Guest contribution by Willis Eschenbach
OK folks, for anyone who wanted to come up with your favorite theory about how immersing radiation from the atmosphere is a fantasy, or how a cool atmosphere can’t make the surface warmer than no atmosphere, or how pyrgeometers are deadly inaccurate … that is the thread for you.
However, before you begin, I will ask that you understand my real position on these issues. I therefore urge you to read the following four articles before commenting. That way you will become clear about my thoughts on the subject.
Can a cold object heat a hot object? 2017-11-24
Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics – BUT it can make the hot object warmer than if the cold object weren’t there. Let me explain why that is. Let me start with the ideas of each river and ne …
Radiate the ocean 2011-08-15
Once again the crazy idea that descending long-wave radiation (DLR, also known as infrared or IR or “greenhouse radiation”) cannot warm the ocean raised its ugly head by one of my strings. Figure 1. The question in question. There are many good arguments against the AGW consensus, but this …
The steel greenhouse 2009-11-17
There is a lot of misinformation on the internet about the effects of the greenhouse effect. It is variously described as a “blanket” that keeps the earth warm, or as a “mirror” that reflects some of the heat back to the earth, or as a “pane of glass” that somehow prevents energy from escaping. It’s none of those things.
People who live on glass planets 11/27/2010
Dr. Judith Curry states in a post on her excellent blog Climate Etc. that there are people who claim that the ill-named planetary “greenhouse effect” does not exist. And she’s right, some people think so. I tried to explain that the “greenhouse effect” is a …
OK, now that you have read these four posts and you are all clear on my position, let me offer some data to help focus the discussion. Figure 1 shows the monthly shortwave (solar, “SW”) and longwave (thermal infrared, “LW”) radiant energy flows at the SURFRAD station in Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. The USA maintains a so-called SURFRAD network (Surface Radiation Budget) with eight surface measuring stations. These have a variety of sensors that, as the name suggests, measure a variety of surface radiation currents. Each station has a downwelling pyranometer, an upwelling pyranometer, a downwelling pyrgeometer, an upwelling pyrgeometer, a UVB sensor, a photosynthetically active radiometer, a normal incidence pyrheliometer, and a shaded pyranometer. These are calibrated annually to ensure accurate measurements. They collect data almost continuously, 24/7/365. The stations have data from 1995 until today.
So I randomly picked a SURFRADING station, Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. And I randomly picked a year, 2014, and downloaded the monthly averages from here. After planning it out, I thought, “I wonder how well this fits in with the satellite-based CERES dataset.” So I added the appropriate CERES data to the chart. Here is the result.
Figure 1. SURFRAD and CERES data, Goodwin Creek, Mississippi. The CERES data refer to the grid cell with 1 ° latitude and 1 ° longitude in which the SURFRAD station is located. The background shows the Goodwin Creek SURFRAD station.
Lately people have been wondering if the CERES data is accurate enough for the type of analysis I’m doing, is it fit for the purpose. This should allay some of your concerns.
With all of that as a prologue, here is the important part of that discussion.
The red-orange lines show the amount of solar energy that is being absorbed by the surface. It is the web of the descending sun minus the sun reflecting up from the ground. As you can see, the annual average solar energy absorbed by the surface is around 150 watts per square meter (W / m2).
The yellow-gold lines, on the other hand, show the rising long-wave (thermal infrared) energy, energy that is radiated upwards from the surface. The annual average ascending long wave energy is around 395 W / m2.
Well, for all of you who think that immersion of radiation from the atmosphere is a mirage, here is the question.
If the surface continuously absorbs only 150 W / m2 of solar energy and emits 395 W / m2 of energy … why is it not frozen?
Seriously. If it constantly radiates much more energy than it absorbs, why isn’t it a block of ice?
To me, the obvious answer is that the surface also absorbs downward radiation from the atmosphere. In Figure 1 above, the blue cyan lines show the sum of the net sun lines (SW, red | orange lines) and the long-wave thermal infrared (LW) from the atmosphere.
The annual average of the net radiation falling on the surface (SW + LW), the total energy absorbed by the surface, is about 490 W / m2. This is roughly a hundred W / m2 more than the energy lost through radiation, with the remainder of the surface energy loss taking the form of network the sensible and latent heat that is gained and lost through convection and conduction through the atmosphere.
So there you have it. If you don’t believe that the declining LW radiation will make the earth warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, then you need to explain the mysterious source of the extra energy required to keep the earth from freezing. And no, it’s not geothermal. We know from borehole measurements that geothermal energy is generally on the order of a tenth of W / m2 … and about 395 W / m2 emitted minus 150 W / m2 absorbed, which corresponds to 245 W / m2 to prevent freezing.
What is the mysterious source?
Let me add that the best match between the SURFRAD and CERES data means that it is not an instrumental error or scientists who do not know what they are measuring.
So where does the energy come from?
My best to everyone, let the bunfight begin and please keep it polite … I may be wrong, but I’m not an idiot …
w.
As usual I politely but loudly ask: QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your interpretation of my words.
5
11
voices
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.