Dave Burton@ncdave4life
Dave BurtonMar 28, 2024
6 tweets
1/6. From measurements of downwelling LW IR, 342 W/m² is a reasonable, approximate estimate of downwelling LW IR radiation averaged over the entire surface of the Earth.
It's essentially identical to MacCracken's 1985 estimate (which he called "only an approximation"):
sealevel.info/MacCracken1985
(Note: the numbers are percentages.)
The quoted text excerpt is:
“The fluxes of energy within the atmosphere-surface system can be illustrated using an energy balance diagram. Although many measurements have been made at the surface and from satellites, there are still uncertainties of 10-20% in the values of some of the fluxes because of the difficulty of making representative global measurements. In some cases model calculations have been used to generate estimates. The values shown in the diagram in Figure 1.2 are derived from consideration of energy balances prepared by Gates (1979), Liou (1980), and MacCracken (1984), and are only an approximation.”
Source:
M. C. MacCracken and F. M. Luther (Ed.), "Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide," United States Department of Energy, DOE/ER 0237, Dec. 1985.
researchgate.net/profile/Michae
Note that the main source of uncertainty is not that we cannot measure downwelling LW IR. Rather, it is "the difficulty of making representative global measurements." Actual downwelling LW IR fluxes vary wildly with time and location, so finding an accurate global average is problematic, to put it mildly.
2/6. Lindzen 1990 cited MacCracken:
sealevel.info/Lindzen1990_Fi
Source:
sealevel.info/Lindzen1990_So
3/6. Here's the NCA4 version (with my notes about the "radiative imbalance" added). They show downwelling LW IR = 338 to 348 W/m², with a best estimate of 342:
sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en
4/6. Willard's Feb. 3 tweet used AR6's Fig. 7.2(a) ERB diagram, which looks just like the NCA4 version, except that they unjustifiably narrowed the confidence interval to be just 339 to 347 W/m² (and wildly exaggerated the radiative imbalance estimate):
sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_F
_ERB_all_sky_75pct.png){kind=link}
5/6. NASA has a version, too, but it's even worse than AR6's. It shows 345 W/m², and no confidence intervals at all.
(Also, the radiative imbalance estimate which they show is about 2× most likely reality.)
science.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/upl
Patrice POYET@PoyetPatrice
Mar 28 24
View on Twitter
Go fight to Ukraine or provide for the integration of the curve and deliver the 342W/m2 which is a nonsense as no IR astronomy could be made from Earth, or know your place, that of a troll, and just stay silent. 3) is preferred option.
6/6. So 342 W/m² is a reasonable, albeit approximate, estimate of average downwelling LW IR.
However, the best evidence is that additional CO2 has much less warming effect that Willard & the IPCC suppose. Here're some references:
sealevel.info/Radiative_Forc
Dave Burton
Dave Burton@ncdave4life
My preferred pronoun is "harmless data drudge." https://t.co/YTkK6vaHGs Tel: +1 919-481-0098.
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .