NASA “Adjusted” Temperature Charts Prove CO2 Driven Warming is a Hoax

It appears that NASA, the organization that once put a man on the moon, has devolved so much that they don’t even appear to understand the meaning of the charts that they produce. The Political Correct Fever that inspired the canceling of the Space Shuttle program, and redirecting NASA’s efforts towards “Muslim outreach” and Climate Change, has exposed NASA as conspirators in the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As a refresher, the theory behind “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” or CAGW is that man produces CO2, CO2 “traps/thermalizes” outgoing infrared (IR) radiation between the wavelengths of  13 and 18 microns, the “thermalization” of those IR wavelengths results in atmospheric warming. NASA knows this, and if fact uses the Airforce’s program MODTRANto model the atmosphere. The key point here is that it is the “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation that causes the warming, not the level of CO2. I use the term “global warming” because the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change in by thermalization, ie warming.

As with any cause and effect relationship, one needs a “differential” to measure the change in Y (Dependent Variable) CAUSED by the change in X (Independent Variable), ΔY=mX+b. CO2 has a differential over time, but at any moment in time, CO2 evenly blankets the globe. What this means is that CO2 can’t CAUSE regional differences in temperature and that its impact would be a parallel shift in the temperature graph over time. CO2 is 405 parts per million (ppm) at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, over land and over sea, it is an even blanket, and therefore can’t cause differences in one place compared to another. The following is the atmospheric CO2 graph, and here is the location to download the data. Note: This is NOAA, not NASA data and graphics.

NOAA3

No one disputes that CO2 evenly blankets the globe. No one disputes that CO2 can thermalize IR radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns. Those two facts, however, would result in parallel shifts in the temperature graph. The NASA graphics tell a different story, a story inconsistent with the underlying physics of the greenhouse gas effect and the physical properties of CO2.

NASA Charts for Land Only and Land and Sea Global Temperatures:

NOAA2aNOAA1a

Problems with the above graphics if CO2 is the CAUSE of the warming:

  1. FACT: Between 1880 and 2017 Land Temperatures increased by approximately 1.75° C, Land and Sea Temperatures increased by approximately 1.20° C. CO2 is 405 ppm over both land and sea so CO2 CANNOT explain the 0.55°. Something other than CO2 MUST be CAUSING the differential between land and sea and land only. The differential is even greater when comparing land only to sea only.
  2. FACT: Both charts “dog leg” at 1960. The slope between 1880 and 1960 is approximately 0.007° C/Year for land only and 0.005° C/Year for land and sea. The slope between 1960 and 2017 is approximately 0.028° C/Year for land only and 0.019° C/Year for land and sea. CO2 has been gradually increasing since 1880 and did not suddenly accelerate post-1960. CO2 CANNOT explain the sudden acceleration in temperatures that occurred post-1960.
  3. FACT: Land only, Land and Sea and Sea only temperature charts all have different slopes. Constant CO2, and a constant rate of change in CO2 CANNOT explain a difference in slope between those three charts. Constants CANNOT CAUSE a differential, that is why they are called CONSTANTS.

The Physical Properties of CO2 don’t support NASA’s Charts or the CAGW Theory:

co2_modtrans_img1

CO2 doesn’t CAUSE warming, CO2’s reaction with IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns CAUSES the warming. The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 and the resulting “Net Downward Forcing (w/m^2)” is the important metric, not CO2 concentrations in ppm. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are near linear over time, the “Net Downward Forcing” of CO2 is logarithmic (see chart above).

The Problems that creates for NASA and the CAGW Alarmists:

  1. Extrapolating the atmospheric CO2 chart one finds CO2 to have been about 240 ppm in 1880. NOAA, however, states that the pre-industrial level was 275 ppm. Using 275 ppm, Net Downward Forcing of CO2 increased from 257.5 w/m^2 at 275 ppm to about 258.5 w/m^2 at the 1960 level of 315 ppm. An increase in 40 ppm resulted in a net increase in downward forcing of 1 w/m^2. Depending on the chart, temperatures either increased approximately 0.04° C or 0.05° C over that time period. Note: if pre-industrial CO2 was 240 ppm as the extrapolation suggests, the case is even worse for the climate alarmists because the w/m^2 would be much greater for the slight temperature change of 0.04° C or 0.05° C.
  2. In 1960, CO2 was 315 ppm, and depending on the chart temperatures increased between 1.1° C or 1.6° C by 2017. While the temperature increase between 1960 and 2017 was approximately 4x the increase between 1880 and 1960, the increase in w/m^ was about equal, and the marginal impact of any additional CO2 is rapidly DECLINING.
  3. The NASA temperature charts post-1960 are near linear, and cannot be explained by the diminishing marginal w/m^2 that define the physical properties of CO2. If CO2 is driving temperature, the temperature chart slope wouldn’t be linear, the slope would gradually falling towards zero, just like the CO2 w/m^2 graph does.
  4. In reality, the temperature charts post-1960 appear to be accelerating (slope steepening) and are certainly accelerating post-1880. There is nothing in the physical nature of CO2 that can explain accelerating marginal temperatures with equal increases in w/m^2. The molecular/quantum physics related to the CO2 molecule are FIXED. Real sciences don’t deny the laws of quantum physics to make their case.
  5. Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in the labs of NASA, NASA’s own research and publications debunk the CAGW theory.

Read more at CO2 is Life

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    James Hansen needs to be fired(if he already has’nt resigned)for wasting NASA time on his political and enviromental agenda

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    This is not complicated. The MMGW meme has become a massive cash cow for this struggling agency. NASA will tell leftist politicians (and the left-stream media) that the moon is made of green cheese if it keeps the dollars flowing.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    NASA needs to get out of the global warming forecasting business and restore their brand . Stick to space and leave the scary global warming business to actors , comedians failed politicians and the scientifically illiterate pumpkin heads in the MSM .
    We can always hope for more warming but the sun is running the show . Always has .

Comments are closed