Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?

One Punch Man wrote:
I'm afraid the confusion is your own and I can agree only that you have not understood anything of what I have said. The standard warmist explanation is that CO2 warms the Earth's surface by absorbing some of the resulting heat-radiation emanating up from the surface and re-radiating it back down again to warm the surface further. Without greenhouse gases the surface would be radiating at 161 W/m2 according to Tremberth (in fact less than 161 W/m2 because Trenberth assumes that evapotranspiration cools by 80 W/m2). The greenhouse gases are absorbing 161 W/m2 and are re-emitting 342 W/m2 back to the surface. However the 1st law of thermodynamics appears to have been violated because a body cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. Sorry, but this is absolute.

I don't think that would make any difference. For every two photons of energy that the surface emits and which get absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, one will end up going off into space and the other will end up going back down to the surface because Up and Down are basically the only two directions that photons can move in that will take them out of the atmosphere.

The radiation that greenhouse gases are emitting are 100% back down to the surface and no radiation by greenhouse gases (according to the diagram) is being emitted out space. This is not merely preferential. It is exclusively one-way.

Gogsy wrote:
Surface Detail, a nice simple chart. Is this from some study or paper? I'd like to understand the assumptions used in determining the values for each of the elements.
My apologies if you've already stated this somewhere but I'm new here and just trying to understand things.

Thanks

Total energy absorbed by the atmosphere (W/m2): 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 = 581
Total energy emitted by the atmosphere (W/m2): 342 + 239 = 581

So no energy lost or gained.

One Punch Man wrote: Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from?

One Punch Man wrote: I consider Trenberth's 2009 Global Energy Budget to be bunk myself, not least of all because it is based on models, not real-world observations.

One Punch Man wrote: The difference between the effective surface temperature of Earth (which is the temperature of the planet if it were heated by solar radiation alone) and its observed temperature is commonly-accepted to be 33K.

One Punch Man wrote: The effective temperature of the planet is assumed to be 255K and its observed average temperature is 288K.

One Punch Man wrote: According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law this represents a radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse of:

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man wrote: Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from?

That is the fundamental violation of physics upon which many versions of "greenhouse effect" are based.

Sorry. Not commonly "accepted" but commonly "believed."

You mean to say that you assume these values. You do not get to speak for anyone else, much less an unspecified quantity of unspecified others.

Stefan-Boltzmann makes no mention of "radiative forcing" or "greenhouse" anything. In fact, there are no such concepts in the body of science.

no one has ever accurately measured the Earth's average surface temperature

One Punch Man wrote: I understand that. But as I have already mentioned, I have accepted provisonally for argument's sake that the greenhouse theory is correct and right now I am arguing with Surface Detail about the amount of radiation that I think should be attributed to the greenhouse.

One Punch Man wrote: Accepted to be true. Believed to be true. I am not sure I see the difference.

One Punch Man wrote: From my own experience and from what I have seen researching this topic, the effective temperature of Earth is generally given as 255K, which is apparently determined by the following equation:

One Punch Man wrote: I know that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not mention the greenhouse. But there is a fixed relationship between radiation and temperature that is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

One Punch Man wrote: Depends what you mean by "accurately". No measurement is perfect. Satellites are continuously taking measurements from space. Are they that bad?

One Punch Man wrote:

Total energy absorbed by the atmosphere (W/m2): 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 = 581
Total energy emitted by the atmosphere (W/m2): 342 + 239 = 581

So no energy lost or gained.

No energy lost or gained? Well, I can only disagree. The incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and surface in the diagram is 240 W/m2 and the amount of radiation that the atmospheric greenhouse is producing is 342 W/m2. Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from? I consider Trenberth's 2009 Global Energy Budget to be bunk myself, not least of all because it is based on models, not real-world observations. The difference between the effective surface temperature of Earth (which is the temperature of the planet if it were heated by solar radiation alone) and its observed temperature is commonly-accepted to be 33K.

The effective temperature of the planet is assumed to be 255K and its observed average temperature is 288K. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law this represents a radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse of:

255^4*0.000000056704 = 240 W/m2

288^4*0.000000056704 = 390 W/m2

Recycled energy = 150 W/m2

As you can see, the assumed recycled energy by the atmospheric greenhouse does not exceed the incoming absorbed solar radiation of 240 W/m2. 150 W/m2 is the well-accepted figure for the recycled energy by greenhouse gases. But if you prefer to believe Trenberth's model-based cartoon I won't stop you.

One Punch Man wrote:

Total energy absorbed by the atmosphere (W/m2): 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 = 581
Total energy emitted by the atmosphere (W/m2): 342 + 239 = 581

So no energy lost or gained.

No energy lost or gained? Well, I can only disagree. The incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and surface in the diagram is 240 W/m2 and the amount of radiation that the atmospheric greenhouse is producing is 342 W/m2. Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from? I consider Trenberth's 2009 Global Energy Budget to be bunk myself, not least of all because it is based on models, not real-world observations.

...

But if you prefer to believe Trenberth's model-based cartoon I won't stop you.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
If you simply assuming these values, doesn't that throw the rest of the calculation in the bit bucket?

Ceist wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

Total energy absorbed by the atmosphere (W/m2): 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 = 581
Total energy emitted by the atmosphere (W/m2): 342 + 239 = 581

So no energy lost or gained.

No energy lost or gained? Well, I can only disagree. The incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and surface in the diagram is 240 W/m2 and the amount of radiation that the atmospheric greenhouse is producing is 342 W/m2. Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from? I consider Trenberth's 2009 Global Energy Budget to be bunk myself, not least of all because it is based on models, not real-world observations.

...

But if you prefer to believe Trenberth's model-based cartoon I won't stop you.

Where did you get the idea that Trenberth's 2009 energy budget diagram was "based on models, not real-world observations."?

You can't have read the paper:

Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl. "Earth's global energy budget." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90.3 (2009): 311-323.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

Read the section starting on page 312 "Datasets". There are tables showing the different datasets based on real world observations used for the figures in the diagram. (eg CERES and ERBE)

The paper also references the datasets from two papers from the previous year by Fasullo and Trenberth

Fasullo, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth, 2008a: The annual
cycle of the energy budget. Part I: Global mean and
land–ocean exchanges. J. Climate, 21, 2297–2313.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1935.1

Fasullo, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth, 2008b: The annual cycle of the energy
budget. Part II: Meridional structures and poleward
transports. J. Climate, 21, 2314–2326
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1936.1

Perhaps try reading a paper first before making false claims about it and calling it 'bunk' or a 'model-based cartoon'?

If you want more updated figures (also based on observational datasets) you could try reading Trenberth et al's more recent 2014 paper:

Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Balmaseda, M. A. (2014). Earth's energy imbalance. Journal of Climate, 27(9), 3129-3144.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1

One Punch Man wrote:

Ceist wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

Total energy absorbed by the atmosphere (W/m2): 79 + 84 + 20 + 398 = 581
Total energy emitted by the atmosphere (W/m2): 342 + 239 = 581

So no energy lost or gained.

No energy lost or gained? Well, I can only disagree. The incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and surface in the diagram is 240 W/m2 and the amount of radiation that the atmospheric greenhouse is producing is 342 W/m2. Greenhouse gases cannot create additional energy, so where is that extra 100 W/m2 coming from? I consider Trenberth's 2009 Global Energy Budget to be bunk myself, not least of all because it is based on models, not real-world observations.

...

But if you prefer to believe Trenberth's model-based cartoon I won't stop you.

Where did you get the idea that Trenberth's 2009 energy budget diagram was "based on models, not real-world observations."?

You can't have read the paper:

Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl. "Earth's global energy budget." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90.3 (2009): 311-323.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

Read the section starting on page 312 "Datasets". There are tables showing the different datasets based on real world observations used for the figures in the diagram. (eg CERES and ERBE)

The paper also references the datasets from two papers from the previous year by Fasullo and Trenberth

Fasullo, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth, 2008a: The annual
cycle of the energy budget. Part I: Global mean and
land–ocean exchanges. J. Climate, 21, 2297–2313.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1935.1

Fasullo, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth, 2008b: The annual cycle of the energy
budget. Part II: Meridional structures and poleward
transports. J. Climate, 21, 2314–2326
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1936.1

Perhaps try reading a paper first before making false claims about it and calling it 'bunk' or a 'model-based cartoon'?

If you want more updated figures (also based on observational datasets) you could try reading Trenberth et al's more recent 2014 paper:

Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Balmaseda, M. A. (2014). Earth's energy imbalance. Journal of Climate, 27(9), 3129-3144.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1

Sigh. The radiative forcing by the atmospheric greenhouse in his paper is not based on real-world measurements but radiative-transfer calculations from HITRAN and MODTRAN.

Ceist wrote:

Well that's just a blatant lie.
You obviously still haven't read the 2009 paper and the two earlier 2008 papers. How can you seriously claim that when I even provided direct links to the papers? Freakin' amazing.

Satellite measurements provide the
"best estimate" of TOA terms.

One Punch Man wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Well that's just a blatant lie.
You obviously still haven't read the 2009 paper and the two earlier 2008 papers. How can you seriously claim that when I even provided direct links to the papers? Freakin' amazing.

You actually think they are measured? How very cute. Trenberth must have used the MODTRAN and HITRAN computer model-codes because the alleged first ever measurements of CO2 back-radiation were Feldman 2015 (Harries 2001 doesn't count) and Trenberth's Energy Budget dates back to 1997. Trenberth even cites the model in his paper as a reference, "The HITRAN molecular database".

Satellite measurements provide the
"best estimate" of TOA terms.

That is not a satellite measurement top-of-atmosphere (TOA) in-coming/out-going radiation imbalance on CO2 (or CH4/H2O) absorption wavelengths.

Ceist wrote:

eg: page 312

"Datasets . Satellite measurements provide the
"best estimate" of TOA terms. Satellite retrievals
from the ERBE and the CERES (Wielicki et al. 1996)
datasets are used (see Fasullo and Trenberth 2008a
for details). ERBE estimates are based on observations
from three satellites [ERBS, NOAA-9 (the scanner
failed in January 1987), and NOAA-10] for February
1985–April 1989. The CERES instruments used here
(FM1 and FM2) are flown aboard the Terra satellite,
which has a morning equatorial crossing time and
was launched in December 1999 with data extending
to May 2004 (cutoff for this study). We compile
monthly means for the available data period and use
those to compute an annual mean."

Ceist wrote:

"The most comprehensive estimates of global atmospheric
temperature and moisture fields are available
from reanalyses of the NRA (Kalnay et al. 1996) and
the second-generation ERA-40 (Uppala et al. 2005)
and recent JRA (Onogi et al. 2007). These reanalyses
provide estimates of radiative fluxes at the TOA and
surface as well as surface fluxes"

Ceist wrote:
"A new estimate of the global hydrological cycle is
given in Trenberth et al. (2007a). In particular, various
estimates of precipitation are compared and evaluated
for the land, ocean, and global domains for the annual
and monthly means with error bars assigned. The
main global datasets available for precipitation that
merge in situ with satellite-based estimates of several
kinds, and therefore include ocean coverage, are the
GPCP (Adler et al. 2003) and CMAP"

Ceist wrote:
...and several pages of discussion of the observational datasets sets, including tables listing the sources and figures.