CO2 actually acts as a coolant to the planet, NASA confirms.

Discussion in 'In The News' started by francis son of charles, May 22, 2013.

  1. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Hi Frank,

    That article is utter nonsense too.

    I read the NASA report and that's not what they say. That article shows how ignorant and/or manipulative their authors are. That article is surfing on ignorance in order to incite people to distrust scientists or else.
     
  2. Hi Utuna:

    You are either being totally disingenuous or you read a completely different article than I did. I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you have always seemed to be a "stand up" guy. So I will conclude that you must have read a different article about NASA's newest findings. I read the article myself and the conclusions reached in the Natural News article are very correct.

    For those who will not take the time to actually look up the article it can be found here,

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    The link to this article in natural news did not work properly, so you can use this link.

    The following is a cut and paste from that article with some highlights that I have provided.

    Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere

    Pin it
    Play ScienceCast Video Join Mailing List


    March 22, 2012: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

    “This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,†says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.â€
    Solar Storms Dumps Gigawatts (splash)
    Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. Play it!

    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.â€

    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.â€

    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.
    Solar Storms Dumps Gigawatts (Nitric Oxide Spike, 558px))
    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.

    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.â€

    During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit. On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.
    The Edge (signup)

    The storm is over now, but Russell and Mlynczak expect more to come.

    “We’re just emerging from a deep solar minimum,†says Russell. “The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013.â€

    More sunspots flinging more CMEs toward Earth adds up to more opportunities for SABER to study the heating effect of solar storms.

    "This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

    Stay tuned to Science@NASA for updates from the top of the atmosphere.

    Tell me where the article in Natural News was "manipulative and ignorant"

    frank
     
  3. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Dear Frank,

    I've well understood the articles. I know what I say and why I say it.

    Please, have a look on Google on how the greenhouse effect works and you will understand what I mean.

    The following picture may help you to understand what I mean :

    [​IMG]
     
  4. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2013
  5. Hi Utuna:

    What! am I a kindergarten student and have no understanding of the dynamics of the Earth and you are going to prove your point with this illustration? Please?? It is an old, worn out, silly explanation of why the earth experiences fluctuations in temperatures throughout the ages. Back in the 1970's the "scientific manipulators" of that day were warning of a coming new Ice Age as mean temperatures were dropping for a couple of the previous decades. As the temperature started to turn upwards, all of a sudden we were no longer in danger from a new "Ice Age", but anthropomorphic global warming. It has a very nice ring to it, but the evidence since it's coining has shown that it is just as thorough and explanation of what was causing the warming as the alarmist theories of the 70's were for the coming "new Ice Age". Since 1995 when that graphic was made global mean temperatures have seen a slight drop and even the staunchest of global warming enthusiasts has admitted that over the last 20-25 years the total mean change has not been statistically relevant. Also, the computer models that were used for the original estimates of the effects of a buildup of CO2 have undergone many changes and upgrades to reflect the real scientific observations over the last two decades and they have toned down their catastrophic rhetoric quite a bit. If the social and financial pressure was not so strong on this topic, I believe more scientist's would come forward disputing this silly theory, but the way it is they would lose their grants and maybe even their tenure were they to do so. Much like how scientists who did not favor the theory of evolution were assaulted and maligned in the late 1800's and into today. It is almost a carbon copy argument.

    The truth is that the earth has and will continue to go through temperature changes with or without the help of mankind. Jehovah's creation is much more resilient than man gives it credit for. These temperature changes will be ultimately found to be for many different reasons, but the least of them will be for anthropomorphic reasons. The science of weather is still in it's infancy and they are finding out new things all the time about how the earth works in this regard.

    There have been times in the earth's history (in the fairly recent past, not tens of thousands of years ago) when the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere were much higher than they are now without the effects of modern industry etc.. Greenland is called that, instead of snow and ice land because only a couple hundred years ago it's ice and snow packs were much more northern than they are today. There was a time in earth's history where they were able to grow wine grapes in England and Ireland because of the predominant warm temperatures. All at a time when there were no cars, no factories etc. , etc..

    Now, this is not to say that I am for the pollution of God's earth or our environment. I am not. I think mankind should do everything in their power to keep the earth clean and beautiful, but carbon taxes won't accomplish that task one iotta, they will only make the rich, richer and the poor die earlier. The same people that started and have funded this whole man made global warming lie are the same ones who have DE-industrialized the industrialized nations, only to industrialize Asia and are building in the area of 5-7 coal fired power plants in China per week. What? the man made global warming from industry does not count when it comes from China and India? Even you should be able to see that that is stupid. They did this simply to make more profits. It had nothing to do with global warming, you just bought into the lie like so many others. Instead of paying men and women in Europe and the United States a living wage to make things for their own countries and for limited export, they moved all the industry to areas where they could get people to work for "peanuts" compared to what they had to pay Europeans and Americans etc.. This boosts the profits of the big corporations and banks and Wall Street types who profit off this activity. Follow the money Utuna and you will get your answers.

    Also, what used to be a legitimate environmental movement has been co-opted by the neo-industrialist's as a mask that they hide behind, when they have no real interest in the environment at all. The real prime movers behind the conservationists movements have left the current "green movement" behind, knowing that it is just a facade for the money men to ply their trade.

    I have done a huge amount of reading on this subject and I have read arguments from both sides of the aisle and my conclusion is that man has very little to do with the fluctuations in the temperatures of the earth and that these fluctuations have been happening for eons and will continue long after the 1000 years of the Kingdom of God. They are in God's hands, not mans. Man's scientific knowledge although laudible now will be the butt of jokes for the entire 1000 year reign of Christ.

    frank
     
  6. Hi Utuna:

    I have said my peace and you yours. Let's agree to leave it till the Kingdom comes. We can discuss it then in person when we know for sure what the "real story" is. We can share a bottle of your finest french wine and laugh about the "bad old days" together. That is the only time that we will actually know the truth of the matter.

    frank
     
  7. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Hi Frank,

    I'm not belittling your knowledge and understanding of the earth's dynamics.

    This article is a scam, that's as simple as that. Scientifically speaking, it's dishonest to prove a theory wrong by using misinformation and so-called scientific arguments. It's as if you wanted to prove the evolution theory wrong by using erroneous scientific arguments. I'd laugh at it too, although myself don't believe in the evolution theory at all.

    The greenhouse effect is a reality, what's at stake is just whether mankind increased its effect on climate or not because of its activities.

    Frank, I'm not angry. I'm just appalled by the bad faith and dishonesty of the authors of this article.
     
  8. Hi Utuna:

    The writer of that article that you sourced, Anthony Watts of "What's up with That" fame also wasn't very impressed by the article he nearly choked on in the Wall Street Journal written by some well credentialed and degreed scientists that claim that man made global warming is a stretch at best and certainly not incontrovertible, which caused Dr. Giaever to resign his post in protest over that very word incontrovertible, which flies in the very face of the scientific method. Read the whole article before you draw a conclusion and then read who signed off on it and then tell me that anthropomorphic global warming is a foregone conclusion. I know your not mad. You don't get mad over something like this, I hope. Sorry, almost forgot the link

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/...theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/

    frank
     
  9. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Hi Frank,

    Please don't get me wrong. I never said in my posts that those who don't want to believe in the influence of mankind's activities in the global warming were wrong. I just said that that article was utter nonsense and that it was dishonest. At first because their interpretations of James Russell's explanations show either their ignorance of physical laws or their dishonesty, and maybe the both.

    Please read :
    Thermosphere: In the thermosphere, the solar radiation is able to ionize (strip electrons off of atoms forming the ionosphere ) and the temperature increases with altitude (because the atoms absorb solar radiation). The ionosphere is the layer which traps radio signals and allows them to be heard around the world (it is also the layer which gets disturbed and disrupts radio communication during Solar storms).

    When it comes to the atmosphere, the altitude of the gases is fundamental. Ozon is very important in the upper atmosphere and is dangerous in the lower atmosphere. In the same way, CO2 and NO absorb the highly energetic solar particles or radiations along with the heat generated when they hit the atmosphere and, afterwards, re-emit that energy back under the shape of infrared radiations, that is heat => "“It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.â€￾"

    CO2 and NO absorb the energy (hence, heat) and thrown it back into outer space. However, such a shield doesn't work one way only, which means that if it can stop (and absorb) such an energy from reaching the lower layers of the atmosphere, it impedes too the infrared radiations (that is, heat) from going out of the lower atmosphere, hence the greenhouse effect. If CO2 and NO absorb huge amounts of energy and heat in the upper atmosphere, it does it too in the lower atmosphere, where we live, hence the greenhouse effect.

    As a comparison, if you put a drop of hot liquid steel (~1500°C) on another big piece of steel at about 100°C, then the big piece will cool the drop whereas it'll burn your hand if you touch it. That's how CO2 and NO act as a coolant in the upper atmosphere because of the extreme energies and temperatures up there. However, if you change the temperature of the big piece of steel from 100°C to 200°C, it'll still be a coolant for the drop of liquid metal but it'll be twice hotter for your hand. The global temperature of the big piece of steel is comparable to our atmosphere and most scientists say that it's slowly rising. The drop of hot liquid metal is comparable to where the energetic particles of the solar flares hit the atmosphere and made it aglow. In the lower atmosphere, the difference of temperature is tiny because the atmosphere is huge (inertia, dilution) but enough to make a difference in the long run and on biodiversity.

    Please, have a look at the temperatures Solar min / Solar max in the thermosphere and higher. The temperatures up there can be very high compared with down here.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2013
  10. Hi Utuna:

    I understand what you are saying. It's easy to use statistics in an incorrect way. I suppose both sides of the argument are guilty of that more often than they should be.

    frank
     
  11. 2,942
    315
    83
    Utuna

    Utuna Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    My dear brother,

    Yes, you're right. The global warming due to human activities isn't incontrovertible. However, the global warming is a reality because we just have to compare the size of the ice field or photos of specific glaciers between last century and nowadays to convince ourselves of it. There are so many variables and the mechanisms at stake are so complex and slow that scientists are merely groping when it comes to be sure of the causes and of the solutions. There must also be liars, doomsayers and greedy industrialists who benefit from such a situation and exploit the fears and ignorance of many people on both sides. As always, when it comes to human's ways, we can be sure that greed and dishonesty are often just around the corner.

    One thing is incontrovertible, that article is a scam and what James Russell said doesn't debunk at all the theories about global warming. I read in about the same kind of articles what some morons say sarcastically: After the global warming, the global cooling! They're stupid. It has never been about the role of CO2 and NO in global warming. Those guys should better shut up and go fishing unless they do it on purpose because they have an agenda. That can't be, they're either stupid or dishonest, well as I already said, maybe the both...

    We must be extremely cautious when we come across stuff on Internet, especially on such kinds of websites.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2013

Share This Page