Airmid

Wikipedia to the rescue! Cell membrane

Time to start talking about El Nino (El Nino and La Nina and El Nino/La Nina from space). Disclaimer: I am aware that there is little indication that El Nino and global warming are directly interrelated. But I'd still like to talk about El Nino, because it represents a mechanism to explain some aspects of what is going on. In short, the phenomenon is the build up of warm (El Nino) or cold (La Nina) water in the pacific area. The phenomenon is perfectly natural, and seasonal, and usually starts at the end of each year. Why one year would produce a El Nino while another year produces a La Nina, and yet other years neither of them, is unknown. But when it happens, it has a profound effect on climate worldwide. The reason for this is that it disrupts ocean and air currents. I'm bringing up the subject in this conversation for a number of reasons: First, to show that climate is a very complicated and interrrelated system. We have no idea why El Nino/La Nina occurs. But when it occurs, El Nino shows us that regional changes can have global effects, and that those effects are not uniform. This is why I find it so hard to understand why you are talking about "a regional problem". Second, as an illustration of the distribution of heat around the globe. If the EL Nino information makes anything clear, it is that heat is not distributed evenly. If I was to make a simple model of earth climate, I would use the simile of a heat exchange engine, like a simple fridge. In this simple fridge, you'd have a circulation of cooling fluid, which absorbs heat from the inside of the fridge and releases the heat again to the outside. In my simple climate model, air currents and ocean currents behave in much the same way. There is a connection with global warming there. If I increase the input of energy in my simple fridge, the inside will become cooler and the outside warmer. The change in temperature outside the fridge will be larger than the change inside, though, because some of the extra input of energy will be released as heat: the average temperature in my system is going up. So, my simple fridge model will explain possible heating up of the northern hemisphere and at the same time cooling down of the southern hemisphere as the result of global warming. Of course my model is far too simple, but it serves as a way to be not surprised when this is the case. Third reason to bring up El Nino is that it causes fluctuations also in the climate of Antarctica. Because of that, I find it very hard to discuss whether Antarctica is heating up or cooling down. In the ideal case, we would need a model that calculates what the normal temperature of Antarctica should be, considering El Nino and other natural fluctuations. Only by comparing results from such a model with what we measure, can we make make out whether Antarctica has abnormal temperatures. I can't make out whether the graphs you presented us with make use of such a model. All considered it's very hard to prove that global warming actually is happening, let alone what its effects would be. I couldn't agree more with Dr. Pielke, when he says that the total energy budget of earth should be considered. Tough job, but I think that's the only thing that will convince the unwilling Kyoto partners. Airmid.

January has been colder than normal in the Netherlands. Airmid.

Back to basics: what's the point you're trying to make, bascule?

We would only see symmetric effects if earth would be a perfectly symmetric system. But it isn't, if only because the northern hemisphere contains much more land mass than the southern hemisphere. As a result, ocean currents, which have a major influence on local climate, are completely different in the northern and southern hemisphere. There even are climate models that predict that the northern hemisphere will cool down as a result of global warming. That said, I should also say that current climate models are far from perfect. I think you focus too much on the word problem here. In this sense, one could say that global warming isn't a problem at all, because we're not experiencing any adverse effects at the moment. But the point is that we are most probably going to feel the effects if we continue to pollute the air at the rate we are doing it now. What the effects will be, and what their magnitude will be remains unclear at the moment. But by the time we have figured this out, I don't want to run the risk we have entered a road of no return. Airmid.

Thanks! I even found some nice information on the web to explain to me what you wrote there, Tartaglia. (Dioxygen and Dinitrogen) Life is so much easier if you know what to google for! Airmid.

Legal (with restrictions) for smokers, but non-smokers shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes. Airmid.

Which properties of atoms do chemists use to estimate properties of compound molecules? To illustrate: Let's consider O2 and N2. O2 is far more reactive than N2, yet their properties are not that different. They are close in weight and size. Both are lacking electrons to form a "perfect" configuration, and their electron negativities are not unalike. Both form dimers. As far as I can see, Oxygen dimers forms double bonds, and Nitrogen triple bonds, so there's a difference there. Is this what accounts for the lack of reactivity of N2, or are other properties in play? A more complicated example: let's consider CO2 and COS. CO2 has a triple point at 195K, and COS a freezing point of 134K and a boiling point of 223K. Both are linear molecules (i.e. O=C=O and O=C=S). O is lighter than S, so logically the freezing point of CO2 should be lower than COS. CO2 is an apolar molecule, while COS is polar. Again, logically the freezing point of CO2 should be lower than COS. Except it isn't. How could I have predicted this? It would be really great if you could help me out here! Airmid.

Thanks!

Here's a very basic pressure question: Suppose I fill a balloon with very pure water, and place it in a vacuum chamber. What will happen? (Assume there's absolutely no gas present in the balloon.) I can think of several scenarios: - nothing happens, because liquids don't expand - some of the water will vaporize, because it's being subjected to vacuum, and will expand the balloon - very little water will vaporize, because the elasticity of the balloon creates pressure, so nothing happens Can you help me out? Airmid.

Thanks Woelen! Airmid.

Thanks! Your reply cleared up things quite a bit. I apologize if I was a bit harsh in my first reply. I'm glad to hear you're editing your work, and I'm sure you will do a good job with it. Don't think too little of yourself ("no formal qualifications" "abysmal writing skills"). Your subject is good, and I think it doesn't need whistles and bells to make it interesting to the layperson. "The Naked Ape" was a bestseller, wasn't it? I'll leave the field now and hope that someone with better human biology skills than mine will make the next reply! Airmid.

Wow, that was quite a read! Now for some sensible comments..... Unfortunately my knowledge about human genetics and endocrinology is only up to Discovery Channel level. I remember seeing a documentary that centered on these issues. I remember that one of the cases presented there was about a study of inherited responses to stress: children of a number of women who were subjected to severe stress during pregnancy had abnormal responses to stress themselves in later life. So at least some research has been done in that direction, but I have no idea of the scope or level of support for it. If this research is valid, it would support your case. However, at evolution time scale, like you said, the mechanism is unstable. I think you will need support from research for this particular step most of all. I have been reading a few chapters of your work. You haven't convinced me at all, and I particularly dislike the combination of doctrine ("stop poisoning your body!") and science ("on human evolution"). I'm quite surprised myself that I'm willing to take your work serious; probably because there's some interesting ideas in there, and because you are making an effort to find scientific support for your ideas. I think, however, that you should make a clear choice: either go for the doctrine, or the science. If you go for the doctrine, have fun; if you go for the science, be prepared to put in a lot more effort to read anything you can find on the subject, and not only weigh the pro's but also the con's you might find in there. Obviously I think the science way would be the better way *smiles*. Good luck, Airmid.

Some nice reading: The universe: a cryogenic habitat for microbial life On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life Controversies on the origin of life There's loads more stuff to find on the web, of course. *edit* Found this great page just now: The RNA World: What's New I'm not a firm supporter of the exogenesis theory, but I do think that the building blocks of life have been delivered from space. The main reason for that is that a huge amount of dust from space is still raining down on earth, even in these tranquil times. Estimates as high as 100 tons per day have been made! So I'd say that when life will be found elsewhere, it would only support the theory that life's building blocks originate from space. Airmid.

Today I discovered superacids. Wow, this is really cool stuff! I've been reading like crazy, but I'm still left with a few questions. I hope you guys can help me out here. On prof. Chris Reed's page I read that a carborane superacid "can protonate all kinds of molecules that are decomposed by commonly used superacid media". I wonder what makes carborane superacid so special compared to other superacids. Is this the result of the extreme unreactivity of the carborane anion? I also read that superacids (especially solid ones) are perfect for use as catalysts in industrial processes, because they can be easily separated from the product and reprotonated. Do you think carborane superacids will be recycleable too? And last but not least: I came across a vague reference to a book by prof. Bart Kosko, in which he supposedly said that it might be possible to design superacids that work on some materials but ignore others. What's your opinion about this? I hope I'm not asking for the answer to life, the universe and everything! Airmid.

Hi antpin, At first I was worried that your post was an attempt to revive ID, but luckily it turned out otherwise. You're leaving me in suspense though about the nature of your story. Is this a theory you developed? Are you a fiction writer? I hope so, because, no offense, your story contradicts current knowledge at multiple points. As a story though it's a great stuff. If you're serious about wanting to study the origins of life, let me know, and I'll dig up more information. Airmid.

How nice to read all these stories about how science gets a hold on people! I've had a love-hate relationship with biology all my life. My parents were heavily into nature studies, my mother "doing" plants and my father birds. How I disliked being dragged along on walks, especially because we had to stand still ever so often when my mother spotted a rare plant or when my father heard an unusual birdsong! But then, at the age of 15 or so, my best friend joined a nature club, and of course I had to join too, since that's the thing best friends do. I got quite hooked on nature, and became worse than my parents when it came to walks *grins*. Naturally I chose biology when I went to university. I specialized in microbial ecology, got my degree, and couldn't find a job. Darn. But then I was re-schooled as a programmer and discovered my new love: computers. I kept telling myself how stupid I had been to choose biology when I could have studied math or computer sciences! I worked happily in IT for 15 years and forgot that biology existed. But biology wouldn't leave me alone. It all started again when I saw a picture of Europa (the planet) and wondered about the possibility of life there. My job suddenly became less satifying too, and I decided to take a sabbatical. Inspired by a documentary I watched about hypothetical life, I wondered if I would be able to come up with something that would work on Europa. So here I am, relearning it all and discovering so many new things! It's amazing what progress has been made in just 15 years! Yep, biology has me firmly in its grip once again. Airmid.

Hi EverCurious, Wow, only one month to provide something of "exceptional educational magnitude". What do they actually require you to do? Write a review? Make a presentation of current knowledge in a certain field? Or actually do some research yourself? I'd be quite willing to tro to help you, but I'm a biologist, not a physicist. Therefore I'm not quite sure what would qualify as "theoretical physics" and what not. However, I read here that you already did some work in biological systems and lately I came across a lot of physical topics in my own search for information, so that's why I'm replying. For instance, would "H-tunneling in enzymes" qualify as theoretical physics? If this is not the kind of topic you're looking for, ignore this post. Otherwise I might come up with a few more topics of a biophysical nature. Good luck, Airmid.

I did a little search on the web, and came up with a few sites that might be interesting to you: Daily news about space (and life): Astrobiology Magazine Space.com Loads of links to loads of subjects: HobbySpace.com Other sites: Near Earth Object fuels (1992) Mining on the Moon The Meteorotocal Society (Loads of Meeting abstracts there if you take some time to search.) Airmid.

Yes, I read it, and found it very interesting too. The story left me in suspense though, since Dr. Frank doesn't mention whether the theory was generally accepted or rejected. My interpretation would be that the earth is indeed hit by "stuff" all the time, but that the stuff proved to be very small particles. The UV-visible trails would then be caused by the passage of the stuff through the upper layers of the atmosphere, which were shown to contain water vapour. But that's only my interpretation, I'd love to hear too if there are any new publications on this subject. If only it would be as easy as that! There's loads of water in our solar system. Almost all planetary bodies from Jupiter on contain huge amounts of water, comets are made mostly of water, etc. Our main problems out there are radiation, cold, lack of oxygen, lack of pressure, lack of food. Besides, humans use up surprisingly little water, when all waste moisture is being recycled. This is a nice bit of information: Water on the Space Station. Airmid.

I'm not surprised... every new environment or niche we examine on earth is bound to show us new species. It's thrilling though, and I can't wait until Lake Vostok is finally opened up for study! Airmid.

Hi folks, Did any of you sign up for the project? (Here's a link: Stardust@home) I did, but didn't get a conformation email, and I wonder if I should have received one. Airmid.

Now that's something you should be able to find in your textbook. Airmid.

Caver: That's a very good suggestion, especially if those 2 behave like a eutectic mixture. I will look into it, thanks! woelen: I've read a lot of stuff dealing with the Claus reactions. Very interesting, and yes, very complex. You say liquid H2S and liquid SO2 won't react. That's good news. The overall reaction (2 H2S + SO2 <-> 3/n Sn + 2 H2O) is highly exothermic, but of course that's no guarantee that it actually takes place. Besides, like you said, there's a whole lot of partial reactions involved, and I suppose that water is required in a crucial step. So far so good. Now suppose I mix liquid H2S and liquid SO2, stir well, and drop an ice cube in it. Would that activate the reactions, but at a very slow rate because of the low temperature, or would the whole mix explode, because of a chain reaction effect? I owe you already, but if you can give me your best guess, I'll owe you ever more *smiles* Airmid.

Herpguy is thinking along the line of temperature and pressure, and so am I. If I remember right, clouds are at the current height because that layer has the right temperature and air pressure: cold enough to condensate water vapour and enough air pressure to stop sublimation. Correct me if I'm wrong folks! If this is right, there should be several options: - a slightly smaller or lighter world: this would give a thinner layer of atmosphere, so the required air pressure is reached closer to the ground - a slightly colder world, so the required temperature is reached closer to the ground - what herpguy says Airmid.