NEW DISCOVERY: NASA STUDY PROVES CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS ATMOSPHERE

[WebSlave]

NEW DISCOVERY: NASA STUDY PROVES CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS ATMOSPHERE

Written by H. Schreuder & J. O'Sullivan

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise." [1]

As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits:
"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2]

Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. [3]

As the SABER research report states:

A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”​

As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”​

To those independent scientists and engineers at Principia Scientific International this is not news. The “natural thermostat” effect of CO2 has long been known by applied scientists and engineers how have exploited it's remarkable properties in the manufacturer of refrigerators and air conditioning systems. The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change.

Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen. Watch the full NASA video on Youtube.

============
[1] Schmidt, G., 'Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect,' (October, 2010), http://www.giss.nasa.gov (accessed online: March 26, 2013).

[2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

[3] Darwall, R., 'The Age of Global Warming: A History,' (March, 2013), Quartet Books, London.

Source: http://principia-scientific.org/sup...y-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

 

[JColt]

Wish they would make up mind. Am I going to burn or freeze to death?

 

[snowgyre]

Unfortunately, the article you have posted completely misinterprets NASA's findings, which is about the thermosphere's reaction when it gets hit by solar flares. The entire purpose of the thermosphere is to radiate heat out into space when we get hit by solar flares, otherwise we'd all be cooked into a cinder when we get hit with solar winds. The thermosphere reacts completely different from the troposphere, which is the lowest level of the atmosphere and where life exists.

To use an analogy, the NASA report explained what happened to upper levels of the atmosphere when we get sucker slapped by the sun. Gases in the thermosphere react by reflecting energy back into space. Climate change is not a sucker slap, it's like that annoying cousin that keeps poking you in the same spot until you bruise. You get a red face from the sucker slap (surface damage/upper level atmosphere changes), but you get a deep bruise from the constant pokes (deep tissue damage/lower level atmosphere changes).

Another analogy... take corn starch and water, which creates a non-newtonian fluid. If you punch it, it turns into a solid and can be walked upon (i.e. the upper atmosphere shields itself from damage). If you gently poke it, it's liquid and you'll sink in it (i.e. the lower atmosphere becomes damaged). The NASA article was talking about the punches, climate change talks about the long term pokes humanity's been doing.

The original NASA report: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

The rebuttal to your article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...res-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds

 

[WebSlave]

Wish they would make up mind. Am I going to burn or freeze to death?

Well, first the claim was global climate cooling. Then it became global climate warming. So it stands to reason that they now call it just global climate change.

Of COURSE the climate is changing! Been doing so for as long as the Earth has existed. For people to expect the Earth to be completely stable as it was yesterday, is just down right foolish. The Earth doesn't have to accommodate humanity at all. Quite the reverse, actually.

I doubt anyone seriously disputes that the Earth's climate is getting warmer. The dispute is about what the CAUSE actually is.

 

[JColt]

I remember I had some guy knock on my door who was with some eco company asking for donations. Looked like he was just released from prison. When I pointed at my no solicitor sign he said I'm not selling. I said I'm not interested. He says, Your not interested in the environment? I said, No it will be here long after I'm gone. He gives me his bad ass look. I give him mine right back. lol.

 

[WebSlave]

I guess I'm just not convinced that the cause of global climate change is something that any government can fix by taking more money out of our pockets, and consolidating more power over our lives.

Heck, that other article I posted about solar inertial motion is darn interesting, to me at least, because it just makes sense. The sun is at the center of our solar system, but that center is all relative. The "center" changes depending on where all of the planets are at any given time. Since the more massive planets will exert more of an influence than Earth does, then that means there is going to be a periodic cycle controlled by the positioning of the more massive planets that dictates where the gravitational center of our solar system is and therefore where the sun will be located. Obviously, this will mean that sometimes the sun will be closer and sometimes further away than any mean average. Which, I'm presuming will mean warmer and colder periods on this earth as a result.

And if that is true, there is really nothing at all that mankind can do about it but try to adapt to the changes.

 

[JColt]

I'm much more worried about pollutants and carcinogens humans put in the environment than global warming/cooling.

 

[Metachrosis]

Nothing has slowed them the last 10 years,frankly they are gaining at
an even faster rate.
They need all the distraction they can get . . . .

I guess I'm just not convinced that the cause of global climate change is something that any government can fix by taking more money out of our pockets, and consolidating more power over our lives.