Global warming less extreme than feared?

Jan 25, 2013 by Bård Amundsen & Else Lie
Global warming less extreme than feared?
The researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming. Credit: Shutterstock

Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.

Internationally renowned researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.

"These results are truly sensational," says Dr Leck. "If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate."

Temperature rise is leveling off

After Earth's mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to are still on the rise.

It is the focus on this post-2000 trend that sets the Norwegian researchers' calculations on global warming apart.

Sensitive to greenhouse gases

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global mean temperature is expected to rise if we continue increasing our emissions of into the atmosphere.

CO2 is the primary emitted by human activity. A simple way to measure climate sensitivity is to calculate how much the mean will rise if we were to double the level of overall CO2 emissions compared to the world's pre-industrialised level around the year 1750.

If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at our current rate, we risk doubling that atmospheric in roughly 2050.

Mutual influences

A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, , snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth's mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming.

Manmade climate forcing

"In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms," says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo's Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO). The project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway's Large-scale Programme on Climate Change and its Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA).

"We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant 'laboratory' where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate."

For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.

The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center.

2000 figures make the difference

When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9°C.

Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.

Natural changes also a major factor
The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:

"The Earth's mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate .

"We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now."

Climate issues must be dealt with

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.

Sulphate particulates

The project's researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.

Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.

But the findings of the Norwegian project indicate that particulate emissions probably have less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling effects than previously thought.

So the good news is that even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared.

Explore further: Specialized species critical for reefs

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming

Jul 29, 2011

Data from NASA's Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth's atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to "believe."

Explained: Climate sensitivity

Mar 19, 2010

Climate sensitivity is the term used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to express the relationship between the human-caused emissions that add to the Earth's greenhouse effect -- carbon ...

2C warming goal now 'optimistic' - French scientists

Feb 09, 2012

French scientists unveiling new estimates for global warming said on Thursday the 2 C (3.6 F) goal enshrined by the United Nations was "the most optimistic" scenario left for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Recommended for you

Specialized species critical for reefs

10 hours ago

One of Australia's leading coral reef ecologists fears that reef biodiversity may not provide the level of insurance for ecosystem survival that we once thought.

Projections for climate change in Vermont

16 hours ago

Here's your northern Vermont forecast for the rest of this century: Annual precipitation will increase by between a third and half an inch per decade, while average temperatures will rise some five degrees ...

User comments : 70

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

triplehelix
2.7 / 5 (24) Jan 25, 2013
"Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise."

If a pattern ceases to continue one must begin looking at the possibility that the pattern was a red herring and simply minorly correlative by chance, and that something else is at play.

At the very least, this is evidence that CO2 is ***at best*** a bit part player in warming, and not the entire story, or even a large factor of.
Jo01
2.4 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Execllent research it seems. Combine this with recent knowledge of the influence of black carbon, and almost no warming can be contributed to CO2.
And, by the way, the relation between warming and increase in CO2 isn't linear.

J.
dav_daddy
2.6 / 5 (22) Jan 25, 2013
Oh no where are the alarmist tarries to come and call all of us knuckle dragging, earth raping, Bible thumping, savages for saying very nearly this exact thing?

Here tardie, tardie, tardie...
PPihkala
3.6 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
I think it is also important to notice that CO2 pollution is harming the oceans and global CO2 pollution is still increasing each year. So until we reach the 'peak' of CO2 pullution and begin to see it declining there is no reason for a celebration. This only tells us that we might have more time to correct the situation or not, since they may not have counted for effects that are coming like permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and methane.
triplehelix
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
I think it is also important to notice that CO2 pollution is harming the oceans and global CO2 pollution is still increasing each year. So until we reach the 'peak' of CO2 pullution and begin to see it declining there is no reason for a celebration. This only tells us that we might have more time to correct the situation or not, since they may not have counted for effects that are coming like permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and methane.


Why a decline? Why in a 4.6 billion year history is the level we saw before industry the only level we should see? A decline isn't needed. Increasing CO2 with no increase in temperature is just as evident as Increasing CO2 and decrease in temperature that CO2 isnt the causative.
djr
3.4 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
dav daddy - "Oh no where are the alarmist tarries to come and call all of us knuckle dragging, earth raping, Bible thumping, savages for saying very nearly this exact thing?"

Is this what you have been saying all along? -

"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming."

If yes - please accept my apologies for calling you a knuckle dragger. I thought you were saying that climate scientists were perpetrating a hoax on the world - for the purpose of enriching themselves, at the expense of truth. My mistake....
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Of course there hasn't been any observable leveling off. They would be the only group saying this, and it would have to be confirmed.

"bit player".

CO2 is not the bit player behind the current AGW regime, it is the known main player. Get real or get out from science sites.

"Excellent research".

Not really, compared with all the research that says its wrong. It is only excellent because it fits your preconceived notions. When it doesn't, it's back to "conspiracy".
ScooterG
2.6 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Of course there hasn't been any observable leveling off. They would be the only group saying this, and it would have to be confirmed.

"bit player".

CO2 is not the bit player behind the current AGW regime, it is the known main player. Get real or get out from science sites.

"Excellent research".

Not really, compared with all the research that says its wrong. It is only excellent because it fits your preconceived notions. When it doesn't, it's back to "conspiracy".


"it would have to be confirmed"

Why would it have to be confirmed? Seems to me nothing about global warming/AGW has been confirmed.

Alarmists like to use the word "conspiracy" when describing deniers thoughts on AGW researchers. I'm not aware of any sort of conspiracy. What we observe and comment on is simply human nature. It's not a conspiracy, it's a bandwagon.
gwrede
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2013
Yes, this article is politically incorrect, probably even inaccurate. Of course CO2 is the thing, and AGW is the only cause. How dare they risk their own careers like this!
Jo01
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013


"Excellent research".

Not really, compared with all the research that says its wrong. It is only excellent because it fits your preconceived notions. When it doesn't, it's back to "conspiracy".


It seems your the one having preconceived notions. Climate research is important, but it shouldn't have a political agenda. From a meta science point of view it's clear that science isn't very good with complex dynamic systems, and should account for 'first' results and conclusions that are wrong. Over time scientific knowledge grows and gives us perhaps some conclusive answers, in 50 years or so.
So I stated that 'it seems' excellent research, you forgot to quote that (because of your political agenda)?
From what I read it seemed to me excellent research because of the (meta) method they used and the reasoning they followed, I didn't read the research papers (obviously) and I cannot validate all the facts (data) they used, so that's why I said 'it seems'.
How valid this research is
rubberman
3 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2013
Execllent research it seems. Combine this with recent knowledge of the influence of black carbon, and almost no warming can be contributed to CO2.
And, by the way, the relation between warming and increase in CO2 isn't linear.


Spoken like someone who has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about...and proud of it.
The observed consequences of climate change have continued at this "plateau". CO2 will hold us at this plateau until the next outlier...then a new plateau. Climate graphs will start to look like steps. With CO2 PPM at pre-industrial levels, the earth would have cooled for most of the 2000's due to the extended solar minimum. The CO2 signal is prominent in several observations such as low altitude glacial retreat, permafrost loss and pretty much everything inside the entire arctic circle from air temp. to ocean temp. to ice loss.

If CO2 wasn't a factor, there should be a few years of cooling during diminished solar activity.
Jo01
2.9 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2013
... will be established in the years to come (that's how the scientific method works).
And as I said the role of black carbon has recently become more clear and is much more important than thought before, so it seems some preconceived notions have to take a step back.
To be absolutely clear, I am all for the scientific method, facts and data and sound reasoning.
Are you?

J.
Jo01
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Execllent research it seems. Combine this with recent knowledge of the influence of black carbon, and almost no warming can be contributed to CO2.
And, by the way, the relation between warming and increase in CO2 isn't linear.


Spoken like someone who has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about...and proud of it.

So the research is ignorant as well? Or do I get the blame?
Do you know what 'linear' means? It sure doesn't look like it.

J.
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
Linear...as in corresponding, and CO2 lags, thanks for the recap. I said nothing of the "research", but if the rate of temp. rise has been .1 degree C then it will appear as a plateau on a 150 year graph...but the continuation of a sharp upward spike on a 10000 year graph...so pick your poison. The only blame I would assign you is for not checking your facts about CO2 and why it is considered a dangerous GHG, hence why i made the remark about your lack of understanding... how many colors do you think elemental carbon comes in? Why do you think it absorbs IR across the spectrum?
Grallen
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
This article is... wow... bad. At best troll food. Maybe that drives site traffic or something... The way the title goes and upper paragraph go it sound like it is saying that CO2 isn't a problem.

When read in whole it point towards a temperature plateau that's reason in unknown and a hopeful outlook that we can use that unknown somehow, or that it means that it *might* mean(And the scientist in charge even states "if confirmed") that CO2 and temperature are not as closely connected (even though there is a longer(more than 50 year) correlation compared to this(less than a decade: yes it is not for the whole decade, it was just for part of it. Yes if taken on average it's close... but still not a plateau) deviation.

Not to mention that the last two years are correcting that deviation IN FORCE.

Sigh... Who ever wrote this article need to be more careful with how they write things.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
"After Earth's mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. ... despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise."

When I pointed this out in other discussions, I was referred to as a "liar" and a "tard". This combined with other studies that show that CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases calls the AGW hysteria and its supporters into question.

The science on this is NOT settled, and politicians are using AGW hysteria to promote their own agendas.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
SO many things to say, so little room to say them! LOL!

The article does not say in any way that global manmade CO2 is not an issue, nor that it is not driving global warming. Rather, it suggests that there MAY be feed backs that are causing the warming to be slower than early models may have suggested. This is good science.

Their upper ranges match the middle ranges of the IPCC, although I am not sure that their use of the "unknown" drag on temperature rise inspires a high level of confidence on their findings. Furthermore, I do not see that they have taken into account how their model would react if the unknown drag factor is removed. The El Nino affect, and the lower solar maximum do not seem to have been taken into account.

There is certainly nothing here to suggest that CO2 is not a significant driver of the warming.
Jo01
2.1 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
Linear...as in corresponding, and CO2 lags, thanks for the recap. I said nothing of the "research", but if the rate of temp. rise has been .1 degree C then it will appear as a plateau on a 150 year graph...but the continuation of a sharp upward spike on a 10000 year graph...so pick your poison. The only blame I would assign you is for not checking your facts about CO2 and why it is considered a dangerous GHG, hence why i made the remark about your lack of understanding... how many colors do you think elemental carbon comes in? Why do you think it absorbs IR across the spectrum?


I'am not sure you understand what I mean with a non linear relation between levels of CO2 and rising temperaures. Probably because I didn't express myself clear enough.
I am perfectly aware of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I didn't say it wasn't, I didn't say CO2 concentrations increase after the temperature increases.
Only a very small part of the electromachnetic spectrum can be blocked by CO2 ...
Jo01
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
... and of that part most is already blocked by water vapor (for example). Now if you increase the concentration of CO2 by two its effect will not be that a twofold of heat will be trapped, this is because statistically some of the extra CO2 molecules will not block any energy because some other CO2 molecule already present blocked it before it could reach the molecules. Hence not linear. So a twofold increase results in a small temperature increase and when concentrations of CO2 increase the temperature delta will drop to zero, because effectively the whole spectrum gap that can be closed is closed.

J.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
How does this news fit into your conspiracy theories guys? I'm assuming like a square peg in a round hole?
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2013
There is certainly nothing here to suggest that CO2 is not a significant driver of the warming.


It does, however, reinforce other evidence that there has been a plateau in warming in the last decade or so, while CO2 levels have increased. That combined with the fact that CO2 levels lag changes in temperature call AGW "hysteria" into question. CO2 probably does play a small role, but man's contribution has been overly exaggerated. Much more significant factors exist than CO2.
rubberman
3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2013
J. My apologies. You do understand how CO2 works. And thanks for the clarification of what you meant by linear, I am aware of the relationship. Perhaps you should explain your assertion that almost no warming can be attributed to it, given that you do understand how it works.
runrig
3.1 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
This combined with other studies that show that CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases calls the AGW hysteria and its supporters into question.

Claudius: CO2 is normally a follower of temperature and a feed back into the system. However this is before man came along and buggered things up by churning out gigatonnes a year of the stuff. In the current situation CO2 is a leader and driver of warming.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
Current math models used (by any 'side') are unreliable. They do not properly predict/treat 'stepwise' change 'nodes' along the trending trajectory (as already mentioned by others). Nature is 'modeling' PERFECTLY the LIVE REALITY, via fauna/flora/disease/vectors responses which occur 'stepwise': the slow 'by stages' migrations (north/south) and adaptations/behaviour; the increasing intensity/frequency/coverage of hurricane/Typhoon transporting heat energy to high atmosphere will see large periodical radiation into space more than before; the greater daytime evaporation/condensation will periodically cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight more; as various 'cold stores' are 'breached' in stages (periodic glacier/snowline 'retreat' reaches critical locations), these 'cold masses' (previously snow/ice covered valley/mountain ground/rock) also 'buffers change' periodically, in addition to ice melts per se; also, biological feedback 'cycles' change 'stepwise'. Bumps along the way. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
PS: All such 'bumps' in the trend line means that we should not be complacent whenever temporary 'buffering factors' show up in the dynamics. The trend is upwrd relentlessly. When these 'buffering' stores/factors are 'exhausted', then we will really know just what global warming/extremes means for human activity. Food production, transportation, disease/pest control, confluences of natural disasters involving storms/droughts/inundation/rain-hail-wind-storms, and the cost of insurance/recovery when these become 'almost continues/connected' 'extreme' events as 'the new norm'. Denial of the coming reality is for bunnies caught in the headlights before being run over. Misreading/misrepresenting the present reality is for subjective religionists, not objective intellects. Pretending that occasional 'lulls' are indications of 'no threat' is rationalization of fear at its most dangerously naive. Shed ego/bias (on both 'sides'); observe nature's LIVING MODEL, and understand its message NOW. :)
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013

Claudius: CO2 is normally a follower of temperature ... In the current situation CO2 is a leader and driver of warming.


In this graph, CO2 is clearly still following temperature changes up to present (2012) http://ars.els-cd...-gr2.jpg

From this paper: "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
http://www.scienc...12001658

Some of the paper's conclusions:

"Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions."

It would seem temperature is leading and driving CO2.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
It does, however, reinforce other evidence that there has been a plateau in warming in the last decade or so, while CO2 levels have increased. That combined with the fact that CO2 levels lag changes in temperature call AGW "hysteria" into question. CO2 probably does play a small role, but man's contribution has been overly exaggerated. Much more significant factors exist than CO2.


Well now you are just making stuff up. This hysteria thing you think is relevent is a fabrication. There is evidence for a SLOWING in warming, which means it is still warming. You need to take the time to consider the evidence yourself, rather than parrotting the comments of denialist bloggers who have an agenda.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
Well now you are just making stuff up. This hysteria thing you think is relevent is a fabrication.


I feel like Sisyphus, rolling a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down again. Discussing this subjects with the AGW faithful is like debating with religious fanatics, you get nowhere. I produce evidence from peer reviewed papers, and get told I am just making it up. If you had anything to contribute, you could try to refute the evidence, or even better, present evidence to support your argument. The burden of proof is on the AGW advocates, after all, and so far, there isn't any convincing evidence that I have seen, and no one I have debated with has provided any evidence, instead resorting to denial. I am not impressed.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
In this graph, CO2 is clearly still following temperature changes up to present (2012) http://ars.els-cd...-gr2.jpg

It would seem temperature is leading and driving CO2.


Claudius: it seems this paper has many problems. I will have to refer you to this link.... http://www.realcl...nfusion/

This site is run by working climate scientists listed here ...http://www.realcl...p?cat=10

One obvious observation challenging the paper is this comment in the linked site "During NH Summer the CO2 levels ( see http://www.esrl.n.../trends/ ) are going down while emissions continue so it is obvious that "changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions". It is the same logic of using small perturbation to understand the main phenomena."
runrig
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
I feel like Sisyphus, rolling a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down again. Discussing this subjects with the AGW faithful is like debating with religious fanatics, you get nowhere.

Claudius: Well then you know exactly how we feel - and us with the weight of expert opinion behind us. If from anywhere, that is where your "religious fanatisism" comes from. Merely the firm belief that the worlds experts on the subject have come to a ( majority ) conclusion that AGW is real. I'm sorry, but I come back to the simple maxim that a group of experts will necessarily have a better answer than a group of laymen.
Egleton
2 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
I will stick with the Gaia hypothesis of Prof James Lovelock.
The story goes like this.
Gaia is a self regulating organism.
4.5 Billion years ago the sun had less helium in it. Helium is a greenhouse gas for the sun.
The helium has accumulated over the last 4.5 billion years causing the sun to increase it's temperature by 20%
In response Gaia has removed the carbon from the atmosphere in order to maintain the conditions for life.
But this mechanism no longer works as we are down to scrubbing the last 4% out of the atmosphere. (Hence the C4 plants)
We, a subset of Gaia, have discovered this carbon and are using it for an energy source. This will end.
Because the surface of this rock is no longer tenable for Gaia we have to take us (Gaia) off.
That is our mission.
gregor1
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2013
Your experts are riding a fine little cash cow. Why should we believe them when we see their landmark papers blown apart by laymen in the blogospere? (I'm thinking Steig et al which made it to the cover of Nature, and Gergis et al the bogus Australian hockey stick). Not to mention the repeated public lies of "The world's leading climate scientist" (a railway engineer) Pauchari who heads up the bogus IPCC. Oh and then there were the Climate gate Emails..... need I go on. None of this inspires confidence. March in lock step if you like but don't expect the rest of us to. This is way too important of an issue. While you're drinking the cool aid the rest of us will be on the net checking the facts
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
For pities sake. Spare me the politics.
gregor1
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2013
For pities sake. Spare the religion. Much of the CAGW narrative reads like a reworking of the garden of Eden story. Even Lovelock now admits that we don't know what's happening with the climate. Time to backpedal if your an alarmist I'm thinking.
djr
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
gregor: " While you're drinking the cool aid the rest of us will be on the net checking the facts"

Who exactly is 'the rest of us?' If you check the polling - it seems that even here in the U.S. - the % of public who believe in global warming - and believe that it is a problem is increasing - and now a significan majority - http://articles.l...20121018

So - as runrig well points out - the opinion of the scientific community supports the idea that we should be concerned about GW, the majority of the public is now on board - and it is you who have the minority view. The exchange above regarding the article on C02 and tempeature data - and the response article - show how hard it is to sort out the data. So why not leave it to the experts - unless you believe in a global conspiracy - which I see as paranoia.
Anda
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2013
In the last two years temperatures have risen here in southern europe more than their study says.
This year winter hasn't come yet and we are entering February.
Conclusion: if you don't want any warming go to Norway with the authors of this "study". Chill guaranteed.
brock_hardman_7
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2013
If 10 years worth of data is halving your sensitivity estimate then you need to go back to the drawing board. It's wrong now to extrapolate from such a short period, and it was wrong when you did your previous analysis ("the 90s"). It should have been explicit that your previous estimate was extremely rough because it was always feasible that natural variability rather than CO2 was responsible for the temperature rise.

It's appalling to see such naivety from climate scientists.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 26, 2013
Dir. I don't believe there's a global conspiracy it's more like a runaway train led by environmental activists who believe the ends justify the means. Mainstream climate science is peppered with such activists posing as scientists who have no interest in being objective despite the fact that objectivity is a basic requirement of science. I know this because I was an activist at about the time that spin began to replace reason. My favorite quote is from one of the kingpins of climate science prof. Schnieder
"we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
This pretty much sums things up.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 26, 2013
I don't believe there's a global conspiracy
Then he proceeds to describe what he believes, which is exactly that.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2013
so he places an each way bet to cover himself? He pretty much describes what has been happening. Somewhere under the hubris and hyperbole the scientific truth lies. There maybe a problem but with the evidence so obscured we're not likely to find the solution any time soon. The boy has cried wolf just a few times too many. Blaming CO2 has just been too convenient for too many groups with a vested interest and they're not going to let it go without a fight.
Egleton
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2013
I have not given any of you the benefit of my political persuasion or the deep insight of my religion for two reasons.
1 This is the wrong forum and
2 You haven't asked me nicely enough yet.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2013
Further to the claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 is natural/from the oceans. See this ... ( relating to isotopic analysis )

http://www.realcl...updated/
triplehelix
2 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2013
Of course there hasn't been any observable leveling off. They would be the only group saying this, and it would have to be confirmed.

"bit player".

CO2 is not the bit player behind the current AGW regime, it is the known main player. Get real or get out from science sites.

"Excellent research".

Not really, compared with all the research that says its wrong. It is only excellent because it fits your preconceived notions. When it doesn't, it's back to "conspiracy".


Wow, with such powerul statements like that, fuck evidence.

Scientific knowedleg has been famously with-held in many areas. A famous one is USA and cannabis http://www.projec...esearch/

Climate science is the same. More political bullshit. Climate science has made more money than actual answers to anything, and we're all still here alive and well and not cooked.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2013
If you check the polling


So you can prove that skepticism about AGW is politically incorrect. Does that prove the skeptics wrong?

Science is not democratic. It does not depend on polls or opinion. Stick to the facts. You must prove the link between human CO2 emissions and increased global temperature or cut bait.

Correlation is not enough. There is an inverse correlation between the number of pirates in the world and global temperature. Does that prove the decrease in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming?
Jo01
1.5 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2013
J. My apologies. You do understand how CO2 works. And thanks for the clarification of what you meant by linear, I am aware of the relationship. Perhaps you should explain your assertion that almost no warming can be attributed to it, given that you do understand how it works.


Recent research into the contribution of black carbon (a few weeks back also mentioned on physorg) estimated that almost half of the current warming can be attributed to black carbon. This estimate has gone up considerably from a few years back to now. It's not unreasonable to expect that next year black carbon is the most important warming factor of our climate.
But even if it isn't almost half of the measured warming is a big deal, and requires a different approach that has direct benefits to public health (and that of animals) and an almost direct effect on the warming curve.

J.
Sigh
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2013
Alarmists like to use the word "conspiracy" when describing deniers thoughts on AGW researchers. I'm not aware of any sort of conspiracy.

Try this: http://www.indepe...312.html

I have no way to quantify, though, how much influence this has, and how much is down to other factors.
DarkWingDuck
2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2013
They never accounted for the thermosphere collapsing, dropping enough water to account for 1/8 of the sea level rise and driving a positive AO trend. Now that it's expanding, it's driving a negative phase AO trend, sucking up water (drier climate) and beginning to cool again. It's not a coincidence that it began reversal in mid 2009.

They never accounted for the inverse relationship with the TIM an IR found by NASA's SORCE satellite instead of a "perfect" blackbody correlation. It's no coincidence that the deep solar minimum went into reversal in mid 2009.

I never doubted that it was mostly uneducated hype. We can measure in the lab the level effects CO2 should have but ignore many other factors and weight CO2 more heavily than lab models would imply, so why would this be a suprise?
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2013
Alarmists like to use the word "conspiracy" when describing deniers thoughts on AGW researchers. I'm not aware of any sort of conspiracy.

Try this: http://www.indepe...312.html

I have no way to quantify, though, how much influence this has, and how much is down to other factors.


I'd like to get on their list of paid supporters. Hell...all this time I've been denying agw for free :(
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2013
I feel like Sisyphus, rolling a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down again.

Well you sound more like Truman as Mount St. Helens was erupting behind him. He died in support of his own obstinance.
I produce evidence from peer reviewed papers, and get told I am just making it up.

No, you're cherrying picking. Which is essentially the same as making it up. Furthermore, you have linked to an unexplained chart and a restricted paper. Cherry picking at its finest.
The burden of proof is on the AGW advocates

Obfustication. There are so many lines of evidence from so many different disiplines supporting the view that CO2 driven global warming is occurring that 98% of all scientists, including 99.8% of all climate scientists, agree it is true. If you can't find convincing evidence skippy, it's because you are being purposefully obtuse.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2013
Goodness, there are so many great comments on here that I don't know what to say... I'm going to take it in for a little while, but do you realize there is no, scratch that, less demeaning each other, and these comments are... beautiful. Now, figure out where to agree.
I will say this, & fans of the Alchemist will recall, I did say this one was coming. They are still bouncing intelligent Anti-AGW-ers, against observing pro-AGW-ers using spurious issues of CO2 and temperature increase. (Temperature is a secondary effect.)
Let me go back to an old Gedankin model: Given: The Earth buffers temperature, with wind, polar emission, polar melting, convection, etc.. What are is the effect necessarily to overcome this buffering, and what...
AND WHAT constitutes damage?

This really is good, guys. Thanks.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2013
Recent research into the contribution of black carbon (a few weeks back also mentioned on physorg) estimated that almost half of the current warming can be attributed to black carbon. This estimate has gone up considerably from a few years back to now. It's not unreasonable to expect that next year black carbon is the most important warming factor of our climate.
But even if it isn't almost half of the measured warming is a big deal, and requires a different approach that has direct benefits to public health (and that of animals) and an almost direct effect on the warming curve.


You have misread the findings. The role of black carbon appears to be higher than previously estimated, by as much as a factor of 2. This gives a possible secondary target by which to reduce global warming, which will hopefully reduce the consequences of CO2 warming. This does not change the fact that the biggest cause of the warming, by far, remains CO2 loading.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2013
I'd like to get on their list of paid supporters. Hell...all this time I've been denying agw for free :(


They target people like you, counting on your gullibility and lack of critical thinking. They wouldn't want you paid, because you (and people like you)do far more damage to credible science then they could ever hope to.
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2013
I'd like to get on their list of paid supporters. Hell...all this time I've been denying agw for free :(


They target people like you, counting on your gullibility and lack of critical thinking. They wouldn't want you paid, because you (and people like you)do far more damage to credible science then they could ever hope to.


Ha!

If the enviro-radicals wanted to be believed now, you/they shouldn't have lied to us back in the 80's about the spotted owl and alar. And you guys did all that for no reason other than to disrupt the economy and destroy people's livelihoods.

Now you've discovered (thru global warming) you can not only disrupt the economy and destroy people's livelihoods, but you can also enrich yourselves in the process! Screw you...
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2013
If the enviro-radicals wanted to be believed now, you/they shouldn't have lied to us back in the 80's about the spotted owl and alar. And you guys did all that for no reason other than to disrupt the economy and destroy people's livelihoods.

Quite the rant, and an interesting choice of examples to use to support it. It appears you live in the NW USA.

Speaking first to alar (a chemical used on fruit to extend their ripening time) initial testing suggested it may be a carcinogen that was especially dangerous to children. Later scientific testing confirmed that the original testing was incomplete and poorly done, however by that time the media (and especially CBS and 60 minutes) saw it as a cause celebre given the fact that apples and apple juice were staples for children. Real science stepped in to diffuse the scare mongering and show that the dangers, while real, were overblown by the media.

I don`t know much about the spotted owl, except that it was used in a campaign cont
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2013
cont.. a campaign to prevent the logging of old growth forects in the NW US and western Canada. Relying on my oft fuzzy memory, I believe it was claimed that the spotted owl`s habitat would be affected by the logging, and this became a cause celebre to some radical enviromental groups given the owl`s inclusion on the US endangered species list.

Later, scientific study revealed that these claims were wrong, although I can no longer recall why. Wrong range or something similar.

What is interesting about your choices Scooter, is that they are excellent examples of how science can be relied upon to correct dubious or overblown claims by any group. In both of the cases you cite, corrections to the original claims came about because of the desire of scientists, and science in general, to seek and speak the truth regardless of who it inconveniences.

What we are arguing here, Scooter, is a condition that most of the scientific community agrees is occurring, not with standing the cont.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2013
cont.. not with standing the efforts of some to try and obfusticate the science. The science has been pointing to the same facts since at least the 80's. and there has been little or no science that has stood up to scrutiny that argues against the basic premise. In fact, to the contrary, the science has gotten stronger, the bars of error smaller, and the number of diverse, nearly unconnected fields coming to similar conclusions larger. It has gotten to the point where nearly all scientists agree that it is real, it is going to create unforseeable changes, and it is the result of man made loading of the atmosphere.
You rant about "you guys" wanting to "disrupt the economy and ruin people's livelihoods" like there is some kind of club or something. This speaks far clearer to your own delusions than anything to do with science. You might be persecuted but it has nothing to do with the science behind global warming.
Your deliberate obtuseness and gullibility come through loud and clear.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2013
Gregor has on several occasions posted his Schneider quote, but he never provides the quote. He only posts an edited version that begins in the middle of a sentence.

"My favorite quote is from one of the kingpins of climate science prof. Schnieder" - GregorTard

GregorTards dishonest misquote begins...

"we need to get some broadbased support..."

But the quote really begins...

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, and's and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our reducing the risk of potentially dangerous climate change. To do that..."

GregorTard always seems to omit the above section.

Dishonesty is his method.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2013
In addition GregorTard's quote from Schneider ends prematurely.

GregorTard's quote ends ...

"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

The entire quote ends...

"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Selective quoting and cherry picking are the hallmarks of liars and frauds.

GregorTard is such a liar and fraud.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2013
"If the enviro-radicals wanted to be believed now, you/they shouldn't have lied to us back in the 80's about the spotted owl and alar" - SkooTard

Alar and apples

http://www.source...d_apples
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2013
Well. Once again an article suggests that computer models are over predicting anthropogenic global warming, and once again the deniers jump in with their stupidly based claims and speculative non-sense.
Remember science is fluid, and can change. Whether its a lower input from solar forcing, to higher input from black-soot forcing. The bottom line is if you repeat experiment after experiment over and over change each variable and then plot it; it all comes down to 2-4.5C by 2100 and the cause is CO2!

By 2100 I've seen other models that have it as high as 10C by 2100. It's already gone up 1C in just the past 20 years, and CO2 isn't slowing, but growing exponentially, 10C isn't out of the ball-park. It's an out-lire, but by 2150 maybe not.

Just label me an Enviro-liberal-radical what ever you neo-cons deniers want to call it. It's your future we are predicting.

Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2013
And you guys did all that for no reason other than to disrupt the economy and destroy people's livelihoods.

On the contrary, the motivation is the same as that of fiscal conservatives: don't spend (ecological) capital in order to keep future income and not saddle future generations with our debts.

The world would be so simple if people you or I disagree with could simply be dismissed as evil, but life is more complicated than that.
Jo01
2.3 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2013
...It's not unreasonable to expect that next year black carbon is the most important warming factor of our climate. ...


You have misread the findings. ... This does not change the fact that the biggest cause of the warming, by far, remains CO2 loading.


I didn't misread that at all: "black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide."
And, so, according to this article, CO2 isn't the largest contributor by far, it's only by a small margin.
My meta science extrapolation is that it's possible that next years knowledge about black carbon makes it as 'important' as CO2.

http://phys.org/n...sly.html

J.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2013
And, so, according to this article, CO2 isn't the largest contributor by far, it's only by a small margin.
My meta science extrapolation is that it's possible that next years knowledge about black carbon makes it as 'important' as CO2.

J.


My apologies, you are correct that you did not misread the findings. I stand corrected. Although I disagree with your comment that CO2 contributes only a small margin more, 1/3 more is still significant.

One big difference between black carbon and CO2 loading is the length of time it takes to remove them from the atmosphere. This suggests that your comment that black carbon will be found to be as important a contributior to warming will likely not come to pass, given the means availble to reduce the amount of black carbon put into the atmosphere.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2013
"This speaks far clearer to your own delusions than anything to do with science."

Delusions??

Enviro-nazis hook up with the likes of Al Gore, Bill Richardson, and Maurice Strong, lie to us about environmental issues (eg spotted owl), pretend the AGW research money trail does not exist...and you call me delusional??

AGW smells bad from every direction.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2013
Delusions??


There is medicine to help you deal with your feelings of persecution Scooter. Seriously though, us enviro-natzis were just trying to confirm where you actually stand. Now that we know, we'll be calling on you.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being watched! o.O
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2013
"This speaks far clearer to your own delusions than anything to do with science."

Delusions??

Enviro-nazis hook up with the likes of Al Gore, Bill Richardson, and Maurice Strong, lie to us about environmental issues (eg spotted owl), pretend the AGW research money trail does not exist...and you call me delusional??

AGW smells bad from every direction.


QED
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2013
It is sad to see what happens to Paranoid Schizophrenics like ScooTard when they go off their medication.

"Enviro-nazis hook up with the likes of Al Gore, Bill Richardson, and Maurice Strong" - ScooTard

I've been told in Email from people who claim to know ScooTard, that he begins to froth at the mouth, and pull out his own hair, when he sees a picture of Al Gore.

Morality is ScooTard's mortal enemy.

ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2013
I know some things about the three individuals that you may not know, we were lied to about the spotted owl, and there's a boat-load of money involved in agw research.

I'm not paranoid - I know a snake when I see one.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
As a congenital liar, and cheat himself, ScooTard finds liars and cheats everywhere he looks.

He just can't imagine anyone living a life of honesty and dignity.

"we were lied to about the spotted owl" - ScooTard
Spotted Owl

There are approximately three to five thousand pairs remaining in the wild, mostly in the states of Washington, Oregon and California

The Northern Spotted Owl was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act throughout its range of northern California, Oregon and Washington by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on June 23, 1990
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
Imagine the Earth, a system composed of land-geology, vegetation, water with temp. gradients (ocean is densest at 4 C), and ice. If you add heat, (OK traditionalists) or if you add greenhouse gasses, the temp. is NOT the most dramatic thing to change. What I will call for simplicity "non-equilibrium heat" will go to evaporation (condensation), melting of ice, changing temp. gradients and wind patterns and other "easier" transitions and changes than raising the Earth's temp., which requires a huge sustained amount of energy to happen "all at once."
Wiki says the Earth's temp has increased about .75 K since industrialization (OK, what number do you WANT to use?). But glaciers have melted, prevailing currents have changed (eg. Bearing Straight), and of course more precipitation...in some places, in others drought.
Global WARMING should not be feared, it is all the primary effects of adding heat and, OK insulation to the Earth that should be feared. And guess what, you're soaking in it.