Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JLindgaard on 14/10/2022 01:54:38
-
The link pretty much explains it. It's not because of water vapor. The sky most likely is blue because of ozone in the ozone layer. This would help to explain why the sky is its bluest after it rains.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/is-the-sun-toxic-d6-e4136-s200.php#post_90394
-
The sky most likely is blue because of ozone
Nope. Google is your friend on questions like this.
-
The sky most likely is blue because of ozone
Nope. Google is your friend on questions like this.
Unless scientists got it wrong.
-
It's not because of either water vapor or ozone, it's because of Rayleigh scattering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
If it was because of ozone, you'd expect it to be blue at all times of the day (just getting darker shades of blue at sunset). Rayleigh scattering, meanwhile, explains why the sunset is reddish instead.
-
Unless scientists got it wrong.
All you have to do is read about why the sky is blue and you will see that it is logical and experimentation supports it, science did not get it wrong.
-
It's not because of either water vapor or ozone, it's because of Rayleigh scattering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
If it was because of ozone, you'd expect it to be blue at all times of the day (just getting darker shades of blue at sunset). Rayleigh scattering, meanwhile, explains why the sunset is reddish instead.
I liked science until posting in this forum. I like the way you said "I'd expect" when I don't. You are placing conditions on how I think as a brainwashing technique. You guys apparently don't know much about science if truth be told. Any idiot would know that the total ozone column varies and can change from one day to the next. But you guys really have no clue about science, do you?
-
Ozone is not responsible for the colour of the sky. We know that because of actual science.
The spectrum is wrong.
https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/7/609/2014/amt-7-609-2014.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation#/media/File:Spectrum_of_blue_sky.svg
But here's the killer paradox.
We know the blue sky can't be due to ozone because ozone is blue.
Ozone preferentially transmits blue light (and absorbs red light).
But we know from the colours of the sky and sunset that the sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters blue light (and transmits red light).
Ozone is the worst possible explanation of the sky being blue.
-
But you guys really have no clue about science, do you?
It turns out that we do, doesn't it?
-
I'm with JL here. We used to think that Rayleigh scattering was responsible for the fog and blurring of x-ray images but it makes much more sense to believe that x-rays ionise the air between the x-ray tube and the patient, the ionised air recombines to form ozone, and that passes through the patient and attacks the image receptor.
And all the while I thought my students passed their exams because they were clever and listened to the lectures. Obviously, it's just because they shared the examiners' delusions.
It's all down to the British reverence for nobility: Lord Rayleigh had the Divine Right to lay down the Laws of Physics, but modern thinkers know better.
-
I liked science until posting in this forum.
It seems to me that you actually like making stuff up and don't like that the people here are pointing out that making stuff up isn't science.
-
Because God had used up all his other paint.
-
I liked science until posting in this forum.
It seems to me that you actually like making stuff up and don't like that the people here are pointing out that making stuff up isn't science.
I thought this was the new theory section. Yet considering something differently is not tolerated. I know science.
I know why they say the sky is blue. What you guys say is just post a text book answer. You know, like CO2 is causing global warming while not all scientists agrees with that. Some scientists say that deep faults in the ocean floor are causing the oceans to warm such as the Gakkel Ridge in the arctic warms the Arctic Ocean. Those who say CO2 ignore other scientific research.
-
I thought this was the new theory section.
It is.
But, in science, the word "theory" doesn't mean "any old nonsense I found on the web".
I know why they say the sky is blue.
But you don't know why they say that's why it's blue.
When they first wondered about why the sky is blue, they considered a few options.
But the reason they accepted Rayleigh's idea about light scattering wasn't because he was rich and famous, or because he was a really nice bloke.
The idea was accepted because it fitted all the available data.
And, even at the time, that would have included some sort of spectroscopy.
But the other thing you are missing is that, because ozone is blue, it can not be the reason why the sky is blue.
If you look at a lamp through air containing ozone the lamp looks blue.
If you look at the sun through air the sun looks red.
Do you not realise how big a difference that is?
Red is not blue.
You know, like CO2 is causing global warming while not all scientists agrees with that
None of those who disagree has come up with a convincing argument.
That's why they are a tiny minority.
As for "Gakkel Ridge in the arctic warms the Arctic Ocean"
Yes it does.
And it has been doing so for a very long time- geological heating is powered by the decay of radioisotopes with half lives measured in billions of years.
But global warming has happened on a timescale of decades or maybe a century.
Over that timescale, geological heating has been practically constant.
So, the common sense which you are ignoring (and which the scientists are employing ) is " a thing that is constant doesn't suddenly cause a change.
Why did you not realise that?
-
I like the way you said "I'd expect" when I don't. You are placing conditions on how I think as a brainwashing technique.
I didn't mean it personally. When I said, "you'd expect", I was making a general prediction: if ozone was responsible for the blue color, it would be expected for the sky to be blue during all times of the day because ozone's color doesn't change from blue to red.
-
I like the way you said "I'd expect" when I don't. You are placing conditions on how I think as a brainwashing technique.
I didn't mean it personally. When I said, "you'd expect", I was making a general prediction: if ozone was responsible for the blue color, it would be expected for the sky to be blue during all times of the day because ozone's color doesn't change from blue to red.
I already posted that the total ozone column changes. Not sure why you're bring red into it for. When did I say the sky is red because of ozone? And yet a Google search because Google is my friend, right?
New research studies and recent geological events greatly strengthen the contention, as per previous Climate Change Dispatch articles, that anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting is fueled by geological seafloor heat flow, not man-made atmospheric Global Warming (see here, here, here, and here).
These research studies, conducted by reliable institutions, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting involves a complex interaction process between many natural forces, not just atmospheric forces (see here, here, and here). This is a major setback for climate scientists and politicians advocating man-made atmospheric global warming. Turns out that the poster child and supposedly 97% resolved a portion of the theory which states human CO2 emissions are the singular cause of anomalous Arctic Sea Ice melting is—in the vernacular—a lot of hot air.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/anomalous-arctic-sea-ice-melting-fueled-by-geological-heat-flow-not-global-warming
Yet to be right I have to say that science has PROVEN that CO2 is causing global warming which includes the arctic warming. Proven science. It is not possible to consider that something other than CO2 is causing global warming.
As has been shown again, posting anything in here shows I am stupid and that I know nothing. I have to be wrong because the moderators are right just as bored chemist is. Just disagree with whoever is not one of you makes you look smart.
-
The Google search;
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=is+the+Gakkel+Ridge+warmign+the+Arctic+Ocean
Other answers;
ABOUT THE LAPTEV SEA: The Laptev Sea is the southern termination of the Gakkel spreading ridge. The Laptev Rift System consists of several deep subsided rifts and high standing blocks of the basement. Details of this geological feature are described by Sergey Drachev in his paper on the geology of the continental shelf of the Laptev Sea. The full text of the paper is available on request. The Arctic is geologically active and its temperature and sea ice dynamics cannot be understood exclusively in terms of the atmosphere above the sea ice without consideration of the geology of the region below the sea ice described in a related post on this site : LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/01/arctic/ . Further evidence of geological activity and hydrothermal venting in this regions is described in the bibliography below and in a summary of the relevant information on geological activity in the Laptev Sea area of the Arctic. Based on these data we propose that sea ice dynamics in this region cannot be understood exclusively in terms of atmospheric phenomena. Statistical analysis of Arctic sea ice dynamics does not show a correlation with atmospheric temperature phenomena. Details of this issue are presented in related posts on this site listed below.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/28/arctic-warming-alarm-of-october-2020/
And now I can't believe any science report. I mean a change in CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm resulted in a global warming change from 287 kelvins to 288 kelvins. How did a rise in 100 ppm allow for a 1º kelvin temperature increase when the other 300 ppm is responsible for the first 287º kelvin temperature? Where's the relationship?
-
Not sure why you're bring red into it for.
Because your model has to be able to explain why the sky is red at sunset.
-
Not sure why you're bring red into it for.
Because your model has to be able to explain why the sky is red at sunset.
No I don't. I never said that ozone influences whether or not the skies are red. That's a condition being created to say I am wrong. That is like when I was told that I had to use 1 as an exponent for Venus' atmospheric pressure when factored to say I am wrong.
Why it's a waste of time to post anything other than mainstream science like CO2 is causing global warming when according to the IPCC, 30 years is a trend. And from 1945 to 1978, a period of 33 years there was no global warming while CO2 levels continued to increase. Their model does not explain that yet it is accepted science.
-
In my book you get full marks for spotting anomalies and inconsistencies, but you need to be careful that your alternative explanatory hypothesis itself hangs together.
So I agree that the idea of CO2 being principally responsible for controlling the temperature of the atmosphere is politically convenient and wrong, but we disagree on Rayleigh scattering because that theory entirely predicts and explains the observation, and yours doesn't.
-
In my book you get full marks for spotting anomalies and inconsistencies, but you need to be careful that your alternative explanatory hypothesis itself hangs together.
So I agree that the idea of CO2 being principally responsible for controlling the temperature of the atmosphere is politically convenient and wrong, but we disagree on Rayleigh scattering because that theory entirely predicts and explains the observation, and yours doesn't.
When I said CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 my theory hung itself. And as I mentioned, it is a waste of time to post anything other than accepted science. All you guys keep saying is I don't know anything and yet as mentioned, I should use Google to get the right answer. And if my stupid, ignorant experiment somehow shows something, it still won't mean anything.
-
I never said that ozone influences whether or not the skies are red.
Then what causes the sky to be red at sunset?
-
When I said CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 my theory hung itself.
Understandably.
The reaction goes the other way.
Formaldehyde is flammable.Not sure why you're bring red into it for.
Because we can all see that the sunrise and sunset are red.
if your idea of the colour of the sky does not explain that fact then it's totally useless, isn't it?
-
it is a waste of time to post anything other than accepted science
Nope.
What you do (which wastes time) is post stuff for which there is no evidence.
Science will, quite correctly, ignore stuff you say unless it's backed up.
-
It's possible that the tropopause acts as a prism. With the ozone layer, the emission spectrum of O, and O2 moves towards 450 nm but could find no research on the emission spectrum of O3. In the previous post it is possible that the blue was the result of it being the ozone layer. And in the stratosphere it does get as warm as 0º C. which so much color would suggest a reasonable amount of energy.
-
How did a rise in 100 ppm allow for a 1º kelvin temperature increase when the other 300 ppm is responsible for the first 287º kelvin temperature?
The Sun.
I understand that a "black body" located at the Earth's orbit will have a temperature of about -15C.
- The atmospheric blanket warms up the Earth above this -15C
- The main components are Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, water vapour and Carbon dioxide.
- Together, they warm the planet by about 29C
- The impact of water vapour is very variable due to the effects of evaporation, precipitation and reflective clouds
- But the carbon dioxide is well-mixed, and affects the whole planet.
- So 300ppm CO2 does not warm the planet by 287K; it warms the planet by a fraction of 29K.
- An increase from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 warms the planet by a larger fraction of 29K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
-
It's possible that the tropopause acts as a prism.
Not really, no.
With the ozone layer, the emission spectrum of O, and O2 moves towards 450 nm
No it doesn't the emissions from O and O2 are not affected by ozone.
How could they be? which so much color would suggest a reasonable amount of energy.
That's not meaningful.
-
it is a waste of time to post anything other than accepted science.
No. It is a waste of time to post anything that contradicts a common observation. Like red sunsets.
-
it is a waste of time to post anything other than accepted science.
No. It is a waste of time to post anything that contradicts a common observation. Like red sunsets.
So you're saying that the tropopasue isn't a barrier and that a prism is not a barrier? Oops, Google can't
tell you why the tropopause is a barrier. Only that it is a cold air inversion. Please ask Google what allows
for what it says. You'll get no answer.
-
How did a rise in 100 ppm allow for a 1º kelvin temperature increase when the other 300 ppm is responsible for the first 287º kelvin temperature?
The Sun.
I understand that a "black body" located at the Earth's orbit will have a temperature of about -15C.
- The atmospheric blanket warms up the Earth above this -15C
- The main components are Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, water vapour and Carbon dioxide.
- Together, they warm the planet by about 29C
- The impact of water vapour is very variable due to the effects of evaporation, precipitation and reflective clouds
- But the carbon dioxide is well-mixed, and affects the whole planet.
- So 300ppm CO2 does not warm the planet by 287K; it warms the planet by a fraction of 29K.
- An increase from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 warms the planet by a larger fraction of 29K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
Thanks for proving my point. All I need to know is on Wikipedia or Google. No reason to think or to consider something.
We'll have to disagree. If my research shows what I think it will then it will change science. And yet you wish to discourage me because? It's about defending what you believe. An example is the 1,370 w/m^2 the Earth is exposed to, that is over a volume multiplied by 300,000. The 300,000 is the speed of light.
w/m^2 refers to a plane of 1m x 1m which could be as with a solar panel 3 mil thick. And yet the ozone layer measured in Dobson units refers to cm thick if it were compressed into a layer of pure ozone.
100 Dobson units refer to a layer 1mm thick.
My personal belief is that ozone depletion from ODSs is what caused the current warming. An increased amount of solar radiation was allowed into the Earth's atmosphere.
-
So you're saying that the tropopasue isn't a barrier and that a prism is not a barrier?
The only one who mentioned a barrier was you...
-
We'll have to disagree.
Do you really disagree that the sunset is red?
-
So you're saying that the tropopasue isn't a barrier and that a prism is not a barrier?
The only one who mentioned a barrier was you...
Maybe in here but researchers have said it is. You're a chemist so it is not surprising that you haven't taken the time to learn about the tropopause.
The tropopause minimum acts as a barrier^ between the troposphere and stratosphere because mixing and heat transport by convection can only occur when temperature decreases with height.
https://atoptics.co.uk/highsky/htrop.htm
And since the tropopause is mostly a layer of nitrogen, can it act as a prism? Prisms allow for the frequency of the light emitted to be red or another color. The attached graph shows a relationship between ozone depletion and global warming. And if you notice NOAA's graph, WW II spiked the global temperature and then basically within +/- 0.1º C.
It would be interesting to find out how many nuclear devices were detonated and what years. WW II might show how much energy bombs have for ti to spike like that. Who knows, maybe testing of thermonuclear weapons started global warming. I'll have to do some research on that. You know, megaton yield by year and by latitude.
So if I am allowed to have an opinion, for now I'll go with ozone depletion until I find out more about the testing of both atomic and nuclear weapons. This is if I were to consider the energy released by munitions during WW II was responsible for the global temperature spike during those years. My Father told me what it was like living through that war in an occupied country so it's something I am mindful of.
-
Who knows, maybe testing of thermonuclear weapons started global warming.
If that was true, then global warming shouldn't be happening right now since almost all nuclear testing ended a while ago. Yet temperatures are still going up. Ozone depletion also doesn't seem to be responsible, as the worst ozone depletion happened in 1994: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone#:~:text=The%20deepest%20ozone%20hole%20occurred,73%20DU%20on%20September%2030. This means that, despite ozone levels being higher since then, temperatures have still been rising. That doesn't look like a correlation to me.
-
...and global warming began about 15,000 years ago.
However, the reason the sky is blue is because the hard green stuff is called land, the wet stuff is called sea, and the blue gas on top is called sky. It's a matter of definition, not physics! Trust a pilot - we like the blue stuff best, and even have an instrument (the artificial horizon) with a blue bit at the top, to remind us which way to point the plane.
-
Maybe in here but researchers have said it is.
Quite possibly.
But you said Alan had said it.
In the real world, he had not, had he?
So, what you said was not true.
That not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
You're a chemist so it is not surprising that you haven't taken the time to learn about the tropopause.
I know about it.
But what matters is that you lied about what Alan had said.
Specifically, I'm a spectroscopist so I know that the answer to this
And since the tropopause is mostly a layer of nitrogen, can it act as a prism?
is simply "no"
Which is why I said
Quote from: JLindgaard on Today at 03:02:16
It's possible that the tropopause acts as a prism.
Not really, no.
This is if I were to consider the energy released by munitions during WW II was responsible for the global temperature spike during those years.
No
I think there a tread here somewhere about that and the numbers simply don't work.
Mankind's petty squabbles are tiny on the scale of the Earth's energy budget.
This
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71332.0
points out that the whole of mankind's energy use over the last 200 years isn't enough to explain global warming.
The extra bit due to WWII won't have made a difference.
Now, can you tell us what colour you think a sunset is?
-
...and global warming began about 15,000 years ago.
However, the reason the sky is blue is because the hard green stuff is called land, the wet stuff is called sea, and the blue gas on top is called sky. It's a matter of definition, not physics! Trust a pilot - we like the blue stuff best, and even have an instrument (the artificial horizon) with a blue bit at the top, to remind us which way to point the plane.
Why getting it right now matters is because of when things cool off. How long do intergacials last? Notice the time scale between the 2 graphs. Also notice if after a warm period it can cool down and then get much warmer.
And when you look at the graphs, does one say .4 while the other says 4? If NASA's graphs are correct, it hasn't begun to get warm.
-
Also notice if after a warm period it can cool down
That's pretty much the definition of "after".
Did you think it was important?
-
Also notice if after a warm period it can cool down
That's pretty much the definition of "after".
Did you think it was important?
It is. Just look at the wonderful work that those scientists at NSA did. Not all Inter-glacial periods are the same.
You guys don't know something, right? Look at before 400,00 years ago. Inter-glacials weren't this warm. Before 1 million years ago ice ages occurred about every 40,000 years. And between 1 million and 800,000 years ago ice ages changed from happening every 40,000 years to about once every 100,000 years.
At the moment we are living through geological history. 500,000 years from now if people still inhabit the Earth they'll say how lucky we were to observe the geological history of the Earth changing. There were 2 inter-glacials that were
2º C. warmer, 1 that was 1º C. warmer and one that peaked at our current warming.
Of course the peak warming of an inter-glacial period might be several peaks creating the data necessary for scientists to observe. If the global temperature jumped 2º C. and then lowered, historical data after 50 or 100,000 years would miss it.
-
A just for fun question.
Why did ice ages go from every 40,000 years to about once every 100,000 years in our current ice age cycle? This change occurred about 1 million years ago. Kind of why NASA's graph goes back about 800,000 years.
And a bonus fun question.
How does the Earth's moment of inertia, ie., it's spin determine its orbit around the Sun? Basically how does the Moon influence the Earth's orbit, etc.
-
A basic question. Since scientists do not know when the Moon started orbiting the Earth, could the Moon influence ice ages? Simply put, could the drag the Moon creates on the Earth because it is conserving the Earth's momentum change the elliptic orbit of the Earth around the Sun? You know, make it a little less elliptical by increasing the mass relative to
g = G(M1M2/r^2) relative to the Sun?
Without the Moon being M2 then it would've been the Sun is M1 and the Earth as M2. But when M1M2 is orbiting M3, how does that change things?
And I think that is to answer @Bored chemist question about "after".
Scientists should've realized that the Earth's moment of inertia influences its orbit around the Sun. Something like that is basic math and science. Yet CO2 took center stage. Speaking in scientific terms, when CO2 is excited by solar radiation, its kinetic energy is what excites other atmospheric gasses.
Heat in the atmosphere is largely dependent on Boltzmann's work. Collisions between atmospheric gasses releases stored heat content which then becomes background electromagnetic radiation which is observed as heat. Kind of why I'm pursuing the research that I'm pursuing.
-
I don't think changing how elliptical the orbit is would cause ice ages as we know them. The average temperature should be about the same.
-
I don't think changing how elliptical the orbit is would cause ice ages as we know them. The average temperature should be about the same.
And that is why ice ages occur. Average temperature should be but it isn't.
-
And that is why ice ages occur. Average temperature should be but it isn't.
After looking it up, it seems that you're right: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213113037.htm#:~:text=These%20periods%20of%20more%2Delliptical,in%20the%20Earth's%20elliptical%20shape.%22
I originally assumed you were talking about an orbit with the same average orbital radius.
-
Put simply, in an elliptical orbit the planet spends longer at apogee then at perigee, so it cools down compared with its temperature in a circular orbit with the same mean kinetic energy.
-
Since scientists do not know when the Moon started orbiting the Earth, could the Moon influence ice ages?
We have a pretty good idea when the moon stared orbiting the earth.
This is the current idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)
But even if that's not quite correct, we know when the moon formed because we can date moon rocks.
If you plan to criticise science, you ned to start by learning it.Kind of why NASA's graph goes back about 800,000 years.
NASA's graph goes back as far as the ice cores go.
Did you not realise that?
Now, can you tell us what colour you think a sunset is?
-
Put simply, in an elliptical orbit the planet spends longer at apogee then at perigee, so it cools down compared with its temperature in a circular orbit with the same mean kinetic energy.
That makes sense now.
-
With moment of inertia, the Earth's spin would slow when glaciers in an ice age melt. I wonder if this causes the Earth to move faster through space. One reason why is the gravity assist that a planet's gravity can give a satellite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
They often use a figure skater spinning with their arms out and in to show how that changes how quickly they spin as an example of conservation of angular momentum. With the Earth, it would require more force to rate it the same velocity as it could have during an ice age.