NASA's Goddard Institute says GW predictions invalid

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,684
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    Damn, Walleyes, when are you going to learn to read.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716
    Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions
    Drew T. Shindell,* Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nadine Unger, Susanne E. Bauer

    Evaluating multicomponent climate change mitigation strategies requires knowledge of the diverse direct and indirect effects of emissions. Methane, ozone, and aerosols are linked through atmospheric chemistry so that emissions of a single pollutant can affect several species. We calculated atmospheric composition changes, historical radiative forcing, and forcing per unit of emission due to aerosol and tropospheric ozone precursor emissions in a coupled composition-climate model. We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, assessments of multigas mitigation policies, as well as any separate efforts to mitigate warming from short-lived pollutants, should include gas-aerosol interactions.

    Pretty obvious that they are stating that the situation is worse than what the models were stating.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    The Resilient Earth is a lying blog written by nonscientists, or those that prostitute their degrees.
     
  4. R.C. Christian
    Offline

    R.C. Christian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,955
    Thanks Received:
    1,074
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Ghetto
    Ratings:
    +1,195
    Why is a jet propulsion lab or what have you delving into the debate on global warming? Shouldn't they be reaching out to muslims?
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,684



    So what. Skepticalscience is just as much a GW centrist blog as these guys are not. The point remains and you have not refuted it that NASA Gooddard says the IPCC predictions are crap.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    That is not at all what they said. They said that the models the predictions were based on did not include some important interactions. Interactions that to this point are not well understood. Not only that, but the abstract stated that adding these interactions indicted a larger impact.

    Boy, why don't you learn to read?
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,684



    Because if you are trying to model something you should at least make an attempt to model ALL of the variables no? Instead the GW types throw their collective hands in the air and say ignore those parts because those parts make our heads hurt.

    That's some real science for you.

    And I'm still waiting for that name old fraud.....it's a bitch when you have to actually read a book instead of googling something huh!
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  8. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    I think this really gets to the truth behind climate change, warming, whatever you want to call it.

    We don't know, because we don't understand it well enough. We have limited data to deal with geological time scales. We don't understand all the variables. And there may be variables at work that we're not even aware of.

    So anyone who tries to tell you there is certainty in either direction is selling you something. We don't know whether and to what extent mankind is influencing climate change, or, conversely, how much is natural. We see some solar-system wide evidence that at least some of it is natural, but here on earth is man contributing? And if so how much?

    We don't know. That's the bottom line, no matter how much either side wants to argue it.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    By the time we understood the mechanics of the physiological damage that Asbestos does, hundreds of thousands of people had died from the effects of asbestos. Yet, as early as 1890, British doctors were warning of illness associated with asbestos.

    By the time we understand every detail of the actions of GHGs in changing the climate, the climate will have changed, the feedbacks will be vying with our own insanity in forcing a climate change. We know enough to understand that more GHGs equal a warmer atmosphere and ocean. How fast, and what are the interactions among the components forcing the change are scientifically interesting, but does little to ameliorate the coming debacle.
     
  10. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    That doesn't justify over-selling the case. Scientists who support AGW should be honest with the public about the limitations to their knowledge.
     

Share This Page