upper atmosphere temp

keepit wrote:
I saw some female german physicist talking about climate change. By the way, i've seen her on the same stage with Roger Penrose and Brian Greene.
Anyway, she was making the point that the temp difference between the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere tells us whether or not climate change is being caused by variations in the suns's output. She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

keepit wrote:
I saw some female german physicist talking about climate change. By the way, i've seen her on the same stage with Roger Penrose and Brian Greene.
Anyway, she was making the point that the temp difference between the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere tells us whether or not climate change is being caused by variations in the suns's output. She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

keepit wrote:
I saw some female german physicist talking about climate change. By the way, i've seen her on the same stage with Roger Penrose and Brian Greene.
Anyway, she was making the point that the temp difference between the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere tells us whether or not climate change is being caused by variations in the suns's output. She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

keepit wrote:
Gas, Her name is Sabine Hossenfelder. You can google here for yourself. Also, she has done many presentations on youtube where she spends almost all her time presenting physics principles. There are many other such awesome physicists.

keepit wrote:
Look Gas, i'm not praising anyone or bashing anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I've got to admit, most of her physics is beyond my ability to understand.

keepit wrote:
Gas, Her name is Sabine Hossenfelder. You can google here for yourself. Also, she has done many presentations on youtube where she spends almost all her time presenting physics principles. There are many other such awesome physicists.

keepit wrote: Credentials matter you know.

keepit wrote:What credentials do ibd and itn have?

GasGuzzler wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas, Her name is Sabine Hossenfelder. You can google here for yourself. Also, she has done many presentations on youtube where she spends almost all her time presenting physics principles. There are many other such awesome physicists.

No. YOU are the one praising her and bashing others that use physics. If there are a lot of examples of her using physics, can you give just one?

keepit wrote:
More trash talk ibd. Not a word of science in it.

keepit wrote:
Gas, If you want to try to understand greenhouse better, go to sabine hossenfldder 's article about "i misunderstood the greenhouse, here's how it works."

keepit wrote:
OK.

keepit wrote:
She has credentials. And clearly she is sincere in her work. She interacts on the science stage in a constructive manner, etc.

I've never heard an ounce of trash talk from her.

By the way, for Gas, personally, i don't consider disputing someone's interpretations of physics to be "bashing". Name calling and false accusations can easily be seen as bashng.

keepit wrote:More trash talk ibd. Not a word of science in it.

keepit wrote: She has credentials.

keepit wrote: And clearly she is sincere in her work.

keepit wrote: She interacts on the science stage in a constructive manner, etc.

keepit wrote: I've never heard an ounce of trash talk from her.

keepit wrote: By the way, for Gas, personally, i don't consider disputing someone's interpretations of physics to be "bashing".

keepit wrote: Name calling and false accusations can easily be seen as bashng.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
NOT.

keepit wrote: ibd, More trash talk.

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, More trash talk.

More baloney from you, keepit. Just semantics.

She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

Xadoman wrote:

She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

The earth has been cooling down since the beginning of the earth. The inner core cools down and with it the whole earth is cooling down. The sun adds its energy on the surface.
According to Boltzmann s law the earth should be a giant ice ball. There is not enough energy from the sun to keep the earth as it now. Fortunately the giant and very hot inner core keeps us warm.

Here is the picture from wiki. Do not you agree how silly is to ignore this giant oven inside the earth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core#/media/File:Earth_poster.svg

The greenhouse gas scam is obviously false physics. Greenhouse gases can not produce energy on their own. The inner core however produces enourmous amount of energy which keeps us warm and cozy on this planet.

Do not belive anything that mainstream media is telling to you. They only want to pump money out of you. They invent new scams to keep the money streaming into their pockets. Everything they push at you is most probably a scam.

keepit wrote:
There's a misunderstanding here.
The global warming that is concerning is the near term global warming. Even though there may be cooling in the more distant future, the near term is what we need to deal with.

Actually the Earth has been warming for the last 22,000 years

Xadoman wrote:

Actually the Earth has been warming for the last 22,000 years

Nope. The trend has always been cooling and continues to be cooling. The processes generating heat inside the inner core do not just speed up arbitrarily for some reason. Those processes are destined to lose power as everything eventually runs out of steam in the universe. Every power source loses its power eventually, there are no perpetual mobiles which run forever. Simple physics, nothing more.
The earth has never been a giant iceball. It however has been a giant fireball. Since then it has been cooling down and continues to cool down. Simple physics.

The atmosphere of earth is caused by the kinetic energy of the molecules ( aka temperature ). This kinetic energy rises the gas molecules from the surface of the earth and causes the atmosphere to form. The gravity wants to squash the gas molecules back to the surface but the temperature fights back to it.

The kinetic energy to form the atmosphere comes from the inner core of the earth and from the sun. A miniscule amount comes also from distant stars but it is neglible.

The atmosphere itself can not rise its temperature. As already said, the atmosphere is caused by the energy which comes from the inner core and from the sun. The temperature and thickness of the atmosphere is fixed with the available energy which comes from the inner core and from the sun. Simple physics.

In order to create a thicker and warmer atmosphere the energy from the sun and from the inner core must increase. But those energy streams are fixed and overall slowly diminishing. So there is no way that the atmosphere is getting thicker and warmer. It is thermodynamically impossible to create a warmer and thicker atmosphere with diminishing energy streams.
Remembere, the inner core is slowly cooling and the earth is slowly moving away from the sun( like the moon drifts slowly away from the earth). So we are heading towards an ice age. Simple physics.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

Let's see, a solar-powered rotary disinformation reamer with matching credenza. Would it logically come with Everest or Rhino ratchet tie-down straps?

American geobiologist J.L. Kirschvink suggesting that Earth's oceans and land surfaces were covered by ice from the poles to the Equator during at least two extreme cooling events between 2.4 billion and 580 million years ago.

The evidence for this hypothesis is found in old rocks that preserved signs of Earth's ancient magnetic field

Measurements of these rocks indicate that rocks known to be associated with the presence of ice were formed near the Equator.

keepit wrote:There's a misunderstanding here.

keepit wrote: The global warming that is concerning is the near term global warming.

keepit wrote: Even though there may be cooling in the more distant future, ...

keepit wrote: the near term is what we need to deal with.