Thanks for your input Thomas. I recommend you send your perspective to Roger Pielke Jr himself as he's far more equipped than I am to address your points.
You're nitpicking, and ignoring the scenario I postulated *with respect to ice*. You're also ignoring the fact that there is documented counter-evidence on our own Moon.
Everything I'm posting is ultimately a discussion of the model of the Earth being a snowball with an average surface temperature of 255 K. As a non-physicist do I think the Earth would snowball with a lack of atmosphere? (note that "lack" means a lack of our current atmosphere, it's of course impossible to prevent a planet or satellite from maintaining *any* atmosphere - even the comets have one). Yes, I think it probably would for the reasons already mentioned.
And sure, I don't know exactly what the surface temperature would be. But it seems obvious that the 255 K figure is meant as a model baseline which the addition of various atmospheric factors adjusts. Also obvious that the Moon's day length has to have a pronounced effect on its average daylight and nighttime temperature. Anyone living in a home with a slab foundation knows that rock retains, and radiates, heat for hours after the sun has set.
Could you translate this into model terms? Do you mean that the increased concentration of CO@ am methane in the atmosphere does not (significantly?) lead to higher atmospheric and ocean temperatures? Or that any changes that are produced are negligible or positive?
You seem (perhaps I just do not understand you) to be to saying there are just two outcomes: catastrophic warming and snowball earth. I'm trying to understand your point wrt a increase of much less than 400 ppm and much more than400 ppm More heating or not? Harm or not?
2) It takes the moon about a month for its day to occur. This allows a long period of time for the heat of the sun to both absorb, and to radiate away.
3) We can't go back to the beginning, so starting now, with sufficient water in the atmosphere and in the oceans and et cetera, if the Earth lost its atmosphere this would encourage ice formation (I'm not an expert, this is an assumption on my part). The albedo of this ice would reflect more energy away from the Earth, thus encouraging more ice formation, and you'd probably end up with a snowball.
We already know this is false with respect to the moon, and the Earth is far larger, with a much larger gravitational pull, and a lot more liquid hydrogen, oxygen, and dihydrogen monoxide internally that can seep to the surface regardless of the atmosphere.
Would you seriously expect the entirety of Earth's water to sublimate into space tomorrow if the atmosphere disappeared?
Thanks for your input Thomas. I recommend you send your perspective to Roger Pielke Jr himself as he's far more equipped than I am to address your points.
I did. This was for the "benefit" of people who saw your post but not his. :)
You're nitpicking, and ignoring the scenario I postulated *with respect to ice*. You're also ignoring the fact that there is documented counter-evidence on our own Moon.
Everything I'm posting is ultimately a discussion of the model of the Earth being a snowball with an average surface temperature of 255 K. As a non-physicist do I think the Earth would snowball with a lack of atmosphere? (note that "lack" means a lack of our current atmosphere, it's of course impossible to prevent a planet or satellite from maintaining *any* atmosphere - even the comets have one). Yes, I think it probably would for the reasons already mentioned.
And sure, I don't know exactly what the surface temperature would be. But it seems obvious that the 255 K figure is meant as a model baseline which the addition of various atmospheric factors adjusts. Also obvious that the Moon's day length has to have a pronounced effect on its average daylight and nighttime temperature. Anyone living in a home with a slab foundation knows that rock retains, and radiates, heat for hours after the sun has set.
Could you translate this into model terms? Do you mean that the increased concentration of CO@ am methane in the atmosphere does not (significantly?) lead to higher atmospheric and ocean temperatures? Or that any changes that are produced are negligible or positive?
You seem (perhaps I just do not understand you) to be to saying there are just two outcomes: catastrophic warming and snowball earth. I'm trying to understand your point wrt a increase of much less than 400 ppm and much more than400 ppm More heating or not? Harm or not?
I understand your POV. Thanks
1) The 255 K is an average.
2) It takes the moon about a month for its day to occur. This allows a long period of time for the heat of the sun to both absorb, and to radiate away.
3) We can't go back to the beginning, so starting now, with sufficient water in the atmosphere and in the oceans and et cetera, if the Earth lost its atmosphere this would encourage ice formation (I'm not an expert, this is an assumption on my part). The albedo of this ice would reflect more energy away from the Earth, thus encouraging more ice formation, and you'd probably end up with a snowball.
No disagreement. :)
We already know this is false with respect to the moon, and the Earth is far larger, with a much larger gravitational pull, and a lot more liquid hydrogen, oxygen, and dihydrogen monoxide internally that can seep to the surface regardless of the atmosphere.
Would you seriously expect the entirety of Earth's water to sublimate into space tomorrow if the atmosphere disappeared?
https://moon.nasa.gov/news/59/ice-confirmed-at-the-moons-poles/