Global warming slowdown could last another decade

  • Thread starter Thread starter FollowChrist34
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
You could do one thing – mentally divide China into 4 equal parts (equal in GHG emissions and each about equal in population to the US), and you would see that each of these 4 countries is actually emitting about 75% less than the US.

Now China were to get on the sustainable development path (they are now highly polluted with cancer villages, etc, making products for us and the world), they could bypass the inefficient and polluting path the developed world took in reaching its level of development.

I get the impression that China is striving to get on that path, and that would be good. It would be great if there were a competition among the nations to see which could provide the highest living standards with the least pollution, health harms, and GHG emissions.

The race is on, let the best country win!
Click to expand...
Do you really wish to be claiming a country that forces abortion upon its citizens to enforce a one child policy to be the ‘better’ country?

It would seem the green movement has a radical view upon basic morality.
 
lynnvinc said:
If you don’t count fossil fuel externalities. China’s GDP may be increasing by, say, 7% per year, but the environmental costs come to more than 10% per year – they are going backwards fast. I think they are beginning to realize the extremely high costs of fossil fuels and current, polluting industrial practices.
Click to expand...
Maybe China doesn’t care about the environmental costs.
 
vz71 said:
Do you really wish to be claiming a country that forces abortion upon its citizens to enforce a one child policy to be the ‘better’ country?

It would seem the green movement has a radical view upon basic morality.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say China or any other country was “the best” country."

I simply said that it would be good if countries got into a competition with each other re reducing their GHG emissions, and they all put forth a lot of effort to do so.

For all I know maybe Luxemburg would be the winner of that competition, though I’d sincerely hope the US would be.

There are various ways in which we are killing people. Medical selective abortion is one and miscarriages caused by the pollution we generate is another, and then there is pollution harming and killing born people, and the knock-on impacts of AGW killing people, and cartels killing people. None of these are good; they are all bad; and I wouldn’t want to be a contributor to any of them.

Love life. Love God who gave us life and life abundantly 🙂
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So your solution to inaccurate science is to, what? Reduce the number of scientists? Really? Yea, too many scientists doing too much research. If people would stop doing so much research we would know a lot more stuff!

The “decline effect”? So, give the claim an official-sounding name, like the episode names on Big Bang Theory. That gives any claim more credibility!

Well, it clearly was very influential on you! But that is to be expected when someone writes something you really want to hear. And secondly, don’t present this paper as news. It was from 2005.

Did you actually read the paper? Or are you just repeating what the Bishop Hill Blog said about it? If you read the actual paper you would have known that, despite the general-sounding title, the paper was only about one specific kind of research finding - medical findings about therapeutic interventions. Since it was published in a medical journal, there was no need to make the title more specific. The readers of that medical journal would have expected the author was talking about medical research. The application of this finding to research on global warming is not at all obvious, although it stands to reason that the Bishop Hill Blog would want to gloss over that little problem.

If you are going to make a case about global warming by using some paper about the inaccuracy of medical research, at least quote the paper directly, instead of referring to a biased blog about a BBC radio program about the actual paper. (That’s two unnecessary levels of indirection.)
Click to expand...
The Paper was in fact about bad science. The bad science that only left wing extremists support. For no other reason than to push their agenda.
 
adawgj said:
What I don’t understand is, what is the big deal?

I mean whether the theory is true or not, the environment must be preserved and alternative energy should continue to be researched. It’s better to play safe than sorry.

Maybe then the polar bear will have its iceberg back and not tread arctic water.
Click to expand...
wel the problem is that governments around the world spend billlions of dollars of tax payers money on false science at the expense of the poor.

Fortunately more recently we have seen governments in Canada and Australia reverse that trend by reversing bad environmental policy.

The Polar bears are fine the world has never been in better shape.
 
lynnvinc said:
I didn’t say China or any other country was “the best” country."
Click to expand...
If you are going to quote, you should be exact.

You said ‘better’
And the implication was that a country with what you consider to be a greener policy was the better country.

Forced abortions and all.

I believe the green movement is warping your perspective.
 
vz71 said:
If you are going to quote, you should be exact.

You said ‘better’
And the implication was that a country with what you consider to be a greener policy was the better country.

Forced abortions and all.

I believe the green movement is warping your perspective.
Click to expand...
I said let the better (should have said best) country win…not based on policy but results.

Now since the US is among the top emitter per capita, I’d think a good reduction is worthy of some prize. So maybe it should be based on a combination of how much a country reduces, plus a consideration of their starting point, otherwise countries like Kiribati would probably be the winner. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

Or, there could be 3 prizes for different categories based on the country’s development level.

And then there should be booby prizes for the worst emitters.

Now you can have a contest about which countries have the lowest and highest abortion ratio to pregnancies. (BTW, the US does not win that prize either…I think Poland is way lower).
 
Petersmate said:
Enviromentalists are**" borderline communists" ** :- australianclimatemadness.com/2013/03/21/environmentalists-regarded-as-borderline-communists/

Quote " environmentalists are using a green agenda as a Trojan Horse to achieve the political goals of more regulation, higher taxes, wealth distribution and global government."
Click to expand...
Growing up Presbyterian I was taught that Catholics were communists, not to mention Unitarians. Of course that was during the McCarthy era in the late 50s when people were finding communists under their beds – boo !! :eek:

Now that we are out of that era the bogymen of today seem to be the religious nut terrorists and I guess environmentalists (in the view of some) … I imagine some Protestants have Catholics right up on that bogyman list along side Muslims 🙂 Eek, a Catholic :eek:

So that would make me a double bogeyman, being a Catholic and an environmentalist. :eek: Watch out, here I come :eek:
 
lynnvinc said:
Don’t worry Lake North Pole froze over in time for Santa and elves to do their work and get the gifts to the kiddies at least for this last Christmas…
Click to expand...
Is Santa going to die along with the polar bears? :eek:
 
josie_L said:
Is Santa going to die along with the polar bears? :eek:
Click to expand...
Good question. Maybe someone should do some research on that, maybe help shift Santa to the South Pole…or Miami (until the searise overtakes it in a few centuries or millennia). Right now I’m just worried about the early Christmas mail getting wet so Santa can’t read it. May write with waterproof ink, just in case.
 
lynnvinc said:
I said let the better (should have said best) country win…not based on policy but results.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
I more familiar way to say what you just wrote out is “The ends justify the means.”

As I said, I believe the green movement is warping your perspective.
 
Petersmate said:
wel the problem is that governments around the world spend billlions of dollars of tax payers money on false science at the expense of the poor.

Fortunately more recently we have seen governments in Canada and Australia reverse that trend by reversing bad environmental policy.

The Polar bears are fine the world has never been in better shape.
Click to expand...
Please provide evidence that global warming is false science. Most scientists agree that global warming is happening.
 
For those uninitiated to this topic, this is the time-evolution of global temperature over the entire instrumental era. Those claiming a halting of global warming are eyeballing in only on the last decade or so of the graph (that has analogs in other parts of the time-series as well), and ignoring any other metric of climate change (e.g., the ever increasing heat content of the system). It is important to provide a sanity check on the claims circulating here.

One of the first things everyone should do when they see claims that ice recovered or warming stopped and the like, is to check the timescale over which the claim is being made. In general, if the purported change is on the order of just a decade or highly sensitivity to a couple of data points, you are being fed a product that you ought to be very suspicious of, usually from the same sources that will tell you it’s the entire climate science community out for your money. It’s like someone telling you that (Northern) winter isn’t coming this year because a week in October was warmer than a week in September.
 
chris_colose said:
For those uninitiated to this topic, this is the time-evolution of global temperature over the entire instrumental era. Those claiming a halting of global warming are eyeballing in only on the last decade or so of the graph (that has analogs in other parts of the time-series as well), and ignoring any other metric of climate change (e.g., the ever increasing heat content of the system). It is important to provide a sanity check on the claims circulating here.

One of the first things everyone should do when they see claims that ice recovered or warming stopped and the like, is to check the timescale over which the claim is being made. In general, if the purported change is on the order of just a decade or highly sensitivity to a couple of data points, you are being fed a product that you ought to be very suspicious of, usually from the same sources that will tell you it’s the entire climate science community out for your money. It’s like someone telling you that (Northern) winter isn’t coming this year because a week in October was warmer than a week in September.
Click to expand...
How many so-called climate scientist predicted a 18 year “pause” in "global warming? "
 
estesbob said:
How many so-called climate scientist predicted a 18 year “pause” in "global warming? "
Click to expand...
First of all, if I am going to receive warning messages for comments about other people, it would be nice if such standards would also to apply to comments like “so-called climate scientist” (especially because I do climate science) and represent a direct insult. It is quite evident that too many are getting their information about what climate scientists do from very odd resources. Better yet would be to ask! (we are humans after all) or even better, to attend meetings like AGU where climate scientists go. This may be ambitious though.

Secondly, the point here is that we aren’t trying to predict the exact timing if internal variability in the climate system, just as no one tries to model every bubble that crops up in a pot of heated water…but rather the salient question is the statistics of climate over sufficiently long timescales (at least many decades).

Certainly, the details of the ‘hiatus’ are scientifically interesting, especially when you start asking much more nuanced questions (e.g., how do aerosols fit into the picture? What is the role of the Pacific ocean? Exactly what places have not warmed much and what places have warmed up quite a bit?), but it is simply not an appropriate centerpiece of policy discussion, because much of the concern is the century long forecast and the “fate” of future generations exposed to a future climate, not whether the Pacific Ocean has been in a particular phase for a decade. What’s more, the hiatus manifsts itself in the global mean only because a few areas are cooling…e.g., the East Pacific ocean, the wintertime Eurasian landmass, etc, and so people are still experiencing climate change.

Of course, decadal prediction is an interesting topic, and there’s a lot of demand to tell people some general characteristics of the climate state from 2020-2025, but our ability to do that confidently is metric-dependent and inherently tied to the initialization of the entire ocean state…something that could not be done 20 years ago, entirely independent of whether models are good or not, or whether someone did/did not simulate a hiatus.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

This is a note to everyone. Be nice. You all need to post charitably. The mission of CAF is to be a safe environment for Catholics to discuss the issues in a environment of charity and understanding.

Charitably discuss the issues, not each other nor how each other post.

No name calling

Avoid derogatory terms such as, but not limited to:

“so-called climate scientists”
“climate deniers”
etc.

If you can’t post charitably on the topic, don’t post. Those who post uncharitably will find their accounts suspended or banned.

This is a complex topic, however one that affects us all. There is no restriction for membership in this forum or this thread. So, those who are experts in this field need to be tolerant of those who are not, and word their posts in such a way that a layman can understand what you are trying to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top