It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA co2 Cools Earth's Atmosphere.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:10 PM
And so it goes.......
Gawd this whole debate is truly pointless.
The climate is changing, and has done it for millions of years.
To believe that we are the root cause is self-aggrandizement at best and plain arrogant at worst.
Why not both sides just give it a rest already?
My parents told me there were two things not to be discussed at the dinner table. Politics and Religion.
They were right.
The politics of AGW religion should be left @ Al's house.
After all, he can afford to fly us in for dinner.

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 06:13 AM
I don't buy into the AGW theory either for a million reasons already discussed however, I will agree with phage in this instance; the article does not prove cooling and simply addresses the effects of the trace gas CO2 in the troposphere during a solar event.

Also someone mentioned that 'it doesn't matter if co2 isn't the problem we should be working towards cleaning up our act in the form of pollution' (justifying the taxation). While I absolutely agree with that, in that we should be more worried about brown clouds in Asia or the plastics that are polluting the oceans, or deforestation which are real problems. Can someone show me how much of our carbon taxes are invested into these problems, compared to say eradicating co2 output? I might be wrong but it seems like we have our priorities in disarray with that attitude?
edit on 21-4-2013 by lioninthenorth because: Clarification

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by lioninthenorth

There is no way to eradicate Co2 output unless we stop using fossil fuels and even then, we exhale it The idea for taxing carbon is two-fold, one is to represent the actual cost of man made carbon emissions, two is to incentivize people and businesses to either develop more efficient emissions, switch to green technologies or simply reduce their output. That said, here in the States it was/is doomed to fail, the majority of people do not like taxes and because our government is bought and paid for by the worst emitters. We need a different approach here. But here is some info for you...

United States
There is no nationwide carbon tax levelled in the United States, although a few states and localities have introduced the tax.
In November 2006, voters in Boulder, Colorado passed what is proclaimed to be the first municipal 'carbon tax'. It is a tax on electricity consumption (utility bills) with deductions for using electricity from renewable sources (primarily Xcel's WindSource program). Their goal is to reduce carbon emissions to those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol; specifically to reduce their emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.[144] Tax revenues get collected by Xcel Energy and are directed to the city's Office of Environmental Affairs to fund programs to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.[145]
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax is expected to raise $1.6 million dollars in 2010. The tax was increased to a maximum allowable rate by voters in 2009 in order to meet CAP goals. Currently the tax is set at $0.0049 /kWh for residential users (ave. $21 per year), $0.0009 /kWh for commercial (ave. $94 per year), and $0.0003 /kWh for industrial (ave. $9,600 per year). The revenues from the tax are expected to decrease over time as businesses and residents reduce their energy use and begin to use more solar and wind power. The tax will expire on March 31, 2013.[144]
In May 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which covers nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, passed a carbon tax on businesses of 4.4 cents per ton of CO2.[146]
Some states are considering the imposition of carbon taxes. For example in 2006, the state of California, passed AB-32, which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In an effort to execute AB-32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), the California Air Resources Board put forth the idea to implement a carbon tax but has yet to reach agreement with the Western States Petroleum Association who represent the refineries in the state. The WSPA holds that AB-32 only allows a carbon tax to cover administrative costs.[147]
In May 2010 Montgomery County, Maryland passed the nation's first county-level carbon tax.[148] The new legislation calls for payments of $5 per ton of CO2 emitted from any stationary source emitting more than a million tons of carbon dioxide during a calendar year.[149] There is only one source of emissions fitting the criteria laid out by the council, an 850 megawatt coal-fired power plant owned by Mirant Corporation. The tax is expected to raise between $10 million and $15 million for the county, which is facing a nearly $1 billion budget gap.[150] The plan calls for half of revenue to go toward creating a low interest loan plan for county residents to invest in residential energy efficiency upgrades.[149] The County's energy supplier buys its energy at auction, so Mirant must continue to sell its energy at market value, which means no discernible increase in energy costs will be felt by the counties residents. In June 2010 the Mirant Corporation opened a lawsuit against the county to stop the tax. It is expected that litigation will take years to be completed [151]


posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:05 PM
In the troposphere, CO2 is problematic because it captures heat where the biosphere is located, causing its adverse heating effects.

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by skuly

So now the government wants to charge me for me giving them my co2 so they can cool their sweaty asses?
Just when i thought it couldn't get any worse

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:43 AM
Just when I got an electric vehicle...
Oh well...

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:15 AM
I'm from Michigan I've been ice fishing for over 30 years. I study the patterns of when the lakes in my area freeze. Last year we had no ice on the lakes I didn't get to go ice fishing at all. On a normal winter we get ice on the lakes by mid December. This year we didn't get ice until almost February. For the past 10 or 12 years we've had very mild winters compared to the early 90's and 80's. We haven't had any major snow storms in years. Most of the snow seems to be hitting south of us. Definitely some weird weather patterns going on where I'm from. Also great lakes water levels are low because we haven't been getting much snow. A lot of the marshes and wetlands in my area are drying up. I spend most of my free time on the water year round. I see this stuff first hand.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by wantsome

It doesn't help that Nestle pulls water out of Lake Michigan to ship to China.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM
Global warming is not a myth made up by Al Gore.
The NASA data is talking about the upper atmosphere that's from 100km-250km up. That's pretty much space.
The majority of our atmosphere is in the first 20km go to the top of Everest and try to breathe and that's only at 9km. This data doesn't mean Co2 isn't a green house gas or disprove global warming.

Man has changed the composition of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 100yrs. It's not arrogance is an unfortunate fact.
There no need to feel guilty or personally responsible no one ever knew before 15yrs ago. The Anti global warming movement in the US has largely been stirred up by multinational oil and gas companies who obviously don't want you to know the truth.
Who stands to make the billions of dollars out of fracking? You?

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:37 AM
There are two things that are certain as far as I know. One is that general climate warming has occurred and two is that CO2 levels have risen. Historical models have shown repeatedly that warming has caused the rise in CO2 levels (not the other way around as Al Gore and his followers believe). In other word, the warming is equivalent to fire and the CO2 is a byproduct of this heating much the way that smoke is a byproduct of burning.

The problem that occurs when we target the "smoke" rather than the "fire" is that we are going after the wrong issue and may easily remove CO2 without eliminating the cause of the heating in the first place Please note that in the 1970s, studies revealed that man was heating up the earth through activities like nuclear energy at an alarming rate and they predicted that CO2 and later methane would be released from the oceans if we raised the temperature of the oceans enough. Methane is a more dangerous "greenhouse" gas than CO2, so this was a significant concern. I wish that we would understand that heat is the concern, not CO2.

What this NASA study shows, though is something I find more disconcerting. If it is true that CO2 will reduce the transmission of heat to the earth, then CO2 may be one of the ways the earth's temperature remains balanced. In other words, increases in CO2, reduce transmission of solar energy to the surface and prevent additional heating. As the earth heats up and less CO2 is able to be dissolved in our oceans, the released CO2 has a tempering affect on the warming rather than a "greenhouse" affect augmenting it. Thus, CO2 is the friend, not the enemy in a warming situation. I would wait for corroboration of this finding before jumping to any conclusions, but please understand that while CO2 blocks heat in either direction, it is not just radiant heat from the sun that warms the planet; other solar radiation which is not blocked by CO2 reaches the surface and is converted to heat and retained within the Earth's environment by CO2 as well.

As far as cleaning up the atmosphere, studies in Europe have identified that the reduction of pollution in the atmosphere by factories and transportation have made the atmosphere more "transparent" and thus allow more of the sun's energy to reach the ground. Estimates of 80%-90% of the temperature increases in the late 20th century there can be accounted for by the cleaning up the atmosphere.

Be careful of making too many assumptions about the benefits or drawbacks of whatever science you support. Many are beginning to believe that the cooling of the earth during the middle of the 20th century was the result of the growth of manmade pollution. While I hardly support polluting the atmosphere, large-scale pollution would seem to be one of the ways to combat global warming with the technologies we know and understand.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Phage

What a stupidity if what you said so is true....?

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:27 AM
Whatever may have caused global warming in the past - it wasn't humans. The fact that Co2 is a green house gas and warms the atmosphere is not really debated, or the fact that it causes a feedback loop that produces more co2 and methane from unfreezing tundra and others effects. Gore may have been wrong in suggesting that global warming in the past was caused by co2 increases, but doesn't mean that the rise in current levels of co2 won't mean an increase in global temperatures.
This time it's us who have unfortunately created the co2 in the atmosphere, not natural global variations in orbit etc.

The oceans are getting more acidic as they naturally absorb the excess of Co2 in the atmosphere.
As people have pointed out in this thread life is pretty resilient, yeah great but we aren't. Life as a whole will survive but mankind will be long gone.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by watchitburn

Not all us 'dirty hippies' are global-warming nut-headz - but we all agree with a CLEANER ENVIRONMENT... I do believe TPTB can effect massive weather changes LOCALLY all over the globe - but overall warming / cooling - NO... Rain, wind and localised heating, definitely (The OZONE LAYER DESTRUCTION and ACID RAIN at least proves this let alone intentional local weather manipulation - though melting ice-caps could be part of a 'plan' - destroy coastlines and free up two continents said The Mason! Lol, you never know!)... I'm pretty sure if we atomised reflective metals globally into the upper atmosphere global cooling would occur - let's hope this doesn't happen...

Great find OP, S + F coming up, reposts done on The Daily Mail (hope they go with it)...

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by skuly

This is insane, just the other day me and my friends were mentioning how the sun was keeping us warm, but at the same time we were still cold it was wierd. But anyway this seems like a huge coverup for something you dont # with the earths atmosphere, were not causing enough climate change to have a huge impact, the earths climate changes through cycles over long periods of time (found in the ice core data). Dr. Alexey Dmitriev also proves that our planets are changing along with our atmospheres, any ideas on what co2 might have to do with this?

The widely quoted, and believed, "Greenhouse Effect" scenario for total climatic changes is by far the weakest explanation, or link, in accounting for this reorganization. ( ) I suggest reading the whole article.
edit on 22-4-2013 by liam8126 because: Additional sources/information

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by focuswiz

The time-scales in historical models are SO INACCURATE it can be argued CO2 has followed a natural warming trend...

I do believe we've altered the climate. globally as stated in my previous post but the CO2 tie-up is dubious (despite oil-company involvement on BOTH SIDES - they like the fact expensive oil is/was popular).... What about space junk - from trillions of paint flecks to whole satellites - a cooler or a warmer or inconsequential?

For all we know, in non-human dominated times CO2 rise may have been part of a FLORA'S DEFENCE MECHANISM that on a global scale REDUCES a heating trend...

I'm anti carbon tax and anti-pollution - and the carbon tax INCREASED POLLUTION - that's my agenda.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by smarterthanyou

Wonder how much of our Great Lakes water is sitting on store shelves right now.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:34 PM
They'll say and do anything these days to detract from the serious threat we face. Far more dangerous is the trapped heat than the deflected waves. Even more dangerous than the CO2 is CO4 (methane) which is 72 times worse and increasing in our atmosphere every day. The methane is causing global warming to increase more rapidly than CO2 ever did, IMO.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Phage
The article would seem to be about the effects of coronal mass ejections on the upper atmosphere. It is my understanding that it is not CMEs which cause the heating of the lower atmosphere (where CO2 levels are increasing), but infrared radiation.

Finally a comment from someone who's smart enough to actually understand what's going on, instead of screaming "I can haz fake global warming".

Indeed, the heart of the issue in the article is squarely the interaction of CME with Earth, not the broader energy exchange mechanism. I think there is a bit of speculation on the part of authors who were slightly ambiguous, they were effectively pimping out the topic of the role of CO2.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Rezlooper
They'll say and do anything these days to detract from the serious threat we face. Far more dangerous is the trapped heat than the deflected waves.


Even more dangerous than the CO2 is CO4 (methane) which is 72 times worse and increasing in our atmosphere every day.

If my memory serves me well, methane is not CO4, it's CH4.

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

So what your saying is the hole in the OZONE LAYER letting in UV that converts to many frequencies, including infra-red as it hits the atmosphere and ground does not heat our poles (mainly Antarctica)? Not that this is an argument against A.G.W... The main problem I see in the A.G.W. theory is it was exaggerated for political effect and monetary gain - it shot itself in the foot...

I'm not denying there's been a slight rise in global (land, sea and air) temperatures, it's been happening in fits & spurts for 10,000+ years... All the hype and research costs (thanks to paranoid people like yourself) combined with CARBON-OFFSETTING have done way more harm than good... If all the money put into 'proving' A.G.W. could have simply been used to make houses and businesses (more) off-grid and self reliant using solar panels and other renewables, combined with WASTE INCINERATION (whilst filtering out chemicals before they hit the atmosphere for REUSE) we'd ALL be better off..

Instead we've swept pollution under the carpet, legally speaking (well, shipped it to China, India, Nigeria etc.) and are still heavily reliant on MASSIVE, Centralised, insecure NUCLEAR, COAL & GAS power stations (and solar, wind FARMS) owned by GREEDY CORPS... (esp. in the UK)... Don't forget all the extra cable (or is that CABAL) This is what I mean by SCIENCE GONE MAD... The whole movement is owned by the oil & nuclear industries as far as I can see... Thanks for nothing. Gullible people like you who support A.G.W. research and carbon credits (OK, you may not) have ruined the ANTI-POLLUTION and ANTI-SELF-RELIEANCE movements by begging your governments (leaching robbers) to get involved - and they sure ran with that... Remember, the oil industry loves high prices and the ANTI-NUCLEAR LOBBY was DESTROYED... Same goes for the hundred of billions spent on fusion around the world... Trying to run before we can walk...

I know this is a little unfair but valid. Sort our distributed, self-reliant (as much as possible) power and SAVE UP for these pipe-dreams and by then, we may have the technology and materials (carbon nano-tubes, graphine etc.) The whole things a scam, A.G.W, or not. The geo-engineering projects cost an arm and leg too as well as polluting... and I won't get into DU sprayed all over the 3rd World as a cheap way to dispose of nuclear waste...

edit on 22-4-2013 by PrivateSi because: Centralised, DU

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in