Remember me
▼ Content

Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?



Page 5 of 5<<<345
10-02-2016 13:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

You seem just as confused as before. The diagram sets out the flows of energy through the system as in accordance with the greenhouse effect. The 1st LoT says that energy must be conserved, so a net flow of energy into something must be increasing its temperature, and a net flow out must be reducing its temperature.

Look at the diagram again:



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.

Total energy absorbed by the surface (W/m2): 161 + 342 = 503
Total energy emitted by the surface (W/m2): 84 + 20 + 398 = 502

So the surface is emitting slightly less than it's absorbing, show in the diagram as the imbalance. This is why the surface is currently warming.

Whether you agree with the theory or not, it therefore most definitely does not break the first law of thermodynamics!

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.

No. The one going up will likely be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. Because the atmosphere is being heated from the bottom, it is warmer at the bottom and will emit a greater proportion of its IR from the bottom.

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.

Most of the big orange arrow labelled "thermal outgoing TOA" is thermal emission from the atmosphere due to greenhouse gases.
10-02-2016 15:53
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
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
Edited on 10-02-2016 15:54
10-02-2016 16:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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

It's from Chapter 2, page 181 of IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
10-02-2016 16:24
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Many thanks. I knew I'd seen it before so that's where. I'll need to dig it out for a re-read. Cheers
10-02-2016 16:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You're welcome! Sorry I didn't give the source previously.
Edited on 10-02-2016 16:29
10-02-2016 16:52
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)

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.
Edited on 10-02-2016 17:02
10-02-2016 19:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
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.

In short order, Surface Detail will respond with something to the effect of "No one said energy is being created. Earth's radiation is being 'slowed.' This causes the earth's temperature to increase while its radiance decreases...violating Planck's Law...but don't pay attention to that."

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.

Well, science is a collection of falsifiable models, all of which are corroborated by real-world observations.

The "models" to which you object are not falsifiable models that have survived the scientific method, but are computer programs that were programmed with false assumptions so that the programs produce results that are essentially the predetermined conclusions.

If I simply code up a program to add 0.3degC temperature increase every year then of course my "model" will show 30degC warming in a century. Gullible people will conclude that such a future is a scientific certainty because it was the output of a computer...whereas the alert will understand that the program was simply programmed specifically to produce those results.

This is simply an implementation of "concluding what is assumed."


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.

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

No one has ever accurately measured the earth's average surface temperature.

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

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.

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

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


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2016 21:01
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
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.

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.

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

Accepted to be true. Believed to be true. I am not sure I see the difference.

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.

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:



Where T is the effective blackbody temperature, a is the albedo (0.3), Io is the solar constant (1368 W/m2), and the symbol at the end is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (0.000000056704). Plugging those values into the equation I got an effective blackbody temperature of 254.9K.


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

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. I merely used that law to determine the difference in radiation between the effective temperature and the average temperature.

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

Depends what you mean by "accurately". No measurement is perfect. Satellites are continuously taking measurements from space. Are they that bad?
Edited on 10-02-2016 21:25
10-02-2016 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
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.

I stand corrected. That is entirely reasonable.

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

Also quite fair.

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:

This is also fair if you are assuming an albedo of 0.3 "for argument's sake" (and are treating the earth as an atmosphere-free body in space, as you mentioned)

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.

I recommend you look at Planck's Law. Stefan-Boltzmann and others are all captured in Planck's Law and all can be individually derived from Planck's Law.

Nonetheless, Stefan-Boltzmann works for your purposes.

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?

Yes. This topic has been addressed several times in this forum but the bottom line is that satellites have broad margins of error trying to gauge the temperature of a point on the surface from orbit, and the margins of error continue to grow as satellites aren't ever calibrated (being in orbit).

Satellites are fine for approximations where accuracy is not critical, but if you are going to claim a 0.4degC temperature increase over the last decade, for example, then you had better not follow that up with "we got the data from satellites."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 10-02-2016 22:45
10-02-2016 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
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.


Why is the effective temperature of the planet assumed to be 255K? How is the 288K average temperature calculated? If you are calculating the 255K from the albedo of the Earth, how do you calculate the albedo?

If you simply assuming these values, doesn't that throw the rest of the calculation in the bit bucket?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-02-2016 22:46
11-02-2016 13:30
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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



Edited on 11-02-2016 13:37
11-02-2016 14:08
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
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?

I agree. There has to be an element of faith since I have not personally taken these measurements and perhaps the equation is wrong. The equation actually treats Earth as a flat disk without night and day and assumes Earth is in constant sun-light.
11-02-2016 14:18
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
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.
11-02-2016 15:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.


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.



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."


"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"

"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"

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



Edited on 11-02-2016 15:39
11-02-2016 15:43
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
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.
Edited on 11-02-2016 15:58
11-02-2016 16:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.


Stop lying and just READ the papers. I even provided the links for you. Then go look up the CERES, ERBS, ERBE etc datasets if you really don't know what they are. While you're at it, look up HITRAN and MODTRAN because it seems you don't know what they are either.

Unbelievable




Edited on 11-02-2016 16:55
11-02-2016 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
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."

I don't know whether to call you Trenberth or Ceist, since you seem to speak for Trenberth.

So this instrumentation is taken as a given. I have no problem with it particularly.

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"

This is the model. It is using surface data to estimate TOA values. It is also using surface data that is woefully incomplete and inconsistently placed.

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"


This is also a model. It is an estimate of precipitation data that doesn't actually exist. Like global temperature, we have no way to measure global precipitation either.

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


More numbers does not make it right. It's just more numbers.

In brief, I view Trenberth's discussion as flawed reasoning. The fact that you did not see the flaw is the flaw in your reasoning.

One Punch Man is more correct here. This entire paper is based on a pair of flawed models.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-02-2016 21:39
12-02-2016 01:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
It's so cute when a couple of scientifically illiterate layperson science deniers who have never even read the papers they make false claims about, pat each other on the head and tell each other they are right and the scientists and the papers are wrong.




Edited on 12-02-2016 01:56
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74208-11-2019 19:42
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact