No, we're increasing the energy in the atmosphere since the atmosphere is holding on to more energy that previously would have escaped to space.
We're not increasing the energy that's being inputted to the atmosphere, but increasing how much of that energy it retains, and thus how much energy is available for weather.
Is there a different wording for if we were to... i don't even know how to say it then, add heat?
Ie if we could add a 2nd sun. If adding more blankets (as another commenter posted) is considered injecting heat, is a 2nd sun differently worded? Or are they scientifically equivalent, so wording doesn't really change?
Okay so if I put ten blankets on you, is it fair to say that I didn't cause you to overheat? After all the blankets were cooler than your body, it was the heat you emitted that caused them to warm up.
Said a little different: solar warming due to the CO2 we put in the air is equally potential as if the sun will potentially produce solar radiation tomorrow.
> Okay so if I put ten blankets on you, is it fair to say that I didn't cause you to overheat? After all the blankets were cooler than your body, it was the heat you emitted that caused them to warm up.
Maybe, but i don't read your example and the original statement the same. It was literally "Inject more energy into the system" - not just make me retain my own energy longer, but add heat - as with a heater, or something. Ie i wouldn't think you adding a blanket on me is "injecting heat into my body", but that's the root of my question - how adding heat vs reducing heat loss are scientifically similar, how they're worded, etc.
Anyway i'm not trying to be difficult, i assumed the OPs wording was correct, i was just seeking understanding. Which was downvoted, oddly enough.
Unfortunately, your participation here has been to ask a very naive question about a distinction without a material difference. While it is probably not your intent, your behavior is a little too close to that of a sea lion[1] which is probably explains the frosty reception of your question.
Yea, that was my fear - and source of my meta-comment in the original post. TBH i should just avoid these discussions entirely. I've found GPT-likes to be very fruitful to ask questions where i'm too lacking in information to even adequately research it myself.
Either way, appreciate your contribution to this little digression. Thanks for your time, have a great day!
We’ve modified the gaseous mixture of the atmosphere to include a higher ratio of gases with greater warming potential and also converted matter which was stored in the ground to energy for our purposes, both increasing its stored energy potential and the amount of energy stored in both the atmosphere and the ocean, slowly warming both over time compared to before the Industrial Revolution.
Also don’t worry about the downvotes. We can’t actually downvote direct responses to our own comments here, only upvote if we so choose, so I don’t know why you were downvoted either. If you participate with good faith in discussions, it’ll be apparent over time and it’s bad form (and counter to the guidelines, which I’m violating with this paragraph right now) to discuss voting in the comments.
> Also don’t worry about the downvotes. We can’t actually downvote direct responses to our own comments here, only upvote if we so choose, so I don’t know why you were downvoted either. If you participate with good faith in discussions, it’ll be apparent over time and it’s bad form (and counter to the guidelines, which I’m violating with this paragraph right now) to discuss voting in the comments.
Hah, yea i'm familiar it's against guidelines. Though i'm always very curious, because often i can change my behavior to be better inline with what people expect. Asking ignorant questions here is a bit troublesome imo. I don't mind downvotes, i'd just love if people explained what they disagreed with - especially questions. /shrug
That’s exactly true unfortunately we have people ignorant to those facts and claim “oh, all this rain and cold weather…so much for global warming”
Ignorance…
Because it’s not the same thing? One is a thin band of moisture pulled up from the tropics and the other is a high altitude fast flowing air current. Sometimes atmospheric rivers are also called a “pineapple express.” That was more common 20-30 years ago than today.
Pineapple Express is still used and California was just hit by one. It’s a specific atmospheric river that extends from Northeast of Hawai’i to the Pacific Coast and sometimes further inland as far as Colorado. Not all atmospheric rivers are a Pineapple Express though.
One every few years has become (at least in the past several years) multiples per year, or month, particularly along the west coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada.
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 61.9 ms ] threadYou inject more energy into a system and the system gets more energetic.
More energy in the atmosphere, more extreme weather.
Not nitpicking, I don’t know. Hate that questions can be so loaded these days
edit: Why the downvote? Sorry i'm not familiar with this..
We're not increasing the energy that's being inputted to the atmosphere, but increasing how much of that energy it retains, and thus how much energy is available for weather.
Ie if we could add a 2nd sun. If adding more blankets (as another commenter posted) is considered injecting heat, is a 2nd sun differently worded? Or are they scientifically equivalent, so wording doesn't really change?
Said a little different: solar warming due to the CO2 we put in the air is equally potential as if the sun will potentially produce solar radiation tomorrow.
Maybe, but i don't read your example and the original statement the same. It was literally "Inject more energy into the system" - not just make me retain my own energy longer, but add heat - as with a heater, or something. Ie i wouldn't think you adding a blanket on me is "injecting heat into my body", but that's the root of my question - how adding heat vs reducing heat loss are scientifically similar, how they're worded, etc.
Anyway i'm not trying to be difficult, i assumed the OPs wording was correct, i was just seeking understanding. Which was downvoted, oddly enough.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Either way, appreciate your contribution to this little digression. Thanks for your time, have a great day!
We’ve modified the gaseous mixture of the atmosphere to include a higher ratio of gases with greater warming potential and also converted matter which was stored in the ground to energy for our purposes, both increasing its stored energy potential and the amount of energy stored in both the atmosphere and the ocean, slowly warming both over time compared to before the Industrial Revolution.
Also don’t worry about the downvotes. We can’t actually downvote direct responses to our own comments here, only upvote if we so choose, so I don’t know why you were downvoted either. If you participate with good faith in discussions, it’ll be apparent over time and it’s bad form (and counter to the guidelines, which I’m violating with this paragraph right now) to discuss voting in the comments.
Hah, yea i'm familiar it's against guidelines. Though i'm always very curious, because often i can change my behavior to be better inline with what people expect. Asking ignorant questions here is a bit troublesome imo. I don't mind downvotes, i'd just love if people explained what they disagreed with - especially questions. /shrug
But digging dino juice to burn it appears to be detrimental
Journey before destination, Radiant.
One every few years has become (at least in the past several years) multiples per year, or month, particularly along the west coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada.