So I was at a local brewery tap room burning through a couple of chapters in Climate Change and it came time to leave. So as I walked out, another patron left at the same time and we struck up a conversation: Other engineer, "So I see you're reading about the climate change by those who are keeping us from burning whatever we want."Bob, "Actually, I'm just trying to understand the engineering behind global warming." And he put on a surprised face.Bob, "You are familiar with black body radiation and the temperature of our planet?"Other engineer, "Right the distance from the sun and size of the bodies determines the planet temperature."Bob, "Exactly! Take away the atmosphere and do the numbers and this planet should be at -19C, not the current, +16C." Pointing to the blue sky over the eastern ridge, I said, "Our planet is habitable because of the existing global warming from the existing atmosphere.Other engineer, "Well the atmosphere is necessary for life.""Yes, but we are already in global warming thanks to the gas mix." I replied as we headed to our respective rides. A casual conversation in the parking lot on Monday afternoon outside of a beer hall is not going to change minds. But in one respect, many of our discussions often look like 'polishing the musket balls.' Small scale while the big picture, the difference between black body physics and the planet's current temperature . . . well we're looking at 35C gap. We're already in Global Warming. Now we do have a moon handy and my understanding is below ground, the average temperature is -23C. This makes sense as it has a smaller diameter and would capture less sun light. But it makes sense to do a black-body, radiation model of the moon and see if the predicted temperatures match the measured values. Bob Wilson
Earth's atmosphere, despite all its perceived tiny faults, is the big thing allowing us to be here (and drink beer). Gotta love it. Largely due to cyanobacteria (pond scum) that oxidized Fe+2 to Fe+3, then bulked up the O2. Then there developed critters with more than one cell, one of whom is typing this reply. A lot of CO2 (probably a lot of methane also) trapped solar energy in the very olden days, and made episodes of 'snowball earth' rare even when the sun was at about 75% of current output. How we got from here to there strikes me as the barest of coincidences, and powers my faith in Deity, such as that faith is. But the big picture is that we have no right to be here, from physical principles. Either we were absurdly lucky, or there is a Guiding Hand. I cannot discern between those. Now, this one (beer-drinking) species is doing what no other could do before - on a rapid path to double CO2 by burning fossils, and asserting that it won't matter. And there is hubris, because there also is physics. A few well-placed volcanic eruptions could counteract that, but we don't control such things. So it's hope for luck, or hope that the Guiding Hand will bail us out yet again. Or, to not increase CO2 at such a rate. It is a choice. I believe that the oceans are presently holding air-T stable, in the face of increased CO2, but we don't control those things either. Place your bets. Earth's moon (a result of a sub-planet destroying collision) is among those absurd pieces of luck. I may never get to writing an essay about that, work intervening. But when we have 'scopes up to the task, we might exclude observed exoplanets from 'life-hosting', unless they happen to have such a buddy.
With a sample point of 1 from a sample space of many trillions, it's hard to know just how rare or common "life" turns out to be. However, that sample point tells us a lot. Namely life deeply interacts with everything in it's grasp; the atmosphere, the oceans, the soil, etc. Then life can reach the point where it literally starts eating everything in it's far wider grasp. We now will find out if that life can restrain itself from eating it's own future.
I'm willing to bet a beer that some alien culture developing on a binary star solar system is discussing how necessary two stars are for life forming conditions.
Back before exoplanets were being routinely detected, it was 'common knowledge' that binary star systems could not have stable planetary orbits. You can probably guess what happened. There have been planets detected in multiple-star systems. Another lesson learned... However, the extreme variability in solar irradiance on such planets (by simple models) would appear to argue against them being life hosting. So with due concern about committing the next oops, I'll take that bet. +++ The +35 oC from atmos IR trapping we have now is nickle-and-dime stuff. Back in the PreCambrian when Sun irradiance was 75% of current, then we had global warming. CO2 of 50,000 ppm or thereabouts. When trees became coal instead of reverting to CO2 (I already talked about that) the Earth entered a 'snowball phase' . Glacial dropstones at the equator, holey moley. Don't want to see that again...
With my luck, will find an alien culture on a binary solar system, but they will agree with you.....resulting in me losing the bet.
...get me some erythromycin for that cyanobacteria! I am trying to start a 20-gal sea water aquarium and the red slime is wiping me out. I have O2 bubbles and bacteria slime on the sides and everywhere. Now if I also get acidification of my reef, I will really be mad. Seriously running an ocean is not easy...
After this report -- a triple star system with three planets in the potentially habitable zone -- I would no longer take that bet: Astronomers find three ‘super-Earths’ in nearby star’s habitable zone Confirmed: A Star System with Three Potentially Habitable Planets!
I'll still take the bet, because the downside - buying that beer - is acceptable. In all ways recent extrapolations about potentially habitable planets in this galaxy are amazing. If everything were not so darn far apart...
wjtracy I have no direct experience with salt water aquaria, except that the best ones are amazing. Since you mention erythromycin, I suppose you are already reading about cures on the websites. If protein skimmers to exactly what their name implies, they will not remove phosphorus. Proteins contain CHNO but no P. However, every glob of slime you physically remove, does remove P. People trying to fix lakes use phoslock (TM) Phoslock I don't know whether aquarists also do. another phoslock, with different chemistry PURA PhosLock - Magnavore
With aquarium, you sometimes have to ride it out until the system balances itself. If high phosphorus is the problem, steel wool(Home Depot, Lowes; sandpaper area) in the filter will react with it, and cause it to come out of solution. Also use distilled, deionized, or reverse osmosis treated water for the tank. Many municipals put orthophosphates into the tap water to 'coat' any old lead pipe and fittings in the system.
...riding it out... I want to put an anemonae in with the clownfish but one source says you need to be 6-months old aquarium before you try this...I can see why...I use Walmart distilled water but may try the iron tip thanks!
