The first sentence of the intro should explain what the greenhouse effect is, not what "causes" it. It is all too common for authors who are very familiar with their material to jump into the middle of a topic, not seeing any need to start at the beginning (indeed, they may not even recognize they've made a fundamental mistake). Let's start at the beginning, please. Once we have a decent first sentence, we can see where it leads. That is, should we go on to "causes" or fill in other general aspects before getting into the details. Here's a first stab at what I think should be considered. "The greenhouse effect is a term used in atmospheric science to refer to a cyclical exchange of thermal energy that occurs primarily in the lower atmosphere." This contains the heart of the idea, without adding a bunch of extraneous and marginally relevant stuff that seems to crowd in as various editors seek to include material that is best left to the detail sections. Now, this first sentence leaves undefined a couple things that need to be introduced early, and before any discussion of "causes." Those are the source of the thermal energy, what components are involved in the "exchange," and maybe even the idea that "cyclical" exchange can mean both diurnal (temporally varying component) and a physical (surface to atmosphere, even atmosphere to atmosphere) exchange. Next, the idea of a balance in the long term average flow of energy and the idea that the Earth's surface and its atmosphere radiate electromagnetic energy into space to maintain the balance. As this covers the big ideas underlying the greenhouse effect, the first paragraph should end. The second paragraph should probably discuss the borrowing of the term greenhouse and introduce the idea that the use of the term is only meant to be suggestive of similarities between what happens in a greenhouse versus what happens in the atmopshere, leaving all further discussion of actual greenhouses (vs. the atmosphere) to a detail section. The current sentence on history seems okay to me, but the paragraph on temperatures needs work as too much detail is included. Only general points about temperature should be made in the intro. blackcloak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-07T09:22:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-07T09:22:00.000Z-Let's_start_fixing_the_intro","replies":["c-Squiddy-2010-05-08T15:09:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-05-07T09:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
The greenhouse effect is a process by which energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases, which heat up as a result. They transfer heat to other components of the atmosphere, and also re-radiate the energy in all directions, including back down towards the surface. This causes more heating of the surface and lower atmosphere than there would be if direct heating by solar radiation was the only warming mechanism.
OK, I've hacked the intro a bit, roughly per your suggestion. Re the probation, that only really applies to politically contentious stuff, which this isn't (at the moment). I've broken the paras up so the history and the not-like-greenhouses is clear. I didn't move the history into its own section, because there wasn't enough of it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-09T20:50:00.000Z","author":"William M. Connolley","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-William_M._Connolley-2010-05-09T20:50:00.000Z-Let's_start_fixing_the_intro","replies":["c-Squiddy-2010-05-10T08:24:00.000Z-William_M._Connolley-2010-05-09T20:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
The 4th paragraph is wrong.
The black body temperature of the Earth is -18 or -19 °C, not 5.5 °C (which is the temperature of an ideal blackbody the same distance from the Sun as the Earth). It was correct before it was changed on Dec 9,2009. Also, reference [4] does not support that statement. I suggest the following as a possible replacement paragraph and even as a possible first paragraph since it actually defines what Greenhouse Effect really refers to.
Note that I also modified the expected temperature and albedo based on NASA data. If the values in the current paragraph are used in Stephan's equation, 5.5°C with no reflection is associated with -16.5°C with 28% reflection and -18°C with 30%. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z","author":"Q Science","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Q_Science-2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z-4th_paragraph","replies":["c-William_M._Connolley-2010-05-10T21:23:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z","c-William_M._Connolley-2010-05-10T21:28:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z","c-Blackcloak-2010-05-11T02:58:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z","c-Blackcloak-2010-05-11T02:58:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-10T18:06:00.000Z-1"]}}-->
1) Here's how the first five sentences begin: The ..., They ..., This ..., This ..., The ... . Does anyone pay attention to style anymore? Am I really the only one to pick up on this stuff? blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS","replies":["c-William_M._Connolley-2010-05-14T08:51:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
2) 1st sentence: Only absorption processes are mentioned. Equally important is the emission process (yes, I see the word re-radiate). And radiation into outer space is not mentioned in the first paragraph. There is no mention of the source of the incoming radiation (yes, I know, some editors think this is obvious). The asymmetric mention of absorption is reinforced by only mentioning the transfer of energy from greenhouse gases to the "other components" (only 99% of the atmosphere). Indeed the atmosphere spends more time and uses more area (volume too) at any one time to (net) shed thermal energy into outer space. The present description doesn't do justice to night-time processes, or the idea that new source energy reaches the surface in roughly 12 hour sinusoidal bursts each day (closer to sine squared for one 12 hr cycle, and zero for the next 12 hr period, that being too much detail for an intro), while heat leaves the Earth at a relatively constant rate (much lower peak to valley variation). blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-1","replies":[]}}-->
3) Where is the idea of balance, or long time average net zero energy out vs. energy in? The greenhouse effect operates within a severe set of constraints. And yes it is a cycle (note use of recycle in the caption of the figure), whether or not that particular word is the most appropriate one to describe the exchange of energy, with loss to outer space, between lower atmosphere and the surface. blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-2","replies":[]}}-->
4) Last sentence: "was" should be "were" blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-3","replies":["c-Squiddy-2010-05-14T12:22:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
5) Last sentence: This transfers ... appears to refer only to the preceding "including back down to the surface" but it takes too long to deduce this. Greater clarity would make it less difficult to decipher. blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-4","replies":[]}}-->
6) The context of the term "the greenhouse effect" is not stated anywhere. blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-5","replies":[]}}-->
7) In the last sentence, "than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation" were "the only warming mechanism" can be taken to mean that sources other than "solar" of "warming" are playing a part. blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-6","replies":[]}}-->
Solve these seven problems and we'll have a decent first paragraph. blackcloak (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS-7","replies":["c-Apis_O-tang-2010-05-14T20:06:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-05-14T05:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
8) I now have identified another problem. The second sentence states "They transfer heat to other components of the atmosphere, and also re-radiate the energy in all directions, including back down towards the surface." The "they" refers to greenhouse gases. And the term "the energy" refers to "radiative energy leaving a planetary surface" in the first sentence. The problem is the implication of the second sentence is that the same energy is transfered "to other components of the atmosphere" is "also" re-radiated "in all directions ...". This would imply a violation of the law of conservation of energy. The sentence should be modified so that it may not be misinterpreted. blackcloak (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-18T03:07:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-05-18T03:07:00.000Z-1st_paragraph_of_Intro_still_has_many_PROBLEMS","replies":["c-Squiddy-2010-05-18T09:19:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-05-18T03:07:00.000Z"]}}-->
Does the lede need to draw the reader into this level of technical detail in the first paragraph? Not to rock the boat too much but how about the following as a way of getting across the main ideas without committing to any details of the underlying mechanisms that could be considered either technically subtle, controversial, or hard to fine tune?
With Blackcloak's good suggestions my suggested first paragraph now reads as follows.
In the end I didn't follow the suggestion to add "relative to Earth's effective temperature" because effective temperature is a single value whereas the Earth's temperature without GHGs varies greatly with latitude. The delta on the other hand is relatively (though of course not completely) independent of latitude and is therefore a less problematic indicator of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect in that regard.
I believe the paragraph also addresses all eight of the concerns Blackcloak raised in the previous section. Instead of "The ..., They ..., This ..., This ..., The ..." the sentences now begin "On ..., A ..., In ..." (assuming that was a serious concern to begin with---I'm with WMC on that detail of style). Emission to outer space is covered by the reference to Outgoing longwave radiation while the source of the incoming radiation is identified as the Sun (I agree with Blackcloak that it is appropriate to mention this, however obvious it may seem). Balancing incoming and outgoing radiation is now mentioned. A context is supplied, namely "On any planet with an atmosphere." The rewrite should also take care of the other concerns he listed. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-20T17:59:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-20T17:59:00.000Z-Suggested_fix_for_the_8_concerns_above","replies":["c-Squiddy-2010-05-20T21:19:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-20T17:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
Could a more detailed description of the infrared absorption / release phenomenon for greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor (or a link to it) be added? A series of molecular level drawings (or short animation) depicting the energy storage / release mechanism (change in bond angle, electron shell level change) would be real helpful.
From the fourth bullet point:
To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium.
It is not clear to me why thermal infrared energy absorbed and re-emitted by a greenhouse gas molecule is treated differently than thermal infrared energy striking either a greenhouse or non-greenhouse gas molecule and changing its kinetic energy. Either process is going to slow the transmission of energy back into outer space.
And I still believe that a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere raises the by volume specific heat of the atmosphere. Gas mixtures with higher specific heats require more energy to achieve the same change in temperature which is not addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-21T03:08:00.000Z","author":"24.3.11.218","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-24.3.11.218-2010-05-21T03:08:00.000Z-Molecular_Interaction","replies":["c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-21T05:45:00.000Z-24.3.11.218-2010-05-21T03:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
Here is the key sticking point. Even if the IR radiation is not absorbed and re-emitted by non-greenhouse gasses by changing electron energy levels, it seems to me that the infra-red radiation still would undergo an electro-magnetic to kinetic energy conversion whenever it strikes a non-greenhouse gas. This is the part I don't understand. When someone says that "most IR radiation fails to interact with non-GHG molecules and just goes on by without changing their energy" does that imply that taking a cannister of non-greenhouse gas and shooting a bunch of long wave infra-red energy at it will not raise the temperature of the gas inside - ie there is no electro-magnetic to kinetic energy conversion?
Also, --I struck out "raises the specific heat of the atmosphere" in favor of (total) thermal capacity because that's a more useful measure of the (very slight) thermal impact of adding CO2 since the addition isn't at the expense of the other gases whose total mass remains essentially the same, and it also eliminates the weight-vs-volume consideration.)--
The addition of CO2 is at the expense of oxygen. That's what happens when oil, coal, and other hydrocarbons are burned - oxidation. Consider the burning of methane (CH4). The combustion equation is CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. So for every mole of CH4 that is burned, 2 moles of oxygen are removed from the atmosphere, two moles of water vapor and a mole of carbon dioxide are added to the atmosphere. And so if we were doubling CO2 levels from 380 ppmv to 760 ppmv by burning hydrocarbons it is reasonable to expect that O2 levels would decrease by 760 ppmv and water vapor would increase by some fraction of 760 ppmv.
I can only assume that the volume of the atmosphere does not change (which is why I use specific heat by volume), otherwise the Power emmission for the Earths atmosphere (Power = epsilon * sigma * Area * Temperature ^ 4) increases not only for increased temperature but also for increased surface area (surface area of sphere = 6 * volume / radius).
Of course, my assumption on fixed atmospheric volume may be incorrect. Molar densities (moles per cubic meter) of oxygen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide are pretty close (44.656 for O2, 44.627 for Water Vapor, and 44.922 for CO2). And so burning methane adds more moles of gasses to the atmosphere (1 mole CO2 and 2 moles water vapor) than it takes in (2 moles oxygen). Those extra moles gotta go somewhere, either higher atmospheric pressure and density in the same volume or larger volume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-21T18:28:00.000Z","author":"24.3.11.218","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-24.3.11.218-2010-05-21T18:28:00.000Z-Molecular_Interaction","replies":["c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-22T03:32:00.000Z-24.3.11.218-2010-05-21T18:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
From the Article: Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium.
This is an inaccurate description in a couple senses. First "heat" is not a form of energy. From the definition of heat in Wikipedia: Heat is a flow of energy, rather than a form of energy. The term the article is reaching for is thermal energy or atmospheric internal energy.
Second, greenhouse gasses do not absorb thermal energy radiating from the Earth. Greenhouse gasses convert one energy form - long wave infrared electromagnetic radiation to another form translational and rotational kinetic energy.
Third, after this radiation is converted to kinetic energy, the reverse process does not take place. There is no re-radiation. If that were the case then greenhouse gasses would have little effect on how long energy is retained by the Earth's atmosphere since all electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light.
And so the paragraph should read: Greenhouses gases in the atmosphere receive some of the long wave infra-red radiation from the Earth's surface. The remaining radiation escapes at the speed of light into space. This energy is converted from electromagnetic radiation to rotational and translational kinetic energy of the greenhouse gas molecules. This increase in kinetic energy of the green house gas molecules is shared by the remaining non-greenhouse gasses. The increased kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere. 24.3.11.218 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-07T03:23:00.000Z","author":"24.3.11.218","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-24.3.11.218-2010-06-07T03:23:00.000Z-Heat_and_infrared_radiation","replies":["c-24.3.11.218-2010-06-08T13:49:00.000Z-24.3.11.218-2010-06-07T03:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
The last sentence should read "In places where there is a net increase in the average energy of the molecules in the atmosphere, there will be an corresponding increase in the temperature." Now, this handles the warming up side, but says nothing about the cooling side. Basically each sentence you provided has a correpsonding one that describes the cooling process. You're only giving us half the story. Your statement that "Third, ... does not take place" is simply and totally wrong.
You seem to be saying that absorbed energy, by the atmosphere, must cycle back to the Earth, heat the surface by conduction, and then radiate this energy back towards outer space to complete the cycle. The concentration levels of greenhouse gases govern energy transfer rates, in both directions. And now I'm going to raise a subject not covered anywhere in WP that I know of. This is the asymmetry in energy transfer rates between greenhouse gases and the two energy sources: radiation and non-greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere is bathed by EM radiation originating from the surface, the absorption process is a "volume" process with Beer's law 1/e absorption distances of the order of kilometers. This means that an IR photon heading for outer space will pass nearby, potentially aborbing, greenhouse gases billions of times before reaching outer space, it if does. A key point here is that all those billions of opportunites to be absorbed occur within tens of microseconds. Energy transfer from "energized" greenhouse gases to neighboring molecules occurs when there are random encounters under just the right conditions. Most importantly, there are 99 opportunities to transfer energy to a non-greenhouse gas molecule for every one opportunity to transfer energy to a (another) greenhouse gas molecule. Now, when it comes to cooling, after a greenhouse gas molecule has released its excess energy in the form of IR radiation, half of which heads towards outer space and half of which heads for the surface, it may accept its next packet of energy. This time, on random encounters with neighboring molecules, an energized non-greenhouse gas molecules is 99 times more likely to come in contact with another non-greenhouse gas molecules than a greenhouse gas molecule. While the random encounters that may result in the transfer of thermal energy between (both into and out of) greenhouse gas molecules and non-greenhouse molecules are roughly symmetrical, the average time for a packet of energy entering a greenhouse molecule via IR radiation and via a nearby non-greenhouse gas are markedly different. There is for instance a strong pressure dependence. We can estimate, roughly, the ratio of the energy capture rate to the energy release rate at 1 to 3 (really just a guess) by estimating, at any one instant, the ratio of the Earth's surface that is above the average global temperature to the surface area that is below the average global temperature. blackcloak (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-08T05:59:00.000Z","author":"Blackcloak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blackcloak-2010-06-08T05:59:00.000Z-Heat_and_infrared_radiation","replies":["c-Q_Science-2010-06-08T21:32:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-06-08T05:59:00.000Z","c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-08T21:14:00.000Z-Blackcloak-2010-06-08T05:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
Apropos of the discussion in the previous section of the papers of Wood and Abbot in Phil. Mag. a century ago, it's interesting to compare what we know today with what they knew then about heat transport from the Earth's surface. Although Wood had little to say on the subject other than that GHGs don't play a big role, Abbot makes the point that without GHGs (which Abbot rightly takes to be mainly water vapor) convection "would be only a small factor," but with them it becomes "the main agent in removing heat from the earth's surface."
We can evaluate Abbot's statement in light of Figure 7 on p.206 (PDF page 10) of http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf , "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget", by Jeff Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth. They give the net transport of heat by convection from the Earth's surface as 24 W (per square meter) for "thermals" and 78 W for evaporation, totaling 102 W. Net radiation upwards (surface radiation less back radiation) is 390 - 324 = 66 W, a mere two thirds of the convective transport. Without GHGs the full 390 W would be radiated to space, almost four times the convective transport.
On p.34 of his paper Abbot says "It is very difficult to estimate how fast the heat of the earth's surface escapes by convection, because neither the difference of temperature between the surface and the air nor the rate of motion of the air is well known." What did not occur to Abbot is that if he'd approximated the global annual precipitation as one meter (pretty close to what we know now, and not far off what Abbot would have taken it to be), the convective transport attributable to evaporation alone would be 540*4.2/31.55 = 72 W (540 calories latent heat of vaporization for water, 4.2 joules per calorie, 31.55 million seconds per year), which alone exceeds the radiative loss when GHGs are taken into account, though not when they're neglected as Abbot points out. Abbot attempted to estimate convection a different way, neglecting latent heat altogether, but did not take potential temperature into account; had he done so his estimate may well have been be considerably lower, though hitting Kiehl and Trenberth's figure of 24 W on the nose would have been impressive given what they knew in 1909. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-26T08:30:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-26T08:30:00.000Z-Convection_and_radiation_from_Earth's_surface_then_and_now","replies":[]}}-->
(I started a new section partly because the preceding one was getting inconveniently long to edit and partly because it was drifting towards the title of this one.--Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-20T01:38:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-20T01:38:00.000Z-CO2_bonds","replies":[]}}-->
The two bonds in CO2 can be depicted reasonably accurately in ASCII (with the caveat below) as the Lewis structure O=C=O because the bond angle is exactly 180 degrees. The bonds are oppositely polarized and therefore cancel exactly so that CO2 has no net dipole moment. The bonds are covalent rather than ionic, meaning that each bond shares valence electrons contributed by both adjacent atoms, as illustrated in the third electron sharing diagram or Lewis diagram about 1/3 of the way down the page at http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/intro2.htm (the = in O=C=O is a synonym for four dots :: representing four shared electrons---some authors use the term Kekule structure when writing = instead of ::). This sharing brings the shells of both the oxygen and carbon atoms up to their complement of 8 by adding 2 to each oxygen atom and 4 to the carbon atom.
The exact geometry of the bonds is a bit more delicate than the above, which unfortunately the carbon dioxide article does not go into. See instead http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/chembond/cb07.html , in particular the picture just below the heading "Multiple bonds between unlike atoms" about quarter of the way down the page. Whereas two of the four shared carbon electrons are 2s (spherical with no angular momentum, the other two being 2p, dumbbell-shaped with angular momentum 1), the two shared oxygen electrons are 2p. Each oxygen atom first bonds to the carbon atom by pairing one of its 2p electrons with a 2s carbon electron to form an sp-hybrid pair, or σ-bond, aligned along the main O=C=O axis (about which these two hybrids spin). This leaves four 2p electrons to pair up to complete the bonds. The remaining 2p electron in one of the oxygen atoms aligns parallel to one of the two 2p electrons in the carbon atom, with both perpendicular to the main O=C=O axis, forming a π-bond. The same happens with the other oxygen atom, but oriented perpendicular to all the other bonds. The upshot is that the two σ-bonds (two electrons each) are in one axis (end-to-end and hence parallel to each other) and the two π-bonds (two electrons each) are in the two remaining axes orthogonal to each other. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-20T01:38:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-20T01:38:00.000Z-CO2_bonds-1","replies":["c-24.3.11.218-2010-06-20T19:02:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-20T01:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
Sorry to be a nag about this, but it just occurred to me that, if this article is correct that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with how greenhouses work, then greenhouses must be colder inside than out. This is because a single-paned greenhouse reflects 8% of the incident sunlight while the more modern double-paned variety reflects 16%. In contrast the ground outside receives 100% of the incident sunlight and therefore will get hotter.
All else being equal, if you were to drop a greenhouse over a portion of a field full of vegetation, the greenhouse would partially shade that portion, which would then cool down relative to the surrounding temperature were it not for the greenhouse effect whereby the windows impede outgoing radiation.
The article argues that "the air continues to heat because it is confined within the greenhouse, unlike the environment outside the greenhouse where warm air near the surface rises and mixes with cooler air aloft." The editor who wrote this on 12 January 2008 would appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of potential temperature, which predicts that if you mix warmer air below with cooler air above, the air at the ground afterwards typically gets warmer rather than colder, due to the temperature increasing when the pressure is increased adiabatically, often by an amount greater than the lapse rate. A related phenomenon is the perceived temperature of wind, which seems cold not because it brings down cold air from high up but because it evaporates moisture; see the lead and picture at Chinook wind for dramatic examples of just how much hotter cold air aloft can get when it comes down to the ground. (My thanks to User:Q Science for bringing this concept to my attention a couple of months ago, though its relevance to greenhouses hit me only today.)
Contrary to what many (but by no means all) climate scientists believe, including textbook authors such as Abraham Oort, José Peixoto, and Daniel Schroeder cited in the present article, trapping of infrared radiation by the plastic or glass windows of a greenhouse is the only reliable mechanism by which a greenhouse can get warmer than outside (but once it does get warmer then of course it becomes important to avoid losing that heat by convection to what has now become the cooler outside). Furthermore the trapping effect must be quite substantial in order to overcome the 8-16% of insolation lost to reflection and heat the greenhouse (but we knew this as long ago as 1767 when Horace-Bénédict de Saussure built a triple-pane hotbox, which loses close to 24% of the insolation to reflection yet gets extremely hot).
The article's statement "greenhouse gases act to warm the Earth by re-radiating some of the energy back towards the surface" equally (but poorly) describes the mechanism by which any thermal insulator works, whether greenhouse gases, greenhouse windows, or R-30 insulation in building walls. A better description is in terms of a thermal gradient with individual photons and phonons creating an overall energy flux by flying in all directions with a bias that creates an overall trend from warmer to cooler, consistent with the thermal gradient in all three of these kinds of insulation and with the second law of thermodynamics. "Re-radiation back down" is a confused and confusing way of describing the process of thermal conduction and its associated gradients.
The one remaining shred of support for the theory that greenhouses don't work by trapping infrared is R.W. Wood's February 1909 article in Phil. Mag. As I pointed out earlier Wood's claim was thoroughly refuted in a longer and more carefully researched paper in the July issue by Charles Abbot, then director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory and later Secretary of the Smithsonian from the Depression to the end of WWII. In April I wrote to Taylor and Francis asking if they'd mind my posting Abbot's article. They didn't reply, so on the assumption they have no objection to this Fair use of the article I've posted it at http://boole.stanford.edu/Wood/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf . (The bottom line of p.33 is the relevant citation for Abbot's article in Vol 18, cf. the bottom line of p.32 citing Wood's article in Vol 17. Each Phil. Mag. volume consists of 6 monthly issues but the issue numbers increase steadily with No. 1 of the 6th Series being Jan 1901, No. 121 being Jan 1911, etc. which makes No. 103 July 1909, the date of Abbot's reply to Wood). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-23T19:37:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-23T19:37:00.000Z-Greenhouses_must_be_cooler_inside","replies":["c-Q_Science-2010-06-24T04:09:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-06-23T19:37:00.000Z"]}}-->
I like your page, well done. You seem to think that there is no way to stop convection. Might I suggest trying evacuated-tube collectors which can get to over 100C. (Some references say 125C to 175C.) Since the tubes remain cool to the touch, I assume that that means that the borosilicate glass tubes are IR transparent.[2] Q Science (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-03T03:14:00.000Z","author":"Q Science","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Q_Science-2010-07-03T03:14:00.000Z-Evacuated-tube_collectors_and_low_emissivity_techniques","replies":["c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-04T00:04:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-07-03T03:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
I had trouble with the wording below, not the point or content. The article seems generally clear, correct, and well written to me. I did, however, have trouble with the wording in the 4th paragraph of the intro, and since the page is (probably wisely) locked for editing, suggest something like the following:
If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, it would have an expected blackbody temperature of 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[4] (or 28%[5]) of the incoming sunlight, it is not an ideal blackbody, and it's surface temperature would be approximately [delete the planet's actual blackbody temperature is about)] -18 or -19 °C [6][7] were it not for the greenhouse effect, or about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.[8] [delete The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual temperature and the blackbody temperature is due to the atmosphere and is kown as the greenhouse effect.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.22.141 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-04T23:45:00.000Z","author":"97.89.22.141","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-97.89.22.141-2010-07-04T23:45:00.000Z-Suggested_rewording_of_effective-temperature_paragraph_in_lead","replies":["c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-05T03:56:00.000Z-97.89.22.141-2010-07-04T23:45:00.000Z","c-58.111.253.225-2010-07-05T04:37:00.000Z-97.89.22.141-2010-07-04T23:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
The third sentence of the lede reads "This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection." The sole scientific basis for this claim would appear to be Robert W. Wood's paper Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse in the February 1909 issue of the Philosophical Magazine. The current acceptance of Wood's claim by climatologists appears to be quite recent, dating from a 1990 paper by Jones and Henderson-Sellers and enthusiastically endorsed in a more recent paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
Having argued unsuccessfully against this viewpoint in the past, I'm now resorting to John Cook's very effective format, now installed as an app on innumerable iPhones, for refuting material for which there is no scientific support.
Wood's position vs The literature and an experiment you can easily do yourself.
1. "Wood proved that greenhouses are not warmed by trapping infrared."
Wood's very brief note offers only two measurements: 65°C for both boxes without extra glass, 55°C with, along with the disclaimer "I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter." In view of the many possible parameters influencing the observed temperature in Wood's brief experiment, these observations are eminently repeatable and thus you can test their reliability yourself. Moreover, the fact that they address directly the impact of greeenhouse materials on greenhouse temperature cannot be denied. Wood's results conform to the findings of de Saussure and Fourier that heat leaving a greenhouse does so by conduction. Only Tyndall and Arrhenius managed to misunderstand Fourier because they were trying to reshape the laws of heat transfer to fit with aethereal wave propagation - something Fourier tried to distance his work from. It's really quite obvious if you read Tyndall's very confused account of gaseous opacity (which he confused with absorption) and then concluded with the assertion that all heat radiating within a material was lost to aethereal wave propagation (See - http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi - p. 285), saying: "When a molecule of alum, on the contrary, approaches a neighbour molecule, it produces a swell on the intervening ether of space, and thus lost as regards conduction. This lateral waste prevents the motion from penetrating the alum to any great extent, and the substance is what we all a bad conductor"
2. "Wood's note went unnoticed until Jones and Henderson-Sellers brought it to the attention of the climate scientists in their 1990 article 'History of the Greenhouse Effect'."
Wood's note was certainly noticed in 1909. It found full support and was confirmed in the July 1909 issue of Phil. Mag. by Charles Abbot (then director of the Smithsonian Observatory, later secretary of the Smithsonian Institute from 1928 to 1944) in a paper that went into far more technical detail than Wood's. For more details see http://boole.stanford.edu/Wood/. For Abbot's reply see Abbot's paper.
Abbot (1909) actually agreed with Wood: "Agreeing with Professor Wood that the main function of the cover of a hot-box or hot-house is to prevent loss of heat by convection, it is interesting to see if this can be predicted." We can see from the text of Abbot (1909) that this reply is not a refutation, but a confirmation extended by calculations which further confirm Wood's results, acknowledging that "salt hinders...65% as much as the glass", and going on to state: "In view of these figures we may agree with Professor Wood that a salt cover is nearly as efficient as a glass one for a hot-box, although it would seem strange that he observed no difference at all." The expected difference due to absorption by glass over and above salt is on the order of fifteen degrees Celsius (See - http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net - for calculations that go into far more technical detail than Abbot). This led Abbot to conclude by replacing Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" with the "blanket-effect", whereby only the variation of temperature is affected by atmospheric absorption.
3. "Greenhouses are warmed by preventing exchange of air with the cooler outside."
This does not undermine the analogy with greenhouses at all because Earth's atmosphere is warmed in exactly the same way, there being no "cooler outside" with which to exchange air.
4. "The contribution of infrared trapping by glass is neglible."
The contribution can be calculated and shown to be non-negligible, as done by Abbot in his confirmation of Wood. It can also be assessed empirically with an experiment you can easily perform yourself without any expensive equipment. Simply interpose a sheet of glass between the Sun and a sheet of paper on a sunny day, with a one-inch gap to prevent any conduction from the paper to the glass, and wait a few minutes for the glass to warm up. With white paper there is relatively little appreciable warming, whereas with black paper the side of the glass facing the paper warms appreciably. This effect can be enhanced by
As an aside it may be worth mentioning that a mixing ratio of 1‰ (1000 ppm) by volume of atmospheric CO2, if deposited on the Earth's surface as dry ice, will be almost exactly 1 cm thick. Hence the current 0.39‰ level of CO2 would freeze out as a 0.39 cm thick layer of dry ice, roughly the thickness of a typical sheet of glass. The absorption spectrum of dry ice (not line-by-line of course) bears a sufficient resemblance to that of glass, both consisting of triatomic molecules, as to further justify comparing the glass of a greenhouse with the current level of atmospheric CO2. The main differences are the far greater thermal mass of Earth's atmosphere (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) relative to the components of a greenhouse, which greatly impacts the rise time of the response without however any comparable impact on its equilibrium value, and the impact of atmospheric water vapor on absorption, which is considerably greater than that of current atmospheric CO2, though it is not changing as dramatically on a decadal time scale: the CO2 mixing ratio in units of ppmv as measured at Mauna Loa is remarkably well modeled by the formula 260 + exp(t) ppmv where t is time in units of 60.0 years with t=0 defined as 1718 AD. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-29T09:20:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-04-29T09:20:00.000Z-The_greenhouse_effect_is_appropriately_named","replies":["c-Q_Science-2010-04-29T18:30:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-04-29T09:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
By the way I should clarify that by "The greenhouse effect is appropriately named" I did not mean that retention of warm air is never useful. I'm not taking sides on the question, the problem is with the article, which does take sides by insisting dogmatically that "This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection," with sources cherry-picked for that side---there are plenty of reputable sources both for the other side and for "it is both." The statement is obviously true when a cool front is coming in and chilling one's plants. And it is just as obviously false when there is little air movement, as on a cold but windless morning when there are no updrafts (thermals are largely an afternoon phenomenon). In the latter case the 16% of reflection of incoming sunlight by a double-glazed glass or plastic roof and walls would make a greenhouse a thermal liability were it not for the way the opacity of glass to IR retains the 84% of heat that does get inside. Anyone who's been inside the Louvre pyramid entrance on a sunny day will know what IR trapping feels like: the huge area of glass way above feels like a radiator, you feel the radiation decreasing as the escalator down takes you away from it. This is a known issue for the Louvre, see page 19 of [3], "In summertime and by day: hot roof •greenhouse effect and air layering under the roof •near the floor: air mixing. Hot air penetrates by the corridor from the Pyramid." --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-15T18:57:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-15T18:57:00.000Z-The_greenhouse_effect_is_appropriately_named","replies":[]}}-->
Potential temperature applies to compressible fluids (like the atmosphere). Many references on weather prediction stress the importance of this. It also helps explain Chinook winds. Global Warming references ignore it.
The known top of atmosphere (TOA) solar energy is 1361 W/m2 which should produce a maximum blackbody temperature of 120°C, very close to the 118°C measured by Abbot. However, because the absorption and emission frequencies are different, any amount of incident energy can produce any temperature because it is the ratio of absorptivity to emissivity that is important. In the special case of a black body, the ratio is 1 (by definition).
Yes, the atmosphere is a thermal reservoir. However, it is also a radiator. Of the 340 W/m2 (average) TOA, 30% is reflected back to space, 40 W/m2 (12%) is radiated from the surface to space, 20% is directly absorbed by the atmosphere, 8% of the surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and the rest (30%) is moved to the atmosphere by convection and evaporation. Eventually, the atmosphere radiates about 58% of the TOA energy back to space. Another 324 W/m2 of radiation is exchanged between the surface and the atmosphere in addition to the 340 W/m2 from the Sun.
The numbers you use are a bit misleading. Because the Earth is 75% covered with water, a significant amount of energy is used to evaporate water. As a result, about 46% of the solar energy absorbed by the surface is added to the atmosphere without changing the atmosphere's temperature. However, the basic analysis is good.
As to the mechanisms addressed by de Saussure, Wood, and Abbot, they all showed that convection is the main method of cooling the surface while the Sun is shining. It is well known that night time cooling is by radiation, that is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Q Science (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z","author":"Q Science","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z-break","replies":["c-Q_Science-2010-05-01T20:56:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z","c-Q_Science-2010-05-01T20:56:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z-1","c-Q_Science-2010-05-01T20:56:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z-2","c-Q_Science-2010-05-01T20:56:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z-3","c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-01T14:01:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z","c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-05-01T18:41:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-05-01T06:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
Sorry to go on about this, but another thought occurred to me. The article's statement that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses rests entirely on one experiment by Robert W. Wood in the Feb. 1909 issue of Phil. Mag., plus some untested and questionable speculation about convection. (This presumably means it has nothing to do with the interaction of glass or plastic with IR either.) Hence it's important to know whether Wood's experiment could ever be repeated, since if it can't be then it may well have been in error, particularly in light of Abbot's surprise at the outcome as noted above.
One reason I've been unable to repeat exactly Wood's experiment myself, http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt notwithstanding, is difficulty in procuring a sheet of sufficiently transparent rock salt of a size equal to the glass sheet I was using in the other box, namely a foot square. So I approached a famous Stanford chemist (who shall rename anonymous by his request) who worked extensively with infrared-transparent windows during his long career, and asked him what he would recommend. He said that the IR-transparent windows ordinarily used in physics and chemistry labs of the kind Wood would have had access to were typically a couple of centimeters wide, and that IR-transparent materials such as rock salt lacked the mechanical strength needed to support much larger windows. I asked whether a one-foot rock-salt window would be feasible and he laughed and said he'd never heard of such a thing.
The most likely size for the boxes used in Wood's experiment therefore would have to be on the order of one inch. On that assumption it becomes more feasible to duplicate the experiment.
At the same time however it raises the interesting question as to the implications of a heat experiment on a one-inch box for the behavior of a greenhouse. One obvious difference is that convection is much more restricted in such a small space, and perhaps there are others. In any event I think we have to stop thinking in terms of a one-foot box, which is what I'd been assuming for my attempts at duplicating Wood's experiment at http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt . --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-09T21:24:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-09T21:24:00.000Z-Likely_size_of_Wood's_experiment","replies":[]}}-->
I wonder whether it would be possible to convey the essential concepts underlying the greenhouse effect with less technical overhead. If so this would make the Wikipedia article on the subject accessible to a much broader audience. As one possible direction for this I've written User_talk:Vaughan_Pratt/Sandbox#Suggested_greenhouse_effect_lead. Let me know of any problems you see generally with simplifying the article along these lines, and specifically with the proposed simplification itself. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-05T06:13:00.000Z","author":"Vaughan Pratt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-05T06:13:00.000Z-Suggested_simplification_of_lead","replies":["c-24.3.11.218-2010-07-05T08:09:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-05T06:13:00.000Z","c-Q_Science-2010-07-08T20:09:00.000Z-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-05T06:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
Higher: touch a hot car on a warm day, or walk bare foot on a black road.
Lower: When there is a temperature inversion just before dawn, there is almost no breeze.
This happens almost every day. You just need to plot some real data and you can see this for yourself. Q Science (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-10T06:52:00.000Z","author":"Q Science","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Q_Science-2010-07-10T06:52:00.000Z-break_and_outdent","replies":["c-Vaughan_Pratt-2010-07-10T17:32:00.000Z-Q_Science-2010-07-10T06:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
يفتقر محتوى هذه المقالة إلى الاستشهاد بمصادر. فضلاً، ساهم في تطوير هذه المقالة من خلال إضافة مصادر موثوق بها. أي معلومات غير موثقة يمكن التشكيك بها وإزالتها. (ديسمبر 2018) مرب - قرية - تقسيم إداري البلد اليمن المحافظة محافظة صنعاء المديرية مديرية بني حشيش السكان ا…
Edificio de Tabacalera (Valencia) Bien de Relevancia Local Edificio de Tabacalera (Valencia)LocalizaciónPaís EspañaUbicación Valencia, España EspañaDirección C/ Amadeo de Saboya nº 11, ValenciaCoordenadas 39°28′26″N 0°21′42″O / 39.47375, -0.36155555555556Información generalUsos públicoEstilo Modernismo valencianoInicio 1905Finalización 1909Construcción 1909Propietario Ayuntamiento de ValenciaDiseño y construcciónArquitecto Celestino Aranguren Alonso y…
1989 single by Rick AstleyHold Me in Your ArmsSingle by Rick Astleyfrom the album Hold Me in Your Arms B-sideI Don't Want to Be Your LoverReleased30 January 1989GenrePopLength4:32LabelRCASongwriter(s)Rick AstleyProducer(s) Phil Harding Ian Curnow Rick Astley singles chronology Take Me to Your Heart (1988) Hold Me in Your Arms (1989) Giving Up on Love (1989) Music videosHold Me in Your Arms (original version) on YouTubeHold Me in Your Arms (HD version) on YouTube Hold Me in Your Arms is a song wr…
Edith Cash Información personalNacimiento 14 de octubre de 1890 Binghamton (Estados Unidos) Fallecimiento 6 de abril de 1992 (101 años)Binghamton (Estados Unidos) Sepultura Washington D. C. Nacionalidad EstadounidenseEducaciónEducada en Universidad George Washington Información profesionalOcupación Botánica, micóloga y editora Empleador Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos Abreviatura en botánica E.K.Cash [editar datos en Wikidata] Edith Cash (Binghamton, Nueva Yor…
Rigi Vista desde la cima del monte RigiLocalización geográficaContinente EuropaCordillera Alpes suizosCoordenadas 47°03′00″N 8°28′00″E / 47.05, 8.4666666666667Localización administrativaPaís SuizaDivisión SchwyzLucernaLocalización Suiza SuizaCaracterísticas generalesTipo MontañaAltitud 1,797 mProminencia 1288 metrosAislamiento 13,1 kilómetros[editar datos en Wikidata] Rigi es una montaña en el centro de Suiza y forma parte de los Alpes suizos. E…
TUR Turkije was een van de deelnemende landen op het Europees kampioenschap voetbal 2000 in Nederland en België. Het was de tweede deelname voor het land. Turkije strandde in de kwartfinale van het Europees kampioenschap. Kwalificatie Turkije speelden in Groep 3 van de kwalificatie voor het Europees Kampioenschap samen met Duitsland, Finland, Noord-Ierland en Moldavië. Turkije kwalificeerde zich door tweede te eindigen in de poule, en de play-off duels met Ierland te winnen. Kwalificatieduels …
The list of fish of the Black Sea consists of indigenous, and also introduced species. The following tags are used to indicate the conservation status of species by IUCN's criteria: EX Extinct CR Critically Endangered EN Endangered VU Vulnerable NT Near Threatened LC Least Concern DD Data Deficient NE Not Evaluated All the listed species are classified by their origin as native, introduced, invasive, and species found accidentally (difficult to characterize as native or invasive). Scientific nam…
Lana NitibaskaraLahirRatu Leilana Indah Baskara Putri6 September 2001 (umur 22)Jakarta, IndonesiaAlmamaterUniversitas IndonesiaPekerjaanPenyanyiaktrisTahun aktif2008—sekarangKaryaDaftar diskografi Daftar filmografiPenghargaanDaftar penghargaanKarier musikGenreJazzInstrumenVokalLabel Sony Music Indonesia Warner Music Indonesia Artis terkaitDwiki Dharmawan Ratu Leilani Indah Baskara Putri, atau sering disapa Lana Nitibaskara (lahir 6 September 2001) merupakan seorang mantan aktris dan …
Not to be confused with the Alliance of Democratic Forces, a political party in Ivory Coast, or Allied Democratic Forces, a militia group active in Uganda and the Congo. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and rem…
Perang saudara Kerajaan MunaIlustrasi Perang saudara Kerajaan Muna.Tanggal1700-an – 1816LokasiPulau MunaHasil Kemenangan Wa Ode KadingkePihak terlibat Kerajaan Muna (Wa Ode Kadingke) Kesultanan Buton Kerajaan Tiworo Kerajaan Muna (La Ode Sumaeli)Tokoh dan pemimpin Wa Ode Kadingke Daeng Marewa La Kopuru (Sultan Buton) La Ode SumaeliKekuatan Tidak diketahui Tidak diketahuiKorban Tidak diketahui Tidak diketahui Perang saudara Kerajaan Muna adalah perang saudara yang terjadi pada akhir tahun 1700-…
Japanese politician (1858–1954) Yukio Ozaki尾崎 行雄Minister of JusticeIn office16 April 1914 – 9 October 1916Prime MinisterŌkuma ShigenobuPreceded byYoshito OkudaSucceeded byItasu Matsumuro2nd Mayor of Tokyo CityIn office29 June 1903 – 26 June 1912Preceded byHideo MatsudaSucceeded byYoshirō SakataniMinister of EducationIn office30 June 1898 – 27 October 1898Prime MinisterŌkuma ShigenobuPreceded byShoichi ToyamaSucceeded byTsuyoshi InokaiMember of the Ho…
本條目存在以下問題,請協助改善本條目或在討論頁針對議題發表看法。 此條目可能包含不适用或被曲解的引用资料,部分内容的准确性无法被证實。 (2018年2月5日)请协助校核其中的错误以改善这篇条目。详情请参见条目的讨论页。 此條目需要擴充。 (2018年2月5日)请協助改善这篇條目,更進一步的信息可能會在討論頁或扩充请求中找到。请在擴充條目後將此模板移除。 此條…
Artikel ini tidak memiliki bagian pembuka yang sesuai dengan standar Wikipedia. Mohon tulis paragraf pembuka yang informatif sehingga pembaca dapat memahami maksud dari Museum Prangko Indonesia. Contoh paragraf pembuka Museum Prangko Indonesia adalah .... (Pelajari cara dan kapan saatnya untuk menghapus pesan templat ini) Museum Prangko dihiasi sejumlah ukiran dan patung gaya Bali dan Jawa, dikelilingi pagar tembok dengan dua pintu gerbang yang mengambil model dasar candi bentar. Di sayap kanan …
Members of organized crime syndicates in Japan For other uses, see Yakuza (disambiguation). YakuzaThe word yakuza in katakana (ヤクザ)Founded17th century(presumed to have originated from the Kabukimono)TerritoryPrimarily Japan, particularly, Kantō/Tokyo, Kansai, and Chūbu; also internationally in, South Korea, Australia,[1] and the Western United States (Hawaii and California)EthnicityPrimarily Japanese; occasionally Koreans and Japanese AmericansMembership11,400 members[2]1…
Sultanate of Muscat and Oman (red), shown with the Imamate of Oman (orange) and the Trucial States (grey). This is a list of British representatives in Muscat and Oman from 1800 to 1971. They were responsible for representing British interests in the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman while the country was a British protectorate (from 20 March 1891 until 2 December 1971). Muscat and Oman was reconstituted as the modern-day Sultanate of Oman after the protectorate ended. For British representatives in …
この記事はドイツ語版の対応するページを翻訳することにより充実させることができます。(2023年7月)翻訳前に重要な指示を読むには右にある[表示]をクリックしてください。 ドイツ語版記事を日本語へ機械翻訳したバージョン(Google翻訳)。 万が一翻訳の手がかりとして機械翻訳を用いた場合、翻訳者は必ず翻訳元原文を参照して機械翻訳の誤りを訂正し、正確な翻…
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.Find sources: Siege of Cyropolis – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2018) Siege of CyropolisPart of the Wars of Alexander the GreatDate329 BCLocationCyropolis, Sogdiana (present-day Tajikistan)40°17′00″N 69°38′00″E / 40.2…
Un caso especial de explotación de aguas subterráneas es la obtención de yodo en el desierto de Atacama. En este caso la contaminación del agua con yodo es deseada y explotada económicamente. El agua extraída de las profundidaes del desierto es evaporada en las piscinas por la radiación solar dejando el producto yodo. El inventario nacional de acuíferos es una publicación de la Dirección General de Aguas (DGA) del Ministerio de Obras Públicas de Chile destinada a informar sobre el est…
Diese Liste von Orgeln in Polen umfasst sukzessive die beachtenswerten erhaltenen historischen Orgeln sowie überregional bedeutende Orgelneubauten in Polen. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Orgeln (Auswahl) 2 Siehe auch 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks 5 Einzelnachweise Orgeln (Auswahl) Die bedeutendste historische Orgel befindet sich in Oliwa mit dem größten Barockprospekt weltweit, wichtige erhaltene Barockorgeln stehen unter anderem in Krzeszów (Grüssau) und Pasłęk (Preußisch Holland), die älteste Orgel i…
2017 film RazziaFilm posterDirected byNabil AyouchWritten byNabil AyouchStarringMaryam TouzaniRelease dates 9 September 2017 (2017-09-09) (TIFF) 14 February 2018 (2018-02-14) (Morocco) Running time119 minutesCountryMoroccoLanguagesMoroccan Arabic, Berber, French Razzia (from Arabic: غزية, romanized: ghazia, lit. 'Raid', romanized according to French orthography into Razzia) is a 2017 Moroccan drama film directed by Nabil Ayouch. It was…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.137.179.213