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.