Jump to content

Archived

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

Paul

Global Warming Less Extreme Than Feared? (Based On Norwegian Study)

Recommended Posts

Saw this and thought is may make an interesting discussion. In short a research project undertaken in Norway indicates that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere cause an approx 1.9c increase in global temperatures which is inside the IPCC 'danger level' of a 2c increase and well down on the IPCC estimate of approx a 3c increase.

Apparently the researchers looked in detail at the various feedback mechanisms caused by the various activities which affect climate, global temperatures and co2 levels, and have taken them into account to come up with these figures:

“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.”

The full report can be read here:

http://www.forskning.../p1177315753918

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a balanced approach to this subject instead of all the doom mongering that normally gets thrown in, a very good article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this and thought is may make an interesting discussion. In short a research project undertaken in Norway indicates that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere cause an approx 1.9c increase in global temperatures which is inside the IPCC 'danger level' of a 2c increase and well down on the IPCC estimate of approx a 3c increase.

Apparently the researchers looked in detail at the various feedback mechanisms caused by the various activities which affect climate, global temperatures and co2 levels, and have taken them into account to come up with these figures:

The full report can be read here:

http://www.forskning.../p1177315753918

Thoughts?

An interesting study, and if a few more spring up that support its findings, it would be a slight change.

The IPCC estimates of 2-4.5C temperature increase on a doubling of CO2 come from a multitude of studies using different techniques. Some of those studies and models indicated something as low as 1.5C, while others above 4.5C, but the most realistic range appears to be 2-4.5C. So while this new study comes in at the lower range on climate sensitivity estimates, claims that the results are "truly sensational" seem a little exaggerated I think.

Here's a review article, published in 2008, on climate sensitivity for anyone that wants to read up a little more http://www.iac.ethz....tti08natgeo.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually posted this in the New Research thread a couple of days ago and nobody commented. dry.png Anyway could someone delete it, no point it being here twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This certainly appears to be more realistic - the date from which the calculations have been based is 1750 and at that time it has to be remembered Europe and North America were in the midst of the Little Ice Age at the time, though the jury still seems to be out on whether this was a global cooling or just restricted to the Northern Hemipshere, and that part of the warming until 2000 could have been the natural 're-warming' cycle after the Little Ice Age.

It is now well known that there have been fluctuations in the Earth's climate for as far as we have been able to get evidence from examining ice cores, sediment deposits, the examination of tree rings and other methods which have indicated a past record of climate which appears to be generally accepted.

Whilst man made activites are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere it appears that some of this is being taken up by such things as the absorption of more CO2 by plants and the worlds' oceans.

So things are not as bad as we were first led to believe - however having said that, it is not a time for complacency because there is no denying even by the sceptics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that continued release of this gas into the atmosphere would eventually put us in the realms where it could create a serious problem.

Unfortunately the supporters of man made global warming appear to have overstated their case either by design or accident leading on governments to leap on this subject as a means of raising extra taxes which many of us can ill afford and have given this subject a bad name amongst many of the populace - a case of crying wolf.

I believe that what this does mean is that we still have to continue to develop methods of generating renewable energy but is should give us more time to develop systems which are more efficient and less of a burden in taxes and running costs to Mr & Mrs Joe Public and at the same time make efforts to reverse the current de-forestation and reverse this trend on a worlsd scale because our vegetation is vital in re-absorbing the CO2 we put into the atmophere.

I've mentioned the idea a couple of times before of using photovoltaic panels in such areas as the Sahara desert in order to power desalination plants, thereby creating an ever increasing fertile region through irrigation. Of course this will be subject to the increasing influence of Al Qaeda in that region deciding whether such a project would be the will of Allah. Though the increased vegetation would help take out some of this CO2 and as the area under cultivation increases it would create its own mini climate in the area.

In any case I am hopeful that such organisations won't be there forever.

However, with increasing populations we really need to make more agricultural land available and also increasing populations will lead to more CO2 being discharged as their living standards rise and they are able to afford more CO2 producing items such as manufacturing, transport and heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst man made activites are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere it appears that some of this is being taken up by such things as the absorption of more CO2 by plants and the worlds' oceans.

So things are not as bad as we were first led to believe - however having said that, it is not a time for complacency because there is no denying even by the sceptics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that continued release of this gas into the atmosphere would eventually put us in the realms where it could create a serious problem.

Fully agreed; I don't think this is notable enough (even if it were certain or an entire paradigm shifts occurred to more moderate warming) for the course of action to particularly change. At the moment, targets to avoid even the best case scenario are being missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This certainly appears to be more realistic - the date from which the calculations have been based is 1750 and at that time it has to be remembered Europe and North America were in the midst of the Little Ice Age at the time, though the jury still seems to be out on whether this was a global cooling or just restricted to the Northern Hemipshere, and that part of the warming until 2000 could have been the natural 're-warming' cycle after the Little Ice Age.

How do you mean more realistic?

A re-warming up to levels not seen for at least tens of thousands of years is a little more than a rebound from the regional LIA, don't you think?

It is now well known that there have been fluctuations in the Earth's climate for as far as we have been able to get evidence from examining ice cores, sediment deposits, the examination of tree rings and other methods which have indicated a past record of climate which appears to be generally accepted.

It's been well known for hundreds of years, which is why climatologists were able to confirm that our current warming wasn't natural.

Whilst man made activites are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere it appears that some of this is being taken up by such things as the absorption of more CO2 by plants and the worlds' oceans.

The absorption by oceans was known to occur, and it effects their pH balance. As for extra absorption by plants, the deforestation and urbanisations isn't really isn't allowing that to occur.

So things are not as bad as we were first led to believe - however having said that, it is not a time for complacency because there is no denying even by the sceptics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that continued release of this gas into the atmosphere would eventually put us in the realms where it could create a serious problem.

This is one study among dozens. If many more come out that agree with it, then we may be able to conclude that climate sensitivity is lower than expected, and we may have some more time before reaching the 2C global increase. For now, the majority go for a higher sensitivity.

Unfortunately the supporters of man made global warming appear to have overstated their case either by design or accident leading on governments to leap on this subject as a means of raising extra taxes which many of us can ill afford and have given this subject a bad name amongst many of the populace - a case of crying wolf.

Once again, nothing can be concluded from a single study, when there are way more that disagree with it. Governments have hardly been eagerly agreeing with the wishes of scientists in this instance, and the authors of the study in question claim:

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.

I believe that what this does mean is that we still have to continue to develop methods of generating renewable energy but is should give us more time to develop systems which are more efficient and less of a burden in taxes and running costs to Mr & Mrs Joe Public and at the same time make efforts to reverse the current de-forestation and reverse this trend on a worlsd scale because our vegetation is vital in re-absorbing the CO2 we put into the atmophere.

Partly agree, and responded to above.

I've mentioned the idea a couple of times before of using photovoltaic panels in such areas as the Sahara desert in order to power desalination plants, thereby creating an ever increasing fertile region through irrigation. Of course this will be subject to the increasing influence of Al Qaeda in that region deciding whether such a project would be the will of Allah. Though the increased vegetation would help take out some of this CO2 and as the area under cultivation increases it would create its own mini climate in the area.

In any case I am hopeful that such organisations won't be there forever.

However, with increasing populations we really need to make more agricultural land available and also increasing populations will lead to more CO2 being discharged as their living standards rise and they are able to afford more CO2 producing items such as manufacturing, transport and heating.

The desert solar panel idea is something being planned and implemented at the moment, on a variety of scales.

The main thing here, is that one study doesn't nullify all those that came before it. If a raft of new studies come out agreeing with this Norwegian one, then there may be a change in the scientific thinking, but for now, the consensus remains largely unchanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry that change is now occuring so fast , and so extensively, that any paper is well outdated before it is released?

My personal view is that the 'Natural changes' now occuring ( due to the slow 'drip ,drip, that AGW forcing promoted) are impacting our global circulation to the extent that 'change' is now a yearly thing?

I do hope that our current 'Jet stream issues' are a passing phase and that the Arctic Amplification will render the Polar Jet null and void over the next few years allowing the Sub Tropical Jet a bigger influence over our 'temperate' weather regions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry that change is now occuring so fast , and so extensively, that any paper is well outdated before it is released?

My personal view is that the 'Natural changes' now occuring ( due to the slow 'drip ,drip, that AGW forcing promoted) are impacting our global circulation to the extent that 'change' is now a yearly thing?

I do hope that our current 'Jet stream issues' are a passing phase and that the Arctic Amplification will render the Polar Jet null and void over the next few years allowing the Sub Tropical Jet a bigger influence over our 'temperate' weather regions?

Blimey! Bloody hope not :p

It's very interesting that Arctic Amplification still exists and is possibly worsening, whilst the rest of the world is, despite various inter-yearly fluctuations, remaining around stable in terms of temperature. Isn't the polar jet likely to push further into more 'sub-tropical' climes as the current situation worsens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting that Arctic Amplification still exists and is possibly worsening, whilst the rest of the world is, despite various inter-yearly fluctuations, remaining around stable in terms of temperature. Isn't the polar jet likely to push further into more 'sub-tropical' climes as the current situation worsens?

Or perhaps more importantly just diminish? I actually don't agree with this thread, there are enough of them already. Perhaps a new thread for each paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that as the A.A. increases and consolidates the Polar Jet becomes less powerful and more sinuous in nature. With summer temps leading to a lessened temp difference between the Arctic and temperate regions it already appears that the area from pole to Sub-tropical jet is becoming more one large amalgamated region?

Should this continue we will see the temp difference in the boundary between pole and temperate region become so undefined as to effectively lose the Jet completely/ How often, over last summer, did the wind speeds within the polar jet drop so low to have it disappear from the plots completely leaving only 'jet streaks' where the winds accelerated out of the amplified curves?

What I do not understand is how the sub-Tropical jet will respond to these continued alterations to the North? Will we see a hasty move north and strengthening of the Jet? Will the Depressions formed serve as a giant heat engine bringing ever warmer air further north? Are we really on the edge of a set of changes that will radically alter the weather patterns we are used to in the northern hemisphere?

Again i do not feel we have long to wait to see this question answered for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out that the press release was just taken from part of a PhD thesis, that hasn't been published or passed peer review yet. The authors even claim that the final draft will be different to that used in the press release.

This kinda thing is happening all too often these days.

http://www.carbonbri...t-peer-reviewed

Skepticalscience have done a good piece on climate sensitivity and the Norwegian press release here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that BFTV. So why does it merit a thread on it's own as I've mentioned before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that BFTV. So why does it merit a thread on it's own as I've mentioned before?

I guess it was meant more to initiate a discussion on climate sensitivity, after the section was closed down for a while. A new topic to start afresh with.

On occasion, things I've posted up have been largely ignored, only for someone else to post them and get a discussion going afterwards. Meh, it happens sometimes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does beg the question as to why such a paper is brought forward as if mainstream ,peer reviewed literature when so much of that material is instantly available on any low level search?

We are told that 99% of Climate scientists broadly agree with the main areas of the AGW theory and as such I'd imagine it very difficult to come across any real challenges to the basic theory that could be viewed as 'serious'?

I'm sure that there are lots of 'T's' to cross and 'I's' to dot but is it reasonable to think that the findings across all of climate science could be being ascribed to a wholly wrong set of drivers?

As such we come down to the wider problem of the public perception of the issue. If folk are lead to believe that there are as many serious papers that question AGW as those that find support in their observations for AGW then folk will naturally believe that the Science is far from being proven and validated.

On a public Forum surely we have a moral duty to portray the current scientific understandings as accurately as possible?

Folk report of being weary of the issue and this ,I believe, is bourne out of a supposed 'to-ing and fro-ing' of the issues which does not reflect the current state of the science at all?

Over the past two years we have had papers across all areas of the discipline showing evidence that change will be far faster and more impacting than we originally believed. We see these documented in the relevant thread but do we see threads allowed to openly discuss these papers?

In Politics, were the same 'privileges accorded, then the BNP would have been given equal footing with Conservative and Labour parties to bring home their message but do we see this? No their exposure is equal to their ratings (the number of people who think them 'Right') why is this not so within this debate? How has a minority view been given equal footing with the consensus?

I think the answer lies in the success of the P.R. initiative being discussed in the other new thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, even the opening of a thread in order to create some discussion as it looked interesting is treated to the GW treatment of reading way to much into it, inferring some sort of bias and generally filling another post up with a moan up. If you don't like the subject don't post in it, if you think we have a moral duty to protect the public from non peer reviewed information then don't bump the thread.

It's a thread, much like any other on here - if you want to start one about any paper you like be my guest, it's not like it's forbidden, I just hope others show any such thread more respect than you have of other threads in recent times by actually reading what's within them and discussing the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to this but I've now had time to digest the paper in question and this has left me with further questions?

Why did they only use data from 2000 to 2010 to build their model?

Where is the evidence that the 90's warming can impact, to the scale suggested, the general climate models?

If anything it looks increasingly like a re-hash of the old " let's look at temps since 98' to present and see how fast we are warming"

Isolating a period ,where we know 'natural' cooling mechanisms are at the fore, to attempt to project future behaviour is flawed from the get go surely?

As it is the focus on GHG forced temp rises are only a portion of the picture and I firmly believe we have now crossed the threshold into a period of rapid climate shift brought about by the conditions the 'slow forcing' of extra GHG loading has brought us.

As it stands we know we are now seeing more energy flooding into the climate system both from the planets new ability to accept incoming solar energy (where it would once have reflected it back into space) and also from the freeing up of energy once employed in ice melt.

I feel that we should be focusing at least some of our time on figuring what ,and where, we should expect this 'new energy' to manifest within the climate system?

We also need to better figure out when to expect 'Nature's' GHG's to feather into the climate system? We stand to inherit at least as much GHG forcing from the re-animation of the portion of the carbon cycle held in deep freeze since the last interglacial with temps matching those predicted as man has introduced into the atmosphere (since 1750) no matter where our own contributions settle out at. Not only do we stand to inherit this forcing but also the energy that is being spend thawing out this portion of the carbon cycle.

In the space of ten years we appear to have moved from a slowly warming world (forced by our GHG emissions) to one where a large jolt of new energy is entering the climate system. This is only the beginning of this process but surely some of this energy will go into freeing up even more energy (positive feedback) and place the impacts from GHG forcings firmly on the back burner for a while.

One thing is certain, this energy must bring about changes to the way the global circulation worked before the energy became available and ,as such, will move the changes from a 'climate' scale process to an individual 'Weather' scale process as the planet struggles to find a new 'balance' over the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×