now you have walked your troll bullshit back... good. I am quoting NASA scientists who back their statements up with data... I don't need to draw conclusions they explained the science.... "For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space." that is cooling. This shows the surge of power directed up to the satellites by the NO and the co2. reflecting that power back into space is cooling its not an opinion... its the science. Co2 warms and co2 cools by bouncing warming rays like IR. if they bounce them to earth it warms... if they bounce to space that is cooling. Its not lawyering... its not republican.. its real science.
did you change this post after I replied? because your post is ridiculous troll crap... again. you keep keep bringing in the wattsupwithat red herring and you misrepresent what is being said by watts. its like you are some sort of anti science moron who denies that co2 bounces warming energy back into space. do you deny co2 bounces warming energy back into space? if not shut up. you were caught being a troll. if you do, you are still a science denying troll.
A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds Anthony Watts / March 28, 2013 "I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”. "But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere” : "NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface. Source: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/165971/ "The NASA story is about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ "Here’s the relevant part from the press release: ============================================================= “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” "A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years. Credit: SABER/TIMED. See also the CO2 data here: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg "For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. "In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years. “Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.” =========================================================== "The two lines I bolded are what has the “slayers” in a tizzy. "Yes, of course the upper atmosphere is going to deflect and re-radiate the energy of solar storms, that’s why we don’t burn to a cinder when they happen. There’s nothing new here, this is what the upper atmosphere (thermosphere) does. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHG’s) in the lower atmosphere also re-radiates long wave infra red energy (LWIR) as backradiation coming up from the surface of the Earth as it dumps the shortwave solar energy absorbed returns as LWIR (heat) and makes its way to the top of the atmosphere. Source: http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/weather_climate/lab_2.html "I’m writing this for the benefit of some who may have fallen into the trap of thinking the “slayers” interpretation was NASA’s position. "The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. To some extent it does, but the direction of the source of LWIR energy is reversed, and CO2 and other GHG’s impede the transfer of LWIR energy to the top of the atmosphere where it is finally re-radiated into space. Without GHG’s, the lower atmosphere would be very cold. [emphasis mine] (Updated: For those who doubt this, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/ – Anthony) "Because the “slayers” get as irrational in comments as some of the most strident AGW activists, and because it is late and I don’t want to deal with the angry dialog from some of their members who frequent here I know will happen, but would instead prefer a good night’s sleep, I’m not going to enable comments for this post. Maybe tomorrow. "Update: if anyone wonders why I don’t take this group seriously, and don’t cover their beliefs here,one look at the sidebar or the Principia website tells the story in one image: "If there are any people in the AGW debate that deserve the label “deniers” surely this advertised denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect must qualify." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03...es-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
the net CO2 warming in the troposphere comes from conversion of shorter wavelength emr than IR, that CO2 is transparent to, being absorbed by the Earth's surface and then converted into lower quality quanta by vibrational relaxation and radiated back at longer wavelengths, chiefly IR. Thus some of the energy lost by high quality incoming quanta reappears as lower quality IR quanta radiated from the surface. (we experience this as heat) This is a mechanism not available to CO2 in the outer atmosphere. My own view is that the net heating by this greenhouse effect from CO2 must surely be very small compared to the heating due to water which heats and cools by multiple mechanisms, including the greenhouse effect. Water has multiple modes of moderating the Earth surface temperature compared to CO2 because it is present in all three of its phases, whereas CO2 is only present in one phase. And of course there is vastly more water in all of its phases near the Earths surface than there is of CO2 in its gas phase. Water is therefore hugely more important than CO2 as a temperature moderator. This is something missed by Hansen and is boys in their enthusiasm. When you see the concentration of CO2 expressed as parts CO2 per million parts of air molecules, it is always for dry air. In real air, the ppm value is lower of course, often drastically so. This is something to keep in mind unless you live in the Gobbi desert. Then you'll be very hot during the day and quite cold at night in July, even though the CO2 content there in ppm is much higher than it is in Miami both day and night. Think about that for a moment. (for some it will take more than a moment.*) _________________ * Remember you are not permitted to change the pressure. If you have a bucket of air and you put in some more water molecules you'll have to take some of the other kinds of molecules out, and some of those will be CO2, otherwise you will change the pressure which is just the number of collisions of the air molecule per square area of bucket wall per unit time. Increasing the total number of molecules in the bucket will increase the number of collision with the wall per unit time, and that will increase the pressure. You are not allowed to do that.
I'd be surprised if the obvious hypothesis which follows hasn't already been tested. Unless that atmospheric H2O is increasing, and enough to explain the warming, it's a... wash. Happy Thanksgiving, all!
Water vapor concentrations in the air are controlled by Earth’s temperature. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, expand air masses, and lead to higher humidity. Cooling causes water vapor to condense and fall out as rain, sleet, or snow. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water. Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations. When carbon dioxide concentrations drop, Earth cools, some water vapor falls out of the atmosphere, and the greenhouse warming caused by water vapor drops. Likewise, when carbon dioxide concentrations rise, air temperatures go up, and more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere—which then amplifies greenhouse heating. So while carbon dioxide contributes less to the overall greenhouse effect than water vapor, scientists have found that carbon dioxide is the gas that sets the temperature. Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect. nasa.gov Meanwhile during the 1960's, another guy and major crank called Petr Beckmann, was attempting to replace Einstien's Relativity with a theory called "Galilean Electrodynamics."
Yes. And that is just one of the positive feedback effects of rising Co2 levels. Another is that as temps rise from greenhouse gasses going up the ice melts and the reflectivity of the earth decreases causing even more warming, which then melts permafrost releasing more CO2 and even worse, methane, which then raises the greenhouse gas levels this temps thus greenhouse gas levels etc. There are very few if any negative feedbacks with the possible exception of increasing clouds, although the science now says that is minimal if at all. Runaway global warming via positive feedback loop is a very real possibility according to most climatologists. Now I could have the written the above in a much more impressive way, with big sciency words and long text to speech streams of bombast. But I didn't. I just told the truth.
This is really an excellent point that you bring up. If the temperature really is increasing, and that is up in the air because the satellite data conflicts with the surface stations' data. But lets suppose it is increasing, then something should be the cause of this and whatever it is should be correlated in some way to temperature change. That of course is not enough to prove that rising CO2 is causing temperature to go up. So the first question you ask is whether the temperature going up is causing CO2 to rise, or is it the other way around. Then you have to also consider that these might be independent phenomena just fortuitously correlated.It turns out that all gases are less soluble in liquids when temperature rises. The ocean is a liquid and CO2 is a gas. CO2 is dissolved in ocean water and is in equilibrium with carbonic acid and bicarbonate in the ocean. That's well known. The you have to consider that man is a ferocious emitter of CO2. So that is at least a jumping off place so to speak. A place to start looking , to start a research project. And that is about where we are I think, judging from the primary journal literature. But judging from the Hansen's publicity team, the media and political climate world wide it's already been decided, rising CO2 is causing temperature to rise. Unfortunately at this point the science hasn't caught up to the media and politics. Happy thanksgiving!
No the satellite data does not conflict with surface data. "If" the temps are increasing? Why do you continue with these outright lies? Are you just trolling? Did you not see my prior correction to this lie? Your intellectual dishonesty in this matter is detestable. Akin to those that put smoke screens in front of and lied about the tobacco science. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe you were one of those guys? Have a shitty Thanksgiving. Choke on the turkey. Both you and jem.
Did you perhaps forget about photosynthesis and the affect of CO2 on the rate of photosynthesis? There would have to be a tipping point beyond which CO2 feedback changes from negative to positive. If the feedback was positive for millennia prior to now none of us would be here. Co2 has been much higher. The ice core data shows that. How do you explain why we are here now, or has the tipping point shifted to much lower values of CO2. Or have cataclysmic events intervened to cause drastic climate alteration between negative and positive feed back. Is so what is the most recent cataclysmic event shifting the feedback to positive. This is a core issue of course because none of the Hansen predictions make sense without positive feedback. Most of the papers I have seen are predicated on the temperature rising a bit, a few tenths of degree globally but the feedback being negative. Positive feedback systems are unstable, as I'm sure you're aware, and will drive to a limit exponentially, It is only a matter of the rate of acceleration, a climate system as large as the earth's would be expected to accelerate quite slowly at first I would think.