tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post9179786010921139765..comments2024-07-18T01:30:01.155-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: AGW is Science Fiction Hiding Behind False Computer "Models"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-74645654639040886352013-04-10T08:59:36.151-07:002013-04-10T08:59:36.151-07:00http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/what-determine...http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/what-determines-temperature/#comment-73623MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90310151098318326002010-11-12T02:00:05.323-08:002010-11-12T02:00:05.323-08:00K+T diagram is ridicolous in several respects (I a...K+T diagram is ridicolous in several respects (I am an engineer, but even high school students can understand the point):<br /><br />1) it is a huge violation of the conservation of energy, 168 W/m2 of solar irradiance to the surface cannot produce 324 W/m2 of "backradiation" from gases, 168 W/m2 Ir radiation cannot produce more than 168 W/m2 just passing through inert gases.<br /><br />2) It is impossible to add up two heat fluxes entering a surface from two opposite directions: fluxes have to be SUBTRACTED, and not added (even as EM waves, IR waves are Poynting vectors propagating from two opposite directions, and they cannot be added up to get the power through the surface.)<br /><br />3) Several people said that there is no violation in the K+T diagram, because the system is equilibrate, and every heat flux gives a total = 0. But this is a ridicolus interpretation.<br />In that diagram there would be equilium even putting into the system any figures you want, for instance:<br /><br />a) you could put 168 W/m2 solar irradiance, 78 + 24 (102) W/m2 evaporation + geothermal in exit, + 3000 (!!) W/m2 backradiation in entrance, which becomes 3066 (3000 + 66) W/m2 in exit, of which 40 + 30 + 165 (235) W/m2 are emitted by the atmosphere to space.<br /><br />At the end you will have always 168 W/m2 in entrance, and 235 W/m2 outgoing radiation, even with a ridicolous "backradiation".<br /><br />Or you can put a fantastic 40.000 W/m2 (!!!) backradiation, that would give 40.000 + 66 = 40.066 W/m2 in exit, and from 40.066 you show that 40+30+165 are outgoing radiation to space, and again you would have 168 W/m2 in entrance, and 235 outgoing radiation, with a crazy 40.000 W/m2 backradiation.<br /><br />The diagram is like a dog biting his own tail, you can insert (as Heinz Thieme rightly said) ANY number of backradiation you want, and at the end the total is always 0, and the system is in "equilibrium".<br /><br />That diagram is just junk-science...<br /><br />AlbertoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-84420442490219267722010-07-08T23:50:07.697-07:002010-07-08T23:50:07.697-07:00I'm well aware of BOTH versions of the K&T...I'm well aware of BOTH versions of the K&T diagram - that one is the older 1997 version. However, all I can see is "surface radiation" 390 and "back radiation" 324 w/m². My simple brain does the arithmetic and comes up with a net upward flow, FROM WARMER TO COOLER of 66 w/m².<br /><br />I see that none of the experts round here have noticed the real glaring error on that diagram, that all 324 w/m² is absorbed by the surface with NO ALBEDO EFFECT.MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68014772216072512442010-07-08T12:19:02.763-07:002010-07-08T12:19:02.763-07:00Mostly: see
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010...Mostly: see<br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-unphysical-agw-simulator-available.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-92067429745833759502010-07-08T02:24:07.267-07:002010-07-08T02:24:07.267-07:00"The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth heats ..."The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth heats the atmosphere<br />...heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects"<br /><br />Where in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram is shown a net flow of energy from atmosphere to earth?MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-43471712484759785652010-07-06T16:07:31.657-07:002010-07-06T16:07:31.657-07:00Email received from someone who wrote to Dr. Kevin...Email received from someone who wrote to Dr. Kevin Trenberth to ask why his IPCC earth energy budget does not show that "greenhouse" gases radiate isotropically. Dr. Trenberth's reply seems to indicate he still believes in the Arrhenius "GHGs are like a glass pane" paper completely falsified by RW Wood and even Arrhenius himself! Email exchange:<br /><br />It radiates in all directions of course, but the atmosphere is not a single layer, it is 3 dimensional. Here one can simplify to 2D in the vertical. So this calculation has to be done with the full vertical structure of the absorbers (the greenhouse gases and clouds), to get the right result. The emissions do relate to the temperatures, and so near<br />the Earth's surface the greenhouse gases are warm and not much colder than the surface itself. On the other hand, the tops of clouds and the ozone layer are much cooler and the emissions that escape to space come from above 15 km up.<br /><br />Hope this helps<br />Kevin Trenberth<br /><br />> Hello Dr. Trenberth,<br />><br />> I am trying to understand your Earth energy budget diagram and was<br />> wondering if you would be so kind to help me out on this-<br />><br />> Given that greenhouse gases re-radiate IR isotropically, why does the<br />> budget show 342 Wm-2 radiated from greenhouse gases to the surface and<br />> only 165 Wm-2 (or 195 including clouds) radiated from greenhouse gases to<br />> outer space?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com