Certain Facts About The Scientific Incompetence Of NASA Are Not In Dispute

From The NASA web site

Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

This is complete nonsense. If the absorption of relevant wavelengths is already saturated, there is no mechanism for the Earth to warm in response to “increased levels of greenhouse gases”

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

Climate Change: Evidence

This is also complete nonsense. Ice cores show that CO2 levels respond to changes in ocean temperatures. They lag temperature by about 800 years.

The only thing that is not in dispute is that these people are incompetent scientists.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Certain Facts About The Scientific Incompetence Of NASA Are Not In Dispute

  1. omanuel says:

    I suggest a similar inventory of DARPA’s Information Awareness Office:


    Something is seriously wrong at the top when misinformation is sold to the public as consensus, “settled science.”

  2. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    What else can you say … 🙁

  3. Andy Oz says:

    “Incompetent scientists” maybe.
    But they are very clever political bureaucrats and snake oil salesmen.

  4. Andy Oz says:

    Bloody autospell causing problems with posts here

  5. omanuel says:

    Propaganda competence simply appears as scientific incompetence.

  6. geran says:

    “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century…”
    They might want to move up to the “real science” of the 21st century. Saying CO2 can “trap heat” is like saying the copper cord to your lamp can “trap electrons”. Bad science.

    • Exactly. And they think that by being demonstrated long ago makes it more true.

      Phlogiston was demonstrated to be the source of fire in the 18th century. Fire was demonstrated to be one of the 4 elements in the 4th century BC.

  7. Eric Simpson says:

    Joe Bastardi makes a good point about CO2:

    In the last 100 years, the amount of CO2 in the air has increased from three molecules per 10,000 molecules of air, to four molecules out of 10,000 molecules of air.

    Which means we are being asked to believe the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of air in the last 100 years is causing catastrophic climate change that threatens mankind.

    • Exactly. In an atmosphere which can have up to 400 molecules of water vapor out of 10,000

    • gregole says:

      If that tiny mole fraction of gas is doing anything at all on a planetary macro-level, we certainly do not have any means of measuring the effect – it is off the scale minute compared to the water-vapor cycle and the oceans of water covering 70% of the planet. One molecule out of 10,000 just isn’t going to get the job done.

  8. 1957chev says:

    Here is a lighthearted video, about climate deniers and alarmists. Very funny! https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vx-t9k7epIk

  9. geran says:

    Here’s the kind of science NASA does not talk about:

    Consider a flat surface that is also an ideal absorber/emitter (black body). Now, allow the flat surface to receive perpendicular radiation so that it receives the same as Earth, after albedo. That value being 956 Watts/sq.meter.

    In this straight-forward thought experiment, we can use the basic Stefan-Boltzmann Law relating photon flux (S) to temperature (T). (Remember, we have already accounted for atmosphere.)

    S = (alpha) * T^4

    Using the $10 TI calculator, we get a temperature of the flat surface of 361K (88ºC, 190ºF)

    In this example, there is no atmosphere, no CO2, no humans, no SUV’s. Yet, at equilibrium, the flat surface reaches a temperature of 88ºC/190ºF.

    Now, back to Earth, which has an average (considered “equilibrium”) temperature of 15ºC/59ºF.

    There’s a whole lot of cooling going on, 73ºC/131ºF. Obviously the Earth can significantly cool itself, even with constant solar heating.

    See why NASA, and Warmists, do not want to talk about it?

    • tom0mason says:

      Just ask warmistas that ‘trick’ question of accounting for clouds and how clouds work.
      It’s always good to watch.


  10. The Griss says:

    The demonization of CO2 is probably one of the most stupid things that humankind has ever done.

    CO2 is the building block of all life on Earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *