Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
A recent NASA

climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

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. 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.

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]


http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4288&mn=121379&am...




t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
...new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

Indeed. Alarmists are obsessed with CO2 blocking longwave radiation from leaving the planet and ignore the fact that the same CO2 is now blocking longwave solar radiation from coming in! In other words this knife cuts both ways.

To add insult to injury they are assuming that the radiation going out is greater than the solar radiation coming in and that this is the cause of global warming! This they assume without data, without experiment and without proof.

From a referenced link in the OP - Principia Scientific:

The origin of a failure to comprehend the problem may go back to the mantra of the Green movement of “shortwave in, long wave out”. This completely misrepresents the actual situation whereby the Sun’s spectrum is a continuum covering a large range of wavelengths and includes within it the range of emissions from the Earth.To conclude, the correlation of increasing Earth temperature with increasing CO2 concentration (between circa 1975-1998) was not a causal but a chance statistic.

http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/297-shock-news-g...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4

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.

...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]


Huh. So now you're questioning basic radiative physics?

Seriously, just stop. You might as well be saying that the Earth is flat. The basics of the greenhouse effect are really that well-established.

~w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Indeed. Alarmists are obsessed with CO2 blocking longwave radiation from leaving the planet and ignore the fact that the same CO2 is now blocking longwave solar radiation from coming in! In other words this knife cuts both ways.

No... no one ignored that. The facts are that the Earth receives far more shortwave in than longwave, so the fact that we're blocking more of the incoming IR is relatively unimportant. Only a small % of the incoming energy is in the IR range, while nearly all of the outgoing energy is in that range.

To add insult to injury they are assuming that the radiation going out is greater than the solar radiation coming in and that this is the cause of global warming! This they assume without data, without experiment and without proof.

Nope. That's the exact opposite of what we're saying. The radiation going out is less than the radiation coming in; that's the source of the warming.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Uh.. Telegraph... not that I wanted to answer anything you ever post, but did it not occur to you OR the complete morons posting this rubbish you repeat here, that the outward radiation has to be the SAME as the inward radiation or the planet is gaining energy, and therefore heating up?

Seriously.

That outward radiation is a function of the temperature of the planet.

When the temperature of the planet has increased enough for it to EQUAL the inbound radiation the temperature will stop rising.

Moreover, the SABER data relates to a solar storm, and is a transient effect.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22...

In other words, the article you cite isn't just wrong, it is wrong about what it is wrong about. It is so wrong that if its principle assertions were corrected it would STILL be wrong.

This is one of the most absurd piece of rubbish I've seen on this board in a long time, Ajax notwithstanding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The facts are that the Earth receives far more shortwave in than longwave, so the fact that we're blocking more of the incoming IR is relatively unimportant.

You are ignoring what happens to the solar shortwave once it enters the atmosphere. Solar shortwave is absorbed by the atmosphere and it is re emitted as longwave - hint: there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere. So, again, Alarmists are obsessed with CO2 blocking longwave radiation from leaving the planet and ignore the fact that the same CO2 is now blocking longwave solar radiation from coming in! In other words this knife cuts both ways.


The radiation going out is less than the radiation coming in

No kidding, is that why the oceans are boiling? And by the way, where is the warming for the last 20 years and why are we cooling for the last 12?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
This entire thread is a prime example of the old maxim about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Let me go through this mishmash of pseudoscience piece-by-piece. But before I start, be aware that this "research article" came from "Principia Scientific International". Thsi isn't a real professional organization -- it appears to exist solely to discredit the idea that greenhouse gases warm the earth. Its first Chair was Tim Ball, who had a pivotal role in establishing PSI.

Now to the science ...
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.

This statement is PSI's spin. And what exactly are these "harmful solar rays"?

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.

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.

This statement describing SABER is correct, although I haven't confirmed the energy values quoted. There is no contradiction between the paragraph above and greenhouse theory. The "harmful solar rays" being referred to are high-energy electrons from the solar wind. These electrons *never* reach the Earth's surface, whether the solar wind is active or not. Electrons are charged particles and they are mostly deflected away from the Earth by the Earth's magnetic field. A small number get trapped in the Earth's magnetic field and spiral down toward the Earth's magnetic poles. They end up exciting oxygen and nitrogen molecules high in the upper atmosphere (the very tenuous mesosphere), which causes the aurora. These electrons never reach the earth's surface or into the denser parts of the atmosphere responsible for weather. The energy contribution to the heating of the Earth by this "leakage" from the solar wind is negligible. Think about it! -- do you really believe that the aurora are a significant source of heating, enough to significantly affect the Earth's energy balance? Have you ever spent a winter in the Yukon?

The way the aurora forms is simple: solar wind electrons collide with atoms in the Earth's atmosphere and in doing so occasionally excite one of these atoms to an excited energy level or state. Atoms or molecules don't like to stay in an excited state for long, and try to get rid of this excitation energy anyway possible. Typically then atoms/molecules will decay to a lower state be emitting a photon, or equivalently, by radiating a quantum of light energy. It turns out that the dominant gases in the Earth's atmosphere (oxygen & nitrogen) can not easily do this (for reasons of symmetry). So these molecules interact extremely weakly and reluctantly with optical radiation (and a good thing too or the atmosphere would be completely opaque to solar radiation!). Most of these excited oxygen and nitrogen molecules eventually collide with other molecules and redistribute their excess energy -- in radiative transfer we say that the photons that originally excited these molecules are "thermalized", which means they are destroyed and their energy goes into heating the gas. A few oxygen and nitrogen do manage to radiate away their energy by means of extremely low-probability radiative decays called forbidden transitions. It is these rare decays that cause the aurora borealis (or australis), with their characteristic ghostly green (forbidden nitrogen decays) and/or red (forbidden oxygen decays) colors.

But there are a few molecules that can efficiently radiate away their excitation energy -- these are heteronuclear molecules that do not have the symmetry of molecular oxygen and nitrogen. One of the most abundant is these species is CO2, and that is why it is considered a coolant in this context (and the context is really important here). CO2 absorbs energetic electrons which would otherwise warm the far upper atmosphere (nothing to do with weather) and efficiently radiates this energy away to space. CO2 molecules do not block incoming solar radiation (except for a little bit in the infrared). Instead these CO2 molecules are blocking energetic electrons from the solar wind and reradiating that energy back to space.

I repeat -- there is no contradiction with greenhouse gas theory here. The same CO2 molecules, which interact so readily with infrared radiation (this is the very definition of a greenhouse gas = an infrared active gas) result in a completely opaque atmosphere in the CO2 infrared band in the dense lower atmosphere (troposphere), where essentially all weather occurs. In this context, these CO2 molecules hinder the transport of energy, which here is mainly flowing from the warm surface of the Earth out to space. The result is that the surface of the Earth warms until the larger temperature gradient is able to "force" enough radiation through the opaque CO2 (and water) bands and bring this outgoing longwave (infrared) energy into balance with solar (light or shortwave) radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface.

These concepts are not really hard to understand but there is a lot of understorey to learn first, and that is where people who really want to comment meaningfully on these processes really need to learn some physics. Unfortunately that is work, and not particularly rewarding work, and most people don't have the time or inclination to put in the necessary work to become "fluent" in basic physics.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
These concepts are not really hard to understand but there is a lot of understorey to learn first, and that is where people who really want to comment meaningfully on these processes really need to learn some physics. Unfortunately that is work, and not particularly rewarding work, and most people don't have the time or inclination to put in the necessary work to become "fluent" in basic physics.

Phil


That was so nicely said - 'don't have the...inclination' which actually translates to people on these boards who are not scientists and/or have an agenda to discredit climate science. They don't want to know the truth or rely on facts.

Thanks for your work on this post. I'm afraid it is probably lost on most of the deniers here. They'll rely on sources like PSI over and over.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
This statement is PSI's spin. And what exactly are these "harmful solar rays"?

UV Radiation. And UV Radiation causes skin cancer which means it is harmful - look it up.


The "harmful solar rays" being referred to are high-energy electrons from the solar wind. These electrons *never* reach the Earth's surface, whether the solar wind is active or not.

No. UV radiation from the sun is not electrons. UV radiation is very energetic shortwave radiation.


Think about it! -- do you really believe that the aurora are a significant source of heating...

UV radiation is not the aurora.


The way the aurora forms is simple: solar wind electrons collide with atoms in the Earth's atmosphere and in doing so occasionally excite one of these atoms to an excited energy level or state...

Nice, but who cares? Nobody is talking about electrons here or the aurora.


CO2 molecules do not block incoming solar radiation (except for a little bit in the infrared)

A little bit? 50% of solar radiation is infrared, what are you talking about?

And if CO2 is blocking infrared radiation from leaving the ground what makes you think that the same CO2 is not blocking infrared from reaching the ground?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
A little bit? 50% of solar radiation is infrared, what are you talking about?

And if CO2 is blocking infrared radiation from leaving the ground what makes you think that the same CO2 is not blocking infrared from reaching the ground?


The infrared portion of the spectrum covers a lot of ground. There is little overlap between the infrared wavelengths in incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. CO2 mostly absorbs in the region with large outgoing radiation, and absorbs very little in the infrared region of incoming solar radiation.

Global warming art has a nice figure:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transm...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
This statement is PSI's spin. And what exactly are these "harmful solar rays"?

UV Radiation. And UV Radiation causes skin cancer which means it is harmful - look it up.

Nope. CO2 does not block UV rays, so that's clearly wrong. And if you actually look at the NASA work that you're referencing here, they'll also tell you that they're talking about electrons/ions coming from solar flares.. not UV rays.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22...


Nice, but who cares? Nobody is talking about electrons here or the aurora.

If you're going to post links, it might do you good to actually read the source material.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope. CO2 does not block UV rays, so that's clearly wrong.

I didn't say that.

A link in the OP stated 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. "


And if you actually look at the NASA work that you're referencing here,

I did not reference NASA.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
The "harmful solar rays" being referred to are high-energy electrons from the solar wind. These electrons *never* reach the Earth's surface, whether the solar wind is active or not.

Ajax:
No. UV radiation from the sun is not electrons. UV radiation is very energetic shortwave radiation.


I was actually referring to telegraph's original post. His comments come from an InvestorVillage post that links to article #163 on PSI:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-...
which is about this NASA release:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/saber-solars...
This article describes the heating of the upper atmosphere by a large flare (a coronal mass ejection). These flares heat the atmosphere mainly from the absorption of charged particles (mainly electrons) from the solar wind. This is the same process that causes the aurora, which is why I mentioned it in my post. The CO2 (and NO) emission referred to here is from these gases in the upper atmosphere being heated by energetic electrons from the solar wind (as enhanced by the solar flare). If you had infrared-sensitive eyes (and you were above the lower atmosphere), this emission will look very similar to that of the aurora. This upper atmosphere heating is not caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun, although the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth does increase with solar activity.

On the other hand, Ajax is referring to a different PSI post:
http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/297-shock-news-g...
about CO2 absorbing more incoming solar radiation than outgoing emission from the Earth:
Indeed. Alarmists are obsessed with CO2 blocking longwave radiation from leaving the planet and ignore the fact that the same CO2 is now blocking longwave solar radiation from coming in! In other words this knife cuts both ways.

This is a completely separate issue because now we are talking about CO2 in the lower atmosphere (mainly in the troposphere). It isn't true, either. From that PSI article:
While we have been told that 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous surface global warming, climate scientists have failed to tell us that they also absorbs radiation from the Sun in the upper atmosphere thereby protecting the Earth in a similar fashion to the protection given by ozone.For the case of absorption by CO2, the most prominent spectral line is at a wavelength of 4.3 microns.

Applying Planck's Law this gives us a spectral radiance of no more than 0.73 Watts per (steradian metre squared) per micron. This is for an Earth emitting at a temperature of 288 degrees Kelvin, dependent on the emissivity at the time. For the incoming Sun's spectral radiance at the Earth's orbit, the figure is 2.24 W/(sr m^2)/micron for a Sun temperature of 5780 degrees Kelvin.

These numbers mean that at least THREE TIMES as much heat is radiated back into space by CO2 in the upper atmosphere as is 'back-radiated' to the Earth's surface at this wavelength.

Clearly, absorption and re-radiation of the sunshine in the upper atmosphere at this wavelength cools the Earth and is going to cause additional cooling as the concentration of CO2 increases.


I haven't gone back and checked these numbers but they are probably right -- as far as this argument goes. The problem here is that the important CO2 band blocking thermal emission from the Earth is not the one at 4.3 microns mentioned in the PSI article, but the 15 micron band. Here the amount of absorbed solar radiation is very small, but the radiation form the Earth's surface is large. The argument made by the PSI article (and Ajax) is false. Most of the energy from the sun is contained between 300 nm and 4 microns, and most of that reaches the Earth. Outgoing radiation from the Earth mostly lies between 4 and 40 microns (so there is almost no overlap with the incident solar spectrum), and most of this is absorbed to some degree by the Earth's atmosphere. The end result -- little incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, but a large fraction of outgoing thermal emission from the Earth is absorbed, and this hinders the radiative cooling of the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect.

Spinning already posted this link to globalwarmingart.com, but it's so useful that I'll post it again here:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transm...
It shows immediately that there is little overlap between the solar spectrum and thermal emission from the Earth. It also shows where the important molecular bands are in the infrared. This figure says it all.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Spinning already posted this link to globalwarmingart.com, but it's so useful that I'll post it again here:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transm......
It shows immediately that there is little overlap between the solar spectrum and thermal emission from the Earth. It also shows where the important molecular bands are in the infrared. This figure says it all.


Science has a librul bias.

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement