Article Image

IPFS News Link • Climate Change

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools 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.

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

First printing, December 1992

Fallen Angels, by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn

"Fallen Angels" is sold as science fiction, but one could quibble with that: while the book is clearly fiction, the science is real.

Item: Although the Phoenix spaceship doesn't exist yet, it or something like it could be built today (1992) for between $50 and $200 million dollars.

Once built, Phoenix would operate the way airplanes do. It takes about the same amount of fuel to fly a pound from the United States to Australia as it does to put that pound in orbit. Airlines operate at about three times fuel costs, including depreciation on the aircraft. Phoenix wouldn't run much more. The operational costs of any system depend on how much you use, it but given the low-cost regime Phoenix works in, it should be used a lot.

Of course airlines have about one hundred fifteen employees per airplane; but most airlines need to sell tickets. The SR-71 program (which didn't) ran with about forty employees per airplane. NASA, with four spacecraft, has over twenty thousand people employed to support shuttle operations. This may explain why Phoenix, which wouldn't need more than fifty people to operate, would charge less than one percent of what NASA charges to put cargo in orbit.

Item: Despite all the talk of global warming, there is just as much scientific evidence for the coming Ice Age. Experiments have failed to detect solar neutrinos in the quantities expected, and astronomers tell us that we are going into a new period of minimum solar activity. The last such prolonged period was known as the "Maunder Minimum," and coincided with what has come to be known as "The Little Ice Age." Moreover, archaeological evidence shows that in the last Ice Age, Britain went from a climate a bit warmer than it enjoys now to being under sheet glaciers in considerably less than a century.

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

If you Google "global cooling," you find a lot of evidence that any supposed global warming has probably reversed itself... or never existed at all.

This article brings up the question of which direction CO2 reflects the heat most. Does CO2 reflect heat from space back into space, more than it reflects the heat trying to escape from earth back to the earth?

The article focuses on heat from space being reflected back into space. It also suggests that there are no real studies that show that earth heat trying to escape into space is reflected back to earth.

So, what is the truth? Who knows? Something that a person might do is consider the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Look it up at Also, Google it. Seems to me that outside of a bunch of nukes being set off, we have a long way to go to match the way nature controls climate change.

Personally, I would say that we still have far too little understanding of climate change to make a truly educated guess as to which direction we are headed, global warming or global cooling... if either.

Personally, I believe all the fuss is just a method some one-world-government people are making to try to panic people into subservience.

Personally, if there is global warming, the potential benefits of it are not being looked at. Greenhouse effect might be something far more beneficial than detrimental.

Comment by GrandPoobah
Entered on:

I am reminded of this :">cartoon 

I can not believe that some people are that ignorant of the basic science behind how CO2 heats the atmosphere.   And yes, the authors of this paper are that ignorant and stupid, completely mis-interpretating what the NASA paper says.   Note that NASA supports and backs the science behind global warming.


So, what the authors have done is typical of sociopathic liars with an axe to grind.  They cherry pick data that they do not understand and then argue from authority