It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Debunks Their Own Global Warming Claims

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You neglected to answer this question.

No I didn't. I said that existing particles are excited and so does the quote you used. The IRI does not introduce additional particles.


Disagree on what? The article in the OP? Didn't you agree that it was BS?

edit on 8/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Phage is right here, the story is bunk. I'm a bit surprised he actually took the time to explain exactly why, rather than to reply with some of his (border) one line posts, we are so familiar with. (Glad to see he went back to 'normal' later on, you shouldn't have mentioned HAARP.)

If ATS Staff would equally 'enforce' their policy regarding untrustworthy sources, Natural News stories would most likely end up in the HOAX bin.

The original NASA press release did not at all claim CO2 has an overall cooling effect, it explicitly states the effect is limited to the upper atmosphere, and although it doesn't mention the lower atmosphere (troposphere), it implicitly confirms the radiative effect of GHG's.

I can see why people jumped on the story when they read 'CO2 and coolant'. Makes you wonder if NASA sometimes does this stuff just for the lulz, plus it has a Hockey Stick too.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Indeed, I have to agree, pure bunkum.

The anti-global warming brigade really need to start finding better 'evidence' and stop creating spurious arguments out of data that doesn't actually say what they think it says.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
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.


It's already happened hasn't it?

Cost of energy more than quadrupled in recent years, with knock ons for food and farming, general costs through the roof, all under the guise of 'stalling global warming' or 'encouraging more responsible energy useage' by means of financial decentives...iow, charge through the nose, so the majority cannot afford to use what they need.

Hundreds of thousands of old people die every Winter and every Summer due to not being able to afford to switch on heating or cooling.

All for what? Profit...massive, massive profit.

The Sun is very late for it's maximum.

It was due in 2008, but didn't happen. Expected in 2009, didn't happen. 2010 - no, 2011 - no, 2012 - still no...now the 'experts' reckon it is going to happen sometime in the Autumn of this year, almost half of a complete Solar cycle late.

Who's to say that 'greenhouse gas' emmisions from planets in our system, not just on Earth but all of them always respond to various Solar cycles by naturally producing a kind of 'protective gas field' into the upper atmosphere in response to the Sun cycles?

If, as NASA say in that report, the gases actually protect the planets from the more intense effects of Sol at Maximum and minimum periods...then weight is added to the hypothesis that accumulating so-called greenhouse gases are a natural response to Solar activity as a form of planetary defense.

It would be interesting to see if spikes in greenhouse gas concentrations rise and fall in step or close to the Solar Maximum and minimum cycles or not. If the Sun is going through a kind of cycle schism, or departure blip from it's regular cycle (as we're seeing now) perhaps this is contributing to the concentrations becoming higher than normally occur.

I'd imagine during Solar max, a proper max the energetic particles from the Sun would strike the gas molecules and break them down over the course of the cycle...but as the max hasn't happened, the gases are not being dispersed as quickly as it would normally.

Might be something, might be nothing, but it's fun to speculate on this stuff.

edit on 1-8-2013 by MysterX because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2013 by MysterX because: corrections



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





The IRI does not introduce additional particles.


I never said it does...I asked what would happen IF you did introduce additional particles...This you did not answer...



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 





If ATS Staff would equally 'enforce' their policy regarding untrustworthy sources, Natural News stories would most likely end up in the HOAX bin.


Irrelevant...The story was featured on Natural News, but sourced from material on NASA's own website.


“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator.


Not open to interpretation....The study might have related to greenhouse gases in the thermosphere, but could you explain why they would be natural thermostats in the thermosphere, but not say, the troposphere?

I'm sorry, I failed to see why we should bow down to the Almighty Phage's opinion over the NASA article? I mean does he work for NASA? Why is it that otherwise he would be on their big bandwagon about anything, but this article about global warming is BS? Doesn't make sense. It's like saying Wednesday is only Wednesday, once a month....



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I don't really care about Phage. Forget him.

I think the issue here is inappropriate terminology, more than anything else. The terms 'coolant' or 'thermostat effect' might be scientifically correct, but can very much lead to the confusion we have seen with this press release.
NASA could have decribed it with an analogy to 'reflection', which is not the same physical process (just like the 'greenhouse effect'), but would have been much more helpful to avoid any misunderstandings.

Instead of greenhouse gases - atmospheric gases or radiative gases would be more appropriate terms. Absorption and emission are the physics at play here. CO2 is transparent - does not absorb - shortwave radiation emitted by the sun (sunlight), when the energy is re-emitted from the Earth's surface in the form of long wave infrared radiation, CO2 and other atmospheric gases absorb this energy at specific wavelengths and release it in the form of heat - a process that takes place in the lower atmosphere.

The NASA press release could have done a much better job to clarify why the described effect is different from the 'greenhouse effect', but there is no justification to misinterpret the study the way Natural News and other did.
There are plenty of aspects one could point to where global warming theory does not fit observations in the real world, this is not one of them.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
There is a manufacturer in America making and selling CO2 producing machines (called Johnson gas CO2 generators) to large greenhouse growers, this firm also makes water tanks, if anyone needs one, like 'prepers'



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Nice OP. I'll have to read it more thoroughly.

Don't worry about Phage. He's getting more and more rude by the minute.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hm, are you in a bad mood or something? You keep sounding as if you are. For instance, calling people idiots is not a way to discuss points.




edit on 3-8-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join