One way to think of the greenhouse effect is that the earth radiates into space from its upper atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is opaque to infra-red radiation. What happens as CO2 builds up is the level at which the radiation occurs gets higher and therefore cooler. Thus ironically the earth "looks cooler" as seen from space. That means it is radiating less energy, which causes the surface to actually get warmer.

Will this mean we will need to boost the orbit of the ISS less often? Other NEO satillites may also benefit. Micro and small meteors might reach lower into the atmosphere, resulting in better visibility, especially meteor showers. Larger ones that explode in the upper atmosphere, with the force of small nukes (average one 20Kt event/year), may also vaporise closer to the surface-a scary proposition.

Allen -

by all means, let's fry the earth for the sake of the white elephant that is the ISS.

As for meteor showers, if your number of one 20kt event per year is correct, it obviously doesn't cause any significant damage on the ground or we'd be hearing about them all the time. Some cores of small iron-based meteorites do hit the surface every year, mostly of course in uninhabited areas incl. the open ocean.

Much bigger events such as the one at Tunguska, Russia in 1908 can and do cause massive damage but mercifully, they are extremely rare. There is no clear-cut scientific consensus, but a popular conjecture is that this event was caused by the mid-air explosion of a large incoming ball of ice (i.e. a comet). Reducing the density of the outermost layers of the atmosphere will not increase the probability of such a large event, nor significantly affect its severity.

Rafael:

"by all means, let's fry the earth for the sake of the white elephant that is the ISS."

Of course you realize that Allen Z is not advocating climate change for the purpose of the space station.

As for "frying the earth", an average increase of 1 C over a century is not frying. Hyperbole like this only causes skeptics like myself to role our eyes and want to discount otherwise plausible arguments

Sardonics are beneath you, my good man.

It might also mean space junk, esp. in LEO, will take longer to de-orbit.

What evidence do they have that this is caused by CO2 emissions, and is not some long natural cyle in the earths long, life cycle? At best, these measurements and observations have been taken in earnest in only the past 25-50 years. Much as the melting of the polar ice, perhaps we are in the midst of one of the earths long natural cycles which has nothing to do with us. Our spaceship earth is one fluid, morphing body floating around in the vacuum of space. I remain unconvinced of our entire fault in any perceived changes being noticed, especially coming from the last 100-150 years in the earths long history.

But I do think changes are needed. Less pollution and waste, and greener transportation like electric and perhaps even human power. The building blocks are starting to emerge. If everyone would take care of their own space on this spaceship earth, and help their neighbors with theirs, the earth will become better, and will eventually heal itself.

Those are some cool cars!

Mark,
There's nothing wrong about being skeptical.
We all are - in some measure.

If skepticism comes from the fact that someone is not reading the literature, as it is plainly evident, then we have a tiny small problem because whoever does that is only interested in throwing his/her own skepticism around, and nothing else.

In a well publicized review article published in a top science journal of 928 peer reviewed articles published in science peer reviewed journals everywhere around the world, all the researchers agreed that global warming is happening. Not a single dissented. Note the words 'peer reviewed'.

Skepticism by itself is completely useless.
Skepticism withour data, peer reviewed data, that's even more useless.

Look at reducing fossil fuel usage as good for the environment, security and pocketbook. All the other benefits are great. So if global warming is not caused by CO2 and fossil fuel usage, so what. Reducing fossil fuel usage is its own reward, it is just the right thing to do, no matter what. That is called a winning strategy.

More nonsense from the Cassandra's of global warming.

How about building some more SOLAR Energy Plants? Yes let absorb some more incident radiation and alter the ALBEDO. We really need to alter the ALBEDO and really hold all the absorbed heat in!

Liberal know-nothings will suck it up... Hey Amory L, heres some more suckers for your Pablum!

This is bull stuff.

This is bull stuff.