What do you make of this NASA report


Quote:

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:23pm:

What do you make of this NASA report

Do you know what the thermosphere is?

Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Do you know what the thermosphere is? Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works?

Why? I asked what do you make of it, not what do you make of me not telling you what I know.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:56pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Do you know what the thermosphere is? Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works? Why? I asked what do you make of it, not what do you make of me not telling you what I know.

I see
So you refuse to take on board any questions at all?

Are you afraid of the truth?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 1:33am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:56pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Do you know what the thermosphere is? Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works? Why? I asked what do you make of it, not what do you make of me not telling you what I know. I see So you refuse to take on board any questions at all? Are you afraid of the truth?

Bit hard to be afraid of the truth when I am giving you the opportunity to tell the truth according to you.

Do you understand how coolants work PLOL?

A coolant gas is merely a gas that is good at absorbing heat and re-emitting it. When used for industrial purposes, Co2 absorbs excess heat, then re-emits it through an exhaust - thereby cooling whatever needs to be cooled.

In the atmosphere the same principle applies. The article you quote describes how energy from the sun was absorbed by Co2 (as well as Nitrix Oxide) and re-emitted as infrared. This is in fact how the greenhouse effect works - when the greenhouse gases re-emit the energy in the form of infrared, some of it is directed back to earth - causing warming.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:29am:

Do you understand how coolants work PLOL? A coolant gas is merely a gas that is good at absorbing heat and re-emitting it. When used for industrial purposes, Co2 absorbs excess heat, then re-emits it through an exhaust - thereby cooling whatever needs to be cooled. In the atmosphere the same principle applies. The article you quote describes how energy from the sun was absorbed by Co2 (as well as Nitrix Oxide) and re-emitted as infrared. This is in fact how the greenhouse effect works - when the greenhouse gases re-emit the energy in the form of infrared, some of it is directed back to earth - causing warming.

Just 5% back to earth according to the article. That is some coolant.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Just 5% back to earth according to the article. That is some coolant.

That's what's called the Greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter whether the Infrared  is going up or down, it will be absorbed and re-emitted by Greenhouse gases. In the unusual event of a solar flare like this, the Infrared is incident (towards the earth). It doesn't actually negate the greenhouse effect for radiated longwave radiation.

Capiche?

Think of a dandelion seed head. The stalk represents the direction of longwave IR radiation(from Earth normally). The seed heads represent the direction of re-radiated IR radiation. Turn the dandelion upside down and you get the reverse effect. 

Now, are you saying that you accept this NASA media release? 

---

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:29am:

Do you understand how coolants work PLOL? A coolant gas is merely a gas that is good at absorbing heat and re-emitting it. When used for industrial purposes, Co2 absorbs excess heat, then re-emits it through an exhaust - thereby cooling whatever needs to be cooled.

Which pub do you go to?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Do you know what the thermosphere is? Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works?

He obviously understands it perfectly, but only on the rare occasion that it works in reverse.  In those cases, he's happy to accept anything that comes from NASA. (you know - the dastardly global cospiriatori)

The rest of the time, he's a bit muddled about it.

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 4:21pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:54pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Do you know what the thermosphere is? Do you know how the Greenhouse effect works? He obviously understands it perfectly, but only on the rare occasion that it works in reverse.  In those cases, he's happy to accept anything that comes from NASA. (you know - the dastardly global cospiriatori) The rest of the time, he's a bit muddled about it.

I was going to answer your previous question, but glad I decided to have a peek further down.  ;) :-?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 5:38pm:

I was going to answer your previous question, but glad I decided to have a peek further down.  ;) :-?

So what's the bottom line? Is it GOOD NASA or BAD NASA?

The greenhouse effect involves the absorption of radiation of a specific wavelength.

A typical greenhouse type effect is solar radiation striking the earths surface and infrared radiation being emitted from the earths surface and being absorbed by a molecule of CO2

The reflectivity of the earth is NOT 100% - wow what a surprise

What is the point of AGW denialist flat earth clowns even engaging in a conversation in this thread?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 6:06pm:

What is the point of AGW denialist flat earth clowns even engaging in a conversation in this thread?

Something might click. You never know. Just don't stoop to the level of insult. It's not necessary with all the facts on your side.  With a newspaper like The Australian publishing science fiction, I'm not surprised that people think this way.

All the action is in longwave Infrared. The sun doesn't usually emit longwave infrared (around 10 microns). The Earth does. This emission is the mechanism whereby it maintains a reasonably constant temperature. The blue part is the Earth's emission spectrum, the red part is the sun's. Atmospheric Physics 101 (or even High School).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N4XvePkmKjA/TUZTNqxfDAI/AAAAAAAAAUo/tIBcN7QR4x0/s640/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:00pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 6:06pm: What is the point of AGW denialist flat earth clowns even engaging in a conversation in this thread? Something might click. You never know. Just don't stoop to the level of insult.  With a newspaper like The Australian publishing fiction, I'm not surprised.

...and lets not forget the worlds most sublime Intellectual Giant Mr Andrew Bolt

I know that  I am relying on Bolt's integrity, honesty and compassion for his fellow man to formulate my opinions on the REAL causes of Global warming and its climatic implications.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2008/9/22/1222102567922/climate-change-graph.jpg

muso wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 5:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 5:38pm: I was going to answer your previous question, but glad I decided to have a peek further down.  ;) :-? So what's the bottom line? Is it GOOD NASA or BAD NASA?

Guess you will never know, but atleast you can make it up.

Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton - the only authorities that should be consulted on the AGW issue

I suggest that you do a literature search to see if you can find anything important published by these two supreme GLOBAL geniuses and men of integrity and honesty in the peer reviewed scientific journals

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:23pm:

What do you make of this NASA report Quote: For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

So in the lower atmosphere where the main source of infrared is the earth itself 95% it reflected back to the earth?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 8:22am:

Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton - the only authorities that should be consulted on the AGW issue I suggest that you do a literature search to see if you can find anything important published by these two supreme GLOBAL geniuses and men of integrity and honesty in the peer reviewed scientific journals

Like Marcott and Mann?? Or other useful idiots for the cause.

catprog wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Quote: For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. So in the lower atmosphere where the main source of infrared is the earth itself 95% it reflected back to the earth?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "reflected" in this context.  This has nothing to do with reflection for one thing. You'll have to ask that question more clearly. Are you asking if 95% of long wave IR is  absorbed in the lower atmosphere?

The article was talking about solar flares, and the dynamics are a bit different.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

catprog wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 5:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: What do you make of this NASA report Quote: For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. So in the lower atmosphere where the main source of infrared is the earth itself 95% it reflected back to the earth? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "reflected" in this context.  This has nothing to do with reflection for one thing. You'll have to ask that question more clearly. Are you asking if 95% of long wave IR is  absorbed in the lower atmosphere? The article was talking about solar flares, and the dynamics are a bit different.

Sorry I misread the OP I meant re-radiated.

OK, I'll try to answer. I think your question relates to the greenhouse effect as it applies to longwave infrared radiation  rather than the effect of the a solar flare hitting the Earth. Solar flares tend to cover a wide spectrum, so a whole lot of other variables come into play.

Think about the photons of longwave infrared being radiated from the Earth. As they travel up through the atmospheric column they can either go straight through into space, or if they happen to hit a greenhouse gas molecule, they are absorbed and re-radiated in a random direction.

In the lower atmosphere, the most significant greenhouse gas is water vapour, followed by carbon dioxide. Above a certain altitude, the water dewpoint is extremely low due to
the lower temperature, and carbon dioxide becomes the dominant greenhouse gas.

Now it's more complex than that, because the vast majority of radiation comes from the atmosphere itself. The energy is largely transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere and clouds by thermal convection processes rather than radiation, because most of the  IR radiated from the Earth's surface is absorbed.  Convective process account for roughly ten times the energy transfer of radiation in the lower atmosphere.

As the LWIR photons travel up through the atmospheric column, several variables change which affect the proportion of radiation that ends up in space.

Without going much further, can you see that the same convection factors don't apply in the same way when the radiation is incident from a solar flare.  In terms of the action of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere, it's pretty similar, although the geometry is different. 

Does that make sense so far?