NASA vs. Kiehl & Trenberth

[Jostemikk]

Dette er ganske fascinerende. Her er NASAs siste om planetens energibudsjett.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif



Her er Kiehl & Trenberths perpetuum mobile:



Det er da en sjokkerende forskjell?

[Jostemikk]

På NASAs illustrasjon mangler det noe. Ord som "Greenhouse gasses" og "backradiation" ser ut til å mangle. Har NASA begynt å banne i kjerka?

[seoto]

Man kan da forvirres av langt mindre enn dette!

[Okular]

Oi, jeg så ikke denne tråden. Sorry for at jeg prøvde å ta æren fra deg, Joste

Det er faktisk ganske så sjokkerende, ja.

Håper dette blir spredt vidt og bredt!

Seoto, hvis du er forvirret, sjekk denne linken:
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html

Dette partiet er særlig knusende, og fullt ut med basis i NASAs nyeste budsjettdiagram:

Let us consider the new NASA Earth Energy Budget numbers.  The first thing to note is that the infra-red radiation from the ground is only 21% of the incoming radiation from the sun.  In the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, the energy flux of out-going infra-red radiation (396 W/m^2) is actually greater than the total incoming solar radiation flux (341 W/m^2) and much, much greater than the energy absorbed by the surface from the sun (161 W/m^2).  This is patent nonsense.  Energy must be conserved and it is in the new diagram.

As I have claimed, the net effect of infra-red absorbing or greenhouse gases is that they absorb more energy from the incoming solar radiation through the course of the day than they absorb from the out-going infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth.  In the new NASA diagram, the total radiation absorbed by the infra-red absorbing gases is 16% + 3% (clouds) = 19%.  Of the 21% of infra-red radiation emitted from the surface, only 15% is absorbed in the atmosphere.  Thus, the net absorption of incoming solar radiation at 19%, is 1.27 times greater than the net absorption of energy emitted by radiation from the ground.  This means the net cooling effect is at least 1.27 times greater than any warming effect could be.