NASA Warns Global Warming Models Wrong -Don't Account for Cooling Factors

[JohnSmith2007 353]

First of all, NASA clearly states that GW is real, which you do not (and according to you, they are just lying).

Second of all, nothing that I have stated, which I will reiterate here for your short term memory, contradicts what NASA has stated:

• Global Warming is real - the earth's temperature is rising at an alarming rate
• CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to earth's rising temperature

If you want to find anywhere on NASA's site that unequivocally states otherwise, feel free to prove me wrong, but first you must openly admit that you were wrong for dismissing their reports on Climate Change as lying to get funding.

You do have a reading problem don't you? The earths temp is not rising at an alarming rate. It is rising at a rate of less than 2 deg C over the next two hundred years! That isn't alarming and is actually below the stated goal of the UN to keep the temp rise at less than 2 deg. We have met the UN goal without doing anything. That means there was never a problem to begin with.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You discredited NASA, claiming that are willing to lie for funding (by some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy in of itself) and then you post an article that refers to comments made from a NASA official and take it for face value.

But since you are now accepting what NASA says about GW, why not go directly to their site and read all you can about it? Why don't you read what Lahouari Bounoua has to say about this GW that you believe is not real?

What is really going on here is that it bothered you so much that I pwnd you for saying that you support NASA funding but then believe that NASA lies, so you went googling for news on NASA to try and justify your wide-eyed conspiracy theory about why NASA says the earth is getting warmer.

So are you saying this story if false? Or are YOU now saying that NASA is distorting results for funding? Which? Why aren't you happy?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From NASA's site:

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius © (-0.5 Fahrenheit ) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

http://www.nasa.gov/...ant-growth.html

And the next line:

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected.

But you don't believe GW is real so Bounoua is just lying to get funding.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Maybe I misread the story. Where in it is there an announcement stating this? Again, it is your interpretation of what a scientist from NASA said. This is the reason I don't normally post in your and steven's GW threads. You are both so deeply entrenched in your own personal viewpoints that you declare victory and call each other morons in the absence of any real proof of such. But by all means, keep posting threads from your litany of global warming denier sites, and i'm sure steven will match you with his sites.

I really don't understand how you can sit there and say they didn't announce it. Let me quote it again, show me where I am missunderstanding it.

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.

Maybe you just don't want to accept what they are saying?

[Nina~ 431]

You do have a reading problem don't you? The earths temp is not rising at an alarming rate. It is rising at a rate of less than 2 deg C over the next two hundred years! That isn't alarming and is actually below the stated goal of the UN to keep the temp rise at less than 2 deg. We have met the UN goal without doing anything. That means there was never a problem to begin with.

Tell that to the residents of Tuvalu and Marshall Islands.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

But you don't believe GW is real so Bounoua is just lying to get funding.

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.

It says it all really. I know that you will still believe in this hoax no matter what anyone says. The good thing is that cap and tax is dead and congress will defund any attempt from the EPA to regulate. So pound sand dude, nothing you say matters.

[^_^ 5,021]

Tell that to the residents of Tuvalu and Marshall Islands.

Those islands sank because there were too many people on them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.

Maybe you just don't want to accept what they are saying?

You are quoting what an author editorialized based on what Bounoua said. That part in red, is editorial and not anything NASA or Bounoua said at all. Critical reading 101.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I really don't understand how you can sit there and say they didn't announce it. Let me quote it again, show me where I am missunderstanding it.

Maybe you just don't want to accept what they are saying?

Don't you think if GW was conclusively debunked there would be something more substantive? No need to be such a derp.

[^_^ 5,021]

You are quoting what an author editorialized based on what Bounoua said. That part in red, is editorial and not anything NASA or Bounoua said at all. Critical reading 101.

The link to the original work and paste the relevant excerpt so we may all learn.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It says it all really. I know that you will still believe in this hoax no matter what anyone says.

My God you are thick. Here's from the NASA link you posted:

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected.

Make up your friggin mind whether you believe this NASA official says and then be careful not to confuse what the author of your OP editorializes based on Buonoua's statements.

A hoax? Oh man, you are something else.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You are quoting what an author editorialized based on what Bounoua said. That part in red, is editorial and not anything NASA or Bounoua said at all. Critical reading 101.

No, it is math 101. We will have a 1.3 deg rise when the CO2 doubles. We are rising at a rate of 2ppm a year. Right now the CO2 concentration is 390ppm. If we add 2ppm each year it would take 390/2 or slightly less than 200 years for the CO2 to double. So, logic says that NASA is now saying that over the next 200 years global temps will rise 1.3 deg. The UN wants to hold us to a 2 deg rise to avoid a melt down. According to NASA we have already met that goal.

Try thinking for yourself rather than accepting everything fed to you by the GW nuts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The link to the original work and paste the relevant excerpt so we may all learn.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

[^_^ 5,021]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

That is not the original work but it is a NASA writeup so I assume it is more well written than the OP.

Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

I found this excerpt particularly enlightening:

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback,

it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend

that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Don't you think if GW was conclusively debunked there would be something more substantive? No need to be such a derp.

Nope, not with all the money at stake. The MSM and the government all have a vested interest in having this "crisis". Like with you and Steven it will take a sledge hammer to get through to everyone that the GW nuts were wrong. Give it time.

That is not the original work but it is a NASA writeup so I assume it is more well written than the OP.

Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

I found this excerpt particularly enlightening:

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback,

it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend

that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

But by their own admittion it slows things down to timelines of multiple centuries rather than the sudden doom the nuts have been trying to push. We will run out of fossil fuels before the CO2 gets bad enough to cause harm.

Edited January 4, 2011 by JohnSmith2007