Evidence of a cooling upper atmosphere...

[Billy_Bob]

We are currently in an "interglacial" in the Cenozoic ice age. And, if we were following the same cycle as the previous several glaciation events, we would be COOLING. But, we are NOT COOLING.

Likely mostly due to human activities.

The only reason folks like YOU know anything about the ice age is from the same people and same science that tells us that humans are largely responsible for altering our climate.


Now, maybe some day the next glaciation will occur, but in the meantime humanity has available to it the capability to decimate our economies and threaten our societies'.


Your cartoon view of earth science is lacking necessary details.

We are cooling... Its just that people who have a political agenda are altering the records as demonstrated by the nearly 90+ times NOAA has adjusted the records. Again, you are the one with cartoons... Mann and others built a whole lot of them..

 

[ding]

Here's NASA's take on it. Needless to say they aren't as smart as you and they come to a somewhat different conclusion from you. I'm sure in the future they will contact you.

"scientists have found that parts of the upper atmosphere are gradually contracting in response to rising human-made greenhouse gas emissions."

NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting Due to Climate Change - NASA

The sky isn’t falling, but scientists have found that parts of the upper atmosphere are gradually contracting in response to rising human-made greenhouse gas

www.nasa.gov

Cooling is materially different than warming less fast.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The last cycle was nearly circular.

What was nearly circular? I know you keep making this point but could you remind me where you got it from?

Milankovich Cycles take in MUCH MORE than the orbital eccentricity. I honestly thought you knew that.

Past and future Milankovitch cycles via VSOP model
• Graphic shows variations in five orbital elements:
Axial tilt or obliquity (ε).
Eccentricity (e).
Longitude of perihelion ( sin(ϖ) ).
Precession index ( e sin(ϖ) )
• Precession index and obliquity control insolation at each latitude:
Daily-average insolation at top of atmosphere on summer solstice ({\displaystyle {\overline {Q}}^{\mathrm {day} }}

) at 65° N
• Ocean sediment and Antarctic ice strata record ancient sea levels and temperatures:
Benthic forams (57 widespread locations)
Vostok ice core (Antarctica)
• Vertical gray line shows present (2000 CE)




I guess it's YET ANOTHER thing in the sciences you don't understand.

 

[ding]

Again, the word nearly. This is just a point where glaciation CAN OCCUR. What else must be going on to trigger it? Solar output shift is what was missing, and it has happened now. IMHO

Sure, glaciation can occur. But a glacial cycle is triggered by an eccentric orbit. I don’t see a deep freeze in our near future. Mini ice age? Sure.

 

[ding]

What was nearly circular? I know you keep making this point but could you remind me where you got it from?

Milankovich Cycles take in MUCH MORE than the orbital eccentricity. I honestly thought you knew that.

Past and future Milankovitch cycles via VSOP model
• Graphic shows variations in five orbital elements:
Axial tilt or obliquity (ε).
Eccentricity (e).
Longitude of perihelion ( sin(ϖ) ).
Precession index ( e sin(ϖ) )
• Precession index and obliquity control insolation at each latitude:
Daily-average insolation at top of atmosphere on summer solstice ({\displaystyle {\overline {Q}}^{\mathrm {day} }}

) at 65° N
• Ocean sediment and Antarctic ice strata record ancient sea levels and temperatures:
Benthic forams (57 widespread locations)
Vostok ice core (Antarctica)
• Vertical gray line shows present (2000 CE)




I guess it's YET ANOTHER thing in the sciences you don't understand.

I’ve explained and shared it with you many times before. If you haven’t gotten it yet that’s your problem.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again, the word nearly. This is just a point where glaciation CAN OCCUR. What else must be going on to trigger it? Solar output shift is what was missing, and it has happened now. IMHO

In your humble opinion? Excellent. I'm sure the world's climate and solar experts have been awaiting your input!

 

[Billy_Bob]

In your humble opinion? Excellent. I'm sure the world's climate and solar experts have been awaiting your input!

As an atmospheric physicist I will take that as your defeated response. The appeal to authority is a fallacy argument. Thanks for playing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sure, glaciation can occur. But a glacial cycle is triggered by an eccentric orbit. I don’t see a deep freeze in our near future. Mini ice age? Sure.

The LONG term cooling is obvious and started when the Insolation value went negative around 3,500 years ago.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I’ve explained and shared it with you many times before. If you haven’t gotten it yet that’s your problem.

And, again, YOU FOCUS ONLY ON ECCENTRICITY. As if that is the only part of the Milankovich Cycle that matters.

You are, of course, demonstrably wrong (as I showed here).

I'm still curious why you think this matters at all, though. It's NOT cooling as it should be, but doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. There's no part of the Milankovich Cycle anywhere near where we are right now that would cause WARMING.

Humans can and clearly have caused warming. It will happen FAR SOONER than any new glaciation. And it will likely take out our economy if not our social structures.

You have such a messed up cartoon view of ALL of this it amazes me. And to think you wanted to claim to be an ENGINEER but you don't seem capable of understanding complex interactions in a system.

Huh.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

As an atmospheric physicist

LOL. Ummm, yeah. OK.

I will take that as your defeated response. The appeal to authority is a fallacy argument. Thanks for playing.

Then maybe you can post some real science in your own words to show us (and show ding) how to talk like a real scientist!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The LONG term cooling is obvious and started when the Insolation value went negative around 3,500 years ago.

View attachment 657372

Where do you find this stuff?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sure, glaciation can occur. But a glacial cycle is triggered by an eccentric orbit. I don’t see a deep freeze in our near future. Mini ice age? Sure.

This is a source filled very long paper for your reading pleasure, I have this in my file and forgot about it now posting it here, so others see it which is FULL ACCESS

AGU

Interglacials of the last 800,000 years​

 

[Billy_Bob]

And, again, YOU FOCUS ONLY ON ECCENTRICITY. As if that is the only part of the Milankovich Cycle that matters.

You are, of course, demonstrably wrong (as I showed here).

I'm still curious why you think this matters at all, though. It's NOT cooling as it should be, but doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. There's no part of the Milankovich Cycle anywhere near where we are right now that would cause WARMING.

Humans can and clearly have caused warming. It will happen FAR SOONER than any new glaciation. And it will likely take out our economy if not our social structures.

You have such a messed up cartoon view of ALL of this it amazes me. And to think you wanted to claim to be an ENGINEER but you don't seem capable of understanding complex interactions in a system.

Huh.

The contraction of the mesosphere is due to solar forcing. The fact that it no longer provides the heat to warm it. CO2 can not affect it at that altitude. There is so little of it up there, by mass, that it has little or no effect. Epic fail by NASA and you.. Its a matter of simple physics.. You are just to damn funny... and gullible...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The contraction of the mesosphere is due to solar forcing.

Well, YOU ARE an "atmospheric physicist" so I can only imagine how desperately NASA needs to hear from you!

The fact that it no longer provides the heat to warm it. CO2 can not affect it at that altitude.

The greenhouse effect, as I'm sure you KNOW (because you are a real life "atmospheric physicist!" works precisely by CO2 re-emitting the IR photons back into space and the actual greenhouse effect is related to the altitude at which the IR photons are re-radiated back into space. That altitude goes up and up and up with increasing greenhouse gases.

There is so little of it up there, by mass, that it has little or no effect. Epic fail by NASA and you.. Its a matter of simple physics.. You are just to damn funny... and gullible...

NASA and I have failed? Oh noes!!!!

Thank god an anonymous random fake "skolar" online has found our grievous errors!

Thank you fake skolar!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This is a source filled very long paper for your reading pleasure, I have this in my file and forgot about it now posting it here, so others see it which is FULL ACCESS

AGU

Interglacials of the last 800,000 years​

Lookit who knows how to use the Google Machine! Kudos!

Now read it.

 

[ding]

And, again, YOU FOCUS ONLY ON ECCENTRICITY. As if that is the only part of the Milankovich Cycle that matters.

You are, of course, demonstrably wrong (as I showed here).

I'm still curious why you think this matters at all, though. It's NOT cooling as it should be, but doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. There's no part of the Milankovich Cycle anywhere near where we are right now that would cause WARMING.

Humans can and clearly have caused warming. It will happen FAR SOONER than any new glaciation. And it will likely take out our economy if not our social structures.

You have such a messed up cartoon view of ALL of this it amazes me. And to think you wanted to claim to be an ENGINEER but you don't seem capable of understanding complex interactions in a system.

Huh.

The glacial cycles line up with eccentricity. You should have known that.

 

[ding]

The upper atmosphere cooling as an effect of increased CO2 is an entirely different phenomenon whose physics have yet to be explained.

And how can they? It makes no sense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, YOU ARE an "atmospheric physicist" so I can only imagine how desperately NASA needs to hear from you!




The greenhouse effect, as I'm sure you KNOW (because you are a real life "atmospheric physicist!" works precisely by CO2 re-emitting the IR photons back into space and the actual greenhouse effect is related to the altitude at which the IR photons are re-radiated back into space. That altitude goes up and up and up with increasing greenhouse gases.




NASA and I have failed? Oh noes!!!!

Thank god an anonymous random fake "skolar" online has found our grievous errors!

Thank you fake skolar!

Again, at that altitude there is insufficient mass of the CO2 gas to do anything. LWIR emitted at cloud top passes through this region unabated. Only DOWNWELLING SOLAR RADIATION is capable of warming this region of our atmosphere. Again, an epic failure of understanding the basic physical attributes of the region is apparent.

 

[ding]

I don’t see how a cooling upper atmosphere can’t result in an earth that sheds more heat into outer space. It’s a gradient.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The upper atmosphere cooling as an effect of increased CO2 is an entirely different phenomenon whose physics have yet to be explained.

And how can they? It makes no sense.

BINGO.. we have a winner... There is insufficient mass, at altitude, of CO2 to reemit and warm the other gases present. Not only that but at that altitude it is -60 deg C, which means that any emissions would be at about 25um or longer in wave length... An epic failure all the way around.