Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And he addressed the drought in American southwest.

Hearing him on Coast2coast. Seems plenty of info on the web from him.

---

Quote:

---

Think about the last dozen or so news reports on climate change you’ve read. Earliest cherry blossom bloom in Japan, ice still melting in Antarctica, Greta Thunberg doesn’t want to travel to Glasgow in November. Did one of those actually explain how scientists know that climate change is man-made? I suspect not. Are you sure you understand it? Would you be comfortable explaining it to a climate change skeptic?

If not, then Lawrence Krauss’ new book “The Physics of Climate Change” is for you. It’s a well-curated collection of facts and data with explanations that are just about technical enough to understand the science without getting bogged down in details. The book covers historical and contemporary records of carbon dioxide levels and temperature, greenhouse gases and how their atmospheric concentrations change the energy balance, how we can tell one cause of climate change from another, and impacts we have seen and can expect to see, from sea level rise to tipping points.

To me, learning some climate science has been a series of realizations that it’s more difficult than it looks at first sight. Remember, for example, the explanation for the greenhouse effect we all learned in school? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets incoming sunlight through, but prevents infrared light from escaping into space, hence raising the temperature. Alas, a climate change skeptic might point out, the absorption of infrared light is saturated at carbon dioxide levels well below the current ones. So, burning fossil fuels can’t possible make any difference, right?

No, wrong. But explaining just why is not so simple...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:


Hearing him on Coast2coast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And once again, no linkies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Hearing him on Coast2coast.

---

This is a credible radio station... ???
The Bigfoot, Ouija board, LochNess Monster, UFO radio station channel?

I never heard of him, I stopped following a lot of climate 'news' once it got political. Personally Coast2coast would not be my 'Go-To' Radio Station for accurate reports on Weather or Scientific News. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume he's some kind of weather planetary ocean scientist and his 'debunking' wont be a total waste of my time??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And he addressed the drought in American southwest.

Hearing him on Coast2coast. Seems plenty of info on the web from him.

---

And once again, no linkies.

Yanno, I really DO look into evidence that global warming is not anthropogenic. There are a few lines of evidence - microfossils in sediment, gas concentrations in ice caps, the waxing and waning of polar caps on Mars, for example - that I find interesting. But I can't evaluate what he posits unless I know what it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"Curated facts" is, by definition, propagnada. A narrative stripped of all of those messy questions and frustrating details.

If people have evidence-based countervailing arguments, they should be addressed, not ignored.

. . .

It's true that the world is warming and that our climate is becoming unstable. It's quite possible, even probable, that this is due to anthropogenic CO2. But countervailing arguments that have actual evidence behind them need to be fully examined and explained, because that's how science and policy are supposed to work.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
"Curated facts" is, by definition, propagnada. A narrative stripped of all of those messy questions and frustrating details.
If people have evidence-based countervailing arguments, they should be addressed, not ignored.
. . .
It's true that the world is warming and that our climate is becoming unstable. It's quite possible, even probable, that this is due to anthropogenic CO2. But countervailing arguments that have actual evidence behind them need to be fully examined and explained, because that's how science and policy are supposed to work.

SECONDRATE: From Chapter 8, "Some Like It Hot" of the book you didn't open, but did say was propaganda: "Pre-industrial carbon abundance in the atmosphere was about 600 billion tons. We have added about 500 billion tons to that amount to date. If emissions continue at the current rate till 2100, we will have added by that time an additional 2.2 trillion tons to the atmosphere."

What we've got is a 2.2 trillion tons waste problem. That's not propaganda,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Yanno - what the heck.

I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.

So I erased it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posting this now, will read and review later.

*****

Earth’s atmosphere is clearly warmed daily by conduction and by dissociation but not by greenhouse gasesDr. Peter Langdon Ward United States Geological Survey retiredChief Scientist, Science Is Never Settled Inc.CO2impossible@gmail.comGlobal average surface temperatures have risen 0.9 degreesCelsius (1.6 degreesFahrenheit)since 1950.

---

Quote:

---

What caused this warming? How much of this warming was caused by humans? Will Earth continue to warm? What actions should we take?

To answer these questions, we need to revisit a number of direct observations of what is physically happening in the world around us. After all, direct observations of Nature, that do not depend on some theory to understand, are the closest things to truth in science. Warming by conduction in the troposphere is relatively constant at any location year after year:

---

Quote:

---

Every day, air touching Earth’s sun-heated surface

---

Quote:

---

is warmed by conduction just like air above a hot frypan. Warmed air rises into cooler air above because it has lower density. In this way, temperature differences lead to convection of air from hot regions to cooler regions both vertically and from the tropics toward the poles . These convection cells drive weather systems throughout the troposphere, the lowermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere. Warming by conduction varies by latitude, season, and by concentrations of clouds, aerosols, smoke, and other particles in the atmosphere, but on average, is relatively constant at any location year after year.

---

Quote:

---

Changes over time in solar radiation reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere appear to be less than one percent.

---

Quote:

---

The top of the troposphere, known as the tropopause, is the most important boundary in the atmosphere. The tropopause is the surface between air in the troposphere warmed from below by Earth’s sun-heated surface and air in the stratosphere warmed from above by absorbing solar ultraviolet radiation. The tropopause forms at altitudes up to 18 kilometers (11 miles) in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but only 6 kilometers (4 miles) in polar regions during winter. Annual average global temperatures typically decrease linearly from around 15 oC (59 oF) near Earth’s surface to minus 51 oC (-60oF) at the tropopause.

2 Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere is even more constant year after year: Above the tropopause, in the stratosphere, temperatures rise approximately 36 degrees to become close to -15oC (5 oF) at the stratopause, the top of the stratosphere at an altitude of 50 to 55 kilometers (31 to 34 miles). To understand this warming, we need to look at the atomic level, where the atmosphere consists of atoms and molecules of various gases moving at high velocities through space—frequently colliding with each other. Molecules consist of atoms held together by molecular bonds. Molecular bonds are thought to result from electrodynamic forces of attraction between opposite charges and electrodynamic forces of repulsion between same charges.Therefore, these bonds are not rigid. They are observed to oscillate back and forth at frequencies of oscillation measured in trillions of cycles per second (1012 cycles per second) and amplitudes of oscillation measured in picometers (10-12 meters). The bonds oscillate much like two masses connected by a spring, except at much higher frequencies of oscillation, at much shorter amplitudes of oscillation, and without any friction. When a molecule of oxygen absorbs ultraviolet-C radiation from Sun in the frequency range of 1237 trillion cycles per second, the bond holding the two atoms of oxygen together breaks—comes apart—is dissociated. The two atoms fly apart at very high velocity, much like the ends of a rubber band when it breaks.Temperature of a gas is well-known to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of motion through space of all atoms and molecules making up the gas. Kinetic energy of motion is simply defined as one-half the mass of an atom or molecule times its velocity of motion squared. Thus, dissociation converts bond energy holding a molecule together directly, completely, and efficiently into an increase in air temperature. Radiant energy of oscillation is equal to the Planck constant times frequency of oscillation according to the Planck-Einstein relation. Thus, the energy of a frequency of 1237 trillion cycles per secondand the energy stored in an oxygen bond is around 5.1 electronvolts. When two atoms of oxygen collide, they can recombine to form a molecule of oxygen that can then be dissociated again. These cycles make air hotter and hotter as long as sufficient solar ultraviolet-C radiation exists. We observe that essentially all ultraviolet-C radiation has been absorbed by the time sunlight reaches the lower stratosphere.

---

Quote:

---

The primary absorption is by molecules of oxygen, making up nearly 21% of all gases in Earth’s atmosphere, but trace gases such as water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and methane are also dissociated at different energy levels. The higher the frequency causing dissociation, the higher the energy stored in the bond, the higher the velocity of the dissociated pieces, the higher in the atmosphere dissociation typically takes place, and the greater the resulting increase in temperature. Warming by dissociation of ozone, however, is changing continuously: A molecule of oxygen (O2) and an atom of oxygen (O) can combine to create a molecule of ozone (O3). Most ozone forms in the lower stratosphere, creating the ozone layer extending primarily from 15 to 35 kilometers (9.3 to 21.7 miles) above Earth’s surface.
When ozone absorbs 3 solar ultraviolet-B radiation primarily at frequencies around 967 trillion cycles per second, it is dissociated back into a molecule of oxygen and an atom of oxygen. This dissociation warms the ozone layer. Repeated formation and dissociation of ozone is observed to occur in the well-known ozone-oxygen cycle as long as solar ultraviolet-B radiation is available. Sun produces about 12% of the ozone layer each day, implying that the average lifetime of a single molecule of ozone is only about 8.3 days. Because of the ozone-oxygen cycle, very small concentrations of ozone, measured in parts per million, maintain higher than normal temperatures in the ozone layer. The thermal energy comes from solar ultraviolet-B radiation with energies around 4 electronvolts. Ozone concentrations are changing substantially worldwide all the time and especially in winter. Because of dissociation, higher regional concentrations of ozone imply higher regional air temperatures compared to similar latitudes. Warming by ozone depletion has changed radically since 1970: Life as we know it on Earth is only possible because all frequencies of solar radiation greater than ultraviolet-B and most ultraviolet-B are absorbed by gases in the atmosphere above the tropopause, warming the stratosphere, which includes the ozone layer. Ultraviolet-B is the highest frequency, highest energy, hottest, solar radiation normally reaching Earth’s surface, where, with sufficient duration of exposure, it causes sunburn, skin cancer, cataracts, and mutations. If the concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is reduced—depleted—more solar ultraviolet-B radiation than usual is observed to reach the troposphere, cooling the ozone layer and warming Earth.Solar ultraviolet-B radiation penetrates oceans tens of meters so that very little of this energy absorbed during the day can be lost back into space at night. Oceans cover 71% of Earth. Ocean heat content has been rising constantly since the ozone layer began to be depleted around 1970. That depletion,shown in this figure, wascaused by humans manufacturing large volumes ofchlorofluoro-carbon gases used as spray-can propellants, refrigerants, solvents, and foam-blowing agents. It turns out that these very inert gases are broken down in the stratosphere by ultraviolet radiation, releas-ing atoms of chlorine. One
4 atom of chlorine, under very cold, relatively moist conditions in the lower stratosphere, can destroy up to 100,000 molecules of ozone. When the United Nations passed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, limiting production ofchlorofluorocarbon gases, both ozone depletion and global temperatures stopped increasing by 1998. Humans had caused global warming by manufacturing large volumes ofchlorofluorocarbon gases and humans took action that stopped the increase in emissions of chlorofluorocarbon gases, stopping the increase in global warming, completing the most definitive experiment ever done relating changes in atmospheric temperatures to changes in concentrations of atmospheric gases.

Global warming from 2014 to 2016 can be explained by ozone depletion caused by Bárðarbunga volcano in central Iceland, extruding the largest basaltic lava flow since 1783.

---

Quote:

---

Basaltic lavas contain ten times more chlorine and bromine than explosive magmas and are much hotter, providing a way to convect these gases rapidly into the lower stratosphere. Throughout Earth history, basaltic lava flows covering hundreds to even millions of square kilometers of land have been contemporaneous with major warming and widespread mass extinctions—the more extensive the lava flows, the greater the warming. The second warmest year on record was 2019 because of the 2018 Lower Puna eruption in Hawaii, which was 41% of the size of the Bárðarbunga eruption. On land, so called “bad” ozone is a major toxic component of air pollution, formed near Earth’s surface by nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and sunlight. These oxides and compounds are released in emissions from motor vehicles, industrial facilities, electric power plants, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. Any solar ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth’s surface would dissociate this ground level ozone, causing local warming of air—a direct explanation for the urban heat island effect.

---

Quote:

---

This helps explain why average global warming since 1950 was twice as great in the northern hemisphere as in the southern hemisphere, which contains less than 12% of world population and industry. Ozone depletion caused by humans and by large basaltic lava flows explains with considerable accuracy most observations of temperature increases and observations of changes of rates of temperature increase throughout Earth history.

In 1900, Max Planck developed empirically an equation that calculates as a function of temperature the observed amplitude of oscillation

---

Quote:

---

at each frequency of oscillation existing within a body of 5 matter and within its radiation. What has become known as Planck’s empirical law shows that for a body to become warmer, it must absorb radiation from a hotter body that contains greater amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation

---

Quote:

---

and especially at the highest frequencies. For this reason, Earth is warmed most effectively by absorbing ultraviolet-B radiation, the hottest, most energetic solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface.

---

Quote:

---

Warming by greenhouse gases has never been verified by experiment: For 125 years, scientists have assumed that because greenhouse gases are observed to absorb some infrared energy radiated by Earth, they must either warm air or at least slow the rate by which Earth loses heat to space. We now measure in considerable detail that the limited number of frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases are simply the resonant frequencies of the bonds that hold the gas molecule together. This shows that the energy is absorbed into the bonds. For carbon dioxide, these absorbed frequencies make up less than 16%

---

Quote:

---

of the infrared frequencies radiated by Earth—less than 16% of the heat radiated by Earth. The dominant frequency absorbed by carbon dioxide is around 20 trillion cycles per second, which has an energy of only 0.08 electronvolts, nearly 50 times less than the energy required to dissociate ozone. Molecules of carbon dioxide absorbing infrared radiation are not dissociated. Increasing the amplitudes of oscillation of the bonds holding a molecule together has no direct effect on increasing air temperature. Some scientists assume that bond energy can be converted to kinetic energy of motion during myriads of collisions, but the efficiency of this conversion has never been measured and cannot be great. Furthermore, since carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04% of the gases in air, any increase in velocity of one molecule of carbon dioxide must be shared equally with 2500 other atoms and molecules. It has never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, that an increase in concentration of greenhouse gases can cause the degrees of global warming observed. Greenhouse-warming theory does not even appear to be physically possible as explained in detail at Physically-Impossible.com. Several scientists have proposed that a blanket of greenhouse gases keeps Earth 33 oC (59 oF) warmer than expected for a planet at Earth’s distance from Sun. The stratosphere is clearly observed to be Earth’s blanket, where the temperature at the top of the stratosphere is approximately 36 oC (65 oF) warmer than the temperature at the base of the stratosphere. The stratosphere is warmed primarily by dissociation of oxygen by solar ultraviolet-C radiation. The atmosphere of Venus contains 96% carbon dioxide. Many scientists propose that greenhouse warming must be the reason why surface temperatures on Venus are around 462 oC (864 oF) . But carbon dioxide is dissociated by solar ultraviolet-C radiation at frequencies above 1795 trillion cycles per second, energies above 7.4 electronvolts, more than enough energy to make the atmosphere of Venus much hotter than Earth’s stratosphere. Most atmospheric scientists today assume that greenhouse gases trap heat, slowing the rate of heat lost to space, so that sun makes Earth warmer . While this assumption seems quite
6 logical, it is based on a mistaken understanding of what heat is physically made in 1798 that still prevails today. All curves of warming or cooling of matter are asymptotic to the final temperature as shown by the black line in this figure for warming. The asymptotic shape shows that the rate heat flows per second is proportional to the difference in temperature between the radiating body and the absorbing body as shown by the red curve. A warmer Earth will simply radiate more heat into space. Volcanoes cause both cooling and warming in erratic sequences: When major explosive volcanic eruptions eject megatons of gases and debris into the stratosphere, molecules of water and sulfur dioxide are observed to form a sulfuric-acid aerosol or mist in the lower stratosphere that spreads worldwide, reflecting and scattering sunlight, causing air temperature on land to decrease approximately 0.5oC (0.9 oF) for two to four years. Modelling of ocean temperatures show that the effects of this worldwide cooling are still seen in ocean temperatures at depth a century later. Thus, when many large, explosive volcanic eruptions occur each century, continuing for millennia, the ocean is observed to be cooled incrementally down into ice-age conditions.Ice cores under Summit Greenland, where snowfall levels are much higher than in Antarctica, provide an exceptionally detailed record of air temperatures and volcanism over the past 120,000 years. Twenty-five times, air temperatures rose rapidly as much as 16 oC (29 oF) within years to decades and then cooled slowly, incrementally, over millennia. These sequences averaged every few thousand years but were clearly not cyclic. These detailed observations show that no cyclic process can be the primary cause of global warming.These sequences are highly erratic. They appear to coincide with sudden warming caused by basaltic lava flows most common in continental rift zones. Slow, incremental cooling, on the other hand, appears driven by sequences of major explosive volcanic eruptions most common above subduction zones where oceanic plates are moving down under continental plates. Motions of these tectonic plates, which make up Earth’s surface, determine when rift-related basaltic volcanism causing global warming is more common than explosive, subduction-related volcanism causing cooling into ice-age conditions. Ozone depletion provides a clear and direct explanation for observed global warming: The troposphere is warmed every day by conduction when air touches Earth’s sun-heatedsurface and convects upward and toward the poles. The stratosphere is warmed every daywhen oxygen, ozone, and other gas molecules absorb solar ultraviolet-C and ultraviolet-Bradiation energetic enough to cause dissociation of the molecules. Greenhouse gases
7 absorbing infrared radiation from Earth are not dissociated and, therefore, it is not clear how they could physically cause significant warming of air. Nor can they slow the radiation of heat back into space because the rate heat flows per second is clearly observed to be proportional to the difference in temperature. A warmer Earth simply radiates more thermal energy into space.Global warming of 0.6 oC (0.9oF) from 1970 to 1998, at a rate of 0.2 degrees per decade, was caused by humans manufacturing chlorofluorocarbons and is expected to last for many more decades, the lifetime of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Warming of 0.3 oC (0.5 oF) from 2014 to 2016, at a rate of 0.9 degrees per decade, was caused by the eruption of Bárðarbunga and was fully recovered within a few years.Average global temperatures are, to first order, determined by how much ultraviolet-B radiation reaches Earth’s surface. Depletion of total column ozone at 47 oN by 30 Dobson Units can cause warming of around 0.9 oC (1.6 oF). Will global warming continue? TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts, based on greenhouse warming theory, that global average temperatures will continue risingrapidly as shown by the red line assuming we take no action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. If we take major action costing tens of trillions of dollars, the IPCCpredicts that warming could be limited as shown by the blue line. If ozone depletion is responsible for warming since 1950, there should be no warming in the future unless there is an increase in ozone depletion. Instead, temperatures should cool as the ozone layer recovers as shown by the green line. Spending tens of trillions of dollars to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would be a waste of money. We can burn fossil fuels safely, provided we minimize pollution. There are relatively inexpensiveactions we should take to speed up recovery of the ozone l

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Yanno - what the heck.

I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.

So I erased it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
But maybe you'll learn something from here, and see how Langdon, among other things, mixes up what different energies do.

https://www.quora.com/Does-all-light-energy-produce-thermal-energy?

Quote:

---

The answer to this is, no.

Sunlight contains a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In space the major components by energy in each band is 51% infrared, 37% visible light and 12% ultraviolet. These have been rounded up as a small percentage is radio wave, microwave,and soft x-rays.

Infrared radiation is directly thermal, being the result of proton deceleration at the emitter and producing proton acceleration upon absorption. Proton motion, or average kinetic energy of the atom’s nucleus is essentially the atomic or molecular motion we associate with temperature. Interacting matter spontaneously produces radiation that is from the inelastic collision of atoms and molecules (ionised atoms in the solar photosphere). Upon absorption the absorbing atom or molecule is accelerated. The only proviso is that the atom or molecule has to be involved, as in interacting with another atom or molecule to cancel its momentum change which has to net to near zero. This being because the momentum of the photon was near zero.

Extreme ultraviolet photons behave in a similar manner when interacting with diatomic nitrogen and oxygen in the mesosphere and stratosphere. These photons individually have sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds and dissociate the molecules into excited atomic states. The resultant atomic pairs are ejected in opposite directions to conserve the near zero photon momentum. In the case of oxygen, the free radicals often attach themselves to oxygen pairs to produce ozone, which is itself unstable to other ultraviolet bands. The net effect of absorption of ultraviolet by photolysis is directly thermal as the production produces products with higher mean kinetic energy. The thermal response to heating of this type is muted by gravitational containment as the higher temperature products store significant energy in expanding against the containment gravity field. Thus some of this thermal energy is then stored as potential energy.

Visible light is born of ....

However, for the sake of this answer, the absorption of a visible light photon....

---

---

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Yanno - what the heck.

I had a whole post where I pointed out some serious errors of fact. But neither you JSF nor Jack would learn from it.

So I erased it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.


In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Your problem, Kiki, is that your criteria for "evidence" is flawed.

You believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. Just like pretty much everybody else does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody died of covid that wasn't already going to die.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody died of covid that wasn't already going to die.

---

We are ALL going to die, SIX. The only question is when. If Covid pushes up the timetable, then Covid is the cause of death.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You're right.

It's not going to get through.

Because it's bullshit.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.


In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.


In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

That was pretty much in my original post to JSF except I used technical terms like 'bond energy' - which I then explained. But that was one of the 2 particulars I posted. So I'll just reiterate it to you in terms I know you'll understand, even though nobody else probably will. The simple step of breaking apart an oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals is endothermic, not exothermic. Langdon claimed it was exothermic, which was wrong. And that's why I bailed on his explanation making sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Well, he has a lot to say about oxygen and ozone, but the very first thing that gave me pause was his inability to differentiate that the process of simply separating the oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen radicals doesn't both net suck up AND release energy at the same time. It's one or the other - not both.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Your very thorough reply contains 1 of my objections that I used as examples of his misrepresentation of simple physics and chemistry.

And that is his misrepresentation of 'temperature' as vibrations within atoms/ molecules. Temperature is a measure of the average 'kinetic' energy of the atoms/ molecules; and by 'kinetic' energy is meant 'translational' energy, and by THAT is meant movement --- a thing moves from point A to point B in space - it translates through space.

Unfortunately while one can find definitions of temperature online, they are for the most part too technical. But to delve into the physics of atomic/ molecular kinetic energy at bit, I'm going to explain some of the ideas behind temperature. And one of those ideas is the idea of a 'point mass'. A 'point mass' is simply the concept of 'center of gravity' of an item. That's how objects move through space - for example the International Space Station in orbit. It doesn't matter how much it tumbles, or spins, or rolls, (pitch, yaw, roll) or even if it was to stretch and contract like a slinky. What moves through space in orbit that needs to be dealt with to make sure it stays in obit is the speed of its center of gravity. And that's what temperature addresses, in a very technical way. It addresses the movement of the center of the nucleus, where virtually the entire mass of an atom is found, through space.


But the very first thing that had me dumbfounded was his claim that when oxygen breaks apart it RELEASES energy. And that's a claim he repeats several times, despite the fact that he also states - several times - that oxygen has to ABSORB energy in order to be broken apart.

Here's one example where he says that oxygen breaking apart RELEASES energy: "Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere is even more constant year after year ...";
and his counter statement that it absorbs energy: "When a molecule of oxygen absorbs ultraviolet-C radiation from Sun in the frequency range of 1237 trillion cycles per second, the bond holding the two atoms of oxygen together breaks—comes apart—is dissociated."

He seems very confused about the fact that there's a difference between releasing energy and absorbing energy.


I kind of feel sorry for him. He seems confused about really basic stuff. And that's sad to see in anyone, but especially in someone who might have had a clear understanding at one time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.


In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Meanwhile:

Carbon dioxide levels hit 50% higher than preindustrial time
https://apnews.com/article/business-climate-change-science-environment
-and-nature-e4ec631e48aa939e3524d192c0457e62


CO2 Reaches Its Highest Level in More Than 4 Million Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/co-reaches-its-high
est-level-in-more-than-4-million-years?srnd=premium

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.


In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part

Quote:

---

Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

---

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.

---

Somewhere in this thread the separation of oxygen molecules is described as "ejected" - which doesn't sound like moseying.

Of the internet descriptions of separating oxygen molecules, all seem to express a high-speed motion of atoms resulting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Meanwhile:

Carbon dioxide levels hit 50% higher than preindustrial time
https://apnews.com/article/business-climate-change-science-environment
-and-nature-e4ec631e48aa939e3524d192c0457e62


CO2 Reaches Its Highest Level in More Than 4 Million Years
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/co-reaches-its-high
est-level-in-more-than-4-million-years?srnd=premium

---

At first thought, It seemed that this was good news for flora.

But at second thought, I don't recall if I've ever known the accurate answer.

I recall that excessive O2 levels are bad for humans. When our gas monitors measure something like only a percent increase of oxygen (of total air volume), we are required to evacuate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Jack:

If a 16 y/o female is busy texting w/ her friends and hits a utility pole and dies, the cause of death is the car crash. If a 36 y/o female with a perfect driving record is broadsided by a cement truck running a light and dies in the crash, the cause of death is the car crash. One might argue that the 16 y/o was young, inexperienced, and careless. And all that may be true. But the cause of death isn't listed and being young and dumb. Just like the cause of death of the 36 y/o isn't listed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Following along so far?

If a 17 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. If a 71 y/o man dies of a heart attack, the cause of death is the heart attack. Now, one may argue that the 17 y/o was an extremely young heart attack victim, but that doesn't mean his cause of death gets listed as too young to die that way. It was still the heart attack that did him in, so that's what gets listed as the cause of death. Similarly, one might argue that time allowed the older man to accumulate more plaque, that his respiratory system wasn't as efficient, and that his internal reserves that might have carried him through were diminished. It was still the heart attack that pushed him into death, not bad kidneys, or gout and arthritis, or 'age'. And that heart attack gets listed as the cause of death.


It doesn't matter if it's a 16 y/o meth head male who's died from a heart attach, or a 36 y/o female with no known medical conditions, or a 76 y/o HIV positive tranny. The listed cause of death, the thing that killed them off - heart attack - is still the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

What do YOU think killed them? Was it a car accident? Burns? Electrocution? A bullet to the brain? What should be listed as the cause of death?

---