Why does the heat in the atmosphere mostly go down?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
36 replies · 13K views
F X said:
That can't possibly be correct. It would mean the planet is always heating up, and very fast.
Why do you say that? Did you carefully look at the picture?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
The IR amount shown leaving (arrows pointing away from planet) is 343.8, the amount pointing towards the planet is 340.3

So "The atmosphere as a whole emits more thermal radiation to the Earth's surface (340 than it does to space (200 W/m^2)" is completely wrong. It's comparing just two parts of the picture, not the whole amounts.

Just think about the claim. It can't even be possible. An extra 140 W/m^2 would cook the planet in a short time. It's self evident.
 
klimatos said:
For historical reasons, heat budgets are usually given in units of watts per square meter, averaged over the Earth’s entire surface. One watt is one joule per second. Since the Earth’s surface area is exactly four times its disc area, this gives us an energy income for our global heat budget of 342 watts per square meter—more or less.
It's not clear what you are claiming. It's impossible, just a physical impossibility for each square meter of the planet to have 342 watts per square meter being added all the time. The budget has to balance, the amount of heat in has to equal the amount out or the planet is heating up at every second in time. If you shine 342 watts of energy on a square meter surface you will learn what this actually causes to happen, and fast. Physics tells us it is impossible for that amount of energy to the added to the planet. The world would never have lasted.
 
F X said:
The IR amount shown leaving (arrows pointing away from planet) is 343.8, the amount pointing towards the planet is 340.3

So "The atmosphere as a whole emits more thermal radiation to the Earth's surface (340 than it does to space (200 W/m^2)" is completely wrong. It's comparing just two parts of the picture, not the whole amounts.
The atmosphere emits 169.9 W/m2 + 29.9 W/m2 = 199.8 W/m2 towards space, and 340.3 W/m2 towards Earth, exactly as @D H said.

F X said:
Just think about the claim. It can't even be possible. An extra 140 W/m^2 would cook the planet in a short time. It's self evident.
The Earth's surface is emitting 398.2 W/m2...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and andrewkirk
F X said:
The IR amount shown leaving (arrows pointing away from planet) is 343.8, the amount pointing towards the planet is 340.3

So "The atmosphere as a whole emits more thermal radiation to the Earth's surface (340 than it does to space (200 W/m^2)" is completely wrong. It's comparing just two parts of the picture, not the whole amounts.

Just think about the claim. It can't even be possible. An extra 140 W/m^2 would cook the planet in a short time. It's self evident.

redo your maths and directions ... you are not understanding the diagramD
 
I do not think we have a complete picture of all the energy paths in and out of the earth.
An example, We know tides are a result of other gravity fields pulling and pushing the oceans around,
yet the tides represent real measurable energy. How far fetched is it to believe, that the processes
responsible for moving tidal energy in, is also capable of moving energy out?
 
I have deleted a few problematic posts. I would like to remind everyone that only mainstream science is allowed on PF, and that climate change/AGW is accepted science.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn