Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

key2thecup

Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

50 posts in this topic

Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

Jan 27, 2013

New estimates from a Norwegian research project show meeting targets for minimizing global warming may be more achievable than previously thought.

After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”

The findings also show the effect of reduced airborne particulates from burning coal, which may decrease the cloud cover that cools the earth, probably has less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling than originally projected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're still doomed, but not within our lifetime?

Thank goodness! I can finally burn these tires I've been trying to get rid of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically feel the same as the posters above me. This is good news if true, but it doesn't mean that we don't still have a big problem on our hands.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More truth and facts are starting to surface.

Understandable that the back-peddling will begin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/inb4 "methodology"/"Koch brothers"

Well I'll be.. you mean we should be sceptical of the anthropogenic climate doomsday predictions? That might throw a wrench in a few gimmicks. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. You just have to be open to both.

I'm for keeping the environment clean and healthy. I happily do my part in the effort.

I just don't believe the hype and propaganda behind the next "Capitalist Money Maker'

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh... the world's #1 air polluting nation

I think he/she's referring to both sides of the climate debate

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think that's bs. At what point do we treat these idiots the same way we treat those who still deny evolution? You can't pretend it's an honest debate when you've got overwhelming evidence that states one of the sides is correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Levelling off' and 'not as severe' are very different from 'not occurring' and 'not a problem.'

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has gotten lost in this media frenzy is that the paper is under review and has not been published. All the new articles are based off a press release. It is rather interesting to see how some are quick to embrace this even though no one has even seen the results, or the data that goes into the study.

What is also lost in the media frenzy is that this is one study, whereas the body of knowledge is really the sum of a broad range of evidences.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bit of context for the study.

One main measure of the effect of CO2 is called the climate sensitivity, which is how much will the earth warm if we double CO2. The current best estimate is 2.0-4.5 degrees, with the most likely value of 3 degrees, with is from all lines of evidence.

Suppose that the conclusion of the paper holds, a sensitivity of 1.9 degrees will certainly be on the low end, which is good news. However a huge caveat that is left out from most new report is that if the same method is applied to data only up to 1999, the sensitivity is 3.7 degrees.

The authors explained that the difference is likely due to the inflated warming up to 1999 due to natural variability, leading to an overestimation of the sensitivity. However as natural variability lowered warming over the past decade, it is possible that the estimation is biased low.

Another thing that should be stressed is the following excerpt from the press release, which is missing from news reports

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.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how people like to jump all over the results of one study. Kinda like the nutjobs who gobbled up the "vaccines cause autism" study that was .... oops... full of crap and fake.

Man there are a lot of sheep, on BOTH SIDES.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is happening in the whole solar system not just earth, humans arent helping but are not the cause of it nor can we do anythig about it

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.