Prev: Justification of Gerbers Gravitational Potential
Next: refrigerating cycle in small freezer- problem
From: Angelo Campanella on 7 Jun 2010 17:04
"chemist" <tom-bolger(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:37036f85-b3eb-434a-b5f0-8896fb16f705(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 10:44 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:58 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > Just about all the oil will eventually end up in the atmosphere as
> > CO2,
>
> True, but before that happens some of the hydrocarbons
> in the oil are or become gases which are more powerful
> greenhouse gasses than CO2. These super greenhouse
> gases oxidize over time, leaving CO2. So, the greenhouse
> effect due to the oil spill is not easy to calculate and varies
> over time.

Understood that adding hydrocarbon polar molecules to the air will
increase IR absorption, but it has been shown many times that this only
affects the upper atmosphere since water vapor strongly controls the albedo
in the lower atmosphere (where clouds, high humidity and weather occurs).

After the hydrocarbons oxidize to CO2 and ater vapor, we are left with
just those familiar constituents in slightly altered concentration. The
phenomenon of total absorbtion ( "extinction") then controls the IR
absorption process. That is, CO2 (and water vapor) have a number of
absorption bands, usually realtively narrow corresponding to vibration and
rotation eigenmodes. As the sunliht proceed down through the atmosphere,
radiation in these bands become exhaisted, first at the main resonance
frequency, then on either side ("skirts") of that frequency.

I like to think in terms of the altitude where 1/e or two-thirds of the
energy that can be absorbed has been so absorbed(aka "optical depth") . I
beieve that the optical depth for CO2 is now perhaps 60,000 feet above sea
level. I further believe that att the addition of CO2 complained about
(running it from 260ppm to 350ppm) has resulted in the optical depth to be
changed from, say 50,000 feet to be now 60,000 feet. The point is that the
only changes that can occur will be in the upper atmosphere.

What does this do to our eweather?

Consider this: Pure simple dry air (1/5 O2, 4/5 N2) can be a very good
insulator since it contains no polar molecues. Nonpolar (rotationally
symmetric) molecules do NOT absorb infrared radiation. That would be te
best greenhous atmosphere of all, retaining surface heat quite well.

When we add polar molecues (those with nonsymmetrical structure; having
a dipole moment) the capability to absorb infrared radiation arises. The
albedo of the earth overall become s worse... mosture in the form of water
droplets scatter sunlight (our major energy source), reflecting some of it
directly back to space in the day time. At night, the H2O liquid and gas
radiate (blackbody radiation) energy into outer space and toward the ground;
a mixture of effects. With clouds and H2O vapor, less energy reaches the
ground, more is deposited in the atmosphere at all levels, and more
importantly, both upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere levels, as well as
the ground terrain and seas, radiate heat away at night .

As noted, the additoin of CO2 in the air does not change matters in any
significant way in the practical lower atmosphere, up to perhaps 30,000
feet. CO2 affects matters only above perhaps 50,000 feet.

The question becomes, in my mind; "What happens to our weather and
climate when more heat is deposited by day and lost by night and in the
winter at higher altitudes (aove 60,000') than in previous years?"

I have heard NO public scientific discussions on this matter....

> > something they were trying to do anyway except faster at higher
> > temperatures.

More rapid disappearance of the excess polar molecules

> > That's easy to calculate and the cleanup won't be too difficult figure
> > either.

OK

> > But what about the damage to marine life?

Whales were once endangered by our thirst for whale oil for lamps.
Rockerfeller solved that with kerosene at a tidy profit (his first fortune;
in the latter part of the 19th century).

Otherwise, a field day for marine biologists....

> there no such thing as a greenhouse gas

I think I understand... consider my comments on a pure O2 N2 air.

Ange



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Bret Cahill on 7 Jun 2010 23:54
> > > Just about all the oil will eventually end up in the atmosphere as
> > > CO2,
.. . .


> > > That's easy to calculate and the cleanup won't be too difficult figure
> > > either.
>
>     OK
>
> > > But what about the damage to marine life?
>
>     Whales were once endangered by our thirst for whale oil for lamps..

What will the destruction of some marine life have of the output/input
of CO2 and other gases from the Gulf of Mexico?

Maybe BP has discovered how to get some algae blooms going.


Bret Cahill


From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jun 2010 17:53
On Jun 8, 12:54 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:

> What will the destruction of some marine life have of the output/input
> of CO2 and other gases from the Gulf of Mexico?

Ewe haven't explained why ewe prefer a hotter globe than a dirty ocean
and a few dead fish and birds.


MG
From: Bret Cahill on 9 Jun 2010 00:51
> > What will the destruction of some marine life have of the output/input
> > of CO2 and other gases from the Gulf of Mexico?

> Ewe haven't explained why ewe prefer a hotter globe

The spill is only a drop in the heat bucket.

> than a dirty ocean
> and a few dead fish and birds.

It's a LOT of dead fish and dead birds.

And dead sea grass.

And dead oysters.

Even live shrimp are worthless because everyone quit eating shrimp
because of the benzene and other carcinogenic chemicals that _may_ be
in the shrimp.

Some of the shrimp be be perfectly safe.

An entrepreneur / inventor with a cheap GC could make some BIG bucks.


Bret Cahill


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Justification of Gerbers Gravitational Potential
Next: refrigerating cycle in small freezer- problem