NASA “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” keeping the planet cool

Is NASA on the approved list?

Now I'm no expert, but from reading that article doesn't it basically say it acts like a insulator? Keeps heat in and out? That is how I took it... kept it from getting through to the surface of the earth. It would go to reason that then the heat that does make it to the surface gets trapped on the inside of those CO2 and NO particles in the same way.

I'm in no way a AGW believer... at least in terms of human interaction. I think there are external sources to which we don't understand yet.

(05-29-2013 11:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  I think there are external sources to which we don't understand yet.

If there was an external source, it would have to be of a magnitude of a star, with the heat of a star, close enough to impact the earth, and be rather unpredictable.

I've racked my brain, but I just don't have an example of something like I just described...... if only there was such an obvious example available.

If only.

(05-29-2013 12:05 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 11:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  I think there are external sources to which we don't understand yet.

If there was an external source, it would have to be of a magnitude of a star, with the heat of a star, close enough to impact the earth, and be rather unpredictable.

I've racked my brain, but I just don't have an example of something like I just described...... if only there was such an obvious example available.

If only.

Maybe its on the other side of the sun?

(05-29-2013 12:07 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Maybe its on the other side of the sun?

SCIENCE, please hope us!

(05-29-2013 12:05 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If there was an external source, it would have to be of a magnitude of a star, with the heat of a star, close enough to impact the earth, and be rather unpredictable.

I've racked my brain, but I just don't have an example of something like I just described...... if only there was such an obvious example available.

If only.

The earth has gotten warmer and cooled throughout its history. It is nothing new.

The article kind of hinted about the external source.

(05-29-2013 11:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  Now I'm no expert, but from reading that article doesn't it basically say it acts like a insulator? Keeps heat in and out? That is how I took it... kept it from getting through to the surface of the earth. It would go to reason that then the heat that does make it to the surface gets trapped on the inside of those CO2 and NO particles in the same way.
I'm in no way a AGW believer... at least in terms of human interaction. I think there are external sources to which we don't understand yet.

(05-29-2013 12:05 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 11:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  I think there are external sources to which we don't understand yet.

If there was an external source, it would have to be of a magnitude of a star, with the heat of a star, close enough to impact the earth, and be rather unpredictable.

I've racked my brain, but I just don't have an example of something like I just described...... if only there was such an obvious example available.

If only.

I thought about it and it is possible the earth itself could be a source. The one part of the earth we do not understand very well is the ocean floor... other than it is miles deep and there are cracks in the crust via which plate tectonics operate. Wouldn't the amount of molten materials that leak into the oceans at thousands of degrees affect the ocean temperature and, if there is a dramatic eruption or lack of flow, produce a shock that could change the climate?

(05-29-2013 11:24 AM)mlb Wrote:  Now I'm no expert, but from reading that article doesn't it basically say it acts like a insulator? Keeps heat in and out? That is how I took it... kept it from getting through to the surface of the earth. It would go to reason that then the heat that does make it to the surface gets trapped on the inside of those CO2 and NO particles in the same way.

Kind of. It absorbed the energy, then emitted it back into space. An insulator tends to have low absorption, and very low thermal flow. For low absorption an insulator is often reflective, and by definition that doesn't emit well. So most standard insulators just don't take in the energy to start with.

The gases absorbed the sun's radiation, then emitted it (relatively) rapidly into the cool of open space.

But, it's not exactly the same for trapping heat from the surface. Two things are different. First, the radiation won't just radiate back to the surface b/c it's warm. Radiation will flow toward the cold. So, absorption of surface radiation by thermosphere gases will still lead to cooling of the earth, but it is slowed, and that's part of why extra greenhouse gases are potentially a problem.. So that's where it is similar as you say. But it's not the most important issue.

The real issue is the wavelength of the radiation. What came from the sun was largely in the IR region where the gases could absorb and emit, matching vibration of the atoms w/in the molecules. What gets through to the Earth may start as absorbed IR radiation, but when absorbed, the energy changes from vibrational to rotational and translational (which we perceive as heat/warmth). This energy can be emitted too, but it happens (much) less rapidly, so the energy is effectively stored w/in the gases.

This is why a greenhouse works, and your car gets hot on a sunny day, but it is just one piece of the complex system of the planet, and it's not "plain and simple" that slight changes in CO2 will have major effects on temp.

Thanks for the clarification, Torch.

(05-29-2013 12:38 PM)mlb Wrote:  Thanks for the clarification, Torch.

THe man is a fake. Look it up and do your own research.

(05-29-2013 01:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 12:38 PM)mlb Wrote:  Thanks for the clarification, Torch.

THe man is a fake. Look it up and do your own research.

Just did...and Torch is correct. Anything else Toby?

RobertN, I'll be honest with you... I'm friends with several "scientific types" whom all are non-believers about humans causing the warmup. They say the math just doesn't add up in terms of the amount of CO2 produced by man and the increase in temperature. They say it just isn't possible. They all believe there are other causes that we don't understand yet, but will in the future.

Rob's understanding of climatology is matched only by his understanding of geology, history, economics, and spelling.

(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  RobertN, I'll be honest with you and I'm friends with several "scientific types" whom all are non-believers about humans causing the warmup. They say the math just doesn't add up in terms of the amount of CO2 produced by man and the increase in temperature. They say it just isn't possible. They all believe there are other causes that we don't understand yet, but will in the future.

I have friends who say things like that too, but I'm not going to take their word for it. None of them actually study earth sciences.

To add to that, mlb, I think there are very few scientists studying the climate that will admit that we just don't know all the variables yet. IOW, we don't know enough. Tough to say that about your own profession.

(05-29-2013 02:26 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Rob's understanding of climatology is matched only by his understanding of geology, history, economics, and spelling.

I see what you did there.

(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  RobertN, I'll be honest with you... I'm friends with several "scientific types" whom all are non-believers about humans causing the warmup. They say the math just doesn't add up in terms of the amount of CO2 produced by man and the increase in temperature. They say it just isn't possible. They all believe there are other causes that we don't understand yet, but will in the future.

At my last gig my director's degree was actually meteorology and I got the pleasure of watching him tear apart a know nothing algore follower.