Hello Stardust,
In the context of global warming then oxygen isn’t responsible for either direct warming or cooling, although there are indirect effects.
In the oceans, oceanic oxygen depletion is caused by the rise in the temperature of the water. In oxygen minimum zones global warming is reducing the oxygen content in the uppermost 500 metres of the ocean and it’s believed that this is weakening oceanic overturning and convection, which in turn leads to further oxygen depletion.
Unlike the bonded molecular greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or water vapour, oxygen is an atom – it has a simple structure whereas the greenhouse gas molecules are more complex. These molecules are able to vibrate at the same frequency as photons of thermal radiation (heat) and this enables them to trap the heat in the atmosphere, something oxygen can’t do.
The type of radiation that’s trapped by the greenhouse gases is outgoing thermal radiation. The incoming solar radiation ha a shorter wavelength, too short to interact with the greenhouse gases and so the heat from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, is absorbed by the Earth then subsequently re-emitted, only now it’s coming from a much cooler source so has a longer wavelength, one which can interact with greenhouse gas molecules.
For solar radiation to be absorbed in the conventional sense would require a dark surface, in the atmosphere this can be provided by black particulate matter (basically soot). The more BPM there is, the more sunlight will be absorbed before it reaches us. Another way to get sunlight out of the atmosphere and back into space is to reflect it, certain molecules possess this property most notable of which is sulphur dioxide.
In your scenario with 28% oxygen in the atmosphere, this in itself isn’t really going to impact on climates. What might have an impact is how the composition of the rest of the atmosphere had changed. If for example, the increase in oxygen content had been at the expense of greenhouse gases then there would be a cooling, similarly the increased availability of oxygen could promote the production of greenhouse gases (particularly CO2) and this would induce warming.
Pay no attention to Madd Maxx. Oxygen and nitrogen do not warm the atmoaphere. If Madd Maxx were not such a liar, I would think that he cofunfuses containing heat with causing heat. A pot of boiling water contains more heat than the heating element, but the element is what causes the heaing. And Maxx, ifvwe were to extend the analogy, it is the power plant and not the element thst is like the Sun. The elrment is like carbon dioxide.
And I have reported your answer for lying. And you are on notice that I will report every answer that you post that is a lie. And, given that whenever you lie, I intend to call you on it, you are also blocked.
If Oxygen absorbs incoming sunlight, then where is the energy going? Are you claiming that an oxygen molecule absorbs energy and keeps it forever? That makes no sense. In what form do you think it is holding the energy?
If Oxygen increased by replacing CO2, water vapor, methane and other greenhouse gases, then the atmosphere would cool because of the diminished greenhouse effect. Reduced greenhouse gases is the factor that takes a small astronomical event and causes an ice age. The difference between oxygen and the greenhouse gases it that the greenhouse gases have at least three atoms and vibrate. For example O3 is a greenhouse gas while O2 is not.
As far as I know, no.
CO2 warms, but oxygen has no meaningful effect on temperatures.
CO2 warms because it is a "greenhouse gas"--it interacts with, and thus partially traps, infrared light. Oxygen is not, so as far as global warming, it is pretty close to inert.
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'
Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
Actually oxygen and nitrogen do more to heat the Earth's atmosphere than all greenhouse gases combined.
The Earth's average temperature is about 288K. The Greenhouse Effect only provides about 32 or 33 degrees of that.
DIRECT QUOTE FROM NOAA BELOW:
"The greenhouse effect keeps the long term annual average temperature of the Earth's surface approximately 32°C (or about 58°F) higher than it would be otherwise." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...
The Earth would reach about 255K of temperature without any greenhouse gases at all. And 255K represents about 89% of the Earth's average temperature.
While Greenhouse Gases absorb relativity low energy infrared, oxygen and nitrogen absorb high energy short wave radiation from incoming sunlight.
The fact is, that any gas exposed to sunlight will heat and hold heat for a time. Greenhouse Gases are not special in that they absorb radiated energy, all gases do. But what defines a gas as a Greenhouse Gas is that it absorbs specifically in the infrared range, which is actually the low energy side of the solar spectrum.
-----------------------
Wiki Says:
"The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from wavelengths about 10 nm to 120 nm ('extreme' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but due to this effect, these wavelengths are absorbed by nitrogen and even more strongly by dioxygen ... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
-----------------------
University of Delaware Says:
16% of shortwave solar radiation absorbed directly by atmospheric gases
Gamma and X-ray - completely absorbed in the upper atmosphere by Oxygen and Nitrogen --- Ultraviolet (<0.2um) - absorbed by molecules of oxygen (O and O2 combine form ozone); ozone absorbs UV w/ wavelengths -0.2-0.3um in stratosphere
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/...
-----------------------
Climate Realist - I just reported your answer for calling me a liar. If I'm a liar then so is Wiki, the University of Delaware and NASA. Where are YOUR links to make your point? Oh, I'm guessing you don't have any, that's why all you can do is make personal attacks on those you disagree with.
Do you really expect people to believe that oxygen and nitrogen do not heat when exposed to sunlight?
-----------------------
Trevor - You say: "In the context of global warming then oxygen isn’t responsible for either direct warming or cooling, although there are indirect effects."
THAT is a very misleading statement. You yourself admitted that the Earth's atmosphere would achieve a temperature of about 255K without any Greenhouse Gases whatsoever. The following is a DIRECT quote by you.
"Without the presence of greenhouse gases then the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere would be about 255K – yes."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
The temperature of 255 Kelvin represents 89% of the atmosphere's average temperature, and it would happen without any Greenhouse Gases whatsoever by "direct warming" which is in sharp contrast to your misleading statement you made in this thread.
-----------------------
No not true , your rain forests are high in oxygen and they are hot.
Apparently there is no such "absord"-tion
Neither have any major effect on the temperature.
So if the CO2 levels remained the same and the oxygen levels went up to say 28% instead of 21% then Earth would be covered by ice?
