NASA climate model shows plants slow Global Warming by creating a new negative feedback in response to increased CO2

 

Click to View animation - This animation shows seasonal vegetation changes on Earth in 2004, created using NASA satellite data. It is an animation of what is called the Normalized Vegetation Difference Index, which provides an indication of the health of plant life on Earth. Source: Scientific Visualization Studio, Goddard Space Flight Center

From NASA Earth Science news: A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth’s climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

Bounoua stressed that while the model’s results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

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

To date, only some models that predict how the planet would respond to a doubling of carbon dioxide have allowed for vegetation to grow as a response to higher carbon dioxide levels and associated increases in temperatures and precipitation.

Of those that have attempted to model this feedback, this new effort differs in that it incorporates a specific response in plants to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. When there is more carbon dioxide available, plants are able to use less water yet maintain previous levels of photosynthesis. The process is called “down-regulation.” This more efficient use of water and nutrients has been observed in experimental studies and can ultimately lead to increased leaf growth. The ability to increase leaf growth due to changes in photosynthetic activity was also included in the model. The authors postulate that the greater leaf growth would increase evapotranspiration on a global scale and create an additional cooling effect.

“This is what is completely new,” said Bounoua, referring to the incorporation of down-regulation and changed leaf growth into the model. “What we did is improve plants’ physiological response in the model by including down-regulation. The end result is a stronger feedback than previously thought.”

The modeling approach also investigated how stimulation of plant growth in a world with doubled carbon dioxide levels would be fueled by warmer temperatures, increased precipitation in some regions and plants’ more efficient use of water due to carbon dioxide being more readily available in the atmosphere. Previous climate models have included these aspects but not down-regulation. The models without down-regulation projected little to no cooling from vegetative growth.

Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled – a standard basis for many global warming modeling simulations – temperature would increase from 2 to 4.5 degrees C (3.5 to 8.0 F). (The model used in this study found warming – without incorporating the plant feedback – on the low end of this range.) The uncertainty in that range is mostly due to uncertainty about “feedbacks” – how different aspects of the Earth system will react to a warming world, and then how those changes will either amplify (positive feedback) or dampen (negative feedback) the overall warming.

An example of a positive feedback would be if warming temperatures caused forests to grow in the place of Arctic tundra. The darker surface of a forest canopy would absorb more solar radiation than the snowy tundra, which reflects more solar radiation. The greater absorption would amplify warming. The vegetative feedback modeled in this research, in which increased plant growth would exert a cooling effect, is an example of a negative feedback. The feedback quantified in this study is a result of an interaction between all these aspects: carbon dioxide enrichment, a warming and moistening climate, plants’ more efficient use of water, down-regulation and the ability for leaf growth.

This new paper is one of many steps toward gradually improving overall future climate projections, a process that involves better modeling of both warming and cooling feedbacks.

“As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change,” said co-author Forrest Hall, of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and Goddard Space Flight Center. “Each year we get better and better. It’s important to get these things right just as it’s important to get the track of a hurricane right. We’ve got to get these models right, and improve our projections, so we’ll know where to most effectively concentrate mitigation efforts.”

The results presented here indicate that changes in the state of vegetation may already be playing a role in the continental water, energy and carbon budgets as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, said Piers Sellers, a co-author from NASA’s Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.

“We’re learning more and more about how our planet really works,” Sellers said. “We have suspected for some time that the connection between vegetation photosynthesis and the surface energy balance could be a significant player in future climate. This study gives us an indication of the strength and sign of one of these biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks.”

Patrick Lynch

NASA’s Earth Science News Team

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike O

The amazing thing to me is the hubris of people who believe that they can accurately model something as complex as the climate of the Earth. It seems that almost everyday we hear of another factor or feedback that is not part of the model. No clouds? No problem! No vegetation? No problem!
As a scientist myself, I am just baffled as to how any of this is considered to be good science or to follow the scientific method.

Earl Wood

Now, lets see how well this new model correlates with known temperature measurements in the past…. Until this is done, I will give this model just as much weight as any other prophecy of the future.

mitchel44

ding ding ding
“Danger Will Robinson, Danger!”
“new NASA computer modeling effort”
Another attempt to muddy the waters just about covers it.
“Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled – a standard basis for many global warming modeling simulations – temperature would increase from 2 to 4.5 degrees C (3.5 to 8.0 F). (The model used in this study found warming – without incorporating the plant feedback – on the low end of this range.) ”
Always nice to know where they are starting from, in their assumptions while constructing the model.

4

It’s still just a model. Give me some new data, analysis, and interpretation…then I might be impressed

PJB

1.94 degrees C? Seems to me that they are still fudging the numbers to make it look like a doubling causes more than 1 degree C….oh well, they are at least starting to back away from the vehicle (runaway train meme).

Brian H

“Scientists agree” — I almost stopped reading there. Blech.
Anyhoo, there’s also the wee factor of growth requiring energy. I reeelly wonder if that’s in their ramshackle “energy budget” model.
As I posted elsewhere, don’t forget to deduct 1.9°C from all current and recent records: http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ball120610-2.jpg

David A. Evans

Bounoua stressed that while the model’s results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

Sorry, stopped reading there. They have their meme and they aren’t going to let go!
DaveE.

Anthony,
And NASA think this is ‘New’! We have been saying it for years – but I would put it more strongly: Plants through photo-transpiration cooling, which is enhanced by more CO2, VETO any CO2 claimed atmospheric warming (by whatever mechanism).
See pdf in WA2010News27 via comments in ClimateRealists thread –
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307
or via news archive on http://www.weatheraction.com
Cheers Piers from COLD UK
REPLY: See also this story –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

pat

wonder what this Guardian story was – it should be in Guardian’s “money” section, but can be found nowhere and has no cached version:
A working life: The climate change consultant
14 hours ago
The map was created by running a climate prediction model, HadCM3. Out of a total of 34 model runs, 23 showed the global average temperature rising above 4C …The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/07/working-life-climate-change-consultant
clicking on the URL gets the Guardian site with:
“Sorry – we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for”
could it have been related to this?
30 Nov: Reporting Climate Science: Leon Cliffard: Models warn of 7C dangerous climate change by 2090
The researchers used two computer climate models, HadCM3-QUMP and MAGICC, to run multiple ensemble simulations. “The evidence available from new simulations with the HadCM3 GCM and the MAGICC SCM, along with existing results presented in the IPCC AR4, suggests that the A1FI emissions scenario would lead to a rise in global mean temperature of between approximately 3C and 7C by the 2090s relative to pre-industrial, with best estimates being around 5C,” the researchers conclude in their paper…
CITATION:
Citation:”When could global warming reach 4C?” by RICHARD A. BETTS, MATTHEW COLLINS, DEBORAH L. HEMMING, CHRIS D. JONES, JASON A. LOWE AND MICHAEL G. SANDERSON
Published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2011) 369, 67–84 doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0292
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/models-warn-of-7c-dangerous-climate-change-by-2090.html
30 Nov: Royal Scoiety Publishing: When could global warming reach 4°C?
Richard A. Betts1,*, Matthew Collins2, Deborah L. Hemming1, Chris D. Jones1, Jason A. Lowe1 and Michael G. Sanderson1
Author Affiliations
1Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon, UK
2College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
*Author for correspondence (richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk).
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full

dwright

I trust “computer models” like i trust “camwhores ” on 4 chan.
(A lied to Canadian reporting in)
[d]

jae

I don’t trust ANYTHING NASA says these days. It now appears that their “new life form” is crap, too: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/07/scientists-nasas-alleged-discovery-of-arsenic-based-life-is-crap/

David A. Evans

OK. I went back to it & reached this…

The authors postulate that the greater leaf growth would increase evapotranspiration on a global scale and create an additional cooling effect.

which again stopped me in my tracks!
I thought that one of the things that happened with increased CO2 was that stomata closed leading to increasing efficiency of water usage, ie a decrease in transpiration.
So many contradictions.
DaveE.

James Sexton

Nice. Very nice. And some pinhead is going to take credit for some new original thought? Well, at least they’re only a decade or so behind poor dumb laymen bloggers and commentators.
“We’re learning more and more about how our planet really works,” Sellers said. “We have suspected for some time that the connection between vegetation photosynthesis and the surface energy balance could be a significant player in future climate.”
I hate to be reduced to schoolyard vernacular, but with this, I’ve got to say, ‘no $hit, Sherlock, what was your first clue?’
Are they really this slow? Or are they just milking the grant gravy train?

Rob Huber

Why the Hell was this not a given from day one?
I mean … greenhouses … you pump them full if CO2 for a reason.

I have noticed that is quite cool and pleasant under may shade tree during the hot summer months.
If anyone else has a shade tree you might think about the idea of co-authoring a paper with me on how vegetation cools down the planet, …and leads to pleasant afternoon naps.
The statistics part may be a little tough as we track how hot it is in the sun compared to the shade and how fast the nap phase sets in as a function of full sun – vs full shade temperature differential– but if we do enough test cycles we can tough it out and get the numbers. …and it will be real data. We can even do a cold beer test to see how fast it affects the nap cycle…
Serious science — for serious folks! We don’t need no steenking models!

James Sexton

Damn, got up to get another beer and rid myself of one and Piers Corbyn beat me too it! I should learn to refresh before I post. At least I can reinforce what Piers stated. This thought has been posited in many skeptical sites for a long time. I can’t be sure, but I think it has been posited here on a few occasions. I suppose I could go look, but I’m betting someone will have it at the ready before I could find it.

Baa Humbug

More modelling. Keeps plenty of families in govt. employ, good luck to them.

An example of a positive feedback would be if warming temperatures caused forests to grow in the place of Arctic tundra. The darker surface of a forest canopy would absorb more solar radiation than the snowy tundra, which reflects more solar radiation. The greater absorption would amplify warming.

Seems reaonable that if you change a highly reflective surface to a dark surface you’d expect positive feedback.
So how come, when vegetation (dark) encroaches on the Sahara (light) the area actually gets cooler?
The problem is, mother nature doesn’t play XBox games and she refuses to conform.

Bart

FTA: ““This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming,” Bounoua said.”
Wrong. By their own words, it alleviates it by -0.3 deg globally and -0.6 deg over land. He could have said “does not alleviate significantly“, or “does not stem the tide of…”, but it does alleviate it, the only question being, to what extent?
From dictionary.com:
al·le·vi·ate
   /əˈliviˌeɪt/ Show Spelled[uh-lee-vee-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
to make easier to endure; lessen; mitigate: to alleviate sorrow; to alleviate pain.

David A. Evans

The results presented here indicate that changes in the state of vegetation may already be playing a role in the continental water, energy and carbon budgets as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, said Piers Sellers, a co-author from NASA’s Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.

Now I get it! They’re trying to explain why they’ve failed to model climate before!
Guess what chasps! You’ve failed again!
DaveE.

Mike Davis

WillR:
I ave made a few such studies myself. I have tested different types of trees with different concentrations of foliage. I also found with certain types of trees it is warmer under them than the surrounding area during the cold months. I would need an observer to monitor the sleep states I am able to reach during my experiments though!

John F. Hultquist

Is the question before the jury whether or not Earth is warming?
Or is the question whether humans will cause disastrous warming by emissions of carbon dioxide?
Someone (who?) has decided to focus on the consequences of humans causing a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Does anyone know that it is possible to cause a doubling? At what rate would we have to use coal, oil, gas, wood (others?) to accomplish this? Is it realistic?
Can models such as the one discussed work with lesser concentrations? Assume the concentration were to be cut to 200 ppm; what then?

tregembo

Funny how stable our bimodal climate has been during this ice age period…surprisingly stable for such a runaway prone planet. Also funny how everyone is suddenly finding negative feedbacks as the climate models diverge from reality…LOL! Even more funny is how cold it is Cancun…who would have guessed, GAIA has quite the sense of humour! I will laugh with her…

Mike Davis says:
December 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm
WillR:
I ave made a few such studies myself. I have tested different types of trees with different concentrations of foliage. I also found with certain types of trees it is warmer under them than the surrounding area during the cold months. I would need an observer to monitor the sleep states I am able to reach during my experiments though!

I’m excited! I think we have a basis for collaboration here. I too have noticed that during the winter months it is warmer under say a dense pine or cedar tree here in our cold climate. I never thought of monitoring the sleep states — that is a great idea! Will that prove anything about the climate — or should we not be concerned about that? Data is data right? A bit of statistical analysis could prove something I’m sure! PCA is a good technique I’m told… No signs, no decimals though I have enough trouble with the Natural Numbers… ok?
We just need a couple more “researchers” to widen the data pool…

Richard Sharpe

tregembo says on December 7, 2010 at 7:54 pm

Funny how stable our bimodal climate has been during this ice age period…surprisingly stable for such a runaway prone planet. Also funny how everyone is suddenly finding negative feedbacks as the climate models diverge from reality…LOL! Even more funny is how cold it is Cancun…who would have guessed, GAIA has quite the sense of humour! I will laugh with her…

Indeed. And when South America joined with North America and prevented the flow of water from the Pacific to the Atlantic that must have caused a big change in climate, yet it found a new (possibly bimodal) state.
It is clear that the work wanker applies to climate alarmists …

dp

Has it already been said that model results are not proof?

Piers Corbyn has been talking about cooling from plants for years, though not the same as the “new” finding from NASA. He’s ahead of NASA too.

Bill Jamison

Wait, what?!?! You mean it’s NOT worse than we thought???
Well that’s a first!

David A. Evans

WillR & Mike Davis. I would be more than willing to join in your research. My tree however has brick-built walls with an internal heat source which may invalidate it. On the other hand; the level at which my hands are normally poised, desk top, is about 5°C warmer than the floor, (best case), and the internal heat source cannot maintain greater than 18°C in daytime & less at night.
DaveE.

Phil's Dad

“…plants are able to use less water yet…increase evapotranspiration on a global scale.”
Darn clever stuff!
…said co-author Forrest Hall, of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and Goddard Space Flight Center. “Each year we get better and better….”
There there. Just lie down quietly for a bit and you’ll be fine.

Evan Jones

Raw forcing per CO2 doubling is 1C. Assuming the IPCC is right.
Any estimate above that is including positive feedbacks. At this point there is zip evidence for and preliminary evidence against positive feedbacks.
Plus, climate has been on a warming trend for 350 year. Where’s the positive feedback? At 40% increase in CO2, we have an “adjusted” (i.e., probably exaggerated) warming of +0.7C. Over a time span that starts in a PDO/AMO cold phase and ends in a PDO/AMO warm phase. So where is there “room” for any positive feedback? Overall negative feedback fits those numbers better.

J.Hansford

D’Oh!!! … Look out, NASA scientists doin’ press release science again….. Handle with care… Could be toxic, explode, fail or just go splat…. LOL.

grayman

WILLR; Mike Davis, I have the beer, now do we use hammacks, lounge chairs or standard chairs. We definitly need to get together on this might i suggest taking turns on the napping to monitor sleep patterns.

Rational Debate

What I just love is how they seem to manage, with all sincerity, to say “Look! We screwed up and totally missed this major negative feedback that probably accounts for 15% of the postulated temperature at CO2 doubling.”
And then turn around and say, without dying of shame or at least stuttering and turning bright red “This discovery just shows how GREAT we are, and we’re getting BETTER ALL THE TIME!!!”
Sheesh.
If these people had been in charge of the moon mission, we’d STILL not be there, and gawd knows how many astronauts and engineers associated with the project would have died in the meantime. Hoover Dam would be about 2 ft. high and they’d still be modeling it. But we’d be getting regular press releases about their amazing progress and how much they’d miraculously managed to advance the state of knowledge! They’re closing in on something that’ll work, just you wait and see (and send money).

Cassandra King

Translation?
Our computer models turned out to be so wrong and inaccurate and flawed we needed to find some kind of mechanism we discarded in the beginning because it contradicted the CAGW dogma while still being able to blame CO2 and still claim rising temperatures despite the reality.
Even though the models that we claimed were perfect and infallible were badly designed and included false assumptions and bad data which did failed to predict the climate, the weather, the global temperatures we cannot do without them because the whole CAGW house of cards would collapse and with it the reputations of NASA and its staff and so we have to search around desperately for any mechanism that we can attach to the models instead of binning the models and admitting failure.
NASA cannot admit the truth and they cannot go back to the beginning and start over, they cannot admit errors and mistakes and incompetence and cover ups and made up trash science and fiddled figures, they have painted themselves into a corner and there really is no way out for them other than to bluster and hope the paint eventually dries.
I suspect that if NASAs books were opened up by auditors and if the house and senate get around to launching a full inquiry and start taking names and kicking some ass the stink emanating from NASA will make ENRON look like a non event. I would like to see Sen Inhofe come before the press and announce a full investigation into NASA.

MAGICC? What an appropriate name for a climate model:
mag·ic (mjk) n. 1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

Neil Jones

If, as Lord Monckton of Brenchley, points out in his second Mexican Missive (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/moncktons-mexico-missive-2/), “the true rate of warming over land in the past half-century had been little more than half of what the official record showed.” then what effect would this negative feedback then have?
Could the “Gaia” concept be working after all?

kwik

My guess is that the sowtware in those computers are now so full of bug-fixes and modifications that noone can understand anything of whats going on in there.
Soon they will need billions to re-make the whole thing.

Hmm, all I heard was blah blah Model blah blah .. I couldn’t really get much more than that out of it.
Sorry, I just can’t seem to pay much attention to phrases that contain the word “model” anymore.

Christopher Hanley

“…Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled – a standard basis for many global warming modeling simulations – temperature would increase from 2 to 4.5 degrees C (3.5 to 8.0 F)….”
The effect on forest growth of a 2.5° to 7.0°C increase in the Arctic temperature (presumably without any increase in CO2) can be seen in tree line studies of northern Russia and Canada.
For instance a study by Glen M. MacDonald et al. (March 1999) concluded that “the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern” during the Holocene Optimum (9000-7000 yr. B P):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SeaQl9E0ozI/AAAAAAAAALo/V0bPCy44D9s/s400/weatherformerTreeline.jpg (google to find pdf).
A quick google search came up with other more recent studies which put the temperature no greater than + 2°C, but there is ample evidence of the pressure on scientists to conform to IPCC orthodoxy which, like its ‘hockey stick’ counterpart, is incredible:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
You would think that the ‘greening’ of the Earth would please our friends at ‘Fiends of the Earth’, ‘Greenpreach’ etc. but of course you would be wrong.

David A. Evans

Me been a iggorunt bugger, I ‘ave ta ask this 2 kwestshuns!
I can’t keep that up LOL
1) If you go out in the Arizona desert, you will find rock-pools which are perpetually frozen, is the GHG effect not strong enough to work even when the air temperature is above 30°C?
2) I have noted in my travels that generally…
a) humid areas are cooler but maintain their temperatures overnight
b) arid areas heat up quickly & also cool quickly.
I know the argument for 2) a) It’s the GHG H2O preventing the cooling!
What about it’s the specific & latent heat of water preventing the cooling?
The more I look, the more I think that surface radiative energy loss is irrelevant
DaveE.

Mike Davis says:
December 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm

WillR:
I ave made a few such studies myself. I have tested different types of trees with different concentrations of foliage. I also found with certain types of trees it is warmer under them than the surrounding area during the cold months. I would need an observer to monitor the sleep states I am able to reach during my experiments though!

I’m with you both. I like to perform this test by the pool under a nice shady palm tree, or even a fern (ferns are trees downunder where it is warmer – warmer being better). The Cold Beer test is also a jolly good idea!
I also have a ‘trained observer’. This is my wife: I have trained her not to throw things at me when I start snoring….

wobble

“We’re learning more and more about how our planet really works,”

Here’s an idea. Finish learning enough about how our planet really works AND THEN tout your models.
Stop doing it backwards!!!!

DCC

Translation:
We still don’t have a clue. $end billions.

morgo

NASA to all staff could you all go home tonight and think up anything that will result in a very big grant as we need it . we may have a surprise for anybody that comes up with the biggest untruths

phlogiston

Like I’ve said in several comments on previous threads – CO2’s effect on climate is about biology first, physics second.

davidmhoffer

I think I finally understand how all these adjustments work. Its cyclical. First they did all the positive adjustments and now they’ve started working on the negative adjustments.
Assistant; Sir, I just finished that computer model you wanted. Its bang on sir. I put the accelerated warming trends in just like you said, and boy, every single run it produces an accelerated warming trend. This is scary stuff. One problem sir…
Professor; No problem, look at these graphs! Excellent! And exactly the same every time no matter what data we use. Proof! Proof!
Assistant; …uhm, but, they ACTUAL temperatures don’t match…
Professor; Nonsense. Impossible. Let me see those….. Hmmmm. These temperatures can’t possibly be right. There’s something wrong with them.
Assistant; But those are the temperature records we’ve been using for decades, perhaps the model….
Professor; Proof! The model is proof! Therefore these temperature records must be wrong. Adjust them.
Assistant; …uhm, adjust them? How will I know how much to adjust them?
Professor; Until they match the proof you idiot.
Assistant; Sir, I’ve adjusted the temperature data until it fits the… uhm, model. But its getting harder and harder to adjust them sir. The divergence problem keeps getting bigger, and frankly sir, I think we may have accidently hidden the decline with our adjustments and its sort of becoming obvious that we’ve tricked the data out like this…
Professor; Nonsense. You’re never going to get a PhD that way. The model is proof. That’s why we had to adjust the temperature data. But you see we didn’t adjust it enough. Take the last 5 years of adjustments, apply them again, but this time with a negative sign but call it a different name. Just make something up. Write a paper. Get published. Then do another five years, make up another name and apply that negative too.
Assistant; Uhm, OK. And I keep doing that until….
Professor; Moron! Until it matches the original data of course! We’ll just keep on adjusting and adjusting until all the adjustments cancel each other.
Assistant; But… wouldn’t it make more sense to just start with the original data and never adjust it at all?
Professor; Dolt. Who’s gonna publish a peer reviewed paper that is just a photocopy of the data? You want a degree, you got to adjust things, justify them, make them increasingly accurate, until you’re right bang on and then its proof.
Assistant; But you said the very first one was proof…
Professor; Sigh. You just don’t understand science boy. Sorry. You’re fired.
Assistant; Fine. I’ll clean out my desk. And I’ve got a bunch of files on the server that are mine, I’ll just download them onto this gigantic usb hard drive over hear. Ooops, they shut off my account already. Look, I’ve done good work for you and those are my files, what did you say the admin password was? Take me an hour and then I’m out of here…

James Allison

NASA climate model. Big yawn flops down cool shade under tree zzzzz

LazyTeenager

Piers Corbyn says:
December 7, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Anthony,
And NASA think this is ‘New’! We have been saying it for years – but I would put it more strongly: Plants through photo-transpiration cooling, which is enhanced by more CO2, VETO any CO2 claimed atmospheric warming
———–
Sorry but an argument along the lines of “I want AGW to go away, transpiration cause cooling, therefore transpiration must produce so much cooling that it vetoes CO2” does not fly.
Certainly everyone and his fog knows that transpiration cause cooling and the scientists know it better than you. But there are a zillion confounding factors and no one knows what the sum total result is.
For you to claim that you knew the answer all along because your belly button fluff said so is bogus.
Let’s throw a dice, I bet heads, I win the bet, I boast that I knew all along that it was going to be heads. Am I telling the truth?

Larry in Texas

Given the criticism of their work on arsenic-based bacteria, I would be quite leery of another climate computer model from NASA. Even though, as Piers Corbyn notes above, that there is nothing new about the idea that more trees and plants should have a negative feedback on warming.

LazyTeenager

Mike O says:
December 7, 2010 at 6:36 pm
The amazing thing to me is the hubris of people who believe that they can accurately model something as complex as the climate of the Earth.
As a scientist myself
————
Well it looks to me like you are not keeping up to date.
The trend in science is to try and solve more and more difficult problems. Many of those problems involve complex systems with lots of moving parts. Typically they are becoming too complex for an individual person to describe or reason about. That’s why computer models are the only way forward.
The obverse of what you describe inaccurately as hubris is defeatism, stagnation and lack of imagination.