http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as
"truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's
carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so
much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper
safe limit of 2°C for many decades."

Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on
the subject.

Cheers

Dave R


--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.

On 26/01/2013 18:31, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as
"truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's
carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so
much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper
safe limit of 2°C for many decades."

Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on
the subject.

Cheers

Dave R



I think one might argue that the term "independent expert" is an
oxymoron, just as much as the term "climate change" is tautologous.

On 26/01/2013 18:58, newshound wrote:
On 26/01/2013 18:31, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as
"truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's
carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been
thought: so
much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC
upper
safe limit of 2°C for many decades."

Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on
the subject.

Cheers

Dave R



I think one might argue that the term "independent expert" is an
oxymoron, just as much as the term "climate change" is tautologous.



I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as
terrorists.

On 27/01/2013 9:37 a.m., dennis@home wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as
terrorists.

I wonder how long it will be before you are recognized as a duckwit.

in 1199843 20130126 211140 Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/01/2013 9:37 a.m., dennis@home wrote:

I wonder how long it will be before the alarmists are recognised as
terrorists.

I wonder how long it will be before you are recognized as a duckwit.

I think you're a bit late on that ...

On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/


An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science, for that matter...)..

In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done, but climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.

This is what the project lead actually says (from http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):

"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."

On 26/01/2013 22:47, wrote:
On Saturday, 26 January 2013 18:31:23 UTC, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/



An article in the Register on climate change by Lewis Page should be
taken with a large pinch of salt. They are somewhat akin to articles
in the Daily Mail about cancer (or climate change, or any science,
for that matter...).

In this particular case, he has done his usual trick of
misrepresenting what the researchers themselves are saying which is
that AGW is still an issue, something still needs to be done,


Well they would have to say that.
If they didn't the alarmists would be all over them calling them dukwits
and stuff like that.


but
climate sensitivity is at the lower end of (but largely consistent
with) the possible range indicated by various existing studies.

This is what the project lead actually says (from
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-global-extreme.html#jCp):

"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."


State that the models are wrong and then toe the party line.

Actually, and I've not read this item, it does seem that there is a growing
amount of soot particles up there as well which contrary to what might be
thought, does not rain out. It just absorbs heat and heats the planet.

I think this whole mess shows how much we do not know about what the planet
does, Surely looking back as we do it has to be plain that normal varies
between huge expanses under glaciers, and huge rises in sea level and lots
of arid areas depending on when you are tolaking about. We have been here a
mere blink of an eye compared with the climates oscillations.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/25/norwegian_co2_warming_shocker/

"New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as
"truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's
carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so
much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper
safe limit of 2°C for many decades."

Although I do wonder where you would find a truly independent expert on
the subject.

Cheers

Dave R


--
Pan in Vista on second Vista PC.