{"id":241471,"date":"2023-01-25T19:20:15","date_gmt":"2023-01-25T18:20:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=241471"},"modified":"2023-01-25T19:20:17","modified_gmt":"2023-01-25T18:20:17","slug":"fatal-flaw-in-earth-energy-balance-diagrams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=241471","title":{"rendered":"Fatal Flaw in Earth Energy Balance Diagrams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof. Warren Stannard of Western Australia University provides the math analysis to correct the above mistaken energy balance cartoon published in 1997.\u00a0 His paper in Natural Science (2018) is\u00a0The Greenhouse Effect: An Evaluation of Arrhenius\u2019 Thesis and a New Energy Equilibrium Model.<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0 Excerpts in italics with my bolds and exhibits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In 1896, Svante Arrhenius proposed a model predicting that increased concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere would result in a warming of the planet. In his model, the warming effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapour in preventing heat flow from the Earth\u2019 s surface<\/strong> (now known as the \u201cGreenhouse Effect\u201d) are counteracted by a cooling effect where the same gasses are responsible<\/strong> for the radiation of heat to space<\/strong> from the atmosphere. His analysis found that there was a net warming effect<\/strong> and his model has remained the foundation of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect\u2014Global Warming hypothesis.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper attempts to quantify the parameters in his equations but on evaluation\u00a0his model cannot produce thermodynamic equilibrium<\/strong>. A modified model is proposed which reveals that\u00a0increased atmospheric emissivity enhances the ability of the atmosphere to radiate heat<\/strong>\u00a0to space overcoming the cooling effect resulting in\u00a0a net cooling of the planet.<\/strong>\u00a0In consideration of this result, there is a need for greenhouse effect\u2014global warming models to be revised.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Introduction<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In 1896 Arrhenius proposed that changes in the levels of \u201ccarbonic acid\u201d (carbon dioxide)<\/strong> in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature of the Earth.<\/strong> This has come to be known as the greenhouse effect. Arrhenius\u2019 paper, \u201cOn the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground\u201d, was published in Philosophical Magazine.  Arrhenius concludes:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4<\/strong>\u02da; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8\u02da. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide<\/strong> in the air would raise the temperature of the earth\u2019s surface by 4\u02da<\/strong>; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8\u02da \u201d [ 2 ].<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to note that Arrhenius considered this greenhouse effect\u00a0a positive thing if we were to avoid the ice ages of the past<\/strong>. Nevertheless, Arrhenius\u2019 theory has become the foundation of the enhanced greenhouse effect\u2015global warming hypothesis in the 21st century.\u00a0His model remains the basis for most modern energy equilibrium models.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Arrhenius\u2019 Energy Equilibrium Model<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Arrhenius\u2019 proposed a two-part energy equilibrium model i<\/strong>n which the atmosphere radiates the same amount of heat to space as it receives<\/strong> and, likewise, the ground transfers the same amount of heat to the atmosphere and to space as it receives.<\/strong> The model contains the following assumptions:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Heat conducted from the center of the Earth is neglected.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Heat flow by convection<\/strong> between the surface and the atmosphere and throughout the atmosphere remains constant<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Cloud cover remains constant.<\/strong> This is questionable but allows the model to be quantified.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 1: Equilibrium of the Air<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The balance of heat flow to and from the air (or atmosphere) has four components<\/strong>\u00a0as shown in Figure 1. The arrow labelled S1 indicates the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere. R indicates the infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, M is the quantity of heat \u201cconveyed\u201d to the atmosphere by convection and Q1 represents heat loss from the atmosphere to space by radiation. All quantities are measured in terms of energy per unit area per unit time (W\/m2).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. Model of the energy balance of the atmosphere. The heat received by the atmosphere ( R+M+S1 ) equals the heat lost to space (Q1). In this single layer atmospheric model, the absorbing and emitting layers are one and the same.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 2: Thermal Equilibrium of the Ground<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the second part of his model, Arrhenius describes the heat flow equilibrium at the \u201cground\u201d or surface of the Earth. There are\u00a0four contributions to the surface heat flow as shown in Figure 2.<\/strong>\u00a0S2 is the solar energy absorbed by the surface, R is the infra-red radiation emitted from the surface and transferred to the atmosphere, N is the heat conveyed to the atmosphere by convection and Q2 is the heat radiated to space from the surface. Note: Here Arrhenius uses the term N for the convective heat flow. It is equivalent to the term M used in the air equilibrium model.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2. The energy balance at the surface of the Earth. The energy received by the ground is equal to the energy lost.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Finding the Temperature of the Earth<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Arrhenius combined these equations and, by eliminating the temperature of the atmosphere which according to Arrhenius \u201chas no considerable interest\u201d, he arrived at the following relationship:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\u0394Tg\u00a0 is the expected change in the temperature of the Earth for a change in atmospheric emissivity from \u03b51 to \u03b52. Arrhenius determined that the current transparency of the atmosphere was 0.31 and, therefore the emissivity\/absorptivity \u03b51 = 0.69. The current mean temperature for the surface of the Earth can be assumed to be To = 288 K.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. Arrhenius\u2019 model is used to determine the mean surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmospheric emissivity \u03b5. For initial conditions, \u03b5 = 0.69 and the surface temperature is 288 K. An increase in atmospheric emissivity produces an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide<\/strong> concentration in the atmosphere would produce a change in emissivity from 0.69 to 0.78 raising the temperature of the surface by approximately 6 K.<\/strong> This value would be considered high<\/strong> by modern climate researchers; however, Arrhenius\u2019 model<\/strong> has become the foundation<\/strong> of the greenhouse-global warming theory today. Arrhenius made no attempt to quantify the specific heat flow values in his model. At the time of his paper there was little quantitative data available relating to heat flow for the Earth.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Evaluation of Arrhenius\u2019 Model under Present Conditions<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

More recently, Kiehl and Trenberth (K & T) [ 3 ] and others have quantified the heat flow values used in Arrhenius\u2019 model<\/strong>. K & T\u2019s data are summarised in Figure 4.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reflected solar radiation, which plays no part in the energy balance described in this model, is ignored. R is the net radiative transfer from the ground to the atmosphere derived from K & T\u2019s diagram. The majority of the heat radiated to space originates from the atmosphere<\/strong> (Q1 > Q2). And the majority of the heat lost from the ground is by means of convection to the atmosphere<\/strong> (M > R + Q2).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4. Model of the mean energy budget of the earth as determined by Kiehl and Trenberth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q2=(1\u2212\u03b5)\u03c3\u03bdT4e(5)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Substituting \u03b5 = 0.567, \u03bd = 1.0 and Tg = 288 K we get:  Q2=149.2\u2009W\/m2<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Arrhenius value of 0.69 for the atmospheric emissivity Q2 = 120.9 W\/m2.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both values are significantly more than the 40 W\/m2 determined by K & T.
The equation will not balance, something is clearly wrong.<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5 illustrates the problem.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Equation (5) is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law<\/strong> which is an empirical relationship which describes the amount of radiation from a hot surface passing through a vacuum<\/strong> to a region of space at a temperature of absolute zero. This is clearly not the case for radiation passing through the Earth\u2019s atmosphere<\/strong> and as a result the amount of heat lost by radiation has been grossly overestimated.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No amount of adjusting parameters will allow this relationship to produce
sensible quantities and the required net heat flow of 40 W\/m2.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This error affects the equilibrium heat flow values in Arrhenius\u2019 model<\/strong> and the model is not able to produce a reasonable approximation of present day conditions as shown in Table 1.<\/strong> In particular, the convective heat flow takes on very different values from the two parts of the model. The values M and N<\/strong> in the table should be equivalent.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. <\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
6. Conclusion<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Arrhenius identified the fact that the emissivity\/absorptivity of the atmosphere increased with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and this would affect the temperature of the Earth.<\/strong> He understood that infra-red active gases in the atmosphere<\/strong> contribute both to the absorption of radiation from the Earth\u2019s surface and to the emission of radiation to space from the atmosphere. These were competing processes; one trapped heat, warming the Earth; the other released heat, cooling the Earth.<\/strong> He derived a relationship between the surface temperature and the emissivity of the atmosphere and deduced that an increase in emissivity led to an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, his model is unable to produce sensible results for the heat flow quantities as determined by K & T and others<\/strong>. In particular, his model and all similar recent models, grossly exaggerate the quantity of radiative heat flow from the Earth\u2019s surface to space.<\/strong> A new energy equilibrium model has been proposed which is consistent with the measured heat flow quantities and maintains thermal equilibrium. This model predicts the changes in the heat flow quantities in response to changes in atmospheric emissivity and reveals that Arrhenius\u2019 prediction is reversed.<\/strong> Increasing atmospheric emissivity due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations will have a net cooling effect.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is therefore proposed by the author that any attempt to curtail emissions of CO2
will have no effect in curbing global warming.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A modified model<\/strong> is proposed which will determine the change in surface temperature of the Earth caused by a change in the emissivity of the atmosphere<\/strong> (as would occur when greenhouse gas concentrations change). The model incorporates the following<\/strong> ideas:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) The total heat radiated from the Earth ( Q1+Q2Q1+Q2 ) will remain constant and equal to the total solar radiation absorbed by the Earth ( S1+S2S1+S2 ).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Convective heat flow M remains constant. Convective heat flow between two regions is dependent on their temperature difference, as expressed by Newton\u2019s Law of cooling1<\/sup>. The temperature difference between the atmosphere and the ground is maintained at 8.9 K (see Equation 7(a)). M = 102 W\/m2<\/sup> (K & T).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) A surface temperature of 288 K and an atmospheric emissivity of 0.567 (Equation (7b)) is assumed for initial or present conditions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Equation (9) represents\u00a0the new model relating the emissivity of the atmosphere \u03b5 to the surface temperature Tg<\/strong>. Results from this model are shown in Table 2. The table shows the individual heat flow quantities and the temperature of the surface of the Earth that is required to maintain equilibrium:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The table shows that\u00a0as<\/strong>\u00a0the value of the\u00a0atmospheric emissivity \u03b5 is increased less heat flows from the Earth\u2019s surface to space, Q2 decreases.<\/strong>\u00a0This is what would be expected.\u00a0As well, more heat is radiated to space from the atmosphere; Q1 increases.<\/strong>\u00a0This is also expected. The total energy radiated to space\u00a0Q1+Q2=235\u2009W\/m2<\/strong>\u00a0. A plot of the resultant surface temperature Tg versus the atmospheric emissivity \u03b5 is shown below Figure 6.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6. Plot of the Earth\u2019s mean surface temperature as a function of the atmospheric emissivity. This model predicts that the temperature of the Earth will decrease as the emissivity of the atmosphere increases.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Conclusion<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Arrhenius identified the fact that the emissivity\/absorptivity of the atmosphere increased with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and this would affect the temperature of the Earth.<\/strong> He understood that infra-red active gases in the atmosphere<\/strong> contribute both to the absorption of radiation from the Earth\u2019s surface and to the emission of radiation to space from the atmosphere. These were competing processes; one trapped heat, warming the Earth; the other released heat, cooling the Earth.<\/strong> He derived a relationship between the surface temperature and the emissivity of the atmosphere and deduced that an increase in emissivity led to an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, his model is unable to produce sensible results for the heat flow quantities as determined by K & T and others<\/strong>. In particular, his model and all similar recent models, grossly exaggerate the quantity of radiative heat flow from the Earth\u2019s surface to space.<\/strong> A new energy equilibrium model has been proposed which is consistent with the measured heat flow quantities and maintains thermal equilibrium. This model predicts the changes in the heat flow quantities in response to changes in atmospheric emissivity and reveals that Arrhenius\u2019 prediction is reversed.<\/strong> Increasing atmospheric emissivity due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations will have a net cooling effect.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is therefore proposed by the author that any attempt to curtail emissions of CO2
will have no effect in curbing global warming.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n