Facebook Twitter

Carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere, says new NASA report.

“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, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun,” says to this article on principia-scientific.org.

“The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air 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.”

Ain’t science great? First they “prove” that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Now they “prove” that it cools the atmosphere.

Either way, you’re the culprit, and you must pay higher taxes. What a racket!

See entire article:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook

Thanks to Steven Rowlandson and Jeff Rense for this link

 

68 Responses to NASA – New study shows that CO2 COOLS atmosphere

  1. John says:

    science is better than fiction

  2. Dan says:

    Government bureaucrats & scientists,environmentalists, and scientists on government grants…..the new carpet-baggers.

  3. Lisa Phillips says:

    Lol! Who says God does not have a sense of humor!

  4. TomO says:

    Now that finally explains why the dinosaurs died out – all that farting cooled the Earth so much it drove it into ice age! I wonder what the “tipping point” is, though, where the accumulating green house gases “switch” from heating to cooling? We must have passed through it in about 1999 or 2000, I guess. Well, I have to admit, it is a bit strange that NASA would switch from global warming to global cooling as soon as Hansen retired, but still chose the same shop worn culprit. You are right when you say that it still allows them to destroy the energy programs and raise the taxes on the few people still working in this economically wrecked nation, thanks the “wholly owned” political parties and politicians.

  5. Yukon Jack says:

    Al Gore and James Hansen should be locked in a padded cell and isolated from the rest of humanity. Don’t forget to throw away the key.

  6. mr.c says:

    I was reading a post a while back about the thermosphere is cooling. So the colder the thermiosphere the coolder it gets on earth now? What makes the thermospere colder?

  7. Neil Love says:

    Here we go again. So “they” acknowledge the obvious fact that the world is getting colder, but want to pin the blame on CO2. Why is it that “they” want CO2 to be seen as a villain ? Because “they” definitely want to build more nuclear power stations, so that “they” can then extract the plutonium, so as to then be able to build more nuclear weapons. As President Eisenhower stated after WW2 “they” are the ever more in control and expanding “Military Industrial Complex”. Real science is not at work here. The new paper published by NASA has nothing to do with any real science. It is simply a matter of military minded power politics at work here. In real science we know that our planet is desperately short of atmospheric CO2. We should be emmitting more CO2 so as to get levels of CO2 up to even as much as two thousand times the present day level. Life on this planet is only possible if we drastically increase levels of CO2.

    CO2 + H2O = CH2 + O3

    Simultanious with the big lie about CO2 making the world hotter and now colder, NASA are also telling us big lies about having sent men to the Moon and about rovers on Mars. NASA are a military front organization [counter intelligence] to decieve the worlds terrestrial population into believing that “we” have a space programme. Actually there is no civilian space programme. Never has been. What is really going on in space ? Militarization of space has been going on for a very long time already. Lying about CO2 is just one aspect of that militerization of space. Or to put it more interestingly is it better to decribe the process as the NAZIFICATION of space ?

  8. william says:

    This statement from NASA proves the climate has been cooling and next and up and coming mini iceage or the over due big iceage NASA come do you think we all came down in the last rain CO2 never caused any warming and cooling. Here Bob it proves what you been saying for years and proved we heading towards a colder and unforgiving climate. Still Bob you have to laugh at there lies it’s get more stupid from NASA

    • Margot T. says:

      Nonsense, William – the NASA report is about the energy from coronal mass ejections, not about the energy delivered to the earth by standard radiation.

  9. Pauly says:

    Bummer, I was hopping for a little global warming.

  10. Harold says:

    I can’t help but think that global warming/cooling, or whatever it is this week, is, among many other things, an attempt to create a “natural” disaster to divert attention from, and place blame for the coming world wide economic train wreck that’s waiting for us just a little farther down the tracks. Heaven forbid we actually blame financiers and politicians for it…

  11. Luciano says:

    When it was warm CO2 caused global warming now that we’re entering into a little ice age they flip flop and claim that CO2is causing global cooling. They must think that in the last 60 years they have lowered the IQ down to the point that the population will believe any lie they spout! Either way they deny us cheap energy that would help people have a better chance at survival!

  12. AndrewS says:

    hahaha! take that AL Gore, James Hansen, et. al.

  13. Gordon Pratt says:

    If this report is any indication the “climate change” industry does not intend to go quietly into the night.

    They will admit they said ‘warming’ when they should have said ‘cooling.’

    Otherwise it’s full speed ahead, saving the planet by sacrificing the people.

  14. Craig Read says:

    Co2 is a coolant – high school science teaches this. The Earth is NOT a greenhouse – it is a convection system. On Venus the atmosphere is 80% Co2 and the temp 1000 F – yet even on Venus Co2 is cooling the atmosphere over time even at that metal melting temperature as the new planet begins itself to cool off [Venus was a recent comet]. Co2 is 3/100 of 1 % of the earth’s atmosphere. Its effect is minimal within a complicated convection system of 1 million variables. It is well known to those who have a rudimentary understanding of science, that it is indeed a cooling agent – used for eg. in human appliances as such.

  15. Neil Love says:

    Scientifically speaking it is the temperature of the atmosphere that dictates how much water and carbondioxide that the atmosphere will be able to hold in solution. As the temperature of the atmosphere goes up so the level of CO2 and H2O held in solution by the air will go up too. As the temperature of the atmosphere goes down so the level of CO2 and H2O held in solution by the air will go down too. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is of very little influence with regard to the retaining or discharging of solar energy. Water in the atmosphere is one hundred times more influencial than is CO2 with regard to retaining and discharging of solar energy. The most absorbent medium for retention and discharge of solar energy is the ocean and the ground. Certain rocks and materials are more absorbent whilst others are more reflective. Snow and Ice although actually water nevertheless reflect all the solar energy back into space. Where as liquid water in the oceans reflects very little and absorbs all of the solar energy. The oceans are blue only because the ocean surface is reflecting the colour of the atmosphere of Nitrogen above it. In actuality the oceans are in reality black. The atmosphere of the Earth is 85% Nitrogen.

  16. Juergen says:

    Does CO2 do anything? Why would one 100 ppm increase do a 10 degree Celsius change and another 100 ppm do only a 1 degree Celsius change?

    I’m talking about the Vostok 420.000 year graph https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg that shows a CO2 increase from from about 180 ppm to about 280 ppm and the temperature increase form about -8 degree Celsius to about +2 degree Celsius.

    The other one is the so called human caused warming of about 1 degree Celsius with a CO2 change from about 280 ppm CO2 to about 380 ppm CO2.

    This just proofs to me that CO2 is not in control. CO2 is controlled.

    For argument sake.
    If a temperature change of 10 degree Celsius creates a 100 ppm CO2 change, then a 1 degree Celsius change would create a 10 ppm CO2 change.
    What’s about the missing 90 ppm CO2 in the industrial time? These 90 ppm CO2 are release by humans!

  17. reezeh says:

    Strange that this article basically says what you said in a roundabout way in Not By Fire…
    You said an upsurge in volcanic activity precedes glacials. Now am I right here: don’t volcanoes chuck out CO2 in huge amounts?

  18. Neil Love says:

    The astronomers at the Polkovo Astronomical Observatory in Leningrad in Russia have said that it is the fewer sunspots on the sun that is causing the weather to become colder. When there are fewer sunspots the amount of Cosmic Ray Energy reaching into the Solar System goes up. Which then brings about greater amount of clouds and mist and fogs which then block out sunlight. This MINI ICE AGE occurred before for the same reasons some three hundred years ago between 1645 and 1715. They refer to it as the MAUNDER MINIMUM. The new mini ice age predicted by the Polkovo Observatory is going to last two hundred years. We are already in the first year of it right now. During the Maunder Minimum period temperatures in London were often even as low as minus 100*C below zero. Sounds incredable, but it is true. The modern city of London is very different. We are simply not going to be able to survive such bitter cold this time around. No water. All the pipes will be frozen. No sewage. All the sewage system will be frozen. No gas. Gas pipes freeze and the gas will leak so much that the authority will simply turn it all off. No electricity. As pylons and cables freeze they suffer crystalization which means cables snap and pylons will come down. No transport. Snow and ice will make all our motor transportation completely breakdown. No sea ports. All the sea ports will be frozen in by sea ice. No air travel. Airports will not be able to fly in or out due to ice on the wings. No agriculture. All the land will become perma-frosted to a depth of at least one meter, but even to a depth greater than that. This return of the perma-frost is already beginning. Already we in the British Isles have lost near to 50,000 live stock due to extended winter blizzard conditions this year. In the same way in which the Vikings of the European North were able to settle in “Greenland” during a warm period, but then had to withdraw from “Greenland” when the cold period returned, now I suspect that the whole of Europe will have to be evacuated too. The whole of North America too. This is a very serious and extremely grave situation arising. Once it was believed that Ice Ages came in gradually over centuries. However the most up to date research under taken in Ireland is revealling that in fact Ice Ages come in with full force with in a matter of less than one year. Did you know that the name LONDON is the root of the Romanised LONDINIUM, but the roots of the name are actually going back a very longer time. I discovered that LONDON is originating in LongDong in Mandarin Chinese meaning “the most bitterest coldest depth of the winter”. I suspect that the Neanderthal population, DNA of which is in our body, thus my red beard and hair, that populated these parts during the last Ice Age, surviving as the Inuit of Greenland do even still to this day, were using a prehistoric form of Chinese calligraphic script called FanTaXi. 30,000 years ago life was very hard.

  19. Weather says:

    And comets are just snowballs.

  20. Neil Love says:

    CarbonDioxide CO2 is actually heavier than water H2O. Water goes down and CarbonDioxide even more so goes down. So to suggest that there are CO2 molecules floating about in the upper atmsphere is just not science. The Earths atmosphere is one thing at sea level, and something very different as we ascend up into space. At sea level the concentration of CO2 is at its highest level. 85% of the lower atmosphere is actually Nitrogen. Which is why we see a blue sky. A considerable amount of water is in the lower atmosphere. Once we are into the stratosphere the composition of the atmosphere begins to change. In the stratosphere the little amount oxygen that is there is energized into being tri-atomic molecules of oxygen called OZONE. At that altitude there is zero water, and zero carbondioxide, and very little oxygen. In the upper stratosphere the nitrogen levels fall and we begin to see increase in the amount of hydrogen and helium floating above the nitrogen layers below. Thus we see red at evening sunsets and morning sunrise due to hydrogen and helium being red in colour. Contrasting with the blue colour of the nitrogen below. So in my opinion the NASA report is utter complete counter intelligence crap, to be believed by the so called ignorant masses, but seen for what it really is by the like of you and I who recieved a good education.

    • Margot T. says:

      Neil, so many errors – it’s hard to know where to start.
      I’ll just list a few:
      CO2 is well-mixed up to 90km, *well* beyond the Stratosphere.
      O2 is well-mixed up to 110km.
      Nitrogen is well-mixed throughout.
      There is *more* H2O in the stratosphere than there is at 20km altitude, and the amount of H2O is similar well above the stratosphere.
      Your explanation for red sunsets is ludicrous.

  21. Neil Love says:

    The report coming out from NASA about “CarbonDioxide molecules in the upper atmosphere” reminds me about how NASA killed three of its astronauts in Apollo One, on the launch pad, simply by putting pure oxygen, nothing else, into the capsule. They used to believe that the atmosphere is composed of pure oxygen ? Needless to say the astronauts and everything else inside the capsule simply caught on fire. Oxydization. So I think that NASA are not really very clever when it comes to matters to do with atmospherics. Anyway I for one do not accept that NASA put men on the moon, and I refuse to accept that the rovers are actually on Mars.

    • George W H says:

      Neil, the astronauts were breathing 100% oxygen because that was the procedure. saturate the body with oxygen to ensure that the cells were taken care of during the extreme acceleration. however, at 100% oxygen levels, virtually anything can / will burn. as for your other contentions regarding the moon & Mars …. well, I guess there will always be luddites.

    • BK says:

      I know it’s a free country, but I wish Robert wouldn’t allow ignorant and/or simple minded fools to comment on this site…

  22. Robert Stom says:

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.”

    ― W.C. Fields

  23. TD says:

    “Ain’t science great? First they “prove” that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Now they “prove” that it cools the atmosphere.”

    This is unprecedented!

    And clearly the science is settled!

  24. chillguy33 says:

    The effects of carbon dioxide are negligible in comparison to the much larger effects driven by the sun. Controlling carbon dioxide is the second or possibly third greatest fraud ever perpetrated. Obviously, there is no benefit in attempting to control carbon dioxide.

  25. prestigio says:

    and here I always thought
    it caused multiple orgasm
    in down’s syndrome dwarfs

  26. jbird says:

    Principia’s summary on this research says that there is no climate change from CO2:

    “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.”

    I think it’s interesting that this study has been released by NASA almost immediately after Hansen has retired. Did he have that much political influence? Was everyone at NASA really that intimidated by this guy? I suspect Hansen has had a lot of friends in influential places. How else could he have kept his job after his arrests and his use of his position at NASA to promote his political agenda?

    Maybe NASA will now return to real science.

  27. KuhnKat says:

    Yuh think we DENIERS will be getting any apologies anytime soon???

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  28. Ronald says:

    Yes thats the problem whit CO2 the effect is so small that it can even be cooling the earht in stad of warming it.

  29. Marcus says:

    Ahhhh! Heats the Earth in one area and cools it in another. Obviously, the net temperature increase is ZERO!
    All the more reason to write/call our representatives to have the EPA stripped of their regulation of “Greenhouse Gasses”.

    see:Group wants U.S. SC to review its challenge to EPA’s greenhouse gas finding

    http://legalnewsline.com/news/federal-government/240398-group-wants-u-s-sc-to-review-its-challenge-to-epas-greenhouse-gas-finding

  30. Willem Jan Goossen says:

    My, my, First the change Global Warming into Climate Change. Then they find Co2 doesn’t warm the planet (never mind the real cause) but act as an cooler (never that it was getting warmer when we humans were busy cooling the planet). Let me guess I will have to pay a lot of New Taxes to save the World from the Next Ice Age, because I’am so busy keeping the fire going to keep from freezing to death (these causing the Ice Age), never mind the fact how we will enough food to feed everybody. Now we must wait till Main Stream Media pick up this story.

  31. eco-geek says:

    Actually its not that much cooling but as a coolist such an additional cooling is interesting to hear about.

    Stay cool!

  32. Joe Lalonde says:

    Robert,

    Take out your umbrella, the bull crap is still flying.

    Question?
    Is not CO2 heavier than O2, since it has an extra molecule hanging off of it?
    So how could it be high in the atmosphere to generate AGW/COOLING?

  33. Jon Jermey says:

    Has anyone told James Hansen?

    • Bill says:

      James Hansen only talks to God, and according to him (Hansen)…God gave him his messanic complex to bestow the ‘truth’ to we, mere mortals.

  34. Brent Walker says:

    I find it hard to believe that only the carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide in the Thermosphere are involved. The Thermosphere contains so little air that it would only form a layer a few centimeters thick (maybe even 1 cm) at ground level. Therefore the CO2 and NO at lower levels of the atmosphere must also be involved. If it also involves these molecules in the Stratosphere then this would help explain why stratospheric volcanic eruptions (like Pinatubo) cause global cooling for a few years.

  35. Wayne D says:

    Could this help to kill the GW myth, or do most warmest just ignore articles like this?

  36. I don’t know if I like this news. If they were rethinking the supplementary taxes we pay for CO2 because it is getting warmer, herewith they even have a better argument to let us pay for CO2 emissions, because it is getting colder.

  37. Steven Rowlandson says:

    The real problems with NASA’s theory is that CO2 is a heavy gas that is unlikely to be found in significant concentrations in the upper atmosphere.
    I would think that if gas samples at different altitudes were taken you would find variations in gas composition, pressure and density.
    Also there is the effects of Astrophysical and geophysical factors like axial tilt, size and shape of orbits , cosmic rays, variations in magnetic fields, sun spot activity, volcanism and oceanic circulation. It is all a complex system with regular cycles. Next to that the variations in CO2 levels is insignificant as an agent of climate change. The real problem is neo neanderthals who wish to cull and tax the humans in order to enrich themselves and to save bankrupt institutions.

  38. AFPhys says:

    LOL

    I can’t wait to hear more about this one!

  39. How’d that song go? Kick us when we’re up. Kick us when we’re down. Or something like that.

  40. lapsed_physicist says:

    hi Robert,

    actually,

    1. I didn’t see the article as a fund-raiser for the AGW crowd,
    2. I saw it as a statement of the blindingly obvious Physics of the situation.

    Physicists often think of the very strange physical systems they deal in terms of
    every day situations they are familiar with. this is often good within certain
    limits, and allows them to make conjectures about the system under study. then
    they go back to Experiment, and weird mathematical modeling.

    we’ve been invited to think of CO2 as a “blanket”, so let’s work with that a bit.

    placing a blanket between your body at 100 F and the night sky at < 100 F will keep
    you warm by reflecting some of your generated heat back to yourself. all good.

    placing that same blanket between the earth's surface [mean surface temp 60 F] and the
    sun [mean surface temp 10,000 F] will do the SAME thing — reflect some of the sun's
    generated heat back to itself.

    you can read this same Physics rebuttal to AGW by Physicists opposed to AGW theory
    all over the web — it's OBVIOUS!!!!!

    my take is similar to "jbird" — Dr. Hansen's influence is declining at NASA,
    and he is no longer able to suppress dissenting views.

    "ding dong, the wicked witch is dead" — a little ad hominem for my taste,
    but what's good for the goose, may be good for the gander also.

    Robert, thanks for all you do,

    -LP

    • Ilma says:

      LP, only problem with your theory is that all the blanket does is reduce convective cooling, it doesn’t ‘reflect radiation’. There’s a big difference between the two, and this is the common misconception about the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere isn’t a blanket (and its not like a greenhouse either).

      • lapsed_physicist says:

        hi Ilma,

        1. I REALLY like that your actively questioning things

        2. I REALLY like that you’re free on Robert’s site to question anybody on anything.

        sadly, our political classes have made this topic worth understanding in some detail, so I will expand on my earlier remarks:

        heat flow is the transfer of translational, rotational, and vibrational kinetic energy via 3 mechanisms:

        1.Conduction
        2.Convection
        3.Radiation

        a blanket in every day life impedes heat flow by:

        1.Conduction: the blanket and filler are relatively poor conductors of heat. two air pockets of interest are created: one between your body and the blanket; and another inside the blanket itself. air is a relatively poor conductor of heat, so this is quite effective at impeding conductive heat flow.

        2.Convection: the blanket physically impedes the flow of air required for convection to take place.

        3.Radiation: the fibers in the blanket absorb and reflect radiation in the IR band.

        an Engineering Physics buddy of mine did some consulting for a nationally known camping supplier / manufacturer.

        it was a real surprise of his research that the manufacturer had heuristically hit upon the ideal fiber mix to maximally reflect heat in their sleeping bags.

        since we discussed his project a few times over some cold beverages, I’m quite familiar with the problem, and have a minor emotional attachment to it.

        you can experiment with this:

        build a roaring fire — camp-fire, in your fire-place, whatever.

        place a blanket between yourself and the fire.

        you will find that, indeed the blanket is quite an efficient reflector of heat because it reduces the radiant heat reaching your body — you would never do this if you wanted to warm up; you would very likely do something like this if you were getting too hot by your fireplace.

        the standard GW claim is that by placing a blanket between you and the fire [or sun] will cause you to over-heat.

        what this NASA article is pointing out [OBVIOUSLY] is that while there is indeed, an effect of the blanket reflecting heat back to you, the more important, or DOMINANT effect is the blanket restricting the much larger heat-flow from the fire to you.

        in the astronomical case of “green-house” gases affecting the earth’s temperature, there are 3 possible mechanisms for the transfer of heat:

        1.Conduction: possible in theory with the “solar wind” but the density of the solar wind is so low, it’s negligible and we don’t talk about it.
        2.Convection: impossible because the much hotter solar wind is ABOVE the cooler AGW gases in the atmosphere, so we don’t talk about it
        3.Radiation: this is the only possible mechanism so that’s what we talk about. the global warmers insist the radiation back to the earth will cook us sooner rather than later. the NASA article argues [similarly to the blanket and the fire-place] that the more important effect is the impedance of the Sun’s heat reaching the earth.

        I agree with the NASA article, but don’t see it as a “fund raiser”.

        DEFINITELY reply back with any disagreements you have.

        Nullius in Verba — on the word of no one

        -LP

        • lapsed_physicist says:

          P.S. you can conduct a second experiment: placing a blanket from your closet at home between you and the sun in the sky.

          see whether it’s warmer with the blanket between you and the sun or not.

          this may make the point more clearly.

          -LP

  41. marg says:

    In Australia, contrary to common sense we are still being taught it is global warming. There’s an article on news.com telling us that late 20th cent. Was the warmest it has been for the1400 years. Who needs comedy, just following our media is amusing.
    Came out of nature geoscience article.

  42. Steve Hollar says:

    I feel so vindicated. I’ve been, like Robert, trying to educate people about global warming for decades. Liberals just refuse to listen. I wonder how they are going to twist this one?

  43. Steven Rowlandson says:

    Craig Read on Venus the atmospheric pressure is approximately 90 times earths atmosphere or so they say. That means it is very dense and would tend to retain heat from the sun. As far as atmospheres go it must be a real chemical soup held in place by a strong magnetic field.

    • Margot T. says:

      Er….Venus is in fact unusual in that it has no intrinsic magnetic field.
      You would do better to learn some physics before imagining you are competent to comment on it.

  44. Bob Knows says:

    NASA has lost ALL credibility after decades of fraud, lies, and bogus bovine fertilizer. Nothing they report has any credibility. Not only are they compulsive liars, they are so STUPID they wouldn’t know a greenhouse from a manure spreader.

  45. Bob Knows says:

    The left wing “solution” will be to TAX carbon emissions to prevent “the coming Ice Age.” No matter what bogus lies they tell, the “solution” is always MORE TAXES. They can POUND SAND!

  46. concerned citizen says:

    If a u-turn of this magnitude is allowed to occur, we are finished.
    If they try to claim that CO2 causes cooling, after 20 years of claiming it causes warming, and the media go along with it and there is no “you got it wrong last time, there’s no way we’re believing you again”, the CO2 laws will carry on and there’ll be no heat for the poor as the weather worsens. This will be far worse than a warming planet with insufficient air conditioning.

    “CO2 causes cooling” must be challenged even more thoroughly than “CO2 causes warming”.

  47. qfrealist says:

    NASA havent heard there no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’ in the framework of physics. period..

  48. JimJim says:

    I just love the part about where James Russel talks about ‘molecules trying as hard as they can …’

    Oh lovely little molecules with all their strength, intelligence and morality striving to make life better for us all. Blessed be the molecules.

    Tonite I’ll sleep peacefully.

  49. F. Guimaraes says:

    I believe they’re saying the truth this time because at the beginning of the previous ice ages the CO2 levels were also very high, caused by the previous warming during the corresponding interglacials.
    The warming is caused by the Sun and increases the CO2 levels, and the CO2 (and other GHGs) works to counteract the increasing heat by radiating it to outer space.
    If we add to this process a sudden reversal of the intensity of solar radiations, as we’re having now in comparison with the last century trend, the natural consequence would be a strong abrupt cooling and the possible onset of a new ice age.

  50. Timothy Dunlap says:

    AGW believers think like this: 95% of the energy was lost to outer space, but 5% was “trapped.”

    They imagine the warmth of the atmosphere is “trapped” heat.

    They imagine that any energy retained in the atmosphere will transfer to the land and sea, until we are boiled and cooked.

    The reality is, the atmosphere loses its heat rapidly, from every level, to outer space.

    • Margot T. says:

      Timothy, you appear to have misunderstood the process involved in the theory of greenhouse gases.
      Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with the atmosphere trapping heat from coronal mass ejections.

  51. It is amazing to witness how much effort is put into microanalyzing the flea (CO2) on the elephant’s ass, while so little effort is put into analyzing the elephant (planetary mechanics) in the room.

  52. Here is something related and very intetesting regarding the atmoshere and clouds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

    Look for the cloud chamber in their lab early on in the film.

    Its cosmic.


Hit Counter provided by seo company