New Discovery: NASA study shows Carbon Dioxide cools atmosphere (Update: Badly interpreted study)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2013 4:05 AM GMT
    I'm a bit cautious about this one... but the references are in fact to NASA (Update thanks to TigerTim here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/ - the study was badly interpreted)

    http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

    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.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 29, 2013 4:18 AM GMT
    why don't we just turn all the carbon dioxide into dry ice and ship it to the polar bears?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2013 4:22 AM GMT
    thadjock saidwhy don't we just turn all the carbon dioxide into dry ice and ship it to the polar bears?


    a. not cold enough
    b. according to this study, that would make the earth warmer
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Mar 29, 2013 4:29 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    a. not cold enough
    b. according to this study, that would make the earth warmer


    The low temperature and direct sublimation to a gas makes dry ice an effective
    coolant, since it is colder than water ice and leaves no residue as it changes state ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2013 10:57 AM GMT
    Debunked:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

    Again, good science willfully twisted by the climate change deniers because they don't actually understand science.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 29, 2013 1:24 PM GMT
    i don't even know where to begin with your selective stupidity anymore... does source evaluation mean nothing to you? you're taking information seriously from a .org that looks as if it were designed by a bored teenager in church.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Mar 29, 2013 3:48 PM GMT
    I only read the first paragraph and I could already smell the BS:

    :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


    First of all, you can tell it's propaganda when, according to the writer, a single study supposedly proves something. And second, the article focuses solely on sporadic high energy rays ("harmful rays", as it calls them) and totally ignores the "non-harmful rays" which are radiated constantly by the sun and affect climate on Earth on a much larger scale. Not to mention the NASA report it cites doesn't even mention climate, let alone climate change.

    This is what happens when you write about climatology but you've never taken a 101 class about it.
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    Mar 29, 2013 4:12 PM GMT
    Pure nonsense. The Greenhouse effect has been shown in the laboratory over and over. It is simply an intrinsic aspect of physics which molecules have. There is even a number assigned to every element, in the same way that we assign numbers to the mass and size of molecules. Nobody ever needed "climatology" to show that molecules retain heat no more than we need "relativity theory" to weigh objects.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 29, 2013 4:26 PM GMT
    calibro saidi don't even know where to begin with your selective stupidity anymore... does source evaluation mean nothing to you? you're taking information seriously from a .org that looks as if it were designed by a bored teenager in church.


    I totally got interested. I was even going to show my EOS prof this. Then I saw riddler posted it. All credibility lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2013 7:32 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidDebunked:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

    Again, good science willfully twisted by the climate change deniers because they don't actually understand science.


    Er - so you consider wattsupwiththat to be a credible source then otherwise? If so, good. But like I said, I was skeptical. The most recent post from WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/29/the-puzzle-why-have-rising-temperatures-been-on-a-twenty-year-hiatus/