[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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

[Origin]

The sky most likely is blue because of ozone

Nope.  Google is your friend on questions like this.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

The sky most likely is blue because of ozone

Nope.  Google is your friend on questions like this.

  Unless scientists got it wrong.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

But you guys really have no clue about science, do you?

It turns out that we do, doesn't it?

[alancalverd]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Petrochemicals]

Because God had used up all his other paint.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.