I wasn't saying you did, i was just spring boarding from your assumption.
To clarify: Even if we assumed the earth was warming, global warming to death only works if you assume the atmosphere is a relatively never-ending sponge of heat.
But in order for that to happen, each molecule in the atmosphere would have to be isolated from all other molecules so that they were only taking in and putting out energy in what amounts to an atomic sun.
In the real world, convection is how our atmosphere sheds heat. The sun shines and does a little bit of heating of the atmosphere on the way in, then warms the surface, which then convectively warms the atmosphere adjacent to it. This atmosphere then warms the layer above it, and then above it, and so forth until the very top of the atmosphere strains against gravity to shed it's energy and then falls back.
In any convective system, if you introduce more heat, the convection speeds up and the convective envelope expands. The medium tends to return to its equilibrium energy state, which means temperature would remain relatively stable - especially for a system that swings from -40 to 40 during the year, an "average increase" of 1-2 degrees wouldn't be noticed by the system or its inhabitants.
The equilibrium energy state of the medium only "gets hotter" if the medium is overwhelmed by heat and cannot expand.
Now, if we assume the 80 degress range is absolute and assume the Karman line at 100km is an atmospheric cliff into outer space, a 2 degree change would result in a 0.025 percent volumetric expansion of the atmosphere. The 100km line would need to be able to expand to approximately 100.5km (assuming a static density for the atmosphere to 100km and only changing temperature - obviously angross overestimate innthe real world).
Since its a gas with no boundaries and the earth already has an exosphere that extends as much as 10,000km from the surface, i would assume this isn't a big deal to the entire system- IF it's happening, which is also a point that hasn't been adequately demonstrated without statistically fudging the numbers.
You are correct heat loss happens over distances and time this is a law of thermodynamics. Once energy hits the initial particle of our atmosphere and hits our surface, thats the hottest it can be. each subsequent bounce is less hot since the energy (heat) transfer happened. I think the Globo model also seems to think that we live in a closed system which we dont. heat sheds into space not just towards the planet.
The original models, to show warming over time, had to collect heat in the upper armosphere. Essentially, there is a "lid" in the models that only let a static amount of heat through (the calculated energy budget of our heat loss to space is generally use as this lid) which is how we "warmed".
Newer models get more creative, hiding heat in the oceans and such.
I wasn't saying you did, i was just spring boarding from your assumption. To clarify: Even if we assumed the earth was warming, global warming to death only works if you assume the atmosphere is a relatively never-ending sponge of heat.
But in order for that to happen, each molecule in the atmosphere would have to be isolated from all other molecules so that they were only taking in and putting out energy in what amounts to an atomic sun.
In the real world, convection is how our atmosphere sheds heat. The sun shines and does a little bit of heating of the atmosphere on the way in, then warms the surface, which then convectively warms the atmosphere adjacent to it. This atmosphere then warms the layer above it, and then above it, and so forth until the very top of the atmosphere strains against gravity to shed it's energy and then falls back.
In any convective system, if you introduce more heat, the convection speeds up and the convective envelope expands. The medium tends to return to its equilibrium energy state, which means temperature would remain relatively stable - especially for a system that swings from -40 to 40 during the year, an "average increase" of 1-2 degrees wouldn't be noticed by the system or its inhabitants.
The equilibrium energy state of the medium only "gets hotter" if the medium is overwhelmed by heat and cannot expand.
Now, if we assume the 80 degress range is absolute and assume the Karman line at 100km is an atmospheric cliff into outer space, a 2 degree change would result in a 0.025 percent volumetric expansion of the atmosphere. The 100km line would need to be able to expand to approximately 100.5km (assuming a static density for the atmosphere to 100km and only changing temperature - obviously angross overestimate innthe real world).
Since its a gas with no boundaries and the earth already has an exosphere that extends as much as 10,000km from the surface, i would assume this isn't a big deal to the entire system- IF it's happening, which is also a point that hasn't been adequately demonstrated without statistically fudging the numbers.
You are correct heat loss happens over distances and time this is a law of thermodynamics. Once energy hits the initial particle of our atmosphere and hits our surface, thats the hottest it can be. each subsequent bounce is less hot since the energy (heat) transfer happened. I think the Globo model also seems to think that we live in a closed system which we dont. heat sheds into space not just towards the planet.
The original models, to show warming over time, had to collect heat in the upper armosphere. Essentially, there is a "lid" in the models that only let a static amount of heat through (the calculated energy budget of our heat loss to space is generally use as this lid) which is how we "warmed".
Newer models get more creative, hiding heat in the oceans and such.