Global Warming... Maybe

I'm definitely not sold on global warming one way or the other. I don't think there's enough data to rule it out or prove it, but I do think research should continue. I'm not so sure I would sue Al Gore over it, though the idea is entertaining. I bring this up because I came across a 2006 paper from the Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, "Atmospheric Field Measurements of the Hydroxyl Radical Using Laser-Induced Fluorescence Spectroscopy". I found this in search of a paper to write about for my dynamics class, and I think I'll use it.



For the most part, I enjoyed the paper, which is surprising given the amount of analytical and physical chemistry within. To say the least, they are far from my favorite subjects (even though I'm taking both this semester...). It also led me to discover the MCM; the Master Chemical Mechanism, which I spent some time browsing and was pretty impressed with.

I have a few criticisms here, the first of which being they're trying to write a novel. Here's what I mean:
p. 193: "The most important of these intermediates is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which is generated mostly in the daytime as a result of ozone photolysis to form electronically excited oxygen atoms, O(¹D), which react rapidly with water vapor to form OH."
p. 210: "The main contributor to OH initiation in both summer and winter is the reaction between O₃ and alkenes." ... "The fraction of OH initiation from O₃ + alkenes is approximately double that from the O(¹D) + H₂O reaction in the summer, but 100 times greater in the winter.
p. 212: "The largest source of OH by far is the reaction of HO₂ + NO, and thus OH levels reflect the rate of carbonyl photolysis, which occurs at longer wavelengths and thus is still significant in winter."

They're trying to guide us through the path in which they discovered things (I think), but it doesn't seem appropriate in the way they are writing things. My other criticism is that they talk about global warming without mentioning it's a theory. I know some people think that it has progressed beyond being a theory, but they should really be more objective in the scientific literature.

Edit:
Following up Martin's comment, I feel like I should clarify some things. I went through and reread what I have written on this issue, and gave it some thought. Criticizing the article for not referring to global warming is a theory seems rather silly now that I think about it, even though evolution (since it's the example that was used) is a theory, it's not really necessary to refer to as such. As for my personal views on global warming - I stand by that I'm not sold 100% one way or the other, however it's not the fact of whether it's happening that I question, rather the degree to which it's happening. I'm just arguing that people often exaggerate how fast this is taking place.

Heard, D.E. (2006). ATMOSPHERIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF THE HYDROXYL RADICAL USING LASER-INDUCED FLUORESCENCE SPECTROSCOPY. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 57(1), 191-216. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.57.032905.104516
Btw, I dislike DOIs that are this long.

Photo: Flickr

Godspeed.



This posted tagged as: journals, science