NASA Debunks Their Own Global Warming Claims

NASA Study Debunks Global Warming

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."

Kinda makes one scratch their head and wonder what the whole point of the global warming argument is in the first place. Some have said that Sol is emitting electromagnetic radiation that interacts and effects man both psychologically and physiologically. If it wasn't for the greenhouse gases, reflecting the radiation back into outer space, it would permeate into the lower atmosphere and eventually reach our biological systems, and electrical systems...

Tie this in with Remote Viewers from the CIA's Project Stargate(Stargate Project), who claim that mankind is hit by a massive solar flare from the Sun in the near future, which results in a meltdown of electrical and telecommunications systems..

Then, we have the very same Federal government, passing acts that give them nearly complete control over every aspect of this nation in a case of national security or emergency.

Something just stinks about this whole thing..

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."

NASA Study Source

What do you think ATS? Let the discussion begin!

The divergence between global warming forecasts and the actual climate should not surprise anyone. The notion that an individual or group of individuals could accurately model a dynamic system with hundreds of interdependent variables is ludicrous.The scientists and researchers who staked their reputation on these failed models should pull up to the table and help themselves to a nice big plate of crow.

reply to post by SirMike


The truly sad thing is the fact that there are politicians trying to push through a fraud called a carbon tax....Sol, help us should that little scheme come to fruition.

I've noticed a step up in the number of alarmist reports concerning GW, even here on ats, maybe they anticipated this getting out?

Its a big fat fraud, we only have to look out of our windows to see another normal beautiful day.

Global Warming leads to a cooling trend. I thought this was common knowledge now.
(That isn't sarcasm, btw)

Originally posted by Garkiniss
Global Warming leads to a cooling trend. I thought this was common knowledge now.
(That isn't sarcasm, btw)

Yep. At first it led to warming, but that got debunked so what could they do??? Its obvious really, say it leads to warming AND cooling, that way they're sure to get it right.

reply to post by VoidHawk


It's always lead to cooling. I've known this since at least the 90s, so I'm guessing within the scientific community it's been common knowledge for a lot longer. This isn't some conspiratorial slip up, nor is it some groundbreaking discovery. I mean Paleoclimatologists have been making the connection between greenhouse gases and global cooling for the better part of a century now.

The only thing left to question is; is it man-made or natural, but honestly, what difference does it make? It's happening. Brace yourselves.

reply to post by Garkiniss


None of this negates the fact, that it is the Sun which is heating up the Earth. Not man-made CO2 emissions...Evidence exists from NASA that temperatures are rising on at least 3 other planets. Mars and Jupiter being two I believe...

NASA Study Source

Maybe you should read that source because yours is an idiot.

The study is not about solar radiation on the lower atmosphere (where climate is). It is about the interaction between CMEs and the very outer regions of the atmosphere.

Energetic particles from the Sun (a CME) heats up CO2 in the thermosphere. As the CO2 cools, it radiates most of that energy back into space (because there is nothing there but space. It has nothing to do with climate.

CO2 in the lower atmosphere reflects heat from the Earth's surface back to the surface. It doesn't allow it to escape into space. That's why it leads to warming.

This was discussed months ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Garkiniss

 

None of this negates the fact, that it is the Sun which is heating up the Earth. Not man-made CO2 emissions...Evidence exists from NASA that temperatures are rising on at least 3 other planets. Mars and Jupiter being two I believe...

Indeed, the sun is a factor. Though man-made pollution does affect the air quality, hence the respirators many are forced to wear in a lot of the larger cities, especially in countries with less restrictions, though we're still trying to understand the connection, if any, to that pollution and climate change.

reply to post by Phage

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“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.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

This, is from the Nasa.gov source.... Do you dispute that the Sun is indeed heating up or not?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Do you dispute that the Sun is indeed heating up or not?

I don't see anything in that quote that indicates so. Maybe you can be a little more specific about what you are referring to.

CMEs occur all the time. Sometimes they hit Earth, sometimes they don't. There are more CMEs around solar maximum which is where we are now but this solar cycle has been very mild so I would say no, the Sun is not "heating up". Not as indicated by solar activity. And satellite measurements do not show a significant increase in total irradiance either.

But as I pointed out, the argument that this article indicates that CO2 has a cooling effect on climate is idiotic. The Earth is warmed by electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. CMEs are not electromagnetic radiation and climate does not occur in the thermosphere which is where this phenomenon does. The thermosphere is essentially...space.

It extends from about 90 km (56 miles) to between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet.

www.windows2universe.org...

reply to post by Phage

CMEs are not electromagnetic radiation

But they sure do release a lot of it, don't they?

Coronal mass ejections release huge quantities of matter and electromagnetic radiation into space above the sun's surface

CME - Wiki

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Not really. That wiki information is incorrect.
And if you would actually read what the source says, it is not electromagnetic radiation which heats the CO2 in the thermosphere, it is the energetic particles of a CME which do so.

reply to post by Phage

and climate does not occur in the thermosphere which is where this phenomenon does. The thermosphere is essentially...space.

To say that CME's cannot effect Earth's climate is irrational to say the very least.

Sun - Climate Change

The Earth's climate has always been changing. This is documented in historical as well as in geological records. The reasons for these changes, however, have always been subject to discussions and are still not well understood. In addition to natural climate changes the risk of human influence on climate has recently been seriously considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Any factor that alters the radiation received from the Sun or lost to Space will affect climate.

The Sun’s output of energy is known to change over an 11-year cycle, and variations over longer periods occur as well. A number of correlations between solar activity variations and climate changes, some more significant than others, have been reported but they have traditionally been accompanied by a considerable skepticism among scientists because a plausible physical mechanism to account for these correlations has not yet been found. The most immediate cause of climate changes would be changes in the total irradiance of the Sun. This, however, would either imply unrealistically large variations in total solar irradiance or a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing than normally accepted. Therefore other mechanisms have to be invoked.

The most promising candidate is a change in cloud formation because clouds have a very strong impact on the radiation balance and because only little energy is needed to change the cloud formation process. One of the ways to influence cloud formation might be through the cosmic ray flux that is strongly modulated by the varying solar activity.

INTRODUCTION The Sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the Sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate. During stable conditions there has to be a balance between the energy received from the Sun and the energy that the Earth radiates back into Space. This energy is mainly radiated in the form of long wave radiation corresponding to the mean temperature of the Earth.

The Sun influences the Earth also on shorter time scales. For example, the solar magnetic field in the heliosphere, as well as solar wind and energetic particles affect the Earth's magnetosphere and ionosphere (see Fig. 3). These effects can be directly observed and measured (Fig. 4).

Sun - Magnetosphere & Ionosphere

Now isn't introducing charged particles into the ionosphere supposed to be how HAARP 'controls the weather'?

reply to post by Phage


If it's wrong, then make a case of why...For pete's sake, claiming something is wrong, without proving it is quite a stretch, even for you Phage.

it is not electromagnetic radiation which heats the CO2 in the thermosphere, it is the energetic particles of a CME which do so.

What are those energetic particles?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

To say that CME's cannot effect Earth's climate is irrational to say the very least.

But didn't the article in the OP say that the CO2 in the thermosphere protects our climate from the effects of CMEs by producing a cooling effect?


In any case I don't see anything in those quotes about the effects of CMEs on climate or weather. Can you point it out for me?

Now isn't introducing charged particles into the ionosphere supposed to be how HAARP 'controls the weather'?

No. HAARP can't control the weather and the ionosphere is charged particles.

reply to post by Phage

But didn't the article in the OP say that the CO2 in the thermosphere protects our climate from the effects of CMEs by producing a cooling effect?

But didn't you pretty much say the article was BS? So which is it?

The IRI is used to temporarily excite a limited area of the Ionosphere

What do you think it means by excite? What happens if you introduce additional particles into the Ionosphere?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

But didn't you pretty much say the article was BS? So which is it?

Yes it is. I'm glad you agree. I'm glad you see the contradiction when I pointed it out to you.

What do you think it means by excite?

It means to add energy to existing particles. To heat them.

reply to post by Phage

What happens if you introduce additional particles into the Ionosphere?

You neglected to answer this question. Still unsatisfied with your conclusions of the NASA study, but I mean it's not like you work for NASA is it? Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.