Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
It seems to me that the "not isothermal" argument follows from the sa=
me
argument that produces the "warmer surface". The situation, as it
appears to me, is this:
1. Let's first assume that the albedo is the same with and without an
atmosphere (we know it is not but this, at least, focuses our attenti=
on
on the CO2/IR situation).
2. Let's further assume that none of the non-reflected radiation from
the sun is absorbed by the atmosphere (actually, it is probably about
10%).
......................SNIP...............................
8. Consequently, the earth is absorbing more radiation than it would
otherwise without an atmosphere (usually called the "greenhouse
effect").
9. Consequently, the earth must be warmer than the atmosphere.
10. Assuming the atmosphere at the surface has the same temperature a=
s
the earth, this means the atmosphere is not isothermal.
6) Clouds complicate things considerably. A
thin layer of clouds can actually make the
climate warmer, whereas thick clouds make it
cooler (all compared to the baseline no-cloud
situation).
Yes, clouds can influence the albedo, which I've conveniently ignored=
.