Trenberth's Energy Budget

[IanC]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

 

[code1211]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

Yeah! What HE said!.

 

[Mr. H.]

Looks like a coronary bypass.

 

[Mr. H.]

Reflective clothing can include high visibility vests, jackets or simple armbands. These can be equipped with reflective strips and even flashing LED lights for super visibility.It is safe and save energy

That would be a handsome accompaniment to your foil hat.

 

[IanC]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

does everybody understand the conceptual difference between the 168 W/m2 coming from the sun that is available to directly heat an object, and the 324 W/m2 backradiation that can only counteract part of the 390 W/m2 upward radiation from the surface? on a cloudy day you feel immediate warmth when the sun peeks through.

 

[IanC]

I forgot to note that the Sun's 168 W/m2 is mostly higher energy photons than the radiation from and back to the earth, which would also affect why it seems warm when the sun comes out

 

[wirebender]

I forgot to note that the Sun's 168 W/m2 is mostly higher energy photons than the radiation from and back to the earth, which would also affect why it seems warm when the sun comes out

There is no energy coming back to the earth.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Clausius statementGerman scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.


Which part of "not possible" and "will not" is it that you guys don't understand. "Net" energy flow is a fiction, a fabrication, a concoction, a fable, and a falsehood invented by people to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics is an inconvenience.

Of course, if you can show some observable, repeatable experimental evidence that proves otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it as it would be the basis for a damned profitable perpetual motion machine.

BTW, absorption and emission by CO2 molecules does not constitute work.

 

[flacaltenn]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

I've stared at this before -- and no it's not illogical to have 390 going out with 324 bouncing back. That's the heat loss rate of the earth that HAS to happen at night when the left side of the diagram is not operating. Futhermore, we know that the heat loss at night would be mitigated by cloud and atmospheric conditions. So as far as your calculations for CO2 contribution -- you could be right.

Part of the confusion is that the Trenberth numbers are for heat FLOW RATES, not energy. The earth and atmosphere is a heat battery that gets charged by the left side rates and discharged by the right side rates. So "average rates" aren't very meaningful unless you consider the CAPACITY of the various components to store energy. Add water vapor and greenhouse gases and that CAPACITY increases in the atmosphere. So even if the rates didn't change (they would) -- the ability to coast thru a colder night is increased by the storage capacity. Can't really analyze the dynamics of temperature change without the time and capacity factors.

2nd -- the right side of the chart is happening all day long. It's just easier to see it's sum contribution by considering it at nighttime. Whereas the left side is operating at VARYING efficiency all day long. So the rate of heat charge to replace loss at night has to EXCEED the sum discharge rate on the right side. That's why when you find the net discharge to be 66w/m2, -- it's no surprise that the net CHARGE rate is closer to 168w/m2. That's MORE then double the net discharge -- which makes perfect sense because of "daytime variability" of power coming in.

So yeah --- after staring at it a couple times, it passes the first level reasoning that at least I can apply to it...

 

[flacaltenn]

One thing that could be looked at more BTW --- is that we are concentrating on the energy balance at the earths surface.. That is just ONE of the TWO major heat storage systems in the diagram. Even if we could affirm "balance" at the surface of the earth, there is still "balance" in the temperature of the atmosphere which has DIFFERENT flow rates associated. Could be that more energy is being stored in the atmosphere than actually at the surface. Thus modifying the "back radiation" value. In fact, it's a little flaky that I see about 200w/m2 going OUT of the atmosphere, but LESS than that coming in.. That can't proceed that way for very long -- can it... !!!

But I thought that they've scratched their heads about not finding the predicted warming at higher altitude that the GHG folks expected..

 

[wirebender]

I've stared at this before -- and no it's not illogical to have 390 going out with 324 bouncing back. That's the heat loss rate of the earth that HAS to happen at night when the left side of the diagram is not operating. Futhermore, we know that the heat loss at night would be mitigated by cloud and atmospheric conditions. So as far as your calculations for CO2 contribution -- you could be right.

That budget isn't based on a model that has a left and a right side. That model is based on a flat earth that is receiving sunlight 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of actual. There is no dark side of the earth associated with that model and as a result, a greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the observed temperature.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, no greenhouse effect is necessary to account for the observed temperature of the earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've stared at this before -- and no it's not illogical to have 390 going out with 324 bouncing back. That's the heat loss rate of the earth that HAS to happen at night when the left side of the diagram is not operating. Futhermore, we know that the heat loss at night would be mitigated by cloud and atmospheric conditions. So as far as your calculations for CO2 contribution -- you could be right.

That budget isn't based on a model that has a left and a right side. That model is based on a flat earth that is receiving sunlight 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of actual. There is no dark side of the earth associated with that model and as a result, a greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the observed temperature.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, no greenhouse effect is necessary to account for the observed temperature of the earth.

With that kind of Sesame Street assumption, it's a wonder that any flow rate numbers would come close to balancing long term. Where does one find all these "assumptions"???

 

[IanC]

One thing that could be looked at more BTW --- is that we are concentrating on the energy balance at the earths surface.. That is just ONE of the TWO major heat storage systems in the diagram. Even if we could affirm "balance" at the surface of the earth, there is still "balance" in the temperature of the atmosphere which has DIFFERENT flow rates associated. Could be that more energy is being stored in the atmosphere than actually at the surface. Thus modifying the "back radiation" value. In fact, it's a little flaky that I see about 200w/m2 going OUT of the atmosphere, but LESS than that coming in.. That can't proceed that way for very long -- can it... !!!

But I thought that they've scratched their heads about not finding the predicted warming at higher altitude that the GHG folks expected..

it looks like all the numbers add up. but there is a discrepancy between the satellite surface temps and ground based surface temps. the whole Urban Heat Island effect is a bit of a conumbrum, as are other land use issues. but at least factors other than CO2 are getting looked at more in depth now.

 

[IanC]

I forgot to note that the Sun's 168 W/m2 is mostly higher energy photons than the radiation from and back to the earth, which would also affect why it seems warm when the sun comes out

There is no energy coming back to the earth.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Clausius statementGerman scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.


Which part of "not possible" and "will not" is it that you guys don't understand. "Net" energy flow is a fiction, a fabrication, a concoction, a fable, and a falsehood invented by people to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics is an inconvenience.

Of course, if you can show some observable, repeatable experimental evidence that proves otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it as it would be the basis for a damned profitable perpetual motion machine.

BTW, absorption and emission by CO2 molecules does not constitute work.

Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[wirebender]

I've stared at this before -- and no it's not illogical to have 390 going out with 324 bouncing back. That's the heat loss rate of the earth that HAS to happen at night when the left side of the diagram is not operating. Futhermore, we know that the heat loss at night would be mitigated by cloud and atmospheric conditions. So as far as your calculations for CO2 contribution -- you could be right.

That budget isn't based on a model that has a left and a right side. That model is based on a flat earth that is receiving sunlight 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of actual. There is no dark side of the earth associated with that model and as a result, a greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the observed temperature.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, no greenhouse effect is necessary to account for the observed temperature of the earth.

With that kind of Sesame Street assumption, it's a wonder that any flow rate numbers would come close to balancing long term. Where does one find all these "assumptions"???

They aren't assumptions. Trenberth et al treat the earth as a blackbody and divide incoming energy from the sun in the form of /4 which is fine if you have an actual black body that is radiating the same amount of energy from any point. You can lay such a body out as a flat surface and accurately represent radiating energy. The earth, however is not a self illuminating black body that can be accurately represented as flat. The earth is an illuminated sphere that is radiated on one side and dark on the other. Incoming energy must be divided in the form of /2, not /4.

 

[wirebender]

Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Are you really presenting a failed thought experiment as evidence of two way energy flows between warm and cool objects? Really Ian?

 

[IanC]

thought experiments using basic principles are the best way to understand anything without getting bogged down in extraneous complexities.

why do you consider it a failed experiment?

 

[IanC]

That budget isn't based on a model that has a left and a right side. That model is based on a flat earth that is receiving sunlight 24 hours a day at a rate of 1/4 of actual. There is no dark side of the earth associated with that model and as a result, a greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the observed temperature.

If you model the earth as a sphere that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, no greenhouse effect is necessary to account for the observed temperature of the earth.

With that kind of Sesame Street assumption, it's a wonder that any flow rate numbers would come close to balancing long term. Where does one find all these "assumptions"???

They aren't assumptions. Trenberth et al treat the earth as a blackbody and divide incoming energy from the sun in the form of /4 which is fine if you have an actual black body that is radiating the same amount of energy from any point. You can lay such a body out as a flat surface and accurately represent radiating energy. The earth, however is not a self illuminating black body that can be accurately represented as flat. The earth is an illuminated sphere that is radiated on one side and dark on the other. Incoming energy must be divided in the form of /2, not /4.

while I appreciate the need to be as accurate as possible in calculating how much energy is coming in, what real difference does it make? the energy in must match the energy out. surely no one actually thinks the estimates for the various pathways in and out are fixed in stone, they are just a model to get a better understanding of what may be going on.

 

[Iridescence]

how many of you think it is a deception to have 390 (W/m2) going up and 324 coming down? while it is true in an absolute way it disguises the fact that only 66 w/m2 is available as the difference between the temps of the surface and the lower atmosphere. out of that 66, 40 leaves directly with only 26 W/m2 warming the lower atmosphere.

so 26 W/m2 is the greenhouse effect and I have never seen any estimates higher than 26% for CO2's share of the GHE so that means ~8 W/m2 or less for the total amount of CO2. the absorption of CO2 is logrithmic so that means we are into the ninth doubling (256-512) so every doubling is ~(8W/m2)/8 doublings= 1 W/m2 or less.

I find it hard to believe that something that is responsible for ~1 W/m2 is the grand control knob of the climate. it is an amount that is lost in the error bars of measurement. but that is just my opinion but now you know why I think that way.

This is very interesting... and reminds me a bit of a book that I may pick up, eventually... Scott Mackay, Award Winning Mystery Writer Official Website Phytosphere. Otherwise... Looks too incomplete, what else is missing?

 

[wirebender]

thought experiments using basic principles are the best way to understand anything without getting bogged down in extraneous complexities.

why do you consider it a failed experiment?

It was a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A poster named Gord, among others, disproved spencer's claims and one couldn't help but notice that spencer didn't attempt a rebuttal. In the end, he was unable to adequately defend his experiment. Also, the experiment takes place in a perfect vaccum (as opposed to the open atmosphere) and that, in and of itself takes it out of the realm of reality and makes it a pointless exercise.

 

[wirebender]

while I appreciate the need to be as accurate as possible in calculating how much energy is coming in, what real difference does it make? the energy in must match the energy out. surely no one actually thinks the estimates for the various pathways in and out are fixed in stone, they are just a model to get a better understanding of what may be going on.

That budget is not based on anything even remotely resembling reality. How then, do you suppose it represents anything even resembling reality? As has been pointed out, if the earth is modeled as a rotating sphere being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface, and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, a fictitious greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the observed temperatures on the earth. That is a pretty "real" difference if you ask me.

And what sort of understanding do you suppose is to be gleaned from a model that doesn't even approach reality?