Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
06-06-2010, 03:47 AM
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
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.
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|
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ??? - Derek - 06-06-2010 03:47 AM
|Possibly Related Threads...|
|Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming||Sunsettommy||0||1,922||
07-26-2011 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
|Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget||blouis79||12||7,331||
10-06-2010 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)