Why is there such a big deal with global warming?? I have been looking at this subject with some interest but am by no means a expert so I will ask questions. here goes. How can we be experiencing global warming when the troposphere, and the stratosphere seem to be cooling? This is what I have found. The MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) on the NOAA polar orbiting satellite measures deep layers of the atmosphere, measuring different layers on different channels. The troposphere is where global warming is suppose to be seen. This same satellite has measured the lower stratosphere cooling over the past 25 years of (-0.47 deg. C/decade). also Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory say that ozone depletion keeps the whole system from warming from the greenhouse gases. so with all that in mind could the cause of some of this extreme weather be caused by warmer oceans and a cooler troposhere? What happens when the cooling of the troposphere slides even cooler? I am also alittle confused how is the oceans warming could that be due to volcanic eruptions underwater and/or a combination of that and the GHG?
This comes from NASA: The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.
Here is something interesting-- A group of researchers guided by Academician Kondratyev has analyzed the archives of temperatures in the Northern Arctic area since 1959 through 2000. Having done this analysis, the researchers stated that constant thermal energy redistribution took place in high latitudes, therefore the state of atmosphere in general had not changed. The researchers used the data of 116 upper-air stations located in the Northern Arctic area (in latitudes 60-90 North), ship observations, and observation on the "North Pole" floating station through 1991, etc. The researchers recorded when and at what altitude temperature anomalies occurred. It turned out that within the 40-year period the lower layer of the troposphere (the surface part of atmosphere which in the arctic latitudes extends up to 8-10 kilometers high) has in general got warmer up to a certain height, while the upper layer of the troposphere and stratosphere (the stratosphere covers the interval from 8 through 45-55 kilometers) has become colder. Proceeding from that, the researchers come to the conclusion that the temperature of the Arctic atmosphere has not changed on the whole. "Apparently there exist the heat redistribution mechanisms, which create approximate heat content permanency in the Arctic atmosphere along the vertical line," believe the researchers. Thus, if the lower part of atmosphere gets warmer, the upper part immediately reacts to that and gets colder to compensate for the excess of heat below, and consequently, no global changes occur in the atmosphere of the Earth. This regularity is evident from the data collected by the researchers: negative anomalies prevailed in the troposphere up to 1980, i.e. it was unusually cold, and in recent years the anomalies were primarily positive -- it became unusually warm. In a higher layer, stratosphere, the situation was exactly opposite: approximately up to 1978 anomalies were primarily positive, and became negative later. A certain boundary between these two air layers of different temperature, or, as the scientists call it -- mean energy level, is located in the medium troposphere. Periodical temperature changes should become apparent there. Within the period since 1959 through 1979 negative anomalies dominated the height of the mean energy level, then started the period of the same duration -- since 1980 through 2000, when the temperature was extraordinarily high. If such periods do alternate permanently, then the next twenty years will witness anomalous cold in the medium troposphere. The researchers have noted one more interesting detail: within the last forty years, the rate at which the temperature changes when climbing every 100 meters has increased -- i.e., the Arctic atmosphere has become less steady. That means that ventilating characteristics of the atmosphere have become stronger. This unsteadiness (along with good ventilating characteristics) grows up only to a certain height in the upper layer of the stratosphere, which contains the largest quantity of ozone. So, in the stratosphere, the ozone concentration should drop, and in the troposphere, conversely, grow up. In this connection, the researchers wonder if these changes are the reason for the ozone content decrease in the atmosphere
interesting ways to curb global warming if it is occuring if you look at the chemistry of the troposphere Relevant to climate: sulfate produced in troposphere from dimethylsulfide (may encourage cloud formation) Also relevant to climate: sulfate produced in stratosphere from carbonyl sulfide (forms aerosols which reflect radiation away from Earth) Both of these sulfate-producing processes act to cool Earth's surface by increasing albedo (the proportion of light reflected back into space)
intersting enough carbonyl sulfide or OCS concentration has risen by approximately 30% since the 1600s, from a mean value of 373 ppt over the period 1616-1694 to something on the order of 485 ppt today. here is something I found thats pretty interesting: In a study contemporary with that of Idso (1992), ocean-surface OCS concentrations were demonstrated by Andreae and Ferek (1992) to be highly correlated with surface-water primary productivity. So strong is this correlation, in fact, that Erickson and Eaton (1993) developed an empirical model for computing ocean-surface OCS concentrations based solely on surface-water chlorophyll concentrations and values of incoming solar radiation. It has also been learned that an even greater portion of naturally-produced OCS is created in the atmosphere, where carbon disulfide and dimethyl sulfide - also largely of oceanic origin (Aydin et al., 2002) - undergo photochemical oxidation (Khalil and Rasmussen, 1984; Barnes et al., 1994). Hence, the majority of the tropospheric burden of OCS is ultimately dependent upon photosynthetic activity occurring near the surface of the world's oceans.
Hi Cardio..etc You really have found the can of worms. The level of details is increasing rapidly. The fight is really on. If you are really interested take a peek here and check the threads of the last year or so, if you have week or two time. You also may encounter some odd familiar names. One of the least investigated areas is the "why". Why do people desperately want to believe in global warming and why do other insist on not believing pertinently. Yes, Global warming is not science anymore, it's ideology - religion. Interesting case for shrinks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We need Edufer here.
