tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post5855393461976110816..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Can Cyclone Phailin, or Usagi, or Sandy, or Katrina be blamed on Climate Change?citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-6787259807106602012013-10-19T22:11:47.418-07:002013-10-19T22:11:47.418-07:00"Under equilibrium situations"
Sure, b..."Under equilibrium situations" <br /><br />Sure, but keep in mind the speed at which we have increased our atmosphere's greenhouse gas components - it has been phenomenally fast compared to past geophysical transitions.<br /><br />Right now our system is increasingly out of equilibrium and it will take decades, actually centuries for a new equilibrium to establish itself. <br /><br />I believe my characterization remains a good general description.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-86706075017179177252013-10-19T18:57:38.225-07:002013-10-19T18:57:38.225-07:00One must be very careful with a statement like &qu...One must be very careful with a statement like "Think about it in terms of a nearly closed system holding in more heat... energy - than it is radiating out into space. Will that system not become more energized and active?" Under equilibrium situations, the Earth radiates as much energy as it receives. The greenhouse effect causes a warming of the lower atmosphere to achieve this balance. Given that, there IS a build-up of heat in the oceans as they attempt to come into equilibrium- it takes all that water much longer than it takes the atmosphere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com