Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget
#1
The pretty global energy budget diagram is the oft-touted base case for global warming. Net positive radiative flux caused by greenhouse gases causes warming. The magical formula to convert radiative flux (RF) to surface temperature change is (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter.

The current estimation of climate sensitivity parameter by observation and computer model is founded in the global energy budget which is founded in the computer model and observation. QED.

But even the latest version of the energy budget is broken.

It was broken before Climategate.

To quote Trenberth’s latest attempt at the Global Radiative Energy Budget:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/tr...2634.1.pdf (my emphasis)

Quote:There is a TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m-2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005; Huang 2006) that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from climate models and is estimated to be 0.85±0.15 W m-2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated recent changes in ocean heat content (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). A comprehensive error analysis of the CERES mean budget (Wielicki et al. 2006) is used in Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) to guide adjustments of the CERES TOA fluxes so as to match the estimated global imbalance. CERES data are from the Surface Radiation Budget (Edition 2D rev 1) (SRBAVG) data product. An upper error bound on the longwave adjustment is 1.5 W m-2 and OLR was therefore increased uniformly by this amount in constructing a “best-estimate”. We also apply a uniform scaling to albedo such that the global mean increases from 0.286 to 0.298 rather than scaling ASR directly, as per Trenberth (1997), to address the remaining error. Thus the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W m-2 (about 0.5 PW). Even with this increase, the global mean albedo is significantly smaller than for KT97 based on ERBE(0.298 vs 0.313).

It is broken after Climategate.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.p...550975.txt
Quote:From: Tom Wigley
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Kevin,

I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account
for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going“. In my eyes these are two
different things — the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget.
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin

According to Nordell, thermal pollution is enough to explain 55-74% of observed warming based on energy analysis. http://www.ltu.se/shb/2.1492/1.5035?l=en

Climate scientists don’t seem to agree with Nordell, based on the fact that the estimates of radiative forcing are much larger than Nordell’s estimate of net heat radiation.

But climate scientists don’t seem to have any robust method of converting energy to temperature change except via the formula to convert radiative flux (RF) to surface temperature change (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter. This formula appears to have no basis in theoretical physics. Estimates of climate sensitivity parameter vary enormously (0.3 to 2.0) depending on source.

Climate sensitivity parameter is derived by observation or by computer model and therefore predicts a linear relationship based on observed trend. If the observed trend was negative, then climate sensitivity parameter would be negative.

I can’t see that Trenberth et al have even accounted for thermal pollution effect and therefore it’s effect on global temperature must be removed from the effect currently attributed entirely to greenhouse gases. There are so many wooly estimates in the Trenberth paper which are larger than the net global warming effect, which highlight how little we actually know.


It is interesting to look at how warmists try to argue science - long, waffly, obfuscating, insulting, etc - follow the discussion from here: (Chris Colose is beign nice by not censoring posts)
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12...mment-1445
Reply
#2
K&T presentation has been considered as being built on assumptions.

How do they really know that the numbers are really robust enough?

I have seen similar before,as this quote shown in the below:

Quote:By comparing the net heat emissions with globally accumulated heat it shows that 55% of the global warming is explained by net heat emissions from the global use of commercial energy.

Quote:Ongoing research aims to estimate the consumption of non-commercial energy. Such heat origin from several sources; e.g. gas flaring at oil fields, underground coal fires, peat fires, oil used for plastic production, and also the large-scale deforestation that has occurred during the last century. This “renewable” energy source contributes to the net heating since the use of wood considerably exceeds the growth.

It is an interesting comment,but this has been discussed before and still it has not been taken seriously by many,possibly because H2O has the enormous capability to carry up the increased heat to the upper atmosphere.

I have noticed that past climate history has a cycle of around 100 million years,where a massive cooldown occurs that last for a few million years and then it warms right back up to about what it was before.This has happened for the fourth time in this present glacial era.

If present trend holds this ice age will last a few more million years and then the temperature will zoom right back up to the 22C level as it has done every single time in the past.Then persist at that level for another 100 million years.

The solar system orbits the galactic center on a 100 million year cycle.

A coincidence?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
Quote:It is interesting to look at how warmists try to argue science - long, waffly, obfuscating, insulting, etc - follow the discussion from here: (Chris Colose is beign nice by not censoring posts)
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12...mment-1445

I went through a lot of it and noticed that the skeptics were far more civil and showed a greater emphasis on actual data,than those of the AGW supporters.

I find it comical that right after Chris pontificated that he is for civil postings,in come Ian Forrester with his way off topic smary attacks.

Rolleyes
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
(01-16-2010, 08:57 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: [...]I have seen similar before,as this quote shown in the below:

Quote:By comparing the net heat emissions with globally accumulated heat it shows that 55% of the global warming is explained by net heat emissions from the global use of commercial energy.
[...]
It is an interesting comment,but this has been discussed before and still it has not been taken seriously by many,possibly because H2O has the enormous capability to carry up the increased heat to the upper atmosphere.

The point is that Nordell and Gervet have apparently sound analytic methods in term of understanding the physics of heat transfer. It may be that they underestimate the potential for heat to be lost.

Until the climate scientists can come up with a sound theoretical derivation of (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF or something similar where lambda can be a sound physical constant accurate to many decimal places, the unitary radiative forcing model has little credibility. The most sensible value for λ accounting for positive and negative feedbacks is ZERO.

The research on CO2 suggests much lower forcing that K&T have chosen.
Quote:GH theory (IPCC: Myhre et al.) tells us that the CO2 climate forcing from this increase equals 5.35 times the ln(ratio) = 0.035 W/m^2

Even if we escalate this by a factor of 3.2 to account for net positive feedbacks, as estimated by the IPCC model simulations, we arrive at 0.112 W/m^2

How does the IPCC arrive at a radiative forcing an nearly an order of magnitude higher than what the science says it should be? Because that's what Hansen's computer model said.

The computer models need to do something sensible with ENERGY over the cycles of day/night/summer/winter and model the response of clouds to all of that to figure out what happens to heat.

Then they have to account for solar radiation variations; cosmic rays; aerosols; and earth-generated heat (thermal pollution; volcanoes; etc).

Talking about W/m2 is nonsense, since to compute temperature change, mass, specific heat, and conduction have to figure in the maths somewhere.
Reply
#5
The real problem is that the models are at best very gross approximations of climate reality. Many variables (hundreds?) are excluded because their inter-relationships are not known and are unformulated. All of the climate feedback mechanisms are not understood and perhaps not even formulated. The mathematics that is used in the models make the models incapable of predicting pretty much anything. For an important article on this last item see:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/t..._warm.html

At some point someone needs to declare that we don't know enough about climate today to know anything about the future of climate!!

Except for in this forum, I expect to be waiting a long time for that!
Reply
#6
[quote='Sunsettommy' pid='3232' dateline='1263700666']
K&T presentation has been considered as being built on assumptions.

How do they really know that the numbers are really robust enough?

I have seen similar before,as this quote shown in the below:

[quote]By comparing the net heat emissions with globally accumulated heat it shows that 55% of the global warming is explained by net heat emissions from the global use of commercial energy.[/quote]

[quote]Ongoing research aims to estimate the consumption of non-commercial energy. Such heat origin from several sources; e.g. gas flaring at oil fields, underground coal fires, peat fires, oil used for plastic production, and also the large-scale deforestation that has occurred during the last century. This “renewable” energy source contributes to the net heating since the use of wood considerably exceeds the growth.[/quote]

It is an interesting comment,but this has been discussed before and still it has not been taken seriously by many,possibly because H2O has the enormous capability to carry up the increased heat to the upper atmosphere.

I have noticed that past climate history has a cycle of around 100 million years,where a massive cooldown occurs that last for a few million years and then it warms right back up to about what it was before.This has happened for the fourth time in this present glacial era.

If present trend holds this ice age will last a few more million years and then the temperature will zoom right back up to the 22C level as it has done every single time in the past.Then persist at that level for another 100 million years.

The solar system orbits the galactic center on a 200 million year cycle.

I wonder if there is a connection?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#7
From the dumb mistakes department....
Forcing is related logarithmically to change in GHG concentration. Myhre et al 1998 htp://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
ΔF= α ln(C/C0)

Forcing is assumed to be linearly related to temperature change.
(ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter (IPCC-AR4/Ramaswamy 2001)

So a log relationship that delivers an annual incremental change of 0.035 W/m^2 is morphed into a linear CO2 doubling temperature of 3.7W/2, back projected linearly to today to arrive at the magical 0.9W/m2 in Hansen's computer model and ratified by the correction to the 6.4W/m2 TOA out of balance error in the Kiehl/Trenberth Global Energy Budget to match the 0.9W/m2 assumed RF required to produce the right temperature change.

Pure genius.
Reply
#8
Hi All,
A certain Hungarian, several years ago, in a private email to me (I may still have somewhere...)
suggested that the figures used by the K/T radiation budgets came up with
figures 30% to 40% LESS than the observed flows within the system overall according to the measurements he / NASA obtained.
Mostly at the lower end of the frequency range that K/T radiation budgets "cut off".

I have always assumed this was latent heat / water vapour.
So, radiation budgets would not show it,
because it was not a radiation movement, it is a latent heat movement.

This may also shed some light on the "missing heat" that is supposed to be in the oceans "idea" as well.
Of course K/T radiation budgets missed the heat movement, it was not moved by radiation, but by latent heat.
Which K/T budgets DO NOT account for..
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.
Reply
#9
The K/T "Radiation budget" has an unknown level of assumptions in it,meaning it can be improved significantly with more real and long term data.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#10
I think this may be of interest. I never considered energy absorbed in the biosphere is converted to matter.

The Diurnal Bulge and the fallacies of the "Greenhouse Effect"

This quote is refering to the K&T global energy budget.
Quote:The most obvious clue that this graph is fraudulent is the fact that the incoming and outgoing energy have been set as equal or balanced. This is not a true energy budget of the Earth at all. The incoming and out going energy of the Earth is most certainly not balanced. This graph is a depiction of a dead planet. It fails to account for the energy which is locked away by the biosphere. It does not account for the energy which is locked in by life on Earth. The flora and fauna which trap and convert vast amounts of energy and convert that energy into matter is completely missing. It fails to account for the energy which over billions of years has been locked away deep in the Earths crust. The energy consumed in the production of oil, coal, peat, fossils, limestone and on and on. This graph makes a mockery of science and natural philosophy and should be considered as the icon of Post Normal Science bullshit.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#11
(10-01-2010, 12:41 AM)Richard111 Wrote: I think this may be of interest. I never considered energy absorbed in the biosphere is converted to matter.

The Diurnal Bulge and the fallacies of the "Greenhouse Effect"

This quote is refering to the K&T global energy budget.
Quote:The most obvious clue that this graph is fraudulent is the fact that the incoming and outgoing energy have been set as equal or balanced. This is not a true energy budget of the Earth at all. The incoming and out going energy of the Earth is most certainly not balanced. This graph is a depiction of a dead planet. It fails to account for the energy which is locked away by the biosphere. It does not account for the energy which is locked in by life on Earth. The flora and fauna which trap and convert vast amounts of energy and convert that energy into matter is completely missing. It fails to account for the energy which over billions of years has been locked away deep in the Earths crust. The energy consumed in the production of oil, coal, peat, fossils, limestone and on and on. This graph makes a mockery of science and natural philosophy and should be considered as the icon of Post Normal Science bullshit.

Spot on Richard111.
I am not sure about the diurnal bulge "thing" as such, too little "matter" is my first impression.
Life locking away solar energy though, that is undeniable.
Over vastly differing time scales to boot.

I have to copy and paste your post to the end of the global energy budgets thread.
Great find and quote Richard111.
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.
Reply
#12
I went looking for info on photosynthesis and found this:

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

Lots of info, even shows photons being absorbed. Cool

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
(10-06-2010, 12:04 AM)Richard111 Wrote: I went looking for info on photosynthesis and found this:
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Lots of info, even shows photons being absorbed. Cool

Great find. I will have to read this.
Thank you AGAIN, Richeard111.

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.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Pete Sunsettommy 2 5,011 09-05-2011, 06:58 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,948 07-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ??? Derek 100 137,997 12-19-2010, 01:06 PM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)