Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

This from the moron who starts idiotic thread after thread about the Kelly criterion.

 

That's just their statements based on observations. Show me the science.

 

Before I enter into this debate...
According to you, which part of the NASA experiment is not science? and Why?
Would it be sending up instruments to monitor activity?

 

Lots of groups have instruments here and there. Some run experiments, etc. All we hear is statements like NASA's re CO2 cooling. But show me the science, not statements from biased sources.

 

Nice dodge.
Let me know when you wish to tell which part of that NASA project was not science and why.

 

That's not hard to deduce. Part of NASA is making statements about CO2 and warming, and another part is making them about CO2 and cooling. So I want to see the science, not statements.

 

so what part of this is not science?
please go sentence by sentence and say science or not science after it.
if not science... please explain why.

then we can have a good discussion because we will be talking about the same things.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...2/22mar_saber/


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“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.”

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.

 

Those are just conclusions based on some observations they've made. Maybe someone else has made observations and come to a different conclusion. After all, that same website, http://science.nasa.gov/earth-scien...ystem-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences/ says,

"Earth is currently in a period of warming. Over the last century, Earth's average temperature rose about 1.1°F (0.6°C). In the last two decades, the rate of our world's warming accelerated and scientists predict that the globe will continue to warm over the course of the 21st century. Is this warming trend a reason for concern? After all, our world has witnessed extreme warm periods before, such as during the time of the dinosaurs. Earth has also seen numerous ice ages on roughly 11,000-year cycles for at least the last million years. So, change is perhaps the only constant in Earth's 4.5-billion-year history.

"Scientists note that there are two new and different twists to today's changing climate: (1) The globe is warming at a faster rate than it ever has before; and (2) Humans are the main reason Earth is warming. Since the industrial revolution, which began in the mid-1800s, humans have attained the magnitude of a geological force in terms of our ability to change Earth's environment and impact its climate system.

"Since 1900, human population doubled and then doubled again. Today more than 6.5 billion people inhabit our world. By burning increasing amounts of coal and oil, we drove up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 30 percent. Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" that traps warmth near the surface.

"Humans are also affecting Earth's climate system in other ways. For example, we transformed roughly 40 percent of Earth's habitable land surface to make way for our crop fields, cities, roads, livestock pastures, etc. We also released particulate pollution (called "aerosols") into the atmosphere. Changing the surface and introducing aerosols into the atmosphere can both increase and reduce cloud cover. Thus, in addition to driving up average global temperature, humans are also influencing rainfall and drought patterns around the world. While scientists have solid evidence of such human influence, more data and research are needed to better understand and quantify our impact on our world's climate system. "

Presumably all those statements are based on other observations. So for your clip from science.nasa.gov, show me the science, not statements about what scientists observed with this or that satellite, but the science, show me the science.

 

maybe someone else has... if they did it in a similarly scientific manner we would have 2 pieces of science....

let me know what part of that project is not science.
you keep dodging the issue.

 

Is this a variation on I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?