Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Hi All,
Another question of an assumption within the radiation budgets occurs to me, so I thought I'd put it here.

Radiation budgets assume that IR absorbed in the atmosphere is reradiated in all directions, but
that this can be considered as effectively up or down. With a few "lateral bounces" presumably.
Because of this assumption the (middle in the plots) atmosphere's IR in and out balances.

BUT, shouldn't some of the laterally emitted IR in the middle atmosphere be absorbed by water (ie clouds).
This would turn the radiation into sensible heat. Water falling as rain,
(that was not quite as cold as it would otherwise of been), would transport this sensible heat to the earth's surface. Cooling it.
This means that the middle of the atmosphere energy in and out (in radiation terms - ie back radiation) should not balance, as it does in the plots.

Furthermore the earth's surface does recieve "back radiation" energy in a negative energy form, ie rain cools the surface.
According to the plots the energy transported back to the earth's surface by "back radiation" is always positive...
So the earth's surface (W/m2) figures are incorrect also.

[MostlyHarmless]

In a nutshell, the whole problem of the energy budget diagrams can be summarised in one word: direction. OLR (out-going infrared) is assumed to all come from the upper atmosphere ("top-of-atmosphere" or TOA). However, the "back radiation" or "re-radiation" to the surface is assumed to be from the entire atmosphere. If the entire atmosphere can radiate to the surface, then it must be able to radiate to space, so there's either a flaw in the theory, or the system behaves differently. Logic would indicate if TOA radiates to space, it must also radiate downwards. Between TOA and the relatively thin layer (BOA?) close to the earth, there's radiation in all directions at all points. This radiation can have no net effect in this area, it effectively cancels out. It can only be the radiation from BOA which strikes the surface, just as it's only radiation from TOA which escapes to space. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram showing al GHGs radiating downwards cannot be correct. If the GHGs radiate 333 W/sq.m downwards they must be radiating 333 upwards. Why both warmists and sceptics blindly accept this "downward only" radiation picture is a mystery.

[Derek]

Thank you MostlyHarmless, an excellant and clear explanation of a problem / logical flaw
most of us have missed really.

[MostlyHarmless]

A further thought on "energy budget" diagrams, in particular the Kiehl-Trenberth version. It shows 333 W/sq.m "back radiation" from GHGs. All of that radiation is shown as absorbed. Where is the albedo effect - some must be reflected? Albedo varies with radiation wavelength for different surface types, but an average albedo for LW infrared is similar to that for visible light. I believe (I've got a link somewhere) it's slightly higher, i.e. more is reflected. This one omission on its own (it can't be ignored or discounted) totally invalidates the energy budget figures.

[Derek]

(06-30-2010 07:19 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:  This one omission on its own (it can't be ignored or discounted) totally invalidates the energy budget figures.

Maybe we should compile a list of each individual omission that invalidates on their own the global energy budgets.
I understand we have quite a few such omissions now.

[Derek]

Earth's surface absorbtion and emissions. Oceanic currents phases do not work within one year only, as the budgets do.
Such oceanic phases create imbalances that vary over many differing time scales, just one such example of many, PDOs, change phase over 20 to 30 year time scales.
This one omission on its own (it can't be ignored or discounted) totally invalidates the energy budget figures.

[MostlyHarmless]

Quote:Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere,
I've looked at clouds that way.

But now they only block the sun,
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done,
But clouds got in my way.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

Moons and Junes and ferris wheels,
The dizzy dancing way that you feel
As every fairy tale comes real,
I've looked at love that way.

But now it's just another show,
You leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know,
Don't give yourself away.

I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud,
To say "I love you" right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds,
I've looked at life that way.

Oh but now old friends they're acting strange,
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living every day.

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

I've looked at life from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

Writer : MITCHELL, JONI

Seems Joni knew a few things that some climate scientists fail to acknowledge.

[Derek]

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

It is pure speculation.

Well not pure, but corrupt speculation.

Can anyone show how this diagram was derived?

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

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

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

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

[Richard111]

This might be interesting:

Earth Energy Budgets without 'Greenhouse Gases' or 'Back Radiation'

There are 5 budget charts shown in the article.

[Sunsettommy]

(08-09-2010 10:26 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  This might be interesting:

Earth Energy Budgets without 'Greenhouse Gases' or 'Back Radiation'

There are 5 budget charts shown in the article.

Yeah I saw that yesterday too.

I have been waiting for that 5th source to be posted,before I post it in my blog.Eventually I will write up a blog post gathering up the main points of several presentations I have been reading.

The concept of "backradiation" appears to be invented back in the 1990's.Probably for the purpose of peddaling their absurd AGW hypothesis.A pseudoscience propaganda tool that only fools dool over.

Everyday I go to work and come home through a section of road (about 2 miles) where the temperature drops quite suddenly and around 2-3 degreed F in a less than a minute after I enter the area.The area that are bordered by the river which are along both sides of the freeway.

I also see this similar phenomenon every time I drive ALONG the Columbia River for couple of miles on the same freeway (1-2 degree F drop).Then when I get off the freeway and go to the old two lane road that runs along (within 100 feet) the large river,the temperature goes down even lower.

My home is a mile from the river.It would be 95 derees F,but along that old road it can be 90 degrees F.

Gee I wonder why the mythical "backradiation" power vanish every time Water Vapor is involved in cooling the area?

[Derek]

Am I correct in assuming "back radiation" is central to the "physics" as modellled by MODTRAN. ?

[Derek]

From this thread - post 10.
Another great find by Richard111.

(10-01-2010 12:41 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I think this may be of interest. I never considered energy absorbed in the biosphere is converted to matter.

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

This quote is refering to the K&T global energy budget.

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

Life locking away solar energy, that is undeniable.
Over vastly differing time scales to boot.

This alone makes a mockery of global energy budgets "balancing" over the 1 year time scale they plotted
(- although expressed as watts per meter squared, per second figures).

Later addition -
from this thread, post 12

(10-06-2010 12:04 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I went looking for info on photosynthesis and found this:
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Lots of info, even shows photons being absorbed.

[h-j-m]

Even a "dead" planet could hardly show an balanced energy budget under the assumption it has an atmosphere.

As there would still be a considerable amount of the incoming radiation converted into kinetic and chemical energy that won't show up in outgoing radiation.

[Derek]

Excellant point h-j-m, and
quite obvious now you come to mention it..

Thank you.

The hydrocarbons on that moon which the name of escapes me at present (Titan possibly), for example.

[Derek]

From this thread, and, THANK YOU Richard111.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-1.html

Post 15

(11-29-2010 11:48 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Q_C, thanks for that maths link. Will be very helpfull.

I've got the e-book and it was well worth the effort and the money just to read the following quote and get my mind all screwed up:

Quote:As for the famous minus 18C surface temperature that earth is supposed to have without the greenhouse effect, that figure assumes a blackbody surface absorbing about 239W/m^2 "on average." But check the Kiehl-Trenberth chart. Due to clouds and other obscuring factors, the actual surface average is given as only 168W/m^2. That figure corresponds to minus 40C on the surface, meaning that it has to rise by 55 degrees, not 33, in order to reach the accepted average of plus 15. Anyone who tells you, then, that the 'greenhouse effect' makes the earth's surface 33 degrees warmer is merely confessing his (or her) own ignorance.

Check; minus 40C equals 233.15K. Put that into the formulae
E = 1.0 * sigma * T^4 (for a 'blackbody', hah!)
where sigma equals 0.000000057 (5.7e-8)
and T equals 233.15
and you get 168W/m^2.

Here is a chart showing that 168W/m^2:

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...ml#pid6199

If you use an average global absorbance/emissivity figure of 0.7 (i.e. a very poor 'greybody') you can get that -18C for the surface at 168W/m^2 so did Kiehl-Trenberth do something like that? Thats a very low figure, 0.7, more ususally around 0.9. This of course means that any 'greenhouse' effect must be that much stronger to push the temperature up by 33 degrees. Ah, well, more puzzles to figure out.

Post 25

(12-01-2010 04:19 AM)Derek Wrote:  

(11-29-2010 11:48 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Check; minus 40C equals 233.15K. Put that into the formulae
E = 1.0 * sigma * T^4 (for a 'blackbody', hah!)
where sigma equals 0.000000057 (5.7e-8)
and T equals 233.15
and you get 168W/m^2.

Just wondering aloud Richard111.
Is this difference the difference between the sphere's average temp and the discs average temp.
(the disc has the same peak and average temp, the sphere has different temps for max, min, and average)
Or, put another way, the spheres average temp (which is what I think you have calculated - more correctly than K&T incidentally) is lower than a discs average temp
(because a half lit sphere has 4 times the area which is lit than that of a same diameter lit disc -Alan described this as diluted in the book).

So, you need to multiply the sphere's average temp you have calculated by the square root of two, to get the sphere's peak temp.
I think this means you use, T equals 329.724 for your calculation.
Which (should be) is equal to the discs average temp (remember this is K&T "disc world" we are looking at here, not the real world).

Does that make it 33 rather than 55. ?

Post 26

(12-01-2010 06:36 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Derek, that is simply a check. Nothing hidden, nothing implied. T is just the temperature in degrees Kelvin (you must not use celcius in these calcs). The point is the K-T budget figures don't agree with the explanation.

If a blackbody has a temperature of -40C (233.15K) then it will radiate 168W/m^2. But the global surface temperature of the planet should be -18C BEFORE the greenhouse effect pushes up the temperature by 33 degrees to +15C. But to have -18C you need 240W/m^2. And for +15C you need 390W/m^2.

None of those figures make sense. So K-T must be applying a greybody fudge factor. Why don't they say what they are doing?

None of the above will actually apply to a rotating planet where half the planet is always sheltered from incoming energy. I must do much more study on that aspect before I make any comment. I do love this book!

Anyway, just for fun now. I've often posted about my time in Singapore and noticed how small are the daily temperature changes compared to say the Karroo in South Africa. It seems the answer is water vapour. That wonderful greenhouse gas H2O. At or near the equator there is so much water vapour in the air that it blocks a lot of incoming solar radiation preventing the temperature rising as much as it would in a dry desert region. But at night it absorbs the upwelling longwave surface radiation and slows down the rate of cooling at night, again as compared to a desert region. Now the deserts have the same amount of CO2 as the equator but desert temperature monitors do not show any effect of the increasing CO2 because CO2 does not have the traction of H2O. If you don't already know, look up why deserts occur where they do both north and south of the equator. Fascinating planet we live on.

quick edit: found my signature in the book at location 1205

Post 27

(12-01-2010 07:34 AM)Derek Wrote:  Richard111, I think you may want to read post 25 again.

Disc and sphere average temps for the same input, they are not the same.
- that is the "fudge factor" you were looking for, as I understand your post 15.
ie K&T = "disc world" average temp, you calculated a real sphere average temp (which is lower).
To check if I'm right multiply 233.15K by the square root of two, and run your calculation again.
(That converts sphere average temp to, sphere max temp, which is the same as disc average temp.)

I did not use celcius anywhere. ?
Is there a difference between a 33 and 55 degrees Celcius or a 33 and 55 degrees Kelvin change in temp. ?

Later edit, after dog walk... - The "disc world" calculation is the "fudge factor", because it
a) Gives a single, and seemingly constant figure to explain, simply easier.
and
b) It gives a false sense of "continuity" or "compatability" with GMTs.
(It is probably easier to model as well, not that the grid structure of models could cope with sphere "greenhouse effect" variations as they should be calculated.)

I recently looked again at MLO with respect to GISS, I could not make a comparison, because
one set was too smooth (MLO) and the other too noisy (GISS).
I suggest something similar applies here if you used sphere calculations.

Disc calculation = 33 degrees, "constant" and "everywhere all the time" difference to be explained.

Sphere calculation = 55 degrees AVERAGE (on the lit side), with a minimum effect of 33 degrees at one spot only, where the sun is directly over head.
Everywhere else the effect is different, averaging 55 degrees, which means at the lit edges there would be even more of a difference.
I do not know if there is an easy way to calculate the maximum difference, if anyone can help in this respect that would be greatly appreciated.
Then there is night time on a rotating planet, that you do not get on a disc... That is an even bigger difference no doubt (water jacket anyone).

For example, if you were stood on the equator at mid summer over the length of the day the effect / difference to explain would vary considerably as the planet rotated.
From a minimum of 33 degrees (sun over head, mid day), and a maximum of (working guess) 75 degrees (dawn and dusk),
whilst averaging in between these times 55 degrees...
There is also night time to take into account...

So, if you had to marry this effect up to some global temperature data sets, and then model them,
there really is no contest, "disc world".

In the end Alan Siddons makes the valid point, if calculated correctly (for a sphere rather than a disc) the "greenhouse effect" should be
an average of 55 degrees (on the lit side, even more on the dark side) and vary considerably,
not be a constant 33 degrees "everywhere" and "all the time".

It is easy to see why "they" went for, and defend so strongly "disc world",
without "disc world" they are simply lost.

[Goose52]

I guess my questions are according to the model 342 watts per meter squared incoming from the sun. 161 watts per square meter hits the ground. 350 watts per square meter rise from the ground into the atmosphere. How can a greater value rise from the ground then the incoming 342 watts per meter squared with 161 watts per square meter squared hits the ground? How can almost all of the 350 watts per square meter squared from the ground (324 watts per square meter squared) be re-radiated back toward the ground? I don't get it.

Is the left side of this graph being measured with the same value as the right side?

[Derek]

Goose52, I do not mean to ignore your question, but, the K&T diagrams completely ignore the ideal gas law and gravity.
This alone gives a 33 degrees difference.

If "they" ignore this, which "they" have in the K&T diagrams, "they" have an anomaly to then "explain",
if it was included there is no anomaly to explain.

Furthermore, the anomaly to "explain" (33 degrees) is exactly the same as the incorrect "disc world" calculation, and "everywhere" "all the time".
I believe this is the "missing link" (ignore ideal gas law / gravity, substituting it with a "disc world" calculation)
that explains HOW the AGW scam was perpetrated,
on the false basis of an already explained "greenhouse effect" that is really the ideal gas law and gravity.
As explained in post 75 "they" need "disc world" to marry up their data sets and modeling.
Without "disc world" they are lost, at every level.

There is also another massive positive ramification of the above, if the difference is calculated correctly (for a sphere),
there is an anomaly left, as 33 degrees difference is only on one spot of the earth's surface, everywhere else there is a larger difference.
So, if calculated correctly the ideal gas law / gravity can be taken into account, AND "we" are left with a considerable and varying anomaly to explain.

In short, the K&T diagrams are not just an unphysical, and unrealistic oversimplification,
they are a (seemingly deliberate - otherwise the omission of the ideal gas law and gravity mistake would of been noticed) misdirection, on a massive scale.

So, inevitably, the figures of K&T diagrams, as Goose52 notes, make no sense.

Also, the above inevitably means almost all the climate / greenhouse effect calculations over the last 20 to 30 years or so,
are trying to explain only one figure, 33 degrees, which is too small a figure, and incorrect.
So, that's 20 to 30 years of effort down the plug hole, lifetimes of work, that is absolutely useless.
When scientists are political, or serve their own self interests and career prospects first, rather than being skeptical, that is their own fault.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for these AGW "scientists", because it is we that will be paying the price for their (mostly deliberate) misdemeanors with the truth,
most of them will get away scot free with this, and they know it, or at least they think they know they will.
They have been wrong before.

[Derek]

OK, whilst my previous post is being digested.

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  I guess my questions are according to the model 342 watts per meter squared incoming from the sun.

Remember at all times, this is K&T "disc world" not the real world, or even a sphere.
So, the 342 Watts is a haze over the whole of "disc world". In the real world, ie a sphere, one side of the rotating sphere (planet) gets 342x4, but only at the spot where the sun is directly overhead.
The rest of the lit side of a sphere (planet) gets a diluted amount because of the spheres curved surface.
342 is a meaningless average figure, FOR A DISC.
For a sphere the average number is lower because there is more surface, see post earlier when I tried to describe this to Richard111.

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  161 watts per square meter hits the ground.

No it does not really, these are "disc world" figures remember.

There will be a band around the sphere's lit side that gets this amount, but it will be narrow,
and, the night side gets little, or nowt anyways, so the 161 Watts all over figure is meaningless really.
Unless the earth is actually flat, which I don't think it is.....

This is the main reason why I refer commonly to AGW proponents, AND "skeptics" that merely quibble the figures of AGW, as the flat earth society reborn. Because, they are.

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  350 watts per square meter rise from the ground into the atmosphere.

So "they" say. The measurements are somewhat vague, and really mostly guesswork, whatever "they" say.
Which is a distinct advantage to "them" as they can "massage" the figures at will, and have done frequently.

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  How can a greater value rise from the ground then the incoming 342 watts per meter squared with 161 watts per square meter squared hits the ground?

Oh, the complicated lies we tell, when first we try to deceive.
AND never mention the ideal gas law and gravity of course...

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  How can almost all of the 350 watts per square meter squared from the ground (324 watts per square meter squared) be re-radiated back toward the ground? I don't get it.

Terry Oldberg earlier in this thread describes the basic mistake Gavin Schmidt did in "creating" the "back radiation" myth, which meant
he had created the "greenhouse effect" which had been quantified by omitting the ideal gas law and gravity..

In short, Gavin misinterpreted a radiation intensity as a heat flow..Your absolutely right not to get it,
niether does nature that we can ACTUALLY OBSERVE.
QED - It's imaginary, and we know who and when it was created by AND
why it is the strength "they" say it is to boot.

(12-01-2010 10:51 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  Is the left side of this graph being measured with the same value as the right side?

I think I understand where your coming from here, but no it does not.
I assume you are looking for a day and a night side to the plot, which it should have, but does not.
"disc world" just has a constant "haze" of one quarter of the sun's ACTUALLY MEASURED strength...

[h-j-m]

I took a closer look at the often mentioned diagram of which this is a rather recent version.



When I then read that the value for surface radiation was derived by applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law and read what this means something struck me odd.

A result from applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law should represent all energy leaving a bodies surface. But then, where does the additional energy for thermal and latent heat in the diagram come from?

[Derek]

(12-02-2010 09:32 AM)h-j-m Wrote:  A result from applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law should represent all energy leaving a bodies surface. But then, where does the additional energy for thermal and latent heat in the diagram come from?

I would suggest their "reason" would be the diagrams show annual "averages" expressed as per second rates..
So, over a year they are implying all energy is radiated (apart from the 0.9 they say is absorbed - BY WHAT, WHERE...), that is not moved by thermal or latent heat.
I'm second guessing the "disc world" proponents, but I think that would be roughly their line of response.

NB - (apart from the 0.9 they say is absorbed - BY WHAT, WHERE...) Land temps are falling, oceans are cooling, the atmospheric hot spot is missing,
only in "disc world" ("disc world" is K&T diagrams, and GCM "climate" models) is there a warming "world"....