|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 2:16:09 GMT
I merely pointed this out is usually its not a good idea to simply dismiss what NASA puts up and decides to be internally what they want to rely on. NASA cite the Trenberth diagram. It is the best diagram of the Earth's energy budget.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 2:17:57 GMT
But don't you realize that SoCold can only cope with everything frozen in place at one value. SoCold believes that convection is a mathematical constant as shown in that diagram. The diagram shows the average over a long time period. For example the 2009 Trenberth diagram shows average values for something like the period 2004-2008:
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 2:22:39 GMT
Compare to the popular Trenberth illustration, which BTW has also morphed from the original 1997 one. Now ask the question: if the sun were shut off, which version would continue to warm the earth's surface by "back radiation". Hmmm? Both would. Just because the image you show doesn't show back-radiation doesn't mean it isn't there. They've depicted the net heat flow (surface emission - backradiation) rather than showing both surface emission and backradiation. But once the sun is shutoff the atmosphere would cool and backradiation would reduce, until no backradiation. This all happens in both diagrams. Apart from differences in several of the values due to uncertainty, they are both depicting the same components.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 2:44:24 GMT
But once the sun is shutoff the atmosphere would cool and backradiation would reduce, until no backradiation. This all happens in both diagrams. Apart from differences in several of the values due to uncertainty, they are both depicting the same components. Trenberth recognizes the uncertainty in his "ad hoc" calculations. That uncertainty is much greater than the imbalance, meaning the imbalance may not exist.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 20, 2010 3:12:28 GMT
Compare to the popular Trenberth illustration, which BTW has also morphed from the original 1997 one. Now ask the question: if the sun were shut off, which version would continue to warm the earth's surface by "back radiation". Hmmm? Both would. Just because the image you show doesn't show back-radiation doesn't mean it isn't there. They've depicted the net heat flow (surface emission - backradiation) rather than showing both surface emission and backradiation. But once the sun is shutoff the atmosphere would cool and backradiation would reduce, until no backradiation. This all happens in both diagrams. Apart from differences in several of the values due to uncertainty, they are both depicting the same components. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Yes the "uncertainty" of it all when attempting to discriminate .33% change in energy absorption. Can you account for the lack of warming? Is the data wrong? Is the observing system inadequate? So many problems to be solved aren't there... I think John Christy hit it right on the mark and finished what Trenberth is really trying to say, wouldn't you agree socold? Compare the honesty below with the likes of Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of the climate catastrophe propagandists. climateaudit.org/2010/06/16/interacademy-ipcc-review-in-montreal/#commentsA fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies. P.S. 2010 is not a warming event or is it
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 3:55:40 GMT
But once the sun is shutoff the atmosphere would cool and backradiation would reduce, until no backradiation. This all happens in both diagrams. Apart from differences in several of the values due to uncertainty, they are both depicting the same components. Trenberth recognizes the uncertainty in his "ad hoc" calculations. That uncertainty is much greater than the imbalance, meaning the imbalance may not exist. You are right that the uncertainty in the values precludes calculating an imbalance from them, but Trenberth did not calculate the imbalance using those figures. The origin of the imbalance figure is independent of the others (and many of those others are probably independent of one another too)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 3:58:50 GMT
Can you account for the lack of warming? Is the data wrong? Is the observing system inadequate? So many problems to be solved aren't there... Surface warming I think the "lack of warming" since circa 2003 is due to negative trend in ENSO and negative trend in TSI, which has masked the background warming. That is, without the background warming from co2 I would have expected global temperatures to have dropped rather than go flat since 2003. As for ocean heat content, there seems to be a good deal of uncertainty in the measurement systems in recent years so I will wait to see the longer term changes and/or if the issues get resolved.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 4:14:41 GMT
You are right that the uncertainty in the values precludes calculating an imbalance from them, but Trenberth did not calculate the imbalance using those figures. The origin of the imbalance figure is independent of the others (and many of those others are probably independent of one another too) You are sure about that huh, the imbalance being independent of the others? I mean this is a life and death deal for millions perhaps billions if you make the wrong choice so I assume you would bet your life on anything you are sure of.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 4:22:59 GMT
NASA cite the Trenberth diagram. It is the best diagram of the Earth's energy budget. Of course you are arguing that on the basis there is no underlying data and methodologies available for the NASA chart only. Obviously has to be the case since you said you had none of that stuff. So can I get you to broadly stipulate on that. . . .that if there is no underlying data and methodology descriptions sufficient to replicate the work that anything that does that has not been falsified is the better chart?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 20, 2010 11:07:40 GMT
But don't you realize that SoCold can only cope with everything frozen in place at one value. SoCold believes that convection is a mathematical constant as shown in that diagram. The diagram shows the average over a long time period. For example the 2009 Trenberth diagram shows average values for something like the period 2004-2008: SoCold the cloud figure is a GUESS it may be an average of guesses but it is still a guess. There is almost zero capability to measure cloud cover let alone the effect that all the various cloud types have on incoming and outgoing radiation and the transport of heat to the tropopause. There is a LOT of work going on to try to identify and model what the clouds are actually doing - would that be happening if all was known and tied down to the closest percentage point? The fact that you are certain in your own mind does not mean that 'the science is settled' - as Magellan points out Trenberth cannot explain what is happening - and it is his diagram you are repeatedly quoting!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 11:56:03 GMT
You are right that the uncertainty in the values precludes calculating an imbalance from them, but Trenberth did not calculate the imbalance using those figures. The origin of the imbalance figure is independent of the others (and many of those others are probably independent of one another too) You are sure about that huh, the imbalance being independent of the others? I mean this is a life and death deal for millions perhaps billions if you make the wrong choice so I assume you would bet your life on anything you are sure of. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but that is what the paper says about the figure.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 12:09:32 GMT
NASA cite the Trenberth diagram. It is the best diagram of the Earth's energy budget. Of course you are arguing that on the basis there is no underlying data and methodologies available for the NASA chart only. Obviously has to be the case since you said you had none of that stuff. I am not sure it is a NASA diagram. NASA use the Trenberth diagram on their websites too - NASA evidentally use diagrams that were not produced by them. I am just going on what I know - as far as I know Trenberth's diagram is the only published diagram on earth's energy budget. So best meant only, I don't mean i have a top 10. It's not so much being able to replicate it as understanding how it was calculated, ie just a description. That description might not permit replication but it would explain how the thing being measured, eg "atmospheric window" was being defined for example. Trenberth notes that the 40wm-2 atmospheric window in his diagram is an ad hoc estimation based on the mid range of the clear sky and cloudy sky case - ad hoc because he just weights it based on the proportion of cloudy vs clear sky covering the Earth. The 2009 paper just uses the value from the 97 paper (no update). The other diagram we don't know what it means by atmospheric window.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 12:12:46 GMT
The diagram shows the average over a long time period. For example the 2009 Trenberth diagram shows average values for something like the period 2004-2008: SoCold the cloud figure is a GUESS it may be an average of guesses but it is still a guess. There is almost zero capability to measure cloud cover let alone the effect that all the various cloud types have on incoming and outgoing radiation and the transport of heat to the tropopause. There is a LOT of work going on to try to identify and model what the clouds are actually doing - would that be happening if all was known and tied down to the closest percentage point? The fact that you are certain in your own mind does not mean that 'the science is settled' - as Magellan points out Trenberth cannot explain what is happening - and it is his diagram you are repeatedly quoting! It's an educated guess. Some of the values have no direct observation and have to be derived indirectly. Even the ones measured directly are subject to uncertainty. But the diagram in my mind does reflect the best idea we have on the subject and is broadly correct. It therefore can be used to get a ballpark on the amount of backradiation in relation to the amount of incoming sunlight for example, and the role of convection, etc. It's ballpark figures but it's not going to be completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 20, 2010 14:16:07 GMT
"Thus, the downwelling LW flux exists as one of the principle uncertainties in the global surface energy budget." "It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates." Who? " Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeff rey Kiehl" From www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf"EARTH’S GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET"
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 14:48:31 GMT
"Thus, the downwelling LW flux exists as one of the principle uncertainties in the global surface energy budget." "It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates." Who? " Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Jeff rey Kiehl" From www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf"EARTH’S GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET" This paper is long on estimates and short on actual facts. After reading the paper, I can see that it was a waste of time as nothing was learned except that adjustments, estimates etc were used to try and provide an outcome that matched what Trenbeth etal were trying to project.
|
|