The region of the atmosphere studied by the TIMED mission.  Credit: NASA

Earth’s Upper Atmosphere is Cooling

Article Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining activity of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. This finding also correlates with a fundamental prediction of climate change theory that says the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide.

Earth’s thermosphere and mesosphere have been the least explored regions of the atmosphere, in fact some have called it the “ignorosphere.” The NASA Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission was developed to explore the Earth’s atmosphere above 60 km altitude and was launched in December 2001. One of four instruments on the TIMED mission, the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument, was specifically designed to measure the energy budget of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. The SABER dataset now covers eight years of data and has already provided some basic insight into the heat budget of the thermosphere on a variety of timescales.

The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.

“The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”

The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.

While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. Emissions of carbon dioxide may warm the lower atmosphere, but they cool the upper atmosphere, because of the density of the atmospheric layer.

As the atmosphere cools the density will increase, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through increased drag over time.

The SABER dataset is the first global, long-term, and continuous record of the Nitric oxide (NO) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the thermosphere.

“We suggest that the dataset of radiative cooling of the thermosphere by NO and CO2 constitutes a first climate data record for the thermosphere,” says Mlynczak.

The TIMED data provide a fundamental climate data record for validation of upper atmosphere climate models which is an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. SABER provides the first long-term measurements of natural variability in key terms of the upper atmosphere climate. As the TIMED mission continues, these data derived from SABER will become important in assessing long term changes due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The findings were presented at the American Geophysical Union fall meeting in San Francisco.

Source: NASA Langley



26 Responses

  1. rlamont says:

    If upper atmospheric temperature correlates with solar activity AND it also correlates with CO2 concentrations, then one must conclude that solar activity correlates with CO2 concentrations on earth.

  2. Wolter says:

    There is no logic in that statement.

  3. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    If we are trappiing more heat in lower atmosphere with CO_2 this means the rate heat is escaping into the upper atmosphere is reduced. You put on a winter coat to reduce the rate you lose heat to the cold environment. It is very clear, and very simple.

    LC

  4. tareece says:

    No logic? Are you kidding?

    Its the very same principle as radiational cooling…..

    The sun is on a down cycle and the EARTH is cooling…do you think that the other parts of the atmosphere are immune to the Suns whims?
    Thats absolute arrogance.
    Keep on you global cooling/ er global warming/ er climate change dimwits….
    I wonder just why all the data hasn’t been released? ohhh, wait…its logical…must be something to hide.

  5. Sili says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_analysis

    Of all the bad, arrogant ‘arguments’ against Anthropogenic Global Warming, that I’ve encountered, that one has to be one of the worst. On a par with “It’s getting warmer because God is hugging us tighter.”

  6. tareece says:

    I noticed also that the graphic did not include exactly where the CO2 is “trapped”… but now I know where a sounding rocket goes…. nice correlation to the story…kudos there graphic editor!

    And how is it I’m supposed to trust people that won’t let others verify their figures? Or trust the same nimrods that have chosen to resort to all sorts of sub-honest methods in order to get their way and to stomp out all opposition to their belicose intelligence and supreme knowledge.
    And another thing….. with the overwhelming beauty of tele-conferencing, exactly why is there hundreds of delegates going to Copenhagen and giving a Gorilla sized carbon footprint if they were really concerned about the environment?
    Yeah, photo ops…..
    Stupid sheep.

  7. Brett says:

    “why is there hundreds of delegates going to Copenhagen and giving a Gorilla sized carbon footprint if they were really concerned about the environment?”

    The answer is that they are not concerned about the environment. They are there out of fear that if they do not get on board with the program, they will be left off the list when the hand-outs come around.

    If our “leaders” would lead by example, maybe we, the Great Unwashed, could follow them.

  8. tareece says:

    And exactly what are these numbers based against? Where are the figures for the upper atmosphere for 2000 years ago? 6000? 10000?

    If you are trying to convince humanity about climate, the very definition of climate indicates a LONG EXTENDED time…. and 40-100 years dudes is not, in the terms of the Earth..long.
    Its a blink. a half-blink…but you know that. You have other reasons as well for getting the world to bow down to the cause of CC…
    Population control being #1. A melding of nations and the end of nationalism#2. A more benevolent world government that does what it can for the masses, yet doesn’t allow one region economic success over another#3….
    The Climate hulabaloo is but a mere trigger isn’t it? All good things can come from this crisis…. ohhh wait Rahm said it better though didn’t he?
    “let no crisis go to waste?”… I’m sure you remember better than I…. I hope in 20 years you’ll remember just how right you were.
    But I wonder if you’re wrong? What then? You think wars will end? Starvation will end? hurricanes will end? Good luck on that…
    Just remember what Sagan said in Demon haunted World- “”If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power.”

  9. tareece says:

    Brett said:”If our “leaders” would lead by example, maybe we, the Great Unwashed, could follow them”

    But you know…we already do…. Plastic bags came into being because they last longer than paper bags (remember, grocery bags? “paper/plastic”?) Plastic bottles would be a great help in kepping production costs and waste down…
    CFL lamps would be better than Incan lights because they last longer…ooops, er, gotta call the fire dept and do some special hoop jumps to discard them…and they don’t last as long as advertised…hmmmm….
    We converted to corn derived gas…. and sent gas prices skyrocketing and then saw that corn didn’t really make a whoop of a difference…..
    Yeah, we’ve changed habits… recycled more…. drove less…walked more..

    Its the power brokers that somehow haven’t got a clue. Its for the peions to do and not the “new nobility”…..
    I remember ol Iron Eyes Cody. I remember about the film I was shown where the skies were so polluted people waslked around with gas masks and one guy still had a greenhouse with plants….
    And fresh air….. and his house was besieged by folk trying to get one more whiff of fresh air and they ended up destroying his greenhouse…..
    I also remember the new ice age that was coming in the mid 70’s…. that somehow morphed into a warming cataclysm.
    yeah…. in 10 years.
    I wonder if the instruments that are programmed by people, deciphered and interpreted by people, really have neutrality and the true meaning of scientific discovery in their data? Or is it skewed? you know….just a smidge here and there…
    Truthfully? You can’t ask other nations to not try to develop their lands and increase their standard of living…. You can ask the modern world to decline and step back though…. We’ll see how that goes over too.

  10. Duncan Ivry says:

    rlamont: “If upper atmospheric temperature correlates with solar activity AND it also correlates with CO2 concentrations, then one must conclude that solar activity correlates with CO2 concentrations on earth.”

    Wolter: “There is no logic in that statement.”

    The term “correlation” may be misleading.

    If the original publication speaks of *statistical* correlation, then a statement of the form “if A correlates to B and B correlates to C then A correlates to C” may — I emphasize: may — be true, but could be false as well. Among other things it depends on some parameters of the statistical test used. Scientists (should) use only those correlations in further research, which are statistically “significant”, i.e. the statement “the correlation between phenomena A and B is equal to zero” is true with a probability less then a certain small threshold (e.g. 5 percent or 10 percent or so). If someone assumes — because of a measured, statistically significant, non-zero correlation –, that the correlation between the two phenomena is “really” non-zero, then there is (only) a small probability of making an error. The statement “A correlates to B” is an abbreviated form of a more sophisticated statement, which includes various preconditions and parameters. Because we don’t know these things, we cannot know, whether rlamont’s statement is true.

    When applying statistical tests, there is always this probability of making the error mentioned above: assuming that there is something, but in reality there is nothing. This error is an inherent property of statistical tests; it cannot be avoided.

    And, by the way, there is no valid way of making a conclusion from a statistically significant measurement to a cause-and-effect relation, as we know it from physics and its applications. This needs further research.

    Regarding the discussion about the climate, for the public it is not always clear, whether statements made by scientists (or others as well) are bases on statistics — it would be appropriate saying: on statistics *only* — or on physics, chemistry, or biology.

  11. Spoodle58 says:

    @ tareece
    People have limited memories, very true.

    By the way south coast of England is going to have a white xmas for the first time in 30 years. Maybe those global cooling dudes back in the 70’s where right 😉

    I predict that Global Yawning will occur within the next few years, as everyone is soon going to get bored with this rubbish.

  12. star-grazer west coast says:

    @ tareece
    @Spoodle58
    I generally stay neutral on these climate feeds but said on earlier feeds our Sun generates/controls 98% of our climate, and our Sun wiill most likely have the weakest Solar max in over 60 years. It is ironic that our ‘Bama-O-Rama had to arrive earlier than scheduled in D.C. from the Global Warming conference, the early arrival wasn’t caused by a sandstorm . but guess what, an historic snowstorm and blizzard in the NE US!!!!!!

  13. Spoodle58 says:

    I’m here in Ireland freezing my backside off and I now have to pay a global warming tax since December 9th.
    Thats what really pisses me off.
    Also this tax is also not been used for green projects or helping in anyway our environment, in case anyone was wondering.

    @ star-grazer west coast
    🙂 🙂 🙂 funny stuff

  14. lomitus says:

    Global warming? Global cooling? I honestly do not know what is or what is not coming…that’s for other people smarter than me to figure out. How any of this relates to solar cycles…-if- it relates to it at all…is truly beyond my meager comprehension. However…

    There is one simple peace of common sense I will offer here; as of now and for the foreseeable future, we only have this one planet on which to live…where exactly is the harm in erring on the side of caution in regards to all of this? What’s the worse that can happen…we all might have cleaner air to breath? How is that a -bad- thing??? Please…if you really think that having clean air is such a bad thing, go suck on a running car’s exhaust pipe for just 5 minutes then come back here and explain your logic to me!

    Seriously…I live here in Ohio so I can’t speak to other parts of the nation let alone the rest of the world but if ideas such as “wind power” were made affordable to where every house could have a small wind turbine on top of it and maybe even every house had a couple of solar panels on the garage or something…would this not reduce the crap that’s being pumped out of those smoke stacks at the local power plant? Further wouldn’t this at least have the potential for everyone to pay lower electric bills? This is bad how exactly??? For that matter what if people just turned off lights in rooms…both at home and where they work…when no one is in that room? Why is this such am evil thing??? What if people were to simply turn off their televisions (and unplug their cable boxes) just -one- day a week and read a book instead or perhaps even spend some time with their family…why is this so utterly terrible? If you can do this just one day a week, is doing it 2 or 3 times a week really -that- much harder? If people were to walk more or use bicycles instead of driving cars…even if just occasionally, what’s the worse that could happen…people might actually be in a little better health? This is a bad thing how??? Is public transportation really -that- much more expensive than the cost of paying for a decent car, let alone the upkeep and insurance of said vehicle? Can saving a few bucks while reducing your carbon emissions really be -that- utterly horrific? If people were to bring their own bags to a grocery store (let alone holiday shopping!)…or even just use an available box, it’s seems as though we could reduce at least a smidgen of what goes in to our land fills…why is this so terrible for such very little effort? And what exactly is so horribly wrong with encouraging others to do the same?

    Why is it that these things…these very little things…are so very hard for people to grasp and accept, let alone do? Honestly, is it really -THAT- hard to turn off a light switch as you are leaving a room or unplug a device that you’re not using????? Are we as a species really -that- completely and utterly pathetic? Apparently a great many of us are….

    It seems to me that the majority of the people who claim that global climate change is nothing more than fiction seem to do so because they have some sort of a vested interested in keeping things the way they are. In some cases maybe they believe it could hurt them financially and in other cases maybe it’s just a matter of being too lazy (or stupid) to try and make a positive change. In some cases people may simply be unable to see beyond their own petty self-interest. And maybe…just maybe these people who stomp their feet saying there’s no global warming…maybe they are right. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years the climate will be exactly the same as it is now. Does that really mean that doing little things…things that are good for ALL of us…does it really makes these little things to completely terrible? Further, what if -they- are wrong? Does it not seem more “logical” to simply try and take care of our planet…again the only place we have to live…and more over, simply do the right things for the right reasons?

    I’m no scientist…I’m just a dumb guitar player and otherwise a complete nobody. I honestly do not know exactly how our planet or it’s atmosphere works let alone what the future will hold. That said, I do take my own boxes with me when I go grocery shopping and I try to use the low wattage light bulbs where ever I can (and dispose of them properly afterward). I do at least try to fix things when they break instead of just throwing them out and buying new. I do try to recycle whatever I can. I wear sweaters in the winter (and/or put an extra blanket on the bed) so I can turn the furnace down to 60 degrees and I -ONLY- turn on the AC in the summer when it’s absolutely necessary (I never even put it in the bedroom window this last year!). I do turn lights off around the house (and my work place) when no one is in the room. These are SIMPLE AND EASY THINGS TO DO! If a stupid idiot such as myself can figure these things out, all of you freakin’ rocket scientists out there shouldn’t need to “debate” over it…just do it…if for no other reason than because it’s the RIGHT thing to do. What’s the worse that could happen…you’ll feel a little better about yourself at the end of the day?

  15. star-grazer west coast says:

    @ lomitus
    Nice write-up, what you wrote would work if the ENTIRE Earth had zero population growth, EVERYONE had your economic situation, your housing situation, your transportation situation, your climate and weather situation, your family household situation, your personel situation——hmmmm, what is wrong with this picture!?!?!
    @ lomitus- most people in the US are trying to save energy costs, but do not have your situation to accomplice it due to many obvious reasons like distance to work -number in household, climate where they live, health,etc. Granted there are energy slobs like people using large SUV to drive 1-2 blocks to the mailbox, however, I found many of these slobs proclaiming themselves environments saying they don’t have the time to walk to the mailbox because they need to get back home to check the temperature of their Jacuzzi they are heating up!!
    Before some people get too hung up on carbon buildup, we better monitor our Sun which drives 98% of our weather and climate-if the Sun decides to go through a few very weak Solar Max cycles, things will get very interesting on Earth and will be very interesting should there be hugh volcanic eruptions like a Krakatoa/Tambora type during the weak Solar Max cycles.

  16. ND says:

    “Before some people get too hung up on carbon buildup, we better monitor our Sun which drives 98% ”

    According to the original topic of this thread, that’s exactly what’s being done. The sun *is* being monitored constantly by dedicated scientists. Ditto for volcanic eruptions. In fact the climatologists have noted the affects of the largest volcanic eruptions on global temperatures (unfortunately I don’t have any references at my fingertips on this).

  17. 2ru_press says:

    IPCC Lead Author Admits Deleting Inconvenient Opinions From IPCC Report

    The latest installment of Jesse Ventura’s highly successful Conspiracy Theory show exposed millions of viewers on national TV last night to the climate change fraud, blowing a giant hole in the global warming scam by exposing how its adherents comprise wealthy industrialists making billions in profits by fearmongering about the environment.

    Ventura and his team attempted to track down the key architects of the scheme, a search which led them to Beijing China and the heavily guarded residence of global warming pioneer and billionaire Maurice Strong.

    The show lifts the lid on how the very same alarmists pushing the threat of climate change are profiting in the billions from carbon trading systems in which they have a huge personal stake.

    The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.

    Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”

    “Lord Monckton points to deletions from the chapter, and there were deletions from the chapter, to be consistent with the other chapters we dropped the summary at the end,” Santer admits to the program.

    Commenting on The Alex Jones Show today, Lord Monckton said that this was the first time Santer had publicly admitted to deleting the information.

    Santer was intimately involved in the Climategate email scandal, communicating with other IPCC-affiliated scientists who conspired to “hide the decline” in global warming.

    Does Santer’s shocking admission that he deleted the opinions of scientists who stated that human activity did not cause global warming from a key IPCC report represent Climategate 2?

    <>

    http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report/

  18. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    Lord Monckton and Jesse Ventura are not qualified to make the assertions they do. Lord Monckton is a nutcase. Please, this stuff is pure crap. Yet Don Henley put it best at the end of a song “Dirty Laundry” when he wrote “Crap is king.”

    LC

  19. tareece says:

    lomitus Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
    Global warming? Global cooling? I honestly do not know what is or what is not coming…
    SNIP
    If you can do this just one day a week, is doing it 2 or 3 times a week really -that- much harder? If people were to walk more or use bicycles instead of driving cars…even if just occasionally, what’s the worse that could happen…people might actually be in a little better health?

    @ lomitus
    Its called Freedom. Why should my freedom be contingent or based on what carbon output China or India has? Do you realize that people (UK PM George Brown) at Copenhagen were saying life is down to 4-7 years and actually one dignitary had claimed back in September that we were down to a 50 day margin when things must get done?

    This whole BS is about scaring people to death so that they (the people) will go along with the “must get done” solution. Think about why they all flew in separate jets…. Instead of high tech video conferencing (especially for the high industrialized nations)…
    Lead by example LEADERS… IF they don’t follow their own advise in the “direst, most threatening” of times….. why should anyone believe them?
    Buttt, if they did…the important question remains, why wont the GW crowd release all their data? Science is about checking results and more experimentation to add validity to those theories…. Soooo, when a group of “scientists” refuse requests by peers for independent confirmation, one starts to wonder how good the foundation of the theory is…
    You act like noone wants a better environment. I do all the things listed in one of my early posts…. Walk, drive more intelligently, plot out my to-dos so that my trips are short as possible, paper bags instead of plastic, and even cfl’s (which come out as stupid as shit because of the mercury in them)… The reason the “green thing” has gotten traction is EXACTLY due to the fact most people DO CARE how they treat the world around us. And that gives a “in” to those that wish to wield more power over the individual.

    @star-grazer west coast
    Good show.

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell
    You denier… thats a joke ofcourse….
    Why insult someone because they don’t agree with you?
    You say “stuff is pure crap”
    Well, what “stuff”…
    Your AGW or me saying YOUR opinion is crappy?
    If you have independent, peer reviewed, open to all, cross checked, double blind tested, 2000 year real time data… please do present it.
    Because, frankly…. if GW was a drug, it wouldn’t make it out of testing.

  20. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    @tareece: That might have been blunt, but frankly I am tired of these types of people. Imagine if UT were beset by flat-Earthers or geo-centrists. Patience has its limits, and one can suffer fools only so long.

    LC

  21. 2ru_press says:

    @LC

    You are not qualified either if all you do is call people names like some indoctrinated elementary school kid. Stop the name calling already..There are no sides in science; just facts, questions, and theory. Let’s tackle the facts and fair concerns and questions on this whole climate change controversy. No one here is a flat earther or geo-centrists, everyone here would like to have a fair debate. Climate change is obviously real science but the concern here is that there trying to use this science to tax the world to limit CO2 emissions. Let’s start all over sir. Can we both agree on a fact and start from there?

    Photosynthesis takes place primarily in plant leaves, and little to none occurs in stems, etc. The parts of a typical leaf include the upper and lower epidermis, the mesophyll, the vascular bundle(s) (veins), and the stomates. The upper and lower epidermal cells do not have chloroplasts, thus photosynthesis does not occur there. They serve primarily as protection for the rest of the leaf. The stomates are holes which occur primarily in the lower epidermis and are for air exchange: they let CO2 in and O2 out. The vascular bundles or veins in a leaf are part of the plant’s transportation system, moving water and nutrients around the plant as needed. The mesophyll cells have chloroplasts and this is where photosynthesis occurs.

    This is fact. Now how is taxing industrialized countries like the US on CO2 emissions going to help the environment. While other countries will not pay nothing. In my opinion charging $160 billion per year for the 2013-
    2017 commitment period and the amount is expected to be higher after 2017, according to the Copenhagen Treaty under the Finance section on page 47 will not do anything to change any climate. The climate will always change it’s been changing since the beginning of Earth’s existence. So the total cost of this whole SCAM is $800 billion dollars. All going to one bank. Wow! How convenient is that? This is not going to solve the Climate Problem it will solve a financial problem. I think this is pure tyranny, a bad idea and definitely not the way to solve climate change, global warming, global freezing or what ever the claimed problem is. Can we agree on that? If not, provide an intelligent idea so we can fairly debate instead of calling each other names like the guys involved with this climate change program are doing. That’s why people are having a difficult time believing you or anyone else who supports C02 limitation under the guise of this treaty.

  22. tareece says:

    It’s not a surprise how some of the other side react when facts are presented and the opposition will not just “go along”.

    I wonder if the people that really care about the environment really understand what was being proposed in Copenhagen.

    Any time money is taken from one person without consent, its thievery. Any time money is taken from a person THAT IS NOT BACKED by fiscal strength, its suicidal.

    By guaranteeing the Industrialized nation commitment of $100 billion a yr, Ms.Clinton added yet another 800 lb gorilla onto the backs of the next generation.

    Take a look at your paycheck–assuming you are lucky enough to get one— could you not use the taxed portion more efficiently than the government? And now, when the world gets involved, are you seriously telling me this new bureaucracy will be more efficient and cause the economies of the developing countries to act more intelligently in CO2 emissions?

    This things reeks from the get go and has always been a money grab from Day 1…

  23. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    2ru_press says:

    Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah..
    Climate change is about more about changing our ways in energy production and usage so it doesn’t damage the environment. Your ‘tax’ is in fact a trade off. Either use clean sources of energy or pay for the long-term damage to the environment as compensation.
    The consumer of energy wins with more efficient energy production and the environment wins by reducing greenhouse emissions
    Really. If you don’t understand CO2 emissions trading you should keep you opinions to yourself.
    Only a condescending jackass like you could be so stupid!

  24. 2ru_press says:

    GENTLEMEN… DO NOT LISTEN TO Hon. Salacious B. Crumb. He has no creditability. YOU CAN APPROPRIATELY IGNORE ANY OF HIS INDOCTRINATED CHILD LIKE INSULTS. ANYTIME YOU SEE HIS COMMENTS JUST SCROLL RIGHT PASS. You can plainly see his vocabulary is limited and words he can not pronounce are replaced with name calling. This guy and anyone who supports him is guided by junk science and doesn’t give a damn about the real agenda as you can plainly see in his comment. He has made it clear just like all the others that support this global tax matrix. He thinks taxing CO2 in the guise of limiting CO2 emissions will help the climate. LOL! What a joke! Sir, the people do not want to understand CO2 emission trading because it’s a a SCAM. What’s next? Charging the world for Dihydrogen monoxide use. We might as well creating a Dihydrogen monoxide emissions trading grid for this dangerous substance as well. This whole
    Climate Change movement is $800 billion mistake and that will turn in to multi-trillion dollar disaster if supported. The USA wants no parts of this. Hey, I heard Dihydrogen monoxide emissions trading would be a good market. This dangerous substance will end the human race as we know it. What a joke!

  25. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    2ru_press said;

    “GENTLEMEN… DO NOT LISTEN TO Hon. Salacious B. Crumb. He has no creditability. YOU CAN APPROPRIATELY IGNORE ANY OF HIS INDOCTRINATED CHILD LIKE INSULTS. ANYTIME YOU SEE HIS COMMENTS JUST SCROLL RIGHT PASS.’

    Probably good advice from the jackass.

    But of course when you talk about the truth and the evidence, there is always another jackass like 2ru_press whose tactics turn to just wanting to kill the message.

    All fraudsters are easy to spot. They squeal the loudest when you know what they say is true.

    So the only real joke here is YOU.

  26. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says:

    So just in case you missed it;

    Climate change is about more about changing our ways in energy production and usage so it doesn’t damage the environment. Your ‘tax’ is in fact a trade off. Either use clean sources of energy or pay for the long-term damage to the environment as compensation.
    The consumer of energy wins with more efficient energy production and the environment wins by reducing greenhouse emissions
    Really. If you don’t understand CO2 emissions trading you should keep you opinions to yourself.

Comments are closed.