Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Ah yes, "The CO2 thermostat," that's an idea that has a certain appeal. I've seen it is papers written for the popular press. The thermostat doesn't seem to work so well over the Gobi desert. Or over the ocean where clouds form and are part of a major negative feed back mechanism which includes rain and the huge heat of vaporization of water.. But it seems that one of the very important negative feed back mechanisms is vertical convection. That may prove to be the most important short term negative feed back mechanism. Did you know that the early climate models completely ignored vertical convection, and of of course cloud formation. No one quite knows how to model clouds well yet. That's coming, stay tuned for a few decades.
Have you considered that rather than coming from CO2, the initial heating that supplies more water vapor might even come from day as opposed to night, from seasons, and latitude. Just a thought. Had you considered that convection, i.e., "wind", might have something to do with the amount of water vapor in the air at various places on Earth. Just another thought. I know it's crazy. Obviously CO2 through its heating and "thermostat" effect is responsible for wind, the seasons, but maybe not latitude.
Did you ever take a look at Ferenc Miskolczi papers. (if you search his name under piezoe, you'll turn them up.) An entirely new, energy balance approach to the problem, which if it is correct would greatly simplify getting to the bottom of the Hansen hypothesis question.. Very controversial results. I don't know what to think about it because I am not sure his assumptions are valid. I have been meaning to talk it over with a physicist colleague. The first paper was eventually published in a peer reviewed journal, but when Miskolczi worked for NASA, NASA suppressed it. Not what I would call the proper thing to do. He quit over it of course, which was the proper thing to do.
Last edited:
Ah yes, "The CO2 thermostat," that's an idea that has a certain appeal. I've seen it is papers written for the popular press. The thermostat doesn't seem to work so well over the Gobi desert. Or over the ocean where clouds form and are part of a major negative feed back mechanism which includes rain and the huge heat of vaporization of water.. But it seems that one of the very important negative feed back mechanisms is vertical convection. That may prove to be the most important short term negative feed back mechanism. Did you know that the early climate models completely ignored vertical convection, and of of course cloud formation. No one quite knows how to model clouds well yet. That's coming, stay tuned for a few decades.
Have you considered that rather than coming from CO2, the initial heating that supplies more water vapor might even come from day as opposed to night, from seasons, and latitude. Just a thought. Had you considered that convection, i.e., "wind", might have something to do with the amount of water vapor in the air at various places on Earth. Just another thought. I know it's crazy. Obviously CO2 through its heating and "thermostat" effect is responsible for wind, the seasons, but maybe not latitude.
Did you ever take a look at Ferenc Miskolczi papers. (if you search his name under piezoe, you'll turn them up.) An entirely new, energy balance approach to the problem, which if it is correct would greatly simplify getting to the bottom of the Hansen hypothesis question.. Very controversial results. I don't know what to think about it because I am not sure his assumptions are valid. I have been meaning to talk it over with a physicist colleague. The first paper was eventually published in a peer reviewed journal, but when Miskolczi worked for NASA, NASA suppressed it. Not what I would call the proper thing to do. He quit over it of course, which was the proper thing to do.
If the drumstick doesn't work try the pie. Stuff it way down into the piehole. Don't forget to choke. Liar.
Politicians, businessmen, engineers, and scores of self-proclaimed researchers also raised strong objections, made controversial comments and produced many absurd reasons against Einstein's Relativity, and it's just the same with AGW. But none of it has changed or made false the fundamental underlying science that supports both of them respectively.
you seem to have trouble comprehending the subject.
I am not talking the difference between satellite data and land temps.
I was referencing the NASA study which confirmed that co2 also cools the planet by sending some warming energy out into space.
I am not talking the difference between satellite data and land temps.
I was referencing the NASA study which confirmed that co2 also cools the planet by sending some warming energy out into space.
your critique also applies to the claim that man made co2 causes warming.
there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.
so this talk of co2 causing warming in the talk of some of the crowd.
the science shows that atmospheric co2 levels trail change in ocean warming and cooling.
there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.
so this talk of co2 causing warming in the talk of some of the crowd.
the science shows that atmospheric co2 levels trail change in ocean warming and cooling.
your article 100% confirms what I have been saying.
no one here has been saying co2 only cools.
I have been saying co2 warms and co2 cools... just like the NASA guys who are quoted as saying it acts like a thermostat.
you have been misrepresenting this article trying to pretend it has been correcting the NASA scientists when it is really just correcting some slayer argument.
here is the point from your article... plain as day.
"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."
no one here has been saying co2 only cools.
I have been saying co2 warms and co2 cools... just like the NASA guys who are quoted as saying it acts like a thermostat.
you have been misrepresenting this article trying to pretend it has been correcting the NASA scientists when it is really just correcting some slayer argument.
here is the point from your article... plain as day.
"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."
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/
Last edited:
Okay... give us link to the peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming... you ignorant troll. You at best may find a few older articles based on failed computer models... (if you actually had the integrity to do the search before you lied again). You will find no science. If you did the authors who proved man made co2 causes warming would have nobel prizes and be household names.
so grow up and stop lying and being a troll.
(this is where in the past fraud boy would give a link to website sponsored by al gore which is filled with speculation and guesses or some generic google search...or a list of organizations... but he never ever provides a link to peer reviewed science because there is none.)
If there were peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming I would cease to make my statement and if the evidence were convincing I would be on your side.
so grow up and stop lying and being a troll.
(this is where in the past fraud boy would give a link to website sponsored by al gore which is filled with speculation and guesses or some generic google search...or a list of organizations... but he never ever provides a link to peer reviewed science because there is none.)
If there were peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming I would cease to make my statement and if the evidence were convincing I would be on your side.