Can comets delivering co2 effect climate chemistry?

I have been researching this topic and have found no information of use for my analysis. Comet and comet fragments fall nearly constantly in the Earth's atmosphere. My question is what part of atmospheric chemistry is not altered by the highly inconsistent fall of new inputs from space? My estimations have not been well informed enough for me to make any sort of conclusion on this subject but the data set from every model of climate chemistry I have seen so far did not include the inputs of exo-atmospheric elements in the climate models. They can not be insignificant in my opinion. Any thoughts or data you would like to share here would be helpful. Thanks

a reply to: machineintelligence

Well, I'm not a chem major, but most oxygen in comets is in the form of H2O, and the small amount of C02 that is there, breaks down from the heat generated as the fragments enter the atmosphere.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I would think if they have an effect that's even measurable, it's been consistent throughout history for thousands of years, well before humans developed any of the technology that affects it today or were numerous enough to affect it as a result of their behaviors.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

Not sure why you think it would be consistent throughout history. I have not found any data showing an analysis of average comet chemistry over any time domain. Finding comet chemistry for individual comet samples is rather rare and lacks any sort of consistent data points from what I have found so far.

a reply to: Mach2

CO2 is largely considered in the papers I have read to have been largely deposited on Earth by comets. Long before animals and plants were even here.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Mach2

CO2 is largely considered in the papers I have read to have been largely deposited on Earth by comets. Long before animals and plants were even here.

From WIKI:

"Composition. About 80% of the Halley's Comet nucleus is water ice, and frozen carbon monoxide (CO) makes up another 15%."

That doesn't leave much for C02.

Perhaps what you have read pertains to the constituent ingredients.

a reply to: Mach2

So prior to animal life appearing on Earth were did it come from? The CO2 just came from what exactly? You see how hard it is to get at this data. No real scientific data contains exo-atmospheric data inputs but they have to be huge and irregular in my opinion. I have found no definitive source so if you do find one please share. Thanks.

"So prior to animal life appearing on Earth were did it come from? The CO2 just came from what exactly?"




Co2 came from plants. They produce it at night and absorb it during the day I believe.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Not sure why you specified "animal" life, as flora has been around a lot longer than fauna, but decomposition of living things is the biggest natural producer of C02 on earth today.

It is cyclical in nature, being released by dead things, and absorbed by living things , mainly in oceans.

Remember though, early earth was completely different atmospherically. The first complex life was theorized to be anerobic, as the oxygen levels were thought to be very low.

a reply to: Mandroid7

What you did not address that might have been helpful is on what data set about climate chemistry you have ever seen does the model include exo-atmospheric inputs? If that data exists how was it quantified? By what process was it quantified and based on what sampling data? I am simply pointing out that this data variable is never entered into atmospheric chemistry models and it is a data set that can not in my opinion be a small input variable.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Mach2

No real scientific data contains exo-atmospheric data inputs but they have to be huge and irregular in my opinion.

There is no data because your basic assumption is invalid, and therefore your opinion is flawed.

Sorry, but I know of no "link" that can provide you with a background in basic organic chemistry. That takes a couple years of study.

a reply to: Mach2

So you are making the statement that exo-atmospheric inputs are of no significance to atmospheric chemistry? That is a rather bold and completely untested hypothesis given the basic lack of data available.

a reply to: machineintelligence

No, probably no data sets like that. The closest you'll probably get is ice core samples, and that's just regular atmosphere, as far as I know and not going back that far either.
I don't think much co2 will survive entering the atmosphere, although you never know, it is heavier than air, but I'd think it would burn up and be next to nothing in comparison to the massive co2 produced when the earth was covered in jungle-like plant growth.
I've never seen any info on it, just cosmic dust buildup type stuff.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Mach2

So you are making the statement that exo-atmospheric inputs are of no significance to atmospheric chemistry? That is a rather bold and completely untested hypothesis given the basic lack of data available.

Well, let's approach it from this angle.

What is more likely?

There is no data because ALL the well educated, many brilliant, climate scientists completely ignore the obvious?

Or

You are making an invalid basic assumpion that "in you opinion" the contribution can't be small?

I can't help but think you are just being arguementative, at this point.

The study of comets has been well documented, since the early part of the last century. You keep saying there must be enormous amounts of C02 in them, but that doesn't appear to be true.

You keep saying that the studies aren't taking this into account, but why would they if it is a negligible amount (if any) to begin with?

I provided info about the makeup of comets in one of the first posts, yet you keep insisting there is massive amounts of carbon dioxide in them.

a reply to: Mach2

I am not being argumentative. Frustrated yes. I am looking for a quantitative variable in a rather complex chemistry model that I have yet to find. If data does not exist then the question arises as you have stated is it a legitimate question to deserve to be included as an input variable in the model? I get that perspective. My perspective differs in that I think if no data exists for a variable it should not be discarded out of hand. Why would it be a bad idea to determine what material inputs come from space and how might these inputs effect the Earth? Frankly I am simply frustrated in the lack of science within this gap in our understanding of nature.

a reply to: machineintelligence

All questions, with an aim to increase one's knowledge are, indeed, legitimate. That is how we, as a civilization, learn and progress.

I think in this case, the answer is basically no, comets do not substantially contribute to the C02 levels in earths atmosphere, and it is a variable that doesn't play a part in the equation.

You can disagree, but as in most things, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The starting point in your quest would seem to be evidence that comets do contain carbon dioxide, before even considering what effect they may have on climate models. I have not seen any data, or even speculation, that is true.

If you are trying to make a point that climate models are inaccurate, we can certainly agree on that.

Not only don't we know nearly enough about the complexity of how different factors affect the atmosphere, and the climate in general, the models themselves are tweaked until they predict predetermined outcomes.

None have shown any accuracy historically.

a reply to: Mach2

This really started at my attempt to figure out just what is falling out of the skies from space. So little information even attempts to answer this what I thought was a basic question I have become somewhat frustrated. I had searched a lot trying various queries I thought might reveal the answers and then I fell on the question that since the volume of material falling on the Earth every day is fairly significant perhaps someone doing climate models had researched the subject. No dice. No data sets on this are even available. When I first thought of this question I mistakenly thought that someone had perhaps done the science on this. The sky has no lid on it after all and the entire universe is on the other side of Earth's gravity well. Perhaps someone has questioned and determined what exactly falls on the Earth every day. Space weather for real not just proton flux from the Sun. Not finding that info I looked at the inputs for the climate models based on atmospheric chemistry thinking perhaps the data was there. Not there. I even looked for cosmic ray data in the climate models and that is not there and it is highly variable. Cosmic rays are largely responsible for cloud nucleation but that data is also lacking in climate models. I started to get the ides you mention that they simply put in variables that will provide the desired conclusion. Not sure why a scientist would practice that sort of deceit. So many words to say that I wold like to find better sources for scientific collaboration that is based on science and not just getting paid. We could sure advance a lot faster in many fields.

I did finally find one reference and it refers to 3 data sets for different types of comets. These numbers vary from just over 12% CO2 composition up to about 32% CO2 composition. This is a very limited set of data and is at best a very broad generalization about comet average composition of various types of comets. It contains no quantitative data with regard to the average annual sky fall of these elements.

researchers.dellmed.utexas.edu...

After its launch in 2009, NASA's NEOWISE spacecraft observed 163 comets during the WISE/NEOWISE prime mission. This sample from the space telescope represents the largest infrared survey of comets to date. Data from the survey are giving new insights into the dust, comet nucleus sizes, and production rates for difficult-to-observe gases like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Results of the NEOWISE census of comets were recently published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are common molecules found in the environment of the early solar system, and in comets. In most circumstances, water–ice sublimation likely drives the activity in comets when they come nearest to the sun, but at larger distances and colder temperatures, other common molecules like CO and CO2 may be the main drivers. Spaceborne carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are difficult to directly detect from the ground because their abundance in Earth’s own atmosphere obscures the signal. The NEOWISE spacecraft soars high above Earth's atmosphere, making these measurements of a comet's gas emissions possible

NEOWISE Observes Carbon Gases in Comets

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Comet and comet fragments fall nearly constantly in the Earth's atmosphere.

Aren't you mixing comets with meteors?