New NASA Study Shows CO2 causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
are you alluding to the fact that the higher concentrations of co2 may increase food production.
ricter your jokes and riddles seem to limit your thinking to thinking in a binary manner. Yet I know you can think in systems Just admit that you are no longer a agw nutter.
Even the NASA scientist in my initial posts on this thread are explaining it to you.
CO2 is part of a greenhouse system that acts as a giant themostat.
Think of CO2 as part (probably an insignificant part) of a giant down blanket (warming us and cooling us when needed)which also causes some types of plant to grow quickly.
ricter your jokes and riddles seem to limit your thinking to thinking in a binary manner. Yet I know you can think in systems Just admit that you are no longer a agw nutter.
Even the NASA scientist in my initial posts on this thread are explaining it to you.
CO2 is part of a greenhouse system that acts as a giant themostat.
Think of CO2 as part (probably an insignificant part) of a giant down blanket (warming us and cooling us when needed)which also causes some types of plant to grow quickly.
Mr. Backassward man strikes again as the stupid train pulls up to the station.
Look stupid, CO2 increases plant growth and food production. Some greenhouses even increase the concentration of CO2 above that of the normal atmosphere to increase plant growth. It's plant fertilizer, dumbass!
Jem, I don't really want to get mired in this discussion, but in the interest of correctly understanding what's going on here with these solar storms, I will make a few brief comments. (Futurecurrents is essentially correct by the way.)
The particle + emr storm would have resulted in a very small amount of heating of the Earths atmosphere, not cooling. The CO2 and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere act to shield the Earth from these particles and burst of emr , but they are not 100% effective in that role. Of course some small amount of heating, not cooling, occurs.
Note that the "greenhouse effect" does not involve particles but emr that has no mass. It is strictly a photochemistry effect. Infrared is radiated up from the Earth and is trapped and radiated back toward Earth.
In the solar storm case, the CO2 and nitrogen oxides are not transparent to particles. The particles and EMR shower down toward the atmosphere, the CO2 and NO<sub>n</sub> in the outer atmosphere absorb their energy and radiate it back toward space away from the Earth.
In this way, the Earths atmosphere both protects the Earth from solar showers and keeps it from heating up to much, but also keeps it warm enough to be inhabited.
The title of your cited article is incorrect. This statement within the article is correct however: "NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that âgreenhouse gasesâ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."
As you can read for yourself. In this phenomenon, CO2 does not cool the Earth, rather it keeps it from heating up much from these solar storms. Probably the Articles Title should be something like: "CO2 Helps Protect the Earth from Solar Storms."
The particle + emr storm would have resulted in a very small amount of heating of the Earths atmosphere, not cooling. The CO2 and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere act to shield the Earth from these particles and burst of emr , but they are not 100% effective in that role. Of course some small amount of heating, not cooling, occurs.
Note that the "greenhouse effect" does not involve particles but emr that has no mass. It is strictly a photochemistry effect. Infrared is radiated up from the Earth and is trapped and radiated back toward Earth.
In the solar storm case, the CO2 and nitrogen oxides are not transparent to particles. The particles and EMR shower down toward the atmosphere, the CO2 and NO<sub>n</sub> in the outer atmosphere absorb their energy and radiate it back toward space away from the Earth.
In this way, the Earths atmosphere both protects the Earth from solar showers and keeps it from heating up to much, but also keeps it warm enough to be inhabited.
The title of your cited article is incorrect. This statement within the article is correct however: "NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that âgreenhouse gasesâ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."
As you can read for yourself. In this phenomenon, CO2 does not cool the Earth, rather it keeps it from heating up much from these solar storms. Probably the Articles Title should be something like: "CO2 Helps Protect the Earth from Solar Storms."
LOL Futurecunt doesn't have a clue. He, and probably you, ignore the facts and current science. This is what we are talking about from the study:
"The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change."
How can you take the simple fact that 95% of the energy is reflected back into space and turn it into a bunch of gobbly gook run on mouth like you do? It makes you look like a total idiot.
"The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change."
And like all of the fraudulent shit you post this is also wrong. You are insane. Perform a lobotomy on yourself right now.
And like all of the fraudulent shit you post this is also wrong. You are insane. Perform a lobotomy on yourself right now.
pspr, all I said was what the article quoted NASA as saying: 5 % of the energy is not reflected back. That will cause heating not cooling. The Atmosphere protects the Earth and causes it to be cooler than it would be without an atmosphere during the day, and warmer at night than it would be without an atmosphere. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropomorphic CO2 issue. Jem was clearly implying that the fact that the atmosphere protects the Earth from solar storms had something to do with the question of anthropomorphic CO2. I couldn't let that go unchallenged.
I have a lot of respect for Richard Lindzen, by the way. I read all his earlier papers, years ago now, on this issue, but of course he has published a lot since. I think I told you in another thread where I stand on the anthropomorphic CO2 issue.
piezoe... first of all you seem to be taken this seriously and we can therefore have a real conversation.
secondly I suspect what you have said is correct.
Roy Spencer and some other scientists who question the effect of agw... seem to agree with what you say.
But, there are others who argue... the warming and cooling properties CO2 has cancel each other out in our environment.
But lets go with the other argument.
Arguendo , lets say CO2 does some warming in the troposphere.
The recent science is seems to be showing water vapor and clouds actually have the vast majority of the effect on temps.
And the net effect co2 might have is theoretical and small. again no proof.
And of that potential net effect therefore of man made co2 would most likely have an insignificant effect since it is a small part of the co2 in the atmosphere.
Any science you have showing the above is incorrect will be reviewed.
secondly I suspect what you have said is correct.
Roy Spencer and some other scientists who question the effect of agw... seem to agree with what you say.
But, there are others who argue... the warming and cooling properties CO2 has cancel each other out in our environment.
But lets go with the other argument.
Arguendo , lets say CO2 does some warming in the troposphere.
The recent science is seems to be showing water vapor and clouds actually have the vast majority of the effect on temps.
And the net effect co2 might have is theoretical and small. again no proof.
And of that potential net effect therefore of man made co2 would most likely have an insignificant effect since it is a small part of the co2 in the atmosphere.
Any science you have showing the above is incorrect will be reviewed.