Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
#21
(03-25-2010, 07:01 PM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: Terry and Derek:

Please be careful with the fridge analogy.

There is a power supply to the climate system. It is called the Sun. Shutting off the power to the fridge stops it working. And shutting off the Sun would stop the climate system working.

And there is a heat pump in the climate system. It is called the hydrological cycle. The real problem with the KT radiation budget is that it fails to properly account for the hydrological cycle. The great bulk (~80%) of heat lost from the Earth's surface is removed by evapouration, transported up by convection, then deposited at altitude by condensation that forms clouds. That heat then enters the radiation budget at altitude when it is transfered to GHG molecules by molecular collisions.

In my opinion, the most serious fault with the KT budget is that it fails to account for the effects of the hydrological heat pump. And the fridge analogy draws attention away from this fault.

I hope these comments are helpful to your discussion.

Richard

Thank you for your comments Richard, they are indeed very helpful.
I was, and remain reasonably certain that the omission of the latent heat of water vapourisation (by an order of magnitude at least), is the budgets main problem.
Is this largely because of the inappropriate comparisons of W/m2 figures that in these diagrams should not actually be directly compared,
without being compensated for temperature differences first.
This later point is what I have seen most clearly because of Terry's comments.

I am however, not too certain of how the sun may "power" back radiation,
in which case the fridge analogy with regards to "back radiation" (only) is still good isn't it. ?
Is this what you warn us (correctly) about, to strictly define what the fridge analogy applies to, ie "back radiation" only. ?
On further "reflection" the sun no doubt does warm clouds, so it may be possible that the sun does help to "power" "back radiation".

May I also ask, at the end of your paragraph above ending,
" That heat then enters the radiation budget at altitude when it is transfered to GHG molecules by molecular collisions. "
Is it also occurring that large amounts of "cool" are transported down in the atmosphere, some reaching the surface as cold rain, or even hailstone of occasion. ?
This "cool movement" is wholely absent from the IR budgets,
but must play a significant role in the energy movements overall. ?

On further reflection, if the budgets did include such cool movements,
they would be added to the earth's surface total recieved as a W/m2 figure,
this highlights what and why is wrong with the budgets doesn't it. ?
Adding W/m2 of "cool" to the earth's surface recieved W/m2 violates the laws of energy conservation, because it creates "energy".
Cool rain / hailstone (heck even mist and fog) does not add to the warmth of the earth's surface, it cools the earth's surface.
The law of energy conservation surely dictates they should be added relatively, not cumulatively.
The W/m2 figure does not allow for the relative nature (temperature differences) of the various types of flows, expressed in W/m2,
in this most basic of respects the budgets are massively, and physically impossibly "energy creationalist".
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
#22
Dear Derek:

This answer is short because my answer to each and every of your questions is, Yes.

However, the solar heating of clouds is more complex than you suggest.

Clouds do absorb some solar radiation, but that radiation would have heated the Earth's surface if the clouds were absent.

Some of that absorbed energy is radiated downwards from the clouds. In this case, the 'back radiation' of this radiation is upwards: i.e. towards the clouds from which that radiation emanated.

Please remember that almost all the radiation that CO2 can absorbs is absorbed in 100m of the atmosphere.

Additionally, I have doubt that an analogy which deflects attention from your most significant point is hlpful to your case. But, if you want to specify its limitations then that is your choice.

Richard
Reply
#23
Dear Richard, and Terry,

Thank you Richard, yet again, for your very helpful, and greatly appreciated comments.
I tend to agree that the fridge analogy is too complex and fraught with complications for the level of description I want or am able to concisely achieve.

Terry this in no way detracts from what you have contributed here,
your comments and descriptions have helped pull together what needs to be described, and how.

I think the "cool" description I am developing above needs to be included in my piece,
as it covers the main points so well, and highlights what needs to be highlighted with regard to the present global energy budgets.

I would also like to suggest that people other than myself here on this thread may want to put together a paper for publication covering these main points.
There seems to be more than enough sufficient scientific basis for such a paper to be written now.
I do not disagree with Sunsettommy that such a paper has sort of been written many times before, and many years ago now,
but the need for such a paper now, though it be new, covering "old" ground is really so obvious as to not need stating.

Derek.

Separate note - Over at Jo Nova's blog on this thread,
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/picasso...-syndrome/

I posted the below, which occurred to me because of this thread and Terry's posts on it.

I partly quoted post number 4 of Brian G Valentine
Brian G Valentine:
March 26th, 2010 at 5:18 am
The same old story, with the same old “explainers” and “apologists.” Lewandowsky knows nothing other that what Hansen and some others tell him;
he’s incapable of arriving at an independent judgment on his own and can therefore be understood if not excused.

The people I have no idea how to reach,


So that I could reply in post number 8

May I offer a sort of rough plan of approach, about how to show who was involved, and what they did in the building of the false science of AGW.

Gavin Schmidt – Misinterpreting a radiation flow as a heat flow from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface,
ie “back radiation” – therefore the present versions of the so called “greenhouse effect”.

James Hansen – Assuming a very strong positive water vapour feedback initiated by CO2 rising concentration in the atmosphere
– therfore the warming blanket as modelled in all climate GCMs.

Micheal Mann – Tree rings, and the last thousand years of global climate “reconstructions” contratary to all known human history covering the same period
– illusion recent climate variations are “unnatural”.

Phil Jones – Adjusting most of the global temperature record (HADcrut) AND, aiding MET office to provide the required cooling factors (after the fact) for the GCMs,
because James Hansen’s warming mechanism produced too much warming.


Unfortunately with that type of blog you can not go in after and edit what you have written,
I would like to write more clearly some of the points I try to raise.
But their basic thrust is as I intended in my tired and rushed state at the time.
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
#24
Does the below at least partial paraphasing of some of Terry's comments make sense,
or is it too complicated. ?


A heat flow and a radiation intensity have the same unit of measure: watts per squared meter.
This is a joules per second or instantaneous (over one second) measurement.
Thus, one might take them to represent the same concept. However, there is a crucial difference.
A heat flow can be represented by a vector.
Radiation is not assigned a vector because it is a sum of many (different) rays at any one point, at the same time.
A "vector" is a mathematical entity that has a direction and a magnitude.
Velocity is an example of a vector; the magnitude of this vector is the "speed."
Heat flows can be represented as a vector field; such a field assigns a vector to every point in space.
For example, flows of heat can be represented by a field of vectors where each vector represents
the velocity of a small (individual) chunk of heat at the point (x, y, z) in the space whose coordinates are X, Y and Z.
As Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out on page 20 of their paper,
"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,"
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
January 2009
Excerpt,
" In classical radiation theory, radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector.
Rather, with each point of space many rays are associated.


In any real sense W/m2 is being used to compare (at least) apples (heat flows) and oranges (radiation intensities),
as if they were the same thing, when they are not.

To try to show how complicated the picture really is, and why comparing the different W/m2 figures is so incorrect,
I’ll try to show what is being compared in terms of vectors and transport.
Each petrol powered vechicle, mostly cars, has a vector and magnitude,
ie “direction of travel” (on a one way street – from warmer to cooler, ie heat flow) and “speed” ie miles per hour, but
a lot of human powered traffic (pedal cycles, tricycles, rickshaws, rollerskates, etc)
moving across a junction in various directions at different speeds (with no traffic laws or lanes marked) can not be assigned a vector,
just an intensity of “traffic” (as can radiation).
No count of the number of different types of "vechicle" (temperature) in each type of transport counted is taken.
Comparing the number of fuel powered vechicles on a one way street and
the human powered traffic intensity (also by number of “vechicles”) at a multi exit junction, regardless of speed,
would be mostly useless, or at the very least limited.
If the picture (measurement) you used to count the “vechicles” was only a one second snap shot of a one way street, and
a busy (both varying tremendously over many time scales) traffic junction as described above,
and your main intension was to discover the direction and
the number of people being transported by what type of transport over a whole day, or far longer time period.
Would you be able to do it using the number of “vechicles” (regardless of type) depicted in a one second “average flow” picture.
Patently not. But that is what the global heat energy budgets do do,
by using the W/m2 figures for heat flows AND radiation intensities…

In more usual words the global heat budgets compare apples and oranges, (as well as pears, bananas, peaches, grapes, etc,)
as if they were all apples.
“They” heat flows and radiation intensities, are not all apples, so the global heat budgets are a false picture.
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
#25
I have "redone" the piece, and will have to leave it "as is" for several days now,
due to work commitments.
Any comments appreciated.
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
#26
Elsewhere Dick Kahle has posted the below response which raises and explains
some other very basic known problems with the K/T Global Energy flow budgets.
He has very kindly allowed me to post it here as well, which I am very grateful to him for.

I think it only fair to state that Dick Kahle is a radiation / energy specialist,
not a heat flow specialist so some of what he describes is from
a very different point of view than mine and others expressed here so far.

Discussions here and elsewhere continue regarding 1) the "radiation is all positive" question, and,
2) the K/T budgets are energy / radiation budgets so heat flow descriptions and problems do not apply issue.
The reader will have to make their own mind up on these issues, but in the end there are
several areas of concern regarding the K/T budgets almost all would, and do, agree upon.

In my mind at least "the jury" is still out on both the above basic issues.
However in the below Dick Kahle does raise and clearly explain
some problems already covered and more problems not mentioned so far.
He also clearly describes other known limitations to the K/T budgets that have not been mentioned to date.

" The K/T budget is representative only for a general explanation.
It can't be used as a model or a proof of anything.
You can make some average calculations about changes in these averages but
there is not any way to know the changes will represent the real world.
As a static average it can not reflect the condition at any given location and
has even less ability to describe changes in what is a dynamic process.

When you say relatively, if you mean radiation netted on an energy basis,
then we are in agreement on that point.

The w/m2 in the K/T budget are per second. That is common practice.
It's an average for a year.
As such it has all the limits and dangers of being misused because it is an average.

The w/m2 is intended to represent the energy in the radiation, conduction, evapotranspiration, and convection.
As you say it is not frequency specific which is why it is only representative of
a static average based on certain assumptions about the radiation.
If the radiation from the sun changes and it changes more in the UV range than the visible range,
the K/T has zero ability to deal with this.

The temperatures associated with the radiation would have to include knowledge of the emissivity of the emitting object.
Thus, it can't really tell us the temperature of the surface or the clouds or the clear sky unless
we know the emissivity. If it assumes an emissivity of 1.0, that is another simplification that limits it value.

There are some other limits of K/T. It assumes that there is energy balance at the tropopause.
However, the stratosphere varies in composition of greenhouse gases including water vapor.
This is not even in the K/T budget as an average.
It assumes the stratosphere rebalances radiatively so we only have changes below the tropopause.
The assumption that the solar radiation reaching the top of the tropopause
is dependent only on the sun is not correct.

The K/T budget does not provide a way to reflect changes in atmospheric circulation, particularly horizontally.
It is not intended to do that, but it remains a limit.

The K/T budget does not include allowance for the mass of the atmosphere,
water vapor in the atmosphere, the shape of the atmosphere,
or account for the specific heat of water, or land, except as average assumptions.
For example, if the vertical temperature profile of the ocean changes due to winds, or ocean currents, or a combination thereof,
the convection, evaporation and radiation from the ocean surface will change
without being caused by changes in the other parameters in the K/T budget.
Obviously, once temperature of the ocean surface changes, then the rest of the parameters,
except the solar input, will change where that effect is observed.
Even in the GCM's, the understanding of ocean circulation seems to be significantly limited
because they can't produce such cycles as the ENSO, PDO, AO, etc, as they occur in nature.

The K/T budget does not allow for any external inputs except average total solar irradiance.
It does not provide a means to represent potential effects of
cosmic rays, the solar wind, the suns magenetic field, coronal mass ejections and
the gravitational impact of the moon, sun or other planets on the earth, particularly the oceans.

So duration of flow is per second averaged over a year.

Temperature would have to be calculated using emissivity values.
Those are not given, although the earth's surface will be very close to 1.0.

The clouds radiate more than the solar input because energy is stored in the atmosphere
due to the absorption of all of the greenhouse gases, water being the most important,
plus black carbon and convection (conduction) and evapotranspiration.
As the atmosphere warms it allows the surface to warm to an average temperature higher
than if there was not energy absorbed by the atmosphere.
Although clouds or other parts of the atmosphere may emit radiation at
an average higher than the incident solar radiation,
the surface is emitting radiation at a higher energy level than the clouds and atmosphere (on average).

So I can look at the K/T budget as a static representation of
an annual average of the energy budget from the earth's surface upward.
It's use beyond that is severely limited and it does not provide by any means
a full understanding or representation of all climate processes.

Dick Kahle
"
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
#27
Pielke Research Group - News and Commentary.

April 16, 2010
Is There “Missing” Heat In The Climate System?
My Comments On This NCAR Press Release
UPDATE (April 16 2010)
WITH RESPONSE BY KEVIN TRENBERTH
PRESENTED WITH HIS PERMISSION

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20...s-release/
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
#28
(04-17-2010, 12:41 PM)Derek Wrote: Pielke Research Group - News and Commentary.

April 16, 2010
Is There “Missing” Heat In The Climate System?
My Comments On This NCAR Press Release
UPDATE (April 16 2010)
WITH RESPONSE BY KEVIN TRENBERTH
PRESENTED WITH HIS PERMISSION

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20...s-release/

I read that and came away unconvinced on the missing heat claim that supposedly been able to sneak by us unnoticed for years.

Ha ha...

Seems to be an attempt to keep their AGW hypothesis alive.
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
#29
Interesting to catch up with this thread. Quite a few posts here while I was incommunicado.

Clouds and energy budgets... love to read up more detail on this. My take: the top of the cloud absorbs all radiation, short as well as long wave, the bottom of the cloud can only radiate long wave, at less than 0C, plus pass along some light (and UV) by scatter effect through the cloud.

That implies a large energy change from top to bottom of the cloud. I understand a goodly portion of the shortwave radiation is reflected directly back out to space (albedo), but what happens to the rest? It is not reaching the surface.

The more I think about this the more complex it becomes, thin clouds, thick clouds, high clouds, low clouds, deep clouds, shallow layer clouds and not least ice clouds... aghh... what was that about energy budgets?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#30
GREENIE WATCH directed me to this:

The Greenhouse Gas Theory Under a Cloud


Quote:Climate Change, the Sun and the Albedo Effect

A new study by a leading climate change expert proves clouds and solar radiation better explain global warming than do greenhouse gases - including carbon dioxide.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#31
(04-18-2010, 10:48 PM)Richard111 Wrote: That implies a large energy change from top to bottom of the cloud.
I understand a goodly portion of the shortwave radiation is reflected directly back out to space (albedo), but
what happens to the rest? It is not reaching the surface.

Err, absorbed in top of clouds (mostly by water - liquid and ice) and re radiated at a lower temperature possibly.
As suggested in the Brego post thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html
then possibly being confused with IR emitted supposedly by CO2 in IR flows / measurements.
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
#32
(04-19-2010, 12:54 AM)Derek Wrote:
(04-18-2010, 10:48 PM)Richard111 Wrote: That implies a large energy change from top to bottom of the cloud.
I understand a goodly portion of the shortwave radiation is reflected directly back out to space (albedo), but
what happens to the rest? It is not reaching the surface.

Err, absorbed in top of clouds (mostly by water - liquid and ice) and re radiated at a lower temperature possibly.
As suggested in the Brego post thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html
then possibly being confused with IR emitted supposedly by CO2 in IR flows / measurements.

Just so. Those graphs are an eye opener. I have to rely on personal experience. I spent three years in Singapore. At that time I had no idea there were 1,366 W/m^2 of energy being fed into the tops of the clouds above me in the middle of the day during the rainy season. The rain was usually very welcome as it cooled things down a bit. It certainly was not hot rain, but not uncomfortably cold, I suppose almost skin temperature as you could walk around in that rain without feeling chilled.

When the skies were clear, which was not often, it got damn hot and coupled with the high humidity, often above 95%, it could be quite uncomfortable.

So all in all, a lot of that energy did not make it through the cloud to the surface. The mechanics of what is happening inside those big heavy clouds must be awesome. I have experienced flying through some of those clouds and the updraughts/downdraughts are indeed scary.

There must be a lot of work being done in those rapid vertical movements of air which are not usually visible from the ground unless you encounter a tornado. Now that is something I have never seen for real yet.

I just remembered, there is a visible effect of air movement in cloud, it is seen on the underside of cloud and is named mamata.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#33
Firstly thank you for not pointing out I did not mention that rain could transport some heat down, or rather less cold,
down through the atmosphere (from the top of the clouds). That is an excellant point you made very well. It is a large factor by any measure / view.

Also I don't know if your aware Richard111, but all over the place now (ie, air vent, WUWT, Jo Nova, etc, etc.)
discussions are trying to be quelled by the accepted physics side of things.
Whether consensus scientist or mainstream skeptic they are all at it.
(Jo Nova attempted to do it to me by private email - which was at least polite of her)

The more we probe these subject areas, in our " laymen cavemen " sort of way, as SST amusingly puts it,
the more the discussions seem to gain momentum towards our seemingly ever better understanding view of things.
We admit to not actually understanding, but are continuing to discover what is actually already known, but
has seemingly been conveniently disregarded by modern climate science and mainstream skeptics alike...
I believe "we" are now part of what is termed " illegitimate scepticism! ", as used by some "mainstream skeptics" all of a sudden...
illegitimate skepticism - Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin

I am of the certain opinion that many of those that profess and preach their understanding of the settled science AND CO2 physics
have not got a clue about what they speak of (examples abound Ferdy for example).
I think we are genuinely ahead of many of them, in some respects at least.

You wait and see, someone will put forward my idea about the oceans transporting heat from
the day side to the night siide of the water planet Earth constantly and call it their own idea.
- I also think I know who and when as well.
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
#34
Hi All, please excuse me posting this from,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04...e-warming/

There is a very relevant section of the post (bolded) I want to include or rephrase in the piece, probably as it's own section.
The point is so simple and large, the things that vary within the earth's energy budget inputs / storage / release vary at many differing time scales. Many are very short, but also many are considerably longer than a year, sun spot cycles / oceanic currents / phases for two examples.

Dan Hughes said
April 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Here is an expanded version of a post that I made back in early March. Maybe Jeff will let me reproduce it here.

Addition of CO2 into the Earth’s systems has a potential to decrease the out-going long-wave radiation. We do not yet know that this has in fact occurred.

Recently I ran across the following comments on a blog. The comments are followed by my response.
1. “The physics of the direct warming effects of increased concentrations of CO2 and other infrared-absorbing gasses is completely clear.”

Let me try, “The physics of radiative-energy transport phenomena and processes given changing compositions of CO2 and other infrared-absorbing gasses in a homogeneous mixture of gases is completely clear.”

In fact, I think this can be expanded to include all radiative-energy transport phenomena and processes, ( absorption, transmission, and reflectance ), for both ultra-violet and infrared radiation, so long as homogeneous mixtures of gases are the material.

For me, one question is, How does this relate to the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, ice, and land, and all the materials in and on these, and all the phenomena and processes occurring within and between these?

2. “So, yes, one must combine this measurement of anthropogenic CO2 with the simple radiative physics in the atmosphere to get the fact that we expect AGW.”

The radiative-energy transport phenomena and processes occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere are far from ’simple’. If these were simple, I think the treatment of them in mathematical models could be fairly characterized as being based on the full and complete fundamental equations associated with these, depend solely on properties of the materials of interest free of any parameterizations, accurate numerical solution methods known and fully incorporated into all GCMs, and resolution of all temporal and spatial scales accurately resolved for every calculation.

So far as I am aware, none of these conditions are met. The parameterizations for some of the phenomena and processes associated with radiative-energy transport in the Earth’s atmosphere are in fact used to tune the GCMs when improvements in hindcasts are needed. The properties of materials as they appear in the fundamental equations for any phenomenon or process are never used as tuning knobs.

I’ll add now, that R. D. Cess, V. Ramanathan, G. E. Thomas, K. Stamnes and a few other people might be surprised to learn of the simplicity of radiative-energy transport calculations in the Earth’s atmosphere. The earth’s atmosphere is not a homogeneous mixture of gases; it’s far more complex. Some of the materials that make the Earth’s atmosphere a heterogeneous mixture of gases, vapor, liquid, and solids have critically important interactions with the radiative energy transport.

Recently, I also ran across this statement in an online kind-of textbook:
“To develop this understanding we must discuss various forms of energetic equilibria in which a physical system may reside. Earth (and the other terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus, and Mars) are said to be in planetary radiative equilibrium because,on an annual timescale the solar energy absorbed by the Earth system balances the thermal energy emitted to space by Earth.”

The writer has specified a time scale over which the in-come and out-go of radiative energy for the Earth’s systems are balanced; ‘annually’. In my opinion there is no foundation whatsoever for this statement. By the same token, I think that this is the first time that I’ve seen any temporal scale attached to the radiative-equilibrium hypothesis. This one is clearly unsupported, however. The Earth’s systems both receive and reject energy on all temporal and spatial scales. Yes, the Earth’s systems, at this very instance, are losing energy to deep space and this seems to be frequently overlooked.


A Few of the Un-Tested Hypotheses:
1. The Earth’s systems at some time in the past were in a state of radiative-energy balance, and will again be at some time in the future in radiative-energy-transport balance, between the energy supply source from the Sun and the energy sink from Earth into deep space.

2. Experimental measurements and theoretical calculations show that addition of gaseous CO2 into a homogeneous mixture of gases acts solely to change the radiative-energy transport response of the mixture. The sole interactions between the energy and the gaseous mixture are radiative phenomena and processes. There’s nothing else in there.

3. Addition of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere will act to decrease the fraction of the incoming radiative energy supply that is returned back to deep space.

4. Some vague average temperature, over grand, but unspecified, temporal and spatial scales, of some part(s) of the Earth’s systems must increase so that the increase in the fraction of retained radiative energy input will be rejected back into deep space.

5. Feedback, primarily (almost exclusively) associated with water vapor, is assigned an important player with respect to the amount of temperature increase associated with the increase in the energy content of the Earth’s systems.

Note, especially, that the change in the radiative energy budget at the outer boundary of the Earth’s systems will highly likely never be subjected to validation. That is, the fundamental hypothesis of the AGW issue will highly likely not ever be validated.

Note, too, that for every hour of every day, some radiative energy is lost from the Earth’s systems back into deep space. The focus seems to always be, without exception, that the energy content of the Earth’s systems is increasing with time. It is not. The energy content of the Earth’s systems is constantly changing at all time and space scales.

Equilibrium:
I continue to fret over the fundamental hypotheses that have been presented to support the basis of the effects of increased concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s systems. And, yes, I know this borders on heresy, but I’m an engineer and have a pretty good grasp of several aspects of energy transport, storage, exchange, and associated responses of materials.

I firstly get stuck at the radiative-equilibrium stage. Surely this equilibrium is not the rock-steady equilibrium as used in thermodynamics and other energy-budget and -balance situations. Equilibrium can generally mean different things within different contexts.

The first, within the context of energy budgets and balance, is that all materials that comprise the systems are at a uniform temperature at all spatial locations and for all time. There are no driving gradients in any potentials that could initiate change. Clearly this is not the equilibrium of interest whenever radiative-equilibrium and the Earth’s systems are the subject. Such a state has never been and will never be attained for these systems.

Secondly it can mean ’steady state’ or ’stationary state’; what comes out is equal to what goes in. I think this is the meaning for radiative-equilibrium. However, so far as I know the statement cannot be held to mean the same degree of equality that is generally associated with the concept of equilibrium. The radiative-energy exchange for the Earth’s systems is always changing at all temporal and spatial scales. What goes out is seldom, if ever, equal to what comes in.

There are no inherent natural physical phenomena and processes acting so as to produce such a response by the Earth’s systems. None of the natural phenomena and processes can possibly be ensuring that as the period of time over which in-come=out-go is theoretically to obtain, say, “Whoa, we need some corrections here because in-come is not equal to out-go.” All the subsystems, both internally and between systems ring as a function of time. There are no over-damped mechanisms that ensure monotonic approach to a state of equality for in-come and out-go over any spatial or temporal scales. The radiative-energy transport phenomena and processes for all components of the systems vary in both space and time.

Thirdly the phrase can refer to some kind of quasi-equilibrium condition in which departures from a nearly-equilibrium state are small. I think maybe this is the condition whenever radiative-equilibirium of the Earth’s energy budget is the subject. The question now is, What have been the magnitudes, and the temporal and spatial scales, of these departures from an equilibrium state in the past.

The Problem
The thermal state of the Earth’s systems have always rang and will always ring. The significant heterogeneous nature of the thermodynamic states of the systems, in both space and time, plus the extremely wide range of time scales for the important phenomena and processes, ensures this response. Again, true equilibrium is a condition never experienced by the Earth’s systems, so we’re here talking about ringing on top of ringing. Some of the past departures from a more-or-less equilibrium state can be traced to known perturbations on either the in-coming and out-going energy, or both. Some of these perturbations occur at very long intervals as determined primarily by the mechanics of the Earth-Sun system.

There are no inherent natural physical phenomena and processes acting so as to maintain the present state of the radiative-energy balance. Natural events, both external from and internal to, the Earth’s systems are free to cause changes in the state of the systems that can either increase or decrease the amount of energy that reaches the important parts of the Earth’s systems; in-come. Natural events can also act to both increase or decrease the amount of energy leaving the systems; out-go. Very likely, the grand-time-and-space-average albedo is changing all the time and thus changing the in-coming energy. So are the mechanisms that effect loss of infrared energy and changes in the out-going energy.

The estimates of the Earth’s energy-balance state that we see frequently published in the peer-reviewed literature are based on the assumption that the Earth’s systems are currently at an equilibrium state for energy in-come and out-go. This is nothing more than an un-tested hypothesis. A hypothesis that will very likely never be validated by measured data. I have yet to see any of these include accounting of the uncertainties in any of the numerical values used in the arithmetic. And there are uncertainties; none of the numerical values are known with certainties. To make the numbers add to zero when it is clear that the systems are not in equilibrium, is simply wrong.

So, it seems to me that to discern the effects of human activities on the radiative-energy equilibrium balance, we need to determine the delta ( increase or decrease ) in energy content, not from some unattainable equilibrium state, and not from the long-time-scale perturbations in a quasi-equilibrium state, and not from the natural perturbations, but from the perturbations of these latter states.

This is a very confusing description. Let’s try the following. Draw a horizontal line to represent the unattainable equilibrium state. Superimpose along this line the long-time-scales perturbations due to Earth-Sun orbital mechanics. Superimpose on this latter curve the perturbations due to natural variations in the radiative-energy transport properties and characteristics of the systems. And, finally, the effects of human activities are superimposed on this last curve.

Unfortunately, we don’t know the time scales for all the perturbations, so we don’t know which is which. However, some might be better understood than others. Additionally, if we restrict criteria and metrics to planet-wide averages, we don’t know the spatial extent of perturbations that might be of sufficient magnitude to affect the over-all energy balance.

It’s a very tough problem, in my opinion.
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
#35
Then we have this to consider.

Post # 80:

80.Cement a friend said
April 21, 2010 at 4:47 am
Missed the timing of the post and have not read all the comments.
I will not enter into a discussion about what some people believe is the physics but let me point out a few things that may cause a little more thought on the subject.

Jeff’s figure 1 is old. It maybe be exaggerated. For CO2 look at figure 4. There is no absorption of radiant energy at a wavelength greater than 16 micron. Both figures 1 & 4 refer to 100% CO2 and show the absorption wavelengths for CO2 too wide. Have a look at the NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) database http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID...9&Mask=200 and I think this is the spectra http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID...=0#IR-SPEC It will be seen a) that absorption at 4.2 micron is very very narrow. I believe that it is distinct and is used to identify CO2 on other planets b) the absorption band between 14 and 16 micron is like the normal probability curve with a peak absorption of 70% (not 100%). The latter band is also occurs in the H20 vapor spectra. I understand from some article including discussion on updates of the HITRAN database. The many past measurements have been contaminated by water vapor and that new missing lines have been found for water vapor.

You many have noted in the past comments on some websites about the self cooking chicken in the microwave. Regardless of the actual mechanism of radiation absorption and re-emission energy can not be created from nothing.

There are two questions the radiant absorption by CO2 a) how much does it absorb and b) what amount is transferred to other molecules to heat the surrounds.

The first question requires two calculations which both have assumptions. Firstly, there is an energy balance
For temperature calculations only the net heat transfer counts. If there are two molecules of CO2 in container with 100% reflecting surrounds at the same temperature, there will be no heat transfer between them and their temperature will not change. There can be no heat transfer from a cool (negative degree C) troposphere to a higher temperature earth surface. If 170 W/m2 are received at the surface then a similar amount (with variations from time to time of surface absorption particularly the oceans and re-emission)must leave the surface. But at the surface there is heat transfer by convection (surely everyone has sen heat hases, mirages, willi-willis, eagles and other birds gliding on up-draughts etc). Books on heat transfer and my own many calculations have found a split of something like 50:50 on land between radiation and convection. Then there is evaporation of water over seas & oceans. (I have seen no paper in which anyone actually calculates these values or even mentions Nusselt,Prandtl,or Reynolds numbers)
Then one can make a calculation of the absorptivity of CO2 using for example the Hottel (5-145 in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook) which includes partial pressures, temperature of source and receiver, beam length, the wavelength emissivities. I used and assumption of a beam length of 11 km (some only use 8km atmospheric height). I came up with an overall absorptivity for CO2 of 0.007 and for H2O vapor of 0.4 on a clear day. Then considering over laps and total heat flow. My assessment is that CO2 has a negligible effect on heat absorption. (I have seen no climate-related paper which makes the slightest mention of Prof Hoyt Hottel an recognised world expert on heat transfer by radiation)

Finally, there is the second question. People have made guesses at that. The AGW people seem to say CO2 does not radiate to space.
There are others (including John T Houghton in “The Physics of the Atmosphere) that say CO2 radiates a lot to space. If CO2 re-radiates all its absorbed energy then there will be no increase in temperature. Maybe it is somewhere between.
In the end actual measurements, properly separated into various components, has be be correct. The evidence (from icecores proxies and more recently measurement by varies accurate instruments) indicates that temperature leads CO2. This can be explained if CO2 as a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures. The evidence can not be explained if it “guessed/assumed” that doubling of CO2 will cause measurable temperature increases of 1 to 3.5 degrees C
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
#36
Well spotted SST.

Does cement a friend's post provide a possible missing link between Brego's post I highlighted on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html
and my comment on the same thread that,
" MLO use a dry air sample to measure CO2.
This apparently agrees with outside CO2 measurements and spectra.

How can this be, MLO has no (liquid) water in it's sample measured, the atmosphere always does.
There should be a massive and varying discrepancy between MLO and atmospheric spectra / CO2 levels,
because a lot of the atmospheric spectra is not CO2 but liquid water - clouds, mist, etc that has not been allowed for / realised...
".

In short, and not explained properly..
MLO measures samples dry.
Atmospheric plots are "wet".
If Brego is correct (liquid {and gaseous} water response confused with CO2 response) these two types of plot should not match.
Cement a friend's post gives a possible link showing how the atmospheric plots have interpretted water as CO2,
giving CO2 a larger response than it should have.
So explaining how the plots (MLO compared to Atmospheric) match, when they should not.
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
#37
"There are two questions the radiant absorption by CO2 a) how much does it absorb and b) what amount is transferred to other molecules to heat the surrounds."

Yes, the 64 thousand dollar questions I've asked so many times and received no answer. Still no answer. Phooey to HITRAN, MODTRAN and all the other TRANS. Photons do not care about their source, they just travel at the speed of light until they hit something or not.

High level CO2 will radiate more to space than back to the surface which radiation will most likely be absorbed by lower level CO2 and be reradiated isotropically from a temperature range MUCH LOWER than the surface temperature, each level reducing radiation by something less than half each time in which ever direction you look. That "something less than half" would be the answer to b) above.

When you talk about clouds you must include the whole long wave radiation band in the absorption/emissivity range, not just the piddling 2.7, 3.4 and 15 micron bands of CO2 which amounts to just 8% of the long wave radiation energy bands. In the presence of clouds any effects directly due to CO2 would be impossible to measure, as your friend above points out.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#38
Yo, Derek -

You've gotten Climate Realists attention on this!
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#39
LOLOLOLOLOL,

I was about to bring that up since I was there reading it in surprise.

Quote:Find attached a Word document I chanced upon recently, a unique find.

It appears as a web page at http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info - Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ??? and it's an encouraging sign that there are probably many people out there who refuse to be intimidated by "the settled science."

On his own, Derek Alker has ferreted-out some very faulty assumptions, although I think I also discern the influence of Vincent Gray.

It's clear that Derek has done his research. His essay is worth a read.

Alan S

Way to go Derek!

Big Grin
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
#40
WOW, I am dumb struck.
(Yeah, right you don't believe me...LOL)

I am, I write my essay, seek comments from many different skeptical view points, improve the essay,
and all the while SST puts up with my blunderings around that so many seem to find annoying..
Thank you SST, without you, this forum, and John (it has to be said.. LOL)
I would not be able to do what I do.

I also have to thank the contributors here and elsewhere that raise such great points / issues in ways far better than I could ever have managed.
Overall I hope in some small way I can help in either improving / pooling our knowledge in various areas of climate science.
It's a tall order for a factory worker, but heck it's worth a try.
My day job is soooo boring afterall.
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
  Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming Sunsettommy 0 4,140 07-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget blouis79 12 19,342 10-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)