I have a question. If we can adjust the distance between earth and sun, we can control the climate change, right?
As I think, it shall be quite difficult to adjust the distance between earth and sun but easy to control the emission of CO2 and other GHGs in atmosphere.
There may be other effects than that of climate if we could adjust the distance between the earth and the sun.
The Sun's magnetic field protects the earth from GCRs and this would be adjusted too.
The Sun's gravitational field, (notably tidal forces) would also be adjusted.
Moving the earth would affect the solar irradiance incident on the earth, which would affect the climate, but it would also affect the amount of energy available for photosynthesis and for seeing with.
And I can't think of a way that we could adjust the distance between the earth and the sun. Certainly not a quick or safe way.
The negative effects would outweigh the positives. As mister Grant said above, too many parametres would be changed. It's like trying to stop a war with another war.
Before that, it is better to use less energy, save energy and controll Co2 production. Global warming and climate change is due to our activities.
" . . . Global warming and climate change is due to our activities. "
Arun, before you can say this, You need to look at the physics and Math or the atmosphere. For example, each pound of rain that falls has carried over 500 Btus high in the atmosphere and released that energy when the water vapor condenses to liquid. Most of this energy is released And radiated into the galaxy. The gaseous atmosphere weighs about 10**19 pounds so it takes about 10**18 Btus to change the atmosphere's temperature by 1 degree F. There are those among us who want humans back in caves burning corn shucks to keep from freezing. AGW is nothing but way for these people to control us. Look to Science for guidance, not the yattering of Global Warmers.
DR Robert L Hamilton, Engineer
"Arun, before you can say this, You need to look at the physics and Math or the atmosphere."
Arun's research interests are "Behavioural Ecology, Animal Behaviour, ethnoecology and biodiversity", so he certainly will have noticed the effect of AGW on biodiversity.
But outside obvious observations, such as "increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect", it is okay to trust atmospheric physicists on the finer details of atmospheric physics.
"For example, each pound of rain that falls has carried over 500 Btus high in the atmosphere and released that energy when the water vapor condenses to liquid. Most of this energy is released And radiated into the galaxy. The gaseous atmosphere weighs about 10**19 pounds so it takes about 10**18 Btus to change the atmosphere's temperature by 1 degree F."
Trenberth has a good summary of the energy fluxes in the atmosphere, including evapotranspiration.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/images/trenberth-fig1.gif
So I don't think that atmospheric physicists have missed this point you make. (Although they do tend to use SI units.)
"There are those among us who want humans back in caves burning corn shucks to keep from freezing."
The best way to avoid this is also to develop renewable energy.
Oil and even coal are eventually finite. When they are finished we need to have other technologies on line. Even if you are misanthropic enough to not care about the effect of AGW on biodiversity.
"AGW is nothing but way for these people to control us."
I don't think that the world's atmospheric physicists are planning a take over of our lives. Such people are more attracted to politics.
"Look to Science for guidance, not the yattering of Global Warmers."
And here we agree.
But if you think that greenhouse gasses don't affect the greenhouse effect, or that a couple of degrees of warming will be devastating to biodiversity and to human health and infrastructure, I can only suspect that you're not familiar with the science at all.
There is no such thing as "Greenhouse Effect:" CF the Paper by Professor R. W. Wood, Johns Hopkins U from 1909. Over 100 years ago he proved by experiment that no such effect exists. The physical Reason is obvious: If one molecule radiates energy that molecule has to Cool. Any molecule that intercepts that energy will warm a bit But it Cannot radiate more energy back than it received. That is just Thermo 101 from High School Science. IF such a thing existed the earth's atmosphere would be thousands of degrees and it is just a moderate 100 degrees or less over the planet. You folks have pulled off the greatest hoax since 325 CE.
Robert. There definitely is a Greenhouse effect.
Components of a planets atmosphere whose absorption spectrum is such that the frequencies of thermal radiation from the planet are absorbed more than the frequencies of thermal radiation from the star are greenhouse gasses, and the resulting warming is called the greenhouse effect.
It is not remotely controversial. Absorption spectra are so well understood in the physics of optics that we are using them to infer some of the atmospheric constituents in extra-solar planets.
Also it is responsible for about 33°C of the warmth of earth and hundreds of degrees of warming on Venus.
You can't just claim that optics is wrong and that the mean surface temperature of the Earth is -18°C. Straightforward observation shows that the oceans are only frozen in shrinking patches at the poles.
R.W. Woods paper did not show that there was no greenhouse effect. It showed that in a closed box providing a barrier to convection was much more significant than the barrier to radiation because of the greenhouse properties of a rock salt slab rather than a glass one.
But even so, he did get a temperature increase due to the greenhouse effect of over one degree. Which is another proof of the existence of the greenhouse effect.
Yes a molecule that "intercepts" energy can not radiate more energy back without cooling. The point is that the direction of this radiation is often back to earth, and sometimes the molecule retains the heat. This slows the rate of energy loss by the planet, resulting in a slower cooling than would be the case without the greenhouse effect.
It is not a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, it is simply that some frequencies of radiation pass through the atmosphere, and some do not.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change