4 ms·
When we do hit whatever +1.5C or +2C, Q will be 0. The amount of energy input to the earth system isn't changing - that's defined by the temperature of the sun,
by 8note 4y ago
When we do hit whatever +1.5C or +2C, Q will be 0. The amount of energy input to the earth system isn't changing - that's defined by the temperature of the sun, it's the output that is decreasing.
What your energy look describes is dT/dt, how quickly we will reach the new equilibrium.
At the new equilibrium, the temperature is likely still to be the best descriptor of the new normal - we describe most processes and states in terms of temperatures they happen at, because it's and intensive property rather than an extensive one. You don't have to temper this 300 TW number by the mass or surface area of the earth to get a sense of what's happening when you use temperature
What's the energy number at which a glacier will melt? What's the temperature?
∆T is one of the most important numbers in thermodynamics for good reason
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> What your energy look describes is dT/dt, how quickly we will reach the new equilibrium. The rate is important, but so is the final result. A system whose new equilibrium is +10C is as useless to humanity and life and earth whether we reach it in 25 years or 200. I agree with you that ∆T is more useful for thinking about actual effects (e.g as you noted glacial melt), but my interest in thinking about it in energy terms is (a) I think it highlights the cause more strongly (YMMV) (b) it better accomodates the possibility of the extra energy in the system having effects not so obviously correlated with ∆T