More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[joeblast]

 

 

Nasa Article

 

March 22, 2012: 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 8^th through 10^th 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.”

 

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 8^th 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 8^th through 10^th, 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.

 

In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.

 

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO₂ and NO.”

 

During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit. On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.

The storm is over now, but Russell and Mlynczak expect more to come.

 

“We’re just emerging from a deep solar minimum,” says Russell. “The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013.”

 

More sunspots flinging more CMEs toward Earth adds up to more opportunities for SABER to study the heating effect of solar storms.

 

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

 

 

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.

 

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 8^th through 10^th 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

.

----------------------

[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...what was that I was saying about not having any sort of model for solar output and giving it one narrow, non-comprehensive value to the sun's output would prove to be a huge problem regarding the predictability of "climate models?"

 

[lloydbaker]

Now...what was that I was saying about not having any sort of model for solar output and giving it one narrow, non-comprehensive value to the sun's output would prove to be a huge problem regarding the predictability of "climate models?"

 

 

There so much wrong with "climate change models." 1st they don't predict anything. But, why should they? The "scientists" are paid to produce alarmism to feed a world government agenda. Much like lawyers or experts testifying in court; they say what they are paid to say, but are expected to add the technical gloss!

 

Further, physicists have determined that over 100 simultaneous differential equations would have to be solved to really understand the earth's surface temperature. . . global warming scientists do nothing of the sort. They just model with presumed "factors". . . ABSURD! Not only can't the equations be solved, but no one knows how to establish the initial conditions.

 

The main thing: We must have and will have WORLD GOVERNMENT. As Rockefeller's banker James Warburg said, "By conquest or consent."

Edited April 22, 2013 by lloydbaker

[ralis]

The above posts are more of the same non critical thinking from ones that have no or very little scientific education and will believe cherry picked data and papers presenting so called new evidence, which in this case are not peer reviewed papers but the papers presented are assumed by readers as absolute evidence against AGW. The above posts, cut/paste arguments, rely exclusively on naive foolish readers to believe the absolute 'isness' of the above.

 

In proper scientific research, a degree of uncertainty <1 will be obtained. At some point in time when you both clear your minds of foolish absolute thinking, we might have a reasonable discussion.

Edited April 22, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

 

 

Further, physicists have determined that over 100 simultaneous differential equations would have to be solved to really understand the earth's surface temperature. . . global warming scientists do nothing of the sort. They just model with presumed "factors". . . ABSURD! Not only can't the equations be solved, but no one knows how to establish the initial conditions.

 

 

The non-linear equations are modeled on 'supercomputers' which only a few research facilities are equipped with. Where do you obtain such nonsense?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

the burning off of earth's atmosphere is the most beautiful spectacle in the skies...


If CO2 is a coolant, then why does holding my breath make me hot and sweaty?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[ralis]

 

 

Nasa Article

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now...what was that I was saying about not having any sort of model for solar output and giving it one narrow, non-comprehensive value to the sun's output would prove to be a huge problem regarding the predictability of "climate models?"

 

 

I did a little research on these guys and their papers have not been peer reviewed. That was obvious when you posted the above. Why should peer review be important to proper scientific endeavor? Outside the critical peer review process, anyone can write papers and present such as absolute fact. Many persons not well versed in proper research believe the above nonsense.

Edited April 22, 2013 by ralis

[lloydbaker]

I did a little research on these guys and their papers have not been peer reviewed.

 

Peer review means the big money has bought the "group think" outcome. Gallileo was peer reviewed too.

[lloydbaker]

The non-linear equations are modeled on 'supercomputers' which only a few research facilities are equipped with. Where do you obtain such nonsense?

 

Yeah, theoretically any number of simultaneous differential equations can be soleved by digital methods given enough computer power. . . but this task would far exceed anything attempted here-to-fore. Climate "scientists" have made no such attempt. The initial conditions would basically be the earth and atmosphere in all its complexity. All they are doing so far is plugging fudge factors into models that fail to predict actual temperature changes or lack there of. . .

Edited April 23, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

At some point in time when you both clear your minds of foolish absolute thinking, we might have a reasonable discussion.

 

It's the global warming crowd that is mired in absolute thinking. Established science my ass. "Science" bought and paid for by big oil.

[ralis]

It's the global warming crowd that is mired in absolute thinking. Established science my ass. "Science" bought and paid for by big oil.

 

You have offered no proof of that and what you post remains your opinion. In both your posts. My academic background is science and math and I hold to a higher standard than your conspiracy BS.

 

You obviously don't know what you write given that your posts are replete with the use of 'is'. Using 'is' only reinforces narrow minded rigid dichotomies of thought which leaves no other possibilities.

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Links on use of supercomputers used by climatologists.

 

http://www.dailycal.org/2013/04/16/berkeley-lab-scientists-to-use-supercomputer-for-research-on-genome-clean-energy/

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/25/4129026/clouds-are-hiding-the-the-truth-of-how-much-earths-climate-will-change

 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232382/Climate_change_research_gets_petascale_supercomputer

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/17/1030641/october-17-news-climate-scientists-gain-access-to-worlds-most-powerful-supercomputer-for-geosciences/

 

http://industry-news.cray.com/supercomputing-key-to-meaningful-developments-in-climate-research/

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

It's the global warming crowd that is mired in absolute thinking. Established science my ass. "Science" bought and paid for by big oil.

 

 

 

Lloyd...what do you think Zaneblue (she's known as Witch here at TTB) would think of your post above, hmm? You know how she was at Thunders and M.com.

 

For what it's worth I think scientists on both sides can be "bought and paid for". That's one of the problems with the way the environment in academic research has changed. As public money for University research has been cut the crony capitalism system has intensified as researchers still want to do research but can't do it on shoestring budgets and still get published. My guess is some like this arrangement while others do not. It likely depends on the specifics of each situation.

[ralis]

Lloyd...what do you think Zaneblue (she's known as Witch here at TTB) would think of your post above, hmm? You know how she was at Thunders and M.com.

 

For what it's worth I think scientists on both sides can be "bought and paid for". That's one of the problems with the way the environment in academic research has changed. As public money for University research has been cut the crony capitalism system has intensified as researchers still want to do research but can't do it on shoestring budgets and still get published. My guess is some like this arrangement while others do not. It likely depends on the specifics of each situation.

 

 

What is being proposed is some worldwide conspiracy to defraud the public on AGW by climatologists. Conspiracies rarely work with two people let alone thousands.

[lloydbaker]

Lloyd...what do you think Zaneblue (she's known as Witch here at TTB) would think of your post above, hmm? You know how she was at Thunders and M.com.

 

For what it's worth I think scientists on both sides can be "bought and paid for". That's one of the problems with the way the environment in academic research has changed. As public money for University research has been cut the crony capitalism system has intensified as researchers still want to do research but can't do it on shoestring budgets and still get published. My guess is some like this arrangement while others do not. It likely depends on the specifics of each situation.

 

Zane is an environmentalist wacko. I argued with her about this years ago.

 

You have to look at the winning side; the Establishment side. The big Rockefeller/Big Oil/Saudi-Soros/OPEC forces patronize and fund the UN which is behind the global warming propaganda. Global warming concerns reduce exploration and drilling by govt regulation and, thereby, raise the price of oil: THE WHOLE POINT! Simple application of supply and demand. The Koch Bros. and other sponsor research attempting to disprove the ESTABLISHMENT propaganda.

 

Climatologists are NOT PART OF A CONSPIRACY. They are just like lawyers and experts giving testimony in court: BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. . .

 

The leaked email in the UK showed what the scumbag climatologists are doing. . . FAKING DATA! for their UN masters! Reducing the amount of energy available to the world is MURDER!

Edited April 23, 2013 by lloydbaker

[ralis]

Zane is an environmentalist wacko. I argued with her about this years ago.

 

You have to look at the winning side; the Establishment side. The big Rockefeller/Big Oil/Saudi-Soros/OPEC forces patronize and fund the UN which is behind the global warming propaganda. Global warming concerns reduce exploration and drilling by govt regulation and, thereby, raise the price of oil: THE WHOLE POINT! Simple application of supply and demand. The Koch Bros. and other sponsor research attempting to disprove the ESTABLISHMENT propaganda.

 

Climatologists are NOT PART OF A CONSPIRACY. They are just like lawyers and experts giving testimony in court: BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. . .

 

The leaked email in the UK showed what the scumbag climatologists are doing. . . FAKING DATA! for their UN masters! Reducing the amount of energy available to the world is MURDER!

 

 

Your posts are replete with hearsay and innuendo with no supporting evidence. BTW, Witch isn't here to defend herself so stop the personal attacks directed to her. Persons that resort to arguments such as yours have no credibility whatsoever.

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[lloydbaker]

Your posts are replete with hearsay and innuendo with no supporting evidence. BTW, Witch isn't here to defend herself so stop the personal attacks directed to her. Persons that resort to arguments such as yours have no credibility whatsoever.

 

Nonsense. There was no personal attack. . . "Environmentalist wacko" is a joking term of endearment. I argued with her about global warming years ago. Check you own rants if you want to see over the top mindless attacks. Hopefully Witch(?) will drop by some time and add her opinion to the thread. Uh, that is how threads work. Someone does not have to be on site to talk about them.

[joeblast]

The above posts are more of the same non critical thinking from ones that have no or very little scientific education and will believe cherry picked data and papers presenting so called new evidence, which in this case are not peer reviewed papers but the papers presented are assumed by readers as absolute evidence against AGW. The above posts, cut/paste arguments, rely exclusively on naive foolish readers to believe the absolute 'isness' of the above.

 

In proper scientific research, a degree of uncertainty <1 will be obtained. At some point in time when you both clear your minds of foolish absolute thinking, we might have a reasonable discussion.

This is straight from nasa based on new satellite measurements, there are references, sources, now what the hell is it that you're on about? Anything that gets posted that shows the CO2 scam for what it is is simply unscientific garbage? hahahaha come up with a real reply dude, this copy and paste claptrap response is the same exact crap every single time.

 

As I've said every other time...

 

 

you just can't reply in a substantive manner on this topic.

 

 

admit it.

[ralis]

This is straight from nasa based on new satellite measurements, there are references, sources, now what the hell is it that you're on about? Anything that gets posted that shows the CO2 scam for what it is is simply unscientific garbage? hahahaha come up with a real reply dude, this copy and paste claptrap response is the same exact crap every single time.

 

As I've said every other time...

 

 

you just can't reply in a substantive manner on this topic.

 

 

admit it.

 

 

It is still cherry picked and commented outside the purview of the research. I read the article and the researchers are making observations and say nothing to the contrary about AGW. Principia is an anti AGW site. What you are doing is leaping to conclusion without evidence.

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Nonsense. There was no personal attack. . . "Environmentalist wacko" is a joking term of endearment.

 

 

Limbaugh uses that with his condemnation of anyone wanting to protect the environment. I guess he means it as a term of endearment. I don't believe it.

 

As of now, you have not provided proof of your conspiracies nor will you.

[lloydbaker]

A lot of absolutist environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. . . They don't get Limbaugh humor either. EVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ABSOLUTIST! No one is allowed to joke about absolute truth. Wacko is not a serious "condemnation". . . get real!

 

The fact is, it is the global warming propagandists that are taking their precarious theories of a very complex reality as absolute truth and pressing government to act on it!

 

To make it worse, government action in this area is and would drastically decrease the amount of energy available for human needs. Nearly all human needs require energy input. Reducing the amount of energy available to humanity in the absence of ready alternatives means inconvenience to some, squallor or death to others. All based on ABSOLUTIST thinking.

 

Those of us who know climate is too complex to be caused by a single variable are the ones who are not ABSOLUTISTS!

 

A giant, tilted rotating, variable solid/water/biological surface, out of round sphere with a multi-gas atmosphere, an internal heat source, magnetic poles, and exposure to varying radiation and sub-atomic particles from the sun is a very difficult heat transfer problem! No attempt has yet been made to model it including all the relevant variables. By the way, climate itself is actually CONVECTION, a form of heat transfer. So, to the extent one factor tends to increase the temperature, climate (convection heat transfer) is affected. Good luck with your super computer and the 100 differential equations.

 

No models to date predict the actual minute changes in average temperature. . . where's the hockey stick predicted early on, for instance?

Edited April 23, 2013 by lloydbaker

[ralis]

A lot of absolutist environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. . . They don't get Limbaugh humor either. EVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ABSOLUTIST! No one is allowed to joke about absolute truth. Wacko is not a serious "condemnation". . . get real!

 

The fact is, it is the global warming propagandists that are taking their precarious theories of a very complex reality as absolute truth and pressing government to act on it!

 

To make it worse, government action in this area is and would drastically decrease the amount of energy available for human needs. Nearly all human needs require energ input. Reducing the amount of energy available to humanity means inconvenience to some, squallor or death to others. All base on ABSOLUTIST thinking.

 

Those of us who know climate is to complex to be caused by a single variable are the ones who are not ABSOLUTISTS!

 

Limbaugh joking? Seems akin to hate speech. Furthermore, you still don't provide evidence to back up your claims. Just personal opinion.

 

By the way, stop posting in caps. Rudeness.

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

A lot of absolutist environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. . . They don't get Limbaugh humor either. EVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ABSOLUTIST! No one is allowed to joke about absolute truth. Wacko is not a serious "condemnation". . . get real!

 

The fact is, it is the global warming propagandists that are taking their precarious theories of a very complex reality as absolute truth and pressing government to act on it!

 

To make it worse, government action in this area is and would drastically decrease the amount of energy available for human needs. Nearly all human needs require energy input. Reducing the amount of energy available to humanity in the absence of ready alternatives means inconvenience to some, squallor or death to others. All based on ABSOLUTIST thinking.

 

Those of us who know climate is too complex to be caused by a single variable are the ones who are not ABSOLUTISTS!

 

A giant, tilted rotating, variable solid/water/biological surface, out of round sphere with a multi-gas atmosphere, an internal heat source, magnetic poles, and exposure to varying radiation and sub-atomic particles from the sun is a very difficult heat transfer problem! No attempt has yet been made to model it including all the relevant variables. By the way, climate itself is actually CONVECTION, a form of heat transfer. So, to the extent one factor tends to increase the temperature, climate (convection heat transfer) is affected. Good luck with your super computer and the 100 differential equations.

 

No models to date predict the actual minute changes in average temperature. . . where's the hockey stick predicted early on, for instance?

 

 

You are making a lot of claims. Show me your peer reviewed research. Are you a climatologist? I doubt it. Your use of 'isness' indicates that you want absolute answers. I have kicked the addictive habit of using 'is' in my writing. Rarely will you see me use it. Authoritarians love using 'is'.

Edited April 23, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

It is still cherry picked and commented outside the purview of the research. I read the article and the researchers are making observations and say nothing to the contrary about AGW. Principia is an anti AGW site. What you are doing is leaping to conclusion without evidence.

if it were that easy, you'd have a rebuttal, my friend. you have nothing of the sort, just the same ol...

 

"I dont like your data, its source, or the conclusion it comes to, therefore it is invalid - show me something pal reviewed and triple checked for political correctness and I'll believe it"

 

and of course, you still have nothing to say about my own particular assertions - if you can even pick them out of my postings

 

 

your posts have all been off topic - they havent addressed the topic one bit - is it time to crab at you for being completely OT yet?

 

cmon, post something substantive, I dare you

 

please, oh please, give me a substantive refutation LMAO

[ralis]

JB,

 

I am not OT.

[joeblast]

right, I'll have to go make a thread on information source ridicule so that you may be on topic there. then you can talk all the shit you want about how the correct information sources and requisite black boxes arent being used to process and come up with the "necessarily correct" CO2 is going to kill us all conclusion.

 

still nothing substantive from you, ralis. not a single damned thing.

 

not seeing how sunspot funks can produce things like cooling conditions on earth? (even after what I just posted, though I've been saying it for yeeears.)

 

not understanding how the TSI concept doesnt catch a bunch of that change? (how's that uv doing?)

 

not drawing the line from a to b that co2 concentration is a byproduct and not a driver?

 

still missing all the places on the absorption curve where co2 is overlapped and overshadowed by water vapor?

 

cmon man, you can do it! give me a sensible argument! tell me why what I am saying is wrong without waving your hand and saying "your information sucks and doesnt deserve my time!" you've said often enough how edumucated you are, let's see some of that education shine through, dude!

 

because until you attempt it, I'll just keep chuckling at you turning tail and running from debate every time.

 

or is it a matter of you dont want to expose yourself to humiliation? (I'd think it'd be more humiliating doing what you're doing instead of speaking up, but hey, maybe your foundations arent as strong as you claim them to be, otherwise we might have actually seen an argument out of you by now!)