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

[mawilson 2,133]

No they didn't, that is simply your interpretation of it. But I suspect, nothing would alter your perspective on this issue.

Only a judge can accurately interpret this scientific nonsense. Supreme Court FTW!

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

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.

Yes, that's what I had quoted earlier. Mr. Smith believes GW is a hoax, believes NASA lies, but then thinks he's quoting a NASA official about having to not worry about rising temperatures. What a piece of work he is.

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.

Why don't accept their conclusions about future predictions rather than making your own predictions? Wait, I know why ....because they lie.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes, that's what I had quoted earlier. Mr. Smith believes GW is a hoax, believes NASA lies, but then thinks he's quoting a NASA official about having to not worry about rising temperatures. What a piece of work he is.

Yeah, quite a piece of work I am. I have taken your own hero and proved you wrong. You quoted NASA as THE final word on GW and I just showed you that they just admitted they were wrong about the sudden demise of our planet. Now you don't want to accept your source and are calling me a piece of work. You are just a joke.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Why don't accept their conclusions about future predictions rather than making your own predictions? Wait, I know why ....because they lie.

Your right Steven, I do now accept NASA as the athority on the subject. They said that we will see less than 1.6 deg rise over the next 200 years. The UN said they want to hold the rise to less than 2 deg. Goal met, problem solved.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yeah, quite a piece of work I am. I have taken your own hero and proved you wrong. You quoted NASA as THE final word on GW and I just showed you that they just admitted they were wrong about the sudden demise of our planet. Now you don't want to accept your source and are calling me a piece of work. You are just a joke.

Seriously, you don't see the difference between quoting a NASA scientist and quoting an editorial from a GW denier website?

[Nina~ 431]

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.

You are assuming that CO2 output is rising linearly at a constant rate of 2ppm a year which is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that human population and co2 producing activities are growing exponentially. And not to forgot the geothermal and methane pockets that contribute to rise in global temps. Sometimes you have to think deeper and research for yourself rather than accepting a simplistic explanation that your political party sprouts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Seriously, you don't see the difference between quoting a NASA scientist and quoting an editorial from a GW denier website?

Sure I do, that is why I am quoting the NASA site. They have said that we will only see a 1.3 deg rise over the next 200 years. Or do I have it wrong? If so, show me where.

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/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

As for the 200 year part, I did my own math in an earlier post. If my math is wrong please show me where.

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

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

same thing happened on atlantis too.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You are assuming that CO2 output is rising linearly at a constant rate of 2ppm a year which is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that human population and co2 producing activities are growing exponentially. And not to forgot the geothermal and methane pockets that contribute to rise in global temps. Sometimes you have to think deeper and research for yourself rather than accepting a simplistic explanation that your political party sprouts.

No, 2ppm is the accepted rate of increase. I am using the GW nuts own sources and figures. The truth hurts, I know.

[The_Dude 1,142]

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The weather (and climate) has and always will 'change'. Even my pets know this.

[Nina~ 431]

No, 2ppm is the accepted rate of increase. I am using the GW nuts own sources and figures. The truth hurts, I know.

I am not disputing your 2ppm rate. I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to assume a linear (constant change of rate) increase. It could very well be exponential or logarithmic.

Am I wasting my time explaining mathematical concepts on VJ?

Edited January 4, 2011 by Nina~

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

I am not disputing your 2ppm rate. I am merely pointing out that it is wrong to assume a linear (constant change of rate) increase. It could very well be exponential or logarithmic.

Am I wasting my time explaining mathematical concepts on VJ?

Yes. Think elementary school. Mr. Smith has no concept beyond a Third Grade understanding of how a one degree increase in temperature would effect the earth's climate.

Edited January 4, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes. Think elementary school. Mr. Smith has no concept beyond a Third Grade understanding of how a one degree increase in temperature would effect the earth's climate.

Explain it to us Mr Science. Come on, use your own vast knowledge of climate science and instruct all of the ignorent deniers.

You are a real ######.