NASA : Global Warming BS Taken To A New Level

Hot off the press :

http://www.aolnews.com/

Have they gotten to the point where the only thing left to do is make things up?

You can download the Radiative Transfer Model (RRTM) used in NCAR’s climate models, and run this experiment for yourself. I did this a few weeks ago, and here are the results.

If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect (downwelling longwave radiation) in the tropics would be reduced by only 1.3%, from  397.08 watts per metre² to 392.23 watts per metre².

That is correct – in the tropics, H20 is responsible for essentially all of the greenhouse effect. As you move to drier locations, CO2 becomes relatively more important. Most of the earth has reasonably high humidity, so the new claims are beyond ridiculous.

Look at the absorption spectra below. Water vapour covers a much broader spectrum than CO2, it overlaps with CO2 and is much more abundant than CO2. Of course it dominates the greenhouse effect.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

 

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to NASA : Global Warming BS Taken To A New Level

  1. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/structure/crust/type.html see the purple spots on the map, that’s where massive lava flows have occured in the past, almost killing life on the planet. But hey that’s good because nature did it lol

    Why is NASA so unscientific, the absorption band for CO2 is totally saturated, you can add more and more and more CO2 without it having any more effect really.

    • Lazarus says:

      This really does highlight the shoddy standard of science reporting in the media. Steve should know better than to quote from such ‘news’ as if it is the primary source and then argue that AOL knows what NASA means better than NASA does.

      At least your blog headline is more to the point; CO2 is more responsible for global warming than water vapour.

      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

        We should make a model of Mars too and then do tests we will know everything about Mars and we’ll never have to even visit it.

  2. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Here’s some stuff to play with 😛

    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    Science is settled hey. Hey we’ve warmed since the 1850, so some CO2 is due to this, or maybe the Medevial warming CO2 is hitting us now.

    • James Sexton says:

      Thanks man! I’ve already used that page!

    • ChrisD says:

      Unfortunately, we know from its carbon isotope signature that most of the added CO2 (i.e., the excess over pre-industrial levels) comes from burning fossil fuels.

      • ChrisD says:

        Why do you take the word of some random near-anonymous blogger with a bachelor’s degree over the USGS and actual scientists around the world? That’s one of the bits that I find totally mystifying about you guys. Anyone who makes an argument that you find to be simpatico must be right, and credentials, training, study, research, and experience be damned.

        Let’s look at just one of his statements:

        the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement

        By Keeling he is referring to Mauna Loa. If he thinks that the monitoring station there is affected by the volcano, he simply has not done his due diligence. He’s just saying, “It’s not far from a volcano, therefore it must be contaminated.” Well, science doesn’t work that way, and his statement is just flat wrong. The monitoring station is located well above and to windward of the vents, and the readings are taken only when the prevailing air movement is downward (i.e., from the direction of the upper atmosphere). Readings are not used if wind conditions are such that the measurements could be contaminated. There is no chance that the readings are affected by Mauna Loa’s volcanic activity, and your blogger would know all this if he’d investigated at all.

        Look, just glance at the graph of Keeling’s measurements since 1958 (second graph at http://bit.ly/HdePr). Explain to me how random volcanic activity result in that perfect upward curve.

      • ChrisD says:

        That quote got chopped somehow. This is the full quote:

        the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere.

  3. ChrisD says:

    I think there is some misunderstanding here. AOL misquoted NASA. They didn’t say that CO2 is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect. Here’s what they did say:

    By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect. [emphasis added]

    That’s not what AOL said at all.

    NASA also said this:

    A companion study … shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent.

    So, they’re not saying that CO2 is 80% of the greenhouse effect, and nothing they said disputes what your transfer model run found. They’re just saying that that small change is critical, mainly due to the effect it has on water vapor. So your experiment is right, but so are they.

    • You do realize all of the very explicit contradictions being made?

      This is the work of someone desperate to prove something and gone way past the edge of reason.

      • ChrisD says:

        You do realize that the AOL text is a serious misquote? Why not quote NASA instead of AOL?

      • No doubt NASA will rush out to correct, like they always do.

        They seem perfectly happy to have everything they say amplified by the press.

      • ChrisD says:

        No doubt NASA will rush out to correct, like they always do.

        No doubt you’ll rush out to correct the impression you gave that NASA actually said the stuff you highlighted, like you always do.

        Seriously, why did you quote AOL instead of NASA? The sentence you highlighted in yellow is directly contradicted by NASA’s text. There’s a link to the NASA material right in the AOL text. Why post AOL’s botched interpretation when the original was trivially easy to get to?

        Sorry, but I think this is a pretty reasonable question.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        If you think there is a contradiction in the two quotes, it is simply a demonstration that you don’t know what the term “radiative forcing” means in the context of climatology. The glossary of the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report defines radiative forcing (page 951) as follows (caps mine):

        “Radiative forcing is the CHANGE in the net, downward minus upward, irradiance (expressed in Wm-2) at the tropopause due to a CHANGE in an external driver of climate, such as, for example, a CHANGE in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun. … For the purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the CHANGE relative to the year 1750 and, unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value”.

        So it is perfectly possible for 80% of the CHANGE in in the greenhouse effect* to be due to a CHANGE in carbon dioxide, but for carbon dioxide to be responsible for 20% of the greenhouse effect itself.

        If you don’t understand the definition of radiative forcing, as it is commonly used in climatology, I don’t think you are in a great position to be criticising NASA. Classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        * losely speaking as radiative forcing also includes things like changes in solar output and sulphate aerosols, neither of which are actually part of the grenhouse effect.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        To add, the author of the AOL article obviously doesn’t know what “radiative forcing” means either.

    • ChrisD says:

      Correcting the botched emphasis in that:

      By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect. [emphasis added]

      • Complete scientific gibberish and nonsense.

      • ChrisD says:

        Maybe you could explain that.

        Please bear in mind that NASA did not say the stuff you have highlighted in yellow above; the AOL writer did, and he botched it. In fact, NASA explicitly said something very different: water vapor is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 only 20%.

      • James Sexton says:

        Chris, you should write AOL and demand a correction! This does, though, illustrate one of the biggest problems with the alarmist camp. As you pointed out, that probably isn’t what NASA said. However, do you think they’ll rush to correct the misinformation? Nope, they never do. When MSNBC ran the poley bears dieing because they don’t have penguins to eat visual, no one but the skeptics corrected. When some pseudo-scientists say the polar bears are dying, no one but the skeptics correct them and say the polar bear population is thriving quite well. When some idiot talks about the heat will dry up the Amazons, no one but skeptics even raise an eyebrow. Or when all the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 25 years………nothing, in fact, my last two examples got thrown into the IPCC report! This is why climatologists have zero credibility. They hide their errors but never correct them. They obfuscate when clarity is called for. Worse, when called on their lunacy, they resort to personal attacks. Personally, I believe the 20% ratio is exceptionally high, but I don’t really care about CO2, GHG….blah, blah garbage anyway. Mankind thrives better in warmer climates. I think reintroduction of farmland in Greenland would be a good thing. I don’t think it’ll happen, but it would be good if it did.

      • The NASA press release says :

        “carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”

        The AOL reporter was absolutely correct.

      • James Sexton says:

        Oh, well, lol, I guess that blows that. Sorry Chris, we’ve nothing left to do but to point and laugh at NASA.

        Which really sucks, because they used to be a fine space exploration agency.

        Now,………..they’re reduced to being a humorous anecdote in the CAGW/change/disruption saga. Centuries from now, when we’re pumping CO2 into the atmosphere like crazy, while freezing their behinds, they’ll be snidely remembering the pseudo-science advocacy NASA/GISS did.

      • ChrisD says:

        I already quoted that, Steve. Hell, I put it in bold. So this is not exactly a revelation, is it?

        These two statements are NOT the same:

        “80% of the radiative forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect”

        “80% of the greenhouse effect”

        You really should know this. In fact, I believe that you do know it.

        NASA explicitly states, in that very same item, that water vapor is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect. It’s right there in black and white. The AOL reporter screwed the pooch. You & I both know it.

      • ChrisD says:

        However, do you think they’ll rush to correct the misinformation? Nope, they never do.

        James, is it really NASA’s responsibility to watch all of the Internet blogs and rush out to corect every mistake?

        When some pseudo-scientists say the polar bears are dying, no one but the skeptics correct them

        With all due respect, which one of you skeptics was going to point out that the AOL piece that Steve quoted was all screwed up?

      • ChrisD says:

        I essentially never “LOL” in comments, but this time I really do have to.

        Steve, in order to post your comment with the alarming NASA quote, you had to hit the Reply link from my comment that contained that exact quote. In bold.

        So, LOL.

      • James Sexton says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 16, 2010 at 3:38 am

        James, is it really NASA’s responsibility to watch all of the Internet blogs and rush out to correct every mistake?

        With all due respect, which one of you skeptics was going to point out that the AOL piece that Steve quoted was all screwed up?
        =============================================
        Chris, Al Gore’s Nobel winning exaggerations is hardly an internet blog, neither is MSNBC. It absolutely is their job to clarify the AOL story if, as you say, it misconstrues the statement NASA made. Your distinction is pretty thin, but for the sake of discussion, I’ll agree.

        Chris, one of the big thing about the IPCC was to put forth information for “policy makers” to make decisions based on good information. It turns out, they are purveyors of falsehoods! No one corrects these ludicrous claims. And, as I pointed out earlier, when one does, they will suffer assorted character assassination attempts.

        For a current example, Dr. Lewis’ resignation from APS. Andy Revkin does a hatchet job on him. Doesn’t even address the scandalous actions of the APS, only brings up the fact that this elderly scholar once held a different position on AGW 20 years ago.

        Chris, these are the actions of scoundrels and its indefensible. The world looks to the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, CRU, etc….. nothing….no corrections of misstatements, no corrections, no clarifications, only obfuscation, misdirection, and literal hiding!(the decline), data loss, mixed in with historical data manipulation, out right lies, and zero acceptance of accountability.

        You’re backing the wrong horse.

    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

      Shouldn’t NASA change its name to NAGWA (North American Global Warming Administration) as they don’t go to space anymore to look at it that way, they just look towards the earth and make weather is climate observations by using 30 year observations to predict climate.

    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

      So how come if AOL does a story on 2012 or some other thing NASA comes out to debunk it, but not for this one??

  4. SMS says:

    You guys are quibbering over nothing. If you look at the long term temperature trends where there is no chance of UHI, there is little or no “CO2” signature. What the hell is NASA talking about? Have they gone off the deep end in order to save what little is left of their reputations?

    Garbage, total garbage.

  5. don penman says:

    We are told that co2 has a diminishing effect on raising temperatures by creating a stronger greenhouse effect as the amount of co2 increases in the atmosphere,how can co2 act as a control knob for the earth if this is true. When we consider the Permian extinction and the large amount of co2 put into the atmosphere by the Siberian traps this could not have caused a runaway greenhouse effect .When we look at areas of volcanic activity today we find that they warm as magma is closer to the surface creating hot springs,geysers etc. The Siberian traps would have had the same geothermal warming as we see in volcanic areas today such as Yellowstone or Iceland.
    It is possible to raise the temperature of water slowly up to an equilibrium temperature.

    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

      So why is the ocean becoming “ACID” but lakes are not? hmmmm hundreds of thousands of volcanoes under the sea erupt up and down, and nobody knows really whats going on down there, a supervolcano could erupt under the ocean and we wouldn’t even know until Mr Shellfish’s shell dissolves lol

  6. Pingback: NASA Proves That CO2 Is Good | Real Science

  7. arch stanton says:

    Blog science stinks to a new low. Read the paper rather than shooting the shoddy messenger. (Oh, I forgot, shooting the messenger is what 80% of it is all about in the world of “skepticism”).

    Well at least try not to shoot yourself in the foot. (Oh…too late on that too I guess – S.G.: “The AOL reporter was absolutely correct”). – Hint: “sustains” /= “causes”.

    The gist: basically, without CO2, the condensable GHGs (think H2O) condense out of the atmosphere and the “polar” climate regions rapidly extend towards the equator until all you are left with is a narrow strip near the equator that has a climate similar to what we now find around much of 60 degrees latitude or so. Most of the rest of the planet makes (current) Winnipeg look warm.

    “So Watt? That has nothing to do with the weather today. That’s not gonna happen”. Those of limited insight might say.

    They’d be half-way correct too. The paper is however one of the keys to understanding the relationship between the Milankovitch cycles and the ice ages.

    Don’t make it into something it is not.

  8. Pingback: NASA Thermostat Paper – Part 3 | Real Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s