the blueness of the sky is mainly due to the ozone

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

I know that there is an upper ozonosphere and a lower ozonosphere.
Ozone is a blue gas. Therefore, I attribute the greater part of the blueness of the sky to the presence of ozone molecules.

[pghnative]

According to this (http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/OZ/ozone.html), ozone in its gas state is colorless.

Would you care to retract your claim?

[Ronald Brak]

Hi Attiyah Zahdeh, how are you going?

Glad to see you're starting your own threads. I'm up to 760 posts and I haven't started a thread yet. In fact, I don't know how to start a thread.

Anyway, I thought ozone was colourless, but I don't know much. I suppose one way we could check would be to find out what colour the sky in in Antartica under the ozone hole.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Check out the colour of the sky in Antartica, under the ozone hole.
Roland Brac,
Really,your suggestion is very good.

[novaderrik]

so, if we get rid of all that pesky ozone, then what color would our sky be during the day?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

According to this (http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/OZ/ozone.html), ozone in its gas state is colorless.

Would you care to retract your claim?

I am sure that ozone gas appears blue.

[captain swoop]

Why are you sure it appears blue?
What is your evidence?

[grant hutchison]

Get enough ozone along your line of sight, and it is blue (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/CHEM.htm). Some sources describe the gas as colourless, but they're presumably talking about what it looks like if it leaks into a room: you can't see it. Likewise, water is generally decribed as a colourless liquid, but it's blue if you have enough of it in your line of sight.

Ozone is said to contribute some of the blueness at the zenith on a clear day, especially at high altitude. But if you took the ozone away, the sky would still be blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules.
Attiyah Zahdeh, is it your claim that Rayleigh scattering doesn't produce blue sky-light?

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Get enough ozone along your line of sight, and it is blue (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/CHEM.htm). Some sources describe the gas as colourless, but they're presumably talking about what it looks like if it leaks into a room: you can't see it. Likewise, water is generally decribed as a colourless liquid, but it's blue if you have enough of it in your line of sight.

Ozone is said to contribute some of the blueness at the zenith on a clear day, especially at high altitude. But if you took the ozone away, the sky would still be blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules.
Attiyah Zahdeh, is it your claim that Rayleigh scattering doesn't produce blue sky-light?

Grant Hutchison
Grant Hutchison, I thank you very much because your reply serves as an answer to both Captain Swoop and pghnative.
Concerning your statement:" But if you took the ozone away, the sky would still be blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules", I wait that you will be able to completely remove the ozone from the atmosphere and see what color the sky will be.

I do not deny that Rayleigh scattering might play a minor role. As well as, the argon molecules contribute to the blueness of the sky.
Do not forget that the suggestion of Brak Ronald is very good in order to check my explanation for the blueness of the sky. I expect that GH himself can help in this checking.

[Fortis]

Attiyah, I have already pointed out on the other thread that there are a whole bunch of physics based radiative transfer models (such as MODTRAN), which do a perfectly good job of producing the correct properties of skyshine.

Care to comment?

[grant hutchison]

... I wait that you will be able to completely remove the ozone from the atmosphere and see what color the sky will be.While I'm waiting for you to remove all other molecules except the low partial pressure of ozone, to demonstrate that the sky will look anything other than pitch black with a tiny hint of blue.

The hue, saturation and brightness of skylight is very well explained by modelling of Rayleigh scatterers, as you can find in any textbook of atmospheric optics. The only exceptions occur at low sun angles, when ozone becomes important at the zenith, as I've already said.
Craig Bohren's chapter on atmospheric optics (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/atmospheric_optics.pdf#search=%22%22atmospheric%20 optics%22%20bohren%22) provides much detail.
So unless you can provide evidence that Rayleigh scattering is not as effective as experiment and calculation suggest, there's no reason we should believe your assertion.
Ronald Brak's suggestion is excellent, and I can testify that skies under the Antarctic ozone hole look no less blue (in fact, often more blue) than they do anywhere else.

Grant Hutchison

[pghnative]

Get enough ozone along your line of sight, and it is blue (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/CHEM.htm). Some sources describe the gas as colourless, but they're presumably talking about what it looks like if it leaks into a room: you can't see it.
We can quibble about trace coloration due to Rayleigh scattering, but for all practical definitions, ozone is clearly (:) ) not blue. Fill a room with bromine gas, and you'll see that it is red. Fill a room with chlorine gas, and you'll see that it's green/yellow. Fill a room with ozone and you'll see that it is colorless.

I think it is obvious that the OP is claiming that the sky is tinted blue because ozone, unique among other atmosphereic components, is blue in the same sense that bromine is red and chlorine is green/yellow. That is not the case, as per the MSDS that I linked to.

[Spock Jenkins]

I'm going with Seinfeld on this one.

Q: Why is the sky blue?

A: Because, if it was green - we wouldn't know where to stop mowing.

[grant hutchison]

We can quibble about trace coloration due to Rayleigh scattering, but for all practical definitions, ozone is clearly (:) ) not blue.No quibbling about Rayleigh scattering. I'm saying that ozone is an unsaturated blue in exactly the same way bromine is red and chlorine is green: because it absorbs preferentially at other wavelengths. My first link (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/CHEM.htm) provided the same degree of supporting evidence yours does:It is, in standard state, a pale blue, highly poisonous gas with a strong odour. My second link (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/atmospheric_optics.pdf) gives detail:The Chappuis band of ozone extends from about 450 to 700nm and peaks at around 600nm. Preferential absorption of sunlight by ozone over long horizon paths gives the zenith sky its blueness when the sun is near the horizon.
A roomful of ozone looks clear, as you say, because the absorption is too small to detect: but thirty or forty kilometres of ozone looks blue.

The ATM component of Attiyah Zahdeh's claim is that this ozone absorption causes the "greater part" of the colour of the sky.

Grant Hutchison

Edit: For completeness: the absorption spectrum of ozone (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gruppen/molspec/doc-o3/doc-o3.htm), showing the significant bandpass at short visible wavelengths.

[pghnative]

No quibbling about Rayleigh scattering. I'm saying that ozone is an unsaturated blue in exactly the same way bromine is red and chlorine is green: because it absorbs preferentially at other wavelengths. Ah, I see now. I thought your point was solely about scattering, and didn't realize that you were making a point about direct coloration.

Of course, now I'm wondering why one link said colorless and the other said pale blue. The spectrum you've shown clearly demonstrates that it should have slight coloration. The trick, I would guess, is how to quantitate the blueness from adsorption of oranges versus the blueness from scattering.

[grant hutchison]

Of course, now I'm wondering why one link said colorless and the other said pale blue.I'm guessing because colour is unreliable (read, useless) in detecting this gas at toxic concentrations in enclosed spaces. If your prime concern is chemical safety, emphasizing its transparency is perhaps better than emphasizing its blueness.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

I'm going with Seinfeld on this one.

I never go with Seinfeld about anything.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Ronald Brak's suggestion is excellent, and I can testify that skies under the Antarctic ozone hole look no less blue (in fact, often more blue) than they do anywhere else.

Grant Hutchison
Hello Grant Hutchison,
I want to take for granted that the skies under the Antarctic ozone hole, in fact, look often more blue than they do anywhere else. Accordingly, the blueness of the sky has an intimate relation with the ozone layer. Is this conclusion right?

[grant hutchison]

I want to take for granted that the skies under the Antarctic ozone hole, in fact, look often more blue than they do anywhere else. Accordingly, the blueness of the sky has an intimate relation with the ozone layer. Is this conclusion right?No it isn't.
Another important feature of the Antarctic ozone hole is that it overlies Antarctica, one of the more pristine environments on Earth. The particulate count in this region is therefore often very low when compared to other parts of the Earth.
A reduction in particulates means that blue skylight can appear more saturated, since particulates tend to scatter white light, diluting the blueness of the Rayleigh scatterers.

I'd also point out that the third important feature of the Antarctic ozone hole (after "Antarctic" and "ozone") is "hole": the ozone level is lower than elsewhere. If the ozone hole accounted for any increased blueness of the skies over Antarctica, it would imply that ozone worked in opposition to blue skies, and therefore could not account for their colour. It would be a potent counterargument to your proposition which starts this thread.

Grant Hutchison

[Fortis]

Attiyah, I have already told you about the perfectly adequate physics based radiative transfer models that we have. Given that they reproduce the spectral properties of skyshine (to talk about it in terms of "blueness" does not do the models justice), including the spatial effects, why should we believe that your mechanism is significant?

[Nereid]

I know that there is an upper ozonosphere and a lower ozonosphere.
Ozone is a blue gas. Therefore, I attribute the greater part of the blueness of the sky to the presence of ozone molecules.In the 'Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea', what, quantitatively, is "the greater part"?

What, quantitatively, is "blueness"?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

No it isn't.
Another important feature of the Antarctic ozone hole is that it overlies Antarctica, one of the more pristine environments on Earth. The particulate count in this region is therefore often very low when compared to other parts of the Earth.
A reduction in particulates means that blue skylight can appear more saturated, since particulates tend to scatter white light, diluting the blueness of the Rayleigh scatterers.

I'd also point out that the third important feature of the Antarctic ozone hole (after "Antarctic" and "ozone") is "hole": the ozone level is lower than elsewhere. If the ozone hole accounted for any increased blueness of the skies over Antarctica, it would imply that ozone worked in opposition to blue skies, and therefore could not account for their colour. It would be a potent counterargument to your proposition which starts this thread.

Grant Hutchison
===========

Grant Hutchison,

(1) What are your references for that the the sky of the ozone hole is more blue?
(2) What is the altitude of the scatterers?
(3) Are the particulates you mention in the lower troposhere or in the upper troposphere?
However, more comments are coming.

[grant hutchison]

(1) What are your references for that the the sky of the ozone hole is more blue?I said I could "testify": meaning I've been there and I've looked at it. Note, too, that I did not claim that the skies were always more blue, but that they often looked more blue.

(2) What is the altitude of the scatterers?Particulates have a lower scale height than atmospheric gases, generally, so you expect to find them at highest concentration within a few kilometres of the ground. Exceptions occur when particulates get into the stratosphere as a result of, for instance, volcanic activity.

(3) Are the particulates you mention in the lower troposhere or in the upper troposphere?See above, which implies "lower".

However, more comments are coming.We actually need some answers from you, to questions that have been posed on this thread. At present I seem to be doing your homework for you.

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
(1) What are your references for that the the sky of the ozone hole is more blue?

Grant Hutchison:
I said I could "testify": meaning I've been there and I've looked at it. Note, too, that I did not claim that the skies were always more blue, but that they often looked more blue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh
However, more comments are coming.

Grant Hutchison:
"We actually need some answers from you, to questions that have been posed on this thread. At present I seem to be doing your homework for you".


Why does Grant Hutchison this time want from AZ to do his homework?

[grant hutchison]

Why does Grant Hutchison this time want from AZ to do his homework?Our situation with regard to homework is not symmetrical.
I've been doing your homework for you, because all the stuff I've been telling you is stuff you should have researched for yourself before you made your first post on this thread: it's commonly available information pertinent to your claim.
But when I ask you to answer questions that have been asked of you, I am not asking you to do my homework, or indeed the homework of anyone else here. I'm asking you to provide any information at all to support your idea about ozone and the blue sky. I'm asking for a report on any homework you have actually done.
In the absence of such a report, we really have no reason to believe your contention about ozone and sky colour, and many reasons to disbelieve it. The onus is on you to persuade us.

Grant Hutchison

[Nereid]

[Moderator note] I would like to ask grant hutchison to take the time to write a post with what he regards as (the key) open questions concerning 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea'.

Please number the questions.

By 'open questions', I mean direct, pertinent questions about 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea', as presented in this thread, which, so far, have not been adequately answered.

Others who have challenged 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea', as presented in this thread, may like to do the same.

Once we have such a numbered list, I will then ask Attiyah Zahdeh to answer them, in a timely fashion.
[/Moderator note]

[grant hutchison]

I would like to ask grant hutchison to take the time to write a post with what he regards as (the key) open questions concerning 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea'Key questions for Attiyah Zahdeh, in what seems to be a logical order:

1) Nereid asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817971&postcount=21) for a quantitative definition of "greater part" in your sentence (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816593&postcount=1) "Therefore, I attribute the greater part of the blueness of the sky to the presence of ozone molecules."

2) novaderrik asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816891&postcount=5) what colour you would predict the daytime sky would be if all ozone were absent.

3) Ronald Brak raised (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816600&postcount=3) the topic of the ozone hole, but did not ask a specific question (my recollection was faulty :o). So I'll make explicit the question I believe was implicit: "Is the colour of the sky under the ozone hole different from the colour of the sky elsewhere, in a way your hypothesis can explain?"

4) Fortis asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816988&postcount=10), twice (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817876&postcount=20), what errors you find in the existing radiative transfer models which reproduce the sky's colour and brightness without invoking the colour of ozone gas.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Some information concerning the ozone hole which may be helpful in our discussion.

Map of typical ozone hole, quantification of the level of depletion (at least 25%) (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html)
Description of the Dobson Units in which atmospheric ozone is quantified (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html)

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Grant Hutchison agrees on this statement:
"The Chappuis band of ozone extends from about 450 to 700nm and peaks at around 600nm. Preferential absorption of sunlight by ozone over long horizon paths gives the zenith sky its blueness when the sun is near the horizon".
Doesn't He?

Accordingly, GH, how do you explain that the blueness of the zenith sky when the sun is near the horizon is due to the color of ozone meanwhile its blueness near the horizon when the sun is at zenith is due to Rayleigh scattering?
What, when the sun is near the horizon, does stop the blueness from being due to Rayleigh scattering and operates the blueness of the ozone instead of it?

What, when the sun is at zenith or near it, does stop the blueness from being due to the ozone and operates the blueness that is due to Rayleigh scattering?

[Thanatos]

Let's try a different approach. Why does water look blue when deep and clear - e.g., the oceans viewed from outer space. Is it the dissolved ozone, or Rayleigh scattering?

[grant hutchison]

What, when the sun is near the horizon, does stop the blueness from being due to Rayleigh scattering and operates the blueness of the ozone instead of it?You can find the answer in the standard text I referred you to earlier in the thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817041&postcount=11).
At present, you need to answer the questions posed for you.

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

You can find the answer in the standard text I referred you to earlier in the thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817041&postcount=11).
At present, you need to answer the questions posed for you.

Grant Hutchison.
GH,
Please read this reply from Nereid,


[Moderator note] I would like to ask grant hutchison to take the time to write a post with what he regards as (the key) open questions concerning 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea'.

Please number the questions.

By 'open questions', I mean direct, pertinent questions about 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea', as presented in this thread, which, so far, have not been adequately answered.

Others who have challenged 'the Attiyah Zahdeh sky is blue because of ozone idea', as presented in this thread, may like to do the same.

Once we have such a numbered list, I will then ask Attiyah Zahdeh to answer them, in a timely fashion.
[/Moderator note]

GH,

Accordingly, my questions want your answers even if they are found in the chapter referred to. Suppose that AZ is incapable of determining what you exactly want to represent the answers.

[grant hutchison]

Suppose that AZ is incapable of determining what you exactly want to represent the answers.Then ask me, or the person who posed the original question, for clarification of any specific aspect of the question you find difficult to interpret. Refer to the text of the question, and point out which part you don't understand or find badly phrased.

The reason for these questions is that none of us here yet knows why you believe ozone contributes the greater part of the sky's blueness.
It's often said in this forum that because you have arrived making a non-standard claim, the burden of proof is on you to defend that claim: you need to answer our questions, rather than the other way around.
I think that's perhaps a rather weak argument as it stands, since it can be interpreted as claiming some sort of moral high ground.
What lies beneath it is that our argument ("the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules") is already well laid out in the literature, and easily accessible to you, for instance in the reference I have provided and referred you to. But by its ATM nature, your argument is inaccessible to us, except in so far as you can explain it.
As time goes by, then, we become weary of explaining the mainstream theory to you, while any underpinning for your theory goes undiscussed. It's your hypothesis we're here to discuss, after all.

So please answer the questions, or say what about them you do not understand.

Grant Hutchison

[Nereid]

[snip]
Suppose that AZ is incapable of determining what you exactly want to represent the answers.Just to reinforce what grant hutchison wrote - if you need clarification of any question, just ask for it.

If you don't know the answer, then say so.

If you need more time, then say so (and provide an estimate of when you expect to be able to answer).

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Hello Nereid,
Do you agree that the Rayleigh scatterers you talk about are in the troposphere?

Hello Grant Hutchison,
Do you agree that the Rayleigh scatterers you talk about are in the troposphere?

[grant hutchison]

Hello Grant Hutchison,
Do you agree that the Rayleigh scatterers you talk about are in the troposphere?Which of the four numbered questions does this relate to, and how will it help you understand and answer that question?

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Those who are the proponents of the the Rayleigh scattering agree that Rayleigh scatterers are nearly completely bound to the troposphere. According to the presence of the Rayleigh scatterers in the troposphere the blueness of the sky must be almost restricted to the troposphere. However, travelling over a vast area of land (far from the seas and oceans) shows that the troposphere is not blue. When you are in a plane more than 8 km high above the land you do not see a blue sky under the plane meanwhile you can see the blue sky far above it. Moreover, at such a height you can notice that the blueness of the sky is more intense.

[grant hutchison]

OK, that appears to be a response to question 4).
And the other three questions?

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

OK, that appears to be a response to question 4).
And the other three questions?

Grant Hutchison

What are your detailed comments on this evidence or answer?

[grant hutchison]

What are your detailed comments on this evidence or answer?Rayleigh scatterers are not confined to the troposphere, because gas molecules are Rayleigh scatterers, and gas molecules exist throughout the air column.
The sky does indeed become both bluer and darker as you gain altitude. This is explained by the standard Rayleigh-scattering model. At sea level, we see multiple scattering. As the average number of scatterings increases, so a column of Rayleigh scatterers will take on the hue of the illuminant (the preference for short wavelengths will disappear as all photons are scattered at least once). This sort of multiple scattering is the reason for the paleness of the blue sky at the horizon at sea level, where long sightlines pass through dense atmosphere. As you ascend, the amount of multiple scattering decreases (because there are fewer molecules around you), so the blueness of the sky increases in saturation, while the brightness of the sky declines.
Blueness is still evident at the top of the troposphere, because you are still surrounded by Rayleigh scatterers.

And the other three questions?

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Those who are the proponents of the the Rayleigh scattering agree that Rayleigh scatterers are nearly completely bound to the troposphere. According to the presence of the Rayleigh scatterers in the troposphere the blueness of the sky must be almost restricted to the troposphere.

Do the images taken for the atmosphere from the space show the troposphere having a blue color?

I saw many photos for the atmosphere from the space. I did not see any blue troposphere in any one of them. The absence of the blue troposphere from the photos of the atmosphere taken from space is a decisive evidence for proving that the blueness of the sky is due to the ozone and not due to Rayleigh scattering.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/3.shtml
The earth’s atmosphere viewed from space

[grant hutchison]

Those who are the proponents of the the Rayleigh scattering agree that Rayleigh scatterers are nearly completely bound to the troposphere. According to the presence of the Rayleigh scatterers in the troposphere the blueness of the sky must be almost restricted to the troposphere.This would be an odd use of the phrase "nearly completely", and I'd be interested to see a reference in which someone expert in this subject made such a claim. The troposphere contains 70-80% of the total mass of the atmosphere, and therefore rather less than that proportion of its gas molecules (since particulates are preferentially distributed in the troposphere, and lighter molecules have a mild disposition towards high altitudes). This leaves perhaps quarter of the Rayleigh scatterers above the troposphere.

Do the images taken for the atmosphere from the space show the troposphere having a blue color?They do indeed. By a happy coincidence a link I provided earlier (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html) shows just such a view, with the atmospheric column helpfully marked. I see no indication of a high layer of increased blueness corresponding to the ozonosphere.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/3.shtml
The earth’s atmosphere viewed from spaceAnother nice view, although it's backlit so we're seeing a long sightline of illuminated atmosphere. Where would you draw the upper border of the troposphere on that view?
I see low clouds and particulates, lit by red sunset/sunrise light. I see diffuse particulates above the clouds, lit by direct sunlight because of their greater altitude. I see blue Rayleigh scattering extending and thinning as the atmosphere decreases in density with altitude. If the clouds are a couple of kilometres above the limb of the Earth, we're seeing mainly troposphere. This is precisely what would be predicted by the standard model of Rayleigh scatters combined with particulates with a low scale height, as I've already described during our trip to Antarctica.

And the other three questions?

Grant Hutchison

[captain swoop]

I think we are in another cheese shop

[grant hutchison]

I think we are in another cheese shopSorry, I don't end up in these parts very often, so I'm maybe missing the reference. :)
Is that "cheese shop" as in John Cleese and Michael Palin, lots of questions and no progress? Or something else?

Grant Hutchison

[Nereid]

Attiyah Zahdeh has requested some time to prepare answers to questions that have been posed so far.

Accordingly, this thread will be locked, tomorrow, for 10 days.

Between now and when it is locked, BAUT members have the opportunity to challenge the ATM ideas, as presented in this thread, and to ask questions.

Attiyah Zahdeh, or any other BAUT proponent of these ideas, has the opportunity to provide clarifications, additional background, etc.

When the thread is re-opened, Attiyah Zahdeh will answer all relevant, open questions, about the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, as presented in this thread.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Attiyah's Concise Explanation of the Blueness of the Sky


The blueness of the sky concerns four atmospheric layers: the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere (including the ionospheric D-layer), and the ionospheric E-layer.
(1) Regarding the troposphere:
a- Its contribution to the blueness of the sky is almost insignifacant or even negligible. This insignificant contribution is largely due to Rayleigh scattering.
b- Its variable contents affect the vividness of the blueness of the overlying atmospheric layers or conceal it.
(2) Regarding the stratosphere:
a- the blue color of the stratospheric ozone is the main contributer to the blueness of the sky as viewed from the ground.
b- The ice of the stratospheric clouds such as the nacreous clouds have a minor contribution.
c- Argon atoms have a very minor contribution.
d- Due to the presence of different molecules other than ozone molecules, Rayleigh scattering plays a mionor role.
(3) Regarding the mesosphere (including the ionospheric D-layer):
a- the diurnal, global auroras in the D-layer continuously emit some blue spectra.
b- The electric discharges relevant to the occurrence of auroras lead to the production of the ozone of the upper ozonosphere. This ozone content contributes significantly to the blueness of the sky.
c- The ice of the noctilucent clouds have a minor contribution.

(4) The ionospheric E-layer:

The diurnal, global auroras in the E-layer continuously emit some blue spectra.

[captain swoop]

Sorry, I don't end up in these parts very often, so I'm maybe missing the reference. :)
Is that "cheese shop" as in John Cleese and Michael Palin, lots of questions and no progress? Or something else?

Grant Hutchison

that's the one

[grant hutchison]

Between now and when it is locked, BAUT members have the opportunity to challenge the ATM ideas, as presented in this thread, and to ask questions.I have some additional questions, arising from the reiteration that the troposphere's contribution to the blueness of the sky is "negligible":
5) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the phenomenon of "aerial perspective", the gradually increasing blueness of objects with increasing distance? The standard theory explains this by Rayleigh scattering between eye and object at ground level.
6) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the observed darkening of the sky with increasing altitude within the troposphere: for instance, as observed by mountaineers? It seems this should not take place if blueness arose primarily from the ozonosphere, but it is readily explained by the standard model, in which scattering decreases with height.
7) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the observed colour changes in the distant sky when the near sky is shadowed by clouds or by an eclipse shadow? Bands of green, orange or red are often visible under these circumstances, which are explained readily by the conventional theory in terms of multiple scattering encounters at ground level.
I believe items 1) to 4) are also still outstanding, since no convincing response to 4) has yet been ventured.

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Between now and when it is locked, BAUT members have the opportunity to challenge the ATM ideas, as presented in this thread, and to ask questions.
GH,
You can ask space astronauts so as to know that the troposphere does not appear blue from the space.
Please, travel at an altitude of about 12 km to see that the troposphere, far from the sea waters, is not blue.

GH,
How do you explain that the blue color of the ozone is the cause of the blueness of the zenith sky at or around the time of sunset and twilight while during the rest of the day the blueness of the zenith sky itself is due to the Rayleigh scattering? Does the ozone carry out the preferential absorption which peaks at the wavelenghth 600nm only around sunset and twilight?
If so, why does the ozone stop this preferential absorption during the rest of the day?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

This would be an odd use of the phrase "nearly completely", and I'd be interested to see a reference in which someone expert in this subject made such a claim. The troposphere contains 70-80% of the total mass of the atmosphere, and therefore rather less than that proportion of its gas molecules (since particulates are preferentially distributed in the troposphere, and lighter molecules have a mild disposition towards high altitudes). This leaves perhaps quarter of the Rayleigh scatterers above the troposphere.

They do indeed. By a happy coincidence a link I provided earlier (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html) shows just such a view, with the atmospheric column helpfully marked. I see no indication of a high layer of increased blueness corresponding to the ozonosphere.

Another nice view, although it's backlit so we're seeing a long sightline of illuminated atmosphere. Where would you draw the upper border of the troposphere on that view?
I see low clouds and particulates, lit by red sunset/sunrise light. I see diffuse particulates above the clouds, lit by direct sunlight because of their greater altitude. I see blue Rayleigh scattering extending and thinning as the atmosphere decreases in density with altitude. If the clouds are a couple of kilometres above the limb of the Earth, we're seeing mainly troposphere. This is precisely what would be predicted by the standard model of Rayleigh scatters combined with particulates with a low scale height, as I've already described during our trip to Antarctica.

And the other three questions?

Grant Hutchison
==============

GH,

Have you seen the reference or the expert?

GH,
The view you referred me to confirms that the height that corresponds to the troposphere is not blue. Please see the line touching the horizon (The line at the head of the low arrow). It hardly appears having a very faint bluish color. Moreover, do not forget that the photo is taken above an ocean. The blueness of the ocean waters were reflected in the overlying troposphere so that it appears so faintly bluish.

GH,
Were the Rayleigh scattering the cause of the blueness of the sky, then this blueness should decrease with altitude. So, how do you explain that the blueness of the sky gets more intense with altitude such that the stratosphere shows a relatively dark blue color?

GH,
How do you see that the blue Rayleigh scattering is extending and thinning as the atmosphere decreases in density with altitude meanwhile the blueness is intensifying with altitude?

[grant hutchison]

You can ask space astronauts so as to know that the troposphere does not appear blue from the space.
Please, travel at an altitude of about 12 km to see that the troposphere, far from the sea waters, is not blue.Your suggestions are unfeasible, but fortunately unnecessary. Simply provide photographic evidence to support your claim. I've already done so.

How do you explain that the blue color of the ozone is the cause of the blueness of the zenith sky at or around the time of sunset and twilight while during the rest of the day the blueness of the zenith sky itself is due to the Rayleigh scattering? Does the ozone carry out the preferential absorption which peaks at the wavelenghth 600nm only around sunset and twilight?
If so, why does the ozone stop this preferential absorption during the rest of the day?I have provided a reference for you. In the meantime, you should concentrate on responding to the questions that have been asked.

Have you seen the reference or the expert?The onus is on you to provide supporting evidence for your claim that Rayleigh scatterers are confined almost exclusively to the troposphere, which is an ATM claim.

The view you referred me to confirms that the height that corresponds to the troposphere is not blue.A substantial region within the base of the marked atmospheric column (ie, in the region of the troposphere) is blue. Are you denying this?

Moreover, do not forget that the photo is taken above an ocean. The blueness of the ocean waters were reflected in the overlying troposphere so that it appears so faintly bluish.Do you now claim that the atmosphere is blue because it reflects the oceans? This is another ATM claim. I'd suggest you don't start damaging your own arguments by trying to introduce another difficult-to-defend and conflicting hypothesis.

Were the Rayleigh scattering the cause of the blueness of the sky, then this blueness should decrease with altitude.This is not so, for reasons already explained. Multiple scattering by Rayleigh scatterers desaturates the sky's colour. At altitude, multiple scattering is reduced, so blueness becomes more saturated, while the sky's brightness decreases. Neither of these observations can be explained by a layer of blue gas higher than the observer.

How do you see that the blue Rayleigh scattering is extending and thinning as the atmosphere decreases in density with altitude meanwhile the blueness is intensifying with altitude?See above.

You now have seven questions to which you have still not responded adequately. If there is time before the thread locks, do you require any clarification on any of these questions?

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Another question, so as to place "blueness" on a scientific footing that allows no wiggle room:

8) The spectrum of the blue sky (http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/samples/spapers/34samplejg_gifs/34samplejg_image008.jpg) has a peak around 500nm and falls continuously and signficantly all the way to 700nm and beyond.
The absorption spectrum of ozone (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gruppen/molspec/doc-o3/Chappuis.JPG) shows absorption at 500nm and 700nm to be roughly equal, with a major bandpass at 400nm.
If ozone caused the blue sky, we would expect the spectrum of the blue sky to resemble an inverted version of the absorption spectrum of ozone. And yet the two are entirely different. How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for this?

Attiyah Zahdeh, do you require any clarification of this question?

Grant Hutchison

PS: Original contexts for the two illustrative graphs:

http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/samples/spapers/34samplejg.htm
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gruppen/molspec/doc-o3/doc-o3.htm

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Hello GH,
Until now you are trying to avoid giving any answer to any of my questions.

[Nereid]

Per post #45 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=819064&postcount=45), this thread is now closed.

It will open in 10 days' time, and Attiyah Zahdeh will answer all the open questions about his ATM idea, in this thread.

[Nereid]

Thread open.

Attiyah Zahdeh will now answer all the open questions about his ATM idea, in this thread.

[captain swoop]

no he won't

[SMEaton]

Have an eye for the Jarlsberg, perhaps? The buffalo mozzarella is fresh, yes it is, care to taste? Goats, yes, they're out back. Yes, you can pet them. Everything's moldy, though.

[captain swoop]

yup the cheese shop is open again

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

no he won't

No, I will. Please, what are your questions?

[grant hutchison]

No, I will. Please, what are your questions?The eight numbered questions already posed, here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=818156&postcount=27), here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=819238&postcount=48) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=819563&postcount=52). For convenience, I'll bring them all together, below:

1) Nereid asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817971&postcount=21) for a quantitative definition of "greater part" in your sentence (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816593&postcount=1) "Therefore, I attribute the greater part of the blueness of the sky to the presence of ozone molecules."

2) novaderrik asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816891&postcount=5) what colour you would predict the daytime sky would be if all ozone were absent.

3) Ronald Brak raised (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816600&postcount=3) the topic of the ozone hole, but did not ask a specific question (my recollection was faulty :o). So I'll make explicit the question I believe was implicit: "Is the colour of the sky under the ozone hole different from the colour of the sky elsewhere, in a way your hypothesis can explain?"

4) Fortis asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816988&postcount=10), twice (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817876&postcount=20), what errors you find in the existing radiative transfer models which reproduce the sky's colour and brightness without invoking the colour of ozone gas.

5) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the phenomenon of "aerial perspective", the gradually increasing blueness of objects with increasing distance? The standard theory explains this by Rayleigh scattering between eye and object at ground level.

6) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the observed darkening of the sky with increasing altitude within the troposphere: for instance, as observed by mountaineers? It seems this should not take place if blueness arose primarily from the ozonosphere, but it is readily explained by the standard model, in which scattering decreases with height.

7) How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for the observed colour changes in the distant sky when the near sky is shadowed by clouds or by an eclipse shadow? Bands of green, orange or red are often visible under these circumstances, which are explained readily by the conventional theory in terms of multiple scattering encounters at ground level.

8) The spectrum of the blue sky (http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/samples/spapers/34samplejg_gifs/34samplejg_image008.jpg) has a peak around 500nm and falls continuously and signficantly all the way to 700nm and beyond.
The absorption spectrum of ozone (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gruppen/molspec/doc-o3/Chappuis.JPG) shows absorption at 500nm and 700nm to be roughly equal, with a major bandpass at 400nm.
If ozone caused the blue sky, we would expect the spectrum of the blue sky to resemble an inverted version of the absorption spectrum of ozone. And yet the two are entirely different. How does Attiyah Zahdeh's hypothesis account for this?

Original contexts for the two illustrative graphs:
http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/sample...34samplejg.htm (http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/samples/spapers/34samplejg.htm)
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gruppen...-o3/doc-o3.htm

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

In one of his posts here Grant Hutchison told us that the blueness of the zenith sky at twilight is due to ozone, while in another post he told us that "some" of the blueness of the zenith sky at twilight is due to ozone ..
GH, please clarify.

[Van Rijn]

I don't see an answer to the eight questions anywhere in that post. AZ, you've had time to compose your answers, when are you going to post them?

[Thanatos]

Empirical evidence is good - like:

http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor...lization.shtml

[grant hutchison]

In one of his posts here Grant Hutchison told us that the blueness of the zenith sky at twilight is due to ozone, while in another post he told us that "some" of the blueness of the zenith sky at twilight is due to ozone ..
GH, please clarify.You're simply misquoting me.
In the post in which I use the words "some" and "zenith" there is no mention of twilight. I said: "Ozone is said to contribute some of the blueness at the zenith on a clear day, especially at high altitude. But if you took the ozone away, the sky would still be blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules." (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816952&postcount=8)
And when I said "twilight", I did not use the word "some": "The hue, saturation and brightness of skylight is very well explained by modelling of Rayleigh scatterers, as you can find in any textbook of atmospheric optics. The only exceptions occur at low sun angles, when ozone becomes important at the zenith, as I've already said." (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817041&postcount=11)
There is no conflict between these two statements, and they reflect the mainstream view which I do not need to defend.

You, however, have eight questions outstanding concerning your ATM hypothesis, and have had 13 days to prepare your answers. Our expectation was that we'd see an itemized list of responses as soon as the thread reopened.

Grant Hutchison

[captain swoop]

As far as I can see he needs the Ozone to support the sun in a black sky, his theory doesn't allow for Rayleigh scattering to contribute the blue.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

You're simply misquoting me.
In the post in which I use the words "some" and "zenith" there is no mention of twilight. I said: "Ozone is said to contribute some of the blueness at the zenith on a clear day, especially at high altitude. But if you took the ozone away, the sky would still be blue because of Rayleigh scattering from gas molecules." (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=816952&postcount=8)
And when I said "twilight", I did not use the word "some": "The hue, saturation and brightness of skylight is very well explained by modelling of Rayleigh scatterers, as you can find in any textbook of atmospheric optics. The only exceptions occur at low sun angles, when ozone becomes important at the zenith, as I've already said." (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817041&postcount=11)
There is no conflict between these two statements, and they reflect the mainstream view which I do not need to defend.

You, however, have eight questions outstanding concerning your ATM hypothesis, and have had 13 days to prepare your answers. Our expectation was that we'd see an itemized list of responses as soon as the thread reopened.

Grant Hutchison

You said: "Ozone is said to contribute some of the blueness at the zenith on a clear day".
I see that you want to show that this contibution is not restricted to the twilight time.

As well, you said:"The only exceptions occur at low sun angles, when ozone becomes important at the zenith". Moreover you said (or qouted):"The Chappuis band of ozone extends from about 450 to 700nm and peaks at around 600nm. Preferential absorption of sunlight by ozone over long horizon paths gives the zenith sky its blueness when the sun is near the horizon".

I see that by the last two stetements you want to show that the blueness of the zenith sky at the twilight is due to the blue ozone.
What about the blueness of sky that is between the zenith and horizon?

Why during the day some of the blueness of the zenith sky is due to blue ozone but at the twilight the ozone is important for the blueness of the same zenith sky (or even the cause of it)?
How do you prove both quantitatively an qualitatively that the contibution of the blue ozone to the blueness of the zenith sky deceases from sunrise toward noon, and that it then increases from noon toward sunset?

Please do not refer me to any URL. Say what you want me to read there.


Do you know that your posts here are sufficient to prove my idea that the blue ozone is the main conrtibuter to the blueness of the sky?

[grant hutchison]

Why during the day some of the blueness of the zenith sky is due to blue ozone but at the twilight the ozone is important for the blueness of the same zenith sky (or even the cause of it)?Perhaps if you think about the mainstream idea of a layer of very faintly blue gas overlying a region of very strong Rayleigh scattering you'll be able to puzzle this one out for yourself. What is special about the situation during twilight when the high atmosphere is illuminated obliquely while the lower atmosphere is in shadow?

Please do not refer me to any URL. Say what you want me to read there.Once again, I have to point out that there's no obligation on me to give you a tutorial on the mainstream interpretation of the blue sky, except insofar as it will help you understand the questions you have been asked.
This thread was locked for 10 days specifically to allow you to prepare complete answers to the questions that have been asked.

Please answer the questions.

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Perhaps if you think about the mainstream idea of a layer of very faintly blue gas overlying a region of very strong Rayleigh scattering you'll be able to puzzle this one out for yourself. What is special about the situation during twilight when the high atmosphere is illuminated obliquely while the lower atmosphere is in shadow?

Once again, I have to point out that there's no obligation on me to give you a tutorial on the mainstream interpretation of the blue sky, except insofar as it will help you understand the questions you have been asked.
This thread was locked for 10 days specifically to allow you to prepare complete answers to the questions that have been asked.

Please answer the questions.

Grant Hutchison

This is not the first time you tried to avoid answering my questions. Please review all the questions I asked you and answer them. Let the affairs of the moderators to the moderators themselves.

I repeat that your posts are alone sufficient to form a clear evidence supporting my idea.

You said: "a layer of very faintly blue gas overlying a region of very strong Rayleigh scattering"..

I showed that the troposphere wherein you think that strong Rayleigh scattering occurs does not appear blue:
1- from the planes that fly in the highest region of the troposphere.
2- from the satellites.
3- in the photos taken by astronauts.

Please ask NASA's astronauts about the color of the troposphere.

As well, one can see the blueness of the sky through the gaps between the clouds that are formed at the highest level of the troposphere.

[Van Rijn]

This is not the first time you tried to avoid answering my questions. Please review all the questions I asked you and answer them.


I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds that very ironic. Even though this is your ATM thread with your idea, not a Q&A thread, from what I see, Grant has been very patient in answering your questions. The question is: Why aren't you answering the questions that were repeatedly asked of you?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds that very ironic. Even though this is your ATM thread with your idea, not a Q&A thread, from what I see, Grant has been very patient in answering your questions. The question is: Why aren't you answering the questions that were repeatedly asked of you?

He hasn't yet answered my questions. Please review my questions one by one and show me his answers one by one. I consider that some of my questions imply evidence supporting my ideas. Logically, anyone who thinks that he has counterarguments is subjected to be asked some questions concerning them. His duty, if possible, is to answer such questions.

[antoniseb]

His duty, if possible, is to answer such questions.
No, that is not the way it works here. You have posted the ATM claims, and you have the highest obligation to answer questions about your claim.

[Fortis]

I see that by the last two stetements you want to show that the blueness of the zenith sky at the twilight is due to the blue ozone.
What about the blueness of sky that is between the zenith and horizon?

Why during the day some of the blueness of the zenith sky is due to blue ozone but at the twilight the ozone is important for the blueness of the same zenith sky (or even the cause of it)?
How do you prove both quantitatively an qualitatively that the contibution of the blue ozone to the blueness of the zenith sky deceases from sunrise toward noon, and that it then increases from noon toward sunset?

Please do not refer me to any URL. Say what you want me to read there.

We have very good, validated, physics based models of the atmosphere that do happily give good predictions of the full spectral characteristics of skyshine as a function of wavelength, solar elevation, azimuth, and viewing elevation.

Given this, why should we be interested in your idea that has yet to produce quantitative numbers for sky radiance?

[grant hutchison]

This is not the first time you tried to avoid answering my questions.I have not "avoided" answering your questions. I have refused to become involved in a tangential discussion that doesn't address the questions you have been asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Please review all the questions I asked you and answer them.It's not my job (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=828862&postcount=71) to explain the mainstream view to you: there's an assumption here that you understand the mainstream view before you post something "Against The Mainstream". (Otherwise how did you know it was against the mainstream?) Please answer the questions you have been asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Let the affairs of the moderators to the moderators themselves.I have made no appeals to moderators. You must be confusing me with someone else.

I repeat that your posts are alone sufficient to form a clear evidence supporting my idea.Then you will feel comfortable with addressing the questions you have been asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60), using my various posts as references.

I showed that the troposphere wherein you think that strong Rayleigh scattering occurs does not appear blue:
1- from the planes that fly in the highest region of the troposphere.
2- from the satellites.
3- in the photos taken by astronauts.You have exhibited a single photograph (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=818884&postcount=41), which shows a strong blue band at tropospheric levels (undermining your hypothesis), and you have denied evidence (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=819520&postcount=50) of yet another strong blue band at tropospheric levels (which also undermines your hypothesis). You have not addressed the questions you have been asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Please answer the questions you have been asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Grant Hutchison

[PhantomWolf]

I guess we aren't going to find out why he thinks objects on the ground turn blue when you get futher from them... shame.

Edited to add: Hmmm, maybe we will, since it's just a 3 day suspension. Perhaps he'll use it to write up the answers to those 8 questions..... (Like I really believe that. :rolleyes: )

[Thanatos]

Fascinating. I thought Rayleigh scattering was the issue. I was looking forward to the math.

[Nereid]

Upon his return (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=829007&postcount=116), Attiyah Zahdeh will answer all pertinent, direct questions, about the ATM ideas he has presented in this thread.

Or, he may ask that the thread be closed, to allow more time for preparation of answers, or because he chooses to abandon defence of the ATM ideas.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Attiyah, I have already pointed out on the other thread that there are a whole bunch of physics based radiative transfer models (such as MODTRAN), which do a perfectly good job of producing the correct properties of skyshine.

Care to comment?

Fortis, please show me that the radiative transfer models proved that the cause of the bluenss of the sky is the Rayleigh scattering rather than the color of ozone.
Give me any quotations and their references or links.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Hello Grant Hutchison,
In post # 60 in this thread you said that scattering decreases with height.
Accirdingly, you cocluded that the blueness of the sky decreases with height.
Didn't you?

Please see the photos of the atmosphere from space to be sure that the blueness of the sky inceases with height.

Please show me any photo for the atmosphere (up to the mesosphere) such that the blueness decreases with height.
Please write here any quotations from the astronauts' accounts showing that they witnessed a blue troposphere in the distant horizon while they were in space.

[Fortis]

Fortis, please show me that the radiative transfer models proved that the cause of the bluenss of the sky is the Rayleigh scattering rather than the color of ozone.
Give me any quotations and their references or links.
This page (http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/ProductLines/IR-Clutter/modtran4.aspx#VV) gives references to validation of MODTRAN 4. Given your interest in alterantive models, I would have thought that you would have been familiar with the conventional models?

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

This page (http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/ProductLines/IR-Clutter/modtran4.aspx#VV) gives references to validation of MODTRAN 4. Given your interest in alterantive models, I would have thought that you would have been familiar with the conventional models?
You claimed that the radiative transfer models proved that the blueness of the sky is due to Rayleigh scatttering, didn't you?

Please write the quotations that state this explicitly.

[grant hutchison]

In post # 60 in this thread you said that scattering decreases with height.
Accirdingly, you cocluded that the blueness of the sky decreases with height.
Didn't you?I did not. I've already pointed out (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=818856&postcount=40) that the blueness of the sky becomes more saturated, but darker, as height increases. This is in accord with the multiple scattering at low levels predicted by the standard model.

Please see the photos of the atmosphere from space to be sure that the blueness of the sky inceases with height.If by this you mean that saturation increases with height, while the sky gets darker, this is predicted by the standard model.

My question number 6 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60) does not relate to the view from space, however, but the view seen by someone immersed in the troposphere; the example of a mountaineer was given specifically.
If blueness were generated in the ozonosphere, the sky would not become darker as we gained altitude in the troposphere: we'd simply be moving closer to a uniform blue surface overhead.

You've already been suspended for not answering the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60). Please do so now.

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

I did not. I've already pointed out (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=818856&postcount=40) that the blueness of the sky becomes more saturated, but darker, as height increases. This is in accord with the multiple scattering at low levels predicted by the standard model.

If by this you mean that saturation increases with height, while the sky gets darker, this is predicted by the standard model.

My question number 6 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60) does not relate to the view from space, however, but the view seen by someone immersed in the troposphere; the example of a mountaineer was given specifically.
If blueness were generated in the ozonosphere, the sky would not become darker as we gained altitude in the troposphere: we'd simply be moving closer to a uniform blue surface overhead.

You've already been suspended for not answering the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60). Please do so now.

Grant Hutchison

The troposphere as seen from space is not blue.
The troposphere as seen from its highest level is not blue.
Gaining altitude in the troposphere does not make the sky get darker but the blueness becmes brighter.
Where is the effect of Rayleigh scattering?
Where is the effect of the multiple scattering?

[grant hutchison]

Simply denying the contradictory evidence doesn't make your thesis any truer.
Please answer the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Grant Hutchison

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Simply denying the contradictory evidence doesn't make your thesis any truer.
Please answer the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Grant Hutchison



In post #40 you said: "(the preference for short wavelengths will disappear as all photons are scattered at least once)"<

Can you explain why this happens?

Do not forget that Ockham's razor supports me.
1- Ozone is blue.
2- There is ozonosphere overlying the troposphere.
3- The troposphere as seen from the space is not blue.
4- The troposphere as seen from the highest level of the troposphere itself is not blue.
5- The ozonosphere is seen blue from the highest level of the troposphere.
6- The ozonosphere is seen blue from the space.

[grant hutchison]

In post #40 you said: "(the preference for short wavelengths will disappear as all photons are scattered at least once)"This is part of the mainstream explanation of sky colour, and I'm surprised you don't know about it. Since it has relevance to my question 7, I'll answer.
The light from distant air, in a population that allows multiple scattering, will be scattered out of your line of sight with a probability proportional to its probability of its having been initially scattered in your direction. In a long column, these "in" and "out" scattering probabilities cancel, so that the spectrum of light received at your eye matches the spectrum of the illuminant.
Mathematical treatments are available in any of the standard references on atmospheric optics.

Do not forget that Ockham's razor supports me.The evidence does not. Your items 4 to 6 are denials of the existing evidence.

Please answer the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

AZ, I think you're missing something, here. You are the one presenting the new idea. Ergo, it is your responsibility to understand the old one before you challenge it, not ours to explain it to you. What's more, as you definitely ought to know by now, as the one presenting the new idea, it's your responsibility to answer questions posed to you, not to interrogate people for the bits you don't understand before you're going to overturn major parts of science.

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

This is part of the mainstream explanation of sky colour, and I'm surprised you don't know about it. Since it has relevance to my question 7, I'll answer.
The light from distant air, in a population that allows multiple scattering, will be scattered out of your line of sight with a probability proportional to its probability of its having been initially scattered in your direction. In a long column, these "in" and "out" scattering probabilities cancel, so that the spectrum of light received at your eye matches the spectrum of the illuminant.
Mathematical treatments are available in any of the standard references on atmospheric optics.

The evidence does not. Your items 4 to 6 are denials of the existing evidence.

Please answer the questions asked of you (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=827552&postcount=60).

Grant Hutchison

Really, your explanation is in favour of my idea.

Have you asked NASA's astronauts about the color of the troposphere from space?

How does Rayleigh scattering (the standard model you claimed) explain that the troposphere appears not blue from the space, and from the highest level of the troposphere itself, too?

Do you agree that the radiative transfer models are capable of explaining the blueness of the sky in terms of Rayleigh scattering?

[Nereid]

Attiyah Zahdeh, your BAUT account was suspended for three days (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=829007&postcount=116) for failing to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM ideas you posted, in ATM threads you started.

It was made clear, in both PMs and posts (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=829260&postcount=76) in three of the ATM threads you started, that all pertinent, direct questions, about the ATM ideas you presented must be answered*, and that the only Attiyah Zahdeh posts that would be permitted, that were not answers to such questions, would be ones asking for clarification of those direct questions.

You have written seven posts in this thread, over a period of some six hours; none of them contains answers to the open questions.

In addition to disregarding the warning that accompanied your suspension three days ago, your posting behaviour today is a direct violation of BAUT rules. Your account is accordingly suspended for one month. Upon your return, please answer the open questions, in this thread and the others you started, in the ATM section, before posting anything else. Failure to comply will result in a permanent ban.

*Or ask that the thread be closed, to allow more time for preparation of answers, or because you chose to abandon defence of the ATM ideas.

[Nereid]

As Attiyah Zahdeh's account has been suspended for a month (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=831496&postcount=88), this thread will be closed until his return.

He will answer all pertinent, direct questions, about the ATM ideas he has presented in this thread.

Or, he may ask that the thread be closed, to allow more time for preparation of answers, or because he chooses to abandon defence of the ATM ideas.

[Nereid]

Thread re-opened.

[PhantomWolf]

Well since this thread is back and AZ can answer questions if he ever comes back, here's mine to add to the list (Hey I've been waiting for a month. :p)

On Sunday 24th September, we had a patch of Ozone depleated air pass over New Zealand (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=104&objectid=10402663), dropping the Ozone levels to the lowest ever recorded above the country. I was wondering how AZ could, using his "Blue Sky is caused by Ozone" theory, account for the fact that the sky remained exactly the same blue colour on that Sunday as it was any other day.

[Nereid]

Per Attiyah Zahdeh's request, this thread will be closed for 30 days, while he prepares responses to the open questions.