NASA co2 Cools Earth's Atmosphere.

reply to post by PrivateSi

So what your saying is the hole in the OZONE LAYER letting in UV that converts to many frequencies, including infra-red as it hits the atmosphere and ground does not heat our poles (mainly Antarctica)?

No. There is no mention of the ozone layer in what buddhasystem said or in what the article says.

The article is about the effects of CMEs (not UV or any other electromagnetic radiation) on the outer (very, very outer) atmosphere.

The article has nothing to do with climate, AGW or otherwise. Climate does not occur in space. The article has been completely misunderstood by the majority of people here who are anxious to "prove" that CO2 has nothing to do with warming.

reply to post by Phage


I understand that but surely more CO2 in the upper atmosphere is caused by more CO2 in the lower atmosphere.. It's the feedback (or -ve feedback effects) effects that, due to massive errors rendered all the models inaccurate.. This satellite (array) is PART OF THE PROBLEM, G.W. Researcher, like G.W. Research in general. I'm a people person but like bio-diversity too... More vertical farms would be good, especially if we refine the CLOSED SYSTEM'S cow-farty air into CHEAP FUEL to power the plant crops on upper levels, heh WATT, old chap! Sorry. -- PRO-SELF-RELIANCE ENERGY MOVEMENT, BTW as a correction to my little essay-rant...

Originally posted by PrivateSi
if we refine the CLOSED SYSTEM'S cow-farty air into CHEAP FUEL to power the plant crops

I like your idea of cow-fart based economy, but you are pretty explicit about locking up hapless cows in "closed systems". I'm not sure how this will sit with animal rights activists.

reply to post by PrivateSi

I understand that but surely more CO2 in the upper atmosphere is caused by more CO2 in the lower atmosphere

What makes you think there is "more" CO2 in the upper atmosphere? Where this is occurring is near vacuum. It is, for all intents and purposes, space.

Energetic particles from the Sun (a CME) heats up CO2 in the thermosphere. As the CO2 cools, it radiates most of that energy back into space (because there is nothing there but space. It has nothing to do with climate.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I don't know, if I was a cow I probably wouldn't mind living in a 40 story multi-story car park full of nice grass with full height alternating windows and solar panels with a solar-panelled roof...! It's a big field and it'd keep them (me!) fit walking up hill to pastures new... I like Mike Rivero's WATTS AS CURRENCY idea - but we need to be able to produce our own or the big boys will game the system (like now)...

reply to post by buddhasystem

Actually, cattle emit more methane via burps than farts. All you need to do is set them up with one of these rigs.
patft.uspto.gov.../69821 61&RS=PN/6982161

Don't worry. Africa is on it.




simmer up?

reply to post by Phage


Good point, there may not be 'more' CO2 (than the past) in the upper atmosphere, it just 'seems' to make sense...! I understand CO2 is heavier than air (certainly than O2 and N) - do you know if their has been an increase (I haven't looked at that graph)? Be interesting to know - but like I said, all these satellites are economically premature and I've said how the money SHOULD have been spent...

I'm also dubious about the effects of 1000s of nuclear tests form the 40s to the 90s being covered up too - but that's just conjecture... To me, if anything, the ozone layer hole was exasperated by this and CFC usage just happened to correspond in time with the tests - a perfect, 'undeniable' cover (to clarify I do believe CFCs are the main cause but I know radioactive elements bond with O, O2 & O3)... Just suspicious, not that knowledgeable - and anti-nuclear power (and weapons to a certain extent, certainly tests)... I won't change my mind on that front until fusion is perfected - which as I said should be when we have cheap, energy independence for ALL (nations and ideally, PEOPLE)... I'm a materials guy...

reply to post by Phage


Oh no! You can't stick a gas mask on a COW (or fart tube) with a gut strapped to it's sides (Oh yes we can said a mad, bad scientist)...! I don't like all these half measures, especially cruel... I prefer desert reclamation combined with the above animal-friendly vertical farm idea - with DECENT AIR CONDITIONING... Maybe near the sea using the farm to power a desalination plant. The farm should recycle it's water though (as much as possible - 95%+-5%)..

reply to post by Phage


The point about the ozone layer letting in UV was to do with high-altitude particles BLOCKING POTENTIAL HEAT... This also shows (to me) that lower CO2 REFLECTS HEAT - which is probably a quite large factor in the horrendous errors made in the climate-models.. I understand that CO2 concentrations decrease with height, obviously. Why should CO2 lower in the atmosphere not reflect heat OUT too (to a lesser extent due to SOME upward EM reflections being reflected back down by higher up CO2+ particles.. To me SOME of this reflected (bouncing) EM Rad. will work it's way UP and OUT of our lower atmosphere... This is simple diffraction and reflection that I do understand.

The other point made states CO2 absorbs the IR rad. then re-emits it when it cools... As far as I know certain chemical reflect and absorb certain wavelengths (hence colour). How can CO2 both absorb and emit IR Rad. (heat)?! This makes no sense! Correct me if I'm wrong... This is how astronmy can see water for instance trillions of miles away... CO2 REFLECTS IR Rad, so how can it absorb it too... Have you blinded yourself with science a little...?

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing, they tend to fear that the risks are greater in extent (i.e., global and regional) and in magnitude (i.e., changes to both the average state and variability of the climate) than other groups; they believe to a lesser degree that climate change has long-term effects only and to a higher degree that it will result in warming as opposed to cooling and warming. They are the only group to see the scientific debate as mostly settled and the IPCC modeling to be accurate, e.g., ‘I believe that the consensus that climate change is occurring is settled. The role of humans in climate change is controversial more because of the political/economic implications and the creation of winners and losers than the science.’ They view the Kyoto Protocol and additional regulation as the solution: ‘Absolutely! 1000%. It is the only effective way to curb pollutions…We, as Engineers, are very much responsible.’ Advocates of this frame are less likely to use symbolism and metaphors; in speaking for themselves and legitimating their expertise, they do not deviate significantly from the average. Yet, more than others, they highlight fraternity and the need to act together, to realize one’s responsibility, and to find answers. They are significantly less likely to use de-legitimation strategies and are least likely to speak against others. However, they request industry and corporations to comply with the law and encourage the creation of regulation: ‘Industry should stop complaining and get on with it and provide leadership for us all.’ They also believe that APEGA should support climate change science: ‘Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest. APEGA must stand up for science

The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives. In their prognostic framing, they do not see any risks. If anything, climate change detracts from more important issues: ‘Why don’t we focus on more urgent issues… 25,000 people die each day due to hunger, malaria …’ They are most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent’. They are least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate, and oppose all regulation ‘based on the incorrect assumption that greenhouse gases cause climate change’. They recognize that we should reduce pollution regardless: ‘We need to adapt to climate change, which has been going on for 4 billion years. We need to reduce polluting our planet.’ In their identity and boundary work, they are least likely to list others as allies or prescribe any actions for themselves or others. Significantly, they are more likely to criticize others as unknowledgeable and to describe climate scientists and environmentalists as hysterical: ‘This present hysteria on “global warming” is purely political and has little to do with real science.’ APEGA ‘should educate the public and the government … to counteract media hype and pressure from the green extremists

Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.

# of the 5 sides, here's the rest

oss.sagepub.com...

reply to post by PrivateSi

The point about the ozone layer letting in UV was to do with high-altitude particles BLOCKING POTENTIAL HEAT

The high altitude "particles" (are you talking about CO2 molecules) don't block heat. They absorb energy from the plasma of the CME which is captured by the magnetosphere.

This also shows (to me) that lower CO2 REFLECTS HEAT - which is probably a quite large factor in the horrendous errors made in the climate-models

CO2 does not reflect heat. It absorbs infrared radiation and is heated by doing so. It transfers that heat to other molecules (like nitrogen) which do not absorb infrared but are directly heated by the CO2 molecules. It also re-radiates some of that energy in the form of infrared radiation but, in the lower atmosphere there more CO2 (and water vapor, and other "greenhouse" gases) to absorb it again. The result is a lot of the energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere. Not all of it though, some does escape into space. The trouble is, the more "greenhouse" gases, the more heat is retained.

Again, with the effect observed in the thermosphere there is no "reflection" of infrared radiation. There is the absorbtion of particle energy (from CMEs) which is re-radiated as infrared. Most of that re-radiated infrared escapes into space because it is, for all intents and purposes, already in space. What that CO2 in the thermosphere helps do is protect us from those solar particles, not infrared radiation.

But read the article again, the thermosphere is not "cooled" by CO2. It absorbs energy from the solar particles and heats up. That heating causes it to expand.

During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites.

science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,"

That quote is somewhat misleading as to what the study actually says. There was no attempt at assembling a representative sample of scientists. The paper was about a voluntary poll (read "self selected") of members of a single group. What group of geoscientists and engineers would that be?

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

oss.sagepub.com...

The study was not about global warming, it was about how members of that group of petroleum related experts view themselves and how they defend "against" critics and justify their own views.

How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?

By considering these statements and claims, we are given a window to ‘eavesdrop’ into how they draw from broader narratives to make sense of climate change and legitimize themselves as experts while de-legitimizing others.

reply to post by skuly


The article is relating how the CO2 in the Thermosphere reacted in to an x 5 class solar flare. It is electromagnetic in nature. The article is not talking about the sun in everyday conditions..

reply to post by Phage


My stance is that this is only a normal cycle in earth's 4 billion year history. Can you state emphatically that at no time in the Earths history, CO2 levels have never risen as high as they are today, or that the global temperature has never been hotter ?

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

Can you state emphatically that at no time in the Earths history, CO2 levels have never risen as high as they are today, or that the global temperature has never been hotter ?

Of course not. And no scientists do either.
But that's not really the point is it? Who cares what the climate was like during the Jurassic? There was no civilization to worry about back then.

The point is that CO2 levels are showing an increasing trend. The point is that this trend correlates with human activity.

The point is that we are currently in a warming trend. The point is that evidence is very strong that the warming correlates with the CO2 increase.

The point is that there is not much evidence that any other influence accounts for the rate of warming being observed.

The point is that contrary to the claim of the OP, CO2 does not have a cooling effect on climate.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Rezlooper
They'll say and do anything these days to detract from the serious threat we face. Far more dangerous is the trapped heat than the deflected waves.

Indeed.

Even more dangerous than the CO2 is CO4 (methane) which is 72 times worse and increasing in our atmosphere every day.

If my memory serves me well, methane is not CO4, it's CH4.

Thanks for correcting that. My typo there.

reply to post by Phage

Of course not. And no scientists do either.
But that's not really the point is it? Who cares what the climate was like during the Jurassic? There was no civilization to worry about back then.

That dose not address my statement that it is a cycle of the earths climate. Yea who cares if people were around, but the question was has it happen before?

The point is that CO2 levels are showing an increasing trend. The point is that this trend correlates with human activity.

My point is that co2 levels were higher in the past, and they must have correlated with something.

The point is that we are currently in a warming trend. The point is that evidence is very strong that the warming correlates with the CO2 increase.

If you can state that (oh i'll go large) a 1000 years of data can predict a billion years of weather. I guess you are a optimist.

The point is that there is not much evidence that any other influence accounts for the rate of warming being observed

My point is that there is very little evidence to support that man has the impact on climate that theorist say we have.

I don't deny that we are getting warmer, I just don't believe man is the cause. We have warmed and cooled many times in Earths history. This is a warming trend as you stated. Warming trends usually come after a cold period.(the last iceage)

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

That dose not address my statement that it is a cycle of the earths climate. Yea who cares if people were around, but the question was has it happen before?

Don't know. It's been warmer, yes. There has been more CO2 yes. Did it occur at the same rate it's happening now? Don't know. Do you? When you go back a million years it's pretty hard to get down to 100 year time scales.

My point is that there is very little evidence to support that man has the impact on climate that theorist say we have.

Incorrect. Plenty of evidence. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 levels have increased dramatically in the past 100 years, right along with the increase in the use of fossil fuels by humans. I suppose you don't think there's a connection there somewhere?

Warming trends usually come after a cold period.(the last iceage)

Well that's sort of a statement of the obvious, doncha think? If it's not as cold as it used to be that means it's warmer. If it didn't get warmer after a glacial period it would still be a glacial period.

The point is the rate of warming has increased since 1900, as has the rate of increase of CO2 levels.

The point is, the claim of the OP has nothing to do with global warming and it is a rather idiotic claim that CO2 actually has a cooling effect.

reply to post by Phage

the past 100 years

Thank you for coming to my point. It's hasn't been a 100 years of data that the current co2 model's are based on. How many satellites or weather balloons were up in 1900 monitoring atmospheric co2 levels ?

Well that's sort of a statement of the obvious, doncha think? If it's not as cold as it used to be that means it's warmer. If it didn't get warmer after a glacial period it would still be a glacial period.

Yes I do agree with you there, it is pretty obvious. My opinion on global warming also leans to the most obvious explanation.

I know and realize we have two very different opinions. So does science that is why there is a on going debate.