tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post1231745365639492919..comments2024-02-21T17:30:40.448-05:00Comments on An Objectivist Individualist: Back-Radiation and the Highly Fallacious Kiehl-Trenberth Energy BudgetCharles R. Anderson, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-75430673721409268852014-10-28T12:08:53.029-05:002014-10-28T12:08:53.029-05:00The error is even more profound than that!
Most p...The error is even more profound than that!<br /><br />Most people know that hot air rises. Many know that when you heat a gas it expands.<br /><br />So how much potential energy does the 10km and 10tonnes of air above every sq m of surface store when it is expands and rises up during the day?<br />How muchenergy is returned wehen it drops back down during the night?<br /><br /><br />Earths Energy Budget in reality is based on a transfer of thermal energy to gravitational potential energy during the day and the reverse transfer of potential energy to thermal energy at night.<br /><br />The current climate models are fundamentally wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-58102299722737412912012-07-12T03:36:15.359-05:002012-07-12T03:36:15.359-05:00Mostly Harmless:
Of course the thermals remove he...Mostly Harmless:<br /><br />Of course the thermals remove heat from the surface. The supply of heat at the surface is the incident radiation that is absorbed by the surface, which is what the 168 W/m^2 is.<br /><br />Back-radiation is not radiation absorbed in the atmosphere directly from the sun, but who knows what innovative and wild terminology may be used by some. However, it is true that some incoming solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere and a portion of that may be re-emitted toward the ground. In the K-T diagram the total flux absorbed by the atmosphere of the incoming radiation is 67 W/m^2. Some of what was absorbed has been reduced in energy by many collisions with cooler higher altitude nitrogen, oxygen, and argon molecules. If we assume the surface absorbs a generous 95% of half of the radiation incident on it, this source provides a flux less than 31.8 W/m^2.<br /><br />Clouds and aerosols reflect 77/342 of the incoming solar radiation, which is 0.225 of it. The underside of clouds is sometimes less reflective then the upper surface, so it may be reasonable to assume this is an upper bound for the surface-emitted radiation reflected from clouds and aerosols. If 95% (a generous upper bound) of this is absorbed by the surface, we have (0.95)(0.225)(390 W/m^2)= 83.4 W/m^2 from back-reflection off clouds and aerosols. In reality, aerosols should play a smaller role here than for incoming solar radiation, so again this is a generous upper bound.<br /><br />The IR-absorbing molecule upper limit on IR radiation returned to the ground which had been emitted by the ground is (0.95)(0.195)(390 W/m^2 = 72.2 W/m^2.<br /><br />In this case, the sum of upper bounds on these three sources of radiation from the atmosphere is then (31.8 + 83.4 + 72.2) = 187.4 W/m^2. This is still much less than 324 W/m^2 claimed in the K-T diagram.<br /><br />In reality, less of this radiation is actually incident on the surface than assumed in these upper bounds and much less is actually absorbed by the surface.<br /><br />No, 4(168)= 672 W/m^2 assumes mean cloud cover and my calculation was for a spot on land (so it could be very dry) and without clouds. As a result, my case has a higher incident solar radiation on the ground.<br /><br />SB incoming and outgoing radiation for the cooler body are equal when a hotter body (sun) radiates a cooler body (Earth), assuming that other cooling mechanisms or sources of heat do not exist. Here we have thermals and evapotranspiration in general, but they will have to be stronger effects to provide the necessary cooling than is the case in the K-T diagram.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-41618407650315720392012-07-11T13:02:40.211-05:002012-07-11T13:02:40.211-05:00"Thermals cooling the surface dissipate 24/16..."Thermals cooling the surface dissipate 24/168 = 0.143 of this incident radiation."<br /><br />They do not - thermals remove heat from the surface.<br /><br />"Let us note that the surface emits a flux of 390 W/m^2 of IR radiation and according to this diagram the atmosphere has absorbed a highly efficient 324 W/m^2 of this or 83.1% of this."<br /><br />No, the back-radiation is emitted by both GHGs and clouds, The amount absorbed by clouds includes some incoming from the sun as well as outgoing, and the individual figures aren't shown on the diagram.<br /><br />"where it is so dry that there is no evapotranspiration" - WHAT? Lack of water vapour PROMOTES evapotranspiration.<br /><br />Your calculation of IR incident on the surface (not "ground", it includes ocean) is incorrect. The KT diagram simply divides the "sun overhead" figure by 4 to average over the surface of the globe. The figure is thus 4*168 = 672 W/m^2<br /><br />You can't use SB to calculate temperature from incoming radiation. SB relates to emitted, therefore outgoing only.MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-32501803339780082142012-07-11T10:37:20.987-05:002012-07-11T10:37:20.987-05:00Anonymous,
I agree and have stated the problem in...Anonymous,<br /><br />I agree and have stated the problem in similar terms in the past.Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09610765984333672076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-76870618638997193342012-07-10T17:14:56.065-05:002012-07-10T17:14:56.065-05:00The error is more profound. It is assumed that all...The error is more profound. It is assumed that all the radiation comes from the sun-heated surafce. But this is not true. The tempoeature of the surface is lower because part of the heat has been removed by convection and by evaporation of water, and is then radiated highere up. The temperature of the suraface cannot be calculated unless these form sof heat bremopval have been allowewd for.<br /><br />All this has nothing to do with "back radiation" , which undoubtedly occurs, because the Stefan.Boltrzmann Law requires it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8959556.post-76991495553328038602012-07-10T10:15:12.658-05:002012-07-10T10:15:12.658-05:00Thanks for this excellent post.
The APS explanati...Thanks for this excellent post.<br /><br />The APS explanation of the greenhouse effect<br /><br />http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm<br /><br />Eq 15 erroneously doubles the IR flux of the atmosphere<br /><br />Eq 17 shows lower atmosphere DOWN emissivity = 1, generating imaginary energy. To assume reduced atmospheric emissivity is no solution because you must also reduce the earth’s emissivity AND the CAGW scare would end. The authors of this report maintained professional integrity by quietly pointing out this mistake.<br /><br />To correct it you have to correct the IR physics. The excess energy [333.[1-0.76] = 80 W/m^2] is 50 times claimed AGW. The IPCC offsets it using other incorrect physics.<br /><br />http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/dr-paul-bain-replies-about-the-use-of-the-term-denier-in-a-scientific-paper/#comment-1081392MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com