No Change in GMST: Scenarios Explored

  • Thread starter Thread starter carl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change
AI Thread Summary
Two scenarios that could lead to no overall change in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) include: 1. A decrease in the fraction of Earth's surface covered with ice and snow, coupled with a decrease in the albedo of non-ice surfaces. However, both changes work in the same direction, suggesting a potential warming effect rather than neutrality.2. An increase in volcanic aerosol content while atmospheric water vapor concentration decreases. This scenario could lead to cooling effects due to the interplay of latent heat changes and the greenhouse effect, although the outcomes are complex and not fully understood.Other scenarios discussed include the effects of changing CO2 levels and solar constants, but these generally lead to warming rather than neutral impacts. The role of volcanic aerosols, particularly sulfur compounds, is highlighted for their significant but temporary effects on climate, influencing both heat generation and atmospheric conditions.
carl
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
GMST scenarios ..please help

Hey how you doing? Can anyone tell me 2 scenarios that could possibly lead to no overall change in GMST in this way please. I think (1) and (3) might be right?

(1) The fraction of Earth's surface covered with ice and snow decreases while the albedo of the surface (which isn't covered by ice and snow) decreases.


(2) The atmospheric CO2 concentration decreases while the solar constant increases.


(3) The volcanic aerosol content in the atmosphere increases while the atmospheric H2O concentration decreases.


(4) The volcanic aerosol content in the atmosphere decreases while the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases.


(5) The albedo of the surface (which isn't covered by ice and snow) decreases while the fraction of Earth's surface covered with ice and snow increases.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org


carl said:
Hey how you doing? Can anyone tell me 2 scenarios that could possibly lead to no overall change in GMST in this way please. I think (1) and (3) might be right?

Well Carl, that depends if you want a political correct answer or a physical correct answer.

(1) The fraction of Earth's surface covered with ice and snow decreases while the albedo of the surface (which isn't covered by ice and snow) decreases.

No, both work in the same direction, decrease of snow cover decreases local albedo like the albedo decrease elsewhere. Note that the insolation and hence effect of albedo of the (An-)Arctic snow areas in the (local) sunless-winter is virtually non existant. No sunshine to be reflected on the snow.

(2) The atmospheric CO2 concentration decreases while the solar constant increases.

obviously a yes, politically correct, however the resulting changes in evaporation, oceanic cycles etc are highly unknown and may spoil the true answer

(3) The volcanic aerosol content in the atmosphere increases while the atmospheric H2O concentration decreases.

Both would be causing decreasing temperatures but the H2O concentration in a different way than expected in a politically correct way, it's about the high amount of 'latent' heat from evaporation - condensation that is decreasing with decreasing H2O concentration, much more than decreasing greenhouse effect.

(4) The volcanic aerosol content in the atmosphere decreases while the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases.

the politically and physically correct answer would be no, both leading to warming

(5) The albedo of the surface (which isn't covered by ice and snow) decreases while the fraction of Earth's surface covered with ice and snow increases.

That could lead to no changes but bear in mind that effect of albedo change (decrease) in low lattitudes is huge and leads to warming while the effect of high lattitude snow ice cover decrease is very minor.
 


I assume that GMST stands for global mean surface temperature. I encourage you to
be thoughtful about volcanic elements in your model. The term aerosol has been introduced to represent both solid and liquid bodies suspended in the atmosphere. Silicates dispersed by volcanic activity are the solids introduced directly. Aerosol is usually used to indicate sulfuric acid (sulfate). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a part of volcanic spew. It must be oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO3) by monatomic oxygen that otherwise forms ozone. SO3 adds water to form sulfuric acid that can easily attract more water molecules, generating heat. In the cold stratosphere the sulfuric acid particle is likely to freeze. Reagent (85%) sulfuric acid freezes at 10.3 oC. Atmospheric particle shape is often differentiable by its scattering reflective behavior using LIDAR. Both liquids and solids reflect and absorb light and heat as well as scatter it. Stratospheric volcanic dispersions have a roughly two year duration of this heat generation (global LS) http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/uahncdc.ls 1982-1984 (El Chichon) and 1991-1993 (Mount Pinatubo) that has not yet been well explained. In one of two cases (1991-1993) low troposphere temperatures fell for over two years (global LT). In 1982-1984 a modest ENSO (e) process reduced the early decline (tropical LT). http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
 

Attachments

  • globLS.jpg
    globLS.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 476
  • globLT.jpg
    globLT.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 476
  • tropLT.jpg
    tropLT.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 446
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...
Back
Top