NASA says CO2 cools and solar energy warms...

[Wild Cobra]

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

[admiralsnackbar]

Stratosphere ≠ Troposphere

[Wild Cobra]

Stratosphere ≠ Troposphere

No .

[admiralsnackbar]

No .

My bad... I assumed you were trying to discredit the vast convergence of interdisciplinary data compiled by Earth's scientists by posting a NASA video and cherry-picking information that fits your usual ignoramus narrative... but you just started a thread in the wrong forum.

No shame, bro -- we've all done it.

[boutons_deux]

Nicholas Stern: ‘I Got It Wrong On Climate Change–It’s Far, Far Worse,’ An ‘Existential’ Threat For Many

Stern … said: “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

That would be 4° to 5°C aka 7° to 9°F aka the end of civilization as we know it (see World Bank Climate Report: ‘A 4°C [7°F] World Can, And Must, Be Avoided’ To Avert ‘Devastating’ Impacts). Stern continues:

“This is potentially so dangerous that we have to act strongly. Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/28/1507651/nicholas-stern-i-got-it-wrong-on-climate-change-its-far-far-worse/

[DMC]

Do you really want to trust a group of people who cannot ferry their own back and forth without blowing them up?

[admiralsnackbar]

Do you really want to trust a group of people who cannot ferry their own back and forth without blowing them up?

Are you referring to BP and Exon?

[Wild Cobra]

My bad... I assumed you were trying to discredit the vast convergence of interdisciplinary data compiled by Earth's scientists by posting a NASA video and cherry-picking information that fits your usual ignoramus narrative... but you just started a thread in the wrong forum.

No shame, bro -- we've all done it.

You have to remember. The layers do mix.

[admiralsnackbar]

You have to remember. The layers do mix.

Yes, they do. But we can recognize the layers as being such because gases behave in different ways at different al udes/temperatures/etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they do. But we can recognize the layers as being such because gases behave in different ways at different al udes/temperatures/etc.

It is still energy in the form of heat. When it mixes, it changes the heat.

[TDMVPDPOY]

watta load of bull , doesnt matter what the earth creates, cause theres already a huge mass amount out there in space that its hard to quantify

just another bull research done to get more govt funding for more useless bull

[Wild Cobra]

watta load of bull , doesnt matter what the earth creates, cause theres already a huge mass amount out there in space that its hard to quantify

just another bull research done to get more govt funding for more useless bull

If you say so.

Can you find me studies that are open review, that conclude what the shrills say? Do they include the variations of the sun's UV spectrum, and how the O2, and O3 react to these changes? Do they include the total solar changes? It is only recently that we are measuring the UV from the sun by satellites, and the variances are far more than previously suspected.

It isn't just the YouTube I linked. There is a vast amount of material out there that is not being considered, and as we learn more about it, we find the alarmists are very wrong about the major causes of global warming.

What happens when you take a serious look at who the political bodies are funding? It's a dangerous thing when we politicize science, which is what the likes of the IPCC is.

[admiralsnackbar]

smh

[MannyIsGod]

You have to remember. The layers do mix.

[Th'Pusher]

smh

if I had a nickel for every time I saw either or these as responses to WC's understanding of something "scientific"...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC, how about you regale us with your theory of a 'solar burp,' combustion in the thermosphere, and rain for 3 weeks straight.

I like that one as much as your 'theory' that associations within NASA as well as Ins utions that wok with them very closely do not consider the research findings of NASA.

Can you find me studies that are open review, that conclude what the shrills say? Do they include the variations of the sun's UV spectrum, and how the O2, and O3 react to these changes? Do they include the total solar changes? It is only recently that we are measuring the UV from the sun by satellites, and the variances are far more than previously suspected.

It isn't just the YouTube I linked. There is a vast amount of material out there that is not being considered, and as we learn more about it, we find the alarmists are very wrong about the major causes of global warming.

https://oodt.jpl.nasa.gov/wiki/displ...ystem+Workshop

Agenda

Day 1: Presentations and Overview

Welcome and Objectives (9:00am-9:30am) (Steven Berrick, Tsendgar Lee)
IPCC and ESG Overview (9:30am-10:45am)
Overview and Plans for AR5 (Duane Waliser)
Overview of the Earth System Grid (Dean Williams)
Short Break - Refreshments (15 mins)
Preparing IPCC-relevant NASA Datasets (11:00am-11:30am) (Robert Ferraro)
Report from the PCMDI Workshop
Data format and model differences and needs
Formats, grids, quality information and what can be done better
Technical do ents for data sets
Requirements and process for preparing NASA Datasets (11:30am-12:15pm) (Luca Cinquini)
Process for posting observations
HDF/HDF-EOS to NetCDF/CF
Lunch on your own (12:15pm-1:30pm)
Existing efforts to link into the ESG (1:30pm-4:30pm)
GSFC - Phil Webster
JPL - Dan Crichton
NCAR - Gary Strand
Short Break - Refreshments (2:30 - 2:45)
LaRC (CERES) - Louis Nguyen/Mike Little
NOAA Environmental Projection Center - Cecelia DeLuca
NOAA National Climate Model Portal - Glenn Rutlidge
ORNL - Galen Shipman
Technical considerations for model-to-data intercomparison

Day 2: Discussion and Planning (9 AM - 2 PM)

Technical requirements for preparing and sharing observational data sets for CMIP5, as identified at the PCMDI meeting (Facilitators: Phil Webster, Robert Ferraro) (9:00 AM - 10:00 AM)
Requirements to support the technical note/do ent
Metadata requirements for the observational data
Organizational requirements on observations
System requirements
Short Break - Refreshments (10:00 AM - 10: 15 AM)
Planned system elements to support CMIP5 (Facilitators: Dan Crichton, Dean Williams) (10:15 AM - 11:00 AM)
Planned system level components/services
Required extensions to support observations
Functional data flow and data provenance for observations required to support CMIP5 (Facilitators: Jeanne Behnke, Rob Raskin) (11:00 AM - 11: 45 AM)
Recommendations for inclusion of data provenance for observations
Flow of data from data providers to the ESG (Missions, SIPS, DAACs, etc)
Lunch on your own (11:45 AM - 12:30 PM)
Immediate actions for supporting CMIP5 (Facilitators: Steve Berrick, Tsendgar Lee) (12:30 PM - 1:15 PM)
Near-term plan
Schedule
Follow-up items
Short Break - Refreshments (1:15 PM - 1:30 PM)
Key technical challenges (Facilitators: Frank Lindsay, Jason Hyon) (1:30 PM - 2:00 PM)
Short-term technical challenges

I'm sure data sharing events such as these ignored NASA findings on solar output and atmospheric behavior. You have it all figured out. FFS, the denier movement stopped referencing NASA studies a long time ago because it's pretty damn obvious where they stand in the IPCC: their largest contributor. DMC even referenced a meme about it earlier.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, the Fuzzy Troll deviates.

[Nbadan]

It's Lunar heating....duh!!



Not time lapse...

[Agloco]

Persistence WC. One day all of us will show up in one of these climate threads and simply agree with everything you say.































Until then, don't forget to inhale.

[Nbadan]

Oh, oh....a new WC theory?

For the first time, scientists have found lifeforms where nobody thought it was possible: floating in the troposphere, the slice of the atmosphere approximately four to six miles (eight to 15 kilometers) above Earth's surface. And not just a tiny few, but lot: 20% of every particle in that atmospheric layer are living organisms.

This has profound implications for our understanding of weather, the spread of disease, and life on other planets.

Scientists previously believed that all the suspended particles in this part of the atmosphere were dust and salt, but this new study—"the first of its kind" say the researchers—demonstrates that life can exist in places that we couldn't imagine, under such extreme conditions, living and feeding. According to Kostas Konstantinidis, assistant professor at the Georgia Ins ute of Technology's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering:

"We did not expect to find so many microorganisms in the troposphere, which is considered a difficult environment for life. There seems to be quite a diversity of species, but not all bacteria make it into the upper troposphere."

Read more: http://gizmodo.com/5980166/surprised...earths-surface

.....20% of the particles are living organisms...

......And another 60-70%% is most likely particles of uh, microscopic, um, waste.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Once again, the Fuzzy Troll deviates.

I addressed your assertions that IPCC did not consider NASA data. The UV spectrum assertion you make is based on a 2003 NASA discovery. If you like I can point you to many, many conferences similar to the one I posted to above between 2003 and now. That is before you consider NASA is the largest contributor to the IPCC. It's hilarious that your same 'brain' takes NASA publications like in the OP as a basis for your denial and then discount what they say and what their stance is when it disproves your assertions.

Confirmation bias and stupidity: the WC way.

[Wild Cobra]

Persistence WC. One day all of us will show up in one of these climate threads and simply agree with everything you say.

I doubt that. Even once I am proven right, you hard heads will still be the deniers of real science.

Until then, don't forget to inhale.

Trust me. I'm not holding my breath for you college indoctrinates.

[Wild Cobra]

I addressed your assertions that IPCC did not consider NASA data.

With a "low level of understanding." Even at that, the only satellite equipment that has accuracy fine enough to be better that the noise margin and instrument drift than the nominal solar changes has only been collecting data for less than a decade.

The UV spectrum assertion you make is based on a 2003 NASA discovery. If you like I can point you to many, many conferences similar to the one I posted to above between 2003 and now.

Good. Than you know that the UV changes are far greater than previously thought.

Have at it.

That is before you consider NASA is the largest contributor to the IPCC.

Of material, or money? Material is fine, but what about the agenda aspect? Remember, James Hansen should be prosecuted for violations of the Hatch Act.

It's hilarious that your same 'brain' takes NASA publications like in the OP as a basis for your denial and then discount what they say and what their stance is when it disproves your assertions.

LOL...

NASA isn't one voice. They are many scientists. Each has different conclusions of how different aspects of the geosciences affect global warming.

Confirmation bias and stupidity: the Fuzzy way.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Banal WC stupidity.

Hansen namedropping
NASA conspiracy

The information gathered 100 years before 2003 was even less complete. This notion that you have that incomplete information from the past prohibits understanding only speaks to your ignorance of science and statistics. Where do you think 'margin of error' comes from or moreso why the margin of error increases the farther back in time it goes. Using your paradigm, nothing is capable of being understood because there is always more precision possible. They revised their findings based on new data and still came to the same conclusion: the solar variation does not account for the warming.

And I love your sophistry. You are arguing for a conclusion, anything but oil and gas, so regale us more on how its soot.

[Wild Cobra]

What a fuzzy response...