[Kryptid]

I never said that ozone influences whether or not the skies are red.

Then what causes the sky to be red at sunset?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.

[evan_au]

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
 

[Bored chemist]

 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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

 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...

[Bored chemist]

 We'll have to disagree.

Do you really disagree that  the sunset is red?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[alancalverd]

...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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

...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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

   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.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 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.