Sunday, March 21, 2010

Alarmists should be stunned by these fresh admissions from NASA

[NASA scientist: We don't currently understand cloud feedbacks; we can't separate man-made from natural climate variations]
[NASA's Dr. Dave Young] We know the things that can cause our climate to change. They include changes in the intensity of the sun, and increases in heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. What we want to learn is how the Earth responds to these driving forces, and any other secondary feedback effects that might occur. For example, say the Earth responds to increases in carbon dioxide levels by warming up; a warmer planet causes more water to evaporate and increases the amount of certain types of clouds. Clouds could either accelerate or slow down subsequent global warming. By taking very accurate energy measurements from space over a long period of time, we'll be able to measure these responses and feedbacks on decade-long timescales.

3. CLARREO claims it will produce an "irrefutable climate record." Does that mean it will put an end to climate change controversy?

Producing a trusted and tested climate record is one of our goals.
...The goal is to have a set of highly accurate measurements that can be used to track today's global warming trends and to improve climate models' predictions for the future. We've pretty much shown that you can separate man-made climate change from natural climate variations using the data we expect to collect. You'll see the impact of changes in carbon dioxide, methane and other gases reflected in the changes in the temperatures we measure. By comparing these numbers to the climate models, we'll really understand how that climate change developed.
Climate Change: Dr. Dave Young
Affiliation: NASA Langley Research Center
Education: Bachelor's degree in astrophysics from Michigan State University, U.S.; Master's degree in meteorology from Penn State University, U.S.


Mark Alger said...

IMHO, the only way you could get an irrefutable climate record would be to build a system -- a machine, if you will -- of a size and complexity comparable to the actual atmosphere itself.

And, having done so, you would have to deal with the inevitable effects of such size and complexity.

And you STILL would not be able to derive a definitive temperature for the atmosphere to within less than +/- 2 degrees.


Unknown said...

Sweet deal for NASA. They cook the data so it supports an outcome favorable to the concept of AGW. This makes the liberal/progressive government happy and budget dollars flow to NASA. The once noble program has fallen to perfidy.

Anonymous said...

"Clouds could either accelerate or slow down subsequent global warming."

He did not say clouds could stop or reserve global warming. He is saying what is well known but still hard to quantify. He is talking about understanding secondary effects to get even more accuracy.

(darryl: NASA got plenty of money under Bush. What nonsense. Which side do you think the Big Money is pushing?)

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it but since Mann is at Penn State i distrust anyone whose degree is from there in the field. A resident of PA.

JP said...

"(darryl: NASA got plenty of money under Bush. What nonsense. Which side do you think the Big Money is pushing?)"

You have heard of the 2 trillion dollar carbon credit scam, no?

"more accuracy"? Good one. Next!