Not exact matches
There is non-radiative heat
flux in the atmosphere though and energy can be transported above the level where the greenhouse effect is dominant but eventually must be lost by
thermal radiation.
Why doesn't ozzio see that the ground is net warmed by solar
radiation and net cooled by
thermal radiation and there is an equilibrium when you account for other
fluxes too (as in the K&T budget)?
«Because the solar -
thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)-RSB- is maintained by radiative processes only, and because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero, it follows that the global average surface temperature must be determined in full by the radiative
fluxes arising from the patterns of temperature and absorption of
radiation.»
Given the model generated clouds, we can calculate their radiative effects on atmospheric
fluxes accurately for both solar and
thermal radiation.
Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as «
thermal inertia» and «net energy balance» and «latent heat
flux» and «subsurface heat storage» and «absorbed heat
radiation» and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like «soil moisture» and «surface roughness» and «vertical wind» and «meltwater» and «volcanoes.»
Note that in the tropical ocean most of the action takes place
thermal radiation is on the order of 60 W / m2 while latent
flux is on the order of 160W / m2.
So by KT97 if you let the surface be 289K as stated in TFK09 instead of 288K you can take: 67 Wm - 2 absorbed SW by the atmosphere plus 24 Wm - 2 carried upward by
thermals (dry conduction / convection) plus 78 Wm - 2 carried upward by evaporation (convection) plus 66 Wm - 2 actual LW
radiation flux upward (
radiation)------ 235 Wm - 2 detected LW upwelling by satellites above the TOA
The largest single energy
flux at the surface of the Earth is the upwards
thermal IR
radiation.