? The land?atmosphere interaction
? The soil?biosphere interaction
? The atmosphere?biosphere interaction
? The ice?ocean interaction
? The atmpsphere?ice interaction
? Cryospherics: Glaciers, ice sheets, ice shelves, sea-ice, snow, permafrost, frozen ground etc
? Land surfaces: Vegetation, geomorphology, ecosystems, land use, land use change, albedo, volcanoes
? Oceanics: Biogeochemistry, thermohaline and other circulations, sea-levels
? Hydrology: Evapouration, transpiration, precipitation, cloud cover
? Weather: Wind stresses, wind dynamics, thermodynamics
? Oscillations in the oceans and atmosphere. Very long term models will take planetary oscillations into account.
? Radiation: Terrestrial and solar, changes to both
? Boundary transitions
? Changes in solar activity
? Changes in human activity
In addition to Baccheus and Pegminer: If you’re going to add in the greenhouse effect then that means factoring in equilibrium climate sensitivity which is subject to the law of diminishing returns and is a somewhat subjective value at the best of times.
Try this link, it’s the NCAR Single-column Community Climate Model
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/sccm/sccm.ht...
Good luck.
yawn, ever thought about getting a life
edit Pindar: Ever thought about learning what you are trying to discuss rather than take the whole Billy train of thought.
after winning every single argument i've ever had with you and proving time and time again that you cannot compete intellectually with me. then no,it's not neccesary . i mean, get real, you believe cow farts will cause us to be doomed, hardly the mark of a raging intellect lol, and no i didn't know billy advocated getting out more, ha ha even your ad homin attacks are pathetic
There are no Delta sums or proportional equivalents. Basically your dealing with constants or standards only. So you could solve for each variable. Now integrate GHG, lapse rates, and fluxes on a quantum or real time value that's constantly changing and the odds become beyond human comprehension.
Others have answered the main points. I will add a detail. The emissivity is a function of wavelength and is generally not 1. 1 is a perfect black body.
The answers here are just plain pathetic.
Yes, you left out the greenhouse effect. But a bigger problem is that you assume the system is in equilibrium. You have the outgoing power equal to the incoming power. But that is not what is happening. That is why we have global warming.
P.S. I cannot help noting that Trevor gave a "scholarly" longwinded answer sure to impresss his ditto-heads who reject differential equations.
There is no greenhouse effect in the equation because the equation is for the temperature of the earth's surface. The greenhouse effect affects the temperature of the troposphere relative to the heat reflected by the surface. If you get to temperature of the troposphere, you'll get equations that include the greenhouse effect.
For this course to have any type of credibility , ask to see the global weather for say 1700 to 1710. Man was going all over the world, we were using coal for heat and steal . We were impacting man ant the world.
You could start by adding a single longwave absorbing layer to represent the atmosphere. You'll need to come up with a representative temperature and emissivity for it.
EDIT: Pindar, I've never seen you win any argument with ANYBODY in here. You might start with Sagebrush if you need practice.
I love little puppies.
atmosphere, acid rains ecc...
I'm watching a beginner course in climate modelling and have thus far got about 1/3 of the way through.
L(1- α)πR^2 = εσTg^4*4πR^2
where
L = Solar Constant (About 1367 W/m^2)
α = Albedo (Roughly 0.33)
ε = Emissivity (=1)
σ = Stefan–Boltzmann constant
Tg = Temperature of the ground
How would you change it? What is it missing and what would you add? This model has no greenhouse effect. What would you do to add one?
