michael_nielsen

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!

@AndrewDohertyQu @dabacon @worrydream @patrickc Do you know?

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.

The temperature of the earth at the ground is not the same as the temperature of the upper atmosphere, where the IR has its last chance to radiate from Earth. Analogy: your clothes radiate at a lower temperature than your skin. Your clothes make the air above your skin warmer.

Good point. So you're saying the temp of the Earth+atmosphere system is determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, but the Earth may be quite a bit warmer.

In more detail, the temperature of the Earth+atmosphere system isn't changed by GHGs (since the absorptivity and thus emissivity isn't changed, and ignoring the role of water vapour in setting emissivity). But the ground temperature may well be.

That sounds pretty plausible to me. I'll want to think on it. It may help explain something else I've been confused about, which is that I've read that the altitude of GHGs in the atmosphere matters.