Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Posted on the myth of back radiation thread, by Nasif Nahle, post 41,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-1.html
I thought this worth putting here as well.

(08-03-2010 09:55 AM)Nasif Nahle Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 05:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Richard, yes, I agree with you that the evaporation of water and its condensation in the upper atmosphere moves a lot of heat around the atmosphere and globe and convection is also involved in that. The water from plants in wooded areas evaporates, cools the leaves and hence the local temperature is lower than an adjacent car park ("Parking Lot" in American) where the local weather station Stevenson screen is situated.

This water vapour is carried into the upper atmopshere by convection, where it cools and forms clouds. But you need a source of water than can be evaporated for this to occur.

So convection and evaporation are both important to varying degrees. If we take the example of a desert, there is little evaporation, if any, so the major cooling factors of the earths surface in the desert will be convection of heated air and radiation of IR. Thus a desert will be hotter during the day than a jungle at the same lattitude as will a wood be cooler during the day than a parking lot/ space.

---

(07-04-2010 03:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Well well,
-snip-
Here is a chart to excite anybody!

I seem to remember reading somewhere that K+T just made this diagram up. It has no references to show how these figures were derived in any scientific journal.

It is pure speculation.

Well not pure, but corrupt speculation.

Can anyone show how this diagram was derived?

It is 66 + 78 + 24 = 168; if and only if the surface emits like a blackbody, which is the first fallacy we find in T/K diagram. The surface emits 0.95, which converts those "66" into 62.7.

The second fallacy is found where we read the legend "Divine Intervention". This is where T/K demonstrated their corrupted science. They dismissed the first law of thermodynamics and created 159.3 of power flux from the nothingness. When one points out the error, they appeal to the "accumulator fallacy", i.e. the atmosphere is a better absorber than a blackbody because it absorbs 103.4% energy from the total available energy. That's pseudoscience because it places the atmosphere as a mystical subsystem which is superior to any other climate subsystem and to the most perfect blackbody, which would absorb only 100% of the energy. Nevertheless, the atmosphere is a gray body, not a blackbody, and its physical capability to absorb radiated energy is poor (0.43). Thus, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE that the atmosphere can emit more energy than it absorbs.

The third fallacy is evident. T/K added the emitted energy by the surface alone to the imaginary energy emitted by the atmosphere to obtain another imaginary cipher, 324 + 66 = 390. They cannot do that because that load of energy had already been computed for obtaining those imaginary 324 W/m^2 of power flux. In short words, Trenberth y Kiehl added the same cipher twice, i.e. 2 + 3 = 5 apples + 2 apples (???).

What Trenberth and Kiehl did do was illusory and misleading pseudoscience.