backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 28 at 2:35 PM


  (Source: global-greenhouse-warming.com)
Water vapor and clouds cannot sustain the greenhouse effect on their own

Researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have concluded, through the use of a new atmosphere-ocean climate model, that carbon dioxide manipulates Earth's temperature. 

Andrew Lacis of the GISS, along with David Rind and other colleagues, studied the Earth's greenhouse effect, and has concluded that non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and methane play central roles in the greenhouse effect. 

While water vapor and clouds are the major players when it comes to Earth's greenhouse effect, Lacis and his colleagues have found that water vapor and clouds alone could not provide "feedback mechanisms" that help absorb outgoing infrared radiation without the help of non-condensing greenhouse gases. 

Researchers came to this conclusion by running the global climate model forward in time without aerosols and non-condensing greenhouse gases. The result was that Earth's greenhouse effect "collapsed." This happened because water vapor precipitated quickly from the atmosphere and created an icebound state on Earth. Lacis concluded that water vapor acts as a feedback process that contributes 50 percent of the greenhouse warming, but cannot sustain the greenhouse effect on its own.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth's greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," said Lacis. 

According to the study, this information directly relates to the geologic record which shows that carbon dioxide levels have shifted between 180 parts per million during ice ages to approximately 280 parts per million during warm interglacial periods. Over the past century, there has been a 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) increase in global temperature, which means that the mean temperature difference between the ice age and interglacial periods is only approximately 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Rind further explains that as carbon dioxide increases, water vapor returns to the atmosphere in larger amounts. Rind says this is what melted the glaciers that once covered New York City, and that we are in "uncharted territory" today as carbon dioxide levels near 390 parts per million in this "superinterglacial" period. 

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of the Earth," said Lacis. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

It is generally recognized that the Earth warms and cools over time.  More controversial is the concept that global warming can be human-caused and is currently occurring.  The study offers support to this hypothesis. 

There are some vocal opinions to the contrary. For instance, renowned physics professor Harold Lewis from the University of California in Santa Barbara recently resigned from the American Physical Society in a letter saying that global warming is the "most successful pseudoscientific fraud" he has seen in his life as a physicist. 

"Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare," wrote Lewis. "I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion."

Lacis' study was published in Science.






Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I just knew it..
By solarrocker on 10/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just knew it..
By raumkrieger on 10/19/2010 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Did they forget about this already?

"Top Physics Professor Resigns From Post, Denouncing Global Warming 'Fraud'"


RE: I just knew it..
By Tiffany Kaiser on 10/19/2010 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 5
Funny you should bring this up, since I purposely put that article within this article to counter NASA's new climate model and ideas of global warming...


RE: I just knew it..
By acase on 10/19/2010 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, some of us that got past your name below the title stopped at:
quote:
Researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have concluded, through the use of a new atmosphere-ocean climate model,


RE: I just knew it..
By Tiffany Kaiser on 10/19/2010 4:02:46 PM , Rating: 5
An editor assigns me a story, and I write it. My job is to report on certain findings for what they are, because that is what's happening in the world, not because it's what I personally believe in. It's meant to be a theory to throw into the pool of consideration, not to be mindlessly lapped up like a dog. Feel free to agree or disagree with these articles, that's what they're here for.


RE: I just knew it..
By acase on 10/19/2010 4:07:50 PM , Rating: 5
Oh no...please don't admit you have "editors".


RE: I just knew it..
By ninjaquick on 10/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just knew it..
By Tiffany Kaiser on 10/19/2010 4:45:41 PM , Rating: 4
Ninjaquick, you're right. All news organizations have (or should have) editors.

But in my editors' defense, I chose global warming as my beat because I think both sides of the controversy are interesting enough to report on. I've found a lot of the material myself too.


RE: I just knew it..
By acase on 10/20/2010 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you missed it, but I was referring to if there is even 1 person, including the author, who looks over these articles to "edit" them before they are posted, that person should be very, very embarassed if they graduated middle school.


RE: I just knew it..
By EddyKilowatt on 10/19/2010 9:56:29 PM , Rating: 4
Well, if by "guy who actually knows stuff" you mean a retired prof whose actual expertise (thirty years ago) was nuclear reactors and missile defense... uh, sure.

The rest of us who are actually interested in what the climate is doing in response to the CO2 will keep on giving a little more weight to the climatologists, who are actually working in, you know, climatology. They keep looking at the problem from different directions, testing the theory... like scientists do... and this test like so many before it just came back saying "uh... you humans really need to pay attention to what you're doing with these greenhouse gasses".


RE: I just knew it..
By karielash on 10/19/2010 10:03:25 PM , Rating: 2

Don't argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


RE: I just knew it..
By Samus on 10/19/2010 11:25:44 PM , Rating: 3
Every time I read DT, peoples' feathers get ruffled and blood pressures blow gaskets over the dumbest shit. This thread is fucking priceless.

Tiffany, keep up the superb work. Eventually, you might kill one of these assholes with an aneurysm.


RE: I just knew it..
By karielash on 10/20/2010 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 3
Speaking of feathers getting ruffled and blood pressure...


RE: I just knew it..
By Samus on 10/20/2010 11:32:14 AM , Rating: 1
Only out of laughter...


RE: I just knew it..
By iceonfire1 on 10/19/2010 11:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
All the same, it is a mistake to simply dismiss his opinion as irrelevant; his claim made the news because he was qualified to make his statements (which are mostly about corruption and scientific politics, not global warming).


RE: I just knew it..
By tmouse on 10/20/2010 8:27:25 AM , Rating: 5
You hit the nail on the head. His main point was the dramatic shift towards fundamental policy within the organization he has been a part of for over 50 years. His expertise is he WAS part of another VERY controversial line of research and on a panel to investigate it. He points out how there is a complete lack of impartiality and a general unwillingness to allow open discussion within that organization today on this topic, to the ridiculous point of actually interfering with communication between members by not allowing the use of their membership mailing lists (a move that is totally unprofessional, borderline unethical and totally contrary to the fundamental premise of science which should be skepticism tempered with tolerance and encouraged open debate). This unfortunately is becoming a cornerstone in many areas of science today, and in my opinion is linked to a general easing of standards, short cutting of training, over recruitment in some disciplines and the resulting increased pressure in securing funding. At my own institute I have seen a few very bright individuals, who have regular publications in high tier journals get walking papers because they have not been good at securing grants while others who have virtually no publication record, questionable ethics (in my opinion) but who know how to masturbate the system and secure money get promoted way above their level of competence. It’s very telling that we now have federally mandated requirements to provide courses that teach what should be basic ethics in advanced degree programs.


RE: I just knew it..
By SPOOFE on 10/20/2010 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
But since he's not one of the guys at the very center of the controversial research surrounded by allegations of fraud, corruption, and bias, HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!


RE: I just knew it..
By someguy123 on 10/19/2010 4:15:22 PM , Rating: 3
So your editors are the ones giving you nothing but these environmental/food related stories and asking you to have very little focus on actual tech and more on pushing an agenda?


RE: I just knew it..
By kattanna on 10/19/2010 4:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So your editors are the ones giving you nothing but these stories that will drive page views and ad counts?


there, fixed it for you.


RE: I just knew it..
By icemansims on 10/19/2010 4:24:51 PM , Rating: 4
Alright, normally I don't agree with her, but that's really not fair, guys.

When you're talking about assigning stories, you don't assign an engineer to a fashion show, and by that same token, you're not going to assign someone who has (probably) a degree in food science or environmental science to computer hardware or medical devices.


RE: I just knew it..
By mkrech on 10/19/2010 5:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh don't get all pissy! You are getting the most comment traffic aren't you?

quote:
It is generally recognized that the Earth warms and cools over time. More controversial is the concept that global warming can be human-caused and is currently occurring. The study offers support to this hypothesis.

Not controversial at all, but the global warming zealots would like you to think so. The two step logic here goes like this:
- Global warming is happening and human activity is accelerating it
- Global warming (that we are causing) will lead to "The Day After Tomorrow" becoming reality.

Observation tells us that global climate changes. Scientific study attempts to determine the mechanism of global climate change. Assumed knowledge of this mechanism is used to create climate models to explain what will happen to the climate and if humans have any affect. This is so far down the "assumed" road that you would be an ignoramus of giant proportions to accept it as fact. This is however what is used as the basis of the AGW religion. Ironically, it is wildly presumptuous, without even getting to the BIG assumption.

The second step in the argument to get the world to commit trillions of dollars to this religion is the "sky is falling" mentality that catastrophic world ending events will ultimately occur far beyond our lifetimes unless we do something NOW!

Plainly stated... BULLSHIT


RE: I just knew it..
By bug77 on 10/20/2010 3:24:00 AM , Rating: 3
Think about it this way: there's a new model in town, yet it predicts whatever past models predicted anyway. How is it possible to keep changing/improving models, yet reaching the same conclusion over and over again? That would be an article I'd like to read.


RE: I just knew it..
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:32:51 AM , Rating: 3
Two answers spring to mind; 1) The result is true and 2) The result was fixed to begin with and it's a case of cherry picking data and creating artificial simulations to fit it.


RE: I just knew it..
By EricMartello on 10/20/2010 8:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, basing "science" on incomplete models really matters. Look, they can't even accurately forecast the weather for the next 3 days - what makes you think these asinine "climate models" can accurately predict GLOBAL climate changes spanning over hundreds of years? THEY CANNOT.

Computer simulations have their place as tools in research but drawing conclusions solely on simulations and rhetoric is NOT science in any way shape or form.


RE: I just knew it..
By kattanna on 10/19/2010 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, they are the same people whose temp maps extrapolate temps in places where we have no land based thermometers, sometimes as far away as 1200 KM, or more. basing arctic temps on thermometers in southern canada, thats HOT!

the funny thing is that if you use, of all places, the temp maps of hadcrut, they dont show any warming since 1998/2000 time frame. but the GISS maps do.


RE: I just knew it..
By CZroe on 10/20/2010 11:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Models model what they were modeled to model.


RE: I just knew it..
By FITCamaro on 10/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: I just knew it..
By roadhog1974 on 10/19/2010 9:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
High iron count there.


RE: I just knew it..
By AssBall on 10/20/2010 2:41:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You're still a biased idiot.


Says the DT king of opinionated self righteous posts... LOL.


RE: I just knew it..
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2010 7:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Is that the internet version of a little school boy pulling a girl's hair when he actually likes her, a lot? :o)


RE: I just knew it..
By Fracture on 10/20/2010 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but shouldn't you counter with a story that at least has some merit?

I don't know how any climatologist much less any scientist could read the title and not laugh. Water vapor composes nearly as much of the atmosphere as carbon dioxide does and contributes and accounts for 70-95%+ of the greenhouse effect (depending on sources).

I would guess that most of this research is based on the assumption that the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the closer the radiation is absorbed to the source - but this has been disproven since the atmosphere hasn't gotten thicker on the same order of magnitude as CO2 increases.


Computer Models
By ZachDontScare on 10/19/2010 2:58:04 PM , Rating: 5
Ah, computer models. The modern equivalent of reading tea leaves or entrails to predict the future.

Computer models arent actually 'proof' of anything. They can be made to 'model' whatever the developers want them to model. And as we've seen with Climate-gate, the sham artists... I mean, scientists... clearly have a vested interest in making sure their tea leaves... I mean, computer models... back up their dire predictions. After all, if the model showed that 'global warming' was bunk, then all those billions of $$$ they get to research it would be at stake. And then they might have to leave academia or government, and go out and get real jobs.




RE: Computer Models
By Denigrate on 10/19/2010 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 5
After all, computer models gave us the hockey stick graph which has been well proven to be an outright fabrication.

What happened to the facts? Never mind that CO2 is no where near as powerful a warming agent as the ones listed in the article, CO2 is not the most powerful and the others have no power without CO2. What a load of horse manure. Why do we have all this poli-science driven by government agenda's? Follow the money, and you'll see the real story behind this.


RE: Computer Models
By raddude9 on 10/19/2010 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
After all, computer models gave us the hockey stick graph which has been well proven to be an outright fabrication.


And computer models of the atmosphere also give us weather forecasting, which have become increasingly more accurate with the increasing computer power being thrown at the problem. So should the whole idea of Modeling be abandoned?

quote:
What happened to the facts?


The Theory behind Human-caused climate-change is based on 2 indisputable facts. First, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and second, human activity has caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to double. This is why we need Computer modeling, to attempt to predict what the effects of this change will be.

quote:
Follow the money


The money trail goes in both directions, there is also a very significant lobby arguing that global warming is not a problem and we should do nothing about it. And instead of finding flaws in the scientific research of the "global warming could be a problem" crowd, they mostly use scepticism to deflect attention.

Just because some scientists are "following the money" and a few scientists fake their results does not disprove the overall Theory. To do that, more research is needed, not less.


RE: Computer Models
By jhb116 on 10/19/2010 6:10:43 PM , Rating: 1
As for the facts - I'll give you the CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I don't believe that human activity has caused doubling of CO2 is an indisputable fact. I think evidence shows that human activity increased CO2 levels - but double?

BTW - models are only as good as those that A program them and B setup the initial conditions/parameters. The technical term is GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out....


RE: Computer Models
By EddyKilowatt on 10/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Computer Models
By tmouse on 10/20/2010 8:32:08 AM , Rating: 3
Actually that’s wrong, many multibillion dollar companies are cashing in on the green movement and if government funding is being linked to a certain view, which it is in several areas today there is more than enough motive to sway things in that direction.


RE: Computer Models
By Paj on 10/21/2010 8:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously suggesting that green industries receive more money than fossil fuel industries? What a laughable assertion.


RE: Computer Models
By SPOOFE on 10/20/2010 5:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the money trail goes overwhelmingly, like 100:1, toward the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industries and their army of well-paid shills in right-wing think tanks

I'd love to see evidence of this assertion. Al Gore made half a billion dollars on this nonsense already. That's just one guy, out of thousands. What's this nonsense about "the money trail" again?


RE: Computer Models
By Aloonatic on 10/19/2010 3:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
What happened to that study where many people downloaded something that ran as a screen saver, which to historical data in order to try to find a computer model that could reasonable predict weather patterns? A it like the folding at home project, but for weather modelling.

It seemed like a pretty good idea and was all over the news a few years ago, then nothing.

Unless a computer model can take historical data and "predict" weather later on, that has actually happened, how can anyone be expected to take it seriously when predicting future weather patterns/systems?


RE: Computer Models
By kattanna on 10/19/2010 3:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happened to that study where many people downloaded something that ran as a screen saver, which to historical data in order to try to find a computer model that could reasonable predict weather patterns? A it like the folding at home project, but for weather modelling.


http://climateprediction.net/

its still an active network computing job. i actually run it on a couple machines, along with many other astronomy jobs.


RE: Computer Models
By Irish Patient on 10/19/2010 4:06:05 PM , Rating: 5
Shouldn't a real modeling program also replicate historic conditions when run backwards? I would think that a computer model that is based on mathematics and physics, rather than the assumptions of the programmer, would be agnostic as to the direction of time.


RE: Computer Models
By ninjaquick on 10/19/2010 4:35:17 PM , Rating: 5
Wish I had like button. If the formula cannot be proven with known answers then how can it be assumed accurate lol.


RE: Computer Models
By mkrech on 10/19/2010 5:07:48 PM , Rating: 5
Its that type of thinking that will prevent you from ever getting that grant. If you ever want to make money as a researcher you must think outside the box. Logic is so old fashioned.


RE: Computer Models
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2010 5:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and I know that I wont trust a model that hasn't been through the correct, modern, rigorous, peer review process.

What we need is a TV show called "America's Next Top Global Whether Pattern Prediction/Climate Change Model".

Catchy title, I know :o)


RE: Computer Models
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
True that. I can build a computer simulation that would tell you anything you liked; computers do exactly what we tell them to do.


I'm tired of this stuff...
By ZmaxDP on 10/19/2010 3:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
1st off, the title says "ultimately responsible" which to me means it is the PRIMARY factor. A 50/50 split means neither factor (water vapor or CO2) is "ultimately" responsible. This study assumed constant solar radiation because of what it was trying to prove, and we all know that is actually "Ultimately responsible" for earth's atmospheric temperature (unless some idiot wants to claim that it cools off at night because the CO2 goes to sleep...awww).

2nd - Was this study reversed? I mean, Mars has a you know what-load of CO2 and it isn't exactly balmy. Sure, it has much less solar radiation and little to no magnetic field. Perhaps water vapor & CO2 are equally necessary? I'd like to see their model applied to mars' atmosphere and see what it predicts... It is just physics right? So, shouldn't it be portable.

Baloney through and through most likely... "this just in! Stool with three legs has one leg removed and it falls over! More at 10:00pm..."




RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By mindless1 on 10/19/2010 3:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Their brilliant model works equally well to prove that if you make fudge brownies but don't put the fudge in, then run this model forward in time, they still won't be fudge brownies.

Unfortunately what it doesn't prove is that if you have 40% fudge it's a fudge brownie but if you have 42% fudge it isn't a fudge brownie.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By torpor on 10/19/2010 3:51:07 PM , Rating: 5
That's nothing...
Tell him about the twinkie.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By Boze on 10/19/2010 8:16:45 PM , Rating: 3
*blank stare*
What about the Twinkie??


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By gamerk2 on 10/19/2010 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
LEarn to read:

quote:
1st off, the title says "ultimately responsible" which to me means it is the PRIMARY factor. A 50/50 split means neither factor (water vapor or CO2) is "ultimately" responsible. This study assumed constant solar radiation because of what it was trying to prove, and we all know that is actually "Ultimately responsible" for earth's atmospheric temperature (unless some idiot wants to claim that it cools off at night because the CO2 goes to sleep...awww).


The study is looking at long-term changes over time. Yes, within a single day-night cycle, solar radition is the primary effector on temperatures. Over hte long term though, teh study finds that CO2 levels are the primary factor for changes in the planets average temperature over time.

quote:
2nd - Was this study reversed? I mean, Mars has a you know what-load of CO2 and it isn't exactly balmy. Sure, it has much less solar radiation and little to no magnetic field. Perhaps water vapor & CO2 are equally necessary? I'd like to see their model applied to mars' atmosphere and see what it predicts... It is just physics right? So, shouldn't it be portable.


Again, read: Changes over time. Its entirly possible the a rise in CO2 levels on mars could lead it also to get warmer (still well below freezing, but warmer). Likewise, the exact geological/atmospheric model of Mars is far from complete, and its entirely possible the CO2 could be absorbed by some other chemical process. [It should be noted, that increasing atmospheric concentrations on Mars would thicken its atmosphere by a much larger percent then the same concentration on Earth, which could lead to server changes climate wise. I'm not exactly an expert in this area though...]

The study uses a Gelogical/Atmospheric model simmilar to the earth, and changing those parameters would have a significant change on the results of the study.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
I expect that he couldn't have posted what he did if he couldn't read. Perhaps you should think a little before posting, so you don't come across as a fool, just a suggestion.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By MozeeToby on 10/19/2010 3:49:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Mars has a you know what-load of CO2 and it isn't exactly balmy.
Percentage wise Mars has a high CO2 atmosphere but Mars's atmosphere is so thin that it actually has very little CO2 present. It's hardly a valid comparison. It would be like saying that the Moon has a lot of argon since the Moon's atmosphere is 50+% argon, completely ignoring that even at less than 1% there is orders of magnitude more argon in the Earth's atmosphere.

To put it in perspective, Mars has about 24 teratonnes of CO2 in it's atmosphere compared to about 206 teratonnes in Earth's atmosphere. Even though CO2 makes up 95% of Mars's and .04% of Earth's. So more than 8 times as much, which is more than enough difference to explain why Mars isn't "balmy" despite having a 95% CO2 atmosphere.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By Iaiken on 10/19/2010 4:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mars has a you know what-load of CO2 and it isn't exactly balmy.


Mars can barely hold on to an atmosphere.

While the one that it has is almost entirely composed of CO2; it is also nowhere near as thick nor as dense as Earths. In fact, the Martian atmospheric density is only ~1% of that of the earth. This means that there is still actually a higher net volume CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere than in that of Mars.

While one would expect that the Greenhouse effect would run rampant on Mars the same way that it does on Venus, the opposite is actually true. The atmospheric density is SO low that light simply reflects off the surface (or off clouds of fine CO2 crystals) and back out into space. This lower density also prevents radiant heat from being retained and so it simply escapes off into space.

Don't quit your day job.


RE: I'm tired of this stuff...
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
His day job... Perhaps he's a climate scientist?


Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By mindless1 on 10/19/2010 3:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Does no one else see the faulty logic?

quote:
Researchers came to this conclusion by running the global climate model forward in time without aerosols and non-condensing greenhouse gases.


!= proof that moderate changes in CO2 levels control temperature

Studying a condition that does not exist and has FEWER variables, subtracting the very variable you are trying to understand, is not a valid model to learn about a more complex system.

It only indicates what should be obvious, that our environment is the sum of it's parts and if you take away any of those parts you have a different environment which would allow some organisms to flourish and cause others to adapt or die.

This is another example of why I am against contributing to the NASA money pit, they aren't focused on primary objectives like having a modern replacement space vehicle, rather waiting around saying gimme gimme money or we won't even start trying, instead burning through what you give us on THIS sort of crap.




RE: Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By gamerk2 on 10/19/2010 3:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
What the study was doing, first and formost, was eliminating other possible factors to determine what effects CO2 levels alone would have if no other potential warming sources were present. thats how you are SUPPOSED to test a theory: Remove all other possible outside influences, and check the results.

Nevermind how complicated the physics gets as you add more variables; I worked on a weather system for NASA a few years back, and know firsthand how weather systems are modeled. Even minute changes in conditions have significant impacts on the results, as such, you need to run models multiple times under varying starting conditions to get an idea of how the models tend to be going. The point being: adding aerosols and non-condesing greenhouse gasses to the mix GREALTY complicates the model, and even a minor assumption being incorrect on their impact could disrupt the model in such ways to make is useless.


RE: Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
We don't care if it greatly complicates a model to get an accurate result; an accurate result is what we want, or it's not science.


RE: Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By Stories84 on 10/19/2010 4:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just get rid of NSF and NIH while we're at it? We have no interest in figuring out anything in the world around us, right? The government is a bunch of lazy bums that can't do a single thing--is that what you're suggesting? Private industry would do a better job?


RE: Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By Darkefire on 10/19/2010 5:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
The hell are you smoking? He didn't even once mention private industry in his post. What he did say (and what I agree with) is that NASA's focus should be on things outside the terrestrial sphere, and with what they can build to get us there. They shouldn't be wasting time and resources on climate studies, which are already being massively funded through other, non space-related areas. Being less politically-sensitive will help your blood pressure.


RE: Are We All Now Brain Dead?
By mindless1 on 10/28/2010 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
No I'm suggesting the government is a bunch of misguided bums who should quit trying to empower themselves to do what the public did not elect them to do which was mainly to govern, to maintain, not to decide how to waste our tax money and trillions more debt.

NASA is but one example of the larger problem that an agency should focus on it's core, fundamental objectives and reason for existing. We didn't form an aeronautics and space administration to promote propaganda, true or false, for the leftist global warming agenda.

It is a misuse of resources to task or allow them to undertake such things as well.

They do a bit what computer hardware benchmarkers do, SEEK to find a difference, tailor their efforts toward producing data that shows a difference. This is a fundamental lack of proper scientific method and to have it cranked out by NASA is a sign of mismanagement at both their level and the government above them.


CO2 most important source
By pityme on 10/19/2010 3:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Even the childish slide they posted states that "Solar radiation powers the climate system". How can CO2 be more important than the amount of solar radiation? Oh, for the Green Parties, the sun is not constant. Go to Nasa and see actual pictures of the Sun and solar flares. Realize that only one small portion of the sun accounts for all of our heating effects. Realize that both the Sun and earth rotate realative to each other. Realize that we are only now beginning to understand a limited amount of how the Sun actually produces "solar radiation". One properly aimed large solar promenience would equal 20 years of current human CO2 climate effects. Yet we still do not know the day to day solar effects on the earth. If you think that CO2 and hydrocarbons alone are the total reason for global warming, please explain to me how come Saturn's moon Titan is not as hot as Mercury since it is totally enveloped with hydrocarbons and CO2.




RE: CO2 most important source
By raddude9 on 10/19/2010 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
please explain to me how come Saturn's moon Titan is not as hot as Mercury since it is totally enveloped with hydrocarbons and CO2.


You do need a lot of explanation, and either your knowledge of the solar system is really poor or you are making things up in an attempt to support your position

Mercury is 0.4 AU from the sun.

Titan is 9.5 AU from the sun.

Further, Titan is most definitely NOT "totally enveloped" with hydrocarbons. The atmosphere of Titan is over 95% Nitrogen.


RE: CO2 most important source
By bigbrent88 on 10/19/2010 6:28:28 PM , Rating: 3
What's childish is comparing a planet that is 28.5 million miles away from the sun to a moon orbiting a planet that is 900 million miles away! Lets compare the three innermost planets in our solar system.

-Mercury: Orbit, 28.5 Million mi. ; Temp, 450 to -170*C
-Venus: Orbit, 67.2 Million mi. ; Temp, ~465*C
-Earth: Orbit, ~91-92 Million mi. ; Temp, ~13*C

Looking at this we can see that Mercury can get very hot, due to its close proximity to the sun, but that heat radiates away with a lack of atmosphere. Yes, I know it doesn't revolve quickly, but an atmosphere would trap and distribute energy.
Meanwhile, Venus is over twice as far away and should have much less radiated energy, but still ends up having a higher temperature. Why? Could it be the super dense atmosphere consisting of CO2? Just so you know, radiated energy dissipates at I/d^2. Let us say that the Suns radiation intensity is equal to a power of 1 on Mercury, by the time it reaches Venus that intensity has diminished to 1/2.4^2 or 0.17!
Then you have Earth even farther away and of course we know what our planet is, not too hot and not too cold. Kind of why our little rock is so nice for us! If we increase our CO2 then obviously we warm, not to catastrophic Venusian levels, but high enough to alter our planet for a few generations.


RE: CO2 most important source
By sleepeeg3 on 10/19/2010 9:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
So why wasn't our planet boiling when the levels were 10x what they were now in the Jurassic era?

Why is Mars also losing its icecaps at an equal level to Earth's as solar activity increases?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...

Atmosphere has an effect, but the amount of CO2 that we are emitting is insignificant.


Wait a minute...
By Spivonious on 10/19/2010 2:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
So this model assumes that the Greenhouse Effect is real? Then the whole study becomes a big "duh".

Proving the Greenhouse Effect should be the goal.




RE: Wait a minute...
By Exodite on 10/19/2010 3:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
Is your post a sign of life existing on Earth?

If so - congratulations! You've just proven that the Greenhouse Effect is real.

Atmospheric gases trapping solar radiation as heat, thus heating the surface of the earth enough to sustain ideal conditions for harboring living organisms isn't either new or questionable.

The only debate on the issue is whether or not the greenhouse gases contributed to the atmosphere by human civilization are significant enough to adversely affect the climate.


RE: Wait a minute...
By kingius on 10/20/2010 7:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
I would like for you to grow tomatoes in a greenhouse made of CO2 please.


RE: Wait a minute...
By MrTeal on 10/19/2010 3:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think my ability to buy hothouse tomatos in April proves that the greenhouse effect is real. I don't know of any scientist who would claim otherwise.


RE: Wait a minute...
By Spivonious on 10/19/2010 4:23:37 PM , Rating: 1
A real greenhouse and the Greenhouse Effect are completely different things.

The theory goes that heat from Earth gets absorbed by gas molecules in the atmosphere and then reradiated in all directions, so Earth heats up, or at least retains more heat than it would without any absorption.

A real greenhouse stays warm by preventing colder air from entering the structure. Open a window and the colder air from outside will displace the hot air inside.


By Denigrate on 10/19/2010 3:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The result was that Earth's greenhouse effect "collapsed." This happened because water vapor precipitated quickly from the atmosphere and created an icebound state on Earth.


So basically, CO2 = good for the earth.

Thanks for pulling out the "real" data for us.




By gamerk2 on 10/19/2010 3:51:01 PM , Rating: 3
Umm...no. The only possible conclusion to that statement would be:

"A steady level of CO2 would maintain the current climate of the Earth, assuming all other parameters remained constant".

Lets not forget, O2 used to be a poisen that was responsable for killing off around 97% of all life when it was first added to the atmosphere in significant amounts, yet no one would argue O2 is bad for the planet...


By Denigrate on 10/19/2010 9:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you believe the Earth exists in a vacuum and never changes.

Mass extinctions happen.


By karielash on 10/20/2010 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and the next one will be the best yet...


Ah, the crevasse method
By RivuxGamma on 10/19/2010 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.


I got that from http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temp...

I couldn't actually bring up the actual study because I don't have a subscription to sciencemag.org.

It seems to assume that the only thing that radiates heat are non-condensing gases and that CO2 is the only thing that does it out of those gases.

I'm thinking a little peer review action is in order.




RE: Ah, the crevasse method
By Stories84 on 10/19/2010 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that behind Nature, Science is the second most highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anything published in Science is considered very significant. They have some of the world's foremost experts (and most critical) reviewing papers.

Science publishes research in all disciplines, not just climate science.


I just lost all faith in NASA.
By rika13 on 10/19/10, Rating: 0
By seraphim1982 on 10/19/2010 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Because the ICE told us so....

Not saying I don't believe you, because that is real evidence, but core samples cannot reflect the changes to the planet after humans entered the industrial revolution, furthermore there isn't enough current & historical data to prove that global warming doesn't exist. Yes, I do know that the earth goes through phases of cooling and temperature rising, but the rate at which the change is occuring is what is startling scientists.


RE: I just lost all faith in NASA.
By Tabinium on 10/19/2010 3:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand that point you're trying to make...
The "normal" fluctuations are between 180 and 280 ppm, but we're at 380 ppm now and rising. I think it's safe to assume that this data was taken from the 400,000 year old ice samples you mentioned.


RE: I just lost all faith in NASA.
By SPOOFE on 10/20/2010 5:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "normal" fluctuations are between 180 and 280 ppm, but we're at 380 ppm now and rising.

Only if you go back about a thousand years. Go back actual geological time scales (y'know, the sort of scale that would give an actual accurate view of the climate) and the term "unprecedented" becomes wholly inappropriate as a descriptor.


Circular Logic that Proves Nothing
By sleepeeg3 on 10/19/2010 9:48:40 PM , Rating: 3
Study uses circular logic to try and justify climate change. They are justifying CO2 levels... by CO2 levels without actually looking at temperature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/10101...
When I first heard about this story on ScienceDaily a few days ago, my comments were basically:
1. How do you explain NASA's own data that shows CO2 levels @ 10x the amount they are today, 65 million years ago?
2. What about the 800 year CO2 lag? How do you explain away temperature increases occurring *first*?
3. Maunder minimum, solar activity matching temperature increases, etc.

They are offering a bunch of circular pseudoscience crap that proves nothing.




By tmouse on 10/20/2010 9:03:03 AM , Rating: 3
That’s a good point, another is they created a model based upon certain assumptions, then pulled a component and kept all other variable the same and surprise the model collapsed. They then concluded a causative role. This is a good approach in experimentalism where the other variable are free to adapt leaving the researcher to attempt to understand the correlations but in models you set the variance of the parameters which may or may not reflect what would actually happen. Models are always limited by being incomplete, there is a lot more things that effect climate than just the few they had in their model. Of course CO2 plays some role whether it’s a cause or result is part of the debate and what percent is a direct result of mans interference is also very debatable. There have been times where the ppm of CO2 was an order of magnitude higher and the ecosystem did not go into total collapse, I’m not saying this would be good for us but it shows there can be enormous naturally occurring events that have dramatic effects on CO2 levels and there is some open debate about the existence of any absolute correlation between CO2 and temperature but there is a strong trend.


Please explain this paragraph...
By Schrag4 on 10/20/2010 9:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the study, this information directly relates to the geologic record which shows that carbon dioxide levels have shifted between 180 parts per million during ice ages to approximately 280 parts per million during warm interglacial periods. Over the past century, there has been a 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) increase in global temperature, which means that the mean temperature difference between the ice age and interglacial periods is only approximately 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit).


Someone please explain this paragraph to me. Is it trying to say that for every 100 PPM rise in CO2 we'll see exactly 1 deg C rise in temp? I missed the part in the article where it said CO2 rose 500 PPM between ice age and interglacial periods. This paragraph doesn't make sense without further explanation, IMO.




RE: Please explain this paragraph...
By SPOOFE on 10/20/2010 5:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
They're doing their damnedest to keep the CO2-Warming link as vaguely defined as possible. They don't want to be pinned down by their words; a common behavior amongst con artists and shysters, don't let your lies surround you, always leave an "out"...


RE: Please explain this paragraph...
By Schrag4 on 10/21/2010 10:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
While I generally agree with you, I don't think that's what's going on here. It's almost as if this paragraph was accidentally copied/pasted into this article. I'm just looking for some, ANY context for the paragraph.

Tiffany, care to explain? Surely you remember why that paragraph is there...


No and stop lying
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/20/2010 9:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't even make sense. How does 96% of the atmosphere which is water vapor not have any influence as co2 which makes up .01% of the atmosphere.

On top of that NASA has argued that the sun makes up at least 20% of warming and cooling that occurs on earth. They're not even sure so they're sending a multi-million dollar satellite to the sun to find out.

Just stop it your arguments fail and they make no sense.




RE: No and stop lying
By Schrag4 on 10/20/2010 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the sun is responsible for darn-near 100% of the warming of the earth's atmosphere.

:-p


RE: No and stop lying
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/20/2010 11:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I know I'm just going by what NASA says. They say at least 20% so they are literally building a multi-million dollar satellite to throw in the sun. I'm not making that up.


Huge problem that they gloss over
By killerroach on 10/19/2010 3:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the greenhouse effect can exist. But they're putting all their eggs in the carbon dioxide basket, which is far from the most significant of greenhouse gases.

Then again, you can't control the sum total of human activity if you're focused on sulfur dioxide or trihalomethanes, can you?




By raddude9 on 10/19/2010 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, the greenhouse effect can exist


No, it does exist, it's just the basic properties of CO2, the only debate is how much of an effect it has.


Really? REALLY??
By ppardee on 10/20/2010 12:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
C02 is a fairly weak greenhouse gas. It makes up about 0.039% of Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor is a MUCH more powerful greenhouse gas, and there is 10 times as much of it in the air. (this varies by altitude. Overall, its about 0.4% - more than 10x CO2 - but at lower elevations it can be as high as 4%)

Saying that CO2 is the primary regulator of the temperature is like saying the exhaust from a car's tailpipe is the ultimate force that moves the car forward.




RE: Really? REALLY??
By SPOOFE on 10/20/2010 5:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
They USED to just assume that water causes a simple positive feedback effect (more heat retention means more water vapor means even more heat retention). They spent about a decade and a half just brainlessly making this assumption, 'cuz modeling water vapor is hard. Poor scientists. We expect them to do hard work before they get any respect. Wa-a-a-ah...

Anyway, now they're starting to find that water vapor acts as a NEGATIVE feedback effect, so they need to rework their AGW mythos. It's just simple retconning. We all know how well that works...


By CharonPDX on 10/19/2010 6:24:36 PM , Rating: 1
75% of the comments are *THIS ARTICLE IS BOGUS* or *THIS ARTICLE IS TEH TRUTH, BELIEVE!*

5% are *THIS AUTHOR IS OBVIOUSLY BIASED, DAILYTECH SCUM!*

20% are just a back-and-forth of personal attacks between commenters.

Enough already.




By sleepeeg3 on 10/19/2010 9:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just eliminate all global warming articles? There is no tech to see here. Move along...


AGW...all about the $$?
By vortmax2 on 10/19/2010 2:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much different the AGW research 'climate' would be if there was no money to be made...




By soloburrito on 10/20/2010 12:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
During the summer, if the rate of sunscreen use increases and the rate of sun burns also increases, does that mean sunscreen causes sunburns? I can manipulate a hockey stick graph for you that shows this if that helps.

Where were all the big bad Earth-killing humans millions, thousands or even hundreds (pre-industrial) of years ago to cause CO2 levels to rise artificially therefore causing Earth's temperature to rise?

It's all cyclical. If eventually sea levels rise and cause radical changes to the environment, there will be absolutely nothing we could've done to prevent it. If suddenly we fell into an ice age and glaciers overran developed areas, there's nothing we can do about it.

The Earth is a big place. Although we do have the ability to manipulate the environment on a small scale in drastic ways, such rapid global changes are well beyond our means.

This planet has been around for billions of years and has been in much worse of a state than it is now. A couple hundred years of industrialization isn't going to suddenly bring the entire ecosystem to its knees.




I hate articles like these...
By Setsunayaki on 10/20/2010 3:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
In every single civilization and in every single age, the environmentalist has always been against the progression and advancement of the human race.

In every such example, environmentalists who have won their cases have always regressed society and imposed hardships on the population.

There is not a sole example where an environmentalist-driven program to pass legislation in "preserving" the environment" has not economically hurt the population or raised the cost of living to the point of poverty.

If I had the power, I would stuff these people along with the clergy into a massive rocketship and hurl it straight towards the sun!




To understand the concept...
By JonnyDough on 10/20/2010 12:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
You must understand thermal dissipitation and thermal conductivity.

Think of the earth like a house. In windows that contain the right gases, thermal energy loss is slowed. Its why they fill panes with argon and krypton.

Think also of a rock in open air, space is really not that different. The earth puts off heat into space, heat which is mostly obtained from the sun.

Adding the right gases to the attic will help to raise the temperature of the earth a degree or two as long as said gases are trapped in insulation (atmosphere), however the incremental change in temperature can only go so high before the thermal energy is lost to space. Adding new windows may make your home a bit warmer with the same amount of heat being produced within, but it will not cause your couch cushions to burst into flame. It may get a little toasty inside, but that doesn't mean nothing can live there. Still, the earth has been in balance for awhile, and we are more than likely throwing that balance out of wack. We are consuming more natural resources than ever, and we've done so in a very short amount of time. The fallout? Extinction of regional animals such as the polar bear. The long term effect on humans? Unknown.




Wow...
By wldfire on 10/20/2010 9:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
...so much vitriol and anger and downright personal attacks; it's no wonder that our country is dissolving into a bipartisan deadlock..

RE: the article, someone commented that environmentalists are out to stop human advancement, but I'd profusely beg to differ. If anything, the environmentalists are totally dependent upon human and technological advancement to realize their goals, even to our detriment. Case in point, we are so hell-bent on finding ways to reduce our resource consumption that we are at the bleeding edge of technology, sometimes employing technology that itself has been unproven and/or carries its own environmental complications (see lithium mining and rare-earth metals extraction).

As for the professor retiring, certainly "Climategate" was a black eye for the field of climate science, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (e.g.- don't discredit climate scientists just because of a few bad apples, just as we shouldn't discredit <insert personally-disliked political party here> just because of the actions of a few individuals). In reading Mr. Lewis' letter, it seems that he was more upset by the politics of the American Physical Society than climate science itself. Well, unfortunately, politics are a fact of life including in the world of climate science. One only has to look at the comment list on this post to see how much a part of the daily world this has become. Who knows what inter-personal relationships within the APS caused Mr. Levis to quit in such a fashion, but I can guarantee there's much more to this story than what was put in the published letter.

Finally, to respond to the human-caused global warming nay-sayers, come on, you've got to admit that we people haven't been terribly good about historically managing our resources. Megafauna in North America, trees in Great Britain, pollution in our national rivers, whale/sardine/anchovy/orange roughy/etc. fisheries the world over, water in the Colorado... Let's face it: when we screw things up, we have a tendency to royally #$!^ things up before we get everyone in agreement that there's a problem. That piddly little spill off of the Louisiana coast? Yeah, the one that involved 47,000 responders and the media attention for half a year? That total spill amounted to no more than a quarter of the amount of oil that we in the US use in a single day . Do we honestly believe burning this much petroleum has no impact on the environment?? I suppose if you believe that just a little bit of garbage dumped in a river can cause no harm....




Just in Time for Halloween!
By jp77 on 10/21/2010 9:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
Ok,,,so it used to be Global COOLING!, Then,,Oh Wait Scary! Global WARMING!!Ahh and then Oh Wait,Climate CHANGE!!!Scary!! temperature Changes/Seasons...Ahh Scary! just in time for Halloween, Oh wait it's Global Warming again,,wait? Im confused?..Hmm?...So everybody STOP breathing!,,you know we all harness that Deadly weapon of CO2 emission..And Plants OH NO!, They thrive from CO2 they must be Evil wait,,Destroy all the plants!!!Oh Wait and the Oceans which emit the majority of the CO2! must rid Planet of Oceans!! Robot Voice....Self Destruct..Self Destruct....They were hoping we would really be that stupid.......




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki