I’m sure that you are being “Energetically Lawful Moose”, but I couldn’t bear
to think that our efforts were unrecoverable. I think (all right, hope) that a
reduction in flying would balance the loss of reflectivity of the remnants of
contrails with the reduction in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – in the
long term. I expect that the initial result would be as we saw after the Twin
Towers atrocity.
Chris
> On 21 Mar 15, at 20:17, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/2015 12:06 PM, ChrisB wrote:
>> I think that it’s reasonable to assume that the effect would be transitory,
>> Moose. I have always done so.
>
> I don't know why that would be true. A certain amount of light energy from
> the Sun impinges on the Earth and its atmosphere. Some is reflected, some
> re-radiated into space. The rest interacts with a complex system to produce
> many/most aspects of our very complex ecosystem, including temperature.
>
> If a layer in the atmosphere that is reflecting some of this incoming energy
> back out into space is removed, the total energy going into our ecosystem is
> increased, not briefly, but continuously. What else can it do, but increase
> total system energy, including increased molecular movement, which is heat?
>
> Some of any such increase will increase (re)radiation out into space, but
> that will only be a small proportion of the input, and will only occur if
> temperatures are increased.
>
> I'm not aware of exceptions to the First Law of Thermodynamics, "Energy is
> neither created nor destroyed". Einstein's Special Theory extended this Law
> to include matter, but didn't change its meaning.
>
> More energy coming into a system does not disappear, it causes change.
>
> Energetically Lawful Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|