Quote:Unfortunately the only place we know something about the fluxes is the TOA because it is there that we will postulate that radiation in = radiation out.
This is also wrong (just look at the difference between the night half, the day half and the sum of both) but this is the basic assumption of all and any climate models sofar.
My emphasis. Will add my thoughts about "radiation in = radiation out" and chaos when I've sobered up a bit.
Merry Crimbals all.
Later edit by Derek - Richard111 has kindly given me permission to
put the ensuing discussion between us into a pdf to tidy up the thread a bit.
I think many will find the content of interest, as we cover quite a wide range of climate science related issues (from our own "unique" view points)
Thank you Richard111.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
12-27-2010, 06:31 AM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2010, 06:35 AM by Achuara.)
Err.. Derek, it is not a case of right/wrong threads. My point is the idea, a meme I suppose, of the day/night side radiation levels which are receiving more attention in general comments.
This business of 'radiation in = radiation out' has been troubling my thoughts for some time and I hope writing about this will help guide my thinking.
First, 'radiation in'; It seems to be a given that the sun is a blackbody equivalent radiating at about 6,000 degrees Kelvin. This has been calculated to produce a heating effect at the earth's orbital distance of some 1,366 watts per metre squared, when shining on a flat solid surface. But a gas heats throughout a volume!
As we saw in the recent Lunar Eclipse the earth cuts out a circular hole from the sunlight. Taking the diameter of earth at the equator as equal to 12,757km we can calculate a disc with an area of 127,816,520,993,974 square metres.
The rules of maths tell us the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the area of a disc of identical diameter. I went to all the trouble of multiplying and dividing out those huge numbers and came to exactly the same answer as dividing 1,366 by 4 and getting 341.5 watts per metre squared which is the value given for TSI in the global energy budget diagrams and that is the only number that may be anywhere near correct. Well, for 'radiation out' anyway.
So far this all makes sense to me. The earth is interrupting a disc shaped portion of sunlight at 1,366W/m^2 and is radiating out over the whole spherical surface area at 341.5W/m^2. Both the sun and the earth must be considered black bodies in space.
Energy in does indeed seem to equal energy out but now the trouble starts! I have seen many, many pictures of the earth taken from moon landing expeditions and orbiting satelites which show the SUNLIGHT side as a very bright blue and white surface with occasional brown sandy looking patches. This is the ALBEDO, the reflected light from the surface and the top of the clouds but there ain't no albedo on the night side!!!
The sun is only directly overhead between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn which is more than half water which CANNOT absorb the 40% or so of the infrared portion of incoming sunlight, and, as you move away from the tropics, the SQUARE AREA of the surface increases as the latitude increases towards the poles resulting in LESS than the 1,366W/m^2 heating effect and more reflection from water, or ice, or cloud (increasing albedo).
I won't go any further down that path for now but look back at the 341.5W/m^2 which MUST be radiated from the earth else it will cook. The problem here is that that radiative level amounts to a temperature of 5.45C (278.6K) so it seems unlikely to be the surface radiation alone so must include a level of radiation from the atmosphere itself. This again makes sense to me if you consider that a gas (the atmosphere) can radiate from volume, which is huge, and not just from any level defined surface. The radiative efficiency of an unconfined gas must be orders of magnitude greater than any solid or liquid object.
So, just how stable is the global temperature? All we have is fairly recent geologic history but that tells us life existed on the surface of this planet for the last 500 million years or so despite the fact that about 80% of that period was ice ages! It thus apears that the earth is more statistically inclined to cold periods than the warm period we currently occupy.
From the above limited essay you may conclude that I believe global energy budgets with bias towards supporting AGW hypothesis are total pie in the sky and much more work needs to be done to understand how all aspects of life on this planet interact to keep the environment suitable for life as we understand it.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
” Question, have you ever looked at a thermal camera picture of a greenhouse and it’s surroundings. ?
The greenhouse will be warmer than it’s surroundings, so it will be a brighter image than it’s surroundings.
AGW “theory” says the greenhouse is warmer because it traps radiation,
YET the thermal image will clearly show beyond doubt that the greenhouse IS radiating MORE than it’s surroundings
(with the same solar input).
What does this show. ?
It shows whatever is cooling the surroundings is far more powerful than radiation, AND
that it is not radiation doing most of the cooling (otherwise the higher radiating greenhouse would be cooler than it’s surroundings).
If one opened the doors and windows in the greenhouse, especially on a breezy day,
the greenhouse would soon reduce it’s temperature to that of it’s surroundings.
Logically the temperature difference was removed from the greenhouse to the surroundings or aloft by air.
Air transporting sensible, and latent heat (of water vapourisation), I would suggest.
When the doors and windows are closed it logically follows that the increase in temperature inside the greenhouse is due to
the reduced transport of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation) from inside the greenhouse to the surroundings.
Obviously even with the doors and windows of the greenhouse are shut,
some conduction and convection at the greenhouse glass surfaces occurs, and
this explains why a greenhouse remains warmer than it’s surroundings for some time after sunset.
Hopefully this has illustrated that a greenhouse works by reducing conduction and convection,
NOT by “trapping” radiation, as AGW pseudo climate science, “physics”, and “theory” suggest. ”
I have made a copy of the blog review this piece received at tAV blog.
(Attached to this post)
I think it is fairly obvious that the shape issue has been completely missed by many there.
I will repeat here, in the hope the penny drops for a few more that in respect of the formula,
(P / 5.6704) ^0.25*100=K
P = Power of beam in W/m2.
K = Degrees Kelvin temperature for receiving black body surface (per square meter).
^ = raise to the power of
* = Multiply
1) The shape of the (effective) surface that emits P determines the shape of the surface K is calculated for.
This must happen, to ensure that the surface receives the same rate of input from P evenly, all over.
2) Dividing P merely increases the distance between P and the surface K is calculated for.
Question - In respect of the Sun (source of P) and earth (surface K is calculated for) how does a single source of P illuminate a whole sphere all at the same time. ?
I do not know, it can not, it is unphysical.
Just because one can mathematically divide P by 4 does not mean it can actually, physically happen.
Dividing P by 4 can only (actually and physically) happen if the distance between P and the surface K is calculated for, is increased by 4.
For the Sun and Earth this means increasing the distance of 93.5 million miles between them up to 374 million miles....
If anyone can show how a single source of P (the sun in this case) illuminates all the surface of a sphere (the earth) at the same time, then
I will be forced to re-look at the shape issue, and possibly have to accept that dividing P by 4 is reasonable for the Sun / Earth example.
Until that is shown (and I will not be holding my breath) I think the points my pdf aims to illustrate stand on a very solid basis, otherwise
we would not experience day and night....
I am beginning to wonder if I have this blooming "P" formula completely the wrong way around.
Does P really mean Power of beam EMITTED, not received as such.
The formula is ONLY for a single object that is behaving as a perfect black body,
the object would emit "P" W/m2 at "K" temperature.
So, the equation would need extra "corrective factors" for emissivity, absorptivity, distance, shape, relative size, etc, etc,
to be able to compare more than one object, ie an "emitter" and a "receiver".
ie, Dividing P does not alter shape......It can not,
the formula says absolutely nothing about shape, relative sizes, distance between more than one object.
The formula simply is not meant to.
Which would mean, the "mathematical quirk" my pdf is trying to describe stands.
You have two distinct questions on the table under the general heading of "How much total energy goes in?"
The first question is, "How much as described by various commenters?"
The second is, "How much is actually being PUT in by those who report results in studies?
These are two separate and distinct questions, with different evidentiary requirements.
The first question is the easier one to answer.
It appears to me that the majority view among tAV commenters is that P represents the amount entering "the model", i.e. a given model, at a finite plane that is tangiential to the reference sphere, and perpendicular to the source of radiation. (I am assuming that all the rays of radiation are postulated to travel in exactly the same direction, i.e. all parallel to one another.)
Therefore, this is what they are apparently claiming P represents. Perhaps some of them are just imagining this, and perhaps others have some rational basis to believe this. In any event, even if it's technically wrong, it is probably at least a reasonable approximation of the actual amount that is put into the three models, FOR THE PURPOSES OF a preliminary analysis. For a thorough analysis, I would think one would want to try to get one's hands on original source material, and preferably multiple sources of it.
On the question of "adjusting" P in various ways, this is obviously intended to help create different representations of model Earths, each of which may (emphasize may) be useful for some purpose, or they may not be. A model is, by definition, an approximation of reality. Being an approximation does not necessarily invalidate the model AS USED. Answering the question, "Does this particular model serve any useful purpose" depends on how it's being used, how approximate it is, and what question one is trying to answer. Ultimately, all kinds of quantification can be done to express the uncertainties that arise from a specific model, but it's still a judgment call for each observer as to whether the model is sufficient for the intended purpose.
Of immediate interest should be the geometric question you have raised (i.e. is there apples-to-oranges comparison between models), because if it has merit, I think this is likely to be the greatest source of inaccuracy in the existing energy budgets that have included the alleged invalid comparison. Unfortunately for those who seek to impeach back-radiation theory, the fact that this is such low-hanging fruit makes it that much less likely that it could be slipped past everyone undetected. However, I admit that the question, as posed already, is sufficiently complex that I can see a possibility for mass-deception.
I think everyone has to try to look at the problem more slowly and carefully than they have. It is not a problem that one is going to solve so easily. If there is deception, then it has passed unnoticed by all physicists for quite some time. Such a deception obviously must be subtle and take advantage of one or more rhetorical ambiguities in order to work.
Now that I have reached (I think) a better understanding of what a Watt is.
A Watt is a (timeless) rate, just like traveling at 30 mph is a rate of travel. But
unless you know the time the rate applies to you do not know the distance traveled.
I sincerely doubt I am / was alone in my misinterpretations of what a Watt is, so,
our discussion here, although it "clogs up" the thread from what we should be discussing, as you noted,
" I'm more interested in the apples-to-orange geometry question "
is useful to others I hope, not just myself.
So, I would like to tidy the thread up by making a word document of our Watts discussion so far, and then
add it as an attachment to just one post.
That way, I could delete a lot of posts on the thread so far, tidying it up as such,
but leaving the pertinent to Watts discussion posts complete, in order, and openly available.
If the attachment then gave rise to new posters asking further questions,
then that discussion could be split off in to a new thread.
I have started this thread for such questions, if they may arise.
Is this a reasonable suggestion, and would you be happy with me doing such.?
I will add the attachment to this post so you can see what I mean, and for your approval,
when I have copy and pasted all the appropriate comments so far.
I was afraid that it was losing track a couple of days ago.The discussion has now turned into a debate.
This forum is a DISCUSSION based forum.NOT a Debate forum.
People debating can end up getting personal and worse.A tit for tat is inevitable,if continued for long on a topic that has a lot of room for variable levels of interpretation.Will end up like this.
People who are truly into discussing the topic will be able to talk about what is known and what needs to be better understood.No need to prove who is more correct since the objective is to learn.To better understand what is being postulated.The presentation under discussion may be incorrect or has room for improvement.But talking about it will benefit all parties to the discussion.
The thread has been re-opened.
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
My apologies for not posting the explanatory piece I intended to in regards of how I want to moderate this sub part of the forum and it's threads going forwards. Later edit - I have now posted the referred to "explanation". http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...-1108.html
Other things, specifically as posted in the What is a Watt thread have overtaken me, but
I hope I have at least conveyed there what I wanted to in an understandable manner.
Ooops... apologies, lost track of which thread I was on. Feel free to move things around. Will find it in due course. Research proving to be more difficult than expected, but that is what its all about. Did I make a quote?
With regard to "shape", it is fairly obvious that this needs to be approached and defined more and in a better manner than has been so far.
I think "we" first need to separately consider the "shapes" used in K&T plots and computer climate models.
Namely just because one uses one "shape" does not necessarily mean the other uses the same "shape", but
I think this has been assumed or implied to be true so far.
It does not have to be, and I genuinely do not think it is the case.
What is the "shape" of Kiehl &Trenberth "greenhouseland".
In the K&T plots it is relatively simple to discern what shape is used,
particularly in the 2008 version.
Plainly, a flat disc is used as the "shape".
Some say that because W/m2 is a power unit (derived SI unit of power from a Watt) then it is a timeless unit,
so this does not neccesarily mean the shape is a flat disc.
To my understanding at present that would only be true if the minimum time was 24 hours, or complete multiples of 24 hours.
This figure alone then is not a timeless figure, it must and can only be in multiples of 24 hours.
At present it seems to me that the figures quoted are yearly totals that are mostly guesstimates which are
divided down into (global) per second rates of Joules (energy flows), which are then expressed as W/m2 (power).
This is plainly mixing, at so many different levels, without taking into account the differences between
the two hemispheres of the earth (permanently lite and permanently dark), and much more besides,
as if they both act the same, when plainly they do not.
Then there are the interactions between the two halves, these are also ignored, such as heat retention and varying later release by the earth's volume.
No one has come up with a solution for the average temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere, that has volume.
I assume the answer must be along the lines of P divided by 2, 50% of the time, BUT
you can have so many different times in one plot of figures using the same power unit?
Dividing P by 4 is NOT a realistic solution, or a timeless unit, unless
you are looking at a flat disc of the appropriate area, at the appropriate distance from the source of P.....
So, as far as dividing P by 4 (for incoming solar input) is concerned we can more easily see what this means.
The "shape" used means that dividing P by 4 can only mean moving the appropriate sized disc world (with no volume) four times further away from the source of P.
So, from a sphere (Earth) 93.5 million miles from the sun we now plainly have depicted a disc 374 million miles from the sun...
In, as Roy Clark recently put it so well, the K&T "greenhouseland".
I suggest this shows that -
This means there is no night.
This means there are no seasons.
This means there are no climate "regions", ie no poles, no tropics, no inbetween,
just one amorphous mass of all the same "climate"..
This means this is no surface heating, heat retention, and varying later release, EXCEPT for the portion attributed (0.9 W/m2) by no means, or where as such, to man made global warming..
This means there is no life on planet earth.
In fact the depicted "scenario" only includes from the earth's surface to the top of the atmosphere.
Earth has no volume.
The Sun's input is absolutely constant, AND
only has one type of input, no other effect/s is allowed for..
The (closed) "system" depicted has only one in and one out, when the earth is a far more complex (and open) system with any more ins and outs that are simply just ignored.
Ignoring the other ins and outs will not make them go away, but it does completely invalidate K&T's "greenhouseland" depictions.
OK, what about the "shape" climate models model, it must be different to that depicted by K&T's "greenhouseland".
It does seem that the climate models model climate regions, from the frequent press / media reports of
what the models say what will supposedly happen to the poles, polar bears and the rain forests of the tropical regions
to name just a few of the alarmist projections favorite subjects...
Does anyone have any suggestions please of where to look in this respect.
It is probably best to approach this in two respects, the shape of the surface, and the overall shape of the model.
In so far as I understand at present the climate models do model a flat surface with no terrain because,
as Dr Vincent Grey recently commented MODTRAN can not cope with hills and mountains,
when terrain is included in the models they produce supersonic winds that are not seen in reality.
In this "shape" respect the models ARE truly the flat earth society, or rather the artificially smoothed society,
but this still leaves the question of what (artificially smoothed) shape of earth is modeled.
At present I do not know.
Without terrain though, how do the models model a rain shadow?
I think I remember it was also Dr Grey who stated that climate models do not model the Indian monsoon,
this would be because they have no terrain presumably.
How would models model high deserts without terrain?
If I remember correctly the terrain issue with climate models stems from MODTRAN's modeling of the "physics" of
water vapour condensation and the accompanying pressure / volume changes that occur during condensation (ie, cloud formation).
The models do have slab oceans, which as I last heard are 50 meters deep,
so at least there is some volume to what is modeled.
(I do not know what heat retention / release is modeled however, particularly with reference to 1998 and 1999,
AND daily (read constant) transfers of heat from the lite side of the planet to the unlite side of our rotating planet.)
But, again to the best of my knowledge no oceanic phases or cycles are modeled.
This was most notably demonstrated by 1998 and 1999, where AGW "blamed" man made global warming for the warmth of 1998,
but then blamed the cooling influence of the oceans for the cold of 1999.
Warming is man made, it can not be natural seemed the mantra..
The question was obviously raised, and it has never really been answered,
Hold on, you (AGW) can accept natural cooling, but not natural warming by the same factor
that you have not allowed for, in either case, in your climate models..
Given that the modeled surface is flat, how are the projected sea level rise effects depicted.
It would appear that such depictions are not "on " the models themselves, as they are of a smoothed surface, any increase in sea level would inundate the world.
So, presumably a projected amount of sea level rise is then depicted upon a relief world map, not a climate model.
Presumably because of the limits of the models this sort of swopping about between models and other types of maps must be quite common,
so what we commonly see as a climate model ("result") is not a climate model itself.
AGW does not like to talk about earth's volume and it's interactions with "climate" or
weather (they prefer chaos to weather, because weather [read chaos] is different we can obfuse about that till the cows come home..)
at almost any level.
But at least the models may have some volume,
K&T only seems to have volume when it is convenient for AGW to have something to absorb.
Presumably this difference between K&T and the climate models is the source of the missing heat issue that
confounded the modelers recently, most notably James Hansen.
I have to wonder if Hansen et al HAD to say the missing heat is in the oceans because
the land was obviously not warming enough according to the effectively his own (GISS) temperature record,
however much he (and others, ie, HADcrut) tried to include without saying the urban heat island effect.
What a shame ARGOS disproved the possibility (read convenient suggestion by AGW) that the missing heat is in the oceans.
This suggestion also ignored the fact that it is physically impossible for the missing heat to be "back radiated" into the oceans,
at the suggested frequencies because IR (of appropriate frequencies) simply can not penetrate the oceans surface, so, even if it did warm the oceans surface
(which would be contradicting the laws of thermodynamics incidentally)
such supposed "warming" could only increase the amount of evaporation at the oceans surface, not heat the oceans.
Literally, the missing heat is not in the oceans because it is physically impossible (in several respects) that it could get in there in the first place.
The differences in shape between K&T and climate models produce many and varied interesting problems,
especially when combined and incorporating the "physics" as modeled by MODTRAN...
AND, of course there are other differences between the "disc world" of K&T and the "sphere" of climate modeling,
that my free to all pdf tries to look into, that appears to have been overlooked or not realized by most so far.
A possibly interesting "lead" in the search of what "shape" do computer climate models model. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010...010a1.html How good are current climate models? Reference
Trenberth, K. 2010. More knowledge, less certainty. Nature Reports
Climate Change: 10.1038/climate.2010.06.
" We are told, for example, that one of the major objectives of the new modeling efforts will be to attempt to develop "new and better representations of  important climate processes and  their feedbacks." Such developments would indeed represent significant steps in the right direction; but the implied need to pursue these most basic of objectives makes us wonder just how bad the current representations of these phenomena are.
Some insight into this question is provided by Trenberth's declaration that the new work should increase "our understanding of factors we previously did not account for or even recognize." "
"They actually drift, they actually go off, and so they need to be "corrected" "
" They don't produce these natural modes of climate variability "
I think I need to look up Associate Professor Stuart Franks.
Has anyone else heard of him, know of his works, does he have a website / blog, maybe even does anyone have an email address for him please.
I tried posting this there, but I'm not sure it got through.
I am trying to find out what "shape" is actually modeled by GCMs.
The first figure in the article interests me in particular.
Where I have got to, is probably best described on this thread, post 20. http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...ml#pid8076
Any help / information greatly appreciated.
My "best guess" as to the "shape" modeled at present appears to be a disc shaped half cylinder.
I realise that the models are always depicted as spheres, but you can never get to the dark side of these depictions..
Are they really modeling 1/4 sunlight corrected for latitudinal inclination ?
ie, no night, no seasons, and much more omitted besides.
dalker at btinternet dot com
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.