Talk:Earth's energy budget/Archive 1

Greenhouse effect
Just to say that I've added categories so that this article appears alongside climate forcing/change articles. Seemed a bit of an omission for this article. It probably needs an explicit subsection on anthropogenic alterations to the energy budget. --Plumbago 09:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems fair enough. I've added a little section. William M. Connolley 18:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC).

The term "power budget"
I would like to delete the paragraph about "power budget" (second paragraph of the article). Does this term come from a reliable source, or was it coined by a Wikipedian editor? We're not supposed to coin new terms on Wikipedia pages. WP:NOR. Also, I don't agree with that paragraph. It's fine to talk about power (energy per unit time) and also talk about "energy budget". With a money budget, one is often also talking about money per unit time, e.g. rent in dollars per month. There s nothing wrong with that. We don't call it a "money per unit time budget".--Coppertwig 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't delete the para, its useful. I agree that "energy budget" would be a more common term, so why not just relabel the section as that? The numbers don't change William M. Connolley 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you misunderstood. The paragraph I would like to delete is:
 * Note: although the term "energy budget" is widely used, the flow of energy in and out of the Earth is actually measured in units of power (watts), not units of energy (joules). Therefore, "power budget" would be a more accurate term.
 * This paragraph seems to be saying essentially that a bunch of other people, outside Wikipedia, should stop using the term that they've been using and start using a different term. I don't think that's appropriate or encyclopedic:  it's prescriptive.  This remark seems to belong on the talk page, not as part of the article.  What do you find useful about it?  I don't mind either the term "energy budget" or "power budget" being used -- I just want the article to contain encyclopedic-style stuff, not arguments about who should really be saying what.  Is there a citation to support the claim being made in this paragraph? --Coppertwig 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, given that the article repeatedly refers to the "power budget", this seems to be the least of its problems. I can't say I've ever seen "power budget" used in this fashion; "energy budget" (or sometimes "heat budget" depending on terms of reference) is the default term in my experience (though I've only tangentially used energy budgets in my own work).  Checking article abstracts on the Web of Knowledge, I find that "power budget" appears in 272 articles (the first few of which don't appear to be Earth science), but "energy budget" is in 2312 articles.  Anyway, rather than focus on this intro paragraph (the first sentence of which is fine by me anyway), I'd suggest hacking to replace "power budget" with "energy budget" more widely.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one was able to explain what's useful about that paragraph, and since it was non-encyclopedic (criticising the sources for using the wrong word?), I deleted it. I took what I think may be useful from it, though, and transformed it into a sentence in parantheses near the beginning of the next section, explaining the relationship between power and energy.  I also substituted "energy" for "power" in a number of places, as you suggest.  For example, in one place it said "flux of power".  Power means flux of energy;  "flux of power" isn't really a meaningful quantity.  --Coppertwig 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007 comment
Anon 66.156.178.220 just added the following comment to the main article. I've removed it to here.


 * (Please Note: My reading indicate that the leaves of Foliage, trees and grasses, reflect 70-90% of the Infra-Red striking their surface, explaining why they remain COLD in the sun. Carbon atoms abosorbs nearly 100%. Has greenery -vs- Asphalt been included in this definition of Normal ?)

Cheers, --Plumbago 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article titled geothermal gradient lists a global gradient of 0.063 W/m2 where you list 0.045 W/m2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.240.36 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New Budget Image
It's unclear in the image replacing the old one how emission of longwave radiation by the atmosphere adds to the energy intercepted by the surface. When I inspect the image carefully, it appears that it may have gotten lumped into absorption by the atmosphere, but that is not very verbose. Jason Patton (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing the new image :). I have added the image from OK-FIRST Project (c), which is the one I really like (I had to wait for permission).  I have retained the Image from NASA since NASA is a very well respected source.  The more the merrier... Veteran0101 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jason, these are the best images that I can find. The challenge it to find better. These images show important processes that are not addressed by the old image. Think about greenhouse gases as a process which traps heat in the atmosphere. The heat will bounce within the atmosphere then either to the earth or lost to space. Latent heat flux and Sensible heat flux are "Short Circuits" or negative feedbacks which counteract the effect of the greenhouse gasses. To be fair all of these processes need to be accurately illustrated. Veteran0101 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, as greenhouse gases don't "trap heat" but absorb and emit longwave radiation, with some of the absorbed energy going to increasing sensible heat. The surface of the Earth does the same.  So I don't see exactly what you mean by sensible heat and latent heat (which is released as sensible heat when vapor condenses) "short circuiting" GHGs' effects.  Increasing the sensible heat increases the radiation emitted by all gases in the atmosphere, including GHGs' radiation, which is well absorbed by the Earth's surface, completing the feedback loop. Jason Patton (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jason, if you do not like the term "traps", I can put it a different way. GHG's hand off heat energy within the atmosphere until the heat ends up back on the surface and has to make it's way out again or it escapes to space which it would do anyway.  GHG's just make the energy bounce around a bit before it escapes.  Another portion of the heat energy is released to space by simple convection (sensible heat) by passing GHG's.  Latent heat is the most important process to short circuit the effect of greenhouse gases.  Water near the surface of the earth is evaporated and becomes water vapor at an expenditure of 2257.9 calories per gram of water.  This is 2257.9 times what is takes to warm a gram of water 1 degree.  Water vapor is a very light gas having and atomic weight of only 16+1+1 (18).  Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas weighing 12+12+16 (40) much heavier than that of Nitrogen 14+14 (28).  Light water vapor rises in the atmosphere.  Heavy Carbon Dioxide keeps to close to the surface.  When the vapor condenses it is well above the bulk of Carbon Dioxide and most of this heat is released directly to the upper atmosphere and then to space.  These are two very important effects which short circuit the total potential of GHG's.  Veteran0101 (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your analysis of gas weights is entirely wrong. CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere.  The stirring effects of wind totally dominate over gravitational seperation.  By contrast, it is water vapor that is mostly limited to 10 km or so in the atmosphere because it freezes out.  For example, this graphic shows that the CO2 lines remain prominent in the atmosphere above 11 km, while water vapor has been strongly reduced.  This tool can allow you to generate vertical profiles for the mixing ratio of CO2 and water vapor (as well as other things).  As mentioned in greenhouse effect, GHGs capture approximately 75% of all energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.  The total of latent and sensible heat flux, etc. only results in the remaining 25%.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes your diagram this graphic clearly shows that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. The absorption gif should be added to the wiki.  I'm confident that we can get permission.  Yes, stirring effect dominates over gravitational separation.Veteran0101 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the 75%/25% figures that you quote. The three diagrams on Earth's energy budget credit latent flux for returning 23% of all incoming solar radiation to space.  In other words latent heat flux alone is responsible for returning to space 45% of all the heat that actually reaches the surface of the earth.  This is hardly insignificant. It does greatly mitigate the effects of GHG's. Veteran0101 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See the section below, those diagrams are misleading/wrong. Dragons flight (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is another important process which I find very poorly documented, Thermal Ballast. Any temperature changes which would be expected to show up now can perhaps be delayed 10's or hundreds of years. What is the Thermal Ballast effect of the Earth's Mass (5.98×1024 kg). How much lag time does this add to any temperature changes. How does this enormous mass mask any rise or fall in temperature? These are the questions that need to be answered. Can anyone help me find them? Veteran0101 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The thermal inertia of the atmosphere and ground is actually relatively small. Think about how large the temperature swings are from day to night and summer to winter.  The impact of those elements on processes like global warming is small (e.g. a few years lag).  The thermal interia of the oceans, by contrast, is quite large, and can give rise to an equilibrium timescale of centuries.  The bulk of the Earth, though nominally having enormous thermal inertial, is largely irrelevant because the thermal flux through rock is so low that the temperature on the Earth's surface is entirely dominated by the equilibrium with solar radiation.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any documentation? The thermal ballast (inertia as it is also called), is very important.  These are the thermal sinks and sources. The final out comes depends on how quickly thermal systems within the earth can hold and expel this energy.  All the daily and seasonal changes are averaged.  Changes and trends are thus averaged and perhaps hidden for centeries or just hidden.  If the oceans can absorb heat, they can also exchange it with the rock deep in the earth.  Short term I can see the inertial effect can appear small.  Over time, it is very important.  Does anyone know of any research done on this subject so that it can be added to this page?Veteran0101 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading budget
The numbers in this article are misleading. The transfer from Earth to atmosphere via radiation is given as 19% of the energy budget, versus 23% for latent heat. That only makes sense if you calculate radiative transfer by subtracting from it 100% of the back flow of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface.

As shown by Kiehl and Trenberth (among many others), the radiative fluxes are the dominant terms is the energy exchange (for example, this graphic).

The back-radiation, though radiative, subtracts energy from the atmosphere regardless of source so it is misleading to subtract that total only from the surface radiation when considering the exchange. A more sensible description is to weight the different upward fluxes equally in which case the numbers would be (out of the initial 51%):


 * 8% transferred back into the atmosphere as latent heat by the evaporation of water, called latent heat flux
 * 2.5% transferred back into the atmosphere by heated rising air, called Sensible heat flux
 * 4% radiated directly into space
 * 36% transferred into the atmosphere by radiation

I realize that's not what are in the graphics, but the chosen graphics are themselves misleading because the ignore the recirculation of energy back to the Earth's surface, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time. Judging from your user page, there is much you can add to this page.  I welome that.  The key then is explaining what these diagrams mean and what assumptions were made to create them.  They are from reputable sources.  These diagrams are more applicable to this topic than the original one which only talked about the greenhouse effect.  Thank you again for your time. Veteran0101 (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added an explanation of the intent of these graphs. I am also requesting permission for inclusion of more detailed graphics. Veteran0101 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Most of the numbers in the Outgoing energy section have been changed to 69s.

129.59.89.150 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth's energy budget?
The theme of the article seems to me to be "Earth's heat budget" rather than "energy budget." If "Earth" is only supposed to cover the surface and atmosphere "energy" is correct according to the article. Is the distinction irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia?00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrardurgur (talk • contribs)

... Confused article, indeed.

Initial comments
It would be interesting to have some comparison here with human energy production. Terry 05:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Thats a fair point. Another that would be of interest is the contribution from stars; other planets (in particular reflected light from the moon (I think there was a paper on this a couple of years back)); and the cosmic microwave background.

Hmm, well, having just written about this I added the (direct) human contribution. In the course of which I notice a problem: the article says:

The total flux of power entering the Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts. This consists of:
 * solar radiation (99.985%, or nearly 174 petawatts; or about 341.5 W/m&sup2;)
 * This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth's disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 &times; 1014 square metres. The figure of 341.5 W/m&sup2; is then the global average value.
 * geothermal energy (0.013%, or about 23 terawatts; or about 0.18 W/m&sup2;)
 * This is produced by stored heat and heat produced by radioactive decay leaking out of the Earth's interior.
 * tidal energy (0.002%, or about 3 terawatts; or about 0.02 W/m&sup2;)
 * This is produced by the interaction of the Earth's mass with the gravitational fields of other bodies such as the Moon and Sun.
 * Waste heat from fossil fuel consumption is about 13 terawattts of 0.025 Wm&sup2;.

Note that the ratio of TW and W/m2 for tidal energy and geothermal is not the same as for my newly added human numbers, or for the solar radiation. I suspect a factor of 4 error somewhere, but where...?


 * The problem was that the solar constant is specified over the area of the Earth's disc (&pi;r2 = 1.3e14 m2), but the other figures are specified over the Earth's surface (4&pi;r2 = 5.1e14 m2). It's fixed now. --Heron 20:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The diagram on this page does not fit the article. It is too simplified a diagram and is of the greenhouse effect which is a subset of the energy budget. See these pages.  There are some more modern diagrams http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/EnergyBudget2.html http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/EnergyBudget2.html Veteran0101 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What about wind energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.183.63.33 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Greenhouse warming of the Earth's surface
"The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature."

This is impossible, as it implies that the atmosphere reflects back to earth surface 100% of all solar energy received i.e. no heat leaves the system, what is of course in disagreement with the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.234.64 (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Captured Solar Energy
Photosynthesis captures some portion of the solar energy and stores it as chemical energy. This is not represented in the model. Is it too small to matter? Gjames04 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Earth's energy balance
This either needs a section or a new article. Earth’s energy balance In response to a positive radiative forcing <F (see Appendix A), such as characterizes the present-day anthropogenic perturbation (Forsteret al., 2007), the planet must increase its net energy loss to space in order to re-establish energy balance (with net energy loss being the difference between the outgoing long-wave (LW) radiation and net incoming shortwave (SW) radiation at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA)). Assuming that this increased energy loss is proportional to the surface temperature change <T, we can write <F = λ<T + <Q (1) where λ is the climate feedback parameter.

Complete restoration of the planetary energy balance (and thus full adjustment of the surface temperature) does not occur instantaneously due to the inherent inertia of the system, which lies mainly in the slow response times of the oceans and cryosphere. Therefore, prior to achieving a new equilibrium state, there will be an imbalance, <Q, between radiative forcing and climate response. This imbalance represents the net heat ﬂux into the system, with nearly all of this heat ﬂux at present going into the ocean (Levitus et al., 2005). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2165/pdf or should go here Earth's radiation balance Prokaryotes (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Solar flux
This article contradicts other articles related to solar flux, e.g. Solar constant. I think original "Energy budget poster" was misinterpreted somehow and need to be either removed or interpreted correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.73.61 (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Empty words without an explanation based on citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sourcesNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What explanation do you need? Solar constant is, by definition, incoming solar radiation and its value is 1361 W/m^2 (that's correct), but poster and description says it's 340 W/m^2. Statement "The total amount of energy received by Earth's atmosphere is normally measured in watts and estimated to be ~340 W/m2." is simply contradicts Solar constant article saying it's 1361 W/m^2. I don't question the "trusted source", but i think this poster was somehow misinterpreted. I won't be interpreting it myself, but it doesn't change the fact that value of incoming solar radiation is inconsistent across different Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.73.61 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_irradiance--79.24.230.46 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your observation that the graphic reports incoming energy at just 1/4 the solar constant is spot on, but is not a contradiction for the reason stated at Solar_constant. I'm usually glad to take people seriously, but only if it appears they bothered to read the various things they cite before they post.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, i didn't read to that, and that indeed explains how this poster was misinterpreted. Apparently NASA was talking about local, location-specific energy budget. Change of day and night and Earth's curvature would make 320 W/m^2 flux on average for a specific location indeed. This article still talks about Earth as a whole and i still think it's misleading, statement "The total amount of energy received by Earth's atmosphere is normally measured in watts and estimated to be ~340 W/m2" is still incorrect. At least it shouldn't say "total". Earth's, planetary, atmosphere is still getting the whole solar constant, even at night.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.73.61 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated the part. If there are any more suggestions post complete text phrase and if possible with reference, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Internal heat
I don't understand the edit summary in this edit. What do you mean by "It's already factored in"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stuff on Earth's internal heat budget, tidal energy (interaction of the Earth's mass with the gravitational fields), waste heat from fossil fuel consumption etc., all this is not really related to EEB, since CERES sat measures it and the next paragraph explains why minor sources are negligible. I've added a see also to Earth's internal heat budget prokaryotes (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) Accepting the premise that we aren't going to mention the things that are included in CERES' measurements, then we must not mention the sun either, so that reasoning seems unjustified.
 * (B) The "next paragraph" does describe things other than earth's internal heat as being "negligible", but that isn't really a reason to delete text about earth's internal heat, so that reasoning also seems unjustified.
 * (C) CONCLUSION, I don't see a reason for wasting the bit about internal heat from earth (so far), but that text was really presented poorly.  However, I am not up to speed on what the RSs say on the matter, so I can't really propose a way forward.  But thus far, it seems like internal heating from the earth does matter and should be included.  I think.  Hopefully someone will offer comments based on RSs one way or the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, you may be right but it definitely does not belong under incoming energy. prokaryotes (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That depends on what "incoming" refers to. If it refers to the Climate system, then "incoming" is the correct term, since the "climate system" does not extend all that far down, relative to the center of the earth.  I suppose that's why we require RSs.   I have not looked at any.   You? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added part on Earth's internal heat budget. prokaryotes (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Outgoing radiant energy (longwave)
The section "Outgoing radiant energy (longwave)" was hard to follow. I've rewritten to try to make it a bit more comprehensible.

"From the ~340 W/m2 solar radiation received, ~77 W/m2 is reflected back to Space, by clouds and the atmosphere and ~23 W/m2 is reflected by the surface albedo."

This sentence is not about longwave radiant energy, so I moved it to the previous section.

"About 0.6 W/m2, is absorbed by the upper layers of the planet."

I don't know how that is calculated. All of the energy that's not reflected is absorbed. That's 240 W/m2, not 0.6. No energy goes downward into the Earth; in fact, the net flux from the Earth is outward, not inward. Since I couldn't figure out what this is referring to, I deleted it.

"Outgoing infrared radiation is radiated by the planet surface layers (land and ocean), or transported via, evapotranspiration (84.4 W/m2, the latent heat) or conduction/convection (18.4 W/m2) processes.[1]"

This was rather hard to follow. I think that this sentence is attempting to say something about the heat transport between atmosphere and surface, but it wasn't very clear. Of the 240 W/m2 absorbed, 240 W/m2 is then radiated back to space: that is, pretty much all of it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume that the "Outgoing radiant energy (longwave)" section was replaced by shorter section called Longwave. I want to call attention to a sentence borrowed from the cited abstract, which barely parses without the lead-in comment (in the abstract) that the previous estimates have been changed. I looked up the article because I am trying to teach myself about these issues. "Recent satellite observations indicate additional precipitation, which is sustained by increased energy leaving the surface through evaporation (the latent heat flux), offsetting increases in longwave flux to the surface.[3]"

As I read the article, an isolated summary of the point might be something like this: Recent observations have shown that there is more longwave flux to the surface than was previously measured; but the total difference that it makes in many models of temperature is small, because it is offset by increased ocean evaporation, which is implied by our revised, larger estimate of ocean rainfall. - In particular, the article does NOT say that there has been additional precipitation compared to earlier, unless you over-generalize from the phrase, "... than previously thought."

If this is merely a comment about matters internal to some models, perhaps it is not needed in the section at all. On the other hand, I thought that I had read that Global Warming was already resulting in higher humidity. Is there another source for that information? (Maybe that was a misuse of this same article being cited.)

RichardFloyd (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Interval
Doesn't this article lack a time unit? All these W/m² are for a second, an hour, a day, or a year of exposure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.2.19 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, thanks IP. Anyone?   Compare Irradiance.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * W means "watt". A watt is a Joule per second.  A Joule is a unit of energy.  See the article  entitled "Joule". BuzzBloom (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)BuzzBloom
 * Dope! Thanks Buzz. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question re Back Radiation
I hope someone can explain what puzzles me regarding the 340.4 W/m^2 of Back Radiation shown in the figure. My understanding is the all the energy absorbed and reradiated by the atmosphere, from all sources, including (1) thermal heating and blackbody reradiation, and (2) IR photon capture and spontaneous emission by greenhouse gases, is reradiated in all directions. This means that almost exactly half will go up into space and half will go down to the Earth's surface. That would mean 340.4 W/m^2 of downward Back Radiation from the atmosphere would require the atmosphere to captured 680.8 W/m^2 from all sources. The diagram does not show this amount of W/m^2 of atmospheric energy capture. BuzzBloom (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)BuzzBloom


 * Your image of how IR works is correct (why are we using the dumbed-down term "back radiation"? Anyway). See Idealized_greenhouse_model for how it works in a simple case; but the real atmosphere is thick. How to make this compatible with the rather crappy picture in this article? I think that the answer is that the 340 is downwards IR *near the surface* whereas the out-to-space 240 is from *higher up*. So, its colder there, so R=(thing)T^4 means R is less. What's then not totally clear from the pic is transport within the atmosphere, which accounts for the difference of those two values William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you William. I understand that creating a modified diagram might take a while, but I hope someone will eventually modify the diagram to show a balanced budget for (1) the Earth as a whole, (2) the Earth's surface, and (3) the Earth's atmosphere. BuzzBloom (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)BuzzBloom

Earth’s energy balance equation
This study contains an equation for Earth’s energy balance http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/RoyceLam2010.pdf Maybe someone is better in adding math forms then me. prokaryotes (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

plagiarized
This new paragraph appears to have been "borrowed" en masse from prior work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Eliminating anthropological forcing would require that atmospheric CO2 content be reduced to about 350 ppm.?
The above statement is a mistatment of the source. It isn't the anthropological forcing which would be eliminated, but the global warming that would be stopped. Here is the quote:


 * "The measured imbalance confirms that, if other climate forcings are fixed, atmospheric CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stop global warming. In our recently published paper (Hansen et al., 2011)"

Since other climate forcings are fixed, that means that other anthropological forcings, like aerosols, land use changes and black carbon continue. Obviously, you haven't eliminated even the anthropological forcing of CO2 unless you go down to pre-industrial levels, but you don't have to go that far to stop global warming because the net effect of the aerosol component is negative or cooling. Poodleboy (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By golly, I partially agree. It does mis-state the source.  The rest is WP:Original research unrelated to article improvement about which I'll make no further comment, at least at this time.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article text is also a bit misleading vis'a'vis the source, the article is arguing for reducing the uncertainty in aerosol forcing but does accept the general conclusion of climate science that I explained in my WP:OR part above: "The net human-made aerosol forcing is negative (cooling), but its magnitude is uncertain within a broad range". The other part of my WP:OR is broadly consistent with this statement from the article:  "Global warming so far has been limited, as aerosol cooling has partially offset greenhouse gas warming" The error or perhaps WP:OR of the page's mistatement is that stopping global warming is not stopping anthropogenic forcing, since the article's point is that the CO2 part of the forcing is offset by the cooling effects of the aerosol forcing, and the implications may be serious since that offset may be larger.  Poodleboy (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The misleading statement was introduced with this edit which was part of a sequence of omnibus changes. The original text was more consistent with the source.  As to your  comment "unrelated to article improvement", perhaps WP:AGF and WP:NPA apply. Poodleboy (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course they apply, and in the this case going on about how you happen to know it works without explaining how the mini-lecture is relevant to a proposed article improvement comes across an inappropriate attempt to hold a WP:FORUM. So.... what change do you propose based on this source?   Go back to prior text?  What wording exactly? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)    Much of the "sequence of omnibus changes" you described also underwhelmed me.  There's probably a lot more to clean up besides this bit.
 * The cited source is not peer reviewed, but is essentially an essay/forum on a paper they published that was peer reviewed. They do provide their estimates of the energy imbalances, and their concerns about how much uncertainty there is in our knowledge of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing arguing that the cooling effect may be higher than expected due to effects on cloud cover.  If the aerosol forcing is more negative that may mean reducing CO2 emissions may have less effect, if it means that we clean up aerosol emissions at the same time.  The key take away they want us to have is their speculation about how high the aerosol forcing might actually be.  I don't have words for it yet, and won't be able to look at this again for another day. Poodleboy (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I fixed the problem you identified in the opening post with an article edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The article text and reference under discussion reads as follows
 * Eliminating anthropological forcing would require that atmospheric CO2 content be reduced to about 350 ppm. The impact of anthropogenic aerosols has not been quantified, but individual aerosol types are thought to have substantial heating and cooling effects.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Apperent very large errors in numbers given.
It is stated that the average insolation (solar enegy delivered by the sun to the earth) is ~ 340 watts per square meter, while the solar constant the average solar energy in space at the earth's orbit is ~ 1.3 KILOWATTS per meter.

This implies that before we look at any losses, we lost ~ 3/4 of the energy. Somebody needs to look at this!! Montestruc (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This article seems confusing to me too, and I do hope someday to sit down and focus on the subject.  But to answer you, the article already seems to address this because it says
 * Incoming radiant energy (shortwave)
 * "The total amount of energy received per second at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) is measured in watts and is given by the solar constant times the cross-sectional area of the Earth. Because the surface area of a sphere is four times the cross-sectional surface area of a sphere (i.e. the area of a circle), the average TOA flux is one quarter of the solar constant and so is approximately 340 W/m²."
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)