Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
91 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr (2 members, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,243 Year: 4,355/6,534 Month: 569/900 Week: 93/182 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cambrian Explosion and Hydrosphere-Spending Hypothesis
bernd
Member (Idle past 3218 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 21 of 28 (257118)
11-05-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by benllinliu
11-01-2005 8:37 PM


Re: the topic is also dicussed on science forum
Hello benllinliu,

I have some remarks concerning the “hydrosphere spending hypothesis”, specially about the supposed mechanism of decomposition of methane in the exosphere and the escape of the resulting hydrogen atoms into outer space. In the link you provided[1], which covers the hypothesis in some detail, an alternative to this mechanism is described and dismissed as “not validated strictly”:


Bates et al in 1950 proposed that the methane would be oxidized gradually by hydroxyl[10]. However, the hydroxyl oxidizing process was not validated strictly, and academic cycle often considered that whereabouts of the methane in the atmosphere is still a misty with necessary of further research[11], though the explanation of the methane oxidized gradually by hydroxyl is popular in the world now

Please note, the conclusion, that more research is needed, is based on an article from 1980. When we compare the quoted paragraph with the following survey from 2001 [2], which sums up the current knowledge about the methane cycle - including a table (4.2) detailing the methane budget based on three relatively recent studies (1991, 1997,1998) - we find that methane loss in the atmosphere is mainly caused by its reaction with OH in the troposphere, expressed by:


OH + CH4 -> CH3 + H2O

Minor losses are reported for the stratosphere by reactions with OH, Cl, and O(1D). Losses in the exosphere are not mentioned.

Any comments?

-Bernd


References

[1] http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=625&start=3
[2] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#4211


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by benllinliu, posted 11-01-2005 8:37 PM benllinliu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by benllinliu, posted 11-05-2005 7:08 PM bernd has taken no action
 Message 23 by benllinliu, posted 11-06-2005 2:27 AM bernd has replied
 Message 24 by benllinliu, posted 11-06-2005 2:54 AM bernd has taken no action

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 3218 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 25 of 28 (257267)
11-06-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by benllinliu
11-06-2005 2:27 AM


Re: the evidence of methane being decomposed in upper atmosphere
Hello benllinliu,

Thank you for your interesting answer. First a question, I‘m not sure what you exactly mean with upper atmosphere, the layers above the mesopause? Please clarify! Besides that, I have some additional remarks.


  • When I understand your model for hydrogen escape correctly, you are assuming temperatures of 1000° K of the hydrogen atom (deduced from this post [1] ). I agree that at this temperature a considerable part of the atoms would escape into outer space. But a quick look at this link[2] shows that such temperatures are only reached in the thermosphere at about 300 km altitude, temperatures in the stratosphere are much lower, less than 300 °K. In other words to defend your hypothesized mechanism you would have to demonstrate a substantial methane flux from the stratosphere at least to the thermosphere.

  • When we accept the budget data that was presented in [3], only 20-40 Tg/yr are candidates for the above mentioned flux. Could this amount produce the effect you are predicting, that is a reduction of the original mass of the ocean by a factor of 20? Let‘s do a quick calculation. When we assume that all methane is generated by methane producing bacteria and that life on earth exists for less than 4*109 years, when we further assume that to produce one molecule methane we need one water molecule, then we can conclude that we loose about 4*109 * 40 Tg methane, which would roughly correspondent to 1.6 * 1011 Tg water. The present day ocean on the other hand contains 1.4*1012 Tg water.

  • When we further consider that your model assumes that the first land masses appeared only in the Cambrium, we have to reduce the estimated methane loss even more, with an ocean to atmosphere flux of 0.4 Tg (see [4] ), we get 3.5*109 *0.4 Tg + 0.5*109*40 Tg, that is 2.14 * 1010 Tg, which amounts to 1.5 % of the mass of the current ocean.


-Bernd


References
[1] http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=625&start=19
[2] http://spacescience.nrl.navy.mil/introupatmsci.html
[3] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#4211
[4] http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/gas_program.html

This message has been edited by bernd, 06-Nov-2005 04:46 PM

This message has been edited by bernd, 06-Nov-2005 04:50 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by benllinliu, posted 11-06-2005 2:27 AM benllinliu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by benllinliu, posted 11-07-2005 6:31 PM bernd has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022