New study of CO2, H2O, global warming

[Old Rocks]

NASA and the peer reviewed journal, Science. And some choose to give us the Canadian Free Press, the equivelant of the National Enquirer.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

 

[westwall]

I like Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.s take on it,

"However, this paper perpetuates the narrow view that the since this gas does not condense and precipitate, it is THE dominate forcing since it “sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes.”

"The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback. However, it presentation as a major new research insight by Science is puzzling, unless the magazine wants to promote the message at the end of the Lacis et al paper that"

And finally

"My conclusion is that their paper does not present new scientific insight but is actually an op-ed presented in the guise of a research paper by Science magazine.

They also do not present (and show why they should be refuted) alternative published perspectives so as we present in Pielke et al (2009) that"


And Pielke is a cliamtologist who is a firm believer in AGW. However, he is also still a good scientist who wants proper methodologies to be used. I rarely agree with him on most subjects, but on this one I heartilly agree.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting. Science, a peer reviewed journal, is publishing non-science. NASA is funding lies. The AGU and American Institute of Physics are pawns for global economic interests that seek to destroy capitalism.

Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wamers won't be happy until everything north of the Ohio River is once again under a sheet of ice 6 miles thick.

It's just too fucking stupid for words

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent"

Q. So how do we combat manmande Global Warming?

A. Stop taking hot showers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hope, I pray, that in one million years some archaeologist will come across the mummified body of some Warmer clutching "An Inconvenient Truth" who was quick frozen in a mile of ice when the planet cooled again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When Warmers dream

 

[mdn2000]

NASA and the peer reviewed journal, Science. And some choose to give us the Canadian Free Press, the equivelant of the National Enquirer.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

This is a press release nothing more.

Another press release promising tomorrow a new report proves the theory of Global Warming.

Old Crock, you fell for the scam again.

Talk about being a Jackass.

 

[westwall]

Interesting. Science, a peer reviewed journal, is publishing non-science. NASA is funding lies. The AGU and American Institute of Physics are pawns for global economic interests that seek to destroy capitalism.

Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee.

When it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and looks like a duck.........it's a duck!

 

[Old Rocks]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

 

[antagon]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

 

[westwall]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

Oh, come on olfraud, I never called you an idiot!

 

[Chris]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

Very few scientists are lazy or biased.

 

[antagon]

whatever the explanation, this conclusion is not supported directly by the evidence. i could care less why the scientists have formed their opinion on fallacy, but an opinion constructed the way this has been is not scientific.

can you refute that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not supported by the evidence? What do you think the cause of the 'Snowball Earth' was?

 

[mdn2000]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

Everywhere Old Crock posts he hijacks the thread, Old Crock has to prove he is stupid in every post and demands everyone acknowledge Old Crock's stupidity.

Old Crock, If you were any dumber you would be the Missing Link, that is why you post dumb links.

 

[IanC]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

Everywhere Old Crock posts he hijacks the thread, Old Crock has to prove he is stupid in every post and demands everyone acknowledge Old Crock's stupidity.

Old Crock, If you were any dumber you would be the Missing Link, that is why you post dumb links.

I don't agree with Old Rocks but at least he has some semblance of knowledge. Unlike you mdn2000! aren't you the fool who kept spamming the threads with nonsense about all CO2 being dry ice? if you were trying to be funny it was an epic fail because people just thought you were retarded.

 

[antagon]

Not supported by the evidence? What do you think the cause of the 'Snowball Earth' was?

in the modeling on which the study relies, this was achieved by a few keystrokes, presenting an argument via reductio ad absurdum. a billion years ago, i think the % of landmass along the equator in ratio with water played a considerable role.

when i say that the conclusion you've published here is not supported by evidence, i mean to point out that an argument that CO2 is the mechanism for the global warming we've measured does not follow (is non sequitur to) the observation that removing all the CO2 on a computer model results in dramatic cooling. this is what i call a "fuckin' stretch".

 

[Meister]

When it talks like an idiot, it is an idiot. Sorry fellows, the real scientists have spoken.

They all were talking on the way to the bank, roxie

 

[konradv]

this conclusion relies on reductio ad absurdum and can't support scientific theory for that reason. it states a model which had non-condensing gases zeroed out (absurdum) resulted in cooling, hence CO2 is the root cause of global warming (non sequitur) and it has been established that the excesses of CO2 are anthropogenic. this argument does not recreate proposed causation such as it would have to to justify its conclusion.

not only is this a rehash of the same argument and the same methodology, but it continues to ignore more plausible causation in order to embrace what seems to only be supportable by modeling impossible scenarios.

rocks, while you feel that this is the work of 'real scientists' it seems like the work of lazy and biased scientists.

Don't really follow your logic. The following is usually how such a thing is presented.

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infra-red radiation.

The concentrations of these gases have been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, according to ice-core data.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Please, present your argument in proper logical form or be prepared to be ignored. Your presentation is just a mish-mash of impressive sounding words that wouldn't pass muster in Logic 101.