You will have to adjust the layers by either adding onto or taking away a percentage of T(a) to equal the temperature of T(g).
Again, if you took the courses I linked you to you would know this. But then again you wrote them off as all part of a conspiracy. Good job.
https://class.coursera.org/globalwarming...
Edit: Improved the equation above by correcting an error and adding the symbols. The S is the solar constant, α is the albedo, ε is the emissivity, σ is the stefan-boltzman constant, T(g) is the temperature of the ground and T(a) is the temperature of the bottom layer of atmosphere. To increase the temperature of the ground we need to increase the layers of atmosphere or the concentration of atmosphere with greenhouse gases to increase the amount of back radiation until an equilibrium is reached.
You can see an example of the above in the link here: http://instaar.colorado.edu/~lehmans/env... about half way down the page under the title 'radiative balance'
The previous link does not include a greenhouse effect though.
This page goes into the simple one layer model.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2010Q1/1...
In order to find the temperature of the ground you first need to find the temperature of the top layer of atmosphere, then every lower layer of atmosphere, until you reach the ground temperature. You can do this by using multiple equations and substituting the T(a) section of the equation with the answer to your first equation then combing like terms then going from there. For Earth, S = 1367, α = 0.3, ε = 1 and σ = 5.67*10^-8
" If it cannot be modeled mathematically, then it does not exist."
There is a problem with this statement. Mathematics can certainly be used to describe the natural world but does that also mean the natural world always conforms to mathematics (or a mathematical equation)? Here is an interesting read on what I'm talking about: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/paper...
One example, which is very pertinent to climate science, is turbulence. Turbulence is described in three dimensions by Navier-Stokes nonlinear partial differential equations. (e.g. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplan... ) We can't yet solve them. However, they can be useful in applications like weather forecasting when using some very good assumptions, accurate input parameters and powerful computing techniques. However, as we all know, the solutions falls apart after an amount of time.
That paragraph you quoted sounds like it came from the so-called "Sky Dragons" here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/ These guys are the James Hanson's of skeptics and actually deny there is a greenhouse gas effect. Mainstream skeptics question the strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect but at least acknowledge there is one.
Let me leave you with one question: Does a perfect sphere exist in nature?
I don't think it is true statement. Everything that exists can probably be explained mathematically if we had perfect knowledge which we don't. Obviously there are many things that are poorly understood about temperature fluctuations. When you base your models on poorly understood variables, you obviously aren't going to get very reliable results. That doesn't mean CO2 isn't a greenhouse or that it doesn't have any effect. It just means we still have a lot to learn.
No, it's not true. And your request for Gary F is silly. There are MANY things that exist in mathematics and science for which you can't write down a simple formula--that does not make them any less real. What you would probably get if you really wanted a formula like that would be an integro-differential equation (Where's Paul's Alias 2 when you need him?).
There seems to be a belief among you non-science oriented people that everything should have a simple formula or a simple explanation. A few days ago Kano asked a vague question with many complexities and complained that he got so few answers for it, when what he was really suggesting was more of a research topic than something that could be easily answered in YA.
Here's one for you: write down a formula for the prime numbers. Easy, right? Can't you do that? Every schoolkid knows what they are and we know there are infinite number of them, so predicting where they occur should be easy.
EDIT: You said:
"You believe in a science (climate science) that believes humans are being destructive by using natural resources to help propel themselves from one place to another."
What a dopey and poorly thought out statement that is. Do you really think that physics makes value judgments? Because that is what you are saying. Science tells that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere will result in warming.
First you are talking about "the greenhouse effect" and providing a quote without a source. For all we know, your grocer could have said it.
Second the greenhouse effect itself is not GW, GW is the enhanced greenhouse effect created by human induced greenhouse gas.
You like math? Well consider rising temps and real time temperature reading that have shown beyond a doubt that the planet has been warming.
All the time you skeptics waste with this kind of BS questions, because you have no hope of disproving the "A" in AGW is just a waste
Sagebrush...since you refer to it this way, garyf and other environmentalists eat science...it is you duh skeptics that eat garbage
False
Simply because you are incapable of modelling something, does not mean it can not be modelled.Your statement is incomplete and misleading
Its very close. The failing point is assuming that because we do not yet understand it means it does not exist. That is a logical falasy.
If the statement were modified to include the possibility that if you can not model it means you do not yet understand it, then it would be facutal.
This is of course enough to destroy the arguement of AGW as they claim to understand it nearly 100%. Or was it 95%....
No; it's not a true scientific statement (about AGW or anything else).
>>If it is false, please explain why.<<
The author does not understand science, math, or modeling, and does not seem to know much about Fourier, either. Other than that, it is spot on.
That is obvious from their failed predictions. They are not even close. They don't know squat about the environment but they still insist on cleaning out out pockets for the cause.
Then you have people like Gary F who eats up the environmentalist's garbage and claims that others don't know what they are doing. Ha! Ha!
"No one has ever modeled mathematically the greenhouse gas effect and back radiations, including the great Fourier. If it cannot be modeled mathematically, then it does not exist. A real effect can be measured, mathematically modeled, and experimentally replicated. None of these has been possible with the greenhouse gas effect."
If it is false, please explain why.
