Search This Blog

Monday, 19 January 2015

K & T Energy Budget

Click on image above for full view
Basically what this says is that, because Earth cannot create heat and can only absorb and reflect what comes from the Sun, it's not possible for heat reflected, by so called green house gases, to be greater than the Sun's.
KT Earth Energy Budget Fig3Most everyone knowledgeable on this subject has heard of the “K&T Energy Budget” (Click on diagram). So how did Kiehl and Trenberth help debunk climate alarm? 
We have energy incoming from the Sun…thats the 342 W/m^2.  Well sure, the Sun is a source of energy, it is powered by nuclear reactions which liberate energy.
And then we have energy incoming from “greenhouse gas backradiation”.  There’s 168 + 67 = 235 absorbed energy coming from the Sun…and then there’s 324 coming from the atmosphere, 38% more energy than from the Sun.
It just magically appears over there, on the right hand side of their diagram.
Now the sun has a nuclear power source of energy.
The atmosphere has no source of energy, no source of power, has no chemical or nuclear reactions going on to liberate energy.
It is thus impossible for the atmosphere to be a source of energy, let alone to provide 38% more energy than comes from the Sun.
This debunks climate alarm science, without any additional consideration required, since this is the “reasoning” it subscribes to in general.  Climate alarm is based on the impossible, and the nonsensical.  It’s from these types of energy budgets that alarm is created.  Well yes, these diagrams are indeed alarming, for their amazing mind-boggling obvious errors.
And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess?  Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place.  Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.
Wow, that’s pretty cold.  Can’t sunlight melt ice?  Isn’t much, much warmer sunshine actually responsible for driving the climate?  Yes and yes, but this is contradicted and denied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s pseudoscience.
So who’s wrong?  Is the Sun wrong, or is Kiehl and Trenberth wrong?
It’s pretty easy to see who.

1 comment:

Andrew Cooper said...

Whats happening on Venus then. There's a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect. Are physics different there?