|
Post by ron on Feb 4, 2009 3:09:43 GMT
But doesn't O2 absorb 100% of UV radiation in some bands? Where does that energy go?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 5:09:08 GMT
Oxygen is a gaseous compound of two oxygen atoms (diatomic) and comprises approximately 20% by volume of air in the troposphere. Ozone is a gaseous compound of three oxygen atoms and comprises a small volume (approximately 2.5 parts per million) of the stratosphere. It comprises only about 0.02 ppm of the volume of the troposphere. It is generated from oxygen molecules in the presence of solar ultra-violet (UV) radiation. It forms a thin layer in the upper atmosphere and absorbs ultraviolet radiation. Ozone in the stratosphere is produced from oxygen molecules that have been dissociated (formed into ions) by UV light. UV light with a wavelength less than 240 nm is absorbed by oxygen molecules to form oxygen radicals. The radicals combine with oxygen molecules to form ozone molecules. Optimal conditions for these reactions occur at about 50 kilometres above the Earth's surface. Ozone production can be represented by the following chemical equation. O 2 + UV -> 2O . (radicals) O 2 + O . -> O 3Three molecules of oxygen react to form two molecules of ozone. www.hsc.csu.edu.au/earth_environmental/core/time/9_3_2/932net.htm
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 5:27:15 GMT
But doesn't O2 absorb 100% of UV radiation in some bands? Where does that energy go? The greenhouse effect is the process of returning some infra red radiation coming from the earth back to the earth. The Earth does not radiate UV, so Oxygen has no greenhouse effect. As described in the previous post, UV breaks down Oxygen into free radicals. That is where the energy goes. The full solar irradiance heats the Earths atmosphere and surface. The warmed air & surface gives off heat, some of which is reflected back by the greenhouse effect. But ALL the energy comes from the sun. If it wasn't for the GH effect, we would be on an ice planet.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 4, 2009 7:23:22 GMT
Does anyone have an idea how much CO2 is produced by cosmic radiation?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 4, 2009 7:44:25 GMT
Does anyone have an idea how much CO2 is produced by cosmic radiation? None. Well, probably some but every time you exhale you probably give off more CO2 than is created during that whole day by carbon nuclei flying into the atmosphere at near light speed from half way across the galaxy....er uh, by cosmic rays
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2009 11:22:27 GMT
@kiwi:
Everytime those arguments are made a very nasty detailed discussion arises. However there are many physical chemists working on this subject here at IMAU but they all seem to agree with AGW. (now please don't come with the brainwashed argument...) Although I have basic chemistry and a mathematical understanding of quantum mechanics, I do not currently have deep enough understanding of those processes to reproduce them here, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 4, 2009 20:09:28 GMT
@kiwi: Everytime those arguments are made a very nasty detailed discussion arises. However there are many physical chemists working on this subject here at IMAU but they all seem to agree with AGW. (now please don't come with the brainwashed argument...) Although I have basic chemistry and a mathematical understanding of quantum mechanics, I do not currently have deep enough understanding of those processes to reproduce them here, to be honest. Now there's a loaded post. 'nasty' discussion? 'brainwashed'? I'm unsure why you'd insert loaded terms into a post like this, particularly when apparently the only point you're making is that you don't know enough to contribute. Or is this your way of telling us that people in the science department at IMAU (notice no details so really just a generality & so not much use - I'd imagine they, being people, have a whole gamut of personal opinions) who depend for their livelihood on funding from sources where if you disagree with agw you don't get funding, teach the mainstream mantra of guilty man? ;D ;D See, you can load a post without using emotive terms.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 4, 2009 21:01:02 GMT
There's a more basic assumption going on socold - you are assuming those promoting agw are actually doing science. There's no evidence to support that. I am assuming those who write climate models are doing so by bringing together physical laws and equations found in advanced atmospheric physics textbooks, among others. I don't even consider that an assumption really, we can all look at the GISS GCM code online and see they are including a lot of complex physics. This is what is done. Climate models are compared to real life observations and the idea is to bring the models closer to representing real life - not by fudging, but by getting the underlying physics right. it's already done in the past and will continue to be done! Edit: removed excessive inclusion of previous post
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 23:39:41 GMT
The connection between CO2 and temperature is empirical. i.e. Both are observed to be somewhat correlated, and that has led to the AGW hypothesis, in spite of Zero real science behind it. The debate is between the theory that the Sun is the cause (via things as yet poorly understood) where there is correlation with temperature, and the theory that CO2 is the cause (via things as yet poorly understood).
The problem with CO2 is that the temperature can only go one way. The Solar theories go both ways. The sun is getting less active, and, after a few years lag, the earth is definitely cooling.
The True Scientist will see this as something to be resolved in the future. Research is needed about all things solar & climate.
One thing is abundantly clear: That there is no immediate panic and need to further damage our economies. Reducing dependence on oil, and encouraging alternatives make sense, and should be done by subsidizing alternative energy sources.
There is no need to remove the World's ice protection and plant food. ============================================= I know how research departments at Universities work, and I know how fragile most science really is. True, I dropped out of my PhD when my first child was born - couldn't support my family on a research grant.!!
What you have are PhD students working in tiny narrow areas, directed by their supervisors. The supervisor has already made up the conclusion, and the PhD Student is providing the evidence for it.
The idea that we have a gathering of data, and then we think about it, and then we come up with the "THEORY" is naive to the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 5, 2009 0:08:19 GMT
Whoever (besides you! ) has said that is the only debate? While I think there may be a connection between solar cycles and global temperatures, I also think there are natural cycles at play that are completely unknown, never mind not understood. I would say that the argument solely boils down to whether man is affecting the environment of the globe as a whole in a substantial way.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 5, 2009 6:36:15 GMT
Whoever (besides you! ) has said that is the only debate? While I think there may be a connection between solar cycles and global temperatures, I also think there are natural cycles at play that are completely unknown, never mind not understood. I would say that the argument solely boils down to whether man is affecting the environment of the globe as a whole in a substantial way. Exactly, there are three main, documented factors at this point contributing to global warming (when it WAS warming, anyway). CO2 forcing, solar forcing and ocean currents (which most likely do little "forcing" and more smearing around energy due to surface stagnation v/s mixing modes). They are all known to work so we cannot treat it as if only one was important. It's pretty straight forward getting a guestimate of the MAXIMUM amount of forcing by the new kid on the block (CO2 emitted by man) too. We have records and proxies that show the affects of the other forcings before the major ramp-up in CO2 (post WWII). The data is noisy but it's obviously there. For reference, my standard graph cobbled together from a couple of other well recognized graphs poitsplace.com/images/08/warming_projections.pngLooking back it appears that .3C - .6C is quite possible without significant CO2 increases or decreases. The 1880ish to 1910ish period is a good example showing close to a .5C drop (a minimum plus negative currents) and the 1910-1940 period gives us a .6C increase during positive currents and increased activity. The 1940-present period does look a little bit suspicious but not really THAT suspicious. The cooling part is what stands out. During that cooling period, CO2 levels rose by 2/3 the amount that they did during the following warming period that sparked so much concern over global warming. Since CO2's affects are logarithimc that 2/3 should have been just as powerful as the CO2 emitted during the 1980's and 1990's. Looking at the actual temperatures, however, you'll notice they still managed to drop. You may wish to say "oh but the drop was all up front" BUT...look back at the previous cooling period...it actually looks quite similar. Even if CO2 IS affecting the cooling period, it's obviously not sufficient to offset the affects of the ocean currents and solar forcing. With all this in mind, the warming period that sparked so much concern...really isn't all that spectacular. ALSO looking at the graph again you can see how ABSOLUTELY STUPID it is to project temperatures based on the increase from the trough to the peak. Since essentially ALL of the CO2 was added to the atmosphere since 1940 and since 1940 was the last peak, the 1940-2000 period is what we should use to project. This way we at least have a full cycle of the PDO and a period of fairly high solar activty across the board. Doing a simple cut and paste of the 1940-2000 trends we get a rough projection of what we should expect by 2100 to be about .5C warmer (yes, I was kind enough to add a little because it hits near the bottom of a cold cycle). There we go...business as usual and we get .5C of warming. Of course, now the sun's gone into a minimum. We've been living in a time of rapid-fire solar cycles. Now the sun seems to have calmed down. At this point it appears we're in for a string of low cycles. Instead of a short minimum barely long enough for the climate to show its affects followed by incredible levels of activity we'll be having long minimums with shallow ramp-ups and low maximums. I suspect the affect will be far greater than the .1C variation between normal maximums and minimums...probably more along the lines of .2C-.4C
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 5, 2009 10:41:41 GMT
As I said, two known caused of warming: The Sun or AGW - the oceans just introduce delays and complexities, but are, in themselves, not a cause.
It is like heating or cooling a house - change the energy coming in,(the sun) or change the insulation(GHG). Stirring the warmth from room to room (the oceans) is a distribution system and may make some places warmer and others cooler - even effecting the "Global temperature" by hiding energy away for a while, or releasing it from the past.
I don't like using the "f" word - it smacks of pseudo science. Let's use real science: heat content, energy, etc. There ain't no "force" in it. It is just another illustration of the reluctance of the climate mathematicians to get to grip with real science. More an illustration of the way the climate models are built than anything to do with scientific reality.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 5, 2009 18:43:13 GMT
[vertrimmt] As I said, two known caused of warming: The Sun or AGW - the oceans just introduce delays and complexities, but are, in themselves, not a cause... I don't like using the "f" word - it smacks of pseudo science. Let's use real science: heat content, energy, etc. There ain't no "force" in it. It is just another illustration of the reluctance of the climate mathematicians to get to grip with real science. More an illustration of the way the climate models are built than anything to do with scientific reality. What about 200,000 volcanoes? What about friction between the ocean and the ocean floor? Or between the atmosphere and the earth's surface? What about uranium decay in the earth's crust? What about core heat percolating upwards? Or electric currents induced by interaction of solar and terrestrial magnetic fields with conductive portions of the Earth? What about the heat of solution of carbon dioxide in seawater? Okay, these are all either small or unknown, but they are non-solar, non-AGW "f*rcings." And, hey, 'f*rcing' is a perfectly good word. It's not pseudoscience. It's real science stuff. Scientists like to talk like that. It's a form of short- armhand. It's a little faster and a whole lot cooler to say 'f*rcing' instead of 'thingie that tends to drive temperatures one way or the other.' Up to 7 percent of some scientists' time is spent thinking up new words so they can impress the pee-ers during pee-er review. Gobbledegook gives one an appearance of great wisdom. "...But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other'."
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 6, 2009 0:08:09 GMT
I know I come across as confrontational alot, and I really don't intend to do that but I don't know how to tone down my posts more than I have, so please don't take anything I say as a personal attack, I'm just talking about the issues, and I'm definitely not married to any side of any debate!
You said something to the effect of "the only debate was AGW or the sun" and that's just so not true. The earth has gone through tremendous cycles between ice ages and warm periods all the while the output of the sun has been relatively constant It has been warmer than it is now while the sun was much less potent, and it has been colder than it is now while the sun has been just about the same. I'd say since the debate over AGW is talking about 100 year timeframes and the cycles we've seen are 100,000 year cycles, I'd avow that the debate is more about cycles than solar influences.
A perfect example would be that Sudden Stratospheric Warming we just saw over the arctic: The sun's output didn't change overnight but the entire system had an extremely rapid change. The same thing can happen on global heat content overnight -- well overnight is a relative term when you're talking about a 100,000 year cycle vs. an atmospheric shift.
Finally, if you're talking about specific causes for changes to the energy budget of the planet, what about clouds and GCRs or eclipses or geothermal or gravity or dark matter/energy or who knows how many other things that we not only don't understand from an energy budget standpoint, but we don't even have a clue that it exists?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 6, 2009 1:47:28 GMT
Ron,
all true, all true.
No one argues that an asteroid impact, Super Volcano, or other extreme event may one day changes things just a little. In the long term, such things will come into play.
But the BIG debate we are all actively involved in is the purported Human induced warming period over the last 50 years or so.
The temperature has gone up, and there are only two obvious causes for increased temperature: Greenhouse gases or Solar effects (solar wind, or some such).
Clouds, various oscillations and such like are driven by the Sun (or GH Gas for those that believe.) - so they are all secondary causes. The various oscillations etc are the results of the warming, not the causes. All these create climate, distribute heat, store, release heat etc, and all this needs much research.
As far as increased warming is concerned, we have only the two influences: 1. Changes in incoming energy, and 2. Changes in Insulation or albedo effects. (That is, what retards the loss of energy).
Other factors, such as Earth's radioactivity, are in very slow decline, but due to the half lives concerned can be considered as constants. Anything else is so small as to be negligible, or at least close to a constant.
What we are looking for is something that has changed to such an extent that the increase in temperature (in the recent past) can be explained. If it accounts for the cooling we are undergoing, then well & good.
The Sun fits the bill, increased CO2 emissions doesn't.
|
|