Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Adiabatic Heating?

I have to admit, this is a new one to me.

Gases accumulating in the atmosphere and the rate of outgassing determine the properties of gaseous atmospheric mixture, in particular, changing the density and thermal capacity of the air. One can assume that: the greater the rate of outgassing, the higher the atmospheric pressure. According to the adiabatic theory of heat transfer in the atmosphere (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003), the latter leads to increase in the atmospheric global temperature.

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html

This is from their 2006 article, "On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?"

Here's an abstract of the 2003 article:
Abstract:?The writers show that the present-day global warming is not due to the increase in the volume of greenhouse gases, but rather to the increased solar activity. It appears that we are at the rising phase of the latest 80-90 year cycle of the solar activity. At the present time, there is no sound justification for the cut in the man-induced carbon dioxide emission as required by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. The rising global temperature drives large volumes of CO2 from the ocean water into the atmosphere. Thus "cause" and "effect" of global warming phenomenon are misunderstood by many scientists.
Title:?Global warming: Are we confusing cause and effect?
Author(s):?Khilyuk LF, Chilingar GV
Source:?ENERGY SOURCES 25 (4): 357-370 APR 2003

These two make quite a team....

~samwik

the dynamic duo strike again!
...in the current Jan.2007 issue.

Author(s): ...Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L., 2007!

Abstract: The model of the Earth's climate change described here is based on the Earth's global evolution theory and adiabatic theory of the greenhouse effect. The main factor determining climate's temperature parameters is the atmospheric pressure. Glaciations at the end of Paleozoic-Phanerozoic time occurred due to a gradual atmospheric pressure decline as a result of nitrogen consumption by the nitrogen-consuming bacteria that removed nitrogen from the atmosphere and concentrated it in sediments. A warm period in the second half of Mesozoic was associated with the formation of the Pangaea supercontinent and intensified oxygen generation, which compensated for the lowered nitrogen partial pressure.
Title: Evolution of the Earth's global climate
Author(s): Sorokhtin OG (Sorokhtin, O. G.), Chilingar GV (Chilingar, G. V.), Khilyuk L (Khilyuk, L.), Gorfunkel MV (Gorfunkel, M. V.)
Source: ENERGY SOURCES PART A-RECOVERY UTILIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 29 (1): 1-19 JAN 1 2007

*_*

Adiabatic Global Warming/Cooling: Treating gravity as a sort of elastic box for the atmosphere?

~samwik?

No comments on this explanation of global warming? Well known or too silly to comment upon?

...and if you're bored, check this out re: Ocean Acidification.

Richard Bellerby of the Bjerknes Centre spoke on ?Ocean Acidification, Ecosystem Implications and Climate Feedback in a Changing Arctic Ocean.? Dr. Bellerby addressed the high latitude acidification of the ocean. Certain calcifiers play a prominent role in the food web, and as CO2 increases, the pH and CO3 concentrations fall. Calcium is constant, so the CO2 depends on the CO3. The colder waters in the north have a reduced alkalinity and reduced buffering capacity. The pH reduction in the Arctic is significant. The natural variability over the past 150 years is small, and we are now moving toward dissolution. Some organisms will have trouble surviving with reduced calcification. With increased CO2, calcification decreases. The increase in biological uptake of CO2 has reduced. Certain fish are affected by a reduced pH, and with increased carbon they don?t get enough nutrients. Ocean pH will decrease further and the rate has not been seen in over 55 million years. The Arctic will undergo the greatest global reduction in pH in the past century. Some organisms may experience acidification shock and prominent marine calcifiers will likely not survive the century. Acidification may have consequences for fisheries through changes in plankton diversity, nutrient flows, and destruction of coral reef nurseries.


from:
The Royal Norwegian Embassy and the Carnegie Institution hosted the Transatlantic Cooperative Research Conference 2006: ?Arctic Meltdown ? Global Effects? on October 2-4, 2006, at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. Climate change and transatlantic cooperation have been key issues following the Norwegian Government?s 2001 decision to strengthen the bonds across the Atlantic. This year?s event, one of several since 2002, was organized by the Norwegian Research, Innovation, & Higher Education Forum in the United States.

The problem I have with any theory of climate that focuses on the atmosphere, whether pressure or temperature or whatever, is that the atmosphere is near irrelevant compared with the oceans.

The acidification, and poisoning, of the oceans trumps all. The level of irresponsibility by government and corporate leaders is staggering. It is hard to condemn the layperson as, for the most part, the lay-public is totally ignorant of physics, chemistry, and anything more technical than whether Britney is wearing her panties.

Good answer DA, thanks.
Though with the atmosphere affecting the poles so much, that's gonna do a number on the oceans.

Any thought on the buffering capacity of the oceans? Has this been worked out. I noticed in Al's film that he mentions a large chunk of the atmospheric CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans. Maybe that is decreasing (explaining bigger jumps in recent CO2 measurements?).

~~samwik

P.S. Yea, I don't follow that kind of news so... thanks for making me think of Brittany's panties too.

Most of what I've seen on acidification relates to the shallows where coral reefs and shellfish are more likely to be observed.

I'm sure someone somewhere has posted numbers with respect to buffering capacity ... but throw in the unknowns such as mixing and fresh water from glacial melt and it becomes beyond our ability to fathom.

300 years ago just about everyone alive understood a cow and no one understood relativity. Today some people understand relativity and everyone thinks they understand a cow. Yet the truth is that no one alive could create a cow if they didn't already have two of them (one male, one female).

But 300 years ago everyone knew enough to build a house, feed and clothe their family, etc. Thus it made sense to say they could vote and understand the consequences of their opinion. One can not say, today, they are capable of understanding the consequences of filling potholes in the road.

And about Britney ... too bad she didn't think of her panties. Had she done so she'd have put them on before the pics were taken. Too bad money and fame can't buy class.

I sure can't argue with anything you've said above (except I don't know anything about Britney). The one thing that strikes me is something that I've been wondering about. As you say, "...but throw in the unknowns ...and it becomes beyond our ability to fathom." -DA
This is probably true for most of the planetary systems that contribute to the climate (yes, & extra-planetary forces too). I wonder if there is even an assessment of how much we "know" about certain systems such as the ocean, atmosphere, sun, and clouds. I do recall someone saying that clouds represented one of the least understood aspects of climate (there's an assessment).

~samwik

What we have, as I understand it, is computer models that attempt to predict behaviours.

Those models that produce predictions closest to what is observed in the current and historical records gain some level of credibility. Those that don't are improved or discarded.

What we describe as "fact" might better be called "our best projections." And the consequences of them are dire for quality of life as we have known it.

Perhaps there are people here looking forward to the day they can leave behind life in Europe or America or Australia for the hot climates, diseases, and lifestyles of Ethiopia or Somalia or Uganda. I don't count myself among them.