Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
How does a planet cool?
It's been stated in here numerous times that over the past decade or so the Earth has cooled while the CO2 concentration has increased. I have pointed out to the person stating this that what they are looking at is surface measurements and not measurements for the entire system. The energy balance at the top of the atmosphere continues to show that more energy is being held within the system that are exiting the system. Giving the entire system, meaning from the core to the top of the atmosphere, how many ways are there for the planet to cool as more energy is retained? And is there any sources of data by which this user can actually prove the entire system is cooling?
Kano: "One study" does not point to a definitive proof does it? Provide the link. Also, where can you make the claim we know very little about solar? We have satellites up in space to measure these things. If a new type of solar forcing is at play then list it rather than saying "We know very little therefor we know nothing" more or less. You did not provide a response to my post except stating that which you did not know.
Kano: Especially considering you were linked yesterday to much of the data.
ERBSSCAN - http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/las/getUI.do?dsid=...
Rio: You didn't answer my question but continued to go off on tangents as always. The question was - "If there was an increase in energy within a system what else could occur to that system to have it cool and not increase in heat". This doesn't concern a time period save for the time it takes the energy to increase.
Pat: Once again failing to answer the question and playing with numbers. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% in the atmosphere. (280ppm to 400ppm) and the effects of the CO2 have increased as well. You can view the effects of that CO2 here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_e...
Kano: That study you linked to by Dr. Shaviv states that the ocean energy flux is about 7x the amount solar radiation can account for alone. This is, of course, speaking purely about the 11 year solar cycle. This specifically states, more or less, that the Sun alone can not account for the variations in recent temperatures. It has to be an internal mechanism. What the paper is attempting to determine is what that internal mechanism is and brings up the Lindzen's Iris hypothesis as the only possibility. Con't...
Kano con't: Reading further, though, I see that they attribute it to some unknown Sun cycle, such as cosmic ray variation. The problem with this is that we have been measuring cosmic rays for decades now and they work inversely to the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Kano con't: This is, of course, not stating that cosmic rays do not influence cloud cover as there are experiments currently being performed to that effect. It is not proven one way or the other yet, though. They have shown that cosmic rays can facilitate the growth of condensation nuclei though.
Pat: The link does not show the effects due to additional CO2. It shows the attribution of warming due to each greenhouse gas to the overall greenhouse effect. I have no one that calls themselves skeptics has as yet been able to answer my question though and, as usual, when science does not go their way they instead attempt to throw other arguments into the mix.
5 Answers
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
For a planet to cool, energy out > energy in.
How can this happen.
1. Shift of a planet's orbit away from its Sun.
2. It's Sun cools.
3. A massive meteor made of sodium hydroxide could cause alkali rain, which would absorb the planet's carbon dioxide.
4. Volcanic aerosols.
5. Any increase in a planet's albedo.
- KanoLv 78 years ago
No there is no way to completely measure our heat balance, we know very little about the role of solar and the oceans, one study compared the heat content of the oceans compared to the solar cycles, and found a correlation, the interesting result was, the rise in and fall in heat was about 7 times magnified, indicating that solar could be having a larger effect than expected, unfortunately it did nothing to explain the mechanism.
Edit.
I cant find the link, one study yes, and yes there is a huge amount about solar we don't know, we know there are many different cycles, and we know there are big fluctuations between the different rays, we know UV alters a lot, and changes AP magnetic phenomena, and CERN is carry out experiments on cosmic rays and cloud seeding.
I haven't been able to access the data, either my antiquated PC or my signal is too slow.
F10.7 flux has always tracked TSI only now this cycle it doesn't
Source(s): Here try this link http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&... - RioLv 68 years ago
Conventional wisdom would state its the systems / planets ability to remove heat. You kind of bent it, but a need is a need. So your argument would be the rate of transfer. Basically input compare to output...correct? Or you could say its the change (delta) in either or cooling minus heating or something weird like heating minus cooling. However you like it. Its just a temperature change. Oops, from what to when? There's that stupid skeptic non rational thinking again...sorry. So what is the planets full potential to maintain a viable productive and hospitable environment?
If I really knew the planets exact sensitivity factor the computers would be defunct. Just as a sideline. If a tipping point where too occur I seriously doubt it ever would be recognized as such.
Edit: Well your wrong...sorry. I'd give some consideration to hydrology, but most alarmist don't. So what's the point? It's all a tangent, you just didn't fully realize what you were asking.
- ?Lv 48 years ago
Earth fights to stay warm since space is so cold. The mere fact that we have greenhouse gases (water vapor and CO2) in our atmosphere and have H2O as a central temperature thermostat gives us a unique advantage over the deep and dark coldness of space. CO2 along with carbon in general is just a basic chemical formulation that sustains all of life here.
Your supposed 'increase in energy' is very minor and will not have a catastrophic impact simply due to the minimum change in the atmosphere (0.012%). CO2 has nothing to stand on when it comes to climate science. You keep making it a villain in its current concentration when you know "absolutely" that its current concentrations are not causing any type of catastrophic warming and is being clearly shown to be bettering our biosphere. Keep playing games with your science Jeff! It's all BS in many minds including mine!
A 0.8C temperature increase in 133 years does not constitute a catastrophe of planetary warming especially after we just came out of the Little Ice Age that many have stated "ended in the mid-1800s".
You're starting to sound like a blooming ......... that repeats the same old crap.
--------------------------------
Excuse me Jeff! I'm giving you too much credit. The basic change in our atmosphere has been 0.0112% (that's the difference between 400ppm and 288ppm CO2 levels) in the past 133 years. If you really think that will cause a drastic change in our atmosphere, then keep sounding the 'alarm bells'.
You act as if you created the Earth along with pegminer, antarcticice, and Trevor and 'know' exactly how our Planet is reacting to additional CO2. I'd add to that list, but most of the other alarmists here aren't worth mentioning.
--------------------------------------
One last additional "fact" for you Jeff : The past 2 climate change periods (the LIA and the MWP) have shown a difference of up to 5C in many places. We have been in an instrumental period that shows a 0.8C maximum. If you can show that we are currently warming past the 0.8C mark and continuing to warm, then please show it, otherwise your science is falling on deaf ears with many more people listening to the real facts of the matter.
--------------------------------------
let's throw one more in there:
The "greenhouse effect" has everything to do with the upper troposphere warming. The very idea of hurricanes and storms in general "getting stronger" doesn't jive with the "greenhouse effect". Warmer upper troposphere temps can only lead to less dramatic weather. There is no compelling evidence that shows a less dramatic climate in the past 150 years and climate events haven't been getting worse. Stronger storms depend on a cooler upper troposphere. Please stop your BS!
----------------------------------
Jeff M - Your climate modeling link showing effects of additional CO2 doesn't work in the real world!
- Hey DookLv 78 years ago
It is a waste of your time to try to rebut the dumbest arguments of the most ignorant anti-science deniers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-int...
Among the less obviously idiotic cons, from those savvier than most deniers active on this site, are:
a) climate models predict no cooling (at all, ever) therefore any cooling (whatever) proves the models wrong, therefore a century of science is an Al Gore / UN black helicopter / Hollow Moon Rothschild hoax.
b) Cloud patterns might slow the global warming trend, therefore there is no such trend, therefore "it's cooling."
A more typical claim here would be every "geologist", like me, knows it's "actually cooling."
