'Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming...' or maybe not.

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
25,255
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 14, 2010

Last week a paper by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies led to sensational headlines that the Earth will only warm by as much as 1.64 degrees centigrade -- in a couple of centuries. Sound too good to be true? Of course it does.

I've put this video together faster than I normally would because the myth has already gone viral. But it's so easy to spot the flaws you have to wonder why people who call themselves "skeptics" aren't skeptical enough to check even the most basic facts.


SOURCES:

Original myth published in:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_w...

"'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming"
NASA press release
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html

Original paper:
"Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach"
L. Bounoua et al, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 2010

Bio of Lewis Page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/lewis-page

Mauna Loa CO2 growth data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth
from economic activity, carbon intensity, and
efficiency of natural sinks
-- J. Canadell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007

"Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters"
-- A.P. Sokolov et al, MIT 2009

Myth from the Register repeated:
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/2010/12/14/new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-means-j...

...and again...
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219487-New-NASA-model-Doubled-CO2-means-jus...

...and again...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9045/New-NASA-model-Doubled-CO2-means-just-164d...

...and again...
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-means-j...

...and again...
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN's IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-leftistsliberal-elites-corrupt-stupid-hypocrit...

...and again...
New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8241-new-nasa-model-doubled-co2-mea...

...and again...
NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN's IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/nasa-peer-reviewed-study-finds-low-sensiti...

...and again...
Greenhouse Gasses Aren't Going To Be A Problem For Centuries Say Scientists From NASA
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/greenhouse-gasses-arent-going-to-be-a-proble...

"Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply"
-- M. Jung et al, Nature, October 2010

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 24 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (potholer54)

  • BTW, Potholer. Have you any news on OXYGEN depletion. It is my pet theory born simply from the fact that coal is mostly C. Burn it = two Oxygen atoms gone. Especially if CO2 is sequestered. Now I thought of another Q. As solar winds do not strip our atmosphere (thank god?) what limits it getting bigger, or smaller in thickness (mass)?

  • @listen2meokidoki Oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere, compared to just 0.04% for carbon dioxide. So even if we tripled CO2, it would have very little effect on the oxygen content.

Top Comments

  • @eric144144 "A child could spin this stuff." Then we look forward to your papers on climate coming out soon.

  • @potholer54 My background is in manufacturing and we use a technique developed by Toyota called "The Five Why's" to evaluate a problem. When we come upon a quality issue we sit down and ask "why" did the problem occur. With each answer we ask "why" again. By the time you get 5 deep you pretty much can identify the original source of the problem.

    Seems to me the same thing needs to start happening with news. Every reader should be asking "Where did this come from" five times.

see all

All Comments (520)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Seriously who is this video for?? Our entire western civilisation (bar the dumb/selfish American right wing) now understand that human induced global warming is a hard fact. I can't believe we still need videos to explain this to people.

  • @robhoneycutt very insightful!

  • @listen2meokidoki Oh I just noticed that potholer already answeared your first question, and lol for your humour. I think athmosphere composition is an equilibrium between plancton's and vegetation's photosyntesis and animals respiration. As for the quantity, I think you surely mean volume ? This would be an equilibrium between gravity and gaz temperature. Gaz molecules tend to fall to the earth and at the same time their speed (temperature) tend to make them break appart.

  • @assalane Thankyou for your reply. I have read somewhere now forgot, that Oxygen levels or its percentage is falling. The question is: What determines the Earth's quantity of atmosphere? Please feel free to punish me for not asking the question more succnctly. I am sometimes a bad boy and I no doubt deserve your punishment. I enjoy a good whipping. So that rules out whips of any sort.

  • @listen2meokidoki I will try to explain

    Oxygen depletion won't be a problem in the foreseeable future, unless of course CO2 begin to take a large percentage of the air. Witch is impossible because Carbon is fixated in the biomass for the most part. Their are only traces of C02 in the air after all. But I don't understand your second question? Solar winds are deviated by the earth magnetic field but what should get bigger?

  • You are great sir.....

  • A fairly vague claim. Would you care to specify what exactly is being caused by global warming? For instance is it the droughts caused by the lack of snowpack or is it the floods from too much snowpack? Both? Of course it is both even if in the same location. You will have to specify a disaster with a trend and an explanation of how it is caused by global warming in order to have a meaningful argument.

  • I know why people don't check...

    I looked up that research paper.

    It is difficult to read, it contains allot of technical lingo.

    One has to look up all those "big words".

    Also one has to have a general grasp of how climate

    works before being able to put a particular paper

    into context.

    I probably would have misinterpreted that paper too.

    Than again I would not blog about a topic I'm no expert in.

    That's why I don't blog at all.

  • I like how you show false statements from each side of the climate debate.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more