NASA's Goddard Institute says GW predictions invalid

[westwall]

Ouch! Damn the warmists must hate it when real science says they're full of crap.

But hey, it's only those rocket scientists at NASA...what do they know.

Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions -- Shindell et al. 326 (5953): 716 -- Science

Global Warming Predictions Invalidated | The Resilient Earth

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Resilient Earth is a lying blog written by nonscientists, or those that prostitute their degrees.

 

[R.C. Christian]

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?

 

[westwall]

The Resilient Earth is a lying blog written by nonscientists, or those that prostitute their degrees.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

 

[westwall]

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?

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!

 

[Steerpike]

Interactions that to this point are not well understood.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

That doesn't justify over-selling the case. Scientists who support AGW should be honest with the public about the limitations to their knowledge.

 

[Greenbeard]

Gavin Schmidt says:

Our new Science paper (Shindell et al, 2009) expands on some of the earlier work (as was discussed here) and extended consideration of the indirect effects of CH4 and CO (carbon monoxide) to aerosols as well. This is necessary since SO2 requires oxidants to transform to sulphates (and so is affected by the perturbation of the chemistry by other emissions), and it takes into account the competition between nitrates and sulphates for ammonia (which means that there is a small anti-phasing effect – increasing sulphates tends to decrease nitrates and vice versa). When we did this, we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 – though with large error bars).

 

[Old Rocks]

Goddamnit. They have been more than honest.

The scientists have been trying to tell us for years in their dry language that we are facing changes that will adversely affect modern agriculture to the point that we shall see a majority of the earth's human population facing a food crisis.

A major portion of Russia's grain crop, as well as many other crops, were just destroyed by an unprecidented heat wave. We are seeing crops in the Southeast of our nation being destroyed by the same kind of heat. And in the Mid-west, floods have damaged agriculture. Not a crisis yet, but a harbinger of things to come.

No, we don't know all that will happen, or even where the worst effects will be. But we understand enough to state that an adrupt climate change will not be favorable to the majority of the human population of the earth,

 

[Steerpike]

No, it has been oversold time and again by people saying they know with absolute certainty things that they do not know with absolute certainty. And it has backfired, because people can tell when they aren't being told the truth. People who have oversold AGW have done a lot more harm than good.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gavin Schmidt says:

Our new Science paper (Shindell et al, 2009) expands on some of the earlier work (as was discussed here) and extended consideration of the indirect effects of CH4 and CO (carbon monoxide) to aerosols as well. This is necessary since SO2 requires oxidants to transform to sulphates (and so is affected by the perturbation of the chemistry by other emissions), and it takes into account the competition between nitrates and sulphates for ammonia (which means that there is a small anti-phasing effect – increasing sulphates tends to decrease nitrates and vice versa). When we did this, we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 – though with large error bars).

So with that in mind, the increase in CH4 is equal to another 33 ppm of CO2. So, just counting the affects of CO2 and CH4, we have already surpassed the equivelant of 420 ppm of CO2. Add the increase in nitrious oxides, and industrial GHGs, it looks to me like we are at the oft stated 'limit' of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

And now we are seeing the CH4 coming out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Neither feedback was supposed to kick in this soon.

 

[westwall]

Gavin Schmidt says:

Our new Science paper (Shindell et al, 2009) expands on some of the earlier work (as was discussed here) and extended consideration of the indirect effects of CH4 and CO (carbon monoxide) to aerosols as well. This is necessary since SO2 requires oxidants to transform to sulphates (and so is affected by the perturbation of the chemistry by other emissions), and it takes into account the competition between nitrates and sulphates for ammonia (which means that there is a small anti-phasing effect – increasing sulphates tends to decrease nitrates and vice versa). When we did this, we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 – though with large error bars).

So with that in mind, the increase in CH4 is equal to another 33 ppm of CO2. So, just counting the affects of CO2 and CH4, we have already surpassed the equivelant of 420 ppm of CO2. Add the increase in nitrious oxides, and industrial GHGs, it looks to me like we are at the oft stated 'limit' of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

And now we are seeing the CH4 coming out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Neither feedback was supposed to kick in this soon.

And yet with all of that the temps are still trending the same. No global catastrophe, no runaway heating (even though the predictions have been bleated by the sheep for 35 years now, 90 years if you consider the first go 'round), the sea ice anomoly is actually slightly higher than it was in 1980, the Maldives havn't disappeared under the waves, Bangladesh is still there......where is all the warming old fraud?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gavin Schmidt says:

Our new Science paper (Shindell et al, 2009) expands on some of the earlier work (as was discussed here) and extended consideration of the indirect effects of CH4 and CO (carbon monoxide) to aerosols as well. This is necessary since SO2 requires oxidants to transform to sulphates (and so is affected by the perturbation of the chemistry by other emissions), and it takes into account the competition between nitrates and sulphates for ammonia (which means that there is a small anti-phasing effect – increasing sulphates tends to decrease nitrates and vice versa). When we did this, we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 – though with large error bars).

So with that in mind, the increase in CH4 is equal to another 33 ppm of CO2. So, just counting the affects of CO2 and CH4, we have already surpassed the equivelant of 420 ppm of CO2. Add the increase in nitrious oxides, and industrial GHGs, it looks to me like we are at the oft stated 'limit' of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

And now we are seeing the CH4 coming out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Neither feedback was supposed to kick in this soon.

And yet no one will do a scientific experiment to prove the point. Go Figure.

 

[westwall]

Gavin Schmidt says:

So with that in mind, the increase in CH4 is equal to another 33 ppm of CO2. So, just counting the affects of CO2 and CH4, we have already surpassed the equivelant of 420 ppm of CO2. Add the increase in nitrious oxides, and industrial GHGs, it looks to me like we are at the oft stated 'limit' of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

And now we are seeing the CH4 coming out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Neither feedback was supposed to kick in this soon.

And yet no one will do a scientific experiment to prove the point. Go Figure.

Just business as usual.

 

[konradv]

I don't see where they're saying anything is crap. Can you cite something from the original article that says so? You should read it without reading a commentary that makes up your mind for you! Do your own thinking.

 

[konradv]

Gavin Schmidt says:

So with that in mind, the increase in CH4 is equal to another 33 ppm of CO2. So, just counting the affects of CO2 and CH4, we have already surpassed the equivelant of 420 ppm of CO2. Add the increase in nitrious oxides, and industrial GHGs, it looks to me like we are at the oft stated 'limit' of the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.

And now we are seeing the CH4 coming out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Neither feedback was supposed to kick in this soon.

And yet no one will do a scientific experiment to prove the point. Go Figure.

Who says they aren't? I think you're making a biased statement with absolutely no back up, whatsoever. All sorts of experiments are done all the time. It's not their fault that you don't understand them or that they don't meet your criteria for what needs to be done.

 

[Old Rocks]

RGS just yaps. He is an echo chamber for Conservative rhetoric.