Warming oceans

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

Cnuk wrote:
Here is a much more plausible hypothisis for near surface ocean warming: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/bottom-line.html

No cold 'warming' hot required...

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

James___ wrote:

Cnuk wrote:
Here is a much more plausible hypothisis for near surface ocean warming: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/bottom-line.html

No cold 'warming' hot required...

This is where you might find out that some people in here are against science. It's a set of falsifiable theories. I have some work that I am pursuing on my own. This is because I think that Natural Climate Variation is mostly responsible for global warming.
Neither IBDaMann or ITN thinks that our climate changes. They prefer to define words. And if you can't define climate then it can't change, right?

James___ wrote:
Some of what I have been pursuing is explaining how convection works in the tropopause.

James___ wrote:
Do you realize it's about -56º C. in the tropopause. This brings up the question how does the troposphere warm during the day?

James___ wrote:
It doesn't really allow for it.

James___ wrote:
Why I have my own theories.

James___ wrote:
At the same time, is heat generated when we generate CO2?

James___ wrote:
It is.

James___ wrote:
Is that heat able to radiate out into space at night? We don't know.

James___ wrote:
You might find this interesting, it's what suggests to me that there is a reason for Natural Climate Variation.

James___ wrote:
And compare their graph to an annual global temperature graph.

James___ wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
I already inset their graph to a annual global temperature graph.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

Nice copy and paste INTO THE NIGHT. You missed something important. I'll let you figure it out for yourself. At the same time if uv causes a chemical reaction that releases energy then it's potential is being converted into heat.
You know, if a spark ignites petrol fumes then it has been converted into heat. This is because it will create a flow of energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.

Cnuk wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.

How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.

You take all the fun out of science.

James___ wrote:
I like to keep it simple

James___ wrote:
and look at how the Van Allen radiation belts influence our atmosphere.

James___ wrote:
Of course this is dependent on Einstein's Spooky Actions At A Distance.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/

James___ wrote:
For me this is where the fun begins.

James___ wrote:
At the same time, with any luck, today's teens who pursue a career in physics will consider how this applies to atmospheric physics.

James___ wrote:
Let's face it, I grew up on science fiction and read Einstein's biography at 13.

James___ wrote:
DaMann and ITN, the 2 of you are showing how climate change could prevent people from thinking about space exploration.

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'

No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-

is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'

No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-

is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.

That's why they say that CO2 is causing global warming. It's all about how solar radiation interacts with molecules in our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?

It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?

It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?

It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.

Blackbody science is not the only way a photon can be absorbed or emitted. If it was, an LED '60w' bulb would be as hot as an incandescent 60w bulb. It isn't. Further, a 1000w microwave oven can heat a cup of hot water in literally seconds, as opposed to a 1000w conventional oven or even a 1000w light bulb (yes, they do exist).

It is also possible to radiate light, even visible light, without the temperature required in blackbody science. Bioluminescence is one way. Fireflies don't roast their butts when they light up. LED's are another. They put out the same light as an incandescent bulb but by using far less power, and they run so cool you can touch them even after they've been on for hours.

Blackbody radiance is thermal radiance. It also governs absorption and conversion to thermal energy.
Harmonic radiance does not require high temperatures. Absorption is quite possible without conversion to thermal energy.

Both are possible. Indeed, it is one of the reasons you can't measure the emissivity of Earth by simply looking at it with a satellite. Absorption works the same way. Both are possible.

Absorption and emission are photo-electric effects. They do not necessarily require high temperatures to absorb or emit visible light or even higher frequency light. They may, but they don't have to.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?

It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.

Blackbody science is not the only way a photon can be absorbed or emitted. If it was, an LED '60w' bulb would be as hot as an incandescent 60w bulb. It isn't. Further, a 1000w microwave oven can heat a cup of hot water in literally seconds, as opposed to a 1000w conventional oven or even a 1000w light bulb (yes, they do exist).

It is also possible to radiate light, even visible light, without the temperature required in blackbody science. Bioluminescence is one way. Fireflies don't roast their butts when they light up. LED's are another. They put out the same light as an incandescent bulb but by using far less power, and they run so cool you can touch them even after they've been on for hours.

Blackbody radiance is thermal radiance. It also governs absorption and conversion to thermal energy.
Harmonic radiance does not require high temperatures. Absorption is quite possible without conversion to thermal energy.

Both are possible. Indeed, it is one of the reasons you can't measure the emissivity of Earth by simply looking at it with a satellite. Absorption works the same way. Both are possible.

Absorption and emission are photo-electric effects. They do not necessarily require high temperatures to absorb or emit visible light or even higher frequency light. They may, but they don't have to.

You just ignored grade school science. How do cold gases rise above warmer gas? Blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah. Then blah blah blah. And then blah blah blah and blah and if blah blah.

До Свидания или Au Revoir

James___ wrote:
@Cnuk, this is something for you to consider. I actually think there's a way to show this is Natural Climate Variation. It will take a while because it will require a lot of research. About all of it will be certain conditions that existed in the past.
If we are influencing warming then the next cold spell could be more serious than the Little Ice Age.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'

No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-

is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.

Cnuk wrote:

James___ wrote:
@Cnuk, this is something for you to consider. I actually think there's a way to show this is Natural Climate Variation. It will take a while because it will require a lot of research. About all of it will be certain conditions that existed in the past.
If we are influencing warming then the next cold spell could be more serious than the Little Ice Age.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Dr. Ward's hypothesis is about natural variation. He points out the connection between natural ozone depletion from effusove volcanic eruptipns and historical temp rises...

More uv absorption causing warmer oceans makes much more sense to me than some mythical back radiation from a cooler atmosphere...

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cnuk wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.

I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?

Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'

No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-

is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.

The energy used to ceeate ozone comes from the Uvb light, it is not ' sucked out if the atmosphere'.

Cnuk wrote:
The whole process of ozone creation and destruction is driven by the energy from uv and it is these processes that warm the stratosphere.