Skip to comments.'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming
Posted on 12/10/2010 3:24:36 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback -- a cooling effect -- in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Yeah all that evidence is out there under two feet off snow!!!!! I just read that England has had the coldest start to winter since 1659!!!
So, now we should build more plants, I suppose.
Power plants, chemical plants.... OK, whatever.
At this point, anything NASA does is a joke.
“Climate change” is nothing but a tool of the Stalinist progressives.
Don’t confuse the weather and the climate or you are as bad as the the libs saying every heatwave and hurricane are proff.
Also - did you ever notice what latitude England is at? The Guld Stream keeps it warm (as it does the US East Coast). If it shuts off, it gets to be like Canada. Many climate change models also predict that.
I know it requires some deeper thinking to understand how global warming might cause some places to get cooler, but it really is within the context of reality.
Climate change HAS happened in the past and WILL happen in the future (incudling the warming of the planet leading to the cooling of Europe). The only real debate now is whether there current changes are anthropogenic or not.
To deny anthropogenic climate change is a legitimate position. To deny that the climate changes is like saying the earth is flat.
Proff = Proof
“I know it requires some deeper thinking to understand how global warming might cause some places to get cooler”
When the climate doesn’t cooperate with the Michael Manns of the world, and the Algores and the Joseph Stalins of the world, they fabricate more “studies” to make the results fit their prior conclusions.
Plants eat CO2. So more CO2 = more plants = No Global Warming.
So does that now mean it is open season on sequoias to be used for making paper? Sheesh. Someone at NASA left a real incadecent light bulb lying around and some enterprising individual actually used it!
Living in the southest, it is really funny to explain to know-nothing enviros that paper is made from mostly southern pines that grow like weeds down here and they are actually a renewable crop. Then drive them out to a crop forest to watch their heads explode.
Yeah, but a warmer climate HAS caused a colder Europe in the past. Following the last ice age, the big melt of the North American glacier shut off the Gulf Stream and caused Europe to freeze anew. This actually set civilization back about 2000 years since it destroyed some of the first permanent settlements in current Turkey and Kazahastan.
In other words, the planet got warmer and Europe got colder. Once again, it has nothing to do with whether or not humans are causing it today; the premise is not only plausible, it has actually happened.
Only if you accept the premise that more CO2 causes climate change.
So a bunch of leftists get together with scientists, and fabricate studies to make it seem like the engine of the free enterprise system (the use of energy) is going to make us all die?
And we’re supposed to fall for it?
This is what they’ve been doing with the original global warming plan (before the climate stopped cooperating with their scheme).
These geniuses also have not figured out how to calculate the effects of cloud cover in their models. Who is gullible enough to believe these wild forecasts of climate in future centuries when they obviously never saw these frigid winters in their forecasts of three or four years ago?
Apparently you just want to spew dogma rather than engage in a dialogeu - but that is your right.
I frankly don’t buy the conspiracy theories and don’t appreciate the resident wackos who prefer this course than actually considering the real scientific possiblity and potetnial consequences. Of course your screen name indicates this position so no suprise there.
I did read somewhere that “THEY” are trying to make a device to control your brainwaves so perhaps you should get a tin foil hat.
I think you are confusing “climate” and “weather”.
The global climate is an average of temperatures everywhere and not based on what is happening in a particular region.
Wow, they really avoid the cloud word. Solar heat reflecting clouds are like krytonite to the global warmers. They never bring them up, just say we don't understand much about them.
Now this is the type of thing that is imporant to bring up. It is a huge weakness of the models as is the premise that past warming is caused by CO2 - as opposed to the reality that warming proceeded increases in CO2 levels.
Good grief... I thought Armageddon was right around the corner?
Does that mean we can plan our vacation for next summer?
So let me see if I have this straight. Carbon emissions will either cause the planet to warm or to cool and will cause the climate to change, sometimes on a daily basis. Well that pretty well covers it, doesn’t it then?
Why don’t they just say what they mean: carbon emissions will cause money to flow from rich countries to poor countries. There, fixed it.
“I know it requires some deeper thinking to understand how global warming might cause some places to get cooler, but it really is within the context of reality.”
Do you mean like the kind of thinking that does not include the higher CO2 levels spurring plant growth and hence dampening increases in temperature in climate change computer models? I don’t disagree with most of what you posted, but please...do not get swept up with “higher and lower” thinking just because someone disagrees with what you think is correct. The point most are making here is that the so called climate science has been taken over by ideologues who have in a scientific sense destroyed the validity and hence credibility of the former science. I have not ever seen anyone here who thinks that there is a status quo on temperatures...other than those who fret and worry over so called “climate change”.
The only point of this “study” is to make it seem like the global warming cult was on the money the whole time.
To perpetrate the falsehood that global warming really is happening, and it really is caused by man, and now it’s turning into global cooling but it’s still the same thing and we need to double our efforts to regulate carbon.
Sorry, I don’t agree with Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, or Niccolo Machiavelli, or any of the rest of them. I don’t like Max Horkheimer or Herbert Marcuse. I think their ideas were the opposite of what they have been claimed to be.
I have not seen many that do. The ocean circulations like the Gulf Stream depend on ice creation in the Arctic. Doesn't matter in the least how much melts as long as roughly the same amount freezes each year so that the saltier leftover water sinks to the bottom and drives the circulation. Surface alterations like Greenland meltwater will not play a role for centuries if ever.
“I did read somewhere that THEY are trying to make a device to control your brainwaves so perhaps you should get a tin foil hat.”
Now that is some real intelligent argument, funny you cannot address the persons point that the so-called science has lost it’s credibility. But, you sure do come strong on attacking the person personally...
A one-off event, draining of the inland lake.
As far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of "science" regarding climate I am inclined to trust until it is disassociated from politics, and by that I mean the funding. The politics that drive climate research are all slanted one way. One single way, and no other. It is a giant teat the scientific community has been sucking off of, and their rigor in defending their "science" when it has been used inappropriately, out of context, or just plain lied about, has been far less than satisfactory to me.
There have been far too many (though not all) scientists who have said nothing about the way their research has been used, so as not to put their funding at risk. There has been big money in climate research.
But even more disturbing are the "scientists" who buy into global warming. The ones who are most vocal are those for whom earth sciences may not even be their primary discipline.
Global Warming is all political claptrap, especially (MOST ESPECIALLY) anthropogenic global warming.
No "conspiracy theory" can possibly do justice to the reality of the "green" movement. I got my PhD in chemisty in 1973, and watched the greens destroy the American nuclear power industry, and attempt to destroy pretty much every other industry that didn't "fit" their socialist agenda. "Climate science" is just another attempt to do the same thing. And they themselves say precisely that.
As to "global warming"....ALL the models are garbage. I suggest you read Dr. Roy Spencer's new book "The Great Global Warming Blunder-How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists" (actually how the "top climate scientists" fooled themselves and their "true believers") to understand how and why. His published peer reviewed study has been completely ignored by the "climate science industry" and the major news media, despite pointing out a gigantic fundamental flaw in the modeling efforts.
Yup. And it lasted for more several centuries.
You might want to go search the lost and found for your sense of humor.
Show me your computer modeling and I'll show you mine that says it isn't... just like statistics, find one you like. They can't tell me what the weather will be tomorrow let a lone years from now.
“I think you are confusing climate and weather.
The global climate is an average of temperatures everywhere and not based on what is happening in a particular region.”
I think you are confused...there is no data on temperatures “everywhere”. There are samples which are taken that are supposed to reflect the global average. These samples have been shown to be faulty for various reasons including expanding urban areas causing temperature increases (concrete) at particular testing sites, so called scientists dismissing and removing data from sites which are not congruent with their theories, and interpreting short term measurements with a few controls that do not reflect real life and then extrapolating that false data to provide “evidence” of the “facts” they wish promoted.
In order to grow, plant life needs sunlight, CO2, water and various nitrates/nitrites. The exact proportions vary from plant species to plant species. Any of the four can be a limiting factor, but as it only comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere CO2 is by far the most usual one. Therefore if the concentration of CO2 goes up, surely plant growth is going to be less constrained, photosynthesis will increase and will therefore "consume" more CO2. So therefore, isn't the problem to some extent self-correcting?
I just think it’s terribly immoral to lie about the climate in order to perpetrate socialism on the entire world.
After all, the true end of socialism is not “utopia” but theft of power by a very few. (It will always result in the most brutal among them killing off those who helped them seize power.)
The CO2=catastrophe advocates say that solar warming triggers CO2 feedback and more warming from that. For example the relatively small warming from the Milankovitch cycle plus the fact that the NH gets more sun creates the interglacials, like the present one. The CO2 in their theory is a multiplier taking 100's or 1000's of years, but basically amplifying the warming in a full feedback loop. They claim that the current manmade CO2 is a short circuit.
There are several problems with that theory. First M cycles have coincided with more drastic solar magnetic changes. Second, M cycles and alleged CO2 feedback reaches a certain high temperature and no further (a one-off event 200M years ago does not change things). Third, the feedback depends on the climate sensitivity to CO2 which depends on the solar magnetic and other factors. Those are not in the models, not in the ice age forcing studies, and an area of research looked on with disfavor.
So the modelers do agree with your statement above that warming precedes the CO2 rise, but then they add a continuous loop of warming and CO2 rise for centuries to get their result.
Yes! In Newspeak, cold is warm! For Victory!
I think the progressive movement should try something new—how about good old fashioned honesty?
Why don’t they simply present socialism for what it is, out in the open, and build their support from there?
Instead of making up schemes like “global warming” and then having to rename it first “climate change” and then “global cooling caused by global warming.”
Why are socialists so afraid of their own ideology?
You likely could have made your point without disparaging the other fellow, who was making valid points. Accusing someone of embracing dogma over logic is rarely considered to be humor, and almost never complimentary. But that is my opinion.
This is a global scam with trillions of dollars, damaged economies, lost jobs and the very sovereignty of our country at stake (here in the USA, at least. The European Union has made sovereignty less of an issue for many Europeans, as I see it.)
This is a subject for which logic has been marginal for some time now, and that is entirely the fault of the supporters of AGW, as they have vilified anyone who even suggests their theory is seriously and fatally flawed. I agree with the other poster who suggested the purpose of this article is to support the notion that the "Global Warmists" have been right on the money all along. I don't think that is tin-foil theory either.
It is self-correcting. The manmade CO2 (calculated from fossil fuel use) is 1/2 abosrbed by nature. The rest is too much to be absorbed so it is building up. But there is solid research to indicate that nature will absorb more. The alarmists say that nature will absorb less, but they are confused by CO2 feedback processes that take 100’s or 1000’s of years. They will even push CO2 or methane feedback on science sites as fast, but it is not. One thing the alarmists don’t mention is that if we stopped producing CO2, the levels would fall about half way back to our preindustrial level in about 40 years. Instead they claim 500 or 1000 years which directly contradicts their claim that the ocean is “hiding” heat (it can’t hide heat but not hide CO2, it is the same ocean turnover that hides both).
“You might want to go search the lost and found for your sense of humor.”
I did and I could not find mine...but I found yours...would you like it back?
I’ll give you a dollar for it.
I agree completely. But whenever honesty and complete openness is suggested to the warming zealots, they scream that science is being attacked and double down on their claims. Climategate if anything showed their circle the wagons approach to politics. But they are losing the political battle big time.
One of the most critical flaws in the role of CO2 is assuming that, at the levels in our atmosphere we see it at, increasing it is the same as painting a window. Global Warming advocates say the behavior at these levels is apparent in the same way. The first coat of paint will somewhat cover the window, but light will still come in. Each subsequent coat of paint will produce a linear response until no light comes in through the window.
At these levels of CO2, that is a completely false premise. One of many.
As critics, too many of us fall into the trap of saying that CO2 doesn’t have the effects it is credited with because it is only .004% of the atmosphere. Supporters will immediately fire back that science is full of things that have effects apparent at those low concentrations.
And then it ended to never happen again. BTW, thanks for posting this thread, it is good to see moderate scientific voices here.
most important, nuclear plants.
When one drives through much of the south there are mega acres of woodlands that were farm land as recent as fifty years ago. The increase in biomass on these acres should have slowed and even prevented the warming that really never occurred
“Ill give you a dollar for it.”
SOLD!!! And you get $.99 change back...sorry Einigkeit, your sense of humor has been sold. You will have to go without until you can buy someone else’s. Don’t worry though, if I find mine I will give you a 1% share, that should more than double what you had anyway... ;)
NASA needs to get out of the business of liberal politics and get back to the core business of rockets and space travel.
Our next goal needs to be to acquire the ability to nuke any spot on the planet from orbit and within minutes.
Liberals cannot tell people exactly what they want to do. If they did, the reaction would be nearly unanimous: “What? You expect me to support that?”
We cannot give them sodium pentathol, but we can be patient and listen. As anyone knows who has ever considered the ethics and mechanics of deception, telling lies over time is nearly impossible because you cannot keep track of your lies. Liberals depend on people not remembering (or caring) what they have said or promised in the past.
In other words...Liberals have already implemented “The Memory Hole”, but...that DAMNED Internet keeps getting in the way!