Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.
The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.
Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.
The angles and areas are already implicitly included by adjusting the incoming radiation from the sun to be a day/nite east/west average.The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.
I agree. Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.
.
I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.
Really, Wuwei? Energy coming in versus energy going out (to space) gives us all we need to know, including energy "stored". In the longer term, it doesn't really matter where the energy accumulates at one time or another; if the system is out of balance, disaster will ensue. I cannot find the "ecological comfort", whichever way I look at it.
I didn't misinterpret anything....sorry that you can't read such a simple equation...sorry that you don't have a clue...You are right I had no clue that someone would be so stupid to misinterpret the equation like that. But my post #273 shows what the number means. Try Googling: how cold would earth be without greenhouse effectSave your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...
As to your post 273...again, I suppose you clearly missed the fact that if you go to any of the "respected universities" they all label those graphs as simple models of the greenhouse effect...they aren't making bullshit claims like you..they are apparently proud of their belief in magic...
I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?
As you were reading what is "right there in the text" you missed the boat.Some, seemingly, can't read. The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.
I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"I think energy in/out is what really matters. If temperature is changing slower than energy I/O might indicate, it may give a hint of latent problems. What I was saying is that energy measurement uses different instruments. The problem is do we have historical data that can give those energy changes?
Do we really need "historical data"? Interesting. We have a radiative profile of the earth only since we have satellites measuring radiation, of course, and an undiluted input of the sun's radiation, too. Whatever the historical data were, that alone should (satellite measurement continuing) give us a pretty clear idea what kind of excess energy the earth is absorbing. The only thing left to do is to examine the consequences, namely, which parts of the earth are heating up, and by how much. Since more than 90% of the excess energy is stored in the oceans anyway, I don't know what the problem is, frankly.
I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"
That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope.I suppose there may be enough history going back a few decades. I would be surprised if total energy imbalance is not already available. Maybe not easily available to the public. People would not be interested in reading headlines such as "The earth has received a record number of petaJoules this year"
The imbalance is actually available.
Earth's energy imbalance
If the incoming energy flux is not equal to the outgoing energy flux, the result is an energy imbalance, that amounts to net heat added to or lost by the planet (if the incoming flux is larger or smaller than the outgoing respectively). Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats have detected an accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 to be 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m².[12] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².[13]
It seems, there's just over three decades of satellite measurements available.
Measurement
Several satellites indirectly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth and by inference the energy imbalance. The NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) project involves three such satellites: the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), launched October 1984; NOAA-9, launched December 1984; and NOAA-10, launched September 1986.[14]
Today NASA's satellite instruments, provided by CERES, part of the NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), are designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation.[15]
I didn't misinterpret anything....sorry that you can't read such a simple equation...sorry that you don't have a clue...You are right I had no clue that someone would be so stupid to misinterpret the equation like that. But my post #273 shows what the number means. Try Googling: how cold would earth be without greenhouse effectSave your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...
As to your post 273...again, I suppose you clearly missed the fact that if you go to any of the "respected universities" they all label those graphs as simple models of the greenhouse effect...they aren't making bullshit claims like you..they are apparently proud of their belief in magic...
As I said before, the graphs are a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation as an approximation of the GHE. What I was referring to as a stupid misinterpretation is you coming up with a computation of the temperature of -18C that would be the temperature of the earth if there were no GHG. You thought it of paramount importance when it actually has nothing to do with the GHE.
.
As you were reading what is "right there in the text" you missed the boat.Some, seemingly, can't read. The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.
Right at the start the author of this page got the 1370 W/m^2 solar radiation down to 239.7 because he spread it out over the entire surface of the sphere:
Solar radiation incident on the Earth's disk (1370 Watts per square meter) --comparable to energy incident a flat, horizontal surface when the sun is directly overhead on a clear day.
We need to multiply the incoming solar energy by the factor 1/4--the
ratio of the area of the earth's disk (pi R2) to the Earth's surface area (4 pi R2)-- You can think of this as spreading out the incident solar radiation uniformly over the earth's surface (the night side of the earth as well as the day side) 1370 / 4 = 342.5 watts per square meter.
And after that he reduced it even more to the final number, 239.7 W/m^2 with a .7 albedo .
Next thing this idiot does is using the StB equation to backtrack this to an "effective" temperature of -18 C. Then realizing his "effective" temperature idiocy he noticed that he was quite a few Watts short of playing with a full deck of cards. No matter he makes up that monumental shortfall using the earth atmosphere like some sort of slush fund:
This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold!
At this point he failed his own reality check:
In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F).
And then makes the brilliant deduction the 33 deg K he could not account for must be on deposit under "greenhouse gas effect"
This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.
If that`s an indication how dumbed down it got at universities that are supposed to teach science then I no longer wonder why they turn out nothing but zombies.
That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope.
Energy imbalance can show a trend with only one years of data given by a single value. A graph would show a flat line above zero if the GHG's rise linearly per year. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to find a satellite energy imbalance graph over the 3 decades and see the correlation with the temperature history. I'm sure that is available somewhere too.
I don't keep track of the latest news in satellite data or all the data corrections and accusations of "fraudulent manipulations" etc. .. I assumed that data from thousands of orbits per year was enough to give statistically significant results.That is very interesting. It puts quite a different slant on displaying trends. GW assessment by looking at temperature rise requires a decade to see a trend given by a slope.
Energy imbalance can show a trend with only one years of data given by a single value. A graph would show a flat line above zero if the GHG's rise linearly per year. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to find a satellite energy imbalance graph over the 3 decades and see the correlation with the temperature history. I'm sure that is available somewhere too.
Ah, I see how my overly simplistic depiction might have given rise to your assumptions. However, things are a bit more complicated than that.
Of course, the sun's energy flux shows some inter-annual variation, as does the earth's. That's why one year's worth of data tells us nothing. Also, remember, the energy radiated is a function of the fourth power of temperature. In the simplest form, the rate of radiative change then should not be a constant. On top of that, the ENSO oscillation, that is, non-linear fluctuations in surface temperatures, along with changing cloud cover / albedo etc. add further variability, as do increasing (and variable) concentrations of GHG and their limiting impact on energy radiated to space. And that's just the beginning, and the fact that satellites detect and measure just a small sample of the earth's emission, makes that overall energy budget a case fraught with uncertainty. All told, thirty years of energy budget measurement may just be enough to give a reasonably certain assessment.
Yes, the graph you guessed would be "somewhere" would be interesting, but I wasn't able to find it.
I assumed you proved me wrong. I read a few months ago there was a launch of a system that was supposed to be dedicated to analyzing global climate change. Hopefully that will be better at shorter term assessments.I agree. Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.
I don't keep track of the latest news in satellite data or all the data corrections and accusations of "fraudulent manipulations" etc. .. I assumed that data from thousands of orbits per year was enough to give statistically significant results.
However in my post a while back I said:
[...]
I assumed you proved me wrong. I read a few months ago there was a launch of a system that was supposed to be dedicated to analyzing global climate change. Hopefully that will be better at shorter term assessments.
The cubeSat system is a nifty "Legos" idea for quick-to-launch experiments.If you referred to the latest "Bates" "scandal", yeah, that was another hyperventilating Lamar Smith bust, denialism at its finest.
I didn't intend to prove you wrong so much as I tried to get a better grasp of measuring / assessing the earth's energy budget / climate change. It would seem, though, that satellite data is rather sparse (at least it was), but more is going to be collected. Here's an article from 2009, for starters. Don't know what's been implemented up to now, and I am not very confident climate research will continue to be funded during the next budgets at anywhere near the current level, so all that hangs in the balance right now.
There is no reason to be jealous! You have your own soulmates, JC, BillyBob, Frank, Skookerasbil, et.al. I can see from your intercourse that you fondly share your science ideas as though you are all of one mind.It sure is interesting...and entertaining to watch you two yahoos stroke each other's egos and tell each other how smart you are when you couldn't...and still can't grasp what that simple graph was saying....I laugh all day over the sheer stupidity...so smile, you are bringing sunshine into someone's world...
The cubeSat system is a nifty "Legos" idea for quick-to-launch experiments.
The system I was thinking of is the GOES-R system (NOAA and NASA) launched a last November. It reached geosynchronous orbit and sent some hi-res pictures. They plan on having 4 geosynchronous systems for complete coverage of weather and solar activity.
GOES-R MISSION NOAA/NASA
I didn't look at it in detail. Maybe it's just for short term weather forecasting, but there was a lot of hoopla. There is supposed to eventually be a total of 4 satellites in geosynchronous orbit (if the program is not killed by present administration). I assumed there would be continual full coverage of the earth with some overlap, although, as I said, I didn't read about it in detail.I've looked, but didn't find anything about GOES measuring the earth's radiative flux in the mission statement. Also, a geosynchronous orbit is ill-suited to measure that flux, as that would require as many daily measurements as possible from all directions.
I didn't look at it in detail. Maybe it's just for short term weather forecasting, but there was a lot of hoopla. There is supposed to eventually be a total of 4 satellites in geosynchronous orbit (if the program is not killed by present administration). I assumed there would be continual full coverage of the earth with some overlap, although, as I said, I didn't read about it in detail.
