View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 16-October-2005, 04:49 PM
dgruss23's Avatar
dgruss23 dgruss23 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
On the contrary, those all sound like equilibrium configurations to me, in the sense of the temperature being set by a balance between energy inputs and energy responses. I misspoke that rising CO2 levels would imply we are out of equilibrium, what I meant was that they have the potential to knock us out the equilibrium we are in.
By definition equilibrium means an unchanging balance in a system. The climate is never in equilibrium. It is always changing. Sometimes the changes are small, sometimes they are big. Equilibrium has nothing to do with this. Climate change is the issue and whether or not the CO2 increases are causing change .

Quote:
The fact that temperature on the Moon varies so fast shows conclusively that terrestrial planets find thermal equilibrium on timescales of a year or so! (Yes it would be longer for Earth than the Moon, we're bigger and have lots of water, but I doubt that much longer).
I think you're underestimating the influence of both the ocean and the atmosphere.

Quote:
So really, what I meant was that we already know the timescales on which the Sun can cause temperature variations on Earth, and they are probably managable for humanity.
We are still coming to understand the full range of scales over which the Sun influences climate. See for example this recent result.

Quote:
What we have no idea about is the timescales on which human intervention can alter the climate.
Actually its even more fundamental than that. We are not sure that our changes in CO2 levels constitutes a climate "intervention" at all.
__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982
Reply With Quote