I have dug into this some more and tweaked when my estimate are a little tighter. Based on the drawing, what I have down below is a pretty accurate quick and dirty estimate. To explain the principals involved I have this post, Back to Baking Bacon Bread. For what impact that unexpected issue may have, Trenberth, Monckton and Lucia  Are They Missing the Heat? There is a lot more that really needs to be done to verify if there is really any impact, but I will try when I find time.
Some how or another, the Keihl Trenberth cartoon radiation budget has been breathed new life and is now a scientific zombie. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has a post on Wattsupwiththat about climate sensitivity where he derived something from the K&T cartoon. I am not sure what he was attempting to derive from the cartoon, but he was pretty adamant that he was on to something.
Well, his post was criticized by several people including Lucia at the BlackBoard. this exchange got a little heated, but what else is new. Well, the heart of the issue is whether or not you can derive the climate sensitivity of Earth from the silly cartoon energy balance. HUH?
Well, ya kinda can. If you consider that only the atmosphere responds to outgoing longwave radiation, then the amount of OLR is 26 W/m^2 after you subtract the 40 W/m^2 that gets a free pass and the 324 W/m^2 downwelling. That downwelling radiation is generated by the sum of energy absorbed by the atmosphere, so the ratio of the radiative absorbed divided by the total absorbed would be the radiative impact of the greenhouse to OLR.
26 OLR absorbed / (67 solar absorbed + 24 sensible heat absorbed + 78 latent heat absorbed + 26 radiant heat absorbed) That equals 26/195 or 0.133, 13.3% of the temperature of the atmosphere is directly due to absorbed outgoing radiation. Of course, all the other values change when radiative absorption changes, but 13.3 is pretty close to the minimum value. Since the greenhouse provides an extra 33 degrees of warmth, 13.3 % of 33 equals, 4.4 degrees is purely due to OLR. That would be the value changed with more CO2 added. One degree change in temperature is due to the overall greenhouse effect is caused by 3.7 W/m^2. I am not positive this is right, but it looks about right. If you add the 3.7 W/m^2 (26+3.7)/(195+3.7) you get 0.1495 (okay that is a few many sig digs) times 33 = 4.93 C which is (4.934.4)= 0.53 C minimum warming due to an increase of 3.7W/m^2 atmospheric resistance to OLR.
The latent and sensible values would definitely change with greater atmospheric resistance and the solar absorbed should a little, but is more likely to vary less, assuming it remains roughly the same, then 29.7/(67 solar +29.7 radiative) = 29.7/96.7 times 4.4, the radiative forcing portion of the 33 degree results in a maximum sensitivity of 1.35 degrees.
Considering the estimated 1.2 C climate sensitivity to no feedback is based on the 33 C and that feedbacks are supposed to kick up sensitivity, this range doesn't really say anything new, only that the K&T data was in the ballpark of reality.
Update: Just as a check, you can do the same ratio with only the surface fluxes and get 0.155K/W/m^2 or 0.60 minimum sensitivity. Not that that is particularly exciting either.
Efficient alternate energy portable fuels are required to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen holds the most promise in that reguard. Exploring the paths open for meeting the goal of energy independence is the object of this blog. Hopefully you will find it interesting and informative.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive

▼
2011
(190)

▼
October
(46)
 Simple Versus Too Simple
 New Blog For Easier Navigation
 Carbon Dioxide A Not so Well Mixed Gas
 Another Shot at Explaining the Atmospheric Effect
 Phonon Versus Photon Research List
 The Relativity Series Begins Under Cosmic Puzzles
 Atmospheric Phonons  RHC and the Greenhouse Effec...
 What the Heck is Effective Emissivity?
 SciFi and the Tropopause Heat Sink
 Could Atmospheric Conductivity Help Regulate Antar...
 The Relative Motion of Low Energy Photons in a Mi...
 What is a Pyrometer Measuring When You Aim it at t...
 I am Still Getting Flack over the Value of Down We...
 What is The 4C Thermal Boundary?
 The Mysterious Case of the Missing Heat
 Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?
 A Little Help Please. Global Average Surface Pres...
 Determing How Wrong I May Be
 Relativistic Conduction of Heat
 What is the Gain of the CO2 Control Knob?
 Science as a Contact Sport
 A Point I Missed Explaining Very Well The Tropopa...
 Why The Estimates were Off and Why I am Moving On....
 Using the Greenhouse Effect Triangles
 Dark Energy and our Not Accelerating Expanding Uni...
 Explaining why Einstien, Angstrom, Plank, StefanB...
 Now, to Truly Prove I am a Whack Job
 IPCC Down Welling Radiation Violates the Law!
 Visualization
 Just For Fun
 How Ohms Law Relates to Atmospheric Physics
 While Energy is Fungible, the Work is Not
 Poisson! Poisson!
 Chaos Mathematical Description of the Earth System...
 Comparison of NASA and K&T
 Crackpot?
 Snake Oil Salesman or Simple Logic?
 A call for Mathematicians  The Greenhouse Effect,...
 A better Cartoon?
 Trenberth, Monckton and Lucia  Are They missing t...
 Back to Baking Bacon Bread
 Supplimental Issues for What's not Good
 So What's not to Like?
 Physical Principals for the Cartoon Sensitivity Ca...
 That Damn Cartoon and the Third Viscount of Puzzle...
 It is Just a Cartoon!

▼
October
(46)
No comments:
Post a Comment