Global Warming = Stratospheric Cooling or Stratospheric Cooling = Global Warming

The beautiful planet Venus, our evening and morning star, boasts temperatures of close to 900 degrees F at the surface. The stratosphere of Venus, however, is colder than our own stratosphere.

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling

When we all punched holes in the ozone with atmospheric nuclear testing we didn't foresee global warming as a byproduct. And we certainly didn't foresee perihelion to a binary; an event which would have little real effect on us if we had an intact ozone layer.

This perihelion, originally discovered in 1967, I believe, and confirmed in the early 1980's, should, actually, have warmed our stratosphere and saved us from runaway global warming.

And, it started out to do just that. The stratosphere had started to cool (a sure sign of global warming - see Venus) and this cooling was measured from 1958 through 1979. Then, in 1980, a significant warming took place through 2010 (as measured in a study.)

We, the people, paid for the lack of foresight in atmospheric nuclear testing by curbing CFC use and further paid by emissions standards and testing. And continue to pay. My state requires a yearly smog check.

It's unfair, certainly, to have to pay for mistakes never admitted, but we do and we will for the survival of future generations. It's unfair, by the same token, to individually pay, while we watch mega-corporations escape all regulation. It's unfair to watch mega-corporations hold our governments hostage by threatening to reveal what everyone, really, already, knows.

What else is there? There is something else. There is something called the ignition triangle.

The Fire Triangle

Grasping that, we need to look at what's been added to our atmosphere over the last 12 years.

Explosibility of nanoparticles

Our atmosphere, currently, is so trashed - full of stuff we know little to nothing about - that it's anybody's guess what will happen. Only "the shadow knows."

To sum: our savior, perihelion to a binary, has arrived but we are not giving this savior a chance. Because we want to argue about curbing emissions rather than curbing them. We have increased emission input i.e. aviation emissions which topped 100,000 daily flights this year.

100,000 Flights a Day

These flights emit directly into the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere while we, on earth, require vast amounts of energy to propel our pollutants that high.

It's a scenario in which a few will profit in the short term, but the majority will lose big time. It's a scenario for massive population reduction that doesn't need to happen.

I thought they renamed this climate change because it should have never been called global warming in the first place. Back in the sixties scientists said that if things warmed too much it would trigger a reversal and an ice age would result. What we have is a more complex version of the same theory, it is all linked together.

The cure for this problem no matter what the cause is to reduce emmissions and quit dumping chemicals into the environment that deter the ecosystem from being able to heal. But we ignore the symptoms.

a reply to: luxordelphi

This perihelion, originally discovered in 1967, I believe, and confirmed in the early 1980's, should, actually, have warmed our stratosphere and saved us from runaway global warming.

Could you please explain this part and also link us to some sources on this please?

Earth's Perihelion with the sun happens every year. A perihelion to a binary sounds as if you are suggesting that we come close to a binary system of some sort.

And if it was something that was discovered in 1967 and confirmed in the early 1980's, I would certainly like to read about that.

a reply to: rickymouse

Warming is the cause, change is the effect. Both terms are correct.

a reply to: luxordelphi

I don't know OP. I might not believe you because Jesse says otherwise.

It is interesting to note that excess carbon dioxide in the troposphere causes the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. This is seen on the planet Venus where the troposphere is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide (96.5%.) This gives Venus a surface temperature of right around 900 degrees F while maintaining the stratosphere on Venus at a temperature colder than our own stratosphere.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. The more carbon dioxide there is, the more infrared radiation gets absorbed.

Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere which is caused by two mechanisms.

The interaction of IR radiation with CO2 is a two way street in that IR radiation can interact with unexcited CO2 molecules and cause them to vibrate and become excited and excited CO2 molecules can become unexcited by releasing IR radiation.

The energy that remains in the absorption band after the IR radiation has traveled through the troposphere is the only energy that is available to interact with the CO2 of the stratosphere. At a CO2 level of 100 ppm there is more energy available for this than at a level of 1000 ppm. Therefore, the stratosphere is cooler because of the higher level of CO2 in the troposphere. Additionally, the troposphere has warmed because it has absorbed the energy that is no longer available to the stratosphere.

In concluding, this paper has explained the mechanisms which cause the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool when the atmospheric levels of CO2 increase. The dominant mechanism involves the conversion of the energy of motion of the particles in the atmosphere to IR radiation which escapes to space and the second method involves the absorption of IR energy by CO2 in the troposphere such that it is no longer available to the stratosphere. Both methods act to reduce the temperature of the stratosphere.

It is also interesting to note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing by leaps and bounds.

We Are Pumping Carbon Into The Atmosphere At Increasing Rates - 2013 Set A New Record Jump

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reports that between 2012 and 2013, carbon dioxide increased by 2.9 parts per million (ppm), bringing carbon dioxide levels up to a whopping average level of 396 ppm.

And the record-breaking doesn’t end there: This year, April became the first month in human history in which carbon dioxide levels hit a monthly average of 400 ppm. The first daily average reading of 400ppm carbon dioxide was first recorded just last year, the first time in 800,000 years.

It seems like what we resist, we do, indeed, become. So far, efforts to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide seem to have had the opposite effect.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Most of the sources that discuss a companion sun for Sol, our sun, are not accepted here. It's funny because the disclosure of a binary could certainly abet deniers of the anthropocene.

a reply to: Antipathy17

I didn't know he was a climate change/global warming denier. Perhaps a lack of understanding of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Kind of a goofy stance.

LIttle; very little is known about the stratosphere and what result our anthropogenic contribution (tons and tons of carbon dioxide and water vapor) will have in the end. It is known that the stratosphere is cooling and, as the stratosphere cools, the troposphere warms. The end result is hell: like Venus. Pretty to look at but death to live on.

Even more alarming and less understood is the cooling in the mesosphere. And the seemingly uneven cooling (based on the incidence of noctilucent clouds) between the two poles.

The first link in this thread gave an also-mention to the cooling mesosphere.

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling

Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth's surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 °C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 °C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling!

Noctilucent clouds are an indication of the health of our atmosphere and its' ability to sustain life as we know it. The more there are, the colder it is where they are and the warmer it gets where we are.

Green Life: Cloudy with a Chance of Global Warming

A rare cloud, possibly associated with global warming, has been spotted over Europe this summer. Scotland, Ireland, and even London have witnessed noctilucent clouds, also called polar mesospheric clouds or night-shining clouds.

So warming for us means cooling in the stratosphere and mesosphere. And for sure there will be a genius coming along to say that we are not experiencing global warming because the stratosphere and mesosphere are actually cooling. And another idiot will come along and say that we should average together the temperatures within these atmospheric layers and voila!: no global warming. Let them look up and contemplate Venus in order to understand what a glut of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do. Or, we can look on the bright side: earth has the potential, if we keep it up, to out-shine Venus in the night sky as viewed by an off-worlder.

originally posted by: luxordelphi
a reply to: eriktheawful

Most of the sources that discuss a companion sun for Sol, our sun, are not accepted here. It's funny because the disclosure of a binary could certainly abet deniers of the anthropocene.

You make the claim in your OP as though it is scientific fact.

By making such a claim, especially with actual dates, you should provide your sources for such things. Especially when you make claims that such a thing is affecting the Earth's climate.

Such claims need to have sources cited, else it is nothing more than high speculation with absolutely no collaborating evidence.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Absolute reliance on internet information is perilous. The internet is a dynamic, fluid environment with a lot of hidden-agenda players. It's not like a library. Where the written word is set in stone. All you can do in a library is redact and burn and that leaves evidence. The internet, breached as it is today, manipulates a mob mentality from a mob mentality via disinformation, distraction and fear mongering.

Forums are chat and chat is editorial. Cloaking a forum in pseudo-science is just a mask. Asking for proof on an internet forum via the internet is like tying someone up and then asking them to dance a jig.

The only thing that can be done on today's internet is to encourage personal observation and individual study and assessment.

If the stratosphere cools for a certain amount of time and then warms for a certain amount of time before reverting back to runaway cooling and if emissions steadily increase during all of that time, there is another reason for the hiatus and its' end. Whether that reason is a binary at perihelion or an influx of designer nano or a combination or something else entirely is what we, as individuals, consider. We don't throw out observation because the internet tells us to. Phenomenal magic is an explanation for savages; it's not an explanation for us.

Censorship via manipulated opinion via the internet has no place in scientific inquiry.

Surface temperature measurements, with their ever changing parameters i.e. six feet off the ground and 100 yards from asphalt and north facing and enclosed in white painted wood, become moot when the relationship between troposphere versus stratospheric temperatures is understood and no amount of manipulation will change that relationship. And we have an end result, in our own solar system - Venus -, to look at and to help us understand.

a reply to: luxordelphi

So basically your answer of being able to cite any credible sources is: No.

That since 1967, 47 years ago, a discovery was made, but not that you can confirm with multiple sources. That it took another almost 20 years to confirm....but of course no one else knows about it, even though you are talking about something that should be in plain view in the sky for any numerous amounts of astronomers to be able to see.

That instead we should simply take your word as fact.

No thanks.

By the way: using the "do your own research" line from you is a bit tired and old. You are the one that brought the subject here. You are the one that created the thread. You are the one that put out the information.

Burden of proof lays with you ma'am.

Not us.

And your answer is: No. I can not offer any at all.

Have a nice day.