An Expansion Of Thought —— Energy Balance


One of the horrible consequences of running a blog is that I don’t get out to play as much as I would otherwise wish to do.  One of the things which endears me to WUWT is that often they have some important posts which beg for expansion and more discussion.  And, if I weren’t running this blog I would hunt and find more information.  Sadly, nowadays, I miss many such learning opportunities.  One such post almost flew by me.

David Hoffer recently wrote a guest post for Anthony.  This post will assume the reader has read the post or is at least familiar with the concept. 

Lies, Damn Lies, and Anoma-Lies

Now, this post was short, easy to follow (typos not withstanding) and self evident.  David makes the point that the globe doesn’t have one temperature and anomalies are insufficient to track the global energy balance. 

Enter anomalies.  By establishing a base line average, usually over 30 years, it is possible to see how much temperatures have changed in (for example) winter in Winnipeg Canada versus Khartoum in summer.  On the surface, this makes sense.  But does the physics itself support this method of comparison?

It absolutely does NOT.

David it entirely correct.  He makes the point that it takes a different amount of emissive power to change temperatures depending upon the starting temps.  He invokes the Stefan–Boltzmann lawIt is most easily illustrated graphically. 

File:Stefan Boltzmann 001.svg

Here we see that it takes more energy to change the temperature the higher the temperature is.  As we can see it takes hardly any energy to change a temperature from zero to something significantly warmer for instance from zero to 2000 K.  But, to move a temp higher when the temp is already relatively hot it takes considerably more energy to raise it that same amount, like moving the temps from 6000K to 8000K. 

So, when discussing global temps we see that moving the temps in the Antarctic from -100 F to -80F is considerably different than moving the temps in the equator from 80 F to 100 F. 

When considering our temps in this manner, we can see that a global temp anomaly is entirely meaningless.  David presented this thought in this manner…..

Now let us suppose that we have two equal areas, one of which has an anomaly of +2 due to warming from -40 C to -38 C.  The other area at the same time posts an anomaly of -1 due to cooling from +35 to +34.

-38 C anomaly of +2 degrees = +5.8 w.m2
+35 C anomaly of -1 degree = -7.3 w/m2

“averaged” temperature anomaly = +0.5 degrees
“averaged” w/m2 anomaly = -0.75 w.m2

The temperature went up but the energy balance went down?  The fact is that because temperature and power do not vary directly with one another, averaging anomaly data from dramatically different temperature ranges provides a meaningless result.

(spell error corrected)

So, other than regurgitating David what is this post about?  Well this begs for an evaluation of what is happening in various areas of the globe.  Sadly, this isn’t really possible to do adequately.  But, we can do something close.  It is still entirely inadequate, but, it will demonstrate just how inadequate the entire concept is. I would be remiss if I didn’t state that Joe Bastardi has been shouting this concept for a very long time. 

So, CO2 heats the world, right?  The distribution of energy is supposed to be well balanced.  It’s thought of in this manner…..’Energy gets shot back down from the atmospheric CO2 and hit the oceans and it carries it around the globe.’  Or some such….. what ever.  So, let’s take a look at what the temps are doing in the area where it would take noticeably more energy to move the temps.  We’ll use RSS data from 20 degrees North to 20 degrees South.  I couldn’t find their stated margin of error, but I’m sure it’s out there somewhere.  We’ll go back 20 years. 


So, what’s the Wm^2 necessary to do that?  Again, I can’t find the margin of error, but, this is probably well within their error bars. Smile The only imbalance (energy or otherwise) is the mental state of the alarmists.  How is it we can discuss global warming when we see warming isn’t occurring globally, but in specific areas, which seem to fall well within the normal fluxuation of our historic climate record?

From the Hockey Schtick…… 

New paper finds deep Arctic Ocean from 50,000 to 11,000 years ago was 1–2°C warmer than modern temperatures

Paper here….  Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle

Note, atmospheric CO2 has increased over 40 ppm during the timeframe of the graph. 

We should take the time to recall those red hot global graphics GISS seems so proud to put out. 

AFKB for a bit. 


This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to An Expansion Of Thought —— Energy Balance

  1. DirkH says:

    Well, you can play such tricks with nonlinear functions, of course. It’s all a little bit moot as the GCM’s are junk anyway – even when a simulation accidentally happens to follow the assumed average anomalies of GISTEMP or HadCRUT or whatever, which doesn’t happen a lot anymore, they still get the average cloudiness per latitude wrong and they totally fail at regional level.

    And the killer is in my opinion that they don’t have the option of making the grid boxes of the models smaller to improve realism – if they do that, their statistical approach falls apart; a statistical description is only valid when many instances of a process happen in the same grid box. And that’s ALREADY broken with their 50 km gridboxes as convective fronts sometimes get much larger.

    Haven’t heard about any breakthroughs for these principal problems. If you ask me, that climate modeling discipline is a madhouse with no way out. Just cull’em all and save the money.

    • suyts says:

      Exactly true. I thought this was fun because it destroys the notion of the time it takes for the energy to circulate about the globe. For 20 years we see that none of that supposed extra energy moved to the 40 degrees latitudinal center of the earth. It destroys the hypothesis. The energy is moved out of the earth at the speed of light. A 50 mile extra bounce is of little or no consequence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s