Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Science basics-thread?  (Read 1096 times)

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1905
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 37
Science basics-thread?
« on: July 04, 2019, 08:31:19 AM »
As the forum has grown to a quite large place, it might be useful to have a science basics thread. Kind of 'RTFM' or 'FAQ' of old. Sure, there are some details to be discussed in most scientific issues like the one with the band broadening questioned by Gerlich & Tschesuner some years back which was properly refuted by better men than me. But surely, there are some common questions and misunderstanindings that take up a whole lotta space elsewhere.

Like a list of simple facts like the one I recently had to check, methane is indeed lighter than air and thus accumulates to TOA in the tropics where massive sprite lightning may destroy some of it...

Or the one I messed up with the MJO confusing the segments on the standard plot.

Like some regular absorption diagrams for common gases. Or a list of heats of fusion and vaporization and the associated temperatutes.

Well, maybe this is a stupid idea, referring to skeptical science is likely always a good choice. But still, should there f.e. be some basic explanation of entropy, blackbody radiation, entalphy, well energy diagrams of chemical reactions and such on a site that mainly deals with ice on natural environments and social cost of carbon (for a lack of a better phrase)? Once there'd be enough info the thread should be locked down.
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

pietkuip

  • New ice
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2019, 10:50:53 AM »
Probably, a wiki would be a much more suitable structure for that.

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1905
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2019, 11:16:59 AM »
Probably, a wiki would be a much more suitable structure for that.

Yes, cross-linking several science-articles in a way relevant to climate science would probably be best. There's of course
Spencer Weart's Discovery of GW which does this to some extent, he though left the 'anthropogenic' bit out of the header.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Cooling the outside by heat pump.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 446
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2019, 02:39:34 PM »
That is a great resource. Back then i really appreciated his explanation of the simple old single column models.

It would be cool if he could do an addendum on more recent model developments and also paleo stuff (all ask him what it costs as soon as i win the lottery).

Not sure how useful a basic science thread is because there about as many levels of basic as there are people.

I suggest just taking the questions as and when they come. Mostly they should pop up in a specific context and might be best answered there (unless they are the threads we would like clutterfree).

I recently reposted Water Vapour Feedback or Forcing? from RealClimate which also has good basic stuff (and more) ... did not think i would repost that 2005 golden oldie but it was still useful.

I think it works in reverse. If the basic questions pop up they will be answered (and as we saw recently then it really depends on what the person asking the question does with the first two links).

Really simple stuff would be just duplicating wikipedia anyway and we can just link that. 



Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2019, 04:39:54 AM »
Seems like a good place for this:

A Review of Bob Henson’s Awesome Book: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change
by Weather Underground's Jeff Masters - 2019 Nov. 27
Quote
This is the fifth version of Bob’s comprehensive climate change book, which originally appeared as the "Rough Guide to Climate Change" back in 2006 (see my 2008 review). He organizes the new book into five sections:

The basics--global warming in a nutshell
The symptoms--what's happening now, and what might happen in the future
The science--how we know what we know about climate change
Debates & solutions--from spats and spin to saving the planet
What can you do?--reducing your footprint and working for action
...
Much more at the WU link.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1975
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2019, 02:27:05 PM »
I have a folder called basic data and arithmetic. There I keep stuff such as
- the data and arithmetic to show how the oceans as a heat sink have a capacity more than 1,000 times that of the atmosphere,
- conversion tables (e.g.s energy as Kwh, BTU, CO2 as ppm & GT),
- area of land & oceans at various levels of detail,
- basic physics (e.g. explanation of how a greenhouse gas heats up the atmosphere)

I only store in that folder that which will not change. Climate science is changing so fast that as soon as a conventional wisdom is established it gets demolished. Read recent(ish) posts by AbruptSLR how the ECS values in the new CMIP6 models are so much higher than those used in the CMIP5 cycle.

I can see this thread as a useful place to put basic data, but not for where there is still debate on AGW - how much, when, what and where - i.e. almost everything.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2104
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 1234
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2019, 08:54:19 AM »
Yosemite Nature Notes - 9 - Frazil Ice

The apocalypse is already here; it's just not very evenly distributed.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5673
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 674
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2020, 12:51:40 AM »
As far as basic science leading to better technology let me link back to morganism's post at
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,480.msg244268.html#msg244268


What is announce are new synthetic clathrates that can be Semiconductors or/and Superconductors at high temperatures!


DARPA and the DOE appear to have this covered, but this was no Manhattan project & I assume the world is already hard at work on this.


If it's real (and there is no reason to suspect that it isn't) it canwill change everything we thought we knew of the limits of electronic devices from solar cells, to computers, to batteries, to ???????.


It's as if transistors were new on the world stage.
A Gigantic Black Swan has touched down.


Before Clathrates / After Clathrates


It's that big - I think.
Terry


nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1438
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 9029
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2020, 06:33:15 AM »
^^
[joking]
Here is the solution to carbon sequestration: turn it into diamond.
[/joking]
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Aporia_filia

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2020, 01:35:32 PM »
I don't know if this is the right thread for this web, happy to move it somewhere else.

NASA free software. More than 600 programs for very different subjects. Have a look!

https://software.nasa.gov/

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1438
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 9029
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2020, 06:11:10 PM »
Nice find Aporia.

This might be of interest:

Viewpoints: Software for Visualization of Multivariate Data
A software application that allows the interactive visualization of multivariate data using a variety of standard techniques, Viewpoints can be used with extremely large data sets.
Open Source
http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/viewpoints/downloads
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1975
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2020, 09:58:58 PM »
Global Warming Potential of greenhouse gases- basic data

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Quote
Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere up to a specific time horizon, relative to carbon dioxide. It compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas in question to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide and is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is standardized to 1).

A GWP is calculated over a specific time horizon, commonly 20, 100, or 500 years. User related choices such as the time horizon can greatly affect the numerical values obtained for carbon dioxide equivalents. In the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a lifetime of 12.4 years and with climate-carbon feedbacks a global warming potential of 86 over 20 years and 34 over 100 years in response to emissions. For a change in time horizon from 20 to 100 years, the GWP for methane therefore decreases by a factor of approximately 2.5.[1]

The GWP depends on the following factors:

- the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
- the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
- the atmospheric lifetime of the species.

Thus, a high GWP correlates with a large infrared absorption and a long atmospheric lifetime. The dependence of GWP on the wavelength of absorption is more complicated. Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength. A gas has the most effect if it absorbs in a "window" of wavelengths where the atmosphere is fairly transparent. The dependence of GWP as a function of wavelength has been found empirically and published as a graph.[2]

Because the GWP of a greenhouse gas depends directly on its infrared spectrum, the use of infrared spectroscopy to study greenhouse gases is centrally important in the effort to understand the impact of human activities on global climate change.

The substances subject to restrictions under the Kyoto protocol are either rapidly increasing their concentrations in Earth's atmosphere or have a large GWP.

I attach a table of GWP data. You should note the life and GWP of these gases are somewhat of a matter for debate
Here is a link to a 2016 article with a more comprehensive table of greenhouse gases.

https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1438
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 9029
Re: Science basics-thread?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2020, 07:43:33 AM »
Thanks gerontocrat.
It should be easy I think to add a column with the per-ghg CO2e figures if their atmospheric fractions are known.
For Stephan's CO2e reporting, I suggest using two factors: 30 and 90 for methane CO2e, or use above table.

As a sidenote, I don't understand methane atmospheric "lifetime". I had expected a half-life time, the duration after a methane burst until 50% is changed into other molecules.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome