Talk:Earth's energy budget

Dreadful English

The article seems to have been written by someone with an inadequate grasp of English syntax.

"Energy Budget" Section

The conclusion of this section is "thereby demonstrating no net gain of energy by the Earth." In that case why would anyone believe there's global warming? The only reference for this section is to three biologists. Biologists! This section's diagram is helpful for gaining intuition, however. I ask whoever wrote this section to either delete or otherwise explain its mystifying conclusion. Page Notes (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A greenhouse effect of 110K?

It might not bother anyone, but this article AND NASAs illustration are claiming the "back radiation" was 340.3W/m2. Even though the term is stupid, it is obviously identical with the GHE or radiative forcing by GHGs and clouds. The magnitude of this GHE was commonly assumed to be about 33K or about 152W/m2. This figure works even in the context of the NASA chart, as 288 - ((398.2 - 152)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 32.6K. (Note that 398.2W/m2 "emitted by surface" could only hold true if emissivity was precisely 1, which of course it is not by far) Ok.. With 340.3W/m2 the "new" GHE grows to .. 288 - ((398.2 - 340.3)/398.2)^0.25 * 288 = 110.2K (!!!). Does it not hurt in the brain, when spreading such fake facts? Leitwolf22 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Earth's circumference which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

The article states: "Photosynthesis has a larger effect: photosynthetic efficiency turns up to 2% of incoming sunlight into biomass"

This is a little confusing. I think this is peak photosynthetic efficiency, not average efficiency. And the article linked quotes various numbers for "typical efficiency," ranging from 0.1 to 4.3%.

", for a total photosynthetic productivity of earth between ~1500–2250 TW (~1%+/-0.26% solar energy hitting the Earth's surface).[11]"

A dubious value. This number is not in the reference quoted; that's a back-calculation from the total production of cyanobacteria divided by the estimated fraction of the total that is produced by cyanobacteria.

The reference was But the citation is not the actual source of the quoted figure (much less the calculation), but cites it as coming from the following source:

• Waterbury JB, Watson SW, Guillard RRL, Brand LE. Widespread occurrence of a unicellular, marine, planktonic, cyanobacterium. Nature. 1979;277:293–294

I don't have access to this; can anybody check this reference and give the correct source?

Because the cited reference wasn't actually a source for the data in the article, I cut the reference, and instead put in two citations to two different values: and Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

C-class assessment and importance assignments

The article's quality score was upgraded from 'Start' to 'C' since it now provides a reasonably complete overview of the subject, its sections are manageably sized, progression of key concepts seems logical, and most content is well-referenced with up-to-date numbers and figures. Improvements could perhaps be made in some places with more technically accurate and consistent use of the energy & power related terms (e.g. thermal energy, heat, flow, flux, etc). Some remarkable findings regarding the north/south hemispherical behaviors are described in more recent studies and seem worth keeping an eye on. These could warrant inclusion within a new section nearer the end at some point.

WikiProject Oceans was added since that is where more than 90% of the extra energy from the ongoing heating imbalance is stored. I also assigned initial importance/priority ratings of 'High' with respect to stated goals of the Climate change, Environment, and Ocean projects. That is especially bolstered by scientists' statements on the "imperative" priority of the subject (see final section of article) ... and so a 'Top' rating could also be appropriate. A 'Low' rating was assigned relative to WikProject Energy since the project goals are directed mainly towards subject matter that encompasses the harness of its use by humans. Bikesrcool (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Major mistake

It is a significant, though often made error, that IR radiation from the surface is the only source of IR from the atmosphere. Absorbed IR in the atmosphere is themalized (transferred to kinetic energy of the molecules) by collisions where it is mixed with thermal energy transferred by sensible heat and condensation. Collisions also result in the reverse, vibration excitation of other ghgs. Proportionally each of the thermal energy transfer mechanisms power the back radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Halpern (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion regarding a possible change to this article, User:Joshua Halpern? EMsmile (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Questions about the section "Role of the greenhouse effect"

I have two questions about the section "Role of the greenhouse effect": Can we perhaps shorten it, given that we have a separate article about it (greenhouse effect) - maybe even use an excerpt from the lead. I know that the article greenhouse effect has recently been improved so I assume that the content there is better than the content here (?).

Secondly, does it make sense to have this section ("Role of the greenhouse effect") within the section on "budget analysis"? Does it perhaps fit better in the section on "Earth's energy flows"? EMsmile (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes to both. The role of the greenhouse effect should be elsewhere and simply referred to briefly here. In my book I include "The Greenhouse effect" in a chapter called "Earth's energy balance". 125.236.142.0 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, which book is that? And where in the structure of this Wikipedia article would a shortened version of the greenhouse effect content best be placed? How could its relationship with the overall Earth's energy budget best be explained to a layperson? It is a subset of the overall system? Or a mechanisms which explains XXX? Just trying to understand which of the two articles is the parent and which is the sub-article (if we can view them like that). In any case, we should not duplicate more than necessary the content about the greenhouse effect in two articles but rather refer people across to greenhouse effect, after having explained what it has to do with it. EMsmile (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Bikesrcool and User:Rhwentworth. EMsmile (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My book is:

'The changing flow of energy through the climate system', Cambridge University Press, 336 pages,

Chapters

1. Earth and Climate System; 2. Earth's Energy Imbalance and Climate Change; 3. Earth's Energy Balance;

4. The Sun-Earth System; 5. Observations of Temperature, Moisture, Precipitation and Radiation;

6. The Climate System; 7. The Weather Machine; 8. The Dynamic Ocean;

9. Poleward Heat Transports by the Atmosphere and Ocean; 10. The Changing Hydrological Cycle;

11. Teleconnections and Patterns of Variability; 12. El Niño; 13. Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity;

14. Earth's Energy Imbalance Estimates; 15. Attribution and the Hiatus; 16. Prediction and Projection;

17. Emissions and Information; 18. Climate Change and Environmental Issues;

References and further reading; Bibliography; Glossary; Acronyms; Index.

There is a foreword, by former Vice President Al Gore. 125.236.142.0 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've now made some changes - I hope I got it right? I've moved the section on "role of greenhouse effect" up to the section called "Earth's energy flows". Then I shortened it. And I also added an excerpt from greenhouse effect. Let me know if it should be shortened further or if we can explain better what the greenhouse effect has to do with the energy budget (in a language that lay persons can understand!). Here are the two paragraphs that I've removed as they are similar in the lead of greenhouse effect which we have transcribed to here with the excerpt tool:

+++++++++

Greenhouse gases absorb a majority of the thermal infrared energy that is emitted by Earth's surface. Those gasses also radiate thermal infrared energy in all directions. With radiation traveling in all directions, the net effect is that that is little net energy transfer (radiation heat transfer) in the lower atmosphere. The atmosphere thins with altitude, and at roughly 5–6 kilometres, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so thin that radiated heat can escape to space.

Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate infrared energy in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately returns to the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed. This downward radiative energy flow balances most of the thermal radiative energy flow upward from Earth's surface, greatly reducing the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. This leads to solar energy accumulating, raising the surface temperature until the surface is warm enough that the rate of cooling matches the rate of warming from absorbed sunlight. This results in the surface being warmer than it would be if greenhouse gases were not inhibiting radiative heat loss. This reduced cooling and associated increased temperature is the natural greenhouse effect.

++++++ 

EMsmile (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

I agree it could make more sense to condense it into a paragraph or two under the OLR section, perhaps as an excerpt. That said, the GHE article properly focuses on describing its role as a static phenomena (in time) that raises the planet's equilibrium surface temperature.

I think the relevant role to describe within this article's context is that changes to the GHE strength can force changes to OLR, the overall balance, and eventually to a higher temperature (over time). That role is the focus of the Radiative Forcing article. Having a separate excerpt section here on the greenhouse forcing without similar treatments of albedo forcing, aerosol forcing, etc. may thus not make sense. There are already links and references to the encompassing topic of radiative forcing elsewhere in the article. Bikesrcool (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bikesrcool I am not fully following you but that's just due to my lack of expertise in this area. Can you make the changes as you see fit? Should we delete the section about greenhouse effect and just refer to it somewhere in a sentence or two. And are we interlinking well enough with radiative forcing or could this be done better? I guess it's hard to describe the whole complex situation in a group of separate articles which all overlap and interlink to some extent: Earth's energy budget, greenhouse effect, radiative forcing, cloud feedback plus others probably. EMsmile (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Bikesrcool where do we stand with this now? I see you've made changes since this talk page entry. Has everything been addressed that you had identified? What about the concern that I had noted earlier about the section "Role of the greenhouse effect"? EMsmile (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the section "Role of the greenhouse effect" and excerpt, and just integrated it within the section on "Outgoing longwave radiation". I think this works better and will stop the temptation in future to add more content about the greenhouse effect to this article. EMsmile (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Consolidating all of this to one paragraph at the end of the OLR section with a GHE link works well enough too. Based on page views, it seems most readers who come here may already be familiar with the GHE article. Bikesrcool (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)