|2011-12-30 19:40:37||the acronym story (unfinished yet)|
In Climate Science texts and articles, one obstacle for a casual reader to get things are the numerous acronyms present. These are used partly because of editorial policies (it costs somewhat less to print UNFCCC than United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and for those familiar with the acronyms these are pretty standard staple. Another reason is, that they sometimes represent a consept, variable, or assumed constants essential to f.e. carbon budget of an area, like NPP (net primary productivity). Acronyms and shorthands for physical attributes of the complex systems are indeed plenty in earth sciences and sometimes it happens that acronyms of different disciplines are the same for different things potentially creating confusion in the reader. For this reason, SkS (Skeptical Science for us participants), now introduces ... (description of the feature)
To demonstrate this new feature the following text does NOT contain the explanations of the acronyms as would be the good style of writing in any context (including blogosphere). It's rather common to see even the more common acronyms misspelled in some blogs and comments. I've counted 4 different versions of the acronym 'IPCC' in one comment thread. The text may also contain some factual errors, as this is somewhat unconventional way to describe the systems of earth, and it's sometimes more fun to learn by making, finding and correcting mistakes.
The Heat Engine Earth.
A G-type star in H-R diagram emitted some photons of IR, VIS and UV. These were seen by the TSI monitors on space f.e. SORCE. After c. 8 min and 19 s these encountered an atmosphere at the appr. speed of c. The IR photon got to the level of TOA first and turned back to space as evidenced by measurements done by ERBS, for there was too much RP (W/m2) in its frequency. IR of different (my) had already passed the stratospheric O3-layer and heated the bits of CO2(g) that had floated above the tropopause f.e. by the F in Cb-clouds breaching the boundary, in STIs or the high VEI eruptions with columns of over 15 km (in tropics) or 8 km (in the vicinity of NP or SP. Eruptions happen more often in the NH than in the SH.So, the TLS measured f.e. with AMSU at REMSS is influenced by all the photons capable to collide with the NCGs and the rare H2O present in NLCs. The NLCs and PSCs also contain CFCs and other ODSs that destroy O3(strat.) that decreases the amount of UV at MSL. They do this in cool temperatures making the MAM in NH and SON in SH the most dangerous times to be out for the UVB gets to skin. UVC happens to collide with O2 in stratosphere, instead generating O3. The same happens with Cb-clouds - the TLEs provide the energy, ground level O3 is formed by normal + or - lightning and light-induced reaction of O2, NOx, and gaseous hydrocarbons escaping reaction chambers of various appliances. Anyway, OMI (on Aura) and TOMS (on ) keep a check on levels of O3 and people involved with MOZAIC and GOME as well as meteorologists know when to warn of abnormally high or low O3. The trouble with groundlevel-O3 (really there should be acronyms for O3 and H2O at various heights) is it's very reactive and damages plants in higher [c]'s. It generates H2O2, and that's not A'OK. That's about it of the O3. Some of the IR gets to ground-level and that's in part why it feels warmer in the sun than in the shade.
The other reasons for warmth in the skin when it shines are the UV and VIS parts of the ISR (incoming shortwawe radiation?). BTW, sun doesn't radiate much on gamma- X- and pm energy-levels, they and radio and um (microwawe) get somewhat trapped already at V-A belts (outside the atmosphere) generated by the rotating inner dynamo of earth that has Fe-compounds. Fe is why compass works and points at magnetic poles. So, the sun is pretty well behaved for life to sustain itself on planets with cores like the earth. This of course provided the planet in question has its orbit on the HZ , i.e. with H2O (l). Then there are GCRs which are so far and between that they never make a significant input to energy state of the earth. Please prove first the QE (quantum effects) of the myon cascade due CR or GCR that are absorbed f.e. in the CCN (cloud condensing nuclei) can last over 3 d, which would be required for this to be even remotely true. Or, try for fun to correlate ENSO with the Mars orbital parameters and explain how this (very poor) correlation overrides the standard explanation of its origins. (ACC normally blocks complete mixing between Atlantic and other oceans thus the sea water must oscillate in Indian Ocean (IOD) and Pacific Ocean (ENSO) in a somewhat periodical manner, because OHC is not distributed evenly between basins)
OK, spacely matters are mostly covered so the next step would be to describe how the absorption of VIS and UV gets the atmospheric and oceanic general circulation (modeled with AOGCMs) going.
As was told, the atmospheric window of radiation is mainly UVB to VIS with some slits added to the NIR and LIR. This means that if one could gather diffuse warmth and convert it to visible light and cast it to the sky at the waveleghts of atmospheric window, one would diminish the energy level of the earth. But, people would likely find other use for the GTE, f.e., so it's not a very feasible way to cool the planet.
Drifting from the subject. VIS and UV rays get to the ground and water, unless there are clouds or ice or snow (alpha albedo increases) and as we can see things, some of these rays are absorbed. Absorption means that the energy level of the substance absorbing the radiation increases. This energy will then convert to other forms of energy, f.e. the plants growth. This means that if a plant receives gets more energy in the energy levels it normally uses, it can f.e. maintain a higher complexity of the genome (Within monocultures there's little difference between genomes, so there's less energy stored (the difference is very small)). Again drifting.
Solids are pretty tightly packed matter so the energy from the rays doesn't immediately get very far in it's original form. Liquids are another matter. They let some of the rays penetrate to a liquid-specific depth. Algae and HABs may grow deeper in cleaner water, how much HABs there would be in a clean water is another matter. Liquid can thus warm more deeply from rays than the solid stuff. On earth, this leads to a circulation of water and atmosphere. The different absorptive capability of solids, liquids and gases leads to pressure differences within them that gets things moving. Even erthquakes may happen for continued warmth, there has been some subglacial quakes under the melting GIS. Back to acronyms.
The THC (MOC, AMOC, GCoO (General Circulation of the Oceans),) modeled with such parts of climate models as HAMOCC, HYCOM,NEMO or MOM (among others), is generated by uneven heating of the surface, earth's rotation and the concentrations of charged particles. The paticular config of THC depends also of bottom topography, freshwater runoff from rivers or rain, and the potential presence of ice. On earth the THc generates AABW, ABW, SAMW and other water masses that slowly change to each others via DW or UW. UW happens on warmer locations than DW, for the evaporation is larger when its hotter, other methods do exist. Then denser -> the heavier -> the more pressure -> stuff sinks, is the causal chain, as can be seen when building layered drinks. This applies also to lithospshere, CO2 is lost when calcite rock subducts.
Still too little acromnyms.
Is there some idea in this, should this be done more compactly (trying to get the acronym/word ratio as high as possible)? Of course I might put it up to my blog as well, since I've stated there the texts may contain errors. The introduction of factual (or rather unproven hypothesis) errors in the text is what worries me and I probably cannot get this done faultlessly.
I was brought-up on the principal that one first spelled out in full before using any acronym or abreviation - and judging by the above, its a good rule to follow.