back to article New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming

A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Jean-Luc
    Pint

    Awesome, if it withstands peer review.

    That still leaves us with ocean acidity levels (not good for tasty oysters) and a host of other crud.

    But it might give us a significantly bigger breathing space than expected and allow us to get our CO2 act together.

    Remember, even as some of us are heavily whining about slow governments. We elect the governments and we engage in activities that emit CO2. There is no silver bullet until individuals, lots of them, change their behavior. Either willingly, through rules, through taxes, or through low-emission technology. All of those take time in free market democracies.

    (Don't like capitalism? I'm so with you, the USSR was the environment's best friend after all)

    Global warming has come a long way on the public awareness, rather quickly in fact. This finding is EXCELLENT news if it pans out.

    Even better news if it turned there was no problem all along, but I somehow doubt it.

    p.s. I suspect Lewis is having a good day today so the beer icon is for what he'll be buying for his mateys.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Ho-hum

    Only 1.64C? Well that's just fine, let's all chew as much fuel as we can until we die, I'm not having kids and TBH, couldn't care that yours will have to sort it out for me.

    High power cars and endless electrical tech gadgets requiring more and more power FTW, just can't get enough of these power hungry computers and cars. Cheers!

  3. bugalugs
    Paris Hilton

    Hope the left hand

    knows what the right hand is doing http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409_methane/

    from which : " methane has gone from being a gas of no importance, to — in some researchers eyes, at least — possibly the most important greenhouse gas both for understanding climate change and as a cost-effective target for future emission reductions. "

    Paris is l♥ft-handed

  4. David Robinson 2

    What is wrong with Co2?

    Sadly, the global warmers have turned Co2 into a deadly poison. Are they so stupid that they don't realise that it is life to all green growing stuff and that without it all greenstuff would die and we should all follow it?

    Yes, I do know that if we breathe C02 in vast excess we too will die and in a similar fashion greenstuff would die without it.

    One point that I have not seen mentioned is that heat travels only toward cold. The rate of travel is proportonate to the temperature differential. Therefore heat loss to space will increase with increased temperatures compared to the near absolute zero surrounding us. The AGW supporters would have us believe that there is an outermost layer of the atmosphere that is between 600 and 1500Cdeg. which traps heat intoward the earth. They need these temperatures because Co2 only becomes activated by high infra-red and without this the whole theory falls apart. The fact that it would be impossible to sustain these temperatures rubbing shoulders with near absolute zero is probably why, fairly, recently a leading climatologist ( one could hardly say scientist) claimed that the laws of thermodynamics ( a part of science more completely proved than any other) must be wrong because it did not tie in with the AGW theory.

    The sooner we stop wasting truckloads of money chasing this particular will-o'-the-wisp and making people like Al Gore billionaires the better for everyone.

    Dave

    1. markfiend
      FAIL

      Do we really still have to put up with the denialism arguments?

      So you think you've suddenly thought of a problem that the climate scientists haven't? OK, fine, get it published in a scientific journal and wait for the Nobel committee to come knocking.

      At this stage of the game, trying to pretend that CO2 *isn't* driving anthropogenic climate-change is pretty much on a par with creationism: you're denying that the evidence exists because you don't like the conclusions.

      "recently a leading climatologist ( one could hardly say scientist) claimed that the laws of thermodynamics ( a part of science more completely proved than any other) must be wrong because it did not tie in with the AGW theory." In the immortal words of wikipedia... [citation needed]

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        one odd thing wth that

        check the CO2 and temp records dating back as far as they go think you will find CO2 levels rise after temps do and temps drop as CO2 continues to increase at its peak.

        now im not saying there isnt a link betweent he two because there is but are you so sure that increasing CO2 increases ttemps? because the data suggests otherwise, which actually makes sense as water doesnt trap CO2 as well when its warmer thus CO2 levels may rise. the planet is mostly water and i would think having a significantly larger surface area compared to trees may give it a larger influence.

        Its also worth noting that no one agrees, leading scientist in both camps have different views, which is why i i said earlier that im gonna lump this one with does god exist because no one knows for sure and anyone that says they do is a lier.

        Now, no one as answed my question i asked earlier.

        At what point to we let the world change its natural cycle of temp changes? and do we have the right to force the planet to stick to a climate that suites us and sod anyone else that may want a cooler or warmer planet

      2. Anna Keppa

        Yes, you do.....

        ...Because more and more evidence is being adduced that the basic claims surrounding historical temperatures are based on rampant fudging, convenient "smoothing", huge gaps in the records (both spacially and temporally) , and downright falsification of data.

        The massive fraud has thus not just been exposed, it's been left slowly twisting, twisting in the wind.

        And THAT's why the Chicago Exchange set up to capitalize on cap-and-trade has closed down, why AlGore has quietly let go a good percentage of his "climate team", why Japan says it will not sign any Kyoto II, why the US congress has dissolved the "Global Warming" subcommittee, why the chief Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrat/political appointee proposing draconian energy regulation has resigned, and why Cap-and-Trade legislation in the US congress is DEAD.

        With the Republicans ready to take over Congress, and having added five seats in the Senate, there is NO WAY Obama will get through anything resembling the warmist wish-list. Without US action, and with China and India refusing to cripple their economies, the whole issue is quickly fading.

        Other than that, you warmists really have a lot of momentum going for you!!!!

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      @David Robinson 2

      "Sadly, the global warmers have turned Co2 into a deadly poison. "

      CO2 triggers the human bodies breathing response. Were you in a chamber with CO2 at possibly as little as 1% you'd be panting like you'd run a marathon. Up the level a bit more and your thought processes start to deteriorate badly.

      "One point that I have not seen mentioned is that heat travels only toward cold. "

      Quite true

      "The rate of travel is proportionate to the temperature differential. "

      Quite true

      Therefore heat loss to space will increase with increased temperatures "

      That would be your *opinion*. It depends on how much of that heat transfer is by conduction, convection or radiation. Hint. Space is very close to a *vacuum* so the first 2 don't work.

      "The AGW supporters would have us believe that there is an outermost layer of the atmosphere that is between 600 and 1500Cdeg. which traps heat in toward the earth."

      Did you know that for gases the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of that gas? If you did you would understand why the idea of a gas layer at 1600c is *not* impossible. You would also know that vacuums do *not* have a temperature as such.

      You might find reading a Physics textbook at high school or first year undergraduate level to be a useful investment of your time.

  5. non-Warmer

    "God is on our side" Gaian effect

    What this proves is that Gaia is on our side, contrary to the beliefs that many Gaians and IPCC "scientists" and others have for reasons beyond science, as explained in articles such as this one at http://www.scienceheresy.com/2010_10/BadVibrations/index.html . . . .

    And this "God is on our side" Gaian effect is in addition to a similarly negative, physical feedback effect being proved for H2O which, unlike the strongly positive effect assumed in the IPCC models, is consistent with real temperature data and real science, as explained in articles such as this one at http://www.scienceheresy.com/2010_09/iceages/index.html

  6. Anna Keppa

    Anyone wanna bet......

    ....that one of the results of Climategate will be that government grant money will now flow to the same "scientists" who used bogus models, fudge factors, and "proxies" to create the Global Warming frenzy to now show how their own crapola "science" was ....crapola?

  7. Some Beggar
    FAIL

    Somebody put Lewis back in the sandpit.

    "Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C"

    The model they used gives warming of 1.94°C reducing to 1.64°C.

    And the lead 'boffin' was very careful to state that this research does not undermine the current consensus on climate change:

    ""This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said.

    I know I shouldn't expect competent reporting of science in a magazine written by server-jockeys but really ... this is just a failure of basic comprehension. Whether that is due to illiteracy or dishonesty on the part of little Lewis is a moot point.

  8. Ian Stephenson
    Headmaster

    OT: It would be interesting to see...

    how many of the frothing green loony AC's are newly registered commentards, with their membership to this hallowed group dating to when Mr Orlowski's article made the green hitlist/blog.

    Just a thought.

    Yes climate change is real - it's a dynamic system.

    Do we need to panic? - no.

    Do we need to do something? -Jury is still out on that one.

    Is taxing us back into the stone age the correct answer? - HELL NO.

    Am I going to get more down votes than up votes for this? - probably :D

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    and yet still no one answers

    wonder why? no answer perhaps?

    nuf said

  10. Adrian Midgley 1

    Little new there

    and it will be interesting, if it survives being examined by people who know what they are doing.

  11. Pfrhung
    FAIL

    The author didn't even read the paper.

    The original paper says nothing of what the author concludes. He didn't even read it. It says that evaporation will limit global warming by a mere 0,26 C. So it makes just a minor difference. Please read the stuff you refer to before posting!

  12. Richard Pauli
    IT Angle

    Hey computer geeks....

    The Register does such excellent work, it is a pity to see it stumble when venturing outside its field.

    So I must recommend an excellent, highly respected site on computational climate modeling.

    http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/

    Please follow up

  13. Glen 9
    FAIL

    You just got owned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc

    1. HopLobster

      So dies the Register as a credible source of scence news

      Poterholer seems to have taken your work apart, by actually doing science journalism correctly.

      How about doing the decent thing and publish a correction/retraction of your story? Or is the science section on your site, shall we say "not science"?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did Lewis read this?

    The Guardian's just taken your article apart piece by piece.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/17/register-climate-myths

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.