Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Recognition of 'Sublimation of Atmosphere'

  1. Feb 25, 2007 #1
    I want to know how we will recognize when our CO2 PPM is approaching 'Pre-Sat'/Sublimation of our atmosphere.
    I'm thinking if we recognize that our oceans are dying(blue green aglae and phytoplakton dying off), and some species that pollinate our flowers(bumble bees and honey bees) are going extinct,, doesn't that indicate Earth is nearing a 'breakdown' within its BioSphere?

    I am almost certain that this present '379' number is very close, and in another thread, someone said that '450' might be it.
    I would hope that those who calculate our new growing economic powers and their contribution to global warming, will recognize that old computer models are possibly obsolete/ineffective, and that this new Paradigm poses a direct threat without knowing if A Synergy Effect can occur at some point soon, without having enough Bio-Mass to 'carbon sequester' the building atmospheric intoxicants/pollutants..

    I view our atmosphere as the equivalent to our own lungs(or blood gases), and we all now that there is a threshold of oxygen-co2 carrying hemoglobin, before problems occur

    Also, how can that number be calculated?
    *I really hope someone can answer this(another thread touched upon this).

    thankyou

    Please someone answer, I've been very panicky lately, and I need to know if anyone is listening to this(I only had one thread where I received responses so far).
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 25, 2007 #2
    Calm down take a deep breath. We're not all going to die just yet, and there's no evidence to suggest that at 450 ppm the Earth's gonna explode or anything dramatic like that.
    If we assume the earth has in the past had CO2 levels even anywhere near the 3500 ppm upper limit in the past we can be quietly confident that even if we raise our levels up to 1000 ppm we won't destroy life on Earth.

    As for your 'new paradigm' I think we can quite safely put it straight in the bin (although if you chose to persue it fine), nobody will erratically decide that you are on to something until your model starts to give real answers that stand up to whatever tests they decide to throw at it.
     
  4. Feb 25, 2007 #3
    I seem to remember that fern, ginkgo and metasequoia stomata all agree that the CO2 in the late Maastrichtian and the Paleocene were comparable to today with strong but short spikes at the K-T boundary (65Ma) and the PETM (55Ma). I'll dig up the papers later. Yet the temperatures were supposed to be considerably higher than today. So greenhouse effect with no greenhouse gas.

    Anyway, there is some consensus that dry CO2 greenhouse effect is limited to about one degree per doubling due to the narrow emission band and the real strong effect is supposed to come from enhanced water vapor pressure due to more evaporation at higher temperatures. But let's do some calculations

    What would you need in the first place for a strong water vapor feedback to boost that consensus ~1 C/2xCO2 Right, more water vapour and hence more evaporation. Let's try some ballpark figures.

    So how much energy is going into the oceans evaporting? Googling a bit, I see that annual evaporation in the oceans is in the order of magnitude of about 0,5 meter per year. Or 1.59 * 10-8 meter per second, which would be 1.59 * 10-5 Kg M-2 S-1 right?

    Now, the latent heat required for evaporation is 2.5 * 106 J/kg which means that this rate of evaporation absorps about 40 Wm-2 . Now if I want to increase the average 15oC with 2 degrees, with a RH of say 70% the absolute contents of water vapor 0.7 * (14.5 - 12.8) (table figures) which is about 9%. So this appears to signify that I'd need around 7 Wm-2 to increase the evaporation, thats a little more than is gained from the increased greenhouse effect.

    In other words, there is hardly enough additional energy to generate strong water vapor feedback. Moreover, when the water cycle machine starts cycling harder, it also needs more energy (potential energy) to lift water vapor to higher altitudes. Of course when water vapor condenses again, the heat is coming back but with all that water around it is quickly converted to IR radiation in frequencies not intercepted by CO2, to escape into space. So the water cycle has also a strong negative feedback limiting the greenhouse effect.

    I think that the climate scaremongering just for satisfying the herd instinct, to this level where kids start to panic, highly dispicable.
     
  5. Feb 25, 2007 #4

    Hi 'Andre',

    *Either there is a conspiracy so great that it would give even Machiavelli an insecurity problem as he is educated to new heights of manipulation, or this is the most serious issue of our time(possibly even 'all time' in present recorded history).
    No one is trying to cause the 'herd instinct' for any negative reasons, and as goes to our 'Adults', they need to be 'awakened' with some verbal clues that shock the consciousness a wee bit.

    Its curious that you mention our children, because it seems from my own casual conversations, I've learned that they are being taught environmental science in school, and they may even be more aware than most adults.
    I can only imagine their personal feelings with respect to watching grown adults bicker the 'yes-no' 'is-is not', back in forth between them(as we see every day on the news, and on many websites, etc).
    *Maybe that is why so many of the young are angry these days(amongst other things that are going to be 'left for them to clean up').
    -------
    ?*That part that I 'underlined' in your quote has caught my attention because of this theory I have about the true nature of our universe.

    I only wonder how these frequency distortions, might effect what goes on outside of Earth's magnetosphere, and if that distortion can have negative consequential rebound like effects which 'cycle back' to Earth at some point, in order to balance out the dischordance of the nucleur magnetic spectrum?

    *I view the Sun and Earth(and rest of the solar system) as communicating phenomena(or Cells);; so as in an analogy of mine(Alzheimers, where the amyloid plaques distort communcation between the brain and the body proper), there is always some kind of compensation effect that occurs, which attempts to achieve some kind of relative equilibrium(though we may not understand it as such, or see it readily).
    .....Obviously, our Sun and Earth are not 'communicating' as they should, so that is potentially a dangerous issue, and we must try to save our chemical environment from further dilution.
    *I do also have an 'Immuno-Logical' theory of Space, which is a complimentary theory which tries to support my concerns, and I will outline that at another time.
     
  6. Feb 25, 2007 #5
    Hi 'Billiards',

    Well I'm not worrying about Earth exploding, but there are things which might have equal parallel like consequences.

    Its tough to calm down of late(my life is literally falling apart,... in addition to these important issues), and I'd have some peace of mind if I knew for certain that our best scientists had figured out this most important element of the discussion.
    *I can also say that for years I've had an acute awareness of how 'Leadership' hates to depart with the Status Quo, so as other people have told me: "Even if you know this number, do you think anyone is going to actually do anything"?:frown: :uhh:

    **I'm confused on your numbers above, because I've read in a few places that our current PPM levels have not been seen since over 400,000 years ago in evolutionary biology.
    Not being an 'E.Biologist', I can't tell if life as we have it now, was present at all.
    I must say, I almost think your kidding me with those figures.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Recognition of 'Sublimation of Atmosphere'
  1. The atmosphere (Replies: 2)

  2. Loss of atmosphere (Replies: 7)

  3. Our atmosphere? (Replies: 19)

  4. Atmospheric cooling (Replies: 0)

  5. Leaky atmosphere (Replies: 1)

Loading...