Posted on 04/20/2013 2:23:50 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
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.
Now it’s become obvious. While greenhouse gases are confirmed to bottle up the heat emanating from the Earth’s surface, they also at the same time reflect much heat from the Sun back into space. Hence, equilibirum or even slight cooling.
We’ve known for a very very long time here on FR that the whole subject of global warming aka climate change and AGW is a Lysenko-like motivated political movement designed to create a revenue stream for a one world government that would control and regulate the atmosphere, the oceans, seas, lakes, streams and landmass.
We took the heat for challenging global warming as junk science led by Nobel prize winning morons such as Al Gore.
And now finally the truth emerges.
We are vindicated.
You might want to take a look at the footnote on the original story about the study:
Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”
The real polluters and greenhouse gas emitters are in Asia. Pollution will be taken more seriously by China, because they have to, but they would never target abstract greenhouse gas levels at the cost of growth. Nor would anyone else in Asia.
This leaves Obama and the lilly white Al Gore/Unabomber wing of the democrat party left. Obama will never admit failure, he will keep "investing" in failure until his term ends. But after that, I don't think anyone except the Unabomber wing to bring it up anymore.
Well, clearly CO2 is a John Kerry molecule. It heats the atmosphere before it cools it.
IDIOTS!
4/100ths of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t enough to affect it either way.
So where exactly is this mysterious CO2 greenhouse layer?
If it’s up high, why does it stay up there? It’s heavy and it should sink to the ground.
If the CO2 layer is on the ground (where plants can access it) how the hell could it affect either cooling or warming?
IDIOTS!
The liberal mind has a hard time accepting reality, and will totally ignore this.
Well, I’m a scientific ignoramus. But I sure hope it’s true!
It’s complicated. ;-)
Gee, what shock.
.
So, back to Global Cooling then? Got it.
On this particular subject, WattsUpWithThat talks about how they misunderstand this NASA press release. A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
Oh no! Now we’ll have to park our expensive electric cars and buy old clunkers that pollute, but put out plenty of lovely carbon emissions to SAVE THE PLANET.
Better we can’t breathe than die from man made global warming due to curbing carbon emissions. [sarcasm\]
Isn’t it about time that we let the Great Watchmaker in the Sky worry about the mechanics of the universe?
I have no scientific training outside of what I needed for high school and college engineering classes.
BUT.
It is scientifically not sound to believe carbon dioxide warms the planet. If that was true, then the natural increase of CO2 from the oceans and from volcanos would create ever-increasing temperatures and our planet would simply burn up.
It makes much more sense that the releases of CO2 from the oceans in response to increasing atmospheric temperatures, has a cooling effect, buffering us from ever-increasing temperatures.
We know that the earth has temperature buffers that keep the atmosphere in a fairly narrow range, between ice ages and warming period. This is cyclic and regular. So there must be a buffer system.
The evil commies that want to control us using environmental cataclysm as an excuse, are more than willing to turn scientific fact on its head and spew that lie that CO2 warms the earth.
Even to a numbskull like me, it makes no scientific sense or the earth long ago would have shot up in temperature irreversibly as more CO2 saturated the atmosphere.
It is like the abortion argument - a 5 year old can tell you that killing the baby in mommy’s tummy is murder. It takes a lot of brainwashing to convince grown adults that killing a baby is just “terminating a fetus”.
Same with globull warming.
What gets me is how so many American’s have fallen for both lies. Not that I’m surprised by it.
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,” HL Mencken.
I agree. I was reading a few of the other articles after I posted this, and noticed some pretty bad references. This is the first I have noticed this website.
bookmark
A big bfl!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.