Stefan-Boltzmann Constant Produced a Ridiculous Energy Budget
My analysis of the radiation question is that there is an extremely preposterous contradiction in the Trenberth model (1998), sometimes called the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget (see below). The IPCC uses this model. It’s explained in the FAQ section of the IPCC 4th AR, but I haven’t seen it in the main section. I miss a lot in that endless garbage.
I show the numbers on this web page: http://nov79.com/gbwm/grn.html
The Trenberth model includes both the invisible (non net) radiation and net radiation, as assumed to be true of black box situations. The ridiculousness of it is that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC) requires so much radiation that it left very little energy for conduction. Radiation from the earth’s surface at the claimed average temperature of 15°C must be 390 W/m², according to the SBC. This left only 24 W/m² for conduction from the earth’s surface. The ratio is 6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} as much conduction as radiation. Industrial or domestic cooling fans would never be used if they only provided 6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} improvement over radiation. I would expect such a ratio with white hot metals, not 15°C. The SBC leaves no other choice for numbers, when modeling as in the Trenberth energy budget. They had little choice but to show 324 W/m² of invisible radiation from atmosphere to surface, because it had to be less than 350 W/m² going from surface to atmosphere, but not much less, because it takes away from the amount which can be attributed to conduction. So they left their analysis with a ridiculous amount of conduction and never resolved the contradiction with obvious logic.
Some time before the Trenberth model was produced (I’m not sure when), Hansen produced a different sort of energy budget (called the NASA energy budget) which shows about 33{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} as much conduction as radiation (NASA budget diagram below).
The discrepancy between the two energy budgets is never mentioned. The ability of alarmists to ignore contradictions is amazing. From the viewpoint of most climatologists, the Trenberth model is beyond question, because it is dictated by the SBC. Before I ever saw the Trenberth energy model, it was extremely obvious to me that the SBC shows way too much radiation at normal temperatures. It shows 390 W/m² at 59°C, which is the temperature of a chilly basement. Of course, there is not a net radiation of almost four hundred watt bulbs from each square meter of a dark cold basement, but physicists rationalize this preposterous situation by claiming there is almost the same amount of radiation in all directions, so you only notice the difference. Bull Roar.
If there really were such huge amounts of invisible radiation being emitted from normal temperature surfaces, all sorts of things would be happening. For example, if skin were absorbing huge amounts of radiation (even invisible or non-net) it would have to be converted into heat before it could be re-radiated outward. That much heat would destroy tissue. To hold body temperature at a consistent level, there has to be almost no invisible/non-net radiation.
Applying the SBC to the Trenberth model shows that there is somewhere between ten and twenty times too much radiation shown by the SBC at normal temperatures. The error could be different at non-normal temperatures. It looks to me like a large part of the problem is the fourth power of temperature in the SBC. Such a sharp curve produces an almost straight horizontal line at normal temperatures. Fourth power curves are not likely in natural phenomena. In fact, there is so much complexity influencing radiation, that a simple constant should not be used.This is shown by the need to combine emissivity with the SBC. Emissivity is nothing but a fudge factor for correcting the errors in the SBC.
Notice that emissivity is not included in the 390 W/m² assumed to be emitted from the average earth temperature of 15°C in the Trenberth model or any place else. One might then assume that emissivity would correct any errors in the SBC. Not necessarily so. Emissivity corrections are apparently tied to the error in the SBC through circular logic.
Gary Novak
www.nov79.com
Trackback from your site.