"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades."
Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on the subject.
Cheers
Dave R
I think one might argue that the term "independent expert" is an oxymoron, just as much as the term "climate change" is tautologous.
I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as terrorists.
I wonder how long it will be before you are recognized as a duckwit.
An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be taken = with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles in the Dail= y Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science, for that matter...)= .
In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of misrepresenting wha= t the researchers themselves are saying which is that AGW is still an issue= , something still needs to be done, but climate sensitivity is at the lower= end of (but largely consistent with) the possible range indicated by vario= us existing studies.=20
This is what the project lead actually says (from
Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.
I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.
Brian
Well they would have to say that. If they didn't the alarmists would be all over them calling them dukwits and stuff like that.
State that the models are wrong and then toe the party line.
Quack quack
Not so. Clue. The vikings named Greenland and lived there.
I don't think you understand the bcakground from which Le2wis Page emerges.
There is a view that says that, yes, CO2 emissions were raising and yeas, it was almost inconceivable that that wouldn't have SOME effect on something, globally.
And it was, of and by itself, a subject worthy of a slim grant and some effort...
What it was not, was settled science. Nor did any of it predict alarming climate change of sufficient size to warrant pouring billions into futile attempts to stop it. That was all down to clever marketing, and subtle tweaks and the totally unwarranted introduction of - not another thing that affected climate directly - but of a *feedback* system that would *amplify* climate change making the whole planets atmosphere so sensitive to CO2 that it would :
(a) account for late 20th century warming as being down to CO2 ALONE. (b) push energy into the political sphere in a huge way (c) make a lot of money for those on the bandwagon early. (d) imply that the earth's climate in the past would have oscillated wildly over *short* time-scales between freezing and baking - for which there is simply zero evidence in the geological records.
The sole justification for this feedback system was the 30 years of warming between 1970 and 2000 and the concomitant rise in CO2 over the same period. Plus the absolute unshakeable assumption that the one 'caused' the other.
CO2 is still rising, temperatures broadly have stabilised in the last decade. Its still warm, but its not rising very much, if at all. SE levels are rising a few mm each year, but there is no sign of acceleration. So called extreme weather is not that extreme - its been seen before and worse. Yes, its still half a degree or so warmer than the 50s and 60s and that's effecting Arctic ice a bit but the overall trend is towards a levelling off.
Now this absolutely blows a hole in the AGW model. Or at least the simple 'science is settled' one. It doesn't men climate change isn't happening. But it does means that its not happening the way the model says it should, and that calls into question the model in its entirety. Its getting well past the point where the 'corrections' can account for the discrepancies without someone actually saying that in effect, the corrections are more important than the CO2 ever was. And if those corrections are not man made, WTF are we spending so much money on CO2 reduction - which isn't having any effect on CO2 levels anyway?
The IPCC and its fanbois of course are desperately trying to divert attention away and say that its still happening, its still CO2, its still important and therefore the IPCC and its funding and all the green technology s**te is still of vital importance.
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
BUT the growing suspicion is that, after all, it isn't.
And that we have all been right royally had, because the science never was settled at all. It was shaky as hell but papered over in order to provide a political and marketing platform for some very greedy men who subverted and fooled the environmental movement into being allies in the vast scam.
I think you're a bit late on that ...
Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
The main problem here is the fact that The Natural Philosopher lacks some basic skills in science and is a philosopher of the religious type. As I told you in a previous message, and quoted below:
Religious people are always looking for some alternative explanation. They have the idea that there is no scientific truth in this world.
Let me show you exactly what The Natural Philos> >>>> ...
This YouTube video has a very good explanation how we arrive at a scientific truth:
Now The Natural Philosopher can do a Wikipedia search and find that the earth is round, an answer that is good enough for most practical purposes. If he do not trust Wikipedia, which is a very solid source on any topic like the shape of the earth or global warming, he can study it himself. He can go away in a steady direction for
40 000 km and he will come back to his home. I published a paper on how to find that direction in nov 1975.
narrator is saying? You're making the same mistake that Asimov's English Lit friend made: using terms like "scientific truth" as if it represents some sort of absolute.
Is that the posh way to say "go f*ck yourself"?
Do you have any evidence for this?
Implications of first sentence:
Humans are no longer religious and are not very bad at science. You have evidence that they were religious and bad at science for a very long period of time.
Implication of second sentence:
An indeterminate "they" had an idea that you assert was that the earth is flat. Maybe the majority of pre-"we realise the earth is not flat" people did not think in the way that many (most?) now do of a spherical earth, but does this mean that they all believed in a totally flat earth?
Implication of the third sentence:
Had "they" known the earth was not flat, they would have known what would be found if they explored...
I strongly suspect that the impression of where they lived depended very much on where they lived. Must be very different living on an island in the Pacific rather than Timbuktu. I do NOT have any evidence of this.
(Clausius-Clapeyron)?
Not really.
That may govern the amount of water in the air above a warm ocean, but what happens after that is a sight more complex. Warm air rises..bloody high. Cold air rushes in. Warm air rises even higher, clouds form both from adiabatic cooling and from direct radiation to space. Ice forms, falls as hail snow or rain.. and cools the surface..
You are of course the prime example of that.
It says the same as what I have been saying.
There is no Truth, only less wrong ways of drawing pictures of the world.
But of course that went right over ytour head..
And they still arer. You are te prime exapmple.
They had the idea that the earth was flat.
No, they almost never did. That's a myth. From the moment they set sail they knew it couldn't be.
A very bad idea,
Total straw man. We are not arguing about the shape of the earth. We are arguing about the religious idea, unsupported by the evidence that climate change happens as a result of man's sinful burning of fossil fuel.
Which is odd, because it happened before man even existed.
On 27/01/2013 17:47, Jo Stein wrote: ...
The flat earth is primarily a European / Hebrew view. Other beliefs held that it was bowl shaped, domed or pyramid shaped. The idea of a spherical earth can be traced back to Pythagoras in 570BC and the Zoroastrians around the same time. As that is about half way through recorded history and we know nothing of earlier beliefs, you cannot even claim that it was an idea for most of our time on earth.
Colin Bignell
Oh no! I just want to put him on a better track. On that long journey he may speak to a lot of people and they will tell how and why climate is steadily changing. He will come back as a wise man.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.