Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-question-your-questions dept.

Earth 468

Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "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 New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Surprise (-1, Troll)

ultranova (717540) | about 2 years ago | (#42707085)

An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.

Based on an almost true story (5, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#42707123)

DENIERS, BUUUUUUUURN THEM!
Wait wait. How do we know they are deniers?
Because they look like it!
Yes, but, we have to prove it.
Uuuh... they're made of oil... so they float?
Yes, and what else floats?
Ducks?
Yes, so fetch me a duck and I get my scales out....

Re:Based on an almost true story (2, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42708099)

Yes! And they turned me into a newt! ... I got better...

Re:Surprise (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707135)

But they're Europeans so they have to know better than us. No, no, it is even worse--they're Scandinavians, the only people who have formed perfect governments on Earth that maximize the potential of every citizen. How can we dump apes criticize them?

Re:Surprise (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707215)

They're Norwegians, a country who at the first opportunity will tell you that if they stop whale hunting the entire planets ecosystem will collapse.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707309)

"Dump apes" sound like they would be messy to keep in a zoo.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707497)

+1 Funny

Re:Surprise (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#42707561)

Actually they are great, they eat all the wasted food thrown into the trash. Natural habit is garbage dumps. One of the great adaptations of the world after man arrived. Probably last longer than us (with the cockroaches).

Re:Surprise (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42707405)

Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two.
Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources.
Norway has a much smaller population.
Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls.
Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.

Re:Surprise (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42707413)

I forgot to say the obvious: Sweden is in the EU, Norway isn't.

Re:Surprise (4, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | about 2 years ago | (#42707729)

Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two. Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources. Norway has a much smaller population. Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls. Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.

Well, they're both former Danish colonies :)
Okay, joke aside (I'm a Dane of course).
Sure they are different in many aspects (language is just one), but when it comes to having a democracy that works and is trusted by the people, which is what GP talks about, Scandinavian countries aren't that different.

So whilst, Norway is an oil producing country, I seriously doubt the Norwegian government faked a study about global warming...
Anyways, maybe we should read the article and see if the summary is even right... I mean the conclusion of the study might very well conclude that we'll be cooked at a slightly lower temperature, but still very much cooked :)
(I'm just saying doesn't trust the media, especially not Slashdot, read the study).

Re:Surprise (5, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | about 2 years ago | (#42707139)

The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.

Re:Surprise (1, Insightful)

Aglassis (10161) | about 2 years ago | (#42707247)

The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with the entire climate change debate.

Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate. There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories. We can't prejudge this study, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it prior to it being thoroughly reviewed by the international scientific community--not corporations or politicians. Science self-corrects, which means that there are occasionally flawed studies and occasionally revolutionary studies. I hate to break it to you, but flawed studies outnumber revolutionary studies by orders of magnitude. This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.

Re:Surprise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707353)

Climate change simply happens.

Nice thought-terminating clichee you got there.
How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and “but”s.

PROTIP: While what happens is fixed, that which is perceived by our senses, minds, and from our state in space-time, is not. And it's not easy at all, to determine what happens just from that. That's call science.

There is also a very noisy group of lunatics who deny all evidence and make up conspiracy theories.

And you don't even seem to realize, that with your rigid ignorant mindset and dismissal of the scientific method, that includes you.
It's just that your conspiracy theory is that everyone who doesn't blindly follow your mindset and dares to question anything, is an evil lunatic conspiracy theorist. ... Mixing people who ask valid questions in with the actual ignorant deniers/lunatics of both "sides" (including yours).

Like the ones you criticism, you have to right to speak in the name of science. Your mindset is the opposite of a scientific one. It is one of boneheaded stubborn belief. Yes, you believe in the right view, from what I can tell. But you do not think . You believe. And that's where you're a complete fucking nutjob too.

Re:Surprise (0)

Shaman (1148) | about 2 years ago | (#42707529)

This. Wish I could upvote, despite the inflammatory nature of it.

Re:Surprise (2, Interesting)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 2 years ago | (#42707823)

Agreed! But I also think it's ridiculous that people say they have proof either way. The models arent old enough yet to have realized concrete predictions. The models old enough are from the "global cooling" era. I think it's obvious climate change is occurring. The question is how much of it is a result of geological processes? Deforestation messing up the water cycle, nitrogen cycle, and carbon cycle? Plants reflect infared light like a mirror could that be a factor? Ocean pollution killing off plankton and algae could have an impact! We're ALSO at the 11 yr peak of the solar cycle which seems as if it could have an effect. I dont think think I need to give evidence for the other side. I believe most of us are intimately familiar with it. Isnt that enough to at least say its a debate?

Re: Surprise (0, Troll)

Da_Biz (267075) | about 2 years ago | (#42708143)

I love how you ask the same, hackneyed "questions" that climate change deniers have been trotting out for a while now. But keep going...

Re:Surprise (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708205)

1) No such thing as "global cooling era":

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#love

2) Those models got pretty damn close. Hansen's 80's model would, if given the actual emissions scenario that took place, would have gotten a 3.4 C per doubling climate sensitivity to CO2 rather than the 3.2 that would have been spot on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

3) We're NOT at the 11yr solar cycle peak. We're at one of the lowest levels of solar activity for a hundred years

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Now given your premises are incorrect, do you think you may go back and check to see if you've been led astray?

Maybe there's no debate, but to the OPPOSITE conclusion you took because of your faulty reckoning?

Re:Surprise (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42707765)

How conveniently it wipes away all rational thought and âoebutâs.

Things do simply happen. The evidence is now very strong, though not as strong as evolution, relativity, QED or QCD. I can't remember the last time I saw a "but" that actually stood up to inspection. So rational thought says now that unless you have some really strong evidence then the rational thing to do is assume global warming is happening.

Rationality doesn't mean challenging everything all the time.

Rationality means accpeting things as facts until further notice when the evidence is strong enough. I accept the existence of gravity as a fact. I now accept climate change as a fact because the evidence is strong enough.

All your sophistry does not change that.

Proving the Parent Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707817)

You aren't thinking, as your parent post asserted would happen.

Sun.

It isn't a *debate* as to whether it rises in the morning.

It rises.

Ships.

It isn't a *debate* as to whether it crashed into the rocks.

It did. Or not.

But idiots (such as yourself) think that there MUST BE debate.

Titanic had officers who "debated" whether there was a risk of crashing into an ice floe. Look what happened when they "debated" this...

But you don't care for the actions required.

Therefore, because you know you're on a loser with the idea of "disproving" climate science, demand a "debate".

Fiddling with yourself while Rome burns, as it were.

Rather odd that you sign off with "you do not think" when that's precisely what you displayed in that post.

Re:Surprise (3, Insightful)

Aglassis (10161) | about 2 years ago | (#42708021)

You have constructed one hell of a strawman here. And I must say, you have masterfully taken down an imaginary argument. I can only imagine that you somehow interpreted my post to mean that anyone that questions climate change is a lunatic and that questioning climate change is questioning science. And if that was what I wrote, then your post would be insulting, but correct. But it wasn't what I wrote. There really isn't much of a way for me to respond to your argument since it is based on a false presupposition. I can only reiterate my argument and hope that your reading comprehension is stronger this time around: the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but not popular with certain groups. For this reason, there are a lot of bullshit arguments and conspiracies thrown at it. These bullshit arguments and conspiracies are then labelled 'debate'. Now a new study comes along that partially contradicts several other studies. Should we have a 'debate' about this before the international scientific community can respond?

Re:Surprise (1)

Aglassis (10161) | about 2 years ago | (#42708097)

Just to be clear, since I was misinterpreted earlier in this post, when I wrote "questioning science" in the above post, I meant questioning science philosophically, or questioning the scientific method as a valid method.

Re:Surprise (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707515)

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate

Do you know what the problem with that argument is? The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic. In addition, while the scientists of the IPCC may actually be neutral parties, the fact that the IPCC is a UN organization doing research on a subject that blocs of countries could leverage into significant economic advantages at the very least suggests conflicts of interest. And it's a legitimate question to ask what research has been suppressed or minimized as a result of the initial politicization of the issue. (Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Slashdot even decided to report this one, since they have generally missed or skipped peer-reviewed research contradicting the apocalyptic GW scenarios for the past five years.)

This is why the scientific process is so rigorous. Science is hard.

Quite right, but in ways you didn't think of. Because of the politicization of climate science, individual scientists now have to eliminate personal bias, politics, and economics from their research. There are suggestions that scientists on both sides are unable to do this, which makes finding out the "truthiness" of climate science very difficult.

Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.

And here is the irony in your post. Based on this statement, you're what neutral parties call a "believer." Neutral parties generally accept that there probably is some anthropogenic global warming going on. Neutral parties are also smart enough to still ask what that rate of change is, if the climate models are correct enough, what the error bars are on those models, *before* asking if there is anything we should do about it.

The OP asked a perfectly valid question; unfortunately, it was answered by you, a zealot.

Re:Surprise (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#42707831)

The problem is that regardless of what the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming actually is, it *started* with substantial political and corporate interests framing it as certain and apocalyptic.

[citation needed]

Re:Surprise (4, Insightful)

terec (2797475) | about 2 years ago | (#42707535)

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.

The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that. The "debate" is about what that means. Is it going to continue to get warmer? Is there anything we can do about it? Should we? What are the costs?

There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.

Re:Surprise (1, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#42707539)

you commit the fallacy of "asserting the consequent". Overwhelming evidence? you mean like the claimed "record high temperatures" in Australia which actually are just a cyclical repeat of 1972, but for a fraction of a degree difference that is only due to more sensors and heat islands? Or the temperature rises and melting in western antartica which are more than offset by the increased formation in the MUCH LARGER east?

Re:Surprise (1)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#42707689)

Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.

True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).

The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.

The same reason goes for all those mediocre scientists (the vast majority of them) who could never dream of topping the bill if there wasn't some heavy controversial and popularized debate like this. If there is no debate, it is because every thing that happens is dismissed as "it's all according to the models", yeah, how could it be differently? There are literally thousands of different models, predicting all and its contrary. But, yes, it is an event and there must be no debate, because it is certain and all according to the models. Mind you, I believe (that's the correct term) that there is a climate change, but everything beyond that is just to early to call.

Re:Surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708073)

True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).

The problem with that discussion is that it's used as an excuse to avoid doing anything about any human action at all. It's like fires. No matter how many fires are caused by natural events, like lightning strikes, or wind-driven branches creating friction, it won't change the fact that humans also have responsibilities.

But when those things are used to justify ignoring human-caused fires, then that's a problem.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707741)

Actually, climate change is a continuum, not an event. It has never stopped changing

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707897)

My mother with Alzheimers used to say daily the weather is changing all over the world. Like that was something profound and I would always reply, that's right. And of course it is.

The World climate is also always changing, right now it appears to be warming. That is probably not debatable.

But what is causing the change and whether it will continue endlessly in one direction is debatable. The geological and even the historical record shows global temperatures warming and cooling over time and that is likely to continue. While we may think we do, actually we just don't know enough to predict when this warming trend will end or whether the world is going to get so hot we won't like it. Too many variables and unintended consequences.

How is this "contrary"? (5, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | about 2 years ago | (#42707275)

There are probably hundreds of studies that try to estimate the climate sensitivity. Most get numbers between 2 and 4 degrees per doubling. This one got 1.9. So?

Re:How is this "contrary"? (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 2 years ago | (#42707725)

But 1.9 is not between 2 and 4, so those dumbass scientists have no idea. They just keep changing their minds and can't agree on anything, so obviously they have no idea what they're talking about!

Yes, it's ridiculous, but if you need any excuse not to believe in AGW, it will do just fine.

Re:How is this "contrary"? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#42707967)

The point is the estimates previously made by the Alarmists have included the recent natural cyclical temperature increases of the nineties, which were exagerated by poorly documented adjustments and thermometer siting issues, while minimising historical temperatures. This has lead the Alarmist's to much gnashing of teeth looking for missing Heat, which hasn't been found simply because they are looking for twice as much as actually exists because they grossly over-estimated climate sensitivity.
Because of this more realistic climate sensitivity level, future warming wouldn't even make it into the minor inconvenience level, even with a big push from natural variability. Looking at the current trends, not only has there been no statistically demonstratable temperature increase for the past 16 years, there is a decline over the last 5 years. The Cult of Apocolyptic Global Warming just isn't ready for primetime and no amounts of croney-reviewed journal articles or Glieck-esque wire-fraud and forgeries are going to change reality.

Re:How is this "contrary"? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#42708249)

It's "contrary" to the IPCC's mean extrapolation and the even more dramatic predictions on the high end that get all the publicity and people seem to think are "fact."

Re:Surprise (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707281)

The simple fact that so many people who oppose addressing environmental concerns have produced false evidence and fraud to support their agenda, to the point where they even manufacture similar accusations based on similarly shoddy evidence against those with environmental concerns, is a far bigger problem with the entire climate change discussion.

It's not a debate, it's a discussion.

That distinction is important. But don't pretend that your "contrary evidence producers" are the persecuted victims. That's just a false martyrdom meant to exploit people's emotions.

Re:Surprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708065)

There is epistemological proof (actual hard logical proof) that global warming/climate change/anthropological climate change is --to put it mildly-- scientifically shoddy. Proof that has existed for years and which is (or at least used to be) available from a thorough search on the old Google.

It doesn't/shouldn't matter what data one thinks one has or which model one is flaunting when the very structure of the "science" is shown to be unscientific.

Good luck trying to use it as an argument when 99.999% of the world population do not even understand the significant difference between reality and model or that the brain is (also) our sensory organ for the abstract.

I'll be blunt, I've pretty much given up on humanity (including myself), hopefully there's a more sapient species elsewhere in the universe less inclined towards creating labyrinths of bullshit and misery.

Doesn't matter anyway as this will be the century with between 1 and 4 billion dead. The only ones worrying about the temperature in a 100 years time are the imbeciles.

Re:Surprise (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 years ago | (#42707841)

The simple fact that anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is automatically suspect is perhaps THE biggest problem with science.

FTFY

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708261)

Thank you for a sane post!

Re:Surprise (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#42707155)

Correction: an oil-producing country that's cold like hell, and can gain a lot from both its land getting more habitable and from it's main competitors' land getting less habitable.

If Earth got 40 degrees warmer, people at the south pole wouldn't complain.

Re:Surprise (2)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 2 years ago | (#42707205)

Moderating as +0 a bit kooky.

Re:Surprise (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#42707495)

Merely "a bit"? You hurt me! :p

I was aiming at "some insight, lots of WTF". The former is: even with such a massive warm-up, some places today inhabitable would become comfortable to live; as for the latter, DigitalSorceress' post nearby is exhaustive enough. Outlandish hyperboles aside, my point is that there's a massive tolerance, both ways, before traditional ways of human life would become impossible. Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, though.

Re:Surprise (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#42707919)

Being able to sustain a large population or avoiding hardships of migration are another story, though.

And that's the big issue. If there were one or two billion reasonable, intelligent humans on the planet instead of 6 billion crazy assed members of Homo Industrialis then we'd be OK pretty much anything this side of a giant asteroid strike.

We're pushing the envelope at present. We've had and are having resource wars with just tiny decrements of a couple of major inputs - oil and water as an example.

Squish agriculture. Squish transport. Worsen our silly reliance on constant growth as an economic model and you have trouble.

We're doomed.

Re:Surprise (2, Interesting)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | about 2 years ago | (#42707273)

Since the vast majority of people at the South Pole are Scientists and support staff, I'd guess they would be pretty upset if temperatures rose by 40 degrees.. especially since if "Earth temp" rose, that would be average temp and the poles would get a significantly larger share of that than the equator.

I'm guessing they'd be upset because some of them are there to actually study ice and cold and glaciers.Also, the vast majority of scientific opinion is that climate change IS happening and it's man-made, and I'm guessing that they're going to have the general opinion that it's "not a good thing".

That much warming and everyone within ~50 miles of the current shoreline of the oceans of the world would need to start commuting to work in scuba gear. (With exceptions for some local geography that can handle a 200' rise in sea levels that would happen if the South Pole and Greenland ice sheets got hit by that much warming (pretty much a total melt of all the glaciers and ice caps).

Maybe a few mountain climbers wouldn't mind... would maybe make Everest a bit more comfortable to summit - then again, such drastic change would likely F*** up the world's weather patterns so much that it's hard to tell what the result would be.

I seriously wouldn't want to take the chance.

And yes, I know that a 40 degree warming is NOT on even the most dire climatologist predictions - I was just extrapolating on your example.

Re:Surprise (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#42708295)

Maybe a few mountain climbers wouldn't mind... would maybe make Everest a bit more comfortable to summit - then again, such drastic change would likely F*** up the world's weather patterns so much that it's hard to tell what the result would be.

Probably not much, elevation effects trumps sealevels temperatures at that elevation

Re:Surprise (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#42708245)

Correction: an oil-producing country that's cold like hell, and can gain a lot from both its land getting more habitable and from it's main competitors' land getting less habitable.

If Earth got 40 degrees warmer, people at the south pole wouldn't complain.

I don't think that,

January 27, 2013 weather report for
LONGYEARBYEN, SVALBARD

Weather report as of 72 minutes ago (15:50 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 6.7 meters per second (15.0 miles per hour) from Southeast in Longyearbyen, Svalbard. The temperature was -15 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,005 hPa (29.68 inHg). Relative humidity was 71.3%. There were a few clouds at a height of 213 meters (700 feet), scattered clouds at a height of 488 meters (1600 feet) and broken clouds at a height of 1524 meters (5000 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles). Current weather is Light Shower(s) Snow .

a couple degrees one way

HAMMERFEST, NORWAY

Weather report as of 15 minutes ago (16:50 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 1.0 meters per second (2.3 miles per hour) from variable directions in Hammerfest, Norway. The temperature was -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 994 hPa (29.35 inHg). Relative humidity was 85.2%. There were a few clouds at a height of 335 meters (1100 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles).

or the other is

January 27, 2013 weather report for
TROMSØ, NORWAY

Weather report as of 17 minutes ago (16:50 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 6.2 meters per second (13.8 miles per hour) from Southwest in Tromsø, Norway. The temperature was -7 degrees Celsius (19 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 996 hPa (29.41 inHg). Relative humidity was 85.6%. There were a few clouds at a height of 244 meters (800 feet) and scattered clouds at a height of 914 meters (3000 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles).

going to impress the Norwegians

January 27, 2013 weather report for
NARVIK, NORWAY

Weather report as of 21 minutes ago (16:50 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 2.1 meters per second (4.6 miles per hour) from East/Southeast in Narvik, Norway. The temperature was -8 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 995 hPa (29.38 inHg). Relative humidity was 85.4%. There are no clouds below 1,524 meters (5,000 feet). The visibility was >10 kilometers (>6.2 miles).

very much.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707507)

Why is ultranova's comment rated as a 'troll'? The fact is that Norway is among the top oil suppliers of this planet.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707873)

Because Norways oil supply is under water and a sea level rise would mean that they would have to scrap all their oil rigs and start from scratch and their entire habitable area is along the coast line and they will be utterly screwed by a sea level rise?

Re:Surprise (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708127)

Kind Sir may I also draw notice to the fact that magnificent fjordly Norway is the home, source, and origin of trolls?

Sincerely,
Herr Underbro / Mr. Underbridge
Oslo, Norway

Re:Surprise (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 2 years ago | (#42707977)

just saying,

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change [nbcnews.com]

"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."

everybody chill.

No such thing as man made global warming... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707089)

www.climatedepot.com

Don't let the facts get in the way of your insane 'global warming' belief system.

Oh, sorry - it's called 'climate change' now, isn't it... Idiots.

We have a disbeliever who beliefs in a disbelive ? (1)

burni2 (1643061) | about 2 years ago | (#42707227)

Stop believing, start judging facts,

and the best thing:
ASK people who work for insurance companies, then they will tell you a story about their one century spawning statistics and how close many predictions match our climate situation of today. And why they predict that the climate change is real and well 90% is man made, and well some is cow made.

Re:We have a disbeliever who beliefs in a disbeliv (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707445)

So 100% is man made. Since those are not free cows. They are man-owned, man-bred, mad-used cows.

Cue Alarmists (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707095)

It's real! Panic!

Even if it's not real, the world will be a better place if you panic!

Frankly, I don't give a crap what the world will be like for my great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. If they're too slow to get out of the way of a 500 year long rising tide, screw em.

Re:Cue Alarmists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707855)

if it's a 500 year long rising tide, how could you expect them to get out of its way unless our generation starts trying to quell global warming *now*?

Re:Cue Alarmists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708159)

Move to higher ground? It's not hard, if you've got 500 years to pack your stuff and get in the car...

Wouldn't it be good news? (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42707175)

For god's sake, it's just one more piece of analysis. If true, it will be followed up on, if not, it will be followed up on with corrections.

Nature (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707223)

A peer reviewed study that doesn't quite jive with the prevailing line of thinking appears in the prestigious journal Nature.

But don't worry, some blogger says it may not be correct. Alarmist Rejoice!

Re:Nature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707891)

A peer reviewed study that doesn't quite jive with the prevailing line of thinking appears in the prestigious journal Nature.

"Jibe". The word is "jibe".

Re:Nature (3, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#42708279)

How do you know? It's quite possible this study refuses to dance at all with the prevailing line of thinking.

Global Warming and The Sky Is Falling (-1, Troll)

xiando (770382) | about 2 years ago | (#42707231)

There is Global Warming(tm) and if we do not give the United Nations more power to apply Global Taxes then The World Is Going To End. Make no doubt about it, folks: The whole "global warming" scam as nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with a grab for power and taxes. I realize that many people are so propagandized that they are unable to contemplate this information. To those of you who believe in the "global warming" propaganda, please consider this: Do we have to give the United Nations the power to tax the world in order to solve this "problem"?

Re:Global Warming and The Sky Is Falling (2, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#42707319)

you forgot to mention that...elvis still lives and americans didn't land on the moon.

I'd be more comfortable if... (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#42707241)

the 'reasons to be skeptical' weren't by a journalist and had a bit more meat than "doesn't *quite* fit the received wisdom and thus is fodder for the deniers".

Poor summary (5, Insightful)

Layzej (1976930) | about 2 years ago | (#42707279)

This study finds warming at the low end of the IPCC projections. Other studies find warming at the high end of IPCC projections. There is uncertainty, and that why the IPCC publishes a range - but this study is not outside the published range. If this study is right then we will be committed to 2C of warming by 2050. We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.

Hopefully this study is right. If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points. I wouldn't bet my kid's future on this one study though.

Re:Poor summary (0)

terec (2797475) | about 2 years ago | (#42707545)

We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.

You use "the tipping points" and "the impacts" as if they were scientific certainty. In fact, they are just speculation at this point.

Re:Poor summary (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 2 years ago | (#42708013)

We are trying to stay below 2C to avoid hitting some of the more worrisome tipping points and impacts.

You use "the tipping points" and "the impacts" as if they were scientific certainty. In fact, they are just speculation at this point.

Yes, additionally Celsius/Kelvin is an arbitrary scale (even when it's based around water properties at some specific pressure), so there's no physical meaning to a 2.000000000000000K difference as opposed to 1.999999999998K or any other value in that general area. It's just more convenient to quote a short number, since it's not that exact anyways.

Ice melts. Tipping point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708055)

they are certainly scientific facts.

Methane Clathrates exist and it is a scientific CERTAINTY that they will create a tipping point.

Don't you know what "conditional stability" means? Scientifically?

No, you're just SPECULATING that it's all a big con, therefore all the problems are nonexistent, so you can forget it all.

Re:Poor summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707559)

So has the IPCC stopped taking talking points from environmental groups at face value yet and publishing them as scientific fact? My bets lay to no. And until that stops it's not a credible organization.

captcha: airlocks

Re:Poor summary (1, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42708227)

If so then there is a chance that we can get off of carbon based fuels before we hit the tipping points.

Which of course is making the assumption that there even is a tipping point, which isn't clear.

Average all (0)

Ateocinico (32734) | about 2 years ago | (#42707291)

Norwegian study vale + French study value + German study value + Australian study value + .....
Then divide by N and you have the "truth".

Re:Average all (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#42707367)

So let's divine the number of gods that exist by averaging the number of gods that world's religion claim to exist.

Re:Average all (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#42707429)

So let's divine the number of gods

No need for that. The number of gods already is divine by definition. ;-)

Re:Average all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707597)

The answer is "42"

Re:Average all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707925)

old, tiresome joke. please mod down.

Climate change is longterm (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42707315)

Ten years is too short time for any conclusion.

Re:Climate change is longterm (3, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42707697)

My god those scientists must be idiots. Thank the very same god we've got Hentes to clear things up for us!

But according to scientists.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707333)

in the 70s we were all going to die from a new ice age due to nuclear power! How could a "scientist" possibly be wrong?! I mean "scientists" allover the world (well really the ones in the US) proved without a doubt that nuclear energy was causing a new ice age that was going to kill us all! And they used "science" so they had to be 100% correct right? I mean they used the word "science" so how can it be wrong?

Then "scientists" proved global warming was going to kill us all! And they used "science"!

And now more "scientists" are using "science" to say it isnt as bad as that?

A "scientist" wouldnt ever use "science" just for grant money or to get their name in the news would they? No because we all know that every "scientist" is honest, pure of heart, selfless and only interested in the truthful facts to further mankind as a whole!

Or maybe "science" is just bullshit for the most part and none of them really know what they are saying. Maybe global warming is just a natural phase of the earth we cant prevent or stop or help because its something that naturally happens as an event. I hate to tell you "scientists" but earth is not static and nature isnt some linear line that never changes course.

As if it matters (4, Insightful)

segfault_0 (181690) | about 2 years ago | (#42707349)

Not like we have world or national governance that can do anything about it.

The US government can't make a budget or run a money system of their own creation -- yet you think they can absorb science, understand it, and react to it in an effective fashion?

Such things only exist so that there can be sides for people to join and so there can be issues to argue about.

And we should all piss our pants if someone publishes that its slightly higher or slightly lower than expected? Laughable.. argue on children.

NYT reaction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707371)

I think the NYT's reporting is very telling here. His first reaction on January 26th is that it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore must be treated skeptically. A knee-jerk reaction that since the report doesn't confirm his existing beliefs, he must wait until others do his work for him and tell him whether the report deserves consideration or not.

Note what Reno Knutti, a Swiss climate scientist, told the NYT:

"there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing."

Now who's denying what, again?

Re:NYT reaction (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#42707691)

I think the NYT's reporting is very telling here. His first reaction on January 26th is that it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore must be treated skeptically.

Of course the NYT could just have waited with reporting until it is peer reviewed ...

Simpering NYT response (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 2 years ago | (#42707463)

NYT cosmopolitan climate fags gotta simper and drool whenever crossed. They need AGW like an open azzwhole needs AIDs.

So let me see if I have this... (1, Troll)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 2 years ago | (#42707483)

The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.

AWGers have lost (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707503)

Quickly looking at the story, the conclusion I HAVE to come to is AWG proponents have lost. Their viewpoint is either AWG is so horrible and so far along that there is nothing we can do about it, so why would we even bother? Or, if they become reasonable at this point and say, like this article attempts to, that it isn't so bad that there is something we can do about it, the anti-AWG people will destroy them with pointing out their previous lies (Gore's hockey stick graph comes to mind).

So its either unavoidable, or the AWG people lied to the point where no one will ever listen to them again. Either way we do nothing. Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf". I guess that just shows AWG people are unable to be reasonable and have pushed everyone who isn't a wacko like them so far against them they will never become mainstream.

Congratulations on defeating yourselves.

Petroleum bias (0, Troll)

jurgen (14843) | about 2 years ago | (#42707533)

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world... it has the second highest GDP per capita. Norwegians enjoy an incredibly high standard of living across the board... there is very little wealth-disparity and almost no poverty. Education is free and health-care is universal. It's a good life! And it's all largely thanks to oil, of which Norway has lots. Over 55% of Norway's GDP comes directly from petroleum. Imagine if you and all your fellow citizens had half of your assets invested in oil companies and depended on those investments for half of all your income and half of all your future retirement... in Norway that's the reality.

I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.

Re:Petroleum bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707633)

Ad hominine attacks help no one. Most scientists don't give a shit for political, corporate or government motivations, if you have something that says their numbers are fudged then point it out rather than making irrelevant statements trying to imply they have bias.

Re:Petroleum bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707759)

First, it's ad hominem.

Secondly while most scientists don't give a shit, petroleum and climate change research are interesting areas where corporate funding can and does have an extreme influence on what kind of research is conducted (and published). This is not to cast aspersions on the Norwegian researchers who wrote this study - I have no idea whether they receive funding from petro interests. But GP has a point - conflicts of interest might be something to at least look into here.

Re:Petroleum bias (1, Interesting)

jurgen (14843) | about 2 years ago | (#42708297)

I'm not saying their numbers are "fudged". But science isn't as objective as scientists would like us to believe, especially when it's about systems as complex as the earth's climate. Scientists's subconscious biases affect their results... there has actually been a bunch of research showing THAT in recent years. In this particular case I think the scientists in question saw what they wanted to see in the uncertainties inherent in the data.

Re:Petroleum bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707731)

I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything

Then why did you? ..or was everything you just said just 'informational' and shit?

The leveling off was predicted (2)

Burz (138833) | about 2 years ago | (#42707617)

due to solar and (lack of) el nino cycles coinciding. Its quite temporary and we're already coming out of it.

Re:The leveling off was predicted (1)

djKing (1970) | about 2 years ago | (#42708289)

I'd love to see a source for that prediction.

Re:The leveling off was predicted (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42708291)

Except for the El Nino conditions in 2006. And in 2009. Other than that we haven't seen El Nino conditions. Of course 2007 saw a strong La Nina event.

Granted it's a scientific study... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707643)

and not news reporting, but in journalism it's a truism that anytime a title ends in a question mark, the answer is "no."

The title of the paper in question: “Global warming less extreme than feared?”

Re:Granted it's a scientific study... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#42707763)

And the title of one of Einstein's papers was:

Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?

So maybe it just doesn't apply to scientific papers?

Re:Granted it's a scientific study... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707813)

"Slashdot readers: Do they get humorous observations?"

Doesn't pass the sniff test (4, Informative)

Xyrus (755017) | about 2 years ago | (#42707693)

It's doubtful their study will hold up to scrutiny. After reading the actual study, they're using a simple climate model to feed a Baeysian statistical model to generate their results, which fails to take into account numerous factors. This seems exceptionally weak, especially since a few years of data can drastically alter the results. For example, if the last ten years had a few strong El Ninos that gave a warming signal stronger than the expected signal, their model could be made to show warming beyond even the worst IPCC projections. And if you applied their methodology to a decade where some slight cooling took place (like the late 60's to early 70's), it would appear that by this time we would be well on our way to an ice age by now. That's an incredibly wide error margin, and more than enough to cast doubts on their results.

Scientific Method (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707755)

Lets ignore the predictions of the article, as they were not part of the study (which is the ONLY thing you seemed to notice)

Temperature leveled off in 2000 despite CO2 levels raising the entire time. THAT is the FACTS of the study and require no modeling and no guessing, just measurements. Now having listened to AWGers for years, that should never happen. If there is a SINGLE DISPROVABLE aspect of AWG, it would be temperatures not raising when CO2 does raise.

This is a perfect example of AWG making a claim and it being disproved. Scientific method through and through.

Take an arbitrary set of points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707863)

And they WILL "appear" to have leveled off despite CO2 increasing the whole time.

See "Going down the up escalator" on SkS:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

And yet ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42707699)

the paper makes no challenge to the proposition that GW is occurring and is indeed anthropogenic, only that it us perhaps somewhat less severe than other recent estimates indicate.

So why again are the climate change deniers crowing in "vindication?"

Re:And yet ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708157)

So why again are the climate change deniers crowing in "vindication?"

Because it makes the sensitive, tree-hugging, latte sipping, simpering, limp-wristed, "enrivormentally responsible" claiming, recycling, Prius driving, Daily Kos posting, Whole Foods shopping, New York Times reading, NPR listening, PBS totebag toting, cum guzzling, Mitt Romney mocking, gun banning, tax raising, Obama voting homos mad. Duh.

Gentlemen, let me be the first to coin the term (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 2 years ago | (#42707865)

GLOBAL BAKING, which seems to be more to the point.

Sulphates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42708037)

While I don't necessarily doubt that the action of sulphates on condensation could mitigate global warming it should be noted that that action would most likely produce more acid rain.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?