"In this way he discovered that the thermospheric collapse of 2008-2009 was not only bigger than any previous collapse, but also bigger than the sun alone could explain. One possible explanation is carbon dioxide (CO2). When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum. "But the numbers don't quite add up," says Emmert. "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse."
One possible explanation is carbon dioxide (CO2).
When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation. It is widely-known that CO2 levels have been increasing in Earth's atmosphere. Extra CO2 in the thermosphere could have magnified the cooling action of solar minimum.
"But the numbers don't quite add up," says Emmert. "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse."
Right, so it's not CO2. So why mention it? On the other hand we've known for a while that CFC's deplete the ozone layer - that was the rallying cry of hippies and the anti-pollution faction in the 1960's; what happened to them? It was a big deal back then.
What happened was CFC's were phased out for HCFCs - Chlorinated fluorocarbons were replaced by hydrogenated chlorofluorocarbons which are only 98% as harmful. DuPont got paid, and handsomely, to recover the CFC's and manufacture all the replacement HCFC's. Then, CO2 began to get all the attention.
This whole thing does seem to suggest we should pay more attention, in my mind, to the cfc/cosmic ray theory of planetary warming in our solar system proposed by Lu Qing-Bin.
Are we wasting money on carbon cap and trade that potentially only large corporations profit from at the expense of consumers while it has absolutely nothing to do with helping the environment? Is it too much to ask that before we spend six gazillion dollars mitigating the air we at least get the science right? If we spend all we have "fixing the problem" then discover, now that we're broke, that we fixed the wrong problem, or worse, exacebated the real problem, we're going to look more than a little foolis, we'll be doomed and foolish.
