polar vortex

duncan61 wrote: I had a spare hour this morning so I went looking for articles on how warming is making it cold and found 3 articles instantly less than 3 hours old.Apparently because we have warmed the Arctic with CO2 it has released the polar vortex and let the gulf stream out.Then a unicorn turned up and made it all better

25 November 2016 litesong wrote:
Meanwhile:
1990's decade of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 4% less than that of the 1980's.
2000's decade of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 10% less than that of the 1980's.
The year 2012 of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 20% less than that of the 1980's.
The year 2016 of Arctic sea ice extent to date is 23% less than that of the 1980's( 24+% due to the present High Arctic Berserker MELTING sea ice in the time of normal vast INCREASE of sea ice).
The 1980's average November 1 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 18,100 cubic kilometers. November 1, 2016 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 6400 cubic kilometers, a loss of 11,700 cubic kilometers or a loss of 64.6%. The energy needed to melt this ice is 36 times the U.S. annual energy consumption. Since 1958, High Arctic temperature has been rising (more before satellite temperatures?). Two plus years ago, High Arctic temperature over nearly 4 million square kilometers, for 140 straight days was over average. For a few days at the end of 2015, the North Pole was THAWING! From the end of 2015 into 2016, there were 150 straight days over average temperature. For 100 straight days during that period, temperatures were 3degC to 11degC over average. For 75+ straight days presently, High Arctic temperatures are & have been over average AND MOSTLY WAY OVER AVERAGE. High Arctic temperatures over nearly 4 million square kilometers presently are 11degC over average, dropping from 20 degC over average. For 10 years the sun has been at a low TSI (including a 3+ year period, setting a 100 year record low). But, Earth temperatures have not returned to early 20th century levels. For 385+(?) straight months, Earth temperatures have been over the 20th century average.

litesong on 2. December 2016, 00:12
The sun has been at low solar TSI for 10 years(including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low). But Earth temperatures have not retreated to early 20th century levels. For 385+ straight months, Earth temperatures have been over the 20th century average. Even with the sun at a low solar TSI, Arctic sea ice will disappear ('cept fer a bit? of thickness that likes to adhere to northern Canadian Archipelago & northern Greenland?). If solar TSI returns to normal(higher?), the Arctic sea ice may disappear sooner.

On 16 November 2016 litesong wrote:
With the High Arctic in darkness for almost 2 months to date:
1990's decade of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 4% less than that of the 1980's.
2000's decade of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 10% less than that of the 1980's.
The year 2012 of Arctic sea ice extent to date was 20% less than that of the 1980's.
The year 2016 of Arctic sea ice extent to date is 23% less than that of the 1980's.
The 1980's average November 1 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 18,100 cubic kilometers. November 1, 2016 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 6400 cubic kilometers, a loss of 11,700 cubic kilometers or a loss of 64.6%. The energy needed to melt this ice is 36 times the U.S. annual energy consumption. Since 1958, High Arctic temperature has been rising (more before satellite temperatures?). Two plus years ago, High Arctic temperature over nearly 4 million square kilometers, for 140 straight days was over average. For a few days at the end of 2015, the North Pole was THAWING! From the end of 2015 into 2016, there were 150 straight days over average temperature. For 100 straight days during that period, temperatures were 3degC to 11degC over average. For 65 straight days presently, High Arctic temperatures are & have been over average AND MOSTLY WAY OVER AVERAGE. High Arctic temperatures over nearly 4 million square kilometers presently are 18degC over average...I believe the highest anomaly since 1958. For 10 years the sun has been at a low TSI (including a 3+ year period, setting a 100 year record low). But, Earth temperatures have not returned to early 20th century levels. For 385+(?) straight months, Earth temperatures have been over the 20th century average.

duncan61 wrote:
I had a spare hour this morning so I went looking for articles on how warming is making it cold and found 3 articles instantly less than 3 hours old.Apparently because we have warmed the Arctic with CO2 it has released the polar vortex and let the gulf stream out.Then a unicorn turned up and made it all better

duncan61 wrote:
I am interested in this Sudden Stratospheric Warming.Question Hot air rises how does it push cold air South.There is no sunlight at the North pole so no Ozone either.How does all this work and who claims to know how it works.I have seen many scientist declare its to complicated for us to know and that makes sense.

James___ wrote: To bring thermodynamics into this. The ozone can circulate from the lower latitudes of the area up into the higher latitudes. Warm to cold.

James___ wrote: That could keep a good portion of it over the north pole exposed to solar radiation.

James___ wrote: What they need to do one day is to place 3 solar panels on top of weather balloons. Then at different altitudes the w/m^2 of solar radiation can be measured. And when the amount of ozone is considered, it would show weather (a pun) or not if the ozone layer helps to cool the troposphere.

Spongy Iris wrote: There must be a process in the stratosphere, which occurs in regular intervals at the North pole, in Jan Feb months, in 6 of every 10 years, when an extra ordinary blast of ozone is produced and cycled into the atmosphere, which generates extra ordinary heat in the North Pole stratosphere, which pushes down on the typical polar jet stream winds.

Spongy Iris wrote: The process does not appear to involve Sun rays, because it occurs before the North Pole faces the Sun.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: There must be a process in the stratosphere, which occurs in regular intervals at the North pole, in Jan Feb months, in 6 of every 10 years, when an extra ordinary blast of ozone is produced and cycled into the atmosphere, which generates extra ordinary heat in the North Pole stratosphere, which pushes down on the typical polar jet stream winds.

Would you mind explaining why there must be such a process?

Spongy Iris wrote: The process does not appear to involve Sun rays, because it occurs before the North Pole faces the Sun.

This promises to be good. Please proceed with the explanation.


.

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

Spongy Iris wrote:Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

Spongy Iris wrote: The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote: So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

James___ wrote: This might help my hypothesis of CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: This might help my hypothesis of CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

James__ ,

CO2 + H2O = Carbonated Water.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

duncan61 wrote:
I have tried for 2 nights to find a picture of the North pole how it is right now and all I can get is old stuff.There must be some recent pictures somewhere can someone find something

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

This might help my hypothesis of CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

With ozone, if it circulates to where there is no solar radiation then it will conserve its energy longer. They say incoming solar IR is why O3 > O & O2.
Since the Earth has a magnetic field, It's possible it could be absorbing some of that energy as well.
To have a bit of fun with this, December 21st is the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere. About January 23rd the Earth is it's furthest distance from the Sun.
With the winter solstice in the southern hemisphere, the Earth isn't as far away. The question might be, where did all of the ozone come from?
And with Texas, when O & O2 + hv > O3, how much energy is really being kept out of the atmosphere?

Spongy Iris wrote:Idk man. I'm having a heard time believing the ozone which blew up from bottom to the top of the world can warm the stratosphere by 50 K in 1 week.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

With ozone, if it circulates to where there is no solar radiation then it will conserve its energy longer. They say incoming solar IR is why O3 > O & O2.
Since the Earth has a magnetic field, It's possible it could be absorbing some of that energy as well.
To have a bit of fun with this, December 21st is the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere. About January 23rd the Earth is it's furthest distance from the Sun.
With the winter solstice in the southern hemisphere, the Earth isn't as far away. The question might be, where did all of the ozone come from?
And with Texas, when O & O2 + hv > O3, how much energy is really being kept out of the atmosphere?

Idk man. I'm having a heard time believing the ozone which blew up from bottom to the top of the world can warm the stratosphere by 50 K in 1 week.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

1. I simply rattled off the physics involved. Everything I wrote is necessarily relevant.
2. You have no rational basis for believing in your imaginary "temperature profile" that somehow comes about by virtue of gibberbabble that you also imagine.

Spongy Iris wrote: The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere.

Yes. The height of the troposphere varies depending on proximity to the equator but the troposphere is essentially the range of earth's natural "ground effect" and is why almost all weather occurs therein.

It's the same principle as ice water in a pot on the stove. The solid and ocean surface heat the bottom of the atmopshere and the now warm air rises. The cold air at the top of the troposphere descends and displaces the rising warm air creating a cycle. If there is a sufficient amount of cold air at any given moment, a storm will form, e.g. a tornado, a hurricane, etc.. The cold air that reaches the surface becomes heated and rises perpetuating the turbulence that gives us our weather.



As I said, this cycle is as high as it is and defines the troposphere. Naturally this ceases at the top of the toposphere (by definition). We call the point that the stratosphere begins the "tropopause."

Spongy Iris wrote: So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

OK, you got me. I only listed half of the cycle. Above in this post I just spelled out the other half.

Spongy Iris wrote:Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

There is far less atmosphere in the stratosphere so rising in elevation brings you closer and closer to lunar conditions, i.e. you move in the direction of corresponding conditions on the moon. If you are talking about daytime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar daytime conditions, i.e. the temperature increases. If you are talking about nighttime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar nighttime, i.e. the temperature decreases.

The daytime mesophere confuses most people because it is normally poorly explained. People tend to simply say that "temperatures begin to decrease as one rises in the mesosphere." This is totally misleading. First, daytime needs to be specified because nighttime mesosphere just keeps dropping in temperature as you rise in elevation. The reason the mesosphere differs from the troposphere and the stratosphere is that there is essentially no atmosphere in what we are calling a layer of the atmosphere, i.e. it becomes its own contradiction. The amount of air and pressure drops close to zero and this has a drastically greater effect on the air's temperature than any actual increase in the air's temperature (the temperature of the individual molecules). Refer to any YouTube video on how to freeze water at room temperature simply by dropping the air pressure sufficiently. This is why the daytime mesosphere appears to decrease in temperature with elevation; it's an air pressure thing, or lack thereof.

The thermosphere is marked by really not having air except for the occasional molecules that happen to float into it. I'm not sure why we call this area a layer of the atmosphere because it's essentially outer space. We put satellites into the thermosphere because we aren't afraid of there being any atmospheric drag.

I personally don't recognize an exosphere. The only air molecules that you'll find in the space above the thermosphere are those that are taking their shot at escaping earth's gravity and as such are at zero pressure. Zero. There is no way to take the temperature of these particular molecules and they might just be floating off into space.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

This might help my hypothesis of CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

Yes I heard it from you first there is formaldehyde in the atmosphere.

There requires a lot of energy to produce such a reaction you described, yes?

I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: Because the stratosphere suddenly warms!

Every day the earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction which then increases the stratosphere's temperature via convection.

... every day ... yet you seem puzzled. Is there something else you need explained to you?


.

Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere. So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

SSW should be pondered upon, because it is a large temperature increase that occurs in a short period of time, during a time when there is no sun shining on it. Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

With ozone, if it circulates to where there is no solar radiation then it will conserve its energy longer. They say incoming solar IR is why O3 > O & O2.

James___ wrote:
Since the Earth has a magnetic field, It's possible it could be absorbing some of that energy as well.

James___ wrote:
To have a bit of fun with this, December 21st is the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere. About January 23rd the Earth is it's furthest distance from the Sun.

James___ wrote:
With the winter solstice in the southern hemisphere, the Earth isn't as far away. The question might be, where did all of the ozone come from?

James___ wrote:
And with Texas, when O & O2 + hv > O3, how much energy is really being kept out of the atmosphere?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

1. I simply rattled off the physics involved. Everything I wrote is necessarily relevant.
2. You have no rational basis for believing in your imaginary "temperature profile" that somehow comes about by virtue of gibberbabble that you also imagine.

Spongy Iris wrote: The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere.

Yes. The height of the troposphere varies depending on proximity to the equator but the troposphere is essentially the range of earth's natural "ground effect" and is why almost all weather occurs therein.

It's the same principle as ice water in a pot on the stove. The solid and ocean surface heat the bottom of the atmopshere and the now warm air rises. The cold air at the top of the troposphere descends and displaces the rising warm air creating a cycle. If there is a sufficient amount of cold air at any given moment, a storm will form, e.g. a tornado, a hurricane, etc.. The cold air that reaches the surface becomes heated and rises perpetuating the turbulence that gives us our weather.



As I said, this cycle is as high as it is and defines the troposphere. Naturally this ceases at the top of the toposphere (by definition). We call the point that the stratosphere begins the "tropopause."

Spongy Iris wrote: So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

OK, you got me. I only listed half of the cycle. Above in this post I just spelled out the other half.

Spongy Iris wrote:Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

There is far less atmosphere in the stratosphere so rising in elevation brings you closer and closer to lunar conditions, i.e. you move in the direction of corresponding conditions on the moon. If you are talking about daytime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar daytime conditions, i.e. the temperature increases. If you are talking about nighttime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar nighttime, i.e. the temperature decreases.

The daytime mesophere confuses most people because it is normally poorly explained. People tend to simply say that "temperatures begin to decrease as one rises in the mesosphere." This is totally misleading. First, daytime needs to be specified because nighttime mesosphere just keeps dropping in temperature as you rise in elevation. The reason the mesosphere differs from the troposphere and the stratosphere is that there is essentially no atmosphere in what we are calling a layer of the atmosphere, i.e. it becomes its own contradiction. The amount of air and pressure drops close to zero and this has a drastically greater effect on the air's temperature than any actual increase in the air's temperature (the temperature of the individual molecules). Refer to any YouTube video on how to freeze water at room temperature simply by dropping the air pressure sufficiently. This is why the daytime mesosphere appears to decrease in temperature with elevation; it's an air pressure thing, or lack thereof.

The thermosphere is marked by really not having air except for the occasional molecules that happen to float into it. I'm not sure why we call this area a layer of the atmosphere because it's essentially outer space. We put satellites into the thermosphere because we aren't afraid of there being any atmospheric drag.

I personally don't recognize an exosphere. The only air molecules that you'll find in the space above the thermosphere are those that are taking their shot at escaping earth's gravity and as such are at zero pressure. Zero. There is no way to take the temperature of these particular molecules and they might just be floating off into space.

.

You cannot explain the wild swings in the temperature profile of the atmosphere with the information you are able to provide. Go ahead and just deny the following fact because that is the only point you can make. Everything else you say is beside the point.



These wild temperature swings must be known because they can be assessed using satellite technology.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:Your explanation does not appear to be relevant to the temperature profile you see in the atmosphere, nor to the occurence of SSW in the Arctic in January and/or February every 6 of 10 years.

1. I simply rattled off the physics involved. Everything I wrote is necessarily relevant.
2. You have no rational basis for believing in your imaginary "temperature profile" that somehow comes about by virtue of gibberbabble that you also imagine.

Spongy Iris wrote: The air gets colder and colder for about 6 miles up, in the troposphere, and then it starts warming in the stratosphere.

Yes. The height of the troposphere varies depending on proximity to the equator but the troposphere is essentially the range of earth's natural "ground effect" and is why almost all weather occurs therein.

It's the same principle as ice water in a pot on the stove. The solid and ocean surface heat the bottom of the atmopshere and the now warm air rises. The cold air at the top of the troposphere descends and displaces the rising warm air creating a cycle. If there is a sufficient amount of cold air at any given moment, a storm will form, e.g. a tornado, a hurricane, etc.. The cold air that reaches the surface becomes heated and rises perpetuating the turbulence that gives us our weather.



As I said, this cycle is as high as it is and defines the troposphere. Naturally this ceases at the top of the toposphere (by definition). We call the point that the stratosphere begins the "tropopause."

Spongy Iris wrote: So it's not just, "earth's solid and liquid surface heats air via conduction" which is applicable to the temperature profile in the atmosphere.

OK, you got me. I only listed half of the cycle. Above in this post I just spelled out the other half.

Spongy Iris wrote:Where did the energy to heat up the stratosphere come from?

There is far less atmosphere in the stratosphere so rising in elevation brings you closer and closer to lunar conditions, i.e. you move in the direction of corresponding conditions on the moon. If you are talking about daytime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar daytime conditions, i.e. the temperature increases. If you are talking about nighttime then rising in the stratosphere brings you closer to lunar nighttime, i.e. the temperature decreases.

The daytime mesophere confuses most people because it is normally poorly explained. People tend to simply say that "temperatures begin to decrease as one rises in the mesosphere." This is totally misleading. First, daytime needs to be specified because nighttime mesosphere just keeps dropping in temperature as you rise in elevation. The reason the mesosphere differs from the troposphere and the stratosphere is that there is essentially no atmosphere in what we are calling a layer of the atmosphere, i.e. it becomes its own contradiction. The amount of air and pressure drops close to zero and this has a drastically greater effect on the air's temperature than any actual increase in the air's temperature (the temperature of the individual molecules). Refer to any YouTube video on how to freeze water at room temperature simply by dropping the air pressure sufficiently. This is why the daytime mesosphere appears to decrease in temperature with elevation; it's an air pressure thing, or lack thereof.

The thermosphere is marked by really not having air except for the occasional molecules that happen to float into it. I'm not sure why we call this area a layer of the atmosphere because it's essentially outer space. We put satellites into the thermosphere because we aren't afraid of there being any atmospheric drag.

I personally don't recognize an exosphere. The only air molecules that you'll find in the space above the thermosphere are those that are taking their shot at escaping earth's gravity and as such are at zero pressure. Zero. There is no way to take the temperature of these particular molecules and they might just be floating off into space.

.

You cannot explain the wild swings in the temperature profile of the atmosphere with the information you are able to provide. Go ahead and just deny the following fact because that is the only point you can make. Everything else you say is beside the point.



These wild temperature swings must be known because they can be assessed using satellite technology.

This temperature profile is not determined by satellites, but by weather balloons and rocket launches. It is a generic profile. The actual temperature at any altitude in the atmosphere is unknown.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

IBDM, Thank You for posting that. I think everyone will notice that the Earth's magnetic field is CLOSER to the Earth when it's facing the solar wind. And as the solar wind sails past the Earth, it stretches the Earth's magnetic field over a greater distance.
You helped to illustrate a point that I wanted to make. When the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it, it can excite molecules in the atmosphere more easily. And CH2O or as you would say to be scientifically correct, HCHO only occurs during the day and never at night.
It's very bright of you Sun to observe that. And as you so correctly stated Sun, solar radiation is a photolytic process which breaks down molecules. And in this instance, the inverse happens. Why I call you Sun son, you are that bright.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

IBDM, Thank You for posting that. I think everyone will notice that the Earth's magnetic field is CLOSER to the Earth when it's facing the solar wind. And as the solar wind sails past the Earth, it stretches the Earth's magnetic field over a greater distance.
You helped to illustrate a point that I wanted to make. When the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it, it can excite molecules in the atmosphere more easily. And CH2O or as you would say to be scientifically correct, HCHO only occurs during the day and never at night.
It's very bright of you Sun to observe that. And as you so correctly stated Sun, solar radiation is a photolytic process which breaks down molecules. And in this instance, the inverse happens. Why I call you Sun son, you are that bright.

I was actually thinking kind of the same thing as your Sun.

It seems like ozone and formaldehyde are originating from around 30 miles altitude. But the Van Allen belts I read don't start until around 400 miles altitude.

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

IBDM, Thank You for posting that. I think everyone will notice that the Earth's magnetic field is CLOSER to the Earth when it's facing the solar wind. And as the solar wind sails past the Earth, it stretches the Earth's magnetic field over a greater distance.
You helped to illustrate a point that I wanted to make. When the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it, it can excite molecules in the atmosphere more easily. And CH2O or as you would say to be scientifically correct, HCHO only occurs during the day and never at night.
It's very bright of you Sun to observe that. And as you so correctly stated Sun, solar radiation is a photolytic process which breaks down molecules. And in this instance, the inverse happens. Why I call you Sun son, you are that bright.

I was actually thinking kind of the same thing as your Sun.

It seems like ozone and formaldehyde are originating from around 30 miles altitude. But the Van Allen belts I read don't start until around 400 miles altitude.

James___ wrote:There are no gasses in the stratosphere that would allow either formaldehyde or ozone to occur naturally. Why I say at the top of the troposphere.

I've also read a lot of research (online) that has been done since the 1970's on formaldehyde in the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

IBDM, Thank You for posting that. I think everyone will notice that the Earth's magnetic field is CLOSER to the Earth when it's facing the solar wind. And as the solar wind sails past the Earth, it stretches the Earth's magnetic field over a greater distance.
You helped to illustrate a point that I wanted to make. When the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it, it can excite molecules in the atmosphere more easily. And CH2O or as you would say to be scientifically correct, HCHO only occurs during the day and never at night.
It's very bright of you Sun to observe that. And as you so correctly stated Sun, solar radiation is a photolytic process which breaks down molecules. And in this instance, the inverse happens. Why I call you Sun son, you are that bright.

I was actually thinking kind of the same thing as your Sun.

It seems like ozone and formaldehyde are originating from around 30 miles altitude. But the Van Allen belts I read don't start until around 400 miles altitude.

Most ozone forms at around 35000 and up. This is the ozone layer. See the Chapman cycle.

Ozone also forms in the troposphere due to storm activity, and even at the surface.

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I think the formaldehyde in the atmosphere is naturally occurring...

I think it is. What I think scientists overlook is the role that the Van Allen radiation belts play in our atmosphere. They in a sense are a static charge.
An example is this video showing a static charge changes the flow of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY&t=1s
The reason this happens is that water is "polar". Thus it is attracted to the static electricity. Gasses in our atmosphere like water vapor, CO2, the oxygen element and ozone are also polar. And with formaldehyde, it is a polar compound.
This suggests that the Van Allen radiation belts can attract such molecules/compounds. At the same time this would also cause them to become more excited. This IMO is what would allow for CO2 and H2O (both polar molecules) to interact and form formaldehyde. This in turn would release a non-polar O2 molecule which could support the Chapman cycle (the ozone layer).
The German historical project that I am working on, if successful would help to make known what I think about the IPCC report and what experiment might help to demonstrate a connection between observation and what physics allows for.
By early next week I should be able to post a picture of it (in the thread German Historical Project) mostly complete. I will be doing a test to see if torque can be conserved as momentum. If successful then I will be hopeful.

.

IBDM, Thank You for posting that. I think everyone will notice that the Earth's magnetic field is CLOSER to the Earth when it's facing the solar wind. And as the solar wind sails past the Earth, it stretches the Earth's magnetic field over a greater distance.
You helped to illustrate a point that I wanted to make. When the Earth's magnetic field is closer to it, it can excite molecules in the atmosphere more easily. And CH2O or as you would say to be scientifically correct, HCHO only occurs during the day and never at night.
It's very bright of you Sun to observe that. And as you so correctly stated Sun, solar radiation is a photolytic process which breaks down molecules. And in this instance, the inverse happens. Why I call you Sun son, you are that bright.

I was actually thinking kind of the same thing as your Sun.

It seems like ozone and formaldehyde are originating from around 30 miles altitude. But the Van Allen belts I read don't start until around 400 miles altitude.

There are no gasses in the stratosphere that would allow either formaldehyde or ozone to occur naturally. Why I say at the top of the troposphere.
I've also read a lot of research (online) that has been done since the 1970's on formaldehyde in the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:

I thought ozone was present from approx 6 to 30 miles altitude in the atmosphere, no?

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth.Oct 18, 2018

Ozone facts - Nasa Ozone Watchozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov › facts

How much ppm of ozone gas is found in the atmosphere?
About 90 % of ozone in the earth's atmosphere is in the stratosphere (12 to 50 km of altitude). It forms a layer where its concentration is higher than anywhere but low ranging from 1 to 20 ppm compared with the oxygen concentration of about 210000 ppm. The ozone layer is what makes the sky blue.

Ozone in the environment - is formed in the atmosphere by ...

Formaldehyde is normally present at low levels (less than 0.03 ppm or 30 ppb) in both indoor and outdoor air. Materials containing formaldehyde can release it as a gas or vapor into the air. Automobile exhaust is a major source of formaldehyde in outdoor air.

HarveyH55 wrote:

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth.Oct 18, 2018

Ozone facts - Nasa Ozone Watchozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov › facts

How much ppm of ozone gas is found in the atmosphere?
About 90 % of ozone in the earth's atmosphere is in the stratosphere (12 to 50 km of altitude). It forms a layer where its concentration is higher than anywhere but low ranging from 1 to 20 ppm compared with the oxygen concentration of about 210000 ppm. The ozone layer is what makes the sky blue.

Ozone in the environment - is formed in the atmosphere by ...

Finally got around to Googling it... And CO2 is a trace gas... 20 ppm, max?

Formaldehyde is normally present at low levels (less than 0.03 ppm or 30 ppb) in both indoor and outdoor air. Materials containing formaldehyde can release it as a gas or vapor into the air. Automobile exhaust is a major source of formaldehyde in outdoor air.

30 parts per billion?

I'm really struggling with how these trace gasses can have such a strong influence.

Finally got around to Googling it...

The ozone layer is a thin part of the Earth's atmosphere that absorbs almost all of the sun's harmful ultraviolet light.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/