NASA report: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

I didn't invent the internet, but this was an argument that I started with some friends long ago. The story was, "greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth", and my argument was, "heat comes from the sun, if the greenhouse gases were so bad, wouldn't they stop heat from getting to the earth from the sun".

Why are the polar ice caps and Greenland glaciers melting? That is the evidence that seems most damaging to anyone who believes global warming is a hoax.

The polar ice caps and glaciers have fluctuated many times in the last few centuries... Nothing new or unusual.

Why are the polar ice caps and Greenland glaciers melting? That is the evidence that seems most damaging to anyone who believes global warming is a hoax.

It seems to be cyclical, polar caps have expanded and receded several times through history.

 

Mars is Melting - NASA Science I guess the Rover put out too much emissions and caused the Mars polar caps to melt as well.

The link in that article just takes you to Natural News' homepage. Does anyone have a link to the study?

The link in that article just takes you to Natural News' homepage. Does anyone have a link to the study?

Here is the story from the link, related links are at the end of the story

(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

 

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

 

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

 

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

 

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

 

"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," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his 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."

 

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

 

You can read more details of the new NASA SABER study by visiting:

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

 

You can also check out a informative, four-minute video report on the solar storm here:

 

Sources for this article include:

 

Principia Scientific International

 

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

 

 

Learn more: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

I didn't invent the internet, but this was an argument that I started with some friends long ago. The story was, "greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth", and my argument was, "heat comes from the sun, if the greenhouse gases were so bad, wouldn't they stop heat from getting to the earth from the sun".

 

Well the theory goes like this:

 

The atmosphere of the earth is made up mostly of N2 and O2 molecules, neither of which absorb much in the way of infrared light, which is only a small fraction of what the sun emits anyway. But two of the molecules occurring in much smaller concentrations are excellent absorbers of long-wavelength infrared: water vapor and carbon dioxide. When normal solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, it is absorbed by the Earth, warming the surface and causing that surface to then re-emit some of its own heat. But the Earth doesn't create its own radiation like the sun and so it's weaker and the wavelength is longer. In fact, it's long-wavelength infrared, which as said above, is easily absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide. (It's apparently the double-covalent bonds and the asymmetrical shape that make them such good absorbers of this kind of energy).

 

So the theory goes that it's this secondary radiation that actually results in the heating of the atmosphere, not direct light from the sun. The earth is what's heating its own atmosphere.

 

That's the greenhouse effect and it's absolutely essential to life on earth. It prevents the Earth's heat from being radiated off into space. If it did, the planet would be too cold to sustain life.

 

So the question we're stuck with is then the crux of this debate: does adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere prevent more heat from being radiated off into space thus further warming the atmosphere? Hard to say. There are theories out there in all directions for exactly how this happens... or doesn't happen.

Here is the story from the link, related links are at the end of the story

 

I thought the article was slightly misleading. Most climate scientists don't think that direct energy from the sun is what's warming the atmosphere but the Earth's radiated heat being trapped in. Lots of solar energy is reflected back into space. Certainly it's widely believed that ozone (O3) aborbs and deflects huge amounts of ultraviolet radiation so that it never reaches the earth.

Based on the 1990s estimates AND the current levels of CO2 it should be 120 degrees in the shade. I am just trying to get the pool to 75 degrees....

 

Notice how the who issue turned into 'carbon credits' markets....money for nuthin'....as with most things...follow the money....

Why are the polar ice caps and Greenland glaciers melting? That is the evidence that seems most damaging to anyone who believes global warming is a hoax.

 

Because the polar bears keep peeing on them, duh!

Well the theory goes like this:

 

The atmosphere of the earth is made up mostly of N2 and O2 molecules, neither of which absorb much in the way of infrared light, which is only a small fraction of what the sun emits anyway. But two of the molecules occurring in much smaller concentrations are excellent absorbers of long-wavelength infrared: water vapor and carbon dioxide. When normal solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, it is absorbed by the Earth, warming the surface and causing that surface to then re-emit some of its own heat. But the Earth doesn't create its own radiation like the sun and so it's weaker and the wavelength is longer. In fact, it's long-wavelength infrared, which as said above, is easily absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide. (It's apparently the double-covalent bonds and the asymmetrical shape that make them such good absorbers of this kind of energy).

 

So the theory goes that it's this secondary radiation that actually results in the heating of the atmosphere, not direct light from the sun. The earth is what's heating its own atmosphere.

 

That's the greenhouse effect and it's absolutely essential to life on earth. It prevents the Earth's heat from being radiated off into space. If it did, the planet would be too cold to sustain life.

 

So the question we're stuck with is then the crux of this debate: does adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere prevent more heat from being radiated off into space thus further warming the atmosphere? Hard to say. There are theories out there in all directions for exactly how this happens... or doesn't happen.

 

No, that part is easy to say and easy to prove. It can be tested in a lab. CO2 can be demonstrated to capture radiated heat. What is much harded to predict and prove is the secondary effects, such as increased evaporation leading to increased cloud cover and cooling, increased water temperatures leading to CO2 release from the oceans, increased water temperature leading to increased photosynthesis. How in the world this ever became a political discussion rather than a scientific one is beyond me. I blame the left for presenting it in apocolyptic rather than scientific language and a I blame the right for refusing to believe it because they don't like the messenger.

How in the world this ever became a political discussion rather than a scientific one is beyond me. I blame the left for presenting it in apocolyptic rather than scientific language and a I blame the right for refusing to believe it because they don't like the messenger.

 

I agree. And I also agree that the heat absorption and subsequent heat emission of carbon dioxide molecules is provable.

 

I stated my question wrong I think. It shouldn't be a question that carbon dioxide atoms absorb heat but the question is how much of an effect is having that extra CO2 in the air actually having on global temperature and further, whether rampant deforestation is curbing the biosphere's ability to naturally process that CO2 and spit out breathable oxygen.

 

We know from the geological records that times of high global temperatures are also times of high CO2 atmosphere. Incredible generation of plant life can be found in those periods because of plants being able to feed on the high CO2 levels. It would seem that we should be seeing a corresponding rise in plant life due to the measurable increase. Instead we're seeing higher levels of desertification in some places. I don't precisely know what that means for us in the here and now.

No, that part is easy to say and easy to prove. It can be tested in a lab. CO2 can be demonstrated to capture radiated heat. What is much harded to predict and prove is the secondary effects, such as increased evaporation leading to increased cloud cover and cooling, increased water temperatures leading to CO2 release from the oceans, increased water temperature leading to increased photosynthesis. How in the world this ever became a political discussion rather than a scientific one is beyond me. I blame the left for presenting it in apocolyptic rather than scientific language and a I blame the right for refusing to believe it because they don't like the messenger.

 

Nail, meet hammer.

Going bird hunting tomorrow at the local game preserve because this part of the globe will be 37 in the morning, on this Memorial Day weekend.