From ice core analysis to temperature curves

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi James,

On clear summer days, it is often not warmer at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m., and radiation is always less powerful at 5:30 p.m. than 2:00 p.m. In my experience of these kinds of summer days, the temperature usually plateaus around 1 to 4 p.m. and then starts cooling off after 4 p.m. Today in Des Moines high noon is about 1 p.m. That's when radiation peaks, then plateaus. The radiation power feels pretty close to the same from 1 to 4 p.m. In Des Moines today, the temperature climbs a bit from 1 to 4 p.m., then dips by 5 p.m., which I think shows there is a lag time between when the most radiation hits, and when temperature climbs in response. There is also a lag time between when radiation decreases, and when temperature decreases. Of course in Des Moines, the temperature doesn't instantly drop to 60 F as soon as the sun sets.

Unlike the radiation on summer days, which starts decreasing after 4 p.m., and is noticeably quite less by 5:30 p.m., the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun appears to increase.

I think the increase in the visible corona of sunshine around the Sun is due to greater reflection and refraction when the Sun shines through greater thickness of our Sky.

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine...

Since we have differing opinions, we can observe recorded meteorological data and see what it shows.

When you ask;

The question I'm wondering, does more Nitrogen and Oxygen reflect and refract more visible light? I thought these particles act like a veil, and absorb sunshine more than they reflect and refract sunshine

Your pictures showed that as the albedo effect decreases, the Sun appears larger. Your pictures and I am merely agreeing with you. I did say I was wrong and what you observed is real. Why is it real?
I think that's what we need to be on about.


I have my own theory. When you say nitrogen and oxygen you are actually referring to N2 and O2.

James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. And if what your pictures shows is correct, in science they could be an important discovery. Proper context.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry. And if what your pictures shows is correct, in science they could be an important discovery. Proper context.

Science is not observations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Observation (and the data obtained from them) is subject to the problems of phenomenology.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry.

You should bring him up to speed.

James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

James___ wrote:At the same time observations like his helps us to better understand how our atmosphere works.

James___ wrote: It does prove that atmospheric gasses does affect sunlight that is passing through it.

James___ wrote: Why this matters is most scientists will say that only certain gasses are affected by solar radiation.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

In what manner does atmospheric CO2 support the Chapman cycle, according to the IPCC ... serve hors d'oeuvres? ... cheer it on perhaps? Does atmospheric CO2 provide financial backing?

Frankly, I don't believe the IPCC has a position on the Chapman cycle because it involves the sun being the controlling factor, not humans.

For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Into the Night wrote:

Emissivity does not change due to angle of light. It is a constant.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?

IBdaMann wrote:

He said radiation is not measured in wavelengths because radiation is measured in units of power. Your light bulb has a rating (measure) in Watts, not in wavelengths.

A photon's wavelength is a dependent variable computed by the photon's speed through whatever medium it happens to be traveling divided by its frequency.

Spongy Iris wrote:How do you figure out a photon's speed and frequency?

IBdaMann wrote:

To determine a photon's frequency, just note the number of times it returns to the same Y-value on the sine curve in the span of one second. It helps if you can count really fast.

To determine a photon's speed, just use a stopwatch.

Spongy Iris wrote:Maybe we need to go even more basic...

How are photons observed?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

To determine a photon's frequency, just note the number of times it returns to the same Y-value on the sine curve in the span of one second. It helps if you can count really fast.

To determine a photon's speed, just use a stopwatch.

Maybe we need to go even more basic...

How are photons observed?

How are photons observed?

James___ wrote:Thee guys can't answer the questions that you're asking.

IBdaMann wrote:

En masse.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:En masse.

Is there no way to observe an individual photon?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

En masse.

Is there no way to observe an individual photon?

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:@Spongy, kind of what your pictures suggest. They do support some of what I have been pursuing in atmospheric chemistry.

You should bring him up to speed.

I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

James___ wrote:
At the same time observations like his helps us to better understand how our atmosphere works.

James___ wrote:
It does prove that atmospheric gasses does affect sunlight that is passing through it.

James___ wrote:
Why this matters is most scientists will say that only certain gasses are affected by solar radiation.

James___ wrote:
They say that solar radiation passes through O2 and N2 without affecting causing either gas to react to it.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:I think he knows that I support what the IPCC states when it says that CO2 in the atmosphere supports the Chapman cycle.

In what manner does atmospheric CO2 support the Chapman cycle, according to the IPCC ... serve hors d'oeuvres? ... cheer it on perhaps? Does atmospheric CO2 provide financial backing?

Frankly, I don't believe the IPCC has a position on the Chapman cycle because it involves the sun being the controlling factor, not humans.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of ozone. Holes as the poles naturally form in the winters of those poles. No sunlight, you see.


This is from NOAA;

For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

Those gasses are from humans. The work that I've been pursuing if successful will explain why. Neither photolytic or halogen processes allow them to understand why.

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Hi IBdaMann,

I told you the camera was set to manual for shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and focus. Seems you just can't accept that...

The Sun feels hotter at 2:00 p.m. than 5:30 p.m., but doesn't appear brighter.

What I meant by degree is, how can you measure the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of visible light?

Here are 2 examples of visible light acting like a wave and particle.



The top picture shows visible light reflecting off water and showing a pattern like a wave would.

The bottom picture shows visible light shining through a window and showing a pattern like a particle would.

Usually visible light appears to show a pattern like a particle would, unless it passes through something like water, or when a dim laser passes through 2 tiny slits inside a darkened box.

Since radiation is measured in wavelength, that sounds to me like it is usually a wave.

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Maxwell showed that electric and magnetic fields travel in the manner of waves, and that those waves move essentially at the speed of light. This allowed Maxwell to predict that light itself was carried by electromagnetic waves – which means light is a form of electromagnetic radiation

Is this a work of fiction?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Emissivity does not change due to angle of light. It is a constant.

I think this statement is false,

Spongy Iris wrote:
because there is more powerful radiation at high noon, then at sunrise and sunset. You can easily feel it.

Spongy Iris wrote:
IMO, the extra thickness in the atmosphere is too minor to explain the major difference in radiation power.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Here in an example. Look up the weather forecast of Manhattan.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It's sunny Monday. High is forecast of 80. It's cloudy and rainy Wednesday. High is forecast of 80. The extra thickness of the atmosphere, in the form of more clouds, between Monday and Wednesday makes an insignificant difference in the high temperature.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But temperature in Manhattan will rise by a significant amount from 10 to 1, and will fall by a significant amount from 4 to 7.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So the radiation emitted from the sun doesn't appear to be constant.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Radiation is not measured in wavelength.
Radiation is not light, although light can radiate.

Then is this picture I copied from a physics website false?

I get a kick out of your total confusion.

He said radiation is not measured in wavelengths because radiation is measured in units of power. Your light bulb has a rating (measure) in Watts, not in wavelengths.

I'm waiting for Into the Night to tell you that liquids are not measured in "color" only to have you post a picture of the ocean and ask if the picture is false. Liquids are measured in units of volume, not in color. Radiation is measured in power, not in wavelength.

A photon's wavelength is a dependent variable computed by the photon's speed through whatever medium it happens to be traveling divided by its frequency.

Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.

Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

James___ wrote:

hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)

You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

James___ wrote:

hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)

You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:

James___ wrote:

hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)

You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Einstein showed that light is also a particle. It is both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg explains why.

Electrons have a wave/particle duality. When they orbit a nucleus, they are both a particle and a wave at the same time.

While true, the discussion is about light.

James___ wrote:Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

James___ wrote:That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

James___ wrote: This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

James___ wrote: The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Are you referring to the photoelectric effect?

No, he was not. He was referring to particle/wave duality.

James___ wrote:That is where refracted electromagnetic radiation becomes an electron.

Nope. Electromagnetic energy does not become matter (electrons are matter). The photoelectric effect is the effect of electromagnetic energy causing matter to emit its electrons. The electromagnetic energy does not itself transmute into electrons.

James___ wrote: This is not a wave/particle duality but is merely energy being changed from one form to another.

While we're on the subject, electrons also behave as waves. In fact, an electron is just a probability curve in a quantum mechanics equation.

James___ wrote: The inverse is a light bulb converting electrons into electromagnetic radiation.

The electrons remain electrons. It's the electrical energy that is converted to electromagnetic energy.

James___ wrote:Only with a bound electron does it behave simultaneously as both light and electron.

If they are physically active electrons then they certainly won't be fat and are bound to be light. Their problem is that they are always so negative and meet with resistance from all matter they encounter, but they always seem to prevail with their current potential (It's their special power).

James___ wrote:How do you think a solar panel works? It converts electromagnetic radiation into electrons.

James___ wrote:
What people in here need to accept is that I will say what you observed is real. The albedo effect is dependent on refraction/reflection. Your images suggest something else. This does not agree with accepted science. Your pictures shows radiance is dependent on an atmosphere changing the behavior of incoming solar IR.
And Spongy, if such is true, Langley made images of the Sun. Think about it.

p.s., if you need a clue, his drawings are still used in school today. He was known for elevating the University of Pittsburgh about 1900 before becoming the head of the Smithsonian Institution. If people aren't familiar with this, it's not my position to educate them.

p.s.s., Spongy, I am comparing your pictures to the drawings Langley made over 100 years ago. Suck it up. I have said that I think you proved something very important about the Earth's atmosphere. I've now given you proper context.

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:

James___ wrote:

hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)

You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.

James___ wrote:

S@ve0ur3arth wrote:

James___ wrote:

hpstricker wrote:
I asked the following question already at Earth Science StackExchange. If you know better places to ask (than here and there) please give me a hint.

In ice cores a lot of data are measured and analyzed and can be plotted versus depth, for example

- age of layers
- thickness of layers
- concentration of spurious gases
- concentration of solids
- delta signals

I am looking for sources where I can find - ideally at one place - the curves that give the values of these quantities versus ice core depth, e.g. like in this example.

Is there possibly an interactive website where I can even zoom into such curves?

Finally I'd like to know, if there is one set of "equations" which give the estimated (surface?) temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations as well as the amount of precipitation as functions of the measured data. I imagine such equations must exist - or are they too complicated to write down? (The equations should also give the error range! Side question: Does the error range decrease with time (i.e. increase with depth)?)

You'll probably be better off looking for papers that have been published. Hopefully this helps you out some.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Thank you so much for sharing this paper with us. These types of documents always come in handy to fully understand some of the most delicate topics.

Your welcome. I get into science a little more than most people in here. I think there is still a lot left to learn about our atmosphere and what we're doing to it.
This is where if someone knows how to write a spreadsheet then they can create their own graph(s).