NASA wanted questions, so I gave them one. I’m not expecting to hear back from them.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Recent Comments
- Mark Luhman on Which Button To Press?
- Mark Luhman on Which Button To Press?
- Menicholas on The People Who Want To Blot Out The Sun …
- Menicholas on The People Who Want To Blot Out The Sun …
- Gamecock on The People Who Want To Blot Out The Sun …
Categories
Meta
Of course they won’t answer. 1971 is ancient history. The parents of the young adults in charge of answering that blog were children in 1971.
They will answer someting like:
“Noone pays no longer for ice age scare so noone talks about it.
Since the global warming looneys of the Ice Age Scare are now the normal and the Ice Age supporters became the looneys we will follow the money(how scientific)..
This is the result when you create submissive,greedy buttkissers at universities.
They can not get a single prediction right but will instantly pull 1000s of excuses out of their butts to save their status quo.”
Dr. S. I. Rasool is one of the two NASA scientists, authors of a very interesting article that appeared in Science (1971).
They explain that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated.
Page 2, second column:
“(…) the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-micrometre CO2 band witch is the main source of absorbtion “saturates” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf
This is why all alarmist models contain positive feedback loops not found in nature. They know damn well that more CO2 is not going to overheat the planet.
CO2 is a coolant .. CO2 has a very high emissivity to IR, especially in the 4µm and 15µm bands. High emissivity molecules are used in all coolants because of their high conductivity. That is why Argon is used in double paned windows and not CO2 or water vapor (which is also very high emissivity).
Every skating rink in North America uses CO2 to freeze their ice because it saves them around 40% in energy costs by doing so.
CO2 at the top of the atmopshere (TOA) radiates to space. Increasing CO2 would increase that.
In fact, water traps are used, indeed must be used, in order to use IR absorption spectroscopy to measure CO2 in air. Without these traps, water, especially its variability, interferes with the IR absorption spectrum of CO2.
One such trap is described by Komhyr, et al (1983), “The Pyrex glass water vapor trap used within the apparatus is of conventional design. A glass wool plug within the trap prevents loose frost particles from entering the analyzer. The trap is emersed (sic) in a denatured alcohol bath cooled to – 70°C with a Neslab Instruments, Inc., type CC-lOOf freezer equipped with a temperature controller.”
On the system at Mauna Loa: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
That’s what one suppose considering that we had 10*++ more co2 millions of years ago and there was no runaway effect.
How can something that failed to start this effect at its peak can now do this with 90% less inside the very same system.
This makes no sense at all.
Yep.
The climate clowns are just like all other political flip-floppers. They were against Global Warming before they were for it.
Rasool, I think in 1971 was promoting that particulate carbon in the atmosphere was a cooling influence. He used some of the “modeling” by James Hansen, who later promoted that such carbon contributed to global warming.
It would be rewarding to catch Hansen definitively claiming that carbon caused cooling and then warming.
Can anyone ask or is it just US citizens?
I think I’ll ask how CO2 controls the climate now but followed temperature changes during ice ages in the past.
This has all been a set up. CO2 has been framed. An innocent molecule has been set up as a patsy. I read about “saturation” years ago but no one talks about it. Same for the Vostock ice cores showing CO2 following temperature not leading it. Why are these findings not leading arguments?
You should apply for an NSA grant with that proposal and see what happens.
It was never about science. From the very beginning this has been a kangaroo court, out to convict us.
If you pay someone to prove that A+B=C, C will always be the answer that you get.
The IPCC charter…
“… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate changeits potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“
They are not interested in the truth.
Note that the two greenhouse gasses demonized are CO2 (which we exhale) and Methane (which we fart).
No matter how much money politicians have available to squander, it’s never enough. The whole global warming scam has been a UN/Globalist attempt to justify taxing humanity for breathing and passing gas.
Right on, Louis.
“Breathing Tax”, the ultimate collectivist dream!
And the media responds, “Don’t you believe in science?”
Whoever said evolution was aimed at improving things?
It has been a set up. In a free society/economy there is no need for Big Government. The money changers in the temple would lose their power. So to stay in power constant conflict/chaos/scarcity/fear has to be created and maintained. CO2 is just 1 of the many tools to achieve that goal. The money changer are the cancer of a healthy free society.
Considering this video I would regard your answer with skepticism if you ever get one. Seems NASA is more about science fiction than reality.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dn39oDjEo