Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
#1
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
By
Derek Alker March 2010.

(English factory worker, never paid a penny by anyone for
anything I have done with regards to my AGW skepticism.)

We have all seen, or are at least aware of the below K. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl Global Energy Flows or budgets.
The importance to the whole basis of the discussions, modeling, and science regarding
the supposed greenhouse effect “theory”, man made global warming “theory”, and
following governmental CO2 regulations / controls / taxes based upon these diagrams and their variants can not be stressed enough.
These global energy budgets are the most basic building blocks that the greenhouse effect “theory”, climate modeling, and
man made global warming, or climate change as it is frequently referred to now are based upon.
At the global warming skeptics forum, http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-2.html
Terry Oldberg posted on 24th March 2010

the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram errs in confusing the radiation intensity which it calls
the "back-radiation" with a heat flow.
By this error, the diagram produces the effect which UCAR calls "the greenhouse effect."

I've discovered a diagram that is similar to the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in an essay
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ple-model/
by Gavin Schmidt of NASA-GISS on "the greenhouse effect."
Like the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, Schmidt's diagram confuses the radiation intensity which
the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram calls the "back-radiation" with a heat flux.
By this error, Schmidt creates "the greenhouse effect."

A Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is the first figure in the IPCC's 2007 report on
"The basis in physical science." Thus, it seems that
UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC are thinking along identical lines.

As it seems to these organizations that the "back-radiation" is a vector,
it seems to them that the "back-radiation" participates in a conservation principle
when there is no such principle.
In their confusion, these organizations add the radiation intensity to the heat that
must flow from Earth's surface to maintain a heat balance.
This addition of a CO2 sensitive radiation intensity creates a "greenhouse effect" that is not real.
It is not real because radiation intensities do not participate in heat balances.

This post raises some serious and very basic issues that must be considered.
It is worth taking some time to look at the budgets he questions with a bit more consideration than many have previously given them.
It is useful at this point, if you are not already familiar with these budgets,
to take some time to look over and get a feel for the below plot,
which is representative of all the global energy budgets in question.

[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

Immediately you may well say,
1) Where's night. ?
2) What's a W/m2. ?


1 - How to view the earth from an energy flow point of view. ?

The K/T global energy budgets view the earth in a instant, and 2D manner,
yet the earth is 24 hour and 3D.

How do I view earth. ?
I tend to think of the earth as an object (that is nearly spherical) in space,
it is permanently half illuminated by the sun, and revolving on it's own axis once every 24 hours.
The earth also orbits around the sun in an elliptical manner once a year.
The ellipse the earth follows varies over time from nearly circular, to a pronounced elliptical path.
To try to describe the relative sizes and distances of the earth and sun to each other,
I have come up with this (scaled) simile.

[Image: Beachball-Pea-pitch.jpg]

If the sun is represented by a 1 meter beach ball, then the earth is a 9.17mm marrowfat pea, 107.2 meters (a football pitch) away.

This mental image I have of earth in space (which I understand to be the correct image)
does not seem to tally too well with the above (as they are more normally and frequently referred to as),
K/T global energy budget/s, or the various versions of them.

My first concern is that if the earth is viewed in a more realistic manner, ie, from a viewpoint in space,
then it is immediately obvious that the day side and the night side have completely different budgets.
The dayside has a large solar input, whilst the night side has no solar input, excepting maybe, on the night side,
if we are being pedantic a 2.7 degrees Kelvin "background warming" from space.
Whilst some time ago trying to mentally view earth from space and thinking about what
was coming in and going out of the planet heat flow wise, this occurred to me.

[Image: Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg]

I think there is a lot more heat input into the atmosphere on the night side of the planet than
merely the land cooling, and the possible from space "background warming" of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
Stephen Wilde has suggested that The Hot Water Bottle effect effects global temperatures on longer time scales, due to oceanic phases,
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487
but I suggest there is also a far more prominent daily effect from the oceans as well.
I would suggest the view point I use above would be a good starting point for IR budgets to be considered from.

To get anything like a realistic global energy budget then a view point from space seems to be a necessity.
Recently at the Watts Up With That? blog Willis Eschenbach posted this,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/th...ypothesis/
Please note and consider the sun's eye view point he uses – it is brilliant, clear, and simple.
I also noted this discussion of heat flow types, and heat pipes at.
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html

With a from space view point in mind this diagram from Willis Eschenbach's post at WUWT shows
how poor the view used in the K/T IR budgets really is, and
that the one used should be, from space.

[Image: willis_image1jpeg.jpg]

I would suggest the view point used in the global energy budgets is plainly inadequate, and grossly misleading.
(certainly as compared to a "from space" viewpoint)

At this juncture it is relevant to mention that the earth's core is eight times hotter than the sun's surface.
The semi liquid mantle transports heat away from the earth's inner and outer core to the earth's crust.
Heat escapes by conduction and the various forms of volcanic activity to the earth's atmosphere either directly into the air, or
via the water on the earth's surface, mostly the oceans.
Oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface.
There are obvious localized "hot spots" of volcanic activity, but there is also a general all over heat loss,
which is why it gets warmer the deeper you go in any mine, of any sort, anywhere, on this planet earth.
The geothermal input of heat to the atmosphere and oceans is simply ignored in energy budgets,
it is thought to be so small as to be insignificant.
This maybe true except for large volcanic episodes, but how often are there
increased periods of volcanic activity deep under the oceans surfaces we simply do not see. ?
One example many are not aware of should suffice, the discovery of the Gekkel Ridge in the Arctic ocean in 2008.
http://temp.geobio.uib.no/View.aspx?mid=...ledefid=71
Excerpt,
" Temperature readings taken from three of the vents registered in excess of 300 degrees C.
And all of the vents are full of vent fauna.
The beauty of the vents was particularly striking. The composite reminded this American of New England in the fall!
And yes, we have found what looks to be one of the biggest hydrothermal deposits in the world!
"
There are suggestions that the Gekkel ridge may have been particularly active in 2007,
the year of particularly low arctic ice levels.
I am not so sure that geothermal inputs can or should be ignored as easily and completely as they are.
All the other main variables in the IR budgets seem to vary (though the IR budgets largely do not allow for these variations), but
geothermal inputs are consistently just ignored, as is any variation of them.


2 - My MAIN concerns however are the W/m2 figures used and
the omissions in budgets the use of the W/m2 unit allows or rather has “created”.


http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/watt.html
The figure is an instantaneous figure, in that it is W/m2 (Joules per second).
Because of this (Joules per second) the figure does not given any idea of the comparative sizes (volumes) of the flows involved,
because it does not express how long the flows occur for.
What the K/T IR budgets show are "cross sections" of the flows, but not their durations individually or relatively to each other.
In this most basic of respects the IR budgets are totally lacking because they use an unsuitable (instantaneous only) figure, W/m2.

W/m2 does not consider the temperature (or frequency) of the flows involved,
they have effectively been made temperatureless, so
it seems reasonable to just add the various flows together in the budgets.
Basically, anything emits IR according to it's temperature, ie Planck curve.
So, IR budgets are calculated by some sort of frequency figure (astronomers use this figure to calculate a distant star’s temperature)
converted to W/m2 (which does not tell an astronomer a distant star’s temperature).
When you compare W/m2 you are NOT comparing temperature but the energy of the flows.
So, a large cooler flow can look the same as a small hotter flow.
The budgets just add such flows together.
This violates the second law of thermodynamics, and
is the basis of the cooler atmosphere warms the warmer earth's surface fallacy
Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming (AGW) is centrally dependent upon.

At any point in the IR budget the inputs to that point are added together to give a summed total,
and what is emitted at that point is simply subtracted from the summed input total.
Because the W/m2 is a "temperatureless" figure this appears reasonable,
but in fact we all know it is completely ludicrous.

We all know that heat flows just do not work like that,
we see this all around us every day, so why do we just accept it in a global energy budget. ??????
An example from the above K/T budget to illustrate this fallacy that the budgets are all built upon.
At the earth's surface it receives incoming solar input of 161 + 23 W/m2 according to the above K/T budget.
Also according to the budget the earth's surface receives 333 W/m2 atmospheric back radiation.
These figures add up to 517 W/m2.
Amazing isn't it, that more than twice as powerful than the sun is atmospheric back radiation from clouds alone...
This can only be achieved by adding the heat flows and radiation flows together by addition, rather than relatively.
You might like to ponder that for a short while.
I'm pretty sure direct sunlight is warmer than being under a cloud.

What is more "troublesome" though is that atmospheric back radiation is supposedly so powerful at heating the earth's surface.
The earth's surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it
(it gets colder when you go up a mountain), so
how does the cooler atmosphere's back radiation warm the warmer earth's surface. ??????
This can not happen, it is a physical impossibility, and violates the second law of thermodynamics,
which basically states a cooler thing CAN NOT warm a warmer thing.
In this thread Another Look at Climate Sensitivity at the Watts Up With That ? blog,
Terry Oldberg commented / posted at (09:44:22) :

" In the language of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as an “energy flow.” The only energy that “flows” is heat.
In a Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, some of the “flows” are heat. Others are radiation intensities.
It is clear that the “back radiation” is not heat for it “flows” from cold to hot matter;
if it were heat, it could not flow in this manner, under the second law of thermodynamics.
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows, we do not have one for radiation intensities.
Thus, the proposition that the K-T diagram portrays some kind of “balance” is false.
"
It is worth highlighting the below part of the posted comment above with regards to the
"back radiation" warming of the earth's surface that AGW centrally depends upon.
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows,
we do not have one for radiation intensities.


In short the heat flows in the budgets should have temperatures and be added together relatively,
not by simple summed addition regardless of temperature.
The budgets, as can be seen, simply add together the temperatureless W/m2 figures.

The K/T budgets DO NOT balance, they are left with a 0.9 W/m2 "net absorbed" at the earth's surface.
This is what is supposedly causing global temperatures to rise.
"Unfortunately" global temperatures have not risen as "projected" by the AGW unproven hypothesis,
the K/T budgets and / or it's General Circulation Models (GCM) climate models.
So AGW says that this missing heat has "gone somewhere".
AGW explains this "gone somewhere" as being heat that has sunk into the oceans,
later to reappear when it will dramatically and drastically raise global temperatures.
(Please be careful at this point, you are supposed to be alarmed and scared
- maybe even throw away your whole lifestyle because of it.
DON'T PANIC - well not just yet anyways...)
There are a couple of problems with this explanation of the missing heat and it's whereabouts
according to AGW's version of events.

1) How does the warmer water sink in the oceans to remove the heat
it supposedly absorbed from the atmosphere. ?????

2) IF the atmospheric back radiation heats the oceanic waters,
it is beyond dispute that it can not in IR form penetrate the water to any depth.

See the Segelstein illustration below. The plot shows the frequencies of atmospheric back radiation (greater than 4um mostly)
CAN NOT penetrate the oceans waters to a depth any greater than a single millimeter.
The yellow band in the plot is that of natural sunlight (1 to 3um),
which can warm the world's oceans to considerable depth.
This is the reason for the "skin effect" "discussions".

[Image: segelstein81-jpeg.jpg]

Unfortunately (from AGW's point of view) no one has explained in a coherent way yet,
how this "back radiation" does anything other than increase water vaporization from the oceans surface.
Simply the heat AGW can not explain (0.9 W/m2 "absorbance") CAN NOT be in the oceans,
it never got in there in the first place, because of
the latent heat transport caused by the vaporization of water at the oceans surface.

There is however from what I understand to be an even larger problem / omission from IR budgets,
namely the latent heat of vaporization of water.
Water has a very high specific heat content and capacity.
Due to this fact the oceans have 800 to 900 times the heat content / capacity of the atmosphere.
This is easily confirmed in your bathroom,
run a hot bath, and you have a hot steamy bathroom,
run a cold bath, and you have a cold bathroom.
H2O (atomic weight 1+1+16 = 18) is a very light atmospheric gas,
hence moist air is lighter and tends to rise, compared to heavier drier air.
Water also has several states it is commonly found in within the atmosphere,
namely solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (water vapor).
http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2...house.html

Very important excerpt,
" Water is an unusual compound. Its molecular weight (18) is half that of nitrogen (28) and less than half oxygen (32).
Water should by all rights be a gas.
The reason water is liquid or ice normally, is that water molecules are naturally attracted to each other and
form large aggregates which are substantially heavier than air.
In fact, in order for an associated water molecule to break free and escape into the air,
a specific amount of energy must be absorbed.
This is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization.
"

This is another "misconception" we may have mostly not realized we have accepted,
evaporation implies 100 degrees celsius, but the vaporization (and hence latent heat transport)
of water happens over a vast temperature range.
Vaporization of water (and hence latent heat transport within the atmosphere) happens
all around us, all day, and a lot of the night, almost everywhere, constantly across the globe.
Yet still the slowest form of heat transport, radiation, is supposedly dominant globally in heat flows
- this is a sad, sad "joke".
No other atmospheric constituent of any note exists in other states,
so no other atmospheric gas moves latent heat to the best of my knowledge.
Water transports massive amounts of heat within the atmosphere in the form of "trapped" latent heat,
these movements are not by radiation, and so are not represented (realistically) in energy budgets.
The 80 W/m2 figure given for "latent heat" is a complete misrepresentation of the amounts involved
- it is a very bad "joke" at best.

Water not only transports massive amounts of latent heat around in the atmosphere (mostly upward)
it also transports massive amounts of sensible (actual) heat around in the atmosphere (mostly downward), namely “cold”.
"Cold", in the form of cooling rain (and more obviously hailstone), is patently transported down in the atmosphere,
yet no one seems to consider these massive "heat", or rather relatively "cold" movements / flows.
This "cool movement" is wholly absent from the IR budgets,
but must play a significant role in the energy movements overall. ?

On further reflection, it may become obvious why such “cool movements” are
not included in the present crop of heat budgets.
If the budgets did include such cool movements,
they would be added to the earth's surface total received as a W/m2 figure.
Adding W/m2 of "cool" to the earth's surface received 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.
Energy budgets would add this W/m2 figure,
meaning cool rain would warm the earth’s surface this would patently create energy from nothing,
in exactly the opposite amount as to that that should have been
subtracted from the earth’s surface by the cooling rain.
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".

Because of the volumeless, temperatureless, and “creationalist” W/m2 figures used in global energy budgets,
the misrepresentation and gross underrepresentation of latent heat movements can be achieved.
Sensible “cold” heat movements have also seemingly been simply ignored.
This has been successfully achieved, but is it correct.
Patently, obviously, NO.

Ask an engineer which is the bigger the heat loss from radiation from an object, or
the heat loss associated with conduction, convection, and latent heat from a wet surface. ?
An engineer would have little hesitation, latent heat mostly, and
by an order of magnitude (at least), larger than by radiation.
IR budgets assume a 60% / 40% split, between radiation and conduction, convection and latent heat movements...
A simple example / question should illustrate. Do you cool better by
1) radiating heat, or
2) by the heat lost by removal of latent heat from your skin by sweat vaporizing / evaporating. ?
(remembering it was sweated by you at body temperature)


It is amazing that IR budgets have been considered useful for so long by so many.


The Global Energy budgets are worse than bunkum because,


1) - The viewpoint used in IR budgets is simply wrong for what they try to depict and describe.
At best the viewpoint used is misleading, but more likely the view is partial and inaccurate,
being an instant and 2D view of a 24 hour and 3D planet.

2) - They completely misrepresent the real heat movements, depicting
a ludicrous and physically impossible scene where radiation losses and movements dominate
conduction, convection, and latent heat movements within the atmosphere.

3) - They hide / misrepresent the individual and comparative sizes (volumes) of the various energy flows.

4) - They do not take into account the temperature and
the effects of the relative temperature differences of the energy flows.

I do not think any of the above points are minor, but, no one seems to have noticed.

AGW (to put this very mildly) would have a “difficult time” without the K/T global energy budgets,
as would the present versions of climate modeling and the greenhouse effect so called "theory".
I wonder if that is the reason/s why "no one" has, or has been allowed, to notice.


I have also recently posted (post number 8 ) at Jo Nova's blog,
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/picasso...-syndrome/
and I'll indulge myself here in an improved version of the post.
(AND, yes for those in the "know" I am having a prod at
"I ain't talking about greenhouse effect - my husband tells me it is not worth it - he's an ex Stamford Professor or something don't you know"
- if EVER there was an arguement from "authority" that was it. I expected better. [I've kept the email in question])

" 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”.
Please see this post.

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.
Please see http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-309.html

Micheal Mann – Tree rings, and the last thousand years of global climate “reconstructions” contratary to all known human history covering the same period
– Fraudulently attempting to create the illusion recent climate variations are “unnatural”.
Please see,
Part 1
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...=slideshow

Part 2
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...=slideshow

Part 3
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...=slideshow

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.
I havn't done this one yet, but there is plenty about regarding climategate,
I would particularly recommend Lord Monckton's
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...candal.pdf
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
#2
BTW - I have deliberately left out the often mentioned IR window, and
the truncated nature of the frequencies included and excluded in the calculations used to compile the K/T IR budgets.
This is for two main reasons.

1) Although the budgets cut off the lower and upper areas of the IR radiation frequencies, and
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi suggests this is somewhere in the region of 30% to 40% of observed IR flows, I think it is a minor point.
My reasoning is that convection, conduction and latent heat movements are at least an order of magnitude larger than all IR movements,
so 3 or 4 tenths of a lot less than 10% overall,
is relatively speaking "insignificant".
The other points the piece raises dwarf this error that I have no doubt is also included in the IR budgets.

2) I can not work out at present an easy way to explain the omission from the budgets in simple and understandable layman's terms.

Do I need to rectify this omission, and if so why please.
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
#3
Will this help?

Another Look at Climate Sensitivity
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
Errr, in all honesty, nope.

Although I've only had a 30 second scan of the post.
Therein are contained some misconceptions and accepted assumptions as large or larger than the errors I describe.
If the IR budgets are bunkum, so is anything based upon them, or their "reasoning".

Later edit - I have now had another read, and glanced through the comments.
I think my original comment stands, but am surprised how "warmist" WUWT has apparently become.
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
#5
(03-17-2010, 06:24 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Will this help?

Another Look at Climate Sensitivity

I have read this post in the comments,

Terry Oldberg (09:44:22) :

" In the language of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as an “energy flow.” The only energy that “flows” is heat.
In a Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, some of the “flows” are heat. Others are radiation intensities.
It is clear that the “back radiation” is not heat for it “flows” from cold to hot matter;
if it were heat, it could not flow in this manner, under the second law of thermodynamics.
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows, we do not have one for radiation intensities.
Thus, the proposition that the K-T diagram portrays some kind of “balance” is false.
"

The important part of this is,
However, while we have a conservation principle for heat flows,
we do not have one for radiation intensities.


I'm thinking this whole quote of Terry Oldberg, and a link to the WUWT thread should be worked into the piece.
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
#6
Hi All,
Elsewhere I have read in response to my above piece that,
" The flux densities [sometimes referred to as fluxes] are expressed as W/m2, not W/m2 per second.
A watt is a joule per second, so the flux densities are joules per second per square metre.
"

Which to me reads as W/m2 are infact per second joules figures, which is exactly the same thing isn't it. ?

" The flux densities in K/T are global long-term averages and go on forever.
They can be altered by events, of course.
"

Which to me reads as, the budgets do not take account of variations (anywhere within the climate system),
at anything under the time period the "average" was worked out from.
I would immediately mention cloud cover.
AND Tim Ball's recent explanation of how a temperature average increased overall,
because the day time cooling was not as great as the night time warming of an encroahing UHI. - ie, COMPLETELY THE WRONG PICTURE.

" There are versions of the budgets that do compare the flux densities, and
you can convert the K/T values into percentages of the incoming solar flux density 342 W/m2 = 100%.
"

I think Terry Oldberg's comment above applies, and completely contradicts, correctly to this part of the quote.
Terry's quote above shows the budgets are actually comparing apples and oranges, a valid criticism the quote here does not address...


In short I think the whole quote is incorrect in all the points it tries to address, infact the quote also raises several other problems, and
as an attempt to defend the IR budgets it completely failed.

NB - I would also note on the WUWT thread Willis has not answered my posts, as of yet.
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
#7
HYPERPHYSICS
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
#8
The Kiehl-Trenberth (KT) diagram creates a "greenhouse effect" which has the significance of being described as THE
greenhouse effect by the University Center for Atmosphere Research (UCAR) at its Web site ( Go to http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/e...gases.html ). A K-T diagram is the first figure
to be presented in the IPCC's 2007 report on "The Physical Science Basis." In view of this significance, I'd like to expand upon the remarks which I made at WUWT in reference to the K-T diagram. I thank Sunsettommy for making this possible.

Under the second law of thermodynamics, if a unit of heat flows to matter which is at temperature TCold, this heat may
not subsequently flow to matter which is at temperature THot in the absence of a heat pump, where THot > TCold. Thus, in the absense of a heat pump, a unit of heat that is added to matter in the troposphere by aborption by this matter of
infrared radiation may not subsequently flow to matter in Earth's surface unless there is an inversion layer. Further,
temperatures at Earth's surface are insensitive to the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. Finally, UCAR's "greenhouse effect" does not exist.

The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram creates the appearance of a sensitivity and the associated greenhouse effect by the
vector which is labelled the "back-radiation." If the amount of heat that is absorbed in the troposphere increases by 1
unit, then this unit of heat is transferred to Earth's surface by the "back-radiation."

The appearance of a greenhouse effect that is created by the K-T diagram is created by a misrepresentation. Under this mispresenation, the "back-radiation" is represented to be a vector pointed at Earth's surface. However, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out in their paper "Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," page 20, in classical radiation theory "...radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector." As the "back-radiation" is not truly a vector, there is no incompatibility between a a radiation intensity that is not-nil and a heat flow to Earth's surface that is nil; this happens, for example, if the radiation intensity
is isotropic, that is, identical in all directions. If it is isotropic, the upward intensity balances the downward intensity with the result that the heat flow to Earth's surface is nil.

In defense of UCAR's "greenhouse effect," it is sometimes argued that it is only the SUM of the flows of heat by
conduction, convection and radiation that can only flow from hot to cold matter without a heat pump. Thus, it is argued,
heat may flow by radiant transfer from matter in the troposphere to matter in Earth's surface so long as the flow in the opposite direction by conduction and convection is greater.

This argument is incorrect. Under UCAR's "greenhouse effect," Every added increment of heat to matter in the troposphere by absorption by this matter of IR flows to Earth's surface by radiative transfer. As all of this heat transfer is by radiative transfer, this radiative transfer is bound by the second law.
Reply
#9
Hello Terry Oldberg, THANK YOU, and welcome.

Your description above clearly and further explains why atmospheric "back radiation" is a fallacy.
ie, you wrote,
" The appearance of a greenhouse effect that is created by the K-T diagram is created by a misrepresentation.
Under this mispresenation, the "back-radiation" is represented to be a vector pointed at Earth's surface.
However, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out in their paper
"Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," page 20, in classical radiation theory
"...radiation is not described by a vector field assigning to every space point a corresponding vector."
As the "back-radiation" is not truly a vector, there is no incompatibility between
a radiation intensity that is not-nil and a heat flow to Earth's surface that is nil;
this happens, for example, if the radiation intensity
is isotropic, that is, identical in all directions.
If it is isotropic, the upward intensity balances the downward intensity with the result that the heat flow to Earth's surface is nil.
"


I wonder are we getting to a view point that suggests there are heat flows within the atmosphere, but
in very different ways than represented by the Kiehl-Trenberth (KT) diagram.

Yes, there is no greenhouse effect as proposed at present, but
that does not mean that there are (and no one is saying that) no heat flows within the atmosphere.
It is just that the present versions ie, K/T diagram misrepresent the situation (amounts, types, and mechanisms) so grossly and falsely as to be useless.
I have tried in this thread to explain simply some of the probelms with the present K/T diagram,
and suggested a starting point for a better version of such budgets.
I did this because firstly the view point used, and secondly the unit employed need to be changed,
as they are both part of the major problems (misrepresentations and fallacies) the K/T diagram and view have.

A point Richard111 and myself have raised here on several occasions is the transportation of "cold" down in the atmosphere by rain.
I do not see this anywhere in the present K/T diagrams.
"Cold", in the form of cooling rain (and more obviously hailstone), is patently transported down in the atmosphere,
yet no one seems to consider these massive "heat", or rather relatively "cold" movements / flows.
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
#10
Derek:

The problem of estimating temperatures at Earth's surface falls within the field of engineering that is called "heat transfer." I have taken many courses in heat transfer and have applied what I've learned in my work.

Recently, I've studied the use of the language of heat transfer by believers in UCAR's "greenhouse effect." I've found that believers confuse the concepts of "heat," "work" and "internal energy" by lumping them under the general category of "energy." Also, they confuse the concepts of a "heat flow" and a "radiation intensity" by lumping them under the general category of a "heat flow." Both types of confusion are evident in Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams that are presented at UCAR's Web site and in the IPCC's 2007 report. That this confusion is evident in the thinking of the people of UCAR and of the IPCC suggests an inability of these organizations to solve the heat transfer problem which they are supposed to have solved.
Reply
#11
(03-23-2010, 11:04 AM)Terry Oldberg Wrote: Derek:

The problem of estimating temperatures at Earth's surface falls within the field of engineering that is called "heat transfer." I have taken many courses in heat transfer and have applied what I've learned in my work.

Recently, I've studied the use of the language of heat transfer by believers in UCAR's "greenhouse effect." I've found that believers confuse the concepts of "heat," "work" and "internal energy" by lumping them under the general category of "energy." Also, they confuse the concepts of a "heat flow" and a "radiation intensity" by lumping them under the general category of a "heat flow." Both types of confusion are evident in Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams that are presented at UCAR's Web site and in the IPCC's 2007 report. That this confusion is evident in the thinking of the people of UCAR and of the IPCC suggests an inability of these organizations to solve the heat transfer problem which they are supposed to have solved.

I have always been confused by that K/T diagram.It never adds up logically and that is why I have never been accepting it.

I have yet to see any such diagram to make full sense in it's presentation and wonder if that is because it is not understood well enough by anyone?

Right now I am having another vertigo spell that has grounded me from work today,but reading such diagrams almost makes my head spin just as badly.

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
#12
(03-23-2010, 11:04 AM)Terry Oldberg Wrote: Derek:

The problem of estimating temperatures at Earth's surface falls within the field of engineering that is called "heat transfer."
I have taken many courses in heat transfer and have applied what I've learned in my work.

Recently, I've studied the use of the language of heat transfer by believers in UCAR's "greenhouse effect." I've found that believers confuse the concepts of "heat," "work" and "internal energy" by lumping them under the general category of "energy." Also, they confuse the concepts of a "heat flow" and a "radiation intensity" by lumping them under the general category of a "heat flow." Both types of confusion are evident in Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams that are presented at UCAR's Web site and in the IPCC's 2007 report. That this confusion is evident in the thinking of the people of UCAR and of the IPCC suggests an inability of these organizations to solve the heat transfer problem which they are supposed to have solved.

Thank you Terry again for a further explanation.
I (think I) have sort of touched upon what you mention in the piece,
at least partially by including your quotes from WUWT.
I have not grasped sufficiently well yet what you point to,
to be able to explain it in my own terms and know it is correct, or at least worded correctly.
I do not doubt the basic nature of the points you raise and their significance,
but I do think such would be a benefit to the piece as it would directly connect the IPCC to the budgets major issues / misrepresentations / uselessness.

I may try to put together a paragraph to insert into the piece at an appropriate point,
if I do I'll post it here first to ask if it is correctly thought through, and worded, before inserting it into the piece.

SST - Get well soon.
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
#13
To recap my previous postings on this topic, the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram errs in confusing the radiation intensity which it calls the "back-radiation" with a heat flow. By this error, the diagram produces the effect which UCAR calls "the greenhouse effect."

I've discovered a diagram that is similar to the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in an essay ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ple-model/ ) by Gavin Schmidt of NASA-GISS on "the greenhouse effect." Like the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, Schmidt's diagram confuses the radiation intensity which the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram calls the "back-radiation" with a heat flux. By this error, Schmidt creates "the greenhouse effect."

A Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is the first figure in the IPCC's 2007 report on "The basis in physical science." Thus, it seems that UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC are thinking along identical lines. Under this line of thinking, "the greenhouse effect" is created by representing a non-vectorial quantity, a radiation intensity, as a vectorial quantity.

As it seems to these organizations that the "back-radiation" is a vector, it seems to them that the "back-radiation" participates in a conservation principle when there is no such principle. In their confusion, these organizations add the radiation intensity to the heat that must flow from Earth's surface to maintain a heat balance. This addition of a CO2 sensitive radiation intensity creates a "greenhouse effect" that is not real. It is not real because radiation intensities do not participate in heat balances.

As it appears there is no greenhouse effect, this topic is ultra-important. Am I right on this? Does everyone understand what I'm saying? Comments would be welcome.
Reply
#14
Terry you have explained in terms I am not too certain of,
my exact feelings regarding the supposed "greenhouse effect".
In your reply the part I am having trouble grasping is this phrase,
" by representing a non-vectorial quantity, a radiation intensity, as a vectorial quantity. "
I think of it as a cooler thing can not warm a warmer thing,
but I think you are describing another part / property.

Am I also right in thinking with this phrase,
" Schmidt's diagram confuses the radiation intensity which the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram calls the "back-radiation" with a heat flux. "
you are describing the problem that the W/m2 figure allows (or appears to make look reasonable),
namely that things that should not be compared directly to each other, to be (incorrectly) directly by simple addition and / or subtraction compared
when in reality no such comparison is valid, or reasonable, or even physically possible.

I will over the next few days try to put it in my own (layman's) terms,
post it here for approval, and then include it in the piece, as the final conclusion.
I may start the piece with a statement to the same effect, so the piece reads as a line of thought, most can hopefully follow and understand.
I have tried the piece (in it's present version here) on several people at work, they all seem to get the basics of what is said,
your above description puts it into place, and it's importance.
How can the IPCC et al solve a problem they do not understand or view correctly in the first place. ????

It is high time Schmidt was put slap bang in the centre of the present CO2 / Greenhouse confusion / scam,
along with his cohorts, Hansen, Mann and Jones (et al), and their (deliberate and knowingly) corruptions of the institutions they work for, paid for by us.
This is the way to do it.

THANK YOU.
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
#15
I find this interesting because it was published way back in the early 1990's.

A LUKEWARM GREENHOUSE -
How `Warm' Will Global Warming Get?


by John L. Daly

SELECTED EXCERPT:

Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy

The effect of this increase in CO2 concentration is to intensify the recycling of infra-red energy within the atmosphere, thus making the surface warmer - but how much warmer? Herein lies the core of the controversy. The present energy `flux' at the surface of the earth is 387 watts per square metre (wm-2), 148 wm-2 of which results directly from the recycling action of the Greenhouse Effect. The other 239 wm-2 is solar insolation, ie. light and heat energy from the sun reaching the surface.

According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm-2 will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.

LINK
========================================================
Using the old alarmist figures,he finds that increased CO2 in the atmosphere adds negligible warming,to the point of irrelevancy.

I thought this statement interesting and maybe worth examining because this was BEFORE the AGW alarmist camp came into existence:

Quote:(During the 1970's, warming predictions were typically around +0.5 degC if CO2 was doubled. The more recent predictions of +1.5 to +4 deg are entirely the product of computer modeling, with no solid basis in actual observations at all).

History is not kind to the AGW believing camp.
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
#16
Derek:

I'd like to assist you in your project of casting the description into layman's terms. The math concepts could be a barrier to comprehension. This barrier could be overcome by explaining these concepts in layman's terms. I attempt to do so below.

A mathematical idea that is a key to understanding is that of a vector. 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."

The sign of the magnitude of a vector can be positive or negative. Changing the sign of a vector makes this vector point in the opposite direction.

There are rules for the addition of two or more vectors. In discussing the existence or non-existence of the greenhouse effect, all one needs to know about these rules is that if two vectors A and B are pointed in the same direction and are added, the resulting vector C points in the same direction as A and B while the magnitude of C is the sum of the magnitudes of A and B.

Flows can be represented as a vector field; such a field assigns a vector to every point in space. For example, flows of water can be represented by a field of vectors where each vector represents the velocity of a small chunk of the water at the point (x, y, z) in the space whose coordinates are X, Y and Z.

A heat flow can be represented by a vector. The magnitude of such a vector has the unit of measure of watts per meter squared.

Now suppose the heat flow vectors A, B and C point toward Earth's surface and are perpendicular to this surface. C is the vector sum of A and B.

Let a, b and c designate the magnitudes of the heat flow vectors A, B and C. By the rules of vector addition

c = a + b (1)

Equation (1) is an example of a heat balance. At Earth's surface, the sums of the magnitudes of downward heat flows must equal the sums of the magnitudes of upward heat flows for the heat flows to balance. This simply means that the downward flowing heat equals the upward flowing heat.

Now if one stands at Earth's surface and aims a radiometer up into the sky, one measures a property of electromagnetic radiation that is called its "intensity." The intensity has the unit of measure of watts per meter squared.

A heat flow and a radiation intensity have the same unit of measure: watts per squared meter. Thus, one might take them to represent the same concept. However, there is a crucial difference. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out on page 20 of their paper, "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 (Figure 3)." To get an idea of what G&T mean, you should take a look at Figure 3. Because a radiation field is not described by a vector field, it does not participate in a heat balance.

The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram represents the "back-radiation" by a vector. As the tail of this vector rests in the relatively cold matter of the troposphere while the head rests in the relatively hot matter in Earth's surface, one can be sure that this vector does not represent a heat flow, for if it were a heat flow it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. The obvious alternative is that it represents a radiation intensity but a radiation intensity does not participate in a heat balance.

UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC err in assuming that the radiation intensity participates in a heat balance. Thus, they add the radiation intensity of the "back radiation" into the heat balance of the Earth below its surface. In doing so, they take the "back-radiation" to be a vector that is pointed downward toward Earth's surface; one can see this vector graphically represented in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram or in the equivalent diagram of Schmidt's essay. In order for the heat flows to balance, the sum of the magnitudes of the upward heat flows must equal the sum of the magnitudes of downward heat flows at this surface.

The radiation intensity increases with the addition of greenhouse gases to the troposphere. Thus, when UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC add the radiation intensity into their heat balance, they find the heat flowing downward as back-radiation rises with the concentrations of the greenhouse gases. Let r designate the amount of the rise at a particular time. In order for the heat flows to balance, the sum of the magnitudes of the heat flows going upward must rise by r. The only way in which this can happen is for Earth's surface temperature to rise. This is the effect which UCAR and NASA-GISS call "the greenhouse effect." A heat balance is simply an expression of the law of the conservation of energy. On this basis, believers in "the greenhouse effect" express great confidence in the existence of their effect.

However, the thinking of UCAR, NASA-GISS and the IPCC is erroneous. By the second law of thermodynamics, the heat flowing downward as "back-radition" is nil. Thus, the contribution to the heat balance from the greenhouse gases is nil. It follows that the addition of greenhouse gases to the troposphere has no effect on Earth's surface temperature. That this is true falsifies "the greenhouse effect" of UCAR and NASA-GISS." Their "greenhouse effect" results from their mistake of representing a radiation intensity as a vector.
Reply
#17
Thank you Terry and SST.
Both replies are particularly useful and I am attempting to digest them.
I feel sure this must be able to be put into layman's terms,
I'll try on Friday.
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
#18
Derek:

The explanation which I gave you was theoretical. As an alternative or addition, it might be effective to describe an experiment with one's refrigerator.

The second law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot be moved from cold to hot matter unless it is pumped. The machinery in a refrigerator does the pumping.

When a refrigerator is in operation, heat flows from the hot matter outside the walls to the cold matter inside the walls. This heat is pumped out by the machinery at the expense of consumption of electric power. That it is pumped out is what results in the interior of the refrigerator being colder than the outside.

The pump can be diabled by unplugging the refrigerator. If this is done, heat continues to flow from the hot outside to the cold inside but this heat is not pumped out. No heat flows from the inside to the outside. The heat continues to flow in until the temperature of the inside is identical to the temperature of the outside.

Under "the greenhouse effect," heat moves from cold to hot matter without a heat pump. The data from the experiment on the refrigerator are inconsistent with this happening. The second law of thermodynamics states that this cannot happen in principle. The second law is regarded as a "law of nature" because it has been tested very many times without ever being refuted by the experimental evidence.
Reply
#19
Thank you Terry, you have nearly got the layman's version done before I've even started..Big Grin
BUT, a fridge will definately have to be included. Cool

"Unfortunately", I had to do a year planner in excel form tonight, so I have,
hopefully you and others here may find it useful.
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
#20
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
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 4,078 07-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget blouis79 12 18,820 10-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)