NASA says "Global Cooling!"

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > NASA says "Global Cooling!"

Page 1 of 2

NASA says "Global Cooling!"30-08-2015 17:29
FriendOfOrion ☆☆☆☆☆ (9)	NASA scientists (NASA's Langley Research Center) have done a turnaround in their predictions of CO2-caused climate change. They now are predicting that there could be a cooling of the globe, or even a mini ice age that has nothing to do with changing CO2 levels. That would mean that all the money and effort used to limit CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are all in vain and won't likely affect our climate at all. There is a theory by climatologists that just prior to a mini ice age there is often a temporary rise in global temperatures. This has not been suggested in any of the mainstream media articles that I have seen. Below are the names of 2 scientists that dispute the CO2 caused warming theory. David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist an the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations, says that the coldest point in the coming temperature cycle, will be the years 2015 through to 2050. NOAA said that the recent record high temperature in 2015 was only by 0.08 Deg C. This is under the uncertainty of the statistics (0.14 Deg C). therefore this record high is quite meaningless. NASA Scientist John L. Casey says that the "manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change and that the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes." There are 31,487 scientists that dispute the theory of CO2 caused Global Warming. Anyone disputing this figure can go to the website www.petitionproject.org & see who they are. The global temperature of the planet has not risen for 18 years! The climate models are wrong! Where is the warming?
30-08-2015 18:30
climate scientist ★★☆☆☆ (257)	Hi FriendOfOrion Can you please post some links that back up the NASA statements you have described above? Also, when you say that the global temperature of the planet has not risen for 18 years, are you referring to the whole planet, e.g. atmosphere + oceans + land, or just the atmosphere? The oceans have continued to warm throughout the last 18 years - please see chapter 3 of IPCC 5th Assessment Report for details.
04-09-2015 14:32
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	FriendOfOrion wrote: NASA scientists (NASA's Langley Research Center) have done a turnaround in their predictions of CO2-caused climate change. They now are predicting that there could be a cooling of the globe, or even a mini ice age that has nothing to do with changing CO2 levels. That would mean that all the money and effort used to limit CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are all in vain and won't likely affect our climate at all. There is a theory by climatologists that just prior to a mini ice age there is often a temporary rise in global temperatures. This has not been suggested in any of the mainstream media articles that I have seen. Below are the names of 2 scientists that dispute the CO2 caused warming theory. David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist an the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations, says that the coldest point in the coming temperature cycle, will be the years 2015 through to 2050. NOAA said that the recent record high temperature in 2015 was only by 0.08 Deg C. This is under the uncertainty of the statistics (0.14 Deg C). therefore this record high is quite meaningless. NASA Scientist John L. Casey says that the "manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change and that the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes." There are 31,487 scientists that dispute the theory of CO2 caused Global Warming. Anyone disputing this figure can go to the website www.petitionproject.org & see who they are. The global temperature of the planet has not risen for 18 years! The climate models are wrong! Where is the warming? I did a search of the NASA Langley site and the words "global cooling" are not there, so I too would be interested in the NASA press release or published paper that refers to their turnaround on global warming. In fact there was a lecture given just last year by Normal Leob from NASA Langley about global warming and the so-called hiatus. He points out that air temperatures are a relatively poor indicator of heat uptake of the Sun's energy by the Earth, it only takes up 1% of that energy, whereas the oceans take up 93% (the rest goes to melting ice and heating the land). He concludes that (1) the Earth has continued to store more and more heat energy despite the apparent slowdown in the rise of air temperatures. (2) Such period have happened before and will likely happen again as they are more affected by shorter term climate cycles (e.g., the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation) (3) The steady increase in CO2 will cause a slow upward trend in global temperatures superimposed on the short term rapid cooling and heating episodes (La Nina / El Nino for example). That should answer your question as to "where has the warming gone?" David Dilley was a NOAA forecaster 30 years ago. He has never published a research paper on climate in a scientific journal. He is now a 1-man company and works the climate denial speaker circuit. Not a reliable source. John Casey is not "a NASA scientist", he claims to have been an engineer. I have yet to find anyone at NASA who has heard of him doing any science related work for NASA. It is unclear which Whitehouse he "advised" when and for how long on what space issues, he skips over those sorts of detail. The talks I have seen him give are mostly scientific gobbledygook mixed with equal parts paranoia. The Oregon Petition? Really, you are going there to support you case? Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo
18-08-2016 15:24
tracy18 ☆☆☆☆☆ (5)	The more you read about global warming, the more confusing it gets. I dunno whom to believe anymore. Even the global warming essays out there are of contradictory view points! Edited by branner on 18-08-2016 18:23
19-08-2016 03:23
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	tracy18 wrote: The more you read about global warming, the more confusing it gets. I dunno whom to believe anymore. Even the global warming essays out there are of contradictory view points! Then do not read popular newspaper articles or blog posts. Read articles by the professionals in scientific magazines and professional scientific society websites. For example: The Royal Society .... https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/energy-environment-climate/ The National Academy has a free booklet on the subject: http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/ The American Meteorological Society: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/ If you are a glutton for punishment you can read the IPCC reports (suggest the summary for policy makers unless you like reading jargon! Many Universities and government agencies have similar information available on line or in articles. You will find they are all consistent with one another.

19-08-2016 03:45
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	FriendOfOrion wrote: NASA scientists (NASA's Langley Research Center) have done a turnaround in their predictions of CO2-caused climate change. They now are predicting that there could be a cooling of the globe, or even a mini ice age that has nothing to do with changing CO2 levels. That would mean that all the money and effort used to limit CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are all in vain and won't likely affect our climate at all. There is a theory by climatologists that just prior to a mini ice age there is often a temporary rise in global temperatures. This has not been suggested in any of the mainstream media articles that I have seen. Below are the names of 2 scientists that dispute the CO2 caused warming theory. Please give us a NASA link that says this, because I have not found one. David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist an the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations, says that the coldest point in the coming temperature cycle, will be the years 2015 through to 2050. NOAA said that the recent record high temperature in 2015 was only by 0.08 Deg C. This is under the uncertainty of the statistics (0.14 Deg C). therefore this record high is quite meaningless. Mr Dilley (note: Not "Dr." - he failed to get his PhD it seems) is wrong. 2015 was the warmest year on record by the stunning margin of 0.16C (0.3F) - the largest year to year change on record. 9 months in 2015 set new record highs. NASA Scientist John L. Casey says that the "manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change and that the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes." I have yet to meet anyone at NASA who knows John L. Casey or what he worked on. I can find no scientific qualifications for him. I have shown repeatedly that the Sun is not responsible for the warming of the last 40+ years. See "Its the Sun, Stupid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q There are 31,487 scientists that dispute the theory of CO2 caused Global Warming. Anyone disputing this figure can go to the website www.petitionproject.org & see who they are. Another easily debunked fraud. See "30,000 scientists Can't All Be Wrong, Can They?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo [/quote]The global temperature of the planet has not risen for 18 years! The climate models are wrong! Where is the warming?[/quote] More nonsense. You just contradicted yourself. You said that 2015 was the warmest year on record (albeit by a small margin according to you) then say that the planet has not warmed. Please let us know when you have finished arguing with yourself, and get back to us with some verifiable evidence, not this made up stuff from a bunch of unreliable bloggers.
19-08-2016 18:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: FriendOfOrion wrote: NASA scientists (NASA's Langley Research Center) have done a turnaround in their predictions of CO2-caused climate change. They now are predicting that there could be a cooling of the globe, or even a mini ice age that has nothing to do with changing CO2 levels. That would mean that all the money and effort used to limit CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are all in vain and won't likely affect our climate at all. There is a theory by climatologists that just prior to a mini ice age there is often a temporary rise in global temperatures. This has not been suggested in any of the mainstream media articles that I have seen. Below are the names of 2 scientists that dispute the CO2 caused warming theory. Please give us a NASA link that says this, because I have not found one. David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist an the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations, says that the coldest point in the coming temperature cycle, will be the years 2015 through to 2050. NOAA said that the recent record high temperature in 2015 was only by 0.08 Deg C. This is under the uncertainty of the statistics (0.14 Deg C). therefore this record high is quite meaningless. Mr Dilley (note: Not "Dr." - he failed to get his PhD it seems) is wrong. 2015 was the warmest year on record by the stunning margin of 0.16C (0.3F) - the largest year to year change on record. 9 months in 2015 set new record highs. NASA Scientist John L. Casey says that the "manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change and that the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes." I have yet to meet anyone at NASA who knows John L. Casey or what he worked on. I can find no scientific qualifications for him. I have shown repeatedly that the Sun is not responsible for the warming of the last 40+ years. See "Its the Sun, Stupid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q There are 31,487 scientists that dispute the theory of CO2 caused Global Warming. Anyone disputing this figure can go to the website www.petitionproject.org & see who they are. Another easily debunked fraud. See "30,000 scientists Can't All Be Wrong, Can They?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8NVsmgeFmo The global temperature of the planet has not risen for 18 years! The climate models are wrong! Where is the warming? More nonsense. You just contradicted yourself. You said that 2015 was the warmest year on record (albeit by a small margin according to you) then say that the planet has not warmed. Please let us know when you have finished arguing with yourself, and get back to us with some verifiable evidence, not this made up stuff from a bunch of unreliable bloggers. Whether NASA says the planet is warming or says it's cooling, they are still making shit up. You can't measure the global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation for it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 19-08-2016 18:34
19-08-2016 22:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tracy18 wrote: The more you read about global warming, the more confusing it gets. I dunno whom to believe anymore. Even the global warming essays out there are of contradictory view points! Is a little voice inside you saying "This whole Global Warming crap stinks of heavy scam?" Global Warming is a WACKY religion. There is no Global Warming science. If you ever have any questions, no matter how technical, post them here or send me a PM. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-08-2016 23:03
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	tracy18 wrote: The more you read about global warming, the more confusing it gets. I dunno whom to believe anymore. Even the global warming essays out there are of contradictory view points! The science of global warming isn't really that complicated, and you can find good, quite easily understandable summaries at sites run by academic institutions such as those mentioned above by DRKTS. The problem is that any action taken to counter global warming, such as reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, will inevitably have a great impact on companies that profit from exploiting and selling these fuels. These companies are therefore doing their utmost to persuade people that global warming isn't a problem by spreading disinformation about the topic, much as tobacco companies tried to minimise the dangers of smoking despite the scientific evidence of its harm. You can't really blame them - they have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profits - but you might wonder how their employees sleep at night.
20-08-2016 01:59
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: Whether NASA says the planet is warming or says it's cooling, they are still making shit up. You can't measure the global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation for it. You see already you are way off base. Get your fact straight before making definitive statements or wild accusations. First NASA does not say whether Earth is warming or cooling, but the official US climate monitoring service is NOAA. Some individual NASA researchers do their own independent analyses (like GISS) but they do not speak for NASA. We do have the instrumentation to measure global average temperature anomalies. There have been screeds of papers written about that (look up the explanations and references on climate monitoring at the NCDC). I would love to know your qualifications that enable you to say that such that it trumps the expertise of so many climate experts.
20-08-2016 11:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: Whether NASA says the planet is warming or says it's cooling, they are still making shit up. You can't measure the global temperature. We don't have the instrumentation for it. You see already you are way off base. Get your fact straight before making definitive statements or wild accusations. First NASA does not say whether Earth is warming or cooling, but the official US climate monitoring service is NOAA. Some individual NASA researchers do their own independent analyses (like GISS) but they do not speak for NASA. We do have the instrumentation to measure global average temperature anomalies. There have been screeds of papers written about that (look up the explanations and references on climate monitoring at the NCDC). I would love to know your qualifications that enable you to say that such that it trumps the expertise of so many climate experts. Science is not based on credentials. Anyone can do science. No one owns it. The thing that says we can't measure anything like a global temperature is statistical mathematics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-08-2016 13:22
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: Science is not based on credentials. Anyone can do science. No one owns it. The thing that says we can't measure anything like a global temperature is statistical mathematics. That is like saying you don't need to have any medical qualifications to be a brain surgeon. Anyone can cut open somebody's skull, no problem! Being versed in statistical mathematics (I took several courses on it at college given by some of the leading math professors in the world - I aced the exams) and having used it in my research over the last 40 years, your statement that it precludes global temperature analysis is complete nonsense. Statistics show you how to analyze many different types of data and assign uncertainties to the results you get from that analysis. Not whether you can do the analysis or not. If you have two datum points, you can do a statistical analysis albeit not very reliably. In climate we have millions, so it requires sophisticated statistical analysis. The papers I referred you to explain how the analysis has been done. Each group uses different data, different techniques, and different assumptions. The data they use is available to you (NCDC), the techniques are described in detail in their papers (read them), and in most cases the codes are made public so you can check them and run them yourselves (contact the individual research groups). Yet they all come to basically the same conclusions. Right there should be a hint to you nay-sayers that their conclusions are correct because they are consistent across so many different and independent analyses. I refer you in particular to Berkeley Earth. There an original climate sceptic, Richard Muller, decided to do his own analysis using a completely different and elegant technique to prove NOAA et al. was wrong. He originally got funding from the Koch brothers to fund the program. After a couple of years of effort starting with the raw data, he produced a plot that was identical to those from NOAA, GISS, UK Met, Japanese Met, and the W.M.O. within the statistical limitations of each technique (see above) Now Muller is a climate advocate.
20-08-2016 20:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: Science is not based on credentials. Anyone can do science. No one owns it. The thing that says we can't measure anything like a global temperature is statistical mathematics. That is like saying you don't need to have any medical qualifications to be a brain surgeon. Anyone can cut open somebody's skull, no problem! No, it is not. This is a false equivalence. The only requirement of anyone to use the scientific process is a childlike curiosity. Science is nothing more than a collection of falsifiable theories. Nothing can override that, not even statistics or anything else in mathematics. There is no test for the null hypothesis for Global Warming. This means it is not science, despite the number of fad degrees out there (education is a biz, you know!). There is no consensus in science. It simply has no place there. No collection of experts, peer reviews, credentials, books, papers, magazines, or government blessings can override that. No one owns science. That's like saying someone 'owns' mathematics. DRKTS wrote: Being versed in statistical mathematics (I took several courses on it at college given by some of the leading math professors in the world - I aced the exams) and having used it in my research over the last 40 years, your statement that it precludes global temperature analysis is complete nonsense. Statistics show you how to analyze many different types of data and assign uncertainties to the results you get from that analysis. Not whether you can do the analysis or not. If you have two datum points, you can do a statistical analysis albeit not very reliably. In climate we have millions, so it requires sophisticated statistical analysis. Your exam, whatever it is, doesn't seem to matter. Personally, I doubt you ever took such an exam. If you did, I will be sure to not recommend anyone to your school! No, statistics show you that this analysis is impossible. It shows you that any summary you come up with is useless. Statistics is a summarization tool only. It does not have the power of prediction. Its summarization like a destructive compression of data. It can show you trends of past and present events, but it cannot predict future ones. Mathematics DOES have the power of prediction, but it's not in statistical techniques. It's not even in probability theory, which statistics comes from. You are literally fortune telling. Statistics does not make you a seer. You might as well read the future in entrails. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 20-08-2016 20:48
21-08-2016 04:07
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: Science is not based on credentials. Anyone can do science. No one owns it. The thing that says we can't measure anything like a global temperature is statistical mathematics. That is like saying you don't need to have any medical qualifications to be a brain surgeon. Anyone can cut open somebody's skull, no problem! No, it is not. This is a false equivalence. The only requirement of anyone to use the scientific process is a childlike curiosity. Science is nothing more than a collection of falsifiable theories. Nothing can override that, not even statistics or anything else in mathematics. There is no test for the null hypothesis for Global Warming. This means it is not science, despite the number of fad degrees out there (education is a biz, you know!). There is no consensus in science. It simply has no place there. No collection of experts, peer reviews, credentials, books, papers, magazines, or government blessings can override that. No one owns science. That's like saying someone 'owns' mathematics. DRKTS wrote: Being versed in statistical mathematics (I took several courses on it at college given by some of the leading math professors in the world - I aced the exams) and having used it in my research over the last 40 years, your statement that it precludes global temperature analysis is complete nonsense. Statistics show you how to analyze many different types of data and assign uncertainties to the results you get from that analysis. Not whether you can do the analysis or not. If you have two datum points, you can do a statistical analysis albeit not very reliably. In climate we have millions, so it requires sophisticated statistical analysis. Your exam, whatever it is, doesn't seem to matter. Personally, I doubt you ever took such an exam. If you did, I will be sure to not recommend anyone to your school! No, statistics show you that this analysis is impossible. It shows you that any summary you come up with is useless. Statistics is a summarization tool only. It does not have the power of prediction. Its summarization like a destructive compression of data. It can show you trends of past and present events, but it cannot predict future ones. Mathematics DOES have the power of prediction, but it's not in statistical techniques. It's not even in probability theory, which statistics comes from. You are literally fortune telling. Statistics does not make you a seer. You might as well read the future in entrails. Good grief, ITN, you do talk some crap. Total cargo-cult rubbish: you're using the words of science but making no sense whatsoever. Of course no-one "owns" science. Nor does anyone "own" maths, history or geography. Who said they did? However, some people have studied and practised in these fields and have become knowledgeable and skilled in them. When it comes to science, you, most evidently, are not one of these people! Edited on 21-08-2016 04:07
21-08-2016 09:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: Science is not based on credentials. Anyone can do science. No one owns it. The thing that says we can't measure anything like a global temperature is statistical mathematics. That is like saying you don't need to have any medical qualifications to be a brain surgeon. Anyone can cut open somebody's skull, no problem! No, it is not. This is a false equivalence. The only requirement of anyone to use the scientific process is a childlike curiosity. Science is nothing more than a collection of falsifiable theories. Nothing can override that, not even statistics or anything else in mathematics. There is no test for the null hypothesis for Global Warming. This means it is not science, despite the number of fad degrees out there (education is a biz, you know!). There is no consensus in science. It simply has no place there. No collection of experts, peer reviews, credentials, books, papers, magazines, or government blessings can override that. No one owns science. That's like saying someone 'owns' mathematics. DRKTS wrote: Being versed in statistical mathematics (I took several courses on it at college given by some of the leading math professors in the world - I aced the exams) and having used it in my research over the last 40 years, your statement that it precludes global temperature analysis is complete nonsense. Statistics show you how to analyze many different types of data and assign uncertainties to the results you get from that analysis. Not whether you can do the analysis or not. If you have two datum points, you can do a statistical analysis albeit not very reliably. In climate we have millions, so it requires sophisticated statistical analysis. Your exam, whatever it is, doesn't seem to matter. Personally, I doubt you ever took such an exam. If you did, I will be sure to not recommend anyone to your school! No, statistics show you that this analysis is impossible. It shows you that any summary you come up with is useless. Statistics is a summarization tool only. It does not have the power of prediction. Its summarization like a destructive compression of data. It can show you trends of past and present events, but it cannot predict future ones. Mathematics DOES have the power of prediction, but it's not in statistical techniques. It's not even in probability theory, which statistics comes from. You are literally fortune telling. Statistics does not make you a seer. You might as well read the future in entrails. Good grief, ITN, you do talk some crap. Total cargo-cult rubbish: you're using the words of science but making no sense whatsoever. Of course no-one "owns" science. Nor does anyone "own" maths, history or geography. Who said they did? However, some people have studied and practised in these fields and have become knowledgeable and skilled in them. When it comes to science, you, most evidently, are not one of these people! YOU said they did...just now. Science is not hard. It doesn't take years of study to use the scientific method. You somehow seem to think it's complicated and hard. A child knows more about science than you do. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

21-08-2016 14:55
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: YOU said they did...just now. Science is not hard. It doesn't take years of study to use the scientific method. You somehow seem to think it's complicated and hard. A child knows more about science than you do. I studied science for 17 years before I became a professional research scientist. Just knowing the scientific method is a minor part of the problem of understanding the science. My wife is a PhD chemist. We both understand the scientific method and have used it throughout our careers. However I could not do any useful research in her field of crystalline structure as she could not do any useful research in mine - solar physics - without a huge investment of time. It took me about 5 years of study, attending lectures, meeting with leaders in the field, and data analysis to get to the stage where I was including climate issues in my Sun-Earth connection work and hold up my end of a meaningful conversation with a real climatologist. Your bravado and oversimplification does not make a good argument. Your assertions are plain silly. It certainly does not make good science.
21-08-2016 17:15
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	I really don't know if Into the night has a Walter Mitty complex and thinks he's a super-genius who can see the TRUTH about the global warming Religion whilst all these Ivory Tower "scientists" with book learning and formal brain washing can't or won't see it or if he just likes winding people up and wasting peoples time. Your guess is as good as mine.
21-08-2016 18:32
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	spot wrote: I really don't know if Into the night has a Walter Mitty complex and thinks he's a super-genius who can see the TRUTH about the global warming Religion whilst all these Ivory Tower "scientists" with book learning and formal brain washing can't or won't see it or if he just likes winding people up and wasting peoples time. Your guess is as good as mine. Probably both!
21-08-2016 19:36
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science!
21-08-2016 19:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: YOU said they did...just now. Science is not hard. It doesn't take years of study to use the scientific method. You somehow seem to think it's complicated and hard. A child knows more about science than you do. I studied science for 17 years before I became a professional research scientist. Just knowing the scientific method is a minor part of the problem of understanding the science. I don't believe you. If you think understanding the scientific method is a minor problem with science today, you are no scientist. DRKTS wrote: My wife is a PhD chemist. We both understand the scientific method and have used it throughout our careers. However I could not do any useful research in her field of crystalline structure as she could not do any useful research in mine - solar physics - without a huge investment of time. It took me about 5 years of study, attending lectures, meeting with leaders in the field, and data analysis to get to the stage where I was including climate issues in my Sun-Earth connection work and hold up my end of a meaningful conversation with a real climatologist. There are no meaningful conversations with a 'real' climatologist. DRKTS wrote: Your bravado and oversimplification does not make a good argument. Your assertions are plain silly. It certainly does not make good science. What is 'good' science? Is that opposed to 'bad' science, like building theories about the most efficient way to kill people? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-08-2016 19:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: I really don't know if Into the night has a Walter Mitty complex and thinks he's a super-genius who can see the TRUTH about the global warming Religion whilst all these Ivory Tower "scientists" with book learning and formal brain washing can't or won't see it or if he just likes winding people up and wasting peoples time. Your guess is as good as mine. Consensus has no place in science, stupid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-08-2016 19:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! If you add up all the rain gauges in Los Angeles and weight them the right way, Southern California is flooding! Someday you might learn statistical math. Oh...and don't listen to anyone that might know what they are talking about! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 21-08-2016 19:52
21-08-2016 19:58
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: I really don't know if Into the night has a Walter Mitty complex and thinks he's a super-genius who can see the TRUTH about the global warming Religion whilst all these Ivory Tower "scientists" with book learning and formal brain washing can't or won't see it or if he just likes winding people up and wasting peoples time. Your guess is as good as mine. Consensus has no place in science, stupid. So you are a super-genius? Or are you sort of uber-troll? I want to know.
21-08-2016 21:27
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	Into the Night wrote: Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! If you add up all the rain gauges in Los Angeles and weight them the right way, Southern California is flooding! Someday you might learn statistical math. Oh...and don't listen to anyone that might know what they are talking about! Don't be an idiot. At least don't try to act as one.
21-08-2016 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: I really don't know if Into the night has a Walter Mitty complex and thinks he's a super-genius who can see the TRUTH about the global warming Religion whilst all these Ivory Tower "scientists" with book learning and formal brain washing can't or won't see it or if he just likes winding people up and wasting peoples time. Your guess is as good as mine. Consensus has no place in science, stupid. So you are a super-genius? Or are you sort of uber-troll? I want to know. No you don't. You want to throw insults because you have no argument left. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-08-2016 04:29
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! The RSS does not measure the atmospheric temperature near the surface. TLT has a mean height of about 4 km. While the surface rate (thermometers) is about 0.19C/ decade, both RSS and UAH estimate the TLT rate of warming to be +0.14C/decade, as that represents the bulk of the atmosphere, it means the atmosphere is warming overall. The mid troposphere (TMT) is warming at a rate of about 0.1C / decade. Now that reaches to about 12 km. The mass of those two warming layers is about 90% of the entire earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere (12-50 km) is cooling at a rate of about -0.25C/decade. It is about 10% of the earth's atmosphere. So overall the atmosphere is warming (90% warming, 10% cooling). But you made another incorrect assumption that the stratosphere was warmed by conduction or convection from the layers below. It isn't - the density is too low for either process to be efficient. The stratosphere is warmed by two sources: IR radiation from the Sun and from the surface of the Earth. While to solar input has remained constant (or nearly - varying by less than +/-0.05% throughout a solar cycle) its input from IR from below has diminished as more GHGs absorb the outgoing IR heat. The AGW theory is the only theory that can explain the warming of the lower layers while the stratosphere cools.
22-08-2016 10:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! The RSS does not measure the atmospheric temperature near the surface. TLT has a mean height of about 4 km. While the surface rate (thermometers) is about 0.19C/ decade, both RSS and UAH estimate the TLT rate of warming to be +0.14C/decade, as that represents the bulk of the atmosphere, it means the atmosphere is warming overall. The mid troposphere (TMT) is warming at a rate of about 0.1C / decade. Now that reaches to about 12 km. The mass of those two warming layers is about 90% of the entire earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere (12-50 km) is cooling at a rate of about -0.25C/decade. It is about 10% of the earth's atmosphere. So overall the atmosphere is warming (90% warming, 10% cooling). But you made another incorrect assumption that the stratosphere was warmed by conduction or convection from the layers below. It isn't - the density is too low for either process to be efficient. The stratosphere is warmed by two sources: IR radiation from the Sun and from the surface of the Earth. While to solar input has remained constant (or nearly - varying by less than +/-0.05% throughout a solar cycle) its input from IR from below has diminished as more GHGs absorb the outgoing IR heat. The AGW theory is the only theory that can explain the warming of the lower layers while the stratosphere cools. The stratosphere is not warmed much by either. It is primarily warmed by the stratopause. Guess what's there. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-08-2016 11:58
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! The RSS does not measure the atmospheric temperature near the surface. TLT has a mean height of about 4 km. While the surface rate (thermometers) is about 0.19C/ decade, both RSS and UAH estimate the TLT rate of warming to be +0.14C/decade, as that represents the bulk of the atmosphere, it means the atmosphere is warming overall. The mid troposphere (TMT) is warming at a rate of about 0.1C / decade. Now that reaches to about 12 km. The mass of those two warming layers is about 90% of the entire earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere (12-50 km) is cooling at a rate of about -0.25C/decade. It is about 10% of the earth's atmosphere. So overall the atmosphere is warming (90% warming, 10% cooling). But you made another incorrect assumption that the stratosphere was warmed by conduction or convection from the layers below. It isn't - the density is too low for either process to be efficient. The stratosphere is warmed by two sources: IR radiation from the Sun and from the surface of the Earth. While to solar input has remained constant (or nearly - varying by less than +/-0.05% throughout a solar cycle) its input from IR from below has diminished as more GHGs absorb the outgoing IR heat. The AGW theory is the only theory that can explain the warming of the lower layers while the stratosphere cools. The climate discussion is dominated by stupid people who cannot perform any math. Only many words with a few numbers is all they can do. The atmosphere (troposphere+stratosphere) is cooling down already for 20 years. Your 90/10 "calculations" is what I mean: the climate discussion is dominated by stupid people. The RSS scans an area (height). the height has to be integrated (you know the math which is too difficult for stupid people) to get the weight of the specific scanned area. But I don't argue with stupid people. Good luck with your religion.
22-08-2016 12:27
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! The RSS does not measure the atmospheric temperature near the surface. TLT has a mean height of about 4 km. While the surface rate (thermometers) is about 0.19C/ decade, both RSS and UAH estimate the TLT rate of warming to be +0.14C/decade, as that represents the bulk of the atmosphere, it means the atmosphere is warming overall. The mid troposphere (TMT) is warming at a rate of about 0.1C / decade. Now that reaches to about 12 km. The mass of those two warming layers is about 90% of the entire earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere (12-50 km) is cooling at a rate of about -0.25C/decade. It is about 10% of the earth's atmosphere. So overall the atmosphere is warming (90% warming, 10% cooling). But you made another incorrect assumption that the stratosphere was warmed by conduction or convection from the layers below. It isn't - the density is too low for either process to be efficient. The stratosphere is warmed by two sources: IR radiation from the Sun and from the surface of the Earth. While to solar input has remained constant (or nearly - varying by less than +/-0.05% throughout a solar cycle) its input from IR from below has diminished as more GHGs absorb the outgoing IR heat. The AGW theory is the only theory that can explain the warming of the lower layers while the stratosphere cools. The stratosphere is not warmed much by either. It is primarily warmed by the stratopause. Guess what's there. Wrong again. "The stratosphere lies immediately above the troposphere, with the height of the bounding tropopause varying from about 15 km in the tropics to about 7 km at high latitudes. The mass of the stratosphere represents only about 10 to 20% of the total atmospheric mass, but changes in stratospheric climate are important because of their effect on stratospheric chemistry, and because they enter into the climate change detection problem (Randel and Wu, 1999; Shine and Forster, 1999). In addition there is a growing realisation that stratospheric effects can have a detectable and perhaps significant influence on tropospheric climate. Solar radiative heating of the stratosphere is mainly from absorption of ultraviolet (UV) and visible radiation by ozone, along with contributions due to the near-infrared absorption by carbon dioxide and water vapour. Depletion of the direct and diffuse solar beams arises from scattering by molecules, aerosols, clouds and surface (Lacis and Hansen, 1974). The long-wave process consists of absorption and emission of infrared radiation, principally by carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapour and halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs etc.). The time-scales for the radiative adjustment of stratospheric temperatures is less than about 50 to 100 days. For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere." Oops I wrote IR from the Sun when I meant UV.
22-08-2016 20:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: If you add up all the channels of the RSS and weigh them in the right way, you'll see that the atmosphere as a whole is cooling down with about -0.0976 deg C per decade. The troposphere is heating up and the stratosphere is cooling down. It's just a matter of time for the troposphere to loose heat to the stratosphere. Channel:weight TLT:65.00% TTT:85.00% TTS:80.00% TLS:34.00% C10:33.00% C11:15.00% C12:8.00% C13:3.50% C14:2.00% C25:18.00% Do your own research, and don't listen to the climate "guru's" who don't know one iota about math and science! The RSS does not measure the atmospheric temperature near the surface. TLT has a mean height of about 4 km. While the surface rate (thermometers) is about 0.19C/ decade, both RSS and UAH estimate the TLT rate of warming to be +0.14C/decade, as that represents the bulk of the atmosphere, it means the atmosphere is warming overall. The mid troposphere (TMT) is warming at a rate of about 0.1C / decade. Now that reaches to about 12 km. The mass of those two warming layers is about 90% of the entire earth's atmosphere. The stratosphere (12-50 km) is cooling at a rate of about -0.25C/decade. It is about 10% of the earth's atmosphere. So overall the atmosphere is warming (90% warming, 10% cooling). But you made another incorrect assumption that the stratosphere was warmed by conduction or convection from the layers below. It isn't - the density is too low for either process to be efficient. The stratosphere is warmed by two sources: IR radiation from the Sun and from the surface of the Earth. While to solar input has remained constant (or nearly - varying by less than +/-0.05% throughout a solar cycle) its input from IR from below has diminished as more GHGs absorb the outgoing IR heat. The AGW theory is the only theory that can explain the warming of the lower layers while the stratosphere cools. The stratosphere is not warmed much by either. It is primarily warmed by the stratopause. Guess what's there. Wrong again. "The stratosphere lies immediately above the troposphere, with the height of the bounding tropopause varying from about 15 km in the tropics to about 7 km at high latitudes. The mass of the stratosphere represents only about 10 to 20% of the total atmospheric mass, but changes in stratospheric climate are important because of their effect on stratospheric chemistry, and because they enter into the climate change detection problem (Randel and Wu, 1999; Shine and Forster, 1999). In addition there is a growing realisation that stratospheric effects can have a detectable and perhaps significant influence on tropospheric climate. Solar radiative heating of the stratosphere is mainly from absorption of ultraviolet (UV) and visible radiation by ozone, along with contributions due to the near-infrared absorption by carbon dioxide and water vapour. Depletion of the direct and diffuse solar beams arises from scattering by molecules, aerosols, clouds and surface (Lacis and Hansen, 1974). The long-wave process consists of absorption and emission of infrared radiation, principally by carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, water vapour and halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs etc.). The time-scales for the radiative adjustment of stratospheric temperatures is less than about 50 to 100 days. For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere." Oops I wrote IR from the Sun when I meant UV. The oops was my principle gripe. Heating is mostly coming from the ozone layer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

23-08-2016 03:59
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: The oops was my principle gripe. Heating is mostly coming from the ozone layer. That was not the Oops. I said IR heating from the Sun and IR heating from the Earth's surface. It is UV heating from the Sun and IR heating from the Earth's surface. There is no heating of the stratosphere from the ozone layer as the ozone layer is part of the stratosphere. The heating there is a result of absorption of UVB and UVC radiation by a variety of chemical compounds which include O3. The destruction and reformation of O3 is certainly an important part of the solar heating of the stratosphere but so is the direct absorption of IR from the ground. There is also a seasonal component in all of this. You should be aware that stratospheric temperatures rise as a function of height, but the highest concentrations of ozone are near the bottom of the stratosphere.
23-08-2016 19:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: The oops was my principle gripe. Heating is mostly coming from the ozone layer. That was not the Oops. I said IR heating from the Sun and IR heating from the Earth's surface. It is UV heating from the Sun and IR heating from the Earth's surface. There is no heating of the stratosphere from the ozone layer as the ozone layer is part of the stratosphere. The heating there is a result of absorption of UVB and UVC radiation by a variety of chemical compounds which include O3. The destruction and reformation of O3 is certainly an important part of the solar heating of the stratosphere but so is the direct absorption of IR from the ground. There is also a seasonal component in all of this. You should be aware that stratospheric temperatures rise as a function of height, but the highest concentrations of ozone are near the bottom of the stratosphere. The highest concentration of ozone is at the TOP or the stratosphere. There is almost no ozone at the bottom at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2016 03:46
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: The highest concentration of ozone is at the TOP or the stratosphere. There is almost no ozone at the bottom at all. Really?
24-08-2016 03:49
Leafsdude ★☆☆☆☆ (141)	C'mon, DKRTS, you can't reliably measure ozone! /s
24-08-2016 04:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: The highest concentration of ozone is at the TOP or the stratosphere. There is almost no ozone at the bottom at all. Really? Correction: The greatest heat generation is at the top of the stratosphere, due to destruction of ozone by the sun. As the air (and oxygen) is denser at lower altitude, this destructive energy is blocked allowing the creation of ozone in the middle layers of the stratosphere. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2016 04:52
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: Correction: The greatest heat generation is at the top of the stratosphere, due to destruction of ozone by the sun. As the air (and oxygen) is denser at lower altitude, this destructive energy is blocked allowing the creation of ozone in the middle layers of the stratosphere. The destruction of a molecule (i.e., breaking molecular bonds) takes energy so is an endothermic reaction and cools, whereas the formation of a molecule releases energy (exothermic). So you have it upside down. The temperature structure of the stratosphere is determined by the direct absorption of IR and UV radiation, that in turn changes the chemistry of the stratosphere, including the formation and destruction of O3. You are ignoring the contribution to Stratospheric temperatures from absorption of IR from below as it does not fit your anti AGW views. If the cooling of the stratosphere were entirely due to solar UV absorption then the solar output should have diminished significantly and it has not. The only viable explanation is that GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking some of the IR energy from reaching the Stratosphere.
24-08-2016 05:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: Correction: The greatest heat generation is at the top of the stratosphere, due to destruction of ozone by the sun. As the air (and oxygen) is denser at lower altitude, this destructive energy is blocked allowing the creation of ozone in the middle layers of the stratosphere. The destruction of a molecule (i.e., breaking molecular bonds) takes energy so is an endothermic reaction and cools, whereas the formation of a molecule releases energy (exothermic). So you have it upside down. The temperature structure of the stratosphere is determined by the direct absorption of IR and UV radiation, that in turn changes the chemistry of the stratosphere, including the formation and destruction of O3. You are ignoring the contribution to Stratospheric temperatures from absorption of IR from below as it does not fit your anti AGW views. If the cooling of the stratosphere were entirely due to solar UV absorption then the solar output should have diminished significantly and it has not. The only viable explanation is that GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking some of the IR energy from reaching the Stratosphere. The destruction of a molecule is not always an endothermic reaction. Yes, it takes energy to start the reaction. The energy released by the reaction is greater than the energy it took to start it. Think gasoline burning or explosives. The creation of a molecule is not always an exothermic reaction. Think oil synthesis, or photosynthesis. In the case of breaking apart 2 O3 to make 3 O2, the combined reaction is exothermic. In the case of breaking apart 3 O2 to make 2 O3, the combined reaction is endothermic. There also the direct thermal absorption of short UV by oxygen, which is what blocks it from coming further into the atmosphere. I am ignoring the IR from below because it is not a significant source. If it was, the temperature in the stratosphere would decrease with altitude, not increase. It is why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere below the mesosphere. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-08-2016 05:20
24-08-2016 11:07
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Into the Night wrote: The destruction of a molecule is not always an endothermic reaction. Yes, it takes energy to start the reaction. The energy released by the reaction is greater than the energy it took to start it. Think gasoline burning or explosives. The creation of a molecule is not always an exothermic reaction. Think oil synthesis, or photosynthesis. In the case of breaking apart 2 O3 to make 3 O2, the combined reaction is exothermic. In the case of breaking apart 3 O2 to make 2 O3, the combined reaction is endothermic. There also the direct thermal absorption of short UV by oxygen, which is what blocks it from coming further into the atmosphere. I am ignoring the IR from below because it is not a significant source. If it was, the temperature in the stratosphere would decrease with altitude, not increase. It is why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere below the mesosphere. Actually both reactions are exothermic because the main source of the energy is not the bond breaking but the conversion of UV light to heat. So we are both wrong. IR is a significant source because its loss is the cause of the cooling. Which you cannot explain any other way as the Sun has not changed.
24-08-2016 19:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	DRKTS wrote: Into the Night wrote: The destruction of a molecule is not always an endothermic reaction. Yes, it takes energy to start the reaction. The energy released by the reaction is greater than the energy it took to start it. Think gasoline burning or explosives. The creation of a molecule is not always an exothermic reaction. Think oil synthesis, or photosynthesis. In the case of breaking apart 2 O3 to make 3 O2, the combined reaction is exothermic. In the case of breaking apart 3 O2 to make 2 O3, the combined reaction is endothermic. There also the direct thermal absorption of short UV by oxygen, which is what blocks it from coming further into the atmosphere. I am ignoring the IR from below because it is not a significant source. If it was, the temperature in the stratosphere would decrease with altitude, not increase. It is why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere below the mesosphere. Actually both reactions are exothermic because the main source of the energy is not the bond breaking but the conversion of UV light to heat. So we are both wrong. IR is a significant source because its loss is the cause of the cooling. Which you cannot explain any other way as the Sun has not changed. Agreed the source of heat is the UV light heating. As far as the cooling is concerned, I'm not convinced it's cooling. Also, the sun changes all the time. We had some spectacular auroras last summer because of it. Came all the way west to Seattle. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2016 20:44
Leafsdude ★☆☆☆☆ (141)	The Sun changes year-to-year, but it doesn't change significantly over its 11-year cycle periods.

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate NASA says "Global Cooling!":

Threads	Replies	Last post
Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 2019	50	20-11-2022 23:20
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory	42	06-05-2022 20:55
The Earth's Core is Cooling	7	22-01-2022 19:08
NASA	15	07-12-2021 08:21
NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss	10	04-04-2020 23:16