3 ms·
Yeah I got to that, too, and it's not correct. A given CO2 level basically determines the temperature at which the Earth will be in net radiative equilibrium be
by lutorm 7y ago
Yeah I got to that, too, and it's not correct. A given CO2 level basically determines the temperature at which the Earth will be in net radiative equilibrium between heating and cooling.
The Earth can't simply continue heating up until the oceans boil and the rocks melt because the CO2 level has gone up a bit. That would only be possible in the presence of a very strong positive feedback loop that made the Earth better and better insulated the hotter it got, which would be unlike any other thermal system we know of.
Edit: there are some positive feedback effects, like water vapor being a greenhouse gas, that will likely make the end result hotter than that expected based on the change in CO2 alone, but it will not lead to heating just continuing indefinitely.
- nootka 7y agoIsn't there a bunch of methane trapped in icebergs or something? I'll be honest, I'm convinced humans have a big hand in climate change, but I can't seem to determine whether I merely need to lobby my rep for green legislation or start taking survival classes for an impending collapse of JIT supply chains and society in general.
- jkettmann 7y agoYou're right, there is time of methane trapped in permafrost. Those are melting now and realising the gas. Lobby for green legislation. We need to influence politics to finally act in a serious manner. As we accomplished with the ozone hole as mentioned in the article https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-o...