Insulative properties of atmospheres
This post will make an attempt to cover the most important factors that determine the influence of the atmosphere on temperatures on the ground.
I'm not an expert in the field, but since the topic is so toxic it is very hard to find anything of the sort that I'm trying to provide here.
1. Main heat supply
When dealing with planets in general, the first question ought to be, whether the planet is cooling or not, that is whether it receives less energy from the sun than it is radiating into space or not.
The answer to this question is given by looking at the average planetary temperature at different depths. If the planet is cooling, the temperature will get hotter the deeper we go.
If the planet is cooling, its main heat supply is its core. Otherwise it is the sun.
2. Properties of atmospheric particles
A particle in the atmosphere will be exposed to radiation and different particles will reflect that radiation to different degrees. Hence we shall make a study of reflecting, i.e. bright, particles and not reflecting, i.e. dark, ones.
2a. Bright particles
Bright particles diminish the influence of the sun on ground temperatures. If the sun is the main heat supply that leads to lower ground temperatures than if there were none. If the core of the planet is the main heat supply that leads to higher ground temperatures than if they were lacking. Of course we all know this effect very well in the case of cloud cover: Cooler at day, warmer at night and overall warmer.
2b. Dark particles
Dark particles have no interesting radiative properties, their effect is by way of diffusion, for they make the atmosphere thicker. In order to see what is going on here, we only have to ask ourselves what would happen to a planet completely made of iron. If that planet's core was its main heat supply then it would cool faster than if it had a crust of lesser density. If the sun was its main heat supply the iron planet would have more uniform temperatures, but the averages would be the same.
So, if the planet's core is its main heat supply, then dark particles will make ground temperatures cooler than they'd otherwise be at night and during the day as well, whereas temperatures at the upper atmosphere would get warmer during day and night.
Conclusion
Atmospheric particles can, depending on their nature, make a planet, whose main heat supply is its core, either warmer or cooler at ground level.
Assuming that CO2 is a bright particle, it should make day and night temperatures more alike and more noticeably so than break momentary heat records. And if the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is somewhat uniform, this effect would be clearest in regions with little cloud cover like the Sahara or Siberia. Thus lack of cold nights in the Sahara or Siberia would be the first observable proof of CO2's effect on earth's ground temperatures.
Personal remark
Since I've got the German equivalent of a master's degree in mathematics and partial differential equations were the topic of one of my final exams I don't really like to sit down and write something like what I just did for it can't possibly increase my stature. Yet, the powers that be have decided to plunge us into a state of pure hysteria on this topic, and by that I mean that they have eliminated all the rules of a rational discourse, and I'm not so defenseless as to be simply rocked along by its waves.
And don't forget:
I'm not an expert in the field, but since the topic is so toxic it is very hard to find anything of the sort that I'm trying to provide here.
1. Main heat supply
When dealing with planets in general, the first question ought to be, whether the planet is cooling or not, that is whether it receives less energy from the sun than it is radiating into space or not.
The answer to this question is given by looking at the average planetary temperature at different depths. If the planet is cooling, the temperature will get hotter the deeper we go.
If the planet is cooling, its main heat supply is its core. Otherwise it is the sun.
2. Properties of atmospheric particles
A particle in the atmosphere will be exposed to radiation and different particles will reflect that radiation to different degrees. Hence we shall make a study of reflecting, i.e. bright, particles and not reflecting, i.e. dark, ones.
2a. Bright particles
Bright particles diminish the influence of the sun on ground temperatures. If the sun is the main heat supply that leads to lower ground temperatures than if there were none. If the core of the planet is the main heat supply that leads to higher ground temperatures than if they were lacking. Of course we all know this effect very well in the case of cloud cover: Cooler at day, warmer at night and overall warmer.
2b. Dark particles
Dark particles have no interesting radiative properties, their effect is by way of diffusion, for they make the atmosphere thicker. In order to see what is going on here, we only have to ask ourselves what would happen to a planet completely made of iron. If that planet's core was its main heat supply then it would cool faster than if it had a crust of lesser density. If the sun was its main heat supply the iron planet would have more uniform temperatures, but the averages would be the same.
So, if the planet's core is its main heat supply, then dark particles will make ground temperatures cooler than they'd otherwise be at night and during the day as well, whereas temperatures at the upper atmosphere would get warmer during day and night.
Conclusion
Atmospheric particles can, depending on their nature, make a planet, whose main heat supply is its core, either warmer or cooler at ground level.
Assuming that CO2 is a bright particle, it should make day and night temperatures more alike and more noticeably so than break momentary heat records. And if the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is somewhat uniform, this effect would be clearest in regions with little cloud cover like the Sahara or Siberia. Thus lack of cold nights in the Sahara or Siberia would be the first observable proof of CO2's effect on earth's ground temperatures.
Personal remark
Since I've got the German equivalent of a master's degree in mathematics and partial differential equations were the topic of one of my final exams I don't really like to sit down and write something like what I just did for it can't possibly increase my stature. Yet, the powers that be have decided to plunge us into a state of pure hysteria on this topic, and by that I mean that they have eliminated all the rules of a rational discourse, and I'm not so defenseless as to be simply rocked along by its waves.
And don't forget:
Greenhouse gases are not used to increase the temperature in greenhouses.
Labels: 24, formalisierung, geschichte, gesellschaftskritik, gesetze, institutionen, mathematik, wahrnehmungen, zeitgeschichte, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
13:07
