Comments on: A Day in the Life of the Earth: Understanding Human-Induced Climate Change http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/ getting anyone emotional about science, helping parents and teachers make science an adventure Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:38:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ted Magnuson http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-239 Ted Magnuson Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:06:01 +0000 http://blogontheuniverse.org/?p=2787#comment-239 Disbelief in the toxicity of carbon dioxide is one thing, but consider too, how the population is expected to reach 7 billion soon. It was only 3 billion in 1960. Unless something drastically compassionate and widely supported happens soon, what will life on earth be like by the year 2050. Can the earth support 20 billion people. Talk about cap and trade!!! Disbelief in the toxicity of carbon dioxide is one thing, but consider too, how the population is expected to reach 7 billion soon. It was only 3 billion in 1960. Unless something drastically compassionate and widely supported happens soon, what will life on earth be like by the year 2050. Can the earth support 20 billion people. Talk about cap and trade!!!

]]> By: DrJeff http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-238 DrJeff Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:21:56 +0000 http://blogontheuniverse.org/?p=2787#comment-238 Hiya Heather! That's a wonderful example of how the learning experience for this post can be reframed in other powerful ways. Hiya Heather! That’s a wonderful example of how the learning experience for this post can be reframed in other powerful ways.

]]> By: Dr. Heather Good http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Dr. Heather Good Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:09:55 +0000 http://blogontheuniverse.org/?p=2787#comment-237 I tried to think of something I had ever seen 27,394 of at one time as I don't have 50 reams of paper here. A few years ago my Girl Scouts did a penny drive and we had to separate Canadian and US pennies in our donations and then roll them into tubes of $.50. We sat down with a pile of $220 dollars in pennies, not quite the $273.94 necessary for your experiment, but close. It required two dozen girls over two hours to sort and roll them all after spreading them layers deep across eight big tables. We carried them in about 10 pails and each pail was very heavy as 22,000 pennies weighs around 66Kg. We counted out 440 rolls of 50 pennies to take to the bank and we spent it all on an exciting camping adventure. One penny - so inconsequential - but 22,000 Geologic Days of them? - powerful enough to create a world of fun for two dozen girls. I tried to think of something I had ever seen 27,394 of at one time as I don’t have 50 reams of paper here. A few years ago my Girl Scouts did a penny drive and we had to separate Canadian and US pennies in our donations and then roll them into tubes of $.50.

We sat down with a pile of $220 dollars in pennies, not quite the $273.94 necessary for your experiment, but close. It required two dozen girls over two hours to sort and roll them all after spreading them layers deep across eight big tables. We carried them in about 10 pails and each pail was very heavy as 22,000 pennies weighs around 66Kg. We counted out 440 rolls of 50 pennies to take to the bank and we spent it all on an exciting camping adventure. One penny – so inconsequential – but 22,000 Geologic Days of them? – powerful enough to create a world of fun for two dozen girls.

]]> By: DrJeff http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-208 DrJeff Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:59:19 +0000 http://blogontheuniverse.org/?p=2787#comment-208 Hi Jeff P.- The basic concept is that energy in the form of visible sunlight streams through Earth's atmosphere and heats the surface. Here is an important point - all objects at planetary temperatures (like you and me - and the surface of the Earth) give off (radiate) a different flavor of light called infrared light. You often hear folks refer to this as heat radiation. So the energy in sunlight absorbed by Earth's surface is then re-radiated out as infrared light. If it wasn't, the surface would keep heating up to higher and higher temperatures as Earth would be unable to dump the energy it continuously receives as visible sunlight. Now here's the problem - there are gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light coming from the surface. It is a characteristic of the molecules of these gases. These are the 'greenhouse gases'. They then re-radiate the infrared energy they've received, and a chunk of that goes ... back to the surface. The net effect is that the greenhouse gases make it more difficult for Earth's surface to re-radiate back into space. The result is a new equilibrium is reached where energy in to Earth = energy out at the top of Earth's atmosphere, but the price Earth pays is a higher surface temperature than if the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases wasn't present. There is actually a natural greenhouse effect, with Earth's surface temperature higher because of the natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The concern is the ADDED greenhouse effect caused by the greenhouse gases humans have been pumping into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Let me know if this provides the basic understanding. I also know it will raise lots of questions, e.g.: why does CO2 as a trace gas place such a great role? How do we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas? So I wanted to provide a link to a history of scientific understanding of the role CO2 plays in global warming. Here an American Institute of Physics web page you should read: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Hi Jeff P.-
The basic concept is that energy in the form of visible sunlight streams through Earth’s atmosphere and heats the surface. Here is an important point – all objects at planetary temperatures (like you and me – and the surface of the Earth) give off (radiate) a different flavor of light called infrared light. You often hear folks refer to this as heat radiation. So the energy in sunlight absorbed by Earth’s surface is then re-radiated out as infrared light. If it wasn’t, the surface would keep heating up to higher and higher temperatures as Earth would be unable to dump the energy it continuously receives as visible sunlight. Now here’s the problem – there are gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light coming from the surface. It is a characteristic of the molecules of these gases. These are the ‘greenhouse gases’. They then re-radiate the infrared energy they’ve received, and a chunk of that goes … back to the surface. The net effect is that the greenhouse gases make it more difficult for Earth’s surface to re-radiate back into space. The result is a new equilibrium is reached where energy in to Earth = energy out at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, but the price Earth pays is a higher surface temperature than if the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases wasn’t present. There is actually a natural greenhouse effect, with Earth’s surface temperature higher because of the natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The concern is the ADDED greenhouse effect caused by the greenhouse gases humans have been pumping into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Let me know if this provides the basic understanding. I also know it will raise lots of questions, e.g.: why does CO2 as a trace gas place such a great role? How do we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas? So I wanted to provide a link to a history of scientific understanding of the role CO2 plays in global warming. Here an American Institute of Physics web page you should read: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

]]> By: Jeff Padgett http://blogontheuniverse.org/2009/06/13/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-193 Jeff Padgett Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:56:37 +0000 http://blogontheuniverse.org/?p=2787#comment-193 I would like to know exactly how carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas, even though it is only present in trace amounts. Is it something about its molecular geometry or what? I'm not a global warming denier; I just want to understand how the process works. I would like to know exactly how carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas, even though it is only present in trace amounts. Is it something about its molecular geometry or what? I’m not a global warming denier; I just want to understand how the process works.

]]>