Earth's Albedo-Flip greenhouse amplification

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My point isn't that you're wrong about everything or not smart enough. My point is that if I'm understanding what you're saying in the 1st post, that all ice melting will be equivalent to the earth receiving 2x more sunlight (extrapolated from Venus orbit comment), then I would expect the climate experts to be making those sorts of claims. I haven't seen such claims.

1) The Chcaltaya Glacier, in the Bolivian Andes Mountains began to melt in 1979.
2) By 2009, it was extinct.
3) This glacier had been there for 18,000-years.
4) Within 30-years, 18,000-years worth of ice vanished.
5) Consistent with astronomical climate forcing, Earth ought to be moving into the next Ice-Age.
6) Glaciers don't 'melt' in an 'ice-age.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) In order for the white powder snow which had covered Chcaltaya Glacier to absorb enough energy to absorb the same energy as the underlying ice, you would have had to move Earth to within 74-million miles of the Sun.
8) In order for the ice to absorb enough energy to match that of the exposed underlying rock, would require moving Earth to within 63-million miles of the Sun.
That's all I'm saying.
That's the entire premise of this thought experiment.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are what prompted the loss of the glacier.
Presently, we've lost 641- ice caps / glaciers to man-made global warming.
And it's accelerating. That's all I'm talking about.

[redpoint5]

#7 & #8

You're doing it again, you're making an energy statement by using a power context without the corresponding duration.

None of that is helpful. That's like saying in 1 day, my body gives off the full power of the sun, but conspicuously leaving out how long the sun burns to equal the same power output as my body.

It's not a useful frame.

In the same way, how long something had persisted is also uninteresting because it lacks any relevance to the future. Smallpox had existed for at least 3,000 years, and then it stopped existing in 1980.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

#7 & #8

You're doing it again, you're making an energy statement by using a power context without the corresponding duration.

None of that is helpful. That's like saying in 1 day, my body gives off the full power of the sun, but conspicuously leaving out how long the sun burns to equal the same power output as my body.

It's not a useful frame.

In the same way, how long something had persisted is also uninteresting because it lacks any relevance to the future. Smallpox had existed for at least 3,000 years, and then it stopped existing in 1980.

1) It's an energy density phenomena over the temporal span of 30-years.
2) We've warmed the tropospheric ocean of air we live in.
3) If you take the Earth's surface to be the 'sea-floor' of the troposphere, the heat has been mixing into the atmosphere, creating a homogenously-heat-mixed- air 'ocean'.
4) This warmer air has been climbing the mountains, 15-feet per year, year after year, pushing the 0-degree C freeze line upwards with it.
5) The glaciers are stranded in place. They can't emigrate. They can't escape as the heat comes to meet them.
6) They just sit there exposed to more and more heat, which hadn't existed in the Holocene for 11,000-years, and back into time before the Holocene began.
7)By 1979, the anthropogenic heat flux, at an elevation of 18,000-feet was intense enough that the' highly-reflective' bright snow began to melt, and phase-shift into 'darker' ice.
8) This change in energy, experienced by the snow was equivalent to moving Earth closer to the Sun. It's a straight-forward inverse-square-law mathematical calculation, which I provided in it's entirety.
9) When all the snow was gone, ice melting proceeded at an accelerated rate, with nothing to buffer it from the onslaught of energy per unit surface area.
10) By 2009, all the ice was 'gone.' Exposed rock exposed to 1100-watts/sq-meter, just 'cooking' up there. This rate of energy absorption per square-meter is identical to what the ice would have experienced if parked at 63-million miles from the Sun.
It's just a different way to think about Earth's energy budget and energy balance. Of which Keith Mountain is an authority.
These exercises help me get a handle on the thermodynamics of the cryosphere.
Watch our mission to Mars, and what the spacesuits the colonists wear look like. In the cold of Martian days, you may see darker 'clothing' to help the teams soak up all the feeble sunlight they can possibly get there.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory can design the suits, there in Pasadena, using the same inverse-square-law and stellar constant.

[freebeard]

8) This change in energy, experienced by the snow was equivalent to moving Earth closer to the Sun. It's a straight-forward inverse-square-law mathematical calculation, which I provided in it's entirety.
9) When all the snow was gone, ice melting proceeded at an accelerated rate, with nothing to buffer it from the onslaught of energy per unit surface area.
10) By 2009, all the ice was 'gone.' Exposed rock exposed to 1100-watts/sq-meter, just 'cooking' up there. This rate of energy absorption per square-meter is identical to what the ice would have experienced, parked at 63-million miles from the Sun.
It's just a different way to think about Earth's energy budget and energy balance.

Please include in your calculations the Delta V of the mass of the Earth to the new perigee. Show your math, 'cause I can't be bothered.

[oil pan 4]

I'll save you the trouble.
1+2= we're all going to die in 12 years.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'll save you the trouble.
1+2= we're all going to die in 12 years.

Ok, I am old enough for that to be a distinct possibility. Perhaps even before.

[freebeard]

Between the micronova and 'human nature', we should all be so lucky.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Please include in your calculations the Delta V of the mass of the Earth to the new perigee. Show your math, 'cause I can't be bothered.

1) 'Delta V' is a vague parameter to me.
2) Associated with 'mass' it might mean 'volume,' which wouldn't vary.
3) Associated with perigee, it might me Kepplerian' 'velocity,' which continuously varies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) If you're acquainted with 'solar constant', then you already know that Earth's orbital eccentricity of 3%, between apogee and perigee, is already taken into account, which simplifies the calculation.
5) On short timescales, as we're considering, there would be no such thing as a 'new' perigee.
6) So we're just back to the stellar constant, divided by the square of the distance from the Sun's photosphere, to whatever distance we're interested in.
7) I performed a second mathematical proof, based upon the surface areas of the spherical energy fronts, and my results happened to be identical to what the Department of Physics, at The University of Chicago came up with.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'll save you the trouble.
1+2= we're all going to die in 12 years.

Statistically, I'll be dead in nine.

[freebeard]

Greta Thunberg, the 'expert', only gave you ten in 2018.

Delta-v
Delta-v, symbolized as ∆v and pronounced delta-vee, as used in spacecraft flight dynamics, is a measure of the impulse per unit of spacecraft mass that is needed to perform a maneuver such as launching from or landing on a planet or moon, or an in-space orbital maneuver.Wikipedia

I guess it's hyphenated. Sorry for the confusion.