Alarmists should be stunned by these fresh admissions from NASA-Climate Models ?

tomnelson.blogspot.com ^ | Tom Nelson

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Alarmists should be stunned by these fresh admissions from NASA

[NASA scientist: We don't currently understand cloud feedbacks; we can't separate man-made from natural climate variations]

[NASA's Dr. Dave Young] We know the things that can cause our climate to change. They include changes in the intensity of the sun, and increases in heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. What we want to learn is how the Earth responds to these driving forces, and any other secondary feedback effects that might occur. For example, say the Earth responds to increases in carbon dioxide levels by warming up; a warmer planet causes more water to evaporate and increases the amount of certain types of clouds. Clouds could either accelerate or slow down subsequent global warming. By taking very accurate energy measurements from space over a long period of time, we'll be able to measure these responses and feedbacks on decade-long timescales.

3. CLARREO claims it will produce an "irrefutable climate record." Does that mean it will put an end to climate change controversy?

Producing a trusted and tested climate record is one of our goals.
...The goal is to have a set of highly accurate measurements that can be used to track today's global warming trends and to improve climate models' predictions for the future. We've pretty much shown that you can separate man-made climate change from natural climate variations using the data we expect to collect. You'll see the impact of changes in carbon dioxide, methane and other gases reflected in the changes in the temperatures we measure. By comparing these numbers to the climate models, we'll really understand how that climate change developed.Climate Change: Dr. Dave Young

Affiliation: NASA Langley Research Center
...
Education: Bachelor's degree in astrophysics from Michigan State University, U.S.; Master's degree in meteorology from Penn State University, U.S.

Posted by Tom at 2:18 AM

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks to Dr. Bogus Pachysandra for alert to check Climate Depot.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So how are they going to model the impact of dust and aerosols from a volcano....this one just happened...FR Thread:

Iceland prepares for second, more devastating volcanic eruption-Northern Hemisphere Cooling?

[padre35]

Bkmk

[Rocky]

We've pretty much shown that you can separate man-made climate change from natural climate variations using the data we expect to collect.

I've read it three times, and I still can't believe it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They must have modeled it with a high powered computer.

[Marine_Uncle]

I have to visit the Climate Depot site. Last few days have been working, then having to retire early and not spending to much time on the Internet. Got off tomorrow... will attempt to catch up a bit.
Interesting though. The NASA scientist referenced seems to cozy. And still claims of some major link between CO2 and the rest of the bag. I am not buying it. Either CO2 can be shown within the atmosphere as being a major contributor to physical heat transfer of any significance beyond the probably established maximum of 8% in total forced heat exchanged within the 100 microns plus of IR back ground radiation etc., or it is no player.
We cannot have it both ways. The more I read from both ends of the spectrum on this issue, the more wishy washy the whole damn issue becomes.
My brother and many other chemist and physicist, specialist in spectroscopy have made it clear CO2 is not a primary contributor based on it's attributes. How it can absorb very narrow bands of IR energy and then somehow as the electrons are jacked up for a specific short period of time can then somehow transfer the energy still within the heat range of the spectrum into water molecules etc, as the electron cloud of those sparsely distributed molecules goes into decay mode..
There is just to damn much double talk among supposed scientist taking place.
The hell with goons like Al Gore. He is just some damn commie son who wants to make billions of dollars on a false theory. He can be eventually laughed out of existence, hopefully, and lose big bucks as a penalty for his sins. But I don't like to hear the continued reference to how CO2 can somehow play a major rule in the heating of the earth's oceans and surface due to the claimed mechanisms we have so far seen set forth. To much IMHO continues to be placed on a few low level hydrocarbons and not enough thought into the positioning of the earth within the solar orbit, the tilt of the earth relative to the sun over a period of time, the change in relative location to the earth with the surrounding galaxy etc., and how the switch in ocean temperatures during cycles effect the over all global or partial global land surface temperatures.
I write poorly. But I hope I get my point over, with no harsh criticism.
Like many here, I am a bit spent. Perhaps my wording is hash.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[jda]

It’s very simple: the earth’s surface is 75% water - I believe by design. As they point out, the rate of evaporation increases when water is heated, which causes a cooling effect (like sweating), and there is less evaporation when the temperature cools. Thus, the earth’s oceans, lakes and streams serve as a giant temperature equalizer.

And, if that’s not simple enough, remember that the ice ages were gone before man ever existed. Sorry, Al.

[jda]

It is clear from statements like “track today’s global warming trends” and “understand how that climate change developed” that his mind is already made up, so we can be sure the “highly accurate measurements” will suport the conclusion!

This is NOT science, it’s a religion.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

” using the data we expect to collect.”

A stunning admission of intent, eh?

[norwaypinesavage]

"So how are they going to model the impact of dust and aerosols from a volcano"

No need. That volcano is a figment of your imagination. Everyone knows the melting glaciers in Greenland are caused by "Climate Change", not volcanoes.

[Brett66]

By comparing these numbers to the climate models, we'll really understand how that climate change developed.

Of course, we know that climate models are totally scientific/bogus, doesn't really matter which one does it?

[Steve Van Doorn]

”We've pretty much shown that you can separate man-made climate change from natural climate variations ‘using the data we expect to collect.’

They must have modeled it with a high powered computer.”

dat the super computer.

[Rocky]

They may be destroying western civilization, but they mean well.