Here's where to find updated variants of Trenberth's famous "global energy flows"
aka "Earth's energy budget" (EEB) or "Earth's radiation budget" (ERB) diagram.

Here's Trenberth's 2009 version:
https://sealevel.info/Trenberth2009_fig1_global_energy_flows.png

Here's one of NASA's many versions of Earth's Radiation Budget (ERB):
https://sealevel.info/nasa_new_energy_budget_2014.png
It has an unforgivable defect: it shows the fluxes with absurd precision and no confidence intervals at all.
Also, the radiative imbalance that they show is about 2x most likely reality.

The best ERB / EEB diagram is probably NCA4's, which I annotated here:
https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram_figure2_1_25pct_annot1.png
It also has a defect: they confusingly renamed "thermals (conduction/convection)" to "sensible heat."
But at least they have CIs.
(Details below.)

AR6's is similar, but they unjustifiably shrunk the confidence intervals.

Here's the source for NASA's version...
old: https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/pdf/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
newer: https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
       link went dead; it's now here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210320185736/https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2020/07/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf
       (saved here: https://sealevel.info/ERB-poster-combined-update-8.2019v4.pdf )
newest? https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2021/08/ERB-Litho-Edits-2020.pdf
        link went dead; it's now here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220716090536/https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2021/08/ERB-Litho-Edits-2020.pdf
        https://science.larc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/147/2022/02/ERB-Litho-Edits-2020-1.png
or      https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/Earth_Energy_Budget_Diagram_Litho_Handout.pdf
        Annoyingly, they've apparently renamed "atmospheric window" heat loss to "surface cooling," and they upped it from 40.1 to 53 W/m^2, and they show it in two places.
        Also, their imbalance figure (which they renamed "Net absorbed by Earth System") is absurdly high.
        But the worst flaw of NASA's versions is that they have no CIs at all, except for a much too tight CI for the imbalance.
it was at
  https://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/energy_budget/
but seems to have moved to
  https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/news/education-overview/
  which links to
    https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/Earth_Energy_Budget_Diagram_for_Educators.jpg

Also see
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/nasa-revises-earths-radiation-budget-diminishing-some-of-trenberths-claims-in-the-process/
for discussion of the 2014 NASA version.

This is probably the best version:
NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram*.png
It's from the 2017 National Climate Assessment (NCA4) CSSR:
  various sizes:
  https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram.png (833x589 preliminary)
  https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram_annot1.png (833x681 preliminary annotated)
  https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram_figure2_1.png (4096x2669)
  https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram_figure2_1_25pct.png (1024x667)
  https://sealevel.info/NCA4_global_energy_flows_diagram_figure2_1_25pct_annot1.png (1024x930 with caption, and I annotated it)
Its major faults are that it doesn't even try to quantify the atmospheric window,
and it confusingly calls thermals (conduction/convection) "sensible heat."
Its major virtue is that it has a reasonable CI for the inflated "imbalance" figure.

AR6's version is Figure 7.2
IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky*.*
  various sizes and formats:
  https://sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky_75pct_compressed.webp
  https://sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky.png
  https://sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky_60pct.png
  https://sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky_75pct.png
  https://sealevel.info/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_7p2(a)_ERB_all_sky_75pct.webp
Its major faults are that its imbalance figure is too high with too tight of a CI,
it calls thermals (conduction/convection) "sensible heat,"
and it doesn't even try to quantify the atmospheric window heat loss.

Lindzen's 1990 ERB diagram was copied (with attribution) from MacCracken 1985:
https://sealevel.info/ERB_diagram_in_Lindzen1990.png
Better version:
https://sealevel.info/Lindzen1990_Fig6_with_caption1.png

Note that the numbers in the MacCracken/Lindzen version are percentages of incoming solar radiation, rather than W/m^2.

Here's MacCracken's 1985 version (which I cleaned up); it's the earliest example of such a diagram that I could find:
https://sealevel.info/MacCracken1985_Fig1p2_EEB_diagram.png
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.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Maccracken/publication/236534420_Projecting_the_Climatic_Effects_of_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide/links/568edcd108aead3f42f075b4/Projecting-the-Climatic-Effects-of-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide.pdf#page=36
= https://tinyurl.com/MacCracken1985p36