Yesterday the Research Council of Norway—that would be one of those national research bodies that the climateers relentlessly tell us we should pay attention to—issued the conclusion that global warming is likely to be much less severe than the “consensus” estimate of 2 – 4.5 degrees C. The Norwegian body thinks it will top out at 1.9 degrees:Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions: “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.”
4 comments:
It's strange that you would link to an article that absolutely confirms Anthropogenic Global Warming, but at a lower than previously predicted rate, with the comment "AGW=BS".
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.
joe - uj r a feckin moron.
no one denies there was past tense was some recent warming.
FACT:
none of it beyond historical and pre-historical ranges.
none
FACT:
and there is NO proof that we are contributing to it.
there is evidence that the weather stations are too lose to "heat islands" which skew measurements.
FACT:
the warming is FAR FAR FAR FAR below ANY AND ALL climate models put forward by leftist scum like you.
the alarmist industry is a sham.
a socialist scam which - like all socialist enbterprises - hurts poor people the most.
capitalism saved india and china- communism and socialism nearly destroyed them
socialist tyrannies killed more people than any other ideology except for islam.
the green movement has directly prevented the industrial development of the Third World and caused them to remain poor and to die prematurely in horrible living conditions.
SCUM BAG LEFTEST SHITHEAD LIKE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MISERY.
wake up or fuck off.
Let's see how many of your "FACTS" are refuted by the article you chose to link to. Keep in mind, this is not an article that I chose. It is one that you decided to highlight on your blog, without any input.
no one denies there was past tense was some recent warming.
True, no one denies that there was recent warming. Your article also claims that there will be future warming, based on a doubling of the atmospheric CO2. I already quoted that above.
and there is NO proof that we are contributing to it.
From your article
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global mean temperature is expected to rise if we continue increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. A simple way to measure climate sensitivity is to calculate how much the mean air temperature 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.
So, that one is pretty clearly refuted.
the warming is FAR FAR FAR FAR below ANY AND ALL climate models put forward by leftist scum like you.
Well, this one is certainly the closest to being supported by the article.
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.
So this new model does still predict a significant level of warming for doubling CO2, which is less than what the IPCC has predicted. The research for this paper was not published/peer reviewed yet so it will be interesting to see the actual data.
To summarize, your handpicked article disagrees with most of your beliefs. It clearly states that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, is driven by greenhouse gases created by man, is continuing, and will have a significant impact on the environment. I wonder why you don't link to scientific articles that actually support your views? Can't find any, I'd guess.
joe;
you are a flaming asshole.
the FACTS are not limited to what's in that article.
FACTS abound elsewhere.
open your eyes or fuck the fuck off.
Post a Comment