Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Does the below at least partial paraphasing of some of Terry's comments make sense,
or is it too complicated. ?


A heat flow and a radiation intensity have the same unit of measure: watts per squared meter.
This is a joules per second or instantaneous (over one second) measurement.
Thus, one might take them to represent the same concept. However, there is a crucial difference.
A heat flow can be represented by a vector.
Radiation is not assigned a vector because it is a sum of many (different) rays at any one point, at the same time.
A "vector" is a mathematical entity that has a direction and a magnitude.
Velocity is an example of a vector; the magnitude of this vector is the "speed."
Heat flows can be represented as a vector field; such a field assigns a vector to every point in space.
For example, flows of heat can be represented by a field of vectors where each vector represents
the velocity of a small (individual) chunk of heat at the point (x, y, z) in the space whose coordinates are X, Y and Z.
As Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out on page 20 of their paper,
"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,"
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
January 2009
Excerpt,
" In classical radiation theory, radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector.
Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated. “

In any real sense W/m2 is being used to compare (at least) apples (heat flows) and oranges (radiation intensities),
as if they were the same thing, when they are not.

To try to show how complicated the picture really is, and why comparing the different W/m2 figures is so incorrect,
I’ll try to show what is being compared in terms of vectors and transport.
Each petrol powered vechicle, mostly cars, has a vector and magnitude,
ie “direction of travel” (on a one way street – from warmer to cooler, ie heat flow) and “speed” ie miles per hour, but
a lot of human powered traffic (pedal cycles, tricycles, rickshaws, rollerskates, etc)
moving across a junction in various directions at different speeds (with no traffic laws or lanes marked) can not be assigned a vector,
just an intensity of “traffic” (as can radiation).
No count of the number of different types of "vechicle" (temperature) in each type of transport counted is taken.
Comparing the number of fuel powered vechicles on a one way street and
the human powered traffic intensity (also by number of “vechicles”) at a multi exit junction, regardless of speed,
would be mostly useless, or at the very least limited.
If the picture (measurement) you used to count the “vechicles” was only a one second snap shot of a one way street, and
a busy (both varying tremendously over many time scales) traffic junction as described above,
and your main intension was to discover the direction and
the number of people being transported by what type of transport over a whole day, or far longer time period.
Would you be able to do it using the number of “vechicles” (regardless of type) depicted in a one second “average flow” picture.
Patently not. But that is what the global heat energy budgets do do,
by using the W/m2 figures for heat flows AND radiation intensities…

In more usual words the global heat budgets compare apples and oranges, (as well as pears, bananas, peaches, grapes, etc,)
as if they were all apples.
“They” heat flows and radiation intensities, are not all apples, so the global heat budgets are a false picture.