NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist

NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


NASA is asking you to ask us about climate change. Ask me how changes in our oceans are affecting our ice sheets. Ask me anything you want to know about how humans are affecting Earth’s temperature. Ask me how climate change will affect food and food prices. Hi, I’m NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden. Ask A Climate Scientist is an open discussion about the science of climate change. Understanding how Earth’s climate is changing is a complex topic. We want you to get honest, straight-forward answers supported by the latest research, satellite data, and climate models. Here’s what you need to do. Using your webcam, phone, or the YouTube recording interface, record yourself asking your most pressing question about climate change. Keep it short, no more than 10 or 15 seconds. When you post it, make sure you tag it #askclimate, all one word, or post your question directly on Twitter using the same hashtag, #askclimate. Over the month of September, we’ll select the best questions and have a NASA climate scientist answer those questions. If your question is selected, you’ll find our response on the NASA Explorer YouTube channel. Do you have a question? Go ahead, ask a climate scientist.

100 thoughts on “NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    No, garith21. An inquisitive mind would ask how much of a role the Sun played in global warming – it was more active than at any time in the historical record at the end of the 20th century. This question has been asked by some of the greatest solar physicists on the planet today, and they've determined the variation in the Sun's energy output has been far more important than any tiny change in atmospheric gasses.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    And 0.8C warming won't do ANYTHING to Earth's ecosystems, which experience DAILY variations of more than +20 C, except perhaps in a few jungles near the equator, for part of the year.

    In fact, the MWP clearly proves a small amount of warming (+2 C) is BENEFICIAL to the planet, because it makes far more land arable and other land higher-yielding. The extra CO2 virtually GUARANTEES crops will yield better, and support the Earth's growing population.

    Do you want Billions to die of starvation?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Saying we have climate change is not "science". It is common sense. Everyone knows climate changes – and it is constantly changing. The question is what drives climate changes? Do you suppose it might be the Sun, which varies several tenths of a percent (equal to the variation in global temperature, that is, tenths of a percent)? Or could it be CO2, a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere, which has recently increased nearly 50% and has produced. . . . . -0.25 C of COOLING during the past 15 yrs?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    No, Lord Monckton is not a scientist. However, he gets his science from world-class atmospheric physicists like Dr. Richard Lindzen and from knowledgeable former NASA scientists like Dr. Roy Spencer, who helped develop the method by which satellites can monitor Earth's mean temperature. Lord Monckton also gets his science from accomplished climate experts like Dr. Bob Carter and Dr. Murray Salby.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) it would be average over the earth's surface over multiple decades, not just daily variations which result in their own average temperatures.

    2) Actually if you use the MWP it was good for some areas like green land, terrible for others like the united states.

    Also CO2 can result in positive and negative effects as well for plants, like lower natural pesticide production resulting in more crop destruction from pests.

    Many crops especially rice are in danger from sea level rise and drought

  • garith21 Post author

    Sorry but you take a very narrow scope of things, millions will be displaced, major crops endangered from climate change which involves shifting rainy seasons, longer droughts, more severe floods, endangerment of major crops due to sea level rise.

    You also ignore the adverse effects and experimentation done in real world scenarios and observations from higher CO2 concentrations and crop yield/forest sequestration.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Considering this is in relation to most recent temperature rises your stance seems rather moot

    2) Sorry but the most recent years the sun's been the least active in the last 50 years, yet we're still seeing record global land temperatures and an increase in deep sea temperatures. It's hard to blame the sun when it's quieter now than it was in the 70's yet it's still far warmer than the 70's.

  • Santa Cruz Mountains Natural History Post author

    When I read some of the comments that are lacking good accurate scientific information, I am amazed and concerned. So I think that this"Ask a Climate Scientist" feature is a very good idea. I look forward to future posts.

    Fred Mc Ppherson

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    Propaganda is like germs. It gets caught and spread around.
    Very much like religious dogma. Even if you don't subscribe to a particular religion, the dogma can influence one's opinions.

    If even one NASA worker is influenced by propaganda that's designed for mass control, the whole organization is at risk being forced to parrot 'popular' ideas.
    Politics always becomes policy. Especially when funded by the 'government'.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Oh, that's easy, EJ. A luscious garden would cover the entire planet. In order to have +20 C over the entire planet you'd need to have a water vapor canopy and deep subterranean oceans creating warm mist rising up from the ground. CO2 levels would need to measure in the thousands of parts per million in the atmosphere – basically, you'd have conditions for the Cambrian explosion of life!!

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    No, NASA GSFC & NASA MSFC vs NASA GISS. The former representing over 10,000 scientists and engineers on multiple campuses and in more than 80 buildings on two campuses alone (Greenbelt, MD and Huntsville, AL) working to study Earth using satellites and working to study the solar system using interplanetary space vehicles to measure and observe. The latter representing 160 college students and computer programmers on one floor of one building on the campus of Columbia University – models only.

  • garith21 Post author

    Right, except to accept this proposition as true it has to be a global scientific conspiracy across several different disciplines extending pretty close to half a century through several opposing administrations.

  • garith21 Post author

    Can't forget the rest of the global scientific conspiracy which is multi disciplinary over the course of half a century or the fact that NASA clearly accepts climate change and not as a minority stance.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    Nope. Even a small rumor can become a religion.
    Propaganda can be and has been imbedded with a culture.
    That culture is being promoted by the media and 'consumed' by the dumb masses as 'popular'.

    There is a conspiracy, however.
    Al Gore has a charter and is invested in the cap and trade scheme.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Don't really care about what a politician has to say on a scientific topic.

    2) Yet it's accepted in the scientific community because of the science. You're using the same methods creationists use when they disagree with evolution, rather than providing evidence they simply assert global scientific conspiracy and scientific bias.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    It's a shame that pseudo-science has contaminated NASA.
    Although, mainstream science has always been political.
    No surprises.
    🙁

  • garith21 Post author

    Right, just because it can be verified by anyone else and it's been verified from many different disciplines from many different organizations, even cases such as the BEST which started due to being skeptical of the consenses view which got funding from everywhere including the Koch Brothers doesn't change the fact that you think it's pseudoscience. The "magic" of thermometers, radiation absorption and data.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    Pseudo-science CAN'T be "verified by anyone else".

    Don't try to murder me with your alphabet soup.

    The very fact that this pseudo-science is funded by people like the Kock family should cause any sane person to jump-back!

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Even when the Koch family pulled their funding after the initial findings of the BEST project? Climate change legislation is generally seen as harmful to a majority of Koch holdings.

    2) Been verified by many different national organizations an independent scientific establishments

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    1. Fishy huh? Seems like some kind of secret negotiations going, doesn't it?

    2. An even larger camp of reputable people contend the Climate Change scam's religious dogma.

    We're both repeating ourselves.
    You believe what you like. Take care.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Right, they put money into something that was skeptical of the consensus and pulled money when it agreed with the consensus, even alex jones the nutjob supported the BEST project and said he'd agree with whatever they said…til they said something.

    2) If you mean larger camp of less than 10% of the scientists in the field okay…but that's approaching the percentage that reject evolution.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    1. Please say "Right,…" a few more times.

    2. I'm sure you're getting your percentages from the same pro-climate religion-pseudo-science group.
    There is no such thing as a scientist whom actually rejects evolution.
    It's be super if you'd stop mentioning this "rejecting evolution"
    nonsense.

    All men are greedy by nature and easily corrupted.
    Even the noblest of 'scientists' know who butters their bread.

    Those brave and decent who reject the 'human-climate change' hoax,
    DON'T get paid for it.

  • garith21 Post author

    Sorry, but there's very few people that are active in the climate change debate with proper credentials that currently and actively peer review. It's part of the reason why you only ever see one of about 5 names if you want to find anyone that's a credible expert that rejects the concept of AGW. Even within those they are willing to concede the idea of AGW is true, they merely argue the degree of it's effect.

  • garith21 Post author

    AGW is basic physics, given everything else relatively equal, more ghgs absorb radiation that would normally go out into space and delay the earth's heat dissipation, more energy in the system = more retained heat. Earth's short term climate will change on short term variations but with more energy retained in the system it will be warmer on average.

    (cont)

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    If this is true then I must be hallucinating, because from what I've seen, the truth-camp is mighty large.

    You are obviously a tool for this agenda and not interested in hearing reason. A religious fanatic.

    Thanks for your time. Good luck. Take care. Buh-bye.

  • garith21 Post author

    I hope none of that camp is the oregon petition, because I wouldn't consider wood engineers or biologists really qualified to discuss climate vs actual climatologists.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    A climatologist's job is to constantly reinforce the hoax institution.

    Anyone with an unbiased perspective is more qualified to examine data.

  • garith21 Post author

    This is like saying that a doctor's job is to tell you that you're always sick so it's better to go to your mechanic to ask his opinion on whether you're sick. You're so convinced it's a hoax you refuse to even defend your stance with any credibility, that's not skepticism, that's gullibility.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    If analogies were your day job you would get fired.

    Gullibility.

    Re-read what you just wrote and ponder upon it.

  • garith21 Post author

    Sorry, but it's apt, you'll accept the opinion of non experts with no evidence before you'll accept expert opinions with evidence because you believe it's their jobs to tell you there's a problem.

    Keep asking wood engineers for their opinion on the climate =P.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    It's not up to me to dis-prove.

    I don't know any "wood engineers".

    Are we done?

  • garith21 Post author

    If you're relying on the oregon petition you sure do.

    Also I've already pointed all the basic physics, others are just natural follow ups known as feedbacks.

    Even if there were zero feedbacks the doubling of preindustrial CO2 alone would result in a 1.3 C increase in temperatures just from the basic physics if nothing else happened.

  • TeethKnifeKwikAttack Post author

    I don't have any reference to the Oregon Petition.

    I'm not emotionally involved in this conversation as you seem to be.

    From me, you will receive no further replies to your quackery.

    Have a nice day.

  • garith21 Post author

    Right, so what you're saying is you're so emotionally invested that no evidence could ever convince you otherwise and you refuse to provide evidence for your skepticism beyond reason other than you think there's a global scientific conspiracy among climateologists, and when it extends beyond those fields they're just a bigger part of the conspiracy.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    I wonder how long we've been practicing science by relying on "statements" published by the administrators of large scientific organizations? Administrators who get their paychecks from the Gov't tax-payer funded USGCRP? Those "NASA" folks who accept the false notion that CO2 can drive climate change are not climate scientists, and they don't know a thing about what Skeptics have been arguing. No doubt thanks to millions of ignorant folks like Hansen.

  • garith21 Post author

    "who accept the false notion that CO2 can drive climate change are not climate scientists"
    Why? It's basic physics, add more energy retained to the system = more heat. If you don't change anything else of course it will get warmer. I'm still waiting for you to explain why if it's "the sun" that we're not experiencing temperatures on a global basis lower than the 70's since we're bellow 70's solar activity.

  • garith21 Post author

    the BEST project started as a project from a physicist Richard Muller that wanted to falsify the standing consensus in an open manner with climatologists getting funding from various organizations including those from skeptics. He spoke highly of skeptics and their opinions/objections when starting the project, but they all abandoned him when the open work ended up agreeing with the consensus to a fairly high degree of accuracy.

  • Heyybroo Armo Post author

    Submitted by: B J. P__________
    _How has Earth’s climate changed in the last ten years?

    Submitted by: B J. P
    According to the observations made by NASA, is there evidence to support “global warming"
    _How does the climate change affect the migration patterns of migratory birds in the United States?_________

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    If you want to believe the BEST project started with an objective scientist seeking the truth about whether CO2 can drive climate, then I can't stop you. However, Richard Muller is not like any physicist I know. Physicists don't start with statistics to measure warming due to nature vs. mankind – at least not if they don't first ASSUME mankind is responsible for part of the warming during the past 150 yrs.

    Muller's work was not "peer-reviewed" – it was "abandoned" as soon as it was published.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    CO2 does not "add more energy" to the climate system. It doesn't even "retain" more energy. Prior to the increase in CO2, guess how much of Earth's surface radiative energy was absorbed in the atmosphere? That's right, 100%. Guess how much is absorbed now? Correct, 100%. The absorbed energy is re-emitted almost immediately by CO2, and is eventually emitted as radiation into space. Cooling is occurring; the oceans are losing the radiative energy accumulated in the latter part of the 20thC.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The ocean cooling helps explain why orbiting satellites aren't detecting any significant increase in sea level using altimetric data. There's some cockamamie research floating around the internet claiming to measure sea level using gravimetric data (from GRACE satellites), but the concept is ridiculous on its face. I just hope the Italian researcher (Isabella Velicogna) who came up with this silly idea wasn't funded with my tax dollars.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    However, the "driving force" behind global cooling is both reduced solar radiation (a quiet sun) and increased cloud cover. The global increase in mean cloud cover is a negative feedback, and gives us the cyclical (month, seasonal, annual) variation in mean global temperature. Solar radiation plays the dominant role in multi-decadal variation, and is confounded by ocean thermal capacity, including hysteresis after warming – like how water boils even after one turns down the burner on a stove.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Warming can occur when the Sun is more active – as it was during the last three solar half-cycles of the 20th century. However, for warming to continue beyond a certain extent, the Sun must become even more active. This is because a warmed object emits energy at a greater rate. Basic physics, garith21.

    Bottom line: we have just 1.5 full solar cycles of global temp. data from satellites. That's far too little to draw any meaningful scientific conclusions about long-term solar forcing.

  • garith21 Post author

    Rofl, the process is pretty simple, the more molecules that you have that can reabsorb and reemit the IR radiation the longer it takes to dissipate the same energy which is what results in more retained energy.

    Also if your claim was true then the oceans should be cooling and sea levels should be lowering, we're not observing that.

  • garith21 Post author

    That's a great assertion, but I'm fairly certain that there's no current study measuring average cloud cover over the surface of the earth, even if there was this assertion ignores the fact that clouds have different effects on warming/cooling depending on when, where and how high in the atmosphere they form.

  • garith21 Post author

    Why don't we observe this mysterious anywhere in the record before then? Solar activity tracked fairly well with temperatures the previous hundred years =P, also 70's and 1.5 solar cycles?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Sorry, ran out of characters – the reference to 1.5 full solar cycles refers to the fact that it takes 22 yrs to complete a true solar-earth cycle. This refers to the sun's magnetic pole flipping in the first traditional solar cycle, which is really only a half-cycle, as we now know. Then it takes another traditional solar cycle to flip back to the original alignment. Proper science requires as least three cycles to apply crude statistics and begin to predict (i.e. bound) an extreme min and max.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Actually, the Aqua satellite is tasked to improve the accumulation of cloud data – and you're right, research scientists have struggled to correlate satellite data with the different types of cloud cover. An high school student turned in an excellent early paper on climate change and cloud cover:

    "Regional Cloud Cover Change Associated with Global Climate Change: Case Studies for Three Regions of the United States". Meredith S. Croke, 18 December 1998.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    And, of course, there is CloudSat, launched in 2006. Only 7 yrs of data, but the database is growing. Including the Calipso satellite, atmospheric physicists have never had more data to begin detailed analysis of the subtleties of long term changes in clouds and aerosols. Soon (perhaps as early as July 2014), the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 will give us a truly global picture of mean atmospheric CO2. As you know, the only long-term CO2 record we have is from the side of an active volcano.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Neither you nor anyone else has any idea whether sea levels are currently dropping. Satellite laser altimetry data cannot detect any significant change in mean global sea level. What you have is a few cities around the globe where land is sinking, and it's declared "sea level rise", another several places where measurement techniques are suspect over long periods of time, and computer models that say sea level must be rising, because temps must be rising. Problem? Temps AREN'T rising. ROTFL

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    As for your contention "more molecules" increase the time it takes to dissipate the same energy: let's double CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv. That's parts per million, garith21. We're talking +0.2% maximum possible increase in the Greenhouse Effect (if there actually IS a greenhouse effect). The current estimate of the impact of the GH effect (largely due to H2O) is +33 C. 0.002 x 33 = +0.066 C. Pardon me while a choke down some laughter – I realize you're trying to be serious.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The ONLY way this kind of minuscule warming can change climate is IF one assumes planetary climate is unstable, and subject to catastrophic warming in the face of small change. This ONLY happens IF one assumes a positive feedback due to warming (warming causes more CO2 which causes more warming). Earth's climate is NOT unstable. In fact, very few natural phenomena are as stable as the mean global temperature on this planet. It's remarkably consistent, varying only 2 degC over multiple centuries!

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Odd this didn't seem to apply for the previous hundred years.
    2) So you did assert it while being fully aware you can't back it up. There were also studies done by actual scientists with regards to other types of cloud cover in the united states, and I did mention that clouds have different effects depending on where and when they are didn't I. The US is around 2% of the earth's surface, and they picked 3 regions…ooookay.

  • garith21 Post author

    "As you know, the only long-term CO2 record we have is from the side of an active volcano."
    Yeah, cuz paleoclimateology doesn't count even when it does include measuring the atmosphere from old sources, they all must be from the side of the same active volcano.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Most of the atmosphere has nothing to do with GHGs
    2) Water vapor is a feedback not a forcing because without warming first it condenses and rains out rather readily.
    3) If you think that there's no such thing as a GH effect you need to ask why the dark side of the earth isn't an ice cube every night
    4) Part of the reason why we know it's ghgs is because of how and where it's warming the quickest.

  • garith21 Post author

    When in the face of no or mild forcing such as orbital forcing sure, but we're approaching orders of magnitude more forcing than orbital forcing, it's not like feedbacks care what's doing the forcing, only that there's a forcing.

  • garith21 Post author

    Yeah, you don't even know that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation, that most of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the green house effect or that the correlation with sunspots broke down decades ago. I wouldn't hold your breath knowing much about science in general.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Sunspot correlation didn't "break down", garith21. Sunspots turn out to be directly related to solar energy output. More sunspots = more solar energy = warming. Less sunspots = less solar energy = cooling. The confounding factors include long term variation in cloud cover, mean global temperature, orbital dynamics, and ocean thermal energy storage. CO2 level is virtually meaningless.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Back what up? Are you trying to tell me you didn't know satellites have been monitoring the magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth for a few decades now? Or are you saying scientists should have known a full sunspot cycle lasted for 22 yrs, and not 11 yrs?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    I can't speak for the majority of NASA's staff. However, I work with quite a few NASA folks in my job, and the ones I know (with a single notable exception) are skeptical of the idea that atmospheric CO2 can drive climate. For non-scientists it's helpful to use analogy: CO2 driving climate change is like the wind driving a Mack truck. Perhaps CO2 might play a role comparing 280 ppmv (0.0028%) to 7000 ppmv (0.7%), like 5 mph vs 125 mph winds, but 280 to 740 ppmv (5 to 15 mph) is insignificant.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Difference in definition of "long-term". I used the term in regards to the CO2 record at the Scripps Observatory at 11,000 ft up on Mauna Loa, which is the only continuous atmospheric CO2 record started before 1960. You used the term in regards to Ice cores, which are now alleged to represent 800,000 yrs of paleoclimate. Nonsense. Snow rarely falls on the Antarctic archipelago (the air is generally too cold to hold moisture), but a single storm dumps several meters of snow.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    @garith21: "orders of magnitude" more forcing? Where did you read this nonsense? TSI varies 7% over a year, about 0.1% from solar min to solar max (3 – 6 yrs), and at least as much as 0.4% from solar cycle to cycle (11 to 33 yrs). The planet has been generally warming since the last Ice Age, and there is NO evidence that it's warming any more quickly now than it has over the past several millennia: about +0.05C per decade. Mother nature has made fools out of proponents of CO2 Warming.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    1) True, however irrelevant to the question of whether trace gases in the atmosphere can drive climate change
    2) Long term changes in mean cloud cover represent negative feedback in the climate system which overwhelms any tiny (unmeasurable) climate impact due to CO2
    3) Solar radiation absorbed by the oceans and land surfaces (liquids & solids) continue to irradiate 24/7; at night, when there's no solar radiation, temps drop rapidly by 15 C (more, over deserts even tho CO2 is global)
    4) False.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Long as you ignore that all ghgs combined are trace gases and have a significant effect on climate sure.

    2) Which you just finished saying you haven't even verified yet are claiming it is without evidence, cuz that sounds scientific.

    3) Yet it's still far warmer than what you would expect from regular black body radiation.

    4) Actually it's the primary reason why we know it's carbon based gases.

  • garith21 Post author

    "Sunspot correlation didn't "break down""
    Considering I've been talking bout solar radiation most of the time in this conversation and continue to ask for your statement as to why we're not below 70's temperatures with below 70' average TSI and you refuse to really answer, yeah the correlation broke down. both there and in the 90's when TSI went down and temperatures continued to go up.

  • garith21 Post author

    No moron, you're basing your argument on clouds which you just finished admitting that you can't even back up that claim and used a high school paper based on 3 regions of 2% of the earth's surface. I thought the context would have been clear since I mentioned clouds.

  • garith21 Post author

    Flawed analogy since most of the atmosphere just lets IR radiation pass right through it with the exception of ghgs.

  • garith21 Post author

    And this affects the atmosphere contained in ice cores all around the world how?

  • garith21 Post author

    *facepalm* you're either just dumb or a troll, there's too much wrong in this statement to even address and at the rate this is going I'm fairly sure you don't work with people at NASA other than in your head.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    It might help if you knew some physics, garith21. Perhaps then you could use some facts, rather than continuing to run down junk science rabbit-holes. Let me know when you've graduated college and spent part of your scientific career studying plasma physics & space radiation effects on electronic instruments. Let me know after you've worked 10 years for a company making instruments that measure global temperatures from space. Do you even know what they are, let alone how they work?

  • garith21 Post author

    projecting much? My sources are the experts in the field, as far as I can tell the people you work with are all in your head since you have severe misunderstanding of basic physical processes that have been known for over 100 years.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    When I talk about NASA folks, I mean physicists and chemists, material scientists and astronomers — not computer programmers on one floor of one building on the campus of a rabidly leftist college campus in NYC, who developed an absurd climate model that attributes positive feedback to increasing CO2 & H2O.

    Nonsense. Positive feedback creates an unstable climate system. Earth's climate is the epitome of stability: changing < 1 C over centuries and < 15 C over millennia = Negative feedback.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    What you say has been "known" for over 100 yrs was proven FALSE 3X now. Arrhenius was corrected by his peers in the early 20thC, Revelle was corrected by his peers in the mid-20thC, and now Hansen has been corrected by his peers. That you don't know any of this exposes you as an ignorant college student, garith21 – someone who doesn't know either his science or his history. Sorta like science history hack, Naomi Oreskes, who actually believes 97% of scientists believe AGW CO2 nonsense. Yikes!

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Easy – read about the "Maunder minimum", EJ. That's a period where the Sun was extremely "quiet". (Very few sunspots, which we now know equates to very low solar energy output)

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Let's be clear – no one at NASA MSFC or NASA GSFC that I know personally would defend the statements I've just made that caused you to respond with a *facepalm*. However, I stand by them. Let's agree to disagree on this point for now, and then check back in five years, shall we? By then even the news media will be talking about the greatest scientific global blunder in human history — that's how cold the planet will be. Do you know we've now broken the all-time record for global sea ice extent?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    1) H2O is the only GHG with significant impact on climate – this has more to do with cloud formation, evaporation & precipitation than with radiative absorption. Who is the radiation subject matter expert between the two of us?
    2) There is no doubt more clouds represent a negative feedback; there is no proof H2O is a positive feedback
    3) No, it's not, it is only slightly warmer due to H2O evaporation & condensation (dew), not due to any radiative absorption
    4) The predicted warming isn't there.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    I don't have to "look up Roy Spencer", EJ, I correspond directly with him. He has been recognizing lately he may have been totally wrong about the validity of the so-called CO2 GH effect. The lies by the climate modelers have been so bold, and broadcast so incessantly, from every corner of the internet that even someone as accomplished as Dr. Spencer has been fooled. Now he's a skeptic. To be fair, he's not a radiation expert. He was a PI for the AMSU satellite instrument my company makes.

  • garith21 Post author

    Right, I've been hearing this from skeptics for the last 2 decades. Also looking at a peer reviewed paper estimating what a maunder minimum event would do in our current situation it would only reduce global temperatures by .3C so again, why aren't we in 70's temperatures?

  • garith21 Post author

    and please let me speak to the scientists in your imagination, cuz I can't help but laugh.

  • garith21 Post author

    1) So areas with low water vapor concentration like the north pole shouldn't be warming right? oh wait places like that are where the warming is the greatest.
    2) So it is a ghg, but it's not?
    3) again so it's a ghg but it's not?
    4) So the thermometers are lying and the north pole doesn't have ice free summers as of 2003, gotcha.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    And, of course, if a skeptic (no matter how qualified) says anything, then it must be false, right? What you have been hearing scientists like me say is that Antarctic glacial mass has been increasing – not sea ice extent. Sea ice extent had been decreasing, and this "news" was blasted from every corner of every political activist blog around the world. The internet is literally FILLED with such misleading information. Worse yet, schools aren't teaching kids how to vet scientific info properly.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Let's try to educate you, so you can laugh with me at the CO2 AGW imbeciles.

    Using Hansen's own curve fit (no scientific basis, but we'll give it to you), CO2 forcing is calculated as

    5.35 x LN (CP/CO)

    Where CP is the present level of CO2, and CO is the original (baseline) level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere in parts per million volume. This formula is relied upon by IPCC authors, so there shouldn't be any debate about it between you and me.

    Now apply this formula to 280 ppmv and 400 ppmv.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    What one gets (if one knows how to calculate natural logarithms) is as follows:

    5.35 x LN (280/1) = 30.15 W/m2 of CO2 forcing due to 280 ppmv (1750 pre-industrial value)

    5.35 x LN (400/1) = 32.05 W/m2 of CO2 forcing due to 400 ppmv (today – 2013)

    Additional forcing = 32.05 – 30.15 = +1.90 W/m2 from 1750 to 2013. The IPCC, in all of their college undergraduate wisdom, cannot even calculate this simple (bogus) number properly.

    Now let's look at what's wrong with this number.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The calculation of +1.9 W/m2 of forcing from added CO2 makes the following false assumptions:

    1) The entire CO2 increase from 1750 to 2013 is due to mankind's consumption of fossil fuels. Norwegian geochemist,

    Tom Segalstad, calculated the total CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption could be no more than about 4%. No serious scientist believes that more than about half of the recent CO2 increase is due to fossil fuel consumption. Let's use a ridiculous 50% of CO2 is anthropogenic.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    If 50% of CO2 increase is NOT from fossil fuel consumption, then one must reduce the calculation of extra forcing from extra CO2 accordingly. Therefore,

    50% x 1.9 W/m2 = +0.95 W/m2

    We're now below the regular change in TSI from solar cycle to solar cycle — in other word's ALL of mankind's contribution to ongoing global warming (from 1750 to 2013) is limited to < observed variations in solar forcing. Perhaps you can understand why I question computer models that discount all solar forcing?

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The calculation of +1.9 W/m2 of forcing from added CO2 makes the following false assumptions:

    2) If no CO2 is in the atmosphere, then there are no other gases in the atmosphere that would absorb the energy attributed to CO2.

    But we know this is false. H2O absorbs radiation across the entire IR spectrum — it just doesn't do it very efficiently at a few "notches" across the spectrum. One of these notches lines up with CO2's absorption peak. This led to the false assumption that CO2 is important

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The calculation of +1.9 W/m2 of forcing from added CO2 makes the following false assumptions:

    3) The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 yrs, as assumed by every IPCC report up to the 3rd Assessment Report (yielding the crazy predictions of catastrophic warming).

    In the 3rd AR, the IPCC still insisted on 50 – 200 yrs residence time, despite all evidence to the contrary. For example, Sundquist & Broecker (1985), Segalstad (1998, 2009), and Carter (2010) estimate 5 – 15 yrs.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    The calculation of +1.9 W/m2 of forcing from added CO2 makes the following false assumptions:

    4) The temperature data used to fabricate the formula 5.35 x LN (CP/CO) is representative of all climate change for all time.

    This is clearly false. The geologic record shows an onset for each Ice Age following peak CO2 (every time). There is no reconciliation of the false ad hoc formula 5.35 x LN (CS/CO) with the geologic record of climate and CO2. In fact, falsification of this formula is conclusive

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    Pre-Cambrian CO2 has been estimated at 7000 ppmv. If the formula 5.35 x LN (CS/CO) were to hold true, then CO2 forcing in the pre-Cambrian would have been +17.25W/m2. It is hard to imagine rapid cooling could occur in such a regime when cooling did NOT occur with only +1.27W/m2 in the latter part of the 20th century.

  • johndaddyo444 Post author

    CO2 cannot explain natural climate change – so what makes ANYONE think CO2 can explain human-forced climate change, if indeed humans can force climate change?

  • garith21 Post author

    1) Incorrect, the result of how much CO2 in the atmosphere is the total, not "where it came from" We're merely changing the relative rate of how much is being added without sequestering any in the exchange.
    2) Incorrect, merely that it's the primary one that is relevant to long term climate since water vapor condenses if there is not warming first.
    3) Incorrect, according the IPPC chart regarding residency time it's 5 to 200 years.

  • garith21 Post author

    4) This assumption seems to think that proponents say that CO2 caused warming in the past, this is a wrong interpretation as the statements are that it amplified relatively small warming to make a small local forcing into a relatively large global one

    Your statements ignore that the sun was far dimmer during precambrian times and more gradient observations indicate a large amount of sequestered CO2 for cooling depending on the time period you're talking about.

  • garith21 Post author

    Snowball earth, I'll leave you with that one.

  • FreedomFan Post author

    #AskClimate

    Q:  Of all the hundreds of questions asked of NASA about the looming Global Warming Catastrophe, what percentage were actually answered by NASA?  

    Q:  How much did NASA spend on this program to save the world from melting, and what was the cost to taxpayers per question answered?

  • Damien Hampson Post author

    ask me if I give a shit

  • GratifyingMyself Post author

    This video was published on 4 sep 2013, more than 2 years from now and it only has 9,097 views. Seriously? With the brand value that NASA has, how it is their videos have so poor viewing? Fire your PR team, NASA. Seriously, please, i beg u. Hire those John and Hank Green brothers. Please, do it NASA, because you are embarrassing me. ;(

  • sincity detecting Post author

    Its the sun thats changeing everything and if they tell u people are dont beleave them they just trying to make money and thats a fact this has been happening for millons of years fact!!!

  • Zach Post author

    I'm not specialized in this field but I think scientist are wrong… I rather believe in my political party. they've never let me down

  • ron taylor Post author

    OK , heres my question … have you considered buying a mason jar and some vinegar and baking soda and thermometers and doing the experiment yourself?
    I have and my experiments show that the co2 causes cooling not warming.
    try it yourself.
    dont take my word for it.
    thats how this co2 warming hype began in the first place , people just believing
    the hype without checking for themselves.

    its such a simple and easy experiment and if you actually use the sun instead of a
    infrared heat lamp or temperature probes connected to a laptop then we might even
    believe the results.

    using 2 mason jars and lids.
    you may have heard that infra red will not pass through glass.
    its ok because near infrared will pass through a glass mason jar and interact with
    co2 in the jar.

    place a thermometer inside each jar. its best to use a Fahrenheit thermometer
    pour a tablespoon of vinegar into one of the jars and label it CO2
    add a teaspoon of baking soda and mix it in with the vinegar
    place the lid loosely onto the jar but dont seal it up tight so that the air in the jar can
    be pushed out of the jar as the co2 builds in the jar from the chemical reaction
    dont worry co2 is a low lying gas and only air and excess co2 will escape.

    label the other jar AIR

    place the two mason jars beside each other in the sun shine.

    and make sure you dont seal the jars up until the reaction of the vinegar and baking soda has completed ( like they do in the non scientific youtube videos ) this way there will not
    be any added pressure inside the jar.
    you know because pressure and temperature are proportionate.

    after the reaction ( wait 10 minutes ) has completed and there is no chance of a pressure build up that will give false temperature readings then seal up the two jars.
    this way the jars and the atmosphere inside the 2 jars will not be capable of producing
    false temperature readings due to heat that would normally build up inside the jars
    if they were quickly sealed up due to increased pressures.

    walk away and come back in a hour or so and look at the thermometers readings.
    the temperature reading on the thermometer in the jar with the co2 in it will be cooler than the temperature reading on the thermometer in the jar with air in it.

  • rochard lalt Post author

    Oh my gord.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *