• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CO2 as a Coolant and Temperature Regulator

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
66,523
Reaction score
22,172
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have mentioned at times when CO2 also has negative feedback. Besides at the lower atmospheric levels, it truly does have an effect, along with other gasses, at the TOA (top of atmosphere.) I have specifically mentioned the statosphere and thermosphere at times.

Here are two things to consider. The first from 2012:



At 1:23; When the upper atmosphere heats up the CO2 and Nitric Oxide (NO) molecules try as hard as they can to shed heat back into space

At 2:20; CO2 and NO are the 2 most efficient coolants in the upper atmosphere

At 2:55; Majority of heat is sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO

The video is 4:02 long, and I'll bet most of you who like to debate Climate change have never seen such facts about science. I suggest that you all watch the 4 minutes.

Now here is a link to the SABER satellite sensors they mention:

April 2015 - SABER observes strongest geomagnetic storm in over 10 years.

I wonder if this can help explain the hiatus:

NO_CO2_SRflux_Ap_Screen_from2002.png


There is a natural cycle here that is changed by CO2 and NO. The greater these gasses are, the greater they will shed the earths heat from the sun in the stratosphere and thermosphere. Notice that the peaks of around the solar radio flux is far greater at the beginning of the graph, than later, yet the cooling has less of a change. I attribute this to more CO2 and NO the 10 years later. Not shown here is the changes from O3 and other gasses, which do the same thing at other wavelengths.
 
Last edited:
I have heard this misrepresentation of a NASA study before and I figured you might appreciate a WUWT article on the subject.

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.

earths_energy_balance_589[1]

Source: Lab 2: Climate and Earth's Energy Balance

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.

A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds | Watts Up With That?
 
MrT said:
I have heard this misrepresentation... <snip>
Click to expand...
What did I misrepresent? Did I give any forcing levels? It's not my fault you cannot read what someone says without bias. The calculated forcing is pretty small.

"Besides at the lower atmospheric levels, it truly does have an effect, along with other gasses, at the TOA (top of atmosphere.)"

This is a whole different area. One where the primary effect is different, but better a proxy to other events we see.

More CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere means better protection from the solar winds!

donsutherland1 said:
A warmer lower troposphere and cooler stratosphere is what one would expect from an increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A cooling stratosphere does not undermine the scientific basis of AGW.
Click to expand...
And where did I say it undermines anything?

Why do you guys always assume the way you do? Haven't you learned by now that a titles implication doesn't necessary illustrate the larger truth? This is a region of the atmosphere that has a small heat implication to start with, so a relatively large change is still small.

Like with Ecofarm, what am I to think of your reading comprehension when you jump to such conclusions. Introducing one more little known factor in the sciences isn't an attempt to negate anything, but to educate.

Since you are attacking rather than asking for clarification, what am I to think?

It is so pathetic funny that you guys think the way you do.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
NO_CO2_SRflux_Ap_Screen_from2002.png


There is a natural cycle here that is changed by CO2 and NO. The greater these gasses are, the greater they will shed the earths heat from the sun in the stratosphere and thermosphere. Notice that the peaks of around the solar radio flux is far greater at the beginning of the graph, than later, yet the cooling has less of a change. I attribute this to more CO2 and NO the 10 years later. Not shown here is the changes from O3 and other gasses, which do the same thing at other wavelengths.
Click to expand...

Please notice, I didn't tell people what to believe here. It's disappointing the rash conclusions people jump to. I only pointed out that CO2 and N2O appeared to modulate the levels of outgoing power.

These level changes are maybe 0.01 W/m^2 at most of a change into the stratosphere. However, since H2O is almost nonexistent, it does make for a larger effect in the stratospheric CO2 response, but is still small.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please notice, I didn't tell people what to believe here. It's disappointing the rash conclusions people jump to. I only pointed out that CO2 and N2O appeared to modulate the levels of outgoing power.

These level changes are maybe 0.01 W/m^2 at most of a change into the stratosphere. However, since H2O is almost nonexistent, it does make for a larger effect in the stratospheric CO2 response, but is still small.
Click to expand...

We don't live in the stratosphere.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And where did I say it undermines anything?
Click to expand...

You didn't.

I didn't quote you. My post was focused on assuring that no one would misunderstand the relationship between stratospheric cooling and scientific thinking concerning AGW, as it seemed such misunderstanding about the implications was present in the thread.
 
donsutherland1 said:
You didn't.

I didn't quote you. My post was focused on assuring that no one would misunderstand the relationship between stratospheric cooling and scientific thinking concerning AGW, as it seemed such misunderstanding about the implications was present in the thread.
Click to expand...

No more misunderstanding than the pundits draw from papers to support their alarmist agenda.

Is it possible I did that purposely to see who jumped with their bias first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom