Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  Of cause they say all energy (with the exception of incoming radiation reflected) is radiated at some point.

I am not sure they do, what about the 0.9 absorbed. ? The implication is absorbed at the earth's surface (for more than a year presumably...).
The 0.9 absorbed really is quite a problem, why is it that only 0.9 is absorbed for longer than a year, yet
none of the rest of solar input (or imaginary "back radiation") to the earth's surface is absorbed for longer than a year. ????

However I would agree that all energy in, must eventually be radiated to space, obviously not necessarily within a year though, as the budgets necessarily depict,
AND, more importantly, not necessarily "transported" within the system by radiation (thermal and latent heat for examples).

(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  if you add up all the numbers making up the amount of energy radiated by the atmosphere (including clouds)
which is either going to space or back-radiation then in order to balance that
you have to add on the other side incoming radiation (absorbed by atmosphere),
thermal and latent heat as well as surface radiation to match that number.

The proof such must balance (within a year specifically) is where. ???

However, I think you mean within "their" budgets "they" have to include thermal and latent heat moments to make it all balance, which I wholeheartedly agree "they" do have to
(again not necessarily within one year, oceanic phases for example).
Whether the thermal and latent movements compared to radiation movements represented are realistic or not is another completely different question though.
I strongly suggestion (read KNOW - and can show by simple simile [already have, but don't mind repeating]) they are not realistic, in the slightest.

(12-02-2010 01:53 PM)h-j-m Wrote:  You see the problem?

Yeah, "disc world", it is unphysical rubbish, whether represented as a diagram or modeled.