:smack: There certainly are strong positive feedback mechanisms; I hope that isn’t in doubt by anyone except BrazilNut. Methane levels are still a big unknown but some estimates are for many thousands of gigatonnes sequestered in ice and snow, and millions of gigatonnes in marine sediment. Even small releases from such a huge stock would have huge greenhouse effect.
But the main point you obstinately refuse to grasp is that no “additional energy” is required; the change in temperature to its new equilibrium is automatic, tautological.
You’re hung up on “tipping points.” I don’t know what confused post you’re confused about. Postive feedbacks do lead to “spikes” as a glance at a graph of long-term temperature should suggest.
Like Jeopardy, you’ve framed your question as an answer but I think you need to go back to study hall. I’m no climatologist but even I can see your position is malarkey.
I could argue that “tipping point” is a bad metaphor, because it implies a runaway process without an end. A “quantum jump” is, perhaps, a better mental image. The temperature will move, rapidly, from one equilibrium state to another.
The boulder doesn’t have to roll all the way down the mountain; it might just roll thirty feet down the mountain and stop there. Both are “tipping point” events, but one doesn’t have a cessation mechanism, and the other does.
But the fallacy of “no additional energy” is a childish one. Go outdoors on a hot day, wearing a white t-shirt. Then do exactly the same thing wearing a black t-shirt. The difference between energy reflected and energy absorbed is immediately evident! The increased proportion of greehouse gases is like the earth wearing a darker t-shirt.
(Probably with some death-metal-house-fusion-band-name logo on the front. “Haet Daeth” or something.)
You haven’t stated what the misunderstanding is. Perhaps I should provide an example, describe what is happening … and then leave it to you to decide if this qualifies as scientific support.
Take a 1 kg chink of iron at 0ºC and press it against a 1 kg chunk of iron at 100ºC. Energy immediately starts to flow from the “hot” side to the “cold” side, and after a period of time, the whole thing is roughly 50ºC, it’s equilibrium temperature. Turns out this is true no matter the number of components or materials in a closed system, the total energy will distribute itself throughout the total matter so that everything is the same temperature. This illustrates the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law of Thermodynamics, we start with a condition of higher order where temps are 100º on one half and 0º on the other, and move to a condition of lower order, both halves are 50º.
I guess I’m hoping you’ll recognize this as an actual phenomena of nature. I really don’t know where to send you for a citation, except perhaps the chapter in the most recent edition of Halliday/Resnick that discuses thermodynamics.
Indeed, “tipping point” is an especially bad metaphor*. I don’t think the equilibrium state can jump like that unless one of the many factors that effect it jump. CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have been gradually increasing so we see the equilibrium temperature increase gradually. As septimus points out, without an addition source of energy temperature will approach equilibrium automagically, as the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law requires. It is the exception to this that must be explained, not the other way around.
*= This is more of a comparison than a metaphor. It would be correct to say that a parcel of air at 100% humidity is at it’s “tipping point”. When something as simple as rising the parcel in the air column causes humidity to increase, it won’t, rather it sheds the excess water into it’s liquid phase releasing it’s latent heat of condensation. This is common in cyclones so it is fair to say cyclones are a runaway effect limited only by friction.The bigger it is, the more water it condenses.
We must provide additional energy to the cyclone to bring it into a higher level of order (faster, bigger), otherwise the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law will quickly act to reduce the order and dissipate it (although friction is the bigger part of this to be honest).
With increasing CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations, we should see increasing equilibrium temperatures.
A] Does the actual temperature respond very slowly to an increase in equilibrium (and slower still since we’re continuing to dumping CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere), or
B] Does the actual temperature respond quickly, such that at any given time, the actual temperature is the same as equilibrium?
If they are right, it means all the previous stuff about how CO2 will warm the planet is wrong.
That’s science. It’s how it works.
The last time I brought this up was in regard to how and why this new MIT study, if it’s right, and how Cohen and his theory, if it’s right, shows the classic global warming theory to be wrong.
It also explains the cooling trend for winters, as well as the flattening of global temperature rise.
In terms of nature, CO2 levels have definitely jumped, due to combustion on a global scale in our industrial-revolution and ever since.
Temperatures are jumping for this reason.
The additional source of energy is that part of the sun’s energy that the earth receives that is not reflected away. The increase of greenhouse gases means an increase in that specific energy: the energy the earth now absorbs, which, in centuries past, it reflected back to space.
See my comparison to wearing a black t-shirt. That’s what we’re doing: we’re “blackening” the earth’s atmosphere.
I have already quoted the section of FXMastermind’s link that noted that planetary temperature equilibrium is only valid on a hypothetical planet with no atmosphere. And FXMastermind was also kind enough to provide a link to a site noting that the Equilibrium temperature of Venus is 40C while the actual temperature is 480C and goes on to note that the discrepancy is due to greenhouse gasses. I suspect that I was right that you saw an article on Equilibrium Temperature and confused it with a misunderstanding of entropy.
At any rate, Equilibrium Temperature is not going to provide you any sort of support for your beliefs.
Interesting … you seem to imply that since the Earth isn’t a perfect black-body radiator, then the Earth doesn’t radiate at all. That’s not true at all. The Earth contains energy, a lot of energy; inter-planetary space contains very little energy. Applying the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law of Thermodynamics, we know energy will flow from the Earth into space, and the sun has nothing to do with this, this is strictly terrestrial energy. It might take 10[sup]50[/sup] years to get reasonably close to her equilibrium temperature of 3K, but fortunately the sun will slew the Earth’s vaporized molecules into interstellar space which will speed up the process.
You keep saying that but never say what the proper understanding is.
Well, here’s a picture of the Earth’s albedo. White area’s are very high albedo, yellow area’s less so, blue not-so-much and the few black areas are mostly none at all. Are you complaining that the yellow areas will become black with global warming? That well could be. Kind of a nitpick here, but the only parts of the albedo in the atmosphere are the white patches, some would say that would increase due to global warming, thus increasing albedo … like a negative feedback … but evidence is pretty thin on that claim.
Since the sun does exist and is pumping huge amounts of energy into the biosphere, this hypothetical aside is of only abstract interest.
No, not specifically; I was saying that greenhouse gases reduce the amount of solar heat energy reflected/re-emitted from the earth back to space. It is albedo darkening in the IR bands, not in the visual light spectrum.
Are you still dubious that the sun’s energy is the source of nearly all of the earth’s warmth? At one point you appeared to deny that.
In an effort to wrench this topic back on track, bitching about global warming, not this annoying scientific shit, because the science is settled you know, in an effort to return to our roots, here’s some more facts about what global warming is doing to our world. Facts you can not deny are real.
Now that’s some global warming right there. Sure you were told winters were getting freaky, with the jet stream meandering and a warm arctic causing record cold, because cold means warmer.
But now global warming has moved into summer with a vengeance.
(let’s remember that the only thing dumber than claiming a record event means no global warming, is to claim that record cold actually means global warming)
See? So claiming record cold in summer means global warming is the dumbest possible claim ever.
I mean most people can understand that somebody throwing a snowball during record winter cold and saying “I got your global warming right here!”, most people can understand that is stupid. But it takes a rare soul to realize that claiming record cold actually means it is warming is even worse. It’s stupid cubed or something.
But man oh man, is that new record cold amazing or what? 29 fucking degrees on August 23. The old record of 61 for the say isn’t even the real story. It’s that it broke the all time low for August, along with them other records. It’s a real record breaker. And that’s a sure sign it’s global warming you know. How can you know this? Because global warming is happening, so anything unusual is global warming. That’s science bitches, and you know in your heart it’s true.
Checking the long term records for that area, there is a clear trend for August. (which takes it into climate, not weather of course) And just like you might think, because of global warming, the twenty year trend shows it getting colder, with the lows at -1.3F a century, and the highs at -3.4F a century, and that’s facts you can’t deny. It’s obvious global warming is now effecting our summer temps as well as winters.
Of course there were many more records for August 23, 2015, but none as dramatic asCasper…
Bozeman, Montana: 32ºF (old record 33ºF)
Lewistown, Montana: 33ºF (ties record of 33ºF)
Cheyenne, Wyoming: 38ºF (old record 40ºF )
Scottsbluff, Nebraska: 39ºF (old record 41ºF )
Sidney, Nebraska: 35ºF (old record 37ºF)
Pocatello, Idaho: 36ºF (tie)
Rapid City, South Dakota: 38ºF (tie)
In case it’s not obvious, it was fucking cold, and snow even fell at Rocky Mountain National Park.
Temps were in the upper 20s Tuesday and Wednesday morning at West Yellowstone, Montana. In August! I blame Canada of course, always letting that cold Canadian air into the US, which is just so wrong.
But really, it’s all the greenhouse warming that is the cause of it all. And you know that means it’s your fault, you fossil fuel using morons.
:smack: There certainly are strong positive feedback mechanisms; I hope that isn’t in doubt by anyone except BrazilNut. Methane levels are still a big unknown but some estimates are for many thousands of gigatonnes sequestered in ice and snow, and millions of gigatonnes in marine sediment. Even small releases from such a huge stock would have huge greenhouse effect.
