|
Post by jurinko on Jun 15, 2010 19:06:48 GMT
NASA switched to this one some time ago. No backradiation. The ways the heat escapes from the Earth surface is quite different. In KH97, radiation from the surface makes 80% of the total outgoing, while in the new NASA budget, it is only 42%. Can you imagine, that these guys project airplanes? Had KH97 painted the outgoing and backradiation arrows thicker by one thousand W/m, the total balance still would had not change and they could claim 10x higher climate sensitivity. So there is no physical meaning in it, just art.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:25:44 GMT
NASA didn't "switch" to it. There is no "official NASA energy budget" diagram. That is just a later diagram that depicts the same thing in a different way with percentages. Here's a NASA page where they show both diagrams: rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.htmlafter saying The next two illustrations are plots of the so-called radiation budget that balances incoming with outgoing radiation, first in percents and then in power terms.Lets do what you say and paint the outgoing arrow thicker by 1000wm-2. So now it's 1390wm-2. Implying the Earth's average surface temperature is hotter than the boiling point of water. Just art you say? No physical meaning?
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 15, 2010 19:36:28 GMT
So, what the pretty picture tells us it that NASA believes that the earth currently is at thermal balance, with 100 percent of the incoming energy finding it way harmlessly back into space, and that C02 does not enter into the equation. Awsome! All you alarmists can stop panicking now, the AGW emergency has been averted. Please step away from your government funded gravy trains, and put down your paper bags. I do recomend that ya'll continue to take your meds. Be Well.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:42:06 GMT
Obvious troll is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2010 19:49:03 GMT
btw here's the latest energy budget diagram from Trenberth 2009. The quantity of some of the flows have been narrowed down better and you'll also notice an estimated imbalance is included:
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 15, 2010 23:24:19 GMT
btw here's the latest energy budget diagram from Trenberth 2009. The quantity of some of the flows have been narrowed down better and you'll also notice an estimated imbalance is included: NOAA and Trenberth etal need to get their act together. The Atmospheric window of Trenberth is almost twice the size of the one for NASA. If you apply NASA's share of radiation going through the atmospheric window to Trenberth's radiation you come up with 22.41 watts a whopping discrepancy of 17.59 watts!!!!! from Trenberth's 40 watts. Thats a disagreement that is 1958% bigger than the current planet imbalance Trenberth is estimating!!! Criminey! Thats the only radiation not getting caught inside of the greenhouse and we already know any thickening the optical depth of the greenhouse has to invade the atmospheric window.
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 16, 2010 3:32:15 GMT
Icefisher you need to work on your units. ' Thats a disagreement that is 1958% bigger than the current planet imbalance Trenberth is estimating!!!
Was that a parody of something/or something? If you actually calculated something, please state what you did.
Touko
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 16, 2010 6:45:56 GMT
The reason why surface radiation and back radiation is about the same is because there is a very low temperature difference between emitters. NET transfer by radiation is low. Low temperature differences act like insulation when calculate NET heat radiation. Same temperature betweens absorbing and emitting body reduce net heat transfer. A low optical depth will make low temperature differences and a low net heat transfer capacity by radiation. As in the figure. The figure tells us that from a earth view is the optical depth in IR average very low. Green house gases block IR radiation. That is why the atmosphere is not heated by radiation. Except in the IR window. But that window width is modulated with H20 vapor. With rather big variances. Clear dry sky radiation is much larger than average window radiation. And remember this is a balance. If nothing more is added will there be the same net outgoing radiation. The AGW idea is that if CO2 is raised will the radiation be from higher altitudes and by that generate a higher temperature due to lapse rate temperature rise below the average emitting altitude. Raised by increased CO2 levels. Let us go back to the pictures. The last one for example. How is the atmosphere heated? Net heating is by 78 +17 +80 + (356-333) w/m2= 198 w/m2 Of which 23w/m2 is NET radiation, or about 12% Cooling of the earth is by 239 W/m2 from the atmosphere including clouds of which 40 W/m2 is from the atmospheric window. 83% from the atmosphere. Stunning when CO2 fraction is below 8%. That tells us that most of outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is from clouds and vapor. That is heat is as the picture show not radiated down wards because of the lack of temperature differences. Space is cold and add the lapse rate cooling in altitude , and that explain why the net heat is going by radiation out from earth. Always from warmer to cooler.
What if we now add emitting capacity into the atmosphere. As more CO2. Would we change the net heating of the atmosphere? No since it is mainly not heated by IR radiation. In low altitudes are CO2 effect hided by H20. In higher altitudes where H20 is dried off is it another thing. If we add emitting capacity will we increase cooling capacity to the atmosphere. Why? Because the atmosphere is not heated by radiation. just cooled by it. That is the big fault in the AGW calculation. They use local radiative balances which is wrong. There is no local radiative balance in the troposphere part of the atmosphere. It is as the picture show a heat balance in which heating of the atmosphere is mainly not by radiation. The temperature in the troposphere is not achieved by a radiation balance it is achieved by convection. A larger emitting capacity by CO2 in the atmosphere above H20 will cool the earth. Net heat transfer by radiation is always from warmer to cooler and that is to space. CO2 cant stop outgoing radiation, unless there is no heat difference within its optical depth. But the heat difference in altitude is set by the lapse rate and at this height is the optical depth much larger even for CO2. Lapse rate is depending on humidity and convection by the way. The interesting part of this is that the AGW istas agree about this in the stratosphere calculation. There is temperature set by balance between CO2 cooling effects and solar heating by UV. Now is the stratosphere cooling. Wonder why? Changed UV radiation from sun or increased CO2 levels.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2010 15:02:40 GMT
Icefisher you need to work on your units. ' Thats a disagreement that is 1958% bigger than the current planet imbalance Trenberth is estimating!!!Was that a parody of something/or something? If you actually calculated something, please state what you did. Touko I is a simple calculation Touko. NOAA says that of the solar energy hitting the earth 30% is reflected and 70% is emitted by the earth in the form of IR. Of that 70% emitted 90.0625% (64/70) is emitted by the atmosphere and 9.375% (6/70) of it is emitted to space by the surface . You can see that as the percentages of the incoming solar emitted is in a proportion of 64% atmosphere to 6% surface. But Trenberth shows the proportion to be in his graph as 199:40 as the split between escaping surface radiation and radiation emitted by the atmosphere instead of NOAA's 64:6 proportion. If you use NOAAs proportion on Trenberth's figure of 239 watts total to convert from percentages to watts you get:. 64/70*239=217(rounded) and 6/70*239=22 (rounded) or a NOAA proportion of Trenberth watts of 217:22 instead of Trenberth's proportion of 199:40. Thats 22 watts to 40 watts going out the IR window (exactly 17.59375 watts) It seems logical that if AGW scientists really know what is going on with radiative transfer their standard for a level of accuracy should be considerably less than the level of Trenberth's estimated inbalance which is less than a watt. (.9watt/m2) but in fact the fundamental division of radiation varies by almost 20 times that number (calculated exactly at 19.58 times or 1,958%) or (17.59375/.9 the exact calculations of the charts) so lets just round it to 2000%. Those kinds of discrepancies demonstrate the gaps in atmospheric physics that modelers are working with. Thus the inaccuracy in the split on this is crucial as it is fundamental in how the IR is captured, converted to heat, and radiated suggesting that the AGW folks are operating on broad theory rather than the detail needed to achieve high levels of certainty. I don't think any of the above denies the greenhouse theory. But the data gaps between NOAA and Trenberth are ubiquitous. The gap even on what just what reaches the surface is almost 800% larger than the estimated inbalance. Attribution by fundamental physics requires that these numbers be pinned down but these two graphs show they are not even in the ball park and these graphs are the backbone for creating an atmospheric model. The huge variances in the actual radiation estimates show any similarity between atmospheric models is either due to information sharing on their development or training of the models to match preconceived notions. What these guys are really doing is wiggle matching to icecores, treerings, and what they think the planet should be doing as opposed to in any reasonable way calculating what it is actually doing. Attribution ultimately is being made on the notion that the planet should not be warming because an icecore or a tree told them so. Socold's primary argument has been that if the models weren't real they would come up with divergent results and he said that if it were possible to create a GCM that showed divergent results it would have been done and that the reason it can't be done is it would require the violation of a fundamental physical laws. Yet here are the graphs that show prima facie there are gaps in the physical calculations of sufficient size to quash any notion that the similarities in model outputs is due to settled science. Fact is there are other forces that can cause models to converge. This is either accomplished by a tight clique of information sharing within a subset of people doing some of these budget diagrams or via the incorporation of generalized beliefs (Gospel) on how the system should be operating (i.e. through model training). It should now be obvious to everybody that model convergence is primarily due to these latter forces. What we are dealing with in AGW is a half truth (the globe has been warming) embellished with a theory that man is the sole cause. We need to be the sole cause or else the implications are that despite AGW in a 100 years if we are only half the cause it may well be colder in 2100. And gee if we were 3/4's the cause that would require us to pin down these budget figures even tighter. At some point it was decided we need to be the sole cause from a practicality of explanation point of view. That has nothing to do with any science other than political science. Socold is just the last guy to get the memo. The NGOs ran a couple of years ago to a safe harbor. Climate Change with no attribution.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2010 22:37:05 GMT
I wouldn't trust the percentage diagram, not because I know that it's wrong, but because I am not sure what many of the %s are supposed to mean. There is also no information for how it was put together.
For example is the "7% conduction and rising air" depicting 7% of the heat flow from the surface, or 7% of the "51% energy absorbed by the surface"? Or 7% of the "64% radiation emitted into space"? That last one might seem a little odd, but I throw it in as a possibility because I notice 7 + 16 + 3 + 23 + 15 happens to equal 64...
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2010 23:51:22 GMT
I wouldn't trust the percentage diagram, not because I know that it's wrong, but because I am not sure what many of the %s are supposed to mean. There is also no information for how it was put together. For example is the "7% conduction and rising air" depicting 7% of the heat flow from the surface, or 7% of the "51% energy absorbed by the surface"? Or 7% of the "64% radiation emitted into space"? That last one might seem a little odd, but I throw it in as a possibility because I notice 7 + 16 + 3 + 23 + 15 happens to equal 64... Socold all the percentages on the chart are percents of the same base titled "incoming solar energy". All you have to do is add up bundles to arrive back at the 100%. But I am sure you will find someway to let a little grammar school math bring the NOAA chart into question for yourself. And for meaning I guess the words absorbed, reflected, radiated, conduction and rising, and carried are just too advanced for your vocabulary. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2010 23:58:31 GMT
So conduction and rising air is 7% of incoming solar energy? That seems reasonable. Looks like the diagram is wrong afterall, as you point out 6% of 340wm-2 is not 40wm-2.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 17, 2010 1:49:02 GMT
So conduction and rising air is 7% of incoming solar energy? That seems reasonable. Looks like the diagram is wrong afterall, as you point out 6% of 340wm-2 is not 40wm-2. The NOAA diagram calculates to 22 watts which is different than Trenbreth's 40 watts. NOAA has the ERBE satellite data and the details I saw of Trenberth's early chart was based on older technology and it changed zero from his old chart more than likely its still old technology suggesting the modelers have some work cut out for themselves training new models. Just guessing but I would suspect that the narrower the IR window the more saturated the greenhouse effect and the less sensitive it is to increasing increasing the effect but that wouldn't effect the output of the models from icecore and tree ring assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 17, 2010 10:17:04 GMT
Icefisher I'm still lost at your calculations. You mention two ratios:
199/40=4.975 212/22=9.636
However, if I compare them, I get 1.94, which means the one is 194% of the other, or put in another way, 94% greater.
Perhaps you could write down your complete equation for me, and label the elements?
Touko
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 17, 2010 13:33:45 GMT
Icefisher I'm still lost at your calculations. You mention two ratios: 199/40=4.975 212/22=9.636 However, if I compare them, I get 1.94, which means the one is 194% of the other, or put in another way, 94% greater. Perhaps you could write down your complete equation for me, and label the elements? Touko If you know they are ratios then you should know how to work with them. But as you can see in the Trenbreth graphic there is 236wm2 going out to space. 199 of it is coming from the atmosphere having been absorbed by the atmosphere from its original source and 40 of it is coming directly from the surface. Thats the first ratio. 199 + 40 = 239 The second ratio is from the NOAA chart. Since the NOAA chart is based on percentages you need a common absolute value to compare them. Fortunately incoming solar is well agreed upon so I used that at a value of 341. So the outgoing radiation to space on the NOAA chart is split in a ratio of 64%:6% of solar incoming. Calculating the absolute values of the outgoing is straight forward namely 341*64% and 341*6% which results in a 218:20 ratio. That actually adds to 239 also if you don't round. 218 + 20 =238 The numbers in this calculation are a little different than the 217:22 I did originally I think because of the switching of Trenberth charts midstream in this thread and may have contributed to your confusion. The message is Trenberth's atmospheric window is twice the size of NOAAs. So here we have a fundamental dispute on how the atmosphere works as the atmospheric window is the most important variable in the greenhouse effect calculation. To do accurate accounting you have to agree on how things add up. Thats fundamental. Here the dispute is over a .9watt/m2 number and the calculation can't agree on a number that has a raw difference of 20watts/m2. I can understand that people can differ on the certainty and level of precision that should be obtained before limiting somebody's freedoms but here we aren't even to the point of talking about a level of precision as we can't even settle on whether or not there is an unnatural imbalance and it doesn't appear we are even close to nailing it down. For all we know all the CO2 we emit is going the same route as Adam's first turd.
|
|