Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Hi All,
Another question of an assumption within the radiation budgets occurs to me, so I thought I'd put it here.

Radiation budgets assume that IR absorbed in the atmosphere is reradiated in all directions, but
that this can be considered as effectively up or down. With a few "lateral bounces" presumably.
Because of this assumption the (middle in the plots) atmosphere's IR in and out balances.

BUT, shouldn't some of the laterally emitted IR in the middle atmosphere be absorbed by water (ie clouds).
This would turn the radiation into sensible heat. Water falling as rain,
(that was not quite as cold as it would otherwise of been), would transport this sensible heat to the earth's surface. Cooling it.
This means that the middle of the atmosphere energy in and out (in radiation terms - ie back radiation) should not balance, as it does in the plots.

Furthermore the earth's surface does recieve "back radiation" energy in a negative energy form, ie rain cools the surface.
According to the plots the energy transported back to the earth's surface by "back radiation" is always positive...
So the earth's surface (W/m2) figures are incorrect also.