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

[TigerTeddyBear 26]

Nina+1.

Rob and Mel, thank you for making my day with the Sisko short.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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.

Steven...

Can you understand that Obama so f*cked up the Dem party that they lost control of the house and effective control of the Senate? Can you understand that a large part of NASA is going to be de-funded this year and shut down? Most of the epople you are quoting are scheduled to be out of work later this year. Can you understand there will be NO Cap and Trade legslation? No one is going to buy all those carbon credits. There ARE no carbon credits! Can you understand that none of this blather makes any difference? GW has been defunded. It is dead. Do you understand that no one else ever did anything for global warming except offer to allow people to fly private jets to their country to have "conferences".

Before global warming ever becomes a legislative priotity again (if it ever was) the entire concept will be exposed as a hoax. Who is going to do anything about it? Who is going to burden THEIR businesses and economy to pay for it? Canada? UK? Europe? Australia? Maybe China or India? Its a done deal Steven. DOA.

I think you know it as well as I do. It is a corpse. The GW advocates will flop around like a gut-hooked fish for a while, expending the last of their funds trying to convince someone that the problem is worse than we thought...and needs more money...but it won't work.

[james&olya 1,121]

Steven...

Can you understand that Obama so f*cked up the Dem party that they lost control of the house and effective control of the Senate? Can you understand that a large part of NASA is going to be de-funded this year and shut down? Most of the epople you are quoting are scheduled to be out of work later this year. Can you understand there will be NO Cap and Trade legslation? No one is going to buy all those carbon credits. There ARE no carbon credits! Can you understand that none of this blather makes any difference? GW has been defunded. It is dead. Do you understand that no one else ever did anything for global warming except offer to allow people to fly private jets to their country to have "conferences".

Before global warming ever becomes a legislative priotity again (if it ever was) the entire concept will be exposed as a hoax. Who is going to do anything about it? Who is going to burden THEIR businesses and economy to pay for it? Canada? UK? Europe? Australia? Maybe China or India? Its a done deal Steven. DOA.

I think you know it as well as I do. It is a corpse. The GW advocates will flop around like a gut-hooked fish for a while, expending the last of their funds trying to convince someone that the problem is worse than we thought...and needs more money...but it won't work.

You seem quite certain. I hope for the sake of the planet you are right. But I remain unconvinced that this will not be a huge problem for future generations. If GW is real it is probably long since too late to do much to reverse it but does that mean it is an intelligent response to not even try?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Tell that to the residents of Tuvalu and Marshall Islands.

I have been to the Marshall Islands, specifically Majuro and Kwajalein. There is not a problem caused of rising sea levels. Japanese poaching and over fishing, now that is a problem in the Marshalls. Residual radiation and heavy metals in the water, that is a problem. Poverty, that is a problem.

[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.

I see you have my quote in your siggy. I assume that means you accept the fact that NASA says we are no longer in danger of melting down any time soon. I suggest you remove your siggy right now. The penalty, if the mods are fair, is a one week ban. Take it down now.

[^_^ 5,021]

Take it down now.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Steven...

Can you understand that Obama so f*cked up the Dem party that they lost control of the house and effective control of the Senate? Can you understand that a large part of NASA is going to be de-funded this year and shut down? Most of the epople you are quoting are scheduled to be out of work later this year. Can you understand there will be NO Cap and Trade legslation? No one is going to buy all those carbon credits. There ARE no carbon credits! Can you understand that none of this blather makes any difference? GW has been defunded. It is dead. Do you understand that no one else ever did anything for global warming except offer to allow people to fly private jets to their country to have "conferences".

Before global warming ever becomes a legislative priotity again (if it ever was) the entire concept will be exposed as a hoax. Who is going to do anything about it? Who is going to burden THEIR businesses and economy to pay for it? Canada? UK? Europe? Australia? Maybe China or India? Its a done deal Steven. DOA.

I think you know it as well as I do. It is a corpse. The GW advocates will flop around like a gut-hooked fish for a while, expending the last of their funds trying to convince someone that the problem is worse than we thought...and needs more money...but it won't work.

They will keep trying because it is all they have. The money that came their way to toe the line was huge and it is hard to accept poverty is coming. These minority of scientists that put their bought and paid for reputations on the line expecting the money to keep flowing are heavily damaged goods now.

This was a pseudo science to begin with. No real science has to fabricate and with hold data and suppress colleagues in order to survive. The main player hurt will be the U.N.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You seem quite certain. I hope for the sake of the planet you are right. But I remain unconvinced that this will not be a huge problem for future generations. If GW is real it is probably long since too late to do much to reverse it but does that mean it is an intelligent response to not even try?

I may be wrong. I may be right. Won't matter. It is not something we cause and not something we can change. Climate change was a huge problem for the dinosaurs. Killed them all. It may kill all the people. It may not. People are pretty adaptable. Yes, people in the Marshall Islands may have to move. So what? Move. It won't be the first place to be unsuitable for human life, so move. Polar bears may survive or they may not. Most species that ever existed are extinct and most became that way long before humans appeared. So what?

There is nothing the congress of the United States can do. It is preposterous to even suggest so. We don't have to argue what scientists say...it doesn't matter. It isn't that it is too late...it is that it is impossible. We, humans, simply are not all that signifigant, and taxes won't do anything to change anything and what else can the congress do? Tax.

Look up in the sky, the heat comes from that big bright ball up there, no where else. We cannot turn it down, turn it off. We can adapt to it but that's all and we are lucky for that.

It isn't about "science" it IS about politics. The politicians NOW in charge understand that they are just a fe people and that there is nothing they can do about GW even if it does exist, so they are going to go fry bigger fish. What happens with the climate is GOING to happen and WILL happen, whether we tax our economy or not. So let's not.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They will keep trying because it is all they have. The money that came their way to toe the line was huge and it is hard to accept poverty is coming. These minority of scientists that put their bought and paid for reputations on the line expecting the money to keep flowing are heavily damaged goods now.

This was a pseudo science to begin with. No real science has to fabricate and with hold data and suppress colleagues in order to survive. The main player hurt will be the U.N.

The best group TO hurt is the UN. I can't think of a better candidate to be "hurt" Good news. Well, like it or not, the money tap is getting turned off. They can get real jobs in businesses that expect results or they can maybe get an extension on their unemployment, it doesn't matter to me...or anyone else.

All of these things requiring government or UN support are phony. If there was any value to any of it, government subsidies would never be needed.

[Pooky 3,343]

I found this excerpt particularly enlightening:

I rather think everyone in this thread is missing the point. Rather than continuing to speculate, which is what the first sentence of the quote does, the second sentence points to the scientists involved thinking as scientists.

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.

Only a fool would think that climate science is a fixed, certain proposition. But, as time progresses, a clearer picture of the science involved in determining where the planet's climate is headed will emerge, together with better definition of the factors involved and whether there is any remedy available.

Climate change advocates think of the science as a done deal - proven. They are wrong and need to realise that they are wrong. The science of this planet's climate is evolving, improving and changing the predicted results - constantly. Treating this as closed and proven will get them nowhere.

Climate skeptics treat every new story that comes out opposing climate change as the final nail in its coffin. They are wrong, too. Just because some of the leading scientists have been idiots, doesn't mean the basic science collapses like a house of cards. Again, as research continues, the science continues to improve and fill out as new factors are taken into consideration.

Both sides of this discussion need to accept that there is a way to go before we understand what is going on. Right now, we have little more than theories and models that are continually changing, and that's not good enough to bet the farm on.

[SuperDuper! 230]

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

Nothing has ever altered anyone's perspective on anything here, including yours.

[tmma 467]

I rather think everyone in this thread is missing the point. Rather than continuing to speculate, which is what the first sentence of the quote does, the second sentence points to the scientists involved thinking as scientists.

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.

Only a fool would think that climate science is a fixed, certain proposition. But, as time progresses, a clearer picture of the science involved in determining where the planet's climate is headed will emerge, together with better definition of the factors involved and whether there is any remedy available.

Climate change advocates think of the science as a done deal - proven. They are wrong and need to realise that they are wrong. The science of this planet's climate is evolving, improving and changing the predicted results - constantly. Treating this as closed and proven will get them nowhere.

Climate skeptics treat every new story that comes out opposing climate change as the final nail in its coffin. They are wrong, too. Just because some of the leading scientists have been idiots, doesn't mean the basic science collapses like a house of cards. Again, as research continues, the science continues to improve and fill out as new factors are taken into consideration.

Both sides of this discussion need to accept that there is a way to go before we understand what is going on. Right now, we have little more than theories and models that are continually changing, and that's not good enough to bet the farm on.

Agree 100% ...but you are banging your head against a wall, Pooky.

I said the same thing the other day ( and the other and the other....yadda yadda).

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

Agree 100% ...but you are banging your head against a wall, Pooky.

I said the same thing the other day ( and the other and the other....yadda yadda).

Michelle - it's a fallacy that there are two sides to the issue of GW, from the believers to the deniers. Science doesn't work that way. The science is conclusive on these points:

Global Warming is real - the temperature of the earth is rising dramatically and CO2 emissions are significant factor in speeding up the warming. Where in previous Climate Change, a 1.4 degree rise in temperature would happen over thousands of years, we've seen it rise that much in less than 200.

The deniers believe it is hoax, that the science is bunk, and that there's no way that we can scientifically measure the impact CO2 emissions on warming the planet.

You seem to be somewhere in the middle of that - you accept that GW is happening, but you don't believe or see how we can determine human impact on the warming the planet with any degree of certainty and that is simply false.

We can and should be taking bold measures in reducing CO2 emissions across the globe. This is the consensus among climate scientists across the world. That position only becomes controversial when the deniers fear that implementing such measures would mean that we'd all be living in grass huts and riding bicycles.

The current prediction is that the temperature will rise about 2 degrees over the next century. Scientist already can predict what just one degree temperature would do to the environment. Keep in mind, the earth's temperature has remained fairly stable for thousands of years and even when there was Global Warming in the past, it happened over tens of thousands of years, not centuries.

So, what part of that is nutty or not in line with the solid science on climate?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what part of that is nutty or not in line with the solid science on climate?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog