H. Schreuder & J. O’Sullivan
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s 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.
NASA’s Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.
Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists’ computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.
The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, “the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise.” 
As NASA’s SABER team at Langley admits:
“This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection,” says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, “and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented.”
Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. 
Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980’s by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. 
As the SABER research report states:
A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
As PSI’s own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
To those independent scientists and engineers at Principia Scientific International this is not news. The “natural thermostat” effect of CO2 has long been known by applied scientists and engineers how have exploited it’s remarkable properties in the manufacturer of refrigerators and air conditioning systems. The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it’s openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change.
Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen. Watch the full NASA video on Youtube.
 Schmidt, G., ‘Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect,’ (October, 2010), http://www.giss.nasa.gov (accessed online: March 26, 2013).
 Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”
 Darwall, R., ‘The Age of Global Warming: A History,‘ (March, 2013), Quartet Books, London.
The Next Generation Science Standards also recommend that students be taught evolution. But will policy-makers listen?
Proposed national standards for science education were unveiled Tuesday, and include recommendations for teaching evolution, as well as the first-ever expectations for students to learn about climate change.
Known as the Next Generation Science Standards, the recommendations come from a coalition of educators and policymakers. So far 26 states have pledged to consider using the new standards, which, according to the coalition’s website, contend that science education “should reflect the interconnected nature of science as it is practiced and experienced in the real world.” Students will be expected to know how to apply scientific principles, weigh evidence, solve problems and explain their reasoning, and tackle increasingly complex subject matter as they progress from grade to grade. The new science standards are aligned to the separate Common Core State Standards that have been adopted by 46 states.
“This is a huge deal,” David L. Evans, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, told the New York Times. “We depend on science in so many aspects of our lives. There’s a strong feeling that we need to help people understand the nature of science itself, as an intellectual pursuit.”Under the new science standards, students would begin learning about climate change in middle school. As the New York Times story points out, some conservative and religious groups are challenging that inclusion, along with the teaching of evolution.
Science educators contend the standards have long needed an overhaul. The nonprofit science education advocacy group Change the Equation, released a study last year that highlighted the vast gaps in expectations among states for student science knowledge. I had the opportunity to talk with Linda Rosen, the group’s CEO about that report, and here’s how she described the problem with how students are typically being taught science:
“We spend time giving kids a picture of a cell and asking them to fill in the blanks to name parts of the cell. What we should be doing is giving them a picture of a cell and asking them to describe what is the function and purpose of each part. That’s a fundamentally different task, both for the learner and for the teacher to convey. When we have Next Generation Science Standards and hopefully high-quality, well-aligned assessments, I think it will be much clearer what we value, what’s important for a young person to master.”
But of course revising the standards is only part of the battle. There also need to be qualified, effective science teachers in the classroom actually helping students make those higher-level connections. That’s part of the push behind the Carnegie Corporation’s campaign to add 100,000 high-quality STEM teachers to public schools in the next 10 years. (You can read my previous post on this issue here.)
Just about a year ago, science educators gathered in Washington, D.C. for the release of the latest results from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as “the Nation’s Report Card.” While there were some positive trends for some subgroups of students, less than a third of the nation’s eighth graders demonstrated proficiency in science. At that time I asked Shirley Malcom, the head of the education and human resources directorate for the American Association for the Advancement of Science what policy changes she thought would position the nation’s students to improve their performance on the next national exam.
“The best case scenario is we will get acceptance of the new [science] standards, a ramp-up in terms of teacher professional development, and a real commitment to improving the way science is taught so that we incorporate inquiry, technology and focus on populations that have not been served well,” Malcom said. “If we can do those things, then maybe we’ll being to see movement [in the NAEP scores] that is meaningful. That would mean a real improvement in terms of conceptual understanding by all students.”
This post also appears at The Educated Reporter, an Atlantic partner site.