https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/energ...
Humans have decreased the rate that the earth dissipates heat into space, and even small changes can cause large feedback loops that we care about because Humans can only survive within a TINY threshold of temperature variance [1].
Over the long term (~100-200k years) it will probably go back to some kind of pre-human equilibrium - with the very long term earth being mathematically uninhabitable based on the increasing amount of radiation that will bombard the earth as the Sun goes Red Giant.
[1]https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/1681703538181668869
Don't be obtuse.
Given Earth's record temperatures of -89.2C to 56.7C, sure, we can survive in a large chunk, but the mean temperature of cosmic gas is 2.2 million deg C
It is not inconceivable that we mess things up so much that peak temperatures move by double digits, in which case it will be evident if our temperature range is tiny or not
Temperature depends on the kinetic energy of a certain amount of whatever molecules, but the universe is essentially empty/void, thus there's nothing really to measure the temperature of.
I know that it isn't strictly empty/void, but for a temperature related measurement it essentially is.
> in the deepest depths of intergalactic space — an object placed there would gain or lose energy until it reached the background temperature of that light left over from the Big Bang: 2.725 K.
The heat capacity of space is nearly non-existent.
Related fun fact: the vacuum of space is not only very very cold, but also very insulating. Space suits have to be fitted with a cooling system, otherwise the heat of the astronaut's body and suit electronics would become too warm, even though it's 2.7K all around them.
Greenhouse gasses have natural sources, but far and away the largest sources are manmade in the form of carbon dioxide as industrial byproduct, and methane as agricultural byproduct.
This is why experts are so concerned: stopping production of manmade greenhouse gasses will not immediately reduce the amount of those gasses in the atmosphere, so heating will likely continue for many years after peak output.
I meant that had earth been closed, then the temperature would be fixed and life [eventually] wouldn't be possible.
Regarding the stopping of manmade greenhouse gasses, the consensus has been changing over the last few years though and it's pretty wildly believed that the "heat in the pipeline" phenomenon isn't actually true. Here's the best summary on why zero emissions will mean an immediate end to global warming: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...
> Of particular importance, although planets and stars (including the Earth and Sun) are neither in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings nor perfect black bodies, black-body radiation is still a good first approximation for the energy they emit.
Fine, you win Timon3, earth is not a blackbody because blackbodies don't actually exist.
It's fine to say "the earth behaves similarly to a black-body" or "a black-body is a good approximation for the earth". But that's different from "the earth is a black-body".
Digging that oil up from the ground and the burning it does a tremendous amount to free up all that energy stored in a low-entropy system.
The book Into the Cool makes an interesting case regarding this overall concept.
Holy bad starting premise, Batman.
A couple days ago in central Texas at 10 pm, the air temperature at ground level was 90 F, but the temperature above was 60 F. As a comparison, last year on the same date it was 100F at ground level and 83F in the sky. In winter, on a moderately cold day of 30 F, the sky temperature is as low as -50 F. This radiant temperature has a huge effect on the "Feels Like" temperature, especially if you're not in direct sunlight.
In other words, the Earth is always radiating heat away, and at night it radiates faster than it gets heated up.
I'd like to collect this data automatically to see how it changes over a season.