NASA says former CO2 models were too gloomy

[Toner]

Apparently the old model didn't account for plants converting extra CO2 to oxygen

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12...grees_warming/

[Toner]

If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.

Well that's a worry

[dharma]

You Tube

[Ross]

Ooops , did the USA just blow 100 Billion$++ for no good reason .

"Nevermind" my ass , I want some public executions .

From 1998 through 2009, appropriations for agencies’ work
related to climate change totalled about $99 billion (in 2009 dollars);

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=487




ps ...
At the Cancun climate conference Hilary offered
another $100B of your money for this worthy
cause ( cannot publish ap link ) .

[Ross]

Is it just me or has the NASA web page now been edited ?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...nt-growth.html

My memory of the original NASA page is that it contained information
of the shown kind below . When I now look at the NASA page it
contains no comments about how it will take centuries to achieve
a doubling of CO2 .

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there's really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12...grees_warming/

At this point I would like to get my hands on the original research and compare it with
the summary currently displayed on the NASA web page and also verify it against
"theregister" web page .