how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[orogenicman]

I have never said energy is being destroyed. Give your head a shake. I have always said as one route is being choked off by CO2 other routes take up the excess and carry the energy past the near surface bottleneck. Some increase in surface temperature is bound to happen as the equilibrium is changed, but much less than the full amount restricted by CO2. Simply consider the escape of energy from a planet with no atmosphere, to one with an atmosphere, to one with non-water GHGs, to one with water. The equilibrium goes from 100% radiation and little heat sink, to a large heat sink with conduction convection evapotranspiration and only a small percentage of radiation at near surface altitudes. The greenhouse gases were already working at almost the same capacity before we burned the first fossil fuel. CO2 only interacts with 8% of surface BB radiation but it was already at a high enough concentration to tatally disperse that radiation in 10 meters. So what if it only takes 9.9 meters now. The energy is taken to the cloud tops mostly by other means of transport where the density of the atmosphere allows much easier egress of radiation.

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

 

[IanC]

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

In the eyes of the law, that's EXACTLY what it means.

If I contest a speeding ticket and they decide not to prosecute that does not mean I wasn't speeding or even that I wouldn't have been found guilty.

 

[PMZ]

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I think that our realization of what you say has been blunted by modern technology. If one stands outside there are hardly any two seconds just alike. The entire globe is as restless as a dog with fleas trying to get comfortable and has been that way for nearly ever.

Returning the conditions in the atmosphere to where they were the other times that the earth had an inhospitable climate should not surprise anyone as to the results. An increasingly inhospitable climate.

 

[IanC]

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I suppose you are just arguing definitions of words rather than debating concepts but it is profoundly stupid to ignore the myriad of systems in place and working to distribute heat around the planet. As well as the myriad of other systems that dovetail into those first systems.

 

[orogenicman]

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I suppose you are just arguing definitions of words rather than debating concepts but it is profoundly stupid to ignore the myriad of systems in place and working to distribute heat around the planet. As well as the myriad of other systems that dovetail into those first systems.

Name one system that is ever in equilibrium. You can't because it doesn't exist. The climate? Not in equilibrium. The oceans? Ditto. The lakes? Ditto. The rivers? Ditto. The crust? Ditto. The Mantle? Ditto. The core? Ditto. Life? Not in equilibrium. If the Earth was even near equilibrium, it would be a cold, dead rock.

 

[IanC]

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I think that our realization of what you say has been blunted by modern technology. If one stands outside there are hardly any two seconds just alike. The entire globe is as restless as a dog with fleas trying to get comfortable and has been that way for nearly ever.

Returning the conditions in the atmosphere to where they were the other times that the earth had an inhospitable climate should not surprise anyone as to the results. An increasingly inhospitable climate.

You think warm with more plant food is inhospitable. I don't.

Change is always going to happen, I'm just happy we aren't dealing with dropping temps which would really mess up humanity.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I think that our realization of what you say has been blunted by modern technology. If one stands outside there are hardly any two seconds just alike. The entire globe is as restless as a dog with fleas trying to get comfortable and has been that way for nearly ever.

Returning the conditions in the atmosphere to where they were the other times that the earth had an inhospitable climate should not surprise anyone as to the results. An increasingly inhospitable climate.

You think warm with more plant food is inhospitable. I don't.

Change is always going to happen, I'm just happy we aren't dealing with dropping temps which would really mess up humanity.

Messing up humanity (and a lot more):

 

[PMZ]

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I think that our realization of what you say has been blunted by modern technology. If one stands outside there are hardly any two seconds just alike. The entire globe is as restless as a dog with fleas trying to get comfortable and has been that way for nearly ever.

Returning the conditions in the atmosphere to where they were the other times that the earth had an inhospitable climate should not surprise anyone as to the results. An increasingly inhospitable climate.

You think warm with more plant food is inhospitable. I don't.

Change is always going to happen, I'm just happy we aren't dealing with dropping temps which would really mess up humanity.

I think that sea levels and rainfall where they were as mankind built civilization would the least costly future in dollars and lives.

I don't disagree that we won't eventually adapt to a different environment.

It will be very costly though.

 

[PMZ]

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

I suppose you are just arguing definitions of words rather than debating concepts but it is profoundly stupid to ignore the myriad of systems in place and working to distribute heat around the planet. As well as the myriad of other systems that dovetail into those first systems.

Name one system that is ever in equilibrium. You can't because it doesn't exist. The climate? Not in equilibrium. The oceans? Ditto. The lakes? Ditto. The rivers? Ditto. The crust? Ditto. The Mantle? Ditto. The core? Ditto. Life? Not in equilibrium. If the Earth was even near equilibrium, it would be a cold, dead rock.

I've always been surprised that Ian claims to be liberal because he seems to long for stasis like a conservative.

 

[westwall]

If he admitted to fraudulently getting them, than it is fraudulent, hence fraud..

You warmers make a new definition for a term every time you need it..

I guess it depends on what your definition of is...is.... These unethical pricks bring new meaning to the term scumbag.

Right. Because you would never call someone who hacks into secure government servers to be unethical pricks or scumbags. Thanks for proving my point.

I guess you havn't seen my posts about Snowden then?

 

[westwall]

Gleick admitted to fraudulently acquiring Heartland documents. He stopped short of admitting that he was the author of the forged (and most controversial and slanderous) document. The justice Dept did not charge him and the only fallout from the affair was that his name was withdrawn from consideration for chair of the ethics committee of the AGU. Hardly even a slap on the wrist.

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

I believe that the climategate emails were released by an insider, perhaps even someone like Briffa with the help of a tech savy student. He was in very bad health and perhaps his conscious got to him.

While the actions of the whistleblower were illegal, it is hard not to believe that the overall consequences are positive. I imagine the Harry_read_me files brought some much needed attention to the hadcru data files and programs.

Gleick's crimes would have been Identity Theft and Conspiracy.

 

[westwall]

He admitted to acquiring them - he did not admit to fraud. So, to summarize, there were no charges, and so no reason whatsoever to call the man guilty of anything (clue - you don't get to make up your own laws, much less be a self-proclaimed judge and jury).

On the other hand, the cowards who hacked the CRU servers have never come forward, probably because they know they violated a ton of national and international laws, and know they would be prosecuted.

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

In the eyes of the law, that's EXACTLY what it means.

Sure thing. So the fact that Bush was never charged for any crimes means he's innocent too. And Cheney and every right wing politician you've ever hated. Good to know!

 

[PMZ]

What crimes did they commit?

 

[orogenicman]

I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree then. Gleick admitted to acquiring the documents via means that fit the law on fraud. Not being prosecuted does not mean innocent, and I feel that the climate science community gave itself another ethical black eye by handwaving away an obvious transgression.

In the eyes of the law, that's EXACTLY what it means.

Sure thing. So the fact that Bush was never charged for any crimes means he's innocent too. And Cheney and every right wing politician you've ever hated. Good to know!

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the law. You may or may not be a strong believer in the rule of law. I am.

 

[gslack]

I think that your problem is that your non-objective perspective is trying to force fit unnecessary complexity into the problem.

There is the big picture and there are the details. Both have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

If I were you, I'd be very careful in those waters.

Another case of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium. I believe it has homeostatic mechanisms that buffer changing conditions, you think we are perched on the precipice waiting to fall off.

My politics are usually left wing, bordering on socialist, but tempered by rational thought on programs that give little or no benefit for the expense.

My scientific bent is towards being sceptical of just about everything until it has been demonstrated to be likely. CAGW does not meet my requirements but the general case of CO2 changing the radiation balance does.

We shall see who is right eventually.

The earth has an amazingly complex climate system in place, near equilibrium

Wow, that's an astoundingly naïve statement. Nothing about the Earth is in equilibrium. It is one of the most dynamic planets in the solar system.

All that education you claimed to have and so far all wee see is talking points, rhetoric and standard al gore climate science... And now this...

LOL, you don't know what equilibrium means... ROFL, dude it does not mean that all the smaller systems(weather storms, pressure, so on) within the main system (earth and sun) are unchanging. it simply means that as far as the main system (earth and sun) they are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Not in absolute terms ( surface temp, et.) but in energy in vs energy out and energy converted.

Damn dude...

 

[PMZ]

When you consider the job asked of the IPCC....... Unify scientists from all parts of the world to a universally agreed upon analysis of AGW...... Sponsored by a weak UN........ Publish periodically a position paper that all of those scientists can support on the state of the science that will be used as the basis for global political decisions....... The whole thing came off remarkably smoothly........ Especially considering the magnitude of the efforts to discredit it.

 

[orogenicman]

Most systems found in nature are, in point of fact, not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. And that is because most, if not all Earth processes are inhomogeneous. There is, in fact, an entire branch of physics set up to study this fact. It is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. You didn't know this? Damn.

 

[gslack]

Most systems found in nature are, in point of fact, not in thermodynamic equilibrium; for they are changing or can be triggered to change over time, and are continuously and discontinuously subject to flux of matter and energy to and from other systems and to chemical reactions. And that is because most, if not all Earth processes are inhomogeneous. There is, in fact, an entire branch of physics set up to study this fact. It is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. You didn't know this? Damn.

If you want to respond to my post quote it...

Nice try at a dodge but he wasn't talking about smaller systems within the atmosphere or planet, he was talking about the Sun and the Earth, which I explained in the post you just refused to quote from...

The earth and sun; BIG SYSTEM, in a vacum, only effective energy transfer is through radiation.

Systems within the earth; SMALLER SYSTEMS, not in a vacum, systems interacting with other systems and even other forms of energy, both direct and indirect forcings, so forth and so on..

Thermodynamically the sun and earth are a system. Everything within the earth are seperate systems who may rely on that bigger system to varying degrees, but still seperate systems. Linked but seperate.. Understand?

We are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun, or more specifically with the amount of energy we receive from the sun. When our orbit is closer to the sun we receive more energy than when it's farther away. A nice graphic for it..

As the energy levels increase (closer) our temps go up and vice-versa. We aren't in thermal equilibrium (temperature) with the sun of course, but we are in thermodynamic equilibrium (energy we receive from the sun) with it.

 

[orogenicman]

That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant. Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings. It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation. Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun. Another example of energy absorption in the Sun-Earth system is the infrared absorption that occurs due to the greenhouse effect. So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium. It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

 

[PMZ]

That assumes, of course, that the amount of sunlight (energy) the Earth receives remains constant. Which, of course, is not true even when considering orbital elements of the system because the sun itself is a variable star, that is, it varies its energy output, and because the amount of energy the Earth receives is also dependent on other factors such as cloud cover, moisture content in the atmosphere, the strength of its magnetic field, and many other forcings. It is also not true that the only effective energy transfer is through radiation. Absorption is also an effective energy transfer mechanism, and we see that played out in the Arctic; as the ice melts, the ocean there tends to absorb more energy from the sun. So the Sun-Earth system is not, in fact, in dynamic equilibrium. It is, in fact, a good example of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Good text about the Croll-Milankovitch cycles.

http://theresilientearth.com/files/pdfs/the_resilient_earth-chapter_9.pdf