|
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
|
|
06-30-2010, 07:19 AM
Post: #64
|
|||
|
|||
|
RE: Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
A further thought on "energy budget" diagrams, in particular the Kiehl-Trenberth version. It shows 333 W/sq.m "back radiation" from GHGs. All of that radiation is shown as absorbed. Where is the albedo effect - some must be reflected? Albedo varies with radiation wavelength for different surface types, but an average albedo for LW infrared is similar to that for visible light. I believe (I've got a link somewhere) it's slightly higher, i.e. more is reflected. This one omission on its own (it can't be ignored or discounted) totally invalidates the energy budget figures.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." |
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread: | Author | Replies: | Views: | Last Post | |
| Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming | Sunsettommy | 0 | 1,935 |
07-26-2011 03:00 PM Last Post: Sunsettommy |
|
| Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget | blouis79 | 12 | 7,374 |
10-06-2010 10:40 AM Last Post: Derek |
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






