'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming

ScienceDaily ^ | Dec. 9, 2010) | ScienceDaily

[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.

[Wpin]

“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”.

[reasonisfaith]

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.

[palmer]

If it shuts off, it gets to be like Canada. Many climate change models also predict that.

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.

[Wpin]

“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...

[palmer]

Following the last ice age, the big melt of the North American glacier shut off the Gulf Stream and caused Europe to freeze anew.

A one-off event, draining of the inland lake.

[rlmorel]

"... and don’t appreciate the resident wackos who prefer this course than actually considering the real scientific possiblity and potetnial consequences..."

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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."

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.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Yup. And it lasted for more several centuries.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You might want to go search the lost and found for your sense of humor.

[rlmorel]

You beat me to my point, and said it much more succinctly: "...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..."

[maddog55]

"....computer modeling"

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.

[Wpin]

“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.

[Vanders9]

Let me run something past you:

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?

[reasonisfaith]

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.)

[palmer]

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.

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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!!! "

Once again, God has taken man's wisdom and turned it upside down and prove that man in his own thinking and wisdom is WRONG !

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Yes! In Newspeak, cold is warm! For Victory!

[reasonisfaith]

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?

[rlmorel]

Now I am inclined to love the humor in "Tin Foil Hat Theory", but I didn't get the impression it was meant that way.

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.

[palmer]

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).