You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Twitter may not be the best medium for this(??) But if someone who understands this well can point me to a good explanation, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
I omitted the technical details, but it's this: the temperature should be set by: incoming energy flux = epsilon sigma T^4, where epsilon is the emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.
Since anything absorbed by the GHGs has already been absorbed by the Earth, the absorptivity (and thus the emissivity) shouldn't be changed by the GHGs, and so I don't see how T can be changed by the GHGs.
I should have said earlier in the thread, but the key thing I'm worried about: why is epsilon in the Stefan-Boltzmann relation changed, since net absorptivity apparently isn't? Or is S-B the wrong way to be thinking?
Update: I believe @PESimeon has isolated the source of my confusion. A summary (more or less) can be found here:https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1096990267259809793 …
Thankyou for all the comments and the links. It's very much appreciated, and has clarified matters greatly for me, especially (though certainly not just) in the part of the thread linked in the last tweet.
Here's my attempt. ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. Model OUT as Stefan-Boltzman, so proportional to T^4. Except some of the "OUT" doesn't make it out due to atmospheric absorption of IR. So T has to increase to get the equation to work.
The issue I'm worried about: why does the emissivity in Stefan-Boltzmann change? After all, there's no increase in net absorption due to the GHGs (everything absorbed by the GHGs has _already_ been absorbed once before, by the Earth).
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
