Articles 

NASA (early 1970s): “CO2 would have to increase 10 times to achieve a 2.5-degree rise in temperature”

The chemistry and physics of carbon dioxide DOES NOT support the global warming theory, and NASA was aware of this way-back when the notion of wielding climate science as political weapon was but a twinkle in a young Al Gore’s eye.

In the early 1970s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had a strong and consistent theory regarding the trace gas that is carbon dioxide.

“The amount of atmospheric CO2 would have to increase 10 times to achieve a 2.5-degree rise in temperature,” scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies were reported as saying in October, 1972.

“More CO2 wouldn’t raise the temperature any further because the gas would have reached its absorption limit,” the researchers added.

This “absorption limit” is one of the most critical points in the AGW myth.

Alarmists’ linear thinking tells them the more carbon dioxide you add to the atmosphere the hotter it will get — but this is a scientifically-baseless assumption, a li(n)e they’ve been fed by the dippy-eco-journalists (non-scientists) of the world who couldn’t recognize a nefarious controlling agenda if it kicked them up the arse.

A paper published in 1971 by NASA scientists Rasool and Schneider entitled “Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate” explains why the alarmists’ assumption is fundamentally wrong.

Below is a key paragraph lifted directly from the study:

“From our calculations, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8-degree. However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase levels off. Even for an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5-degree. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-um CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.”

Alarmists used to talk their way around this absorption spanner in the works by claiming that the remaining “unsubstantial” CO2-driven temperature increase would cause a chain reaction of other factors resulting in what amounted to runaway warming. However, the clock has long run out on that hokey theory — this prophesied chain reaction has been proven false by observation, and, therefore, it has largely been retired from the discussion.

To conclude, here is one key final point (and accompanying graph) from the Rasool and Schneider paper: “The rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.”


Ah, the early 1970s–before climate science was wielded as a political weapon.

Don’t fall for today’s bogus, warm-mongering agendas.

The return of the COLD TIMES is ironically a far more likely eventuality, because it’s one based on actual scientific research (historically low solar activitycloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow).

Even NASA themselves appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) revealing it will be “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.


Prepare for the COLD  learn the facts, relocate if need be, and grow your own.

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach; Twitter are purging followers, and Facebook are labeling posts as “false” — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse, and/or consider “allowing ads” for www.electroverse.net if you use a blocker.

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

Leave a Comment