(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

Only skeptics use the term 'Global Warming' anymore. Climate Change is real but it's the matter of whether it is man made or not that is the question.

There are many factors which could see changing climates and changing temperatures around the world from the increased release of greenhouse gases to volcanoes erupting (can add a layer of dust to the stratosphere which cools the planet as well). Overall general global temperatures have increase, this is fact. It's been recorded. It a matter of if we as the human race, burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels, are contributing to this change.

Even if CO2 cools the planet, is that a reason to burn more and continue polluting the planet like it doesn't matter?


Recommended watching for this subject, the film Chasing Ice.

Being cold here in UK in summer is a inclination, around where I Live in North wales it turned to Siberia in late march, so what is global warming again? LOL

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Ah, scientific ignorance combined with inability to actually read what is written in an article comes together nicely to become a climate change "skeptic"s perfect storm, pun intended.

The article says that those molecules serve to reflect heat in the upper atmosphere back into space - they form a layer between the upper and lower atmosphere, and reflect heat in both directions. So if these molecules are preventing excess heat in the upper atmosphere from entering the lower atmosphere, what do you think it's doing to excess heat in the lower atmosphere?

Even an elementary grasp of science would be enough to be able to comprehend this. Sadly, people who run around going "Global Warming Debunked!" typically don't have even a partial grasp on science.

CO2 isn't the only thing given off by burning fossil fuels. And "pollutant" is like "weed" - plants that are native to an area can still be weeds when introduced to the wrong place, or when they appear in excessive numbers. Even water can be a pollutant in some contexts.

Well yes, more gas in the atmosphere means more reflected back into space, but the problem is the heat being trapped in by those same gases. The heat our planet makes itself and the heat that makes it to the surface that gets trapped.

The trapped heat has been mostly soaked up in the upper layer of the oceans which is causing our oceans to expand and bringing more melting to ice caps. By the water expanding it is able to trap more heat because it'll take up more surface area, and then you also have sea level rise to worry about.

But it is good that we are reflecting more solar radiation.. so you win some, you lose some.

Not in the sense most global warming/climate change discussions mention it. It's the same when media outlets use refrigeration towers expelling water vapour (another pollutant by your definition) to show the "pollution", because CO2 is transparent and they can't alarm people with it.

One paper does not overturn thousands of papers using very different methods to show an anthropogenic climate change effect. The study needs to be redone and verified by other climate labs, which if this is accurate they will be rushing to do.

Even if this is correct, it only reverses one small part of the evidence. CO2 and historic temperatures remain correlated. Other runaway effects still exist (ice melt -> lower albedo -> less reflection -> more warming). It will take a lot more evidence to 'debunk' this.

And yeah as said; climate change theory is a lot more than "more CO2 -> more warming".

If I was to start criticising the paper, I would say that since they only measured during a solar storm (a rare and intense event), they can't just extrapolate to all radiation over all time periods with no reasoning.

Let me make this clear. I think the media have done a terrible job all around on the issue - failure to actually inform, spent most of the time going for the cheap alarmist approach rather than the rational "it makes sense" approach. I think that anyone that listens to what Al Gore has to say on the issue is failing the very first test of understanding of science - that it's scientists, not politicians, that you should be listening to.

It is my opinion that you should be listening to the experts, and not to the pseudoscience that is spouted by so-called "skeptics" (who are, rather, very much cynics - a skeptic keeps an open mind), any more than you should be listening to the media or to politicians.

And who am I to be saying this stuff? Well, I have my PhD in mathematical physics, with my field of expertise being fluid dynamics and its relation to heat transfer and phase change processes. While the specific application researched in my PhD wasn't climate change (it was a much smaller-scale context, to do with spray dryers), my understanding of both the mathematics and the physics of the systems in question makes it particularly easy for me to understand the science involved. And I, like just about every other person who has expertise in fields relating to climate change, agree that climate change is currently being driven by human activities, that while it has certainly been hotter in the past, the problem right now is not the absolute temperature, but the rate of change of temperature, which is nearly unprecedented. (EDIT: just to be clear - I'm not referring to the "hockey stick"... which wasn't even what the "skeptics" claim it to be anyway... but to long term trends)

And yes, water vapour can be a pollutant in some contexts. But that said, I would not describe a cloud of water vapour to inherently be a pollutant, just as I wouldn't describe CFCs to inherently be a pollutant - they are a problem only when they enter the upper atmosphere, in the vicinity of the ozone layer, where they react with the ozone molecules and essentially destroy them (using a lay term, there).

Here's something that you won't hear from politicians or the media - the feedback system caused by increased carbon dioxide in the air is in part due to the fact that it causes an increase in water vapour in the upper atmosphere, too. And water vapour is actually an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas. It all feeds back in on itself, and while there are negative feedbacks in the system as well, they operate on a longer timescale.

And even if all of that weren't true, the key point remains the same - that the biggest issue at hand is that we are filling the atmosphere with various pollutants, and wasting resources such as oil and gas, at a prodigious rate, and even if the climate were perfectly stable during this, it still can't be healthy for us or for the environment.