There are sites online that can help out here...all you need is your credit card..:)
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 ...
“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
“I’ll 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!
As for the trap, it is true and has captured quite a few skeptics. I sometimes think some alarmists mount disinformation campaigns to make skeptics look stupid. But then I realize a fair number of skeptics don't know their science.
There are sites online that can help out here...all you need is your credit card..:)
Are the climate people just now figuring this out?
“There are sites online that can help out here...all you need is your credit card..:)”
You have saved the day!!! Thanks so much for helping out! :)
Those "experts" who are surprised by this must have been absent that day in third grade science.
Maddogs got a point Einigkeit. Computer models are all very well, but their predictions are only as good as the information and the assumptions that go into them. To accurately model the weather, you would have to enter all the factors that govern the weather. Aside from the fact that some of them are inponderables, new factors seem to be discovered all the time (this article being an example of another one). So just how much faith can we place in these models? It seems to me that they are much better at getting money for climate scientists than at telling us what the climate actually is.
A model must be an accurate representation of the real world. If not, it is useless -— or dangerous.
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.
I don't think the issue is so much that scientists get grant money from various government agencies; the issue is that too many of the politicians who direct how the moneys are allocated see in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a golden opportunity to impose their lifelong dream of socialism under the guise of "science." Therefore, only certain grants get funded. In the climate sciences, this has created the situation where only people who toe the line regarding AGW get funded.
In other sciences, this has created an atmosphere where no matter what the research is about, the catchphrase "because of global warming" (or climate change) has to be thrown in, even though the research has nothing to do with climate. I went to a conference a few years ago, where I watched a woman talking about food safety challenges at the point of production (i.e. on the farms). She ended the talk with a little discourse on how there is more food poisoning than ever, proposed some reasons why that might be so, and threw in "because of global warming." I wanted to scream.
I should add that my whole career has been paid for by government (taxpayer) funding. That includes about 80% of my PhD and all of my research, supplies, publications, travel to conferences, everything--but I've never been told that I must tie my research to a certain topic, or that I must produce results that support a pre-ordained conclusion if I want to get more funding. I guess that's because most medical research isn't political in the way that climate science is.
And in the first 5 words of the missive, further evidence there is no further evidence. A model is not evidence. A model is a presumption built upon available evidence - another theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.