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

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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

December 09, 2010

Top NASA experts say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

Most current climate models don't account for green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

The NASA group concluded that the increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.

The NASA and NOAA experts used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently targeted to keep global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

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. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

"As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change," says Bounoua's colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team's scholarly paper. "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right."

The NASA/NOAA boffins' paper Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/nasa-warns-global-warming-models-wrong-dont-account-for-cooling-factors.html

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

Wait a minute - aren't you the same Mr. Smith who claims that NASA lies to keep their funding from being cut? Dude, make up your mind.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Wait a minute - aren't you the same Mr. Smith who claims that NASA lies to keep their funding from being cut? Dude, make up your mind.

This should make you happy. NASA just said that even if CO2 doubles we will still meet the less than 2deg rise over the next few CENTURIES. NASA just declared that GW is no longer a problem. You are the one that has total faith in NASA, so accept the fact that GW is not a problem.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Here Steven, read this again:

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.

We now have centuries, according to NASA whome you trust so much, before any dangerous warming occurs. That means we don't have to kill our economy taxing or regulating CO2.

Dude, this is good news for you. The dreaded GW has been fixed!!!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Wait a minute - aren't you the same Mr. Smith who claims that NASA lies to keep their funding from being cut? Dude, make up your mind.

I made up mine. In another thread you are telling us how NASA is the experts on this. This news should make you happy. Does it?

[Ban Hammer 12,839]

darn, now steven is gonna have to search for a new obsession.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I made up mine. In another thread you are telling us how NASA is the experts on this. This news should make you happy. Does it?

No, now he will attack NASA as being right wing deniers.

[The_Dude 1,142]

This should make you happy. NASA just said that even if CO2 doubles we will still meet the less than 2deg rise over the next few CENTURIES. NASA just declared that GW is no longer a problem. You are the one that has total faith in NASA, so accept the fact that GW is not a problem.

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

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, now he will attack NASA as being right wing deniers.

And when he does it revals to more people that GW is hoax. Whenever information come out that GW is NOT a problem the people who are "worried" about it should be happy. Relieved and want to investigate this good news further. It is like being told you might have cancer...or worse, being told you DO have cancer and then being pissed off when new tests show that you DON'T have cancer. YES I DO! I HAVE CANCER! I WANT CANCER!

The fact that there are deniers of the truth that GW does not exist is proff that it is othing but a game to comtrol power over people and money. Imagine the political power that can be gained in the "fight" against global warming. Imagine the transfer of money...YOUR money, to truly worthless governments and regions to buy "carbon credits" Imagine the power one has if one is the person/politician in command of such sums of money for distribution.

The whole scheme jumped the shark when they started saying that even global cooling is because of global warming and changed the name to "Global Climate Change" The name itself suggests something far beyond the capability of humans. As if.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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

Yes they did. What part of this is unclear to you? But I suspect, nothing would alter your perspective on this issue.

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.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Steven, I know you are desperately searching for the original story in an effort to find some distortion in this story. I will save you the trouble. Here it is from NASA's site:

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

Pretty clear isn't it? NASA, whome you trust so much, is saying that we have centuries at the current rate of CO2 emmissions before anything bad happens.

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

No, now he will attack NASA as being right wing deniers.

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.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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.

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

You my friend have been pawned by your own faith in NASA. They just stabbed the GW nuts in the back. How does that feel? So what is it going to be? Do you believe NASA and that GW is not a problem for the next few hundred years or do you now think that NASA is a bunch of deniers? Come on now, tell us what you think!

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

Steven, I know you are desperately searching for the original story in an effort to find some distortion in this story. I will save you the trouble. Here it is from NASA's site:

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

Pretty clear isn't it? NASA, whome you trust so much, is saying that we have centuries at the current rate of CO2 emmissions before anything bad happens.

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.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes they did. What part of this is unclear to you? But I suspect, nothing would alter your perspective on this issue.

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.