- #1
Graeme M
- 325
- 31
I'm not sure if this should be here or under Earth Sciences.
GHGs warm the atmosphere, but they do that largely in response to LWR from the heated surface. The relative contributions of the major GHGs are known, but I can't seem to find anything about the contribution from surface heat. For example, all things being equal and concentrations remaining unchanged, if surface changes led to greater heat from the surface shouldn't that increase atmospheric temperatures?
Perhaps this is minimal at a global level, but what about at a local level? Here in Australia a lot of land has been cleared for agriculture. With the drought, a lot of land is now dry earth. Regardless of increasing concentrations of GHGs, shouldn't that kind of land change lead to more emitted LWR and more absorption/re-emission by GHGs? And hence local climatic variation on the scale of years/decades?
GHGs warm the atmosphere, but they do that largely in response to LWR from the heated surface. The relative contributions of the major GHGs are known, but I can't seem to find anything about the contribution from surface heat. For example, all things being equal and concentrations remaining unchanged, if surface changes led to greater heat from the surface shouldn't that increase atmospheric temperatures?
Perhaps this is minimal at a global level, but what about at a local level? Here in Australia a lot of land has been cleared for agriculture. With the drought, a lot of land is now dry earth. Regardless of increasing concentrations of GHGs, shouldn't that kind of land change lead to more emitted LWR and more absorption/re-emission by GHGs? And hence local climatic variation on the scale of years/decades?