|The global annual mean Earth's energy budget for the March 2000 to May 2004 period (
The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance.
JULY 2nd 2012
The most recent climate model was Trenberth K.E. J T Fasullo and J Kiehl 2009 "Earth's Global Energy Budget" Bull Amer Meteor Soc. 90 311-323. This model, and the quantities given in it, are the basis for all the claims that human-produced so-called greenhouse gases have to be reduced or dangerous warming and other harm to the climate will take place. The paper is available free on the Internet.
The paper begins with the statement:
" For an equilibrium climate the Outward Long Wave Radiation necessarily balances the incoming Absorbed Solar Radiation"
They then go on to say "The energy balance can be upset in various ways", thus admitting that it may not be balanced.
The entire "greenhouse" theory depends on the assumption that changes in the greenhouse gases are the only influence on the climate.. The energy input and output are therefore always "balanced" provided you allow for any additional greenhouse gases which have arrived since the supposed zero year, which is taken to be the year 1750
No place on the earth is ever in energy equilibrium. Any single spot warms when the sun shines, depending on its albedo, cools at night depending on its emissivity and thermal properties. Both day and night it cools when it rains or snows, .
Geology has shown that thermal fluctuations of different sizes and different lengths have always been present. Nothing that has been happening recently can truly claim to be "unprecedented. There is no reason to suppose that there was any energy "balance" in 1750, or indeed in any other year. This basic truth means that all the models are worthless.
This particular budget is claimed to apply from the period May 2000 to May 2004. so that on top of the basic false assumption we have a prediction for the future values of all the figures quoted, to the first place of decimals.
Then, it is not even "balanced" as it finds a surplus energy of 0.9W/msq. So we are warming anyway, without greenhouse gases.
Trenberth is on record (Climategate Emails) as calling this situation "a travesty" There has been much anguish in trying to explain this, and it has been so successful that in the latest IPCC Report, which I am supposedly not allowed to mention, they have managed to rejig the figures so successfully that there is now a net cooling of 0.6W/msq. So we are now cooling !
Yet it is admitted in the TFK paper . "It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates" and "while the spread of various values provides some measure of agreement, it generally overestimates the uncertainty we can assign to our best estimates." We just wonder about the worst estimates
All this before we ever begin to ask how this picture can possibly provide a plausible model for the climate.
Although some figures are given in this diagram for heat losses by convection ("Thermals") and from evaporation of water vapour and its deposition ("Latent Heat") these figures seem to be particularly uncertain. Yet meteorologists have found after scientific study of over 200 years that these factors are the main ones influencing our daily weather, not just locally but globally.
An important error is the assumption that some sort of average can be obtained from day and night. The energy situation with the sun is completely different from the energy situation without the sun. When the sun shines the earth warms and is cooled by convection and evaporation of water. Both are influenced by turbulence, wind pattern and time of day. At night everything cools also influenced by turbulence and wind pattern. By day rain and snow participate in cooling, and with snow the cooling takes time. At night some warming may arise from daytime winds or by deposition of dew or frost. No attempt seems to have been made to identify these very different situations. Nobody measures the temperature of rainwater or snow. .
The satellite measurements that provide many of these figures are not sensitive enough to distinguish the difference between day and night as they circle the earth, so they provide averages which do not represent any real situation.
This model is not just a travesty, it is an unmitigated and continuing disaster from which we are all suffering.
"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so."
Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.