Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Global Warming Felt By Space Junk and Satellites

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 224

An anonymous reader writes in with a story about another side effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "Rising carbon dioxide levels at the edge of space are apparently reducing the pull that Earth's atmosphere has on satellites and space junk, researchers say. The findings suggest that man made increases in carbon dioxide might be having effects on the Earth that are larger than expected, scientists added... in the highest reaches of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can actually have a cooling effect. The main effects of carbon dioxide up there come from its collisions with oxygen atoms. These impacts excite carbon dioxide molecules, making them radiate heat. The density of carbon dioxide is too thin above altitudes of about 30 miles (50 kilometers) for the molecules to recapture this heat. Cooling the upper atmosphere causes it to contract, exerting less drag on satellites."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Faulty headline (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955047)

So global warming has nothing to do with it? It's all about the carbon dioxide buildup?

Re:Faulty headline (5, Funny)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 2 years ago | (#41955061)

Good insight. I didn't pick up on that. Heretic.

Re:Faulty headline (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 2 years ago | (#41955077)

It was a bad label in the first place. I wonder if whoever coined it even suspected that decades later people would still be quibbling about the semantics instead of the actual cause.

Re:Faulty headline (3, Funny)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 2 years ago | (#41955199)

No, no, no... we are quibbling as much about the actual cause as we quibble about semantics... and if we can't quibble about those things, we'll quibble about the effects. And during all those shenanigans, we're playing the blame-game.

You didn't really think this was about identifying and solving a problem, did you?

Re:Faulty headline (3, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41955449)

No, no, no... we are quibbling as much about the actual cause as we quibble about semantics... and if we can't quibble about those things, we'll quibble about the effects. And during all those shenanigans, we're playing the blame-game.

You didn't really think this was about identifying and solving a problem, did you?

Joe six-pack, politicians and the media are quibbling about those things. There aren't any scientists trained in relevant fields who are, about the cause, semantics, or effects unless they're doing so for money or a bizarre reaction to "publish-or-perish".

No, headline is right. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955141)

Because there's no extra heat coming in from the sun (indeed, slightly less), but because the CO2 is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, the heat input to the upper atmosphere is reduced.

And what happens when heat input is reduced?

Cooling.

What happens in the lower atmoshere, where the heat input is increased?

Warming.

Indeed, one of the fingerprints that shows it ISN'T the sun doing it is the cooling upper atmosphere: in a warming sun, the entire atmosphere is being warmed because the heat input and throughput is increased.

Whereas the fingerprint of a greenhouse effect is that there is no extra input, but the throughput has changed.

In other words, this is yet more evidence of AGW.

Re:No, headline is right. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955165)

...

In other words, this is yet more evidence of AGW.

Umm, no.

Strictly speaking, it's just evidence of more CO2 in the upper levels of Earth's atmosphere.

Of course, you are free to leap to conclusions...

Re:No, headline is right. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955361)

Strictly speaking, it's just evidence of more man made CO2 in the upper levels of Earth's atmosphere.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:No, headline is right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955497)

Strictly speaking, it's just evidence of more man made CO2 in the upper levels of Earth's atmosphere.

There, fixed it for you.

And you know that how?

From the control Earth in your experiment, the one without humanity on it?

In other words, you fixed nothing.

Re:No, headline is right. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955559)

Why is it even relevant? What if there is a naturally occuring global climate change that will make this planet inhabitable for humans? Should we just let it happen becasue it is "natural"?

Oh wait, I tend to forget that the cause, the problem and the solution was decided upon even before the research was done.

Re:No, headline is right. (5, Informative)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 2 years ago | (#41955837)

isotope analysis shows increases over time of fossil carbon as a percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

add to that the fact that we pump gobs of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, and can find no other natural phenomena doing such on that sort of scale.

Re:No, headline is right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955857)

That's actually pretty simple to explain, really.

Nature does release more CO2 then humans (and by humans I mean fossil fuel burn, etc), but it's balanced out by natural absorption by the same oceans and vegetation that releases it (but it does fluctuate naturally).

Now, about 40% of man made CO2 emissions are capture by nature (vegetation, oceans, etc), and it leaves roughly 60% that nature can't capture (well, it already captures the natural emissions plus those 40% of human emissions) and that offsets it all. Normally a change of 100ppm takes 5000 to 20000 years to occur (naturally), but in this case it took roughly 120 years for the same increase to occur, giving us an all time high for the past 800 thousand years.

Also, the proof that man made carbon emissions are the culprit comes from the isotopes found and the ratio (C13/C12). Isotopes don't really lie and points the finger at fossil fuel and byproducts.

Apart from that, I could also say that's because TFA says that (but simply saying that wouldn't say much about proof, would it? Critical thinking and trying to understand the phenomenon with a skeptical approach and from there try to make up my own opinion it's clearly better).

Re:No, headline is right. (-1, Flamebait)

shellster_dude (1261444) | about 2 years ago | (#41955517)

Precisely. There is an utter lack of explanation for this extra CO2. Humans don't produce that much CO2 relative to nature each year, but somehow this article has leaped to the conclusion that this extra CO2 is all from anthropogenic sources. If this counts for "science" these days, we ought to all throw in the towel.

Re:No, headline is right. (4, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | about 2 years ago | (#41955623)

It's about "net production". Nature's net production of CO2 is nearly zero and currently over long periods it's slightly negative. Humanity's CO2 production is almost entirely net positive, we sequester very little CO2, so we are increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere. It may represent only a small amount of the total carbon in the atmosphere each year but we're putting all of the extra CO2 into it.

It's a like a guy standing by a half-filled swimming pool with a hose pouring water into the swimming pool. While we can't show that any particular molecule of H2O came from his hose, we can observe that the water level is rising and few people would doubt that the reason the level is rising because of the hose pouring water into the pool.

If there are 720 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere and humans add 10 gigations of carbon a year, you should be able to figure out roughly how long it takes to double it.

Re:No, headline is right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955887)

How is it right? It says the upper atmosphere is cooling due to CO2. Cooling + CO2 != Global Warming.

Re:No, headline is right. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955631)

Humans don't produce that much CO2 relative to nature each year

BULLSHIT.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Re:No, headline is right. (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41955653)

There is an utter lack of explanation for this extra CO2. Humans don't produce that much CO2 relative to nature each year

Citation needed. Have fun, because you're dead wrong. For example, we produce on average two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism. Are you getting paid to spout this shit, or are you telling lies for free? That's not a very good deal.

Re:No, headline is right. (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41955957)

Citation needed. Have fun, because you're dead wrong. For example, we produce on average two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism. Are you getting paid to spout this shit, or are you telling lies for free? That's not a very good deal.

Even after a major eruption event? I know these don't happen very often, but I have a hard time believing that we output more CO2 than a volcano can potentially output. But if you're talking dormant, or mostly dormant volcanoes, who would be surprised by that statistic?

The extra CO2 is pretty well explained. (5, Informative)

cnaumann (466328) | about 2 years ago | (#41955665)

We add an additional 4% each year and there is nothing to balance that. We can also look at isotope ratios (fossil fuels are ancient carbon). It is our CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm [skepticalscience.com]

Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (5, Informative)

mangu (126918) | about 2 years ago | (#41955351)

So global warming has nothing to do with it? It's all about the carbon dioxide buildup?

Why are you still trolling this bullshit?

It's all about burning fossil fuels. This has many effects, of which global warming is the most dangerous to humans right now, but raising the dangers of space junk is another bad effect.

What you are trying to imply is like saying cigarettes have nothing to do with lung cancer, because there are people who die of emphysema as well.

Go away, oil industry shill!

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955411)

www.climatedepot.com

You're wrong.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (3, Funny)

Third Position (1725934) | about 2 years ago | (#41955421)

Climate change! Is there nothing it can't do?

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (0, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41955643)

Climate change! Is there nothing it can't do?

It can't convince world-raping, destructive assholes to change their ways, apparently. Nor, indeed, can it convince The People to stand up and demand that they do so, because we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves over whether there is even a problem, even as we're in the midst of it.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (-1, Troll)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 years ago | (#41955725)

Or alternatively, the People know that the global warming story is white middle-class hysteria and refuse to fund fantasies any more.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 2 years ago | (#41955855)

make people put down the sippy cup of bile and fucking think for once in their miserable lives. it can't do that, apparently.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (1, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 years ago | (#41955715)

Please prove that the commenter was bribed by the oil industry, that there exists any attempt by oil industry companies and that any money is on the table. I want receipts, invoices or funding statements in company records. Otherwise you're just full of shit.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (4, Funny)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 2 years ago | (#41955885)

please prove that the commenter is 'full of shit', that this person's body is at least made up of a majority of actual dung. i want pictures of said shit, testimonials from manure experts, or pictures from an MRI or a colonoscopy.

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (5, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#41955901)

>Please prove that the commenter was bribed by the oil industry, that there exists any attempt by oil industry companies and that any money is on the table. I want receipts, invoices or funding statements in company records. Otherwise you're just full of shit.

Of course, because it's standard practise for companies to keep careful, public accounting records of illegal or deceitful activities (paying shills is sometimes the former and always the latter).

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41956053)

Funny you too sound just like a shrill

Re:Global warming has EVERYTHING to do with it (5, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#41955781)

No, he is saying something more like "lung cancer doesn't cause second hand smoke". Because the title would read something like:

Lung Cancer Affects Health Of Those Around You

Re:Faulty headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955827)

Headline is right, mainly because

man made increases in carbon dioxide might be having effects on the Earth that are larger than expected

And increases in carbon dioxide from other sources wouldn't have those effects.

Re:Faulty headline (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41956039)

So global warming has nothing to do with it? It's all about the carbon dioxide buildup?

Yes. In fact the carbon dioxide in this case is causing a cooling of the atmosphere.
FTFA:

The main effects of carbon dioxide up there come from its collisions with oxygen atoms. These impacts excite carbon dioxide molecules, making them radiate heat. The density of carbon dioxide is too thin above altitudes of about 30 miles (50 kilometers) for the molecules to recapture this heat. Cooling the upper atmosphere causes it to contract, exerting less drag on satellites.

I am first (-1, Offtopic)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 2 years ago | (#41955049)

Maybe now I should read the article.

Re:I am first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955155)

Did not read article before posting, too slow to type a sentence to get first post, you just lost your geek card.

One is not like the other. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955067)

If it's cooling the atmosphere, then why is it called global warming?

Re:One is not like the other. (5, Informative)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41955075)

The process cool the upmost strata, but keep heat inside. RTFA

Re:One is not like the other. (3, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41955081)

So you're saying hot grits are not cool?

Re:One is not like the other. (-1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41955127)

I had a plate of last night's chilli for breakfast. It was still very hot!

Global warming causing global cooling... (-1, Flamebait)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#41955071)

Yeah, well, no, fine. My BS detector smelled a rat.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955085)

Oh, you're a denier too?

Question, why did your BS detector not work when you were told fairy tales about zombie Jesus and his angry sky wizard father who is also himself?

I guess you must have calibrated it with faith, rather than that science nonsense.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 2 years ago | (#41955177)

Insulted because someone doesn't believe in your version of reality... Sounds like you both believe in a religion to me. Next time you might be better off with a well reasoned response.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955271)

Hahaha, another one of you filthy pieces of shit.

This is not MY version of reality. I don't pretend that I know better than everyone else, without even having graduated high school, let alone being an expert in the subject.

No, this is the scientific version of reality.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955367)

Hahaha, another one of you filthy pieces of shit.

This is not MY version of reality. I don't pretend that I know better than everyone else, without even having graduated high school, let alone being an expert in the subject.

Umm, OK.

No, this is the scientific version of reality.

But you blow it right there.

And you're probably too damn dumb to understand how.

Even a "WHOOSH!" would go over your head.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 2 years ago | (#41955565)

Insulted because someone doesn't believe in your version of reality... Sounds like you both believe in a religion to me. Next time you might be better off with a well reasoned response.

Atheism is no more a religion than naked is a brand of clothing.
(note the lowercase 'n' in naked)

Although the prior post was unnecessarily aggressive, it does bring up the valid point of religious belief sets, especially in the US are typically lumped in a package deal together political beliefs and a lack of trust in the world wide scientific community, typically manipulated with falsified information such as this [rense.com] .
I've actually had some wild unemployed troll telling me he would rather die of some dreaded but easily curable disease than accept 'faggoty european commie free health care'. ( I couldn't find the original link he sent me about oil wells magically refilling but it was a huge url with 'wall-street-journal' written near the end of it).

Does these holy books really have such a level of control over these kinds of people or is it just some innate brainwashed gullibility that they will aggressively defend?

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955649)

Any badge one places upon oneself or another is a form of clothing, what the badge is and stands for may change but it is still an adornment.

Naked (capitaliesed as starting a sentance) means to walk unclothed and uncaring, as one was born.

Go sit by a lake for an afternoon then tell me atheism isn't a religion ;)

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955091)

That's because you like a number of people think that CLIMATE CHANGE only causes warming. It causes a rougher cycle of warmer highs and colder lows. Overall it causes the planet to warm, but the effects felt are not always to warm.

On the other hand, if this might effect american's TV channels perhaps we can get the majority of people in the US to start believing in science....

Ok maybe not, but a boy can hope.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955533)

That's because you like a number of people think that CLIMATE CHANGE only causes warming.

And some people beleive that Earth is a stable system that isn't going from one extreme to another naturally.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about 2 years ago | (#41955673)

Take a walk in a redwood forest and see a cross section from a tree that was 2000 years old. It is obvious to even the simple minded that the rings on the tree show large and long cycles of strong grow and slow growth...none of those cycles of climate change in the past were due to man.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (2)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#41955821)

that cant be possible. I think God placed that tree there to test our faith.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41955657)

That's because you like a number of people think that CLIMATE CHANGE only causes warming. It causes a rougher cycle of warmer highs and colder lows. Overall it causes the planet to warm, but the effects felt are not always to warm.

I imagine flyingfsck's BS detector is pegging on this bit of rhetorical dodge. Normal people would call this the much more accurate "ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING" not the vague "CLIMATE CHANGE".

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955095)

Does it really surprise you that CO2 reduces the temperature away from the surface of the planet? Cannot you see that is energetically required for the planet to increase in temperature due to the greenhouse effect?

No (of course you can see this). You have simply turned off your brain because you do not want to believe in something. Please: stop talking before you stop thinking.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#41955173)

Oh, no, hell will freeze over after all: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/peat_ice_age_coming_only_co2_can_save_us/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955319)

This is amusing, but does not mitigate my previous comment. In fact, your randomly bringing up a reason that global warming might be a good thing (which it may very well be, if that research is in fact correct) suggests you still are not thinking, and just reflexively vomiting rhetoric.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955103)

Your attempt to equate "cooling of upper atmosphere" to "global cooling" is cute.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955139)

lol, was thinking the same thing myself ;)

Your BS detector slept through 6th grade science. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955345)

Define the average distances, temperature and densities for the following layers of the Earth's atmosphere:

Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Themosphere, Exosphere.

Bonus points if your BS detector notices the temperature does not uniformly trend with radius.

Even more bonus points if you can explain why, though I figure that your BS detector didn't take basic physics or slept through that too.

The world is more complicated than first order theory. Adapt or die.

That's because you don't understand AVERAGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955389)

Consider this serie : -11; -1; 0;12

Consider this evolve into this one : -20;-2;1;25.

The average of the first was 0 the average of the second was 1 (4 divided by 4 sample). So yeah in average the second one is "hotter" globally warmed. But did it uniformly increse ? No, in fact the extreme went higher. Now think about this in 3 dimensional & temporal way: some part of the atmosphere will have have an average over a year which will cool , some other part will be hotter, the ocean gets hotter, and the yearly averageof the whole planet increse. That does not mean EVERY single part of the planet will increase in temperature. In fact the model forsee some part will get more precipitation and snow, and get cooler.


So next time you read about some temperature average getting cooler, rather than jump into the bandwagon "global warming is global cooling nurf nurf nurf climatologist =dumb" think about mean, average, and global three time in your head before writing ANYTHING.

Re:Global warming causing global cooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955399)

Other than a strawman, high temperature process can lead to reduced temperatures. Ever heard of fighting fire with fire?

Chicken Littles always... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955079)

...wait...

"Cooling the upper atmosphere causes it to contract" ... what!!?

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955163)

You've got fear. What else you've got?

Earth goes through calamity every now and then, that's for certain. However, these predictions are not scientific. There's too much to be earned for claiming to know the truth while science is just in its infancy regarding climate change and how life copes with it.

The world as we know it WILL change. It has for billions of years. Change does not entail only destruction. Out of destruction comes also new creations. That's most most probably how we ended up here anyways.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955379)

Reality then. Because it's not fear so much as reality.

That's nice and all. However. It's not change. It's the rate of it. Organisms can usually cope with long term changes to environment. The speed of change has already showed its toll on organisms.

It's good that you think pressing reset on planetary scale is good. If those predictions are true, then we are fucked. FUBAR. Maybe history will keep some memories of homo sapiens sapiens (other than we fucked everything up and were too greedy to stop it). I just hope whatever comes after us, will learn from our mistakes.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955447)

MPU: the comment is (b)right.

The rate of global warming signal is simply too low for organisms to cope.

Organisms are adapted to tens of degrees per day (day/night cycle) and another tens of degrees per year (seasons) superimposed, but a degree over centuries wreaks havoc with this adaptation because it's too little and too slow to trigger it. Hence the soil will soon be strewn with unadapted critters.

Re:Yawn (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41955729)

If those predictions are true, then we are fucked. FUBAR

"IF".

Re:Enough said... (-1, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#41955185)

Nope, it is global cooling you got to be afraid of now. Global warming is passe: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/09/peat_ice_age_coming_only_co2_can_save_us/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Enough said... (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41955593)

I read that article before so I know you've done an excellent job of misunderstanding it. But then The Register presented an inflammatory headline for a reason...

It's not that people don't want to watch CurrentTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955109)

It's the CO2 interfering with their signal.

Yawn. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955171)

I can't believe anyone still cares about global warming. Maybe the world is right: Americans are backward. The rest of the world has already forgotten about it.

What is CO2 doing up there? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41955181)

I thought that CO2 was heavier than air, so there shouldn't be any of it in the upper atmosphere.
(at least not the stuff emitted by burning carbon based stuff at ground level. There could be some Methane at high altitude that gets converted to CO2 by solar radiation., and maybe jet exhaust and large volcanic eruptions.

Re:What is CO2 doing up there? (5, Informative)

aug24 (38229) | about 2 years ago | (#41955237)

Even if it is heavier stochastic processes will push a proportion of it up. Increase the total proportion and the proportion at high altitudes will increase.

Re:What is CO2 doing up there? (0, Redundant)

Bill Currie (487) | about 2 years ago | (#41955255)

Yes, CO2 is heavier than either N2 or O2, but it is also bigger. I don't know how well it applies to gas molecules, but large balls in a sea of small balls will float to the top if you vibrate the whole lot.

Re:What is CO2 doing up there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955783)

Also, tortilla chips in a bag.

Big ones on the top, messy tiny bits on the bottom.

(flavored powder all over keyboard)

Its molecular weight is irrelevant (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#41955285)

When 2 liquids can dissolve with each other the weight of the molecules is pretty irrelevant. How do you think alcohol and water mix when water is so much denser? You don't see the alcohol sink to the bottom in a wine bottle left for decades for example.

Re:Its molecular weight is irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955349)

Yes you do.

Re:Its molecular weight is irrelevant (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#41955569)

Um , no, you don't. Go get yourself a clue.

Re:Its molecular weight is irrelevant (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41955627)

No, no you don't. Wine is a colloid. When you know what that is, go create yourself an account, and log in so we can mock you personally.

Re:Its molecular weight is irrelevant (4, Insightful)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#41955831)

Liquids and gasses are very different beasts. One has enough intermolecular forces to bind the molecules into an effectively incompressible mass, the other hasn't, and has components that only interact with each other through random collisions. You're comparing apples to class III orange stars.

Re:What is CO2 doing up there? (4, Insightful)

cryptolemur (1247988) | about 2 years ago | (#41955347)

You are right, and we have all suffocated!! Or, maybe you are not right...

Re:What is CO2 doing up there? (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#41955829)

slow clap for this one!

Global warming, so cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955195)

Global warming, so cool.

less drag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955231)

"Cooling the upper atmosphere causes it to contract, exerting less drag on satellites."

Wait.. contract...
A denser atmosphere causes less drag?

Re:less drag? (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41955249)

Imagine a ball, now imagine it contracts... the ball get smaller, right? This means less atmosphere radius and thus more satellites sits above it. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

Re:less drag? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955267)

And it gets smaller because it gets colder.

Hmm, its getting warmer is the claim.

Spot the contradiction

Re:less drag? (3, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#41955283)

You forgot to factor in gravity and density.

Re:less drag? (5, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#41956027)

There is no contradiction.

Go put your hand behind your fridge - notice that the iron grid there is quite a bit warmer than room temperature ?
But the inside of the fridge is cold...

See to make the fridge cold, we have to MOVE the heat inside it somewhere, that grid is where it ends up being radiated away from.

The grid gets warmer, so the fridge can get colder.

Is that a contradiction too ?

Re:less drag? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#41955709)

Obviously. Are you merely illiterate, or just plain thick?

Real Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955281)

Naval Research Lab (lead investigators) press release: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/NRL-Scientists-Detect-Carbon-Dioxide-Accumulation-at-the-Edge-of-Space

Results published in Nature Geoscience (paywalled): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1626.html

Never mind just CO2 , what about HCFCs? (3, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#41955301)

They have a global warming potential thousands of times higher than CO2 and are being released into the atmosphere in large quantities. HCFCs replaced CFCs because they don't react with ozone so don't destroy the ozone layer. The downside of that is they don't react with ANYTHING in the atmosphere so no one has an idea how they will ever be removed. This is a potentially major issue which isn't being taken seriously enough.

Re:Never mind just CO2 , what about HCFCs? (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41955607)

Very good point but I wouldn't say "never mind CO2." I'd say it's an equally big problem.

Re:Never mind just CO2 , what about HCFCs? (5, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41955843)

HCFCs replaced CFCs because they don't react with ozone so don't destroy the ozone layer.

HCFCs do react with ozone and more so than CFCs. But since they're more reactive, they're more likely to decompose before they get to ozone-destroying altitudes.

company tax planning (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955337)

company tax planning [companytaxplanning.co.uk] is configuring your company’s’ affairs so you can legally avoid or reduce corporation tax. Recently an old favorite was the employee benefit trust, which has unfortunately become obsolete since the 9th December 2010. However our skillful tax planners have already designed clever and legal alternative, the EFRBS II amongst others. All our company tax planning strategies are compliant with all current laws and give the same company tax planning outcomes as the Employee Benefit Trust did.

Push or pull (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41955437)

Rising carbon dioxide levels at the edge of space are apparently reducing the pull

Isn't it more of a push?

Re:Push or pull (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955515)

Rising carbon dioxide levels at the edge of space are apparently reducing the pull

Isn't it more of a push?

I'm no specialist, but I'd imagine the particles slow the satellites down -- if only very slightly. This combined with gravity would mean the satellite tends to fall.

What would it be like today? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955461)

What would the world be like today if Humans in the 1300s could measure climate? Would they have banned draft and livestock animals because of their methane production? Would they have banned using candles and camp fires and other CO2-producing activities?

Since, you know, when discounting Michael Mann's fabricated data, it was warmer in the 1300s than it is now, without the help of any modern technology..

The Best of BOTH Worlds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955577)

So, global climate change / global worming is responsible for BOTH [1] warming the lower atmosphere sufficiently to melt all the glaciers and dry up all the farmland by shifting rain patterns, increasing storm frequency and severity (and ALSO presumably swelling the lower atmosphere because hot gasses necessarily expand relative to cool gasses), AND global warming [2] somehow cools the upper atmosphere sufficiently to reduce total (upper and lower) atmospheric volume to the point that satellites feel reduced orbital drag and have enhanced orbital lifetimes as a result.

Either the degree of upper atmosphere cooling & contraction is mysteriously accelerated relative to what one expects of the lower atmosphere, or something weird is going on with global warming. I don't believe that climate scientists can actually have both warming and cooling of the atmosphere at the same time and blame it ALL on global warming / climate change. Either some climate scientist needs to get REALLY good at figuring out what's going on, or the whole community will be wholesale blamed for "having their cake and eating it too." Everything that happens in the atmosphere can now be blamed on global warming. Just wait until they start blaming the Antarctic ozone hole on CO2 emissions (I'm really waiting for that).

- Anon. Coward.

more bad science (0)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41955605)

To see if the recent surge in carbon dioxide has made its way to the uppermost atmosphere, researchers analyzed changes in carbon dioxide concentrations at an altitude of about 60 miles (100 km) between 2004 and 2012 using the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer onboard the Canadian SCISAT-1 satellite. Since ultraviolet radiation from the sun can break carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen, the investigators also looked at carbon monoxide levels to get a better picture of what average carbon dioxide levels were over time, since levels of solar radiation can vary from year to year.

[...]

"We now have direct evidence that a major driver of upper atmospheric climate is changing," study lead author John Emmert, an upper atmospheric physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., told SPACE.com.

More bad science done. From a feeble eight or nine years of data, they're claiming things that simply can't be claimed.

I have this theory. Scary research about AGW will have something fundamentally broken about the research. Here, it's extrapolation from a small set of data.

Re:more bad science (1, Troll)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 years ago | (#41955743)

If we won't credit carbon dioxide with these extra superpowers, then the terrorists win.

how did they tell them apart? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955713)

> man made increases in carbon dioxide might be having effects on the Earth

but not the CO2 from, you know, volcanoes and stuff

So... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955767)

...the sky is literally falling

Wait.. Not enough CO2 above 30miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41955825)

"Rising carbon dioxide levels at the edge of space... "
"The density of carbon dioxide is too thin above altitudes of about 30 miles..."

Are you saying there's not enough CO2 in the upper atmosphere?
please explain, you lost me

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?