4 ms·

Yeah, and they're going to keep breaking records for the next 100 years at least, and as a consequence atmospheric water vapor will continue to increase, with t

Yeah, and they're going to keep breaking records for the next 100 years at least, and as a consequence atmospheric water vapor will continue to increase, with the various knock on effects of drought in some places, floods in other places, and increasing random extreme weather events all around the planet. Get used to it, and plan to adapt, because it isn't going away. Ask the chatbot, it seems to understand the current state of science (this is after querying it about Fourier, Manabe, planetary science etc. for a bit) > "Let's say we take an Earth-like planet with a similarly sized ocean, increase the concentration of infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere about two-fold, then stabilize the atmosphere. How long will it take for the ocean to stop warming, from the perspective of both transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates?" Transient: > "Using this model, we can estimate that it would take roughly 100-200 years for the ocean to stop warming, depending on the specific assumptions used." Equilibrium: > "Depending on the specific assumptions used in the model, it could take several centuries or even millennia for the ocean to reach a new equilibrium state."

tjr225 3y ago
[dead]
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
> Equilibrium The closest thing to this is lifeless planets. Mercury is in pretty good equilibrium. Life is chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are inequilibria. Life and equilibrium are opposites -- life is inequilibrium. It's possible because Earth has been in constant change, facilitating energy transfer between organisms, which themselves have been causing changes, like what we're doing or like that one time that cyanobacteria killed everything by creating oxygen[0] or like that other time that methanogens killed everything by creating methane[1]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanosarcina#Role_in_the_Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanosarcina#Role_in_the_Per...
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  That's not really a relevant comment. We aren't talking about Earth being in equilibrium, we are talking about ocean temperatures ending their rise. Parent used equilibrium to describe the end of warming, not to suggest that we'd reach some kind of desirable global homeostasis. I think we'd all be happy with a disequilibrium that made things cool down from where they are presently, or from where they'll be in 200 years.
omilu 3y ago
[flagged]

tjr225 3y ago

[dead]

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

> Equilibrium The closest thing to this is lifeless planets. Mercury is in pretty good equilibrium. Life is chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are inequilibria. Life and equilibrium are opposites -- life is inequilibrium. It's possible because Earth has been in constant change, facilitating energy transfer between organisms, which themselves have been causing changes, like what we're doing or like that one time that cyanobacteria killed everything by creating oxygen[0] or like that other time that methanogens killed everything by creating methane[1]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanosarcina#Role_in_the_Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanosarcina#Role_in_the_Per...

BobbyJo 3y ago
That's not really a relevant comment. We aren't talking about Earth being in equilibrium, we are talking about ocean temperatures ending their rise. Parent used equilibrium to describe the end of warming, not to suggest that we'd reach some kind of desirable global homeostasis. I think we'd all be happy with a disequilibrium that made things cool down from where they are presently, or from where they'll be in 200 years.

omilu 3y ago

[flagged]