OT - Global warming not as warm as first thought shocker

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/
"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
--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/2013 18:31, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

I think one might argue that the term "independent expert" is an oxymoron, just as much as the term "climate change" is tautologous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/2013 18:58, newshound wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as terrorists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/01/2013 9:37 a.m., dennis@home wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before you are recognized as a duckwit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think you're a bit late on that ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

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 Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science, for that matter...).
In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of misrepresenting what 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 various existing studies.
This is what the project lead actually says (from http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp ):
"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/2013 22:47, snipped-for-privacy@googlemail.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/01/2013 12:01 p.m., dennis@home wrote:

Quack quack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not so. Clue. The vikings named Greenland and lived there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/01/2013 07:43, harry wrote:

The name was a marketing exercise by Eric the Red. He didn't think the more accurate Barren-ice-covered-land would do much for the prospects of getting colonists.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/13 22:58, Nightjar wrote:

Nevertheless a colony did live there for several hundred years before global cooling removed the ability to grow crops.
"To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, we know that the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.[17] Excavations of midden or garbage heaps from the Viking farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the shift from the bones of cows and pigs to those of sheep and goats. As the winters lengthened, and the springs and summers shortened, there must have been less and less time for Greenlanders to grow hay. By the mid-14th century deposits from a chieftain’s farm showed a large number of cattle and caribou remains, whereas, a poorer farm only several kilometers away had no trace of domestic animal remains, only seal. Bone samples from Greenland Norse cemeteries confirm that the typical Greenlander diet had increased by this time from 20% sea animals to 80%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
Presumably they ran out of diesel for their 4x4s.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/2013 23:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

True, but it was bare subsistence farming, with the occasional need to throw granny off a cliff, to make the food last through the winter. It was not the lush green land that Eric promised the Icelanders.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That’s what they did back where they came from too.

He never promised anything of the sort.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/01/2013 23:52, Rod Speed wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red
'When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said to have brought with him stories of "Greenland". Erik deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name".[7] He knew that the success of any settlement in Greenland would need the support of as many people as possible. His salesmanship proved successful, as many people (especially "those Vikings living on poor land in Iceland" and those that had suffered a "recent famine") became convinced that Greenland held great opportunity.'
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/01/13 22:59, Brian Gaff wrote:

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 shite 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.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Doesn't the water vapour feedback follow from basic physics (Clausius-Clapeyron)?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/01/13 17:12, snipped-for-privacy@googlemail.com wrote:

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..
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:16:54 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yes of course it's more complicated than a straight application of C-C but it provides the basic idea. If you want to get into discussing all of the dynamics involved, it can get complex but as far as I am aware there aren't many people arguing that water vapour isn't a net positive feedback. What you have described, again in fairly simple terms, is a negative feedback that may play a role but you implicitly assume that it plays a sufficiently dominant role to negate the first order effect of higher temperatures in relation to water vapour.
In any case, there is empirical evidence for water vapour feedback such as the analysis of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. And in general, it is very difficult to explain the earth's climate history without having some sort of amplification of relatively weak forcings (such as slight orbital changes).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.