my above piece that,
" The flux densities [sometimes referred to as fluxes] are expressed as W/m2, not W/m2 per second.
A watt is a joule per second, so the flux densities are joules per second per square metre. "

Which to me reads as W/m2 are infact per second joules figures, which is exactly the same thing isn't it. ?

" The flux densities in K/T are global long-term averages and go on forever.
They can be altered by events, of course. "

Which to me reads as, the budgets do not take account of variations (anywhere within the climate system),
at anything under the time period the "average" was worked out from.
I would immediately mention cloud cover.
AND Tim Ball's recent explanation of how a temperature average increased overall,
because the day time cooling was not as great as the night time warming of an encroahing UHI. - ie, COMPLETELY THE WRONG PICTURE.

" There are versions of the budgets that do compare the flux densities, and
you can convert the K/T values into percentages of the incoming solar flux density 342 W/m2 = 100%. "

I think Terry Oldberg's comment above applies, and completely contradicts, correctly to this part of the quote.
Terry's quote above shows the budgets are actually comparing apples and oranges, a valid criticism the quote here does not address...


In short I think the whole quote is incorrect in all the points it tries to address, infact the quote also raises several other problems, and
as an attempt to defend the IR budgets it completely failed.

NB - I would also note on the WUWT thread Willis has not answered my posts, as of yet.