Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

[jem]

it may look like that to the uniformed...
but Ricter knows I have caught him in a/perhaps the conundrum for agw nutters.

The very properties that co2 is alleged to have which would make it warm the earth in the lower atmosphere... also make it a coolant in the upper atmosphere.
So if Ricter challenges the science of co2 cooling... he challenges the science of co2 being a greenhouse gas and its ability to warm.

when you add in the fact that man made co2 is seeping to the upper atmosphere and the fact that as you add more co2 it becomes logarithmically less impactful...
You have a situation where at some point every scientist has to admit as you add co2 at some point you begin to make more shield than blanket.

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

 

[Ricter]

no... it make look like that to the ignorant....

but Ricter knows I have trapped him and he is smart enough to avoid answering.

The very properties that co2 is alleged to have in order for it to warm the earth in the lower atmosphere... also make it a coolant in the upper atmosphere.

So if Ricters challenges the science of co2 cooling... he challenges the science of co2 warming.

I'm not dodging. I'm putting your tactic right back at you. "Show me the science! Show me the science!"

The science says 95% of the sunlight striking CO2 molecules in the highest atmosphere is bounced back into space, or something like that, I'm happy to concede without checking. The other 5% has warmed the planet, because of CO2's effects on the lower atmosphere where (and we have been through this before) we actually live. Enough to melt the glaciers. And "my" scientists at science.nasa.gov say so.

 

[jem]

1. its not clear that all the remaining 5% warms the earth.

2. regarding you theory that adding man made co2 warms the earth... please provide some science not statements.

I'm not dodging. I'm putting your tactic right back at you. "Show me the science! Show me the science!"

The science says 95% of the sunlight striking CO2 molecules in the highest atmosphere is bounced back into space, or something like that, I'm happy to concede without checking. The other 5% has warmed the planet, because of CO2's effects on the lower atmosphere where (and we have been through this before) we actually live. Enough to melt the glaciers. And "my" scientists at science.nasa.gov say so.

 

[Ricter]

1. its not clear that all the remaining 5% warms the earth.

2. regarding you theory that adding man made co2 warms the earth... please provide some science not statements.

1) Why wouldn't it? If 100% was being reflected back to space we'd be an ice cube. So whatever gets through warms the planet.

2) Regarding your theory that manmade CO2 cools the planet, please provide some science, not statements.

 

[jem]

I provided the article...
here is some of the data --- if you read the article and clicked the link...

note the measured spike in IR from co2 during the Sun's coronal mass ejection.
If you need more science than that ... you better have a working hypothesis and some expertise in the area.

1) Why wouldn't it? If 100% was being reflected back to space we'd be an ice cube. So whatever gets through warms the planet.

2) Regarding your theory that manmade CO2 cools the planet, please provide some science, not statements.

 

[Ricter]

I provided the article...
here is some of the data if you read the article and clicked the link...

note the measured spike in IR from co2 during the Sun's coronal mass ejection.
If you need more science than that ... you are full of shit.

Those are just graphs, and there are a LOT of those out there. I want to see the science.

 

[jem]

let me see...

you have a satellite above the atmosphere taking measurements.
the sun has an event where it kicks out energy.
Simultaneous with the arrival of that energy... the co2 in the upper atmosphere emits far greater amounts of IR.

People theorized that would be the case.
NASA measured it.

That is classic science.

But if you wish to say their is no science behind the properties of greenhouse gasses that is up to you.

Those are just graphs, and there are a LOT of those out there. I want to see the science.

 

[Ricter]

let me see...

you have a satellite above the atmosphere taking measurements.
the sun has an event where it kicks out energy.
Simultaneous with the arrival of that energy... the co2 in the upper atmosphere emits far greater amounts of IR.

People theorized that would be the case.
NASA measured it.

That is classic science.

But if you wish to say their is no science behind the properties of greenhouse gasses that is up to you.

Shrug. Some "scientists" think CO2 does this:

"Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space."

Personally, I don't think they've done any science on this. I want to see the science. I want to see a CO2 molecule "pass" light energy, but absorb heat energy.

 

[jem]

seems like the science experiment by NASA proves that theory to be incorrect.

Shrug. Some "scientists" think CO2 does this:

"Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space."

Personally, I don't think they've done any science on this. I want to see the science. I want to see a CO2 molecule "pass" light energy, but absorb heat energy.

 

[Ricter]

seems like the science experiment by NASA proves that theory to be incorrect.

The guy over at wattsupwiththat believes it's correct, though.

A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
Posted on March 28, 2013 by Anthony Watts

"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.”

"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.

More, with links and diagrams>>

“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.

"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. (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."