On January 24, 2013, The Research Council of Norway released a news article that is well worth reading.
Here's a couple snippets:
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – 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 temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”
"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."
The article still suggests action must be taken to "solve" climate change, but the goal posts seem to have shifted in this debate. Shifted away from it all being a crisis that is.
More tomorrow.
Rick
Did The Research Council of Norway is hardly in a position to make such comments and claims, they are a agency that gives grants, give enough grants and you’ll get the results you want. And Rick thank goodness for global warming, it was in the -30’s up here in Ontario this past week.
But don’t most scientists receive grants to do their work? Either government or private grants?
That aside, when I lived in Toronto from 1976 to 1982, we had global freezing then remember?
Norway cannot be an objective party in this debate for a couple reasons, the first of which is pointed out by Ken 50ish above.
The second reason is that ‘global warming will probably (always) be less extreme than feared’ to the Norwegians due to the extreme nature of their weather. Having holidayed there several winters (usually over the Xmas/New Year period), one would never think the Earth was warming if standing on the slopes of Norefjell or Geilo !!!
The anti GW people use the same tactics as those of the smoking lobby, in that they introduce an element of doubt.
Norway’s economy is primarily support by fossil fuels, it is only logical that they will take the same tack as the rest of the fossil fuel industry…….
It is a fact that 2012 was the hottest year every, that arctic polar ice loss was the greatest ever, the ice melt on Greenland far exceeded expectations.
Full details of the various record high temperatures and other phenomena associated with GW can be found at .
It behooves we Bahamians to pay heed to this must urgent problem, for we are one of the most susceptible countries which will suffer from the effects of both in the short and long term.
I believe an increase in sea level of two to three feet will inundate at least 50% of our urban areas by 2050.
Thanks S3S and Dr. Cove.
So if there can be no objective studies, why do we bother to do them?
I agree if sea levels rise we’re in deep do do, but they’ve been rising for millennium(a) haven’t they?
As noted above there were calls to DO SOMETHING about global freezing when I lived in Canada.
Now it’s DO SOMETHING about Global Warming when parts of the world are experiencing the worst winters in years – like Canada in 1976 – 1982.
The real issue to my mind is, if we’re not sure what’s happening, what do we do?
Gosh Norman 2012 may be the hottest year on “RECORD” but how far back do records exist, only for a few hundred year at most, it’s my guess that around say 2 million years ago the Bahamas didn’t exist. I personally am extremely thankful for GW, otherwise where I live in Canada would be under miles of ice from the ice age.
We trusted the UN”s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only to find it was being run by a small group of “global warming” zealots who continuously rigged or rejected the evidence to support their preconceived theory..
What ever happened to the discipline of “scientific method” and reasoning?? Grant issuing by governments like the United States are so often biased by preconceived outcomes and not on objective research findings.. As Christopher Booker clearly elucidates in his book, The Global Warming Disaster, the real tragedy “is the obsession with ‘climate change’ has turned out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history..”
The seeds of doubt mentioned above……. are coming to full fruition,
The fact that the US and the world experienced record heat, nearly 50% of the US is in drought.
Parts of Australia under extreme heat with forest fires of unknown intensity and now rain literally measured in feet per day, are, of course, a natural phenomena, the fact that these and many other extreme weather events occurred last year, is dissmissed by ‘it’s happened before’. Sure but these 100 and even 1000 years events are happening every 5 or 10…….
The other point, I find amusing, is that in the US, and seemingly here two, this weather business falls into party lines…….. GOP are disbelievers and Dems believers. I guess in this instance, you ‘pays your money and takes your choice’. I see little of scientific method here.
Thanks Dr. Cove,
We can all see what’s happening and it can’t be dismissed.
We see the hot events and we see the freezing events.
My question to you and all the “believers” is what we do about it when we’re not really sure of the causes and consequences of our possible actions?
And, are those paid by governments and believers to be believed while those paid by individuals or industry are not to be believed?