Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Sunsettommy]

I find this interesting because it was published way back in the early 1990's.

A LUKEWARM GREENHOUSE -
How `Warm' Will Global Warming Get?

by John L. Daly

SELECTED EXCERPT:

Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy

The effect of this increase in CO2 concentration is to intensify the recycling of infra-red energy within the atmosphere, thus making the surface warmer - but how much warmer? Herein lies the core of the controversy. The present energy `flux' at the surface of the earth is 387 watts per square metre (wm-2), 148 wm-2 of which results directly from the recycling action of the Greenhouse Effect. The other 239 wm-2 is solar insolation, ie. light and heat energy from the sun reaching the surface.

According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm-2 will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.

LINK
========================================================
Using the old alarmist figures,he finds that increased CO2 in the atmosphere adds negligible warming,to the point of irrelevancy.

I thought this statement interesting and maybe worth examining because this was BEFORE the AGW alarmist camp came into existence:

Quote:(During the 1970's, warming predictions were typically around +0.5 degC if CO2 was doubled. The more recent predictions of +1.5 to +4 deg are entirely the product of computer modeling, with no solid basis in actual observations at all).

History is not kind to the AGW believing camp.