- Status
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
“Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Undoubtedly, global warming advocates will say the arrest in global warming is due to global warming, and they’ll have some theory to explain why it’s so.rolleyes:
S
SamH
Guest
So basically the same weather events that have existed for millions of years are now attributed to global warming?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
If it had stopped then why are the temps not back to 1900 or even 1960s or even 1980s levels? Any climate scientist will tell that one needs several decades of data, not just 10 or 15 years, to establish whether GW is happening, or not, due to the many other factors that impact climate. For instance, we’ve been in a “solar minimum” for the past 15 years and are now heading toward a solar maximum. So if there were no impact from our GHGs, you’d sort have expected the global average temp to have substantially dropped back down to 1960 levels.
I think that article you quote is “going down the up escalator”:
http://www.skepticalscience.net/images/TempEscalator_500.gif
G
gilliam
Guest
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
[An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’Undoubtedly, global warming advocates will say the arrest in global warming is due to global warming, and they’ll have some theory to explain why it’s so.rolleyes:
It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.
To address some of the points in the article published today:
Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.
Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.
](Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 | Official blog of the Met Office news team)
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You got it. GW is causing increased precipitation events in some areas, esp northern latitudes, which comes down as severe snowstorms during wintertime. That’s bec warmer air holds increased moisture.
That spells trouble for some areas in the lower latitudes, bec it dessicates the soil, plants and trees and causes serious drought conditions and ripe conditions for wildfires. In other areas (usually to the north) the water vapor gets dumped in extreme precipitation events. It can also happen that drought areas sometimes get severe downpours and flooding conditions (yes, there can be floods in the midst to droughts) – which is really bad if the plants have died back and/or a wildfire has destroyed trees and plants due to drought, resulting in mudslides.
It’s very sad there are so few truly pro-life people to also care about the harmful impacts of global warming, especially on the poor. At least for the sake of economic well-being, if not for the sake of sparing others’ lives and livelihoods, it is advisable to mitigate climate change, since doing so can save lots of money & mitigate a host of other problems and harms, without lowering living standards or productivity – at least down to a 50% reduction in GHG (and other pollution) emissions, and even more if people really put forth effort to reduce their harms and/or save money.
M
Maxirad
Guest
No offense, but I find Jesse Ventura’s position on global warming easier to adopt than Michael Voris’ position.
S
SamH
Guest
Except for the small “problem” that much of the US had much lower than normal snow fall last year. I guess we weren’t warm enough…
W
Wolseley
Guest
Well, I personally do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming; the planet may be heating up, but I don’t think that man is the prime vehicle in that warming trend.
That said, maybe what we’re seeing here is the precursor to an ice age: the planet heats up due to natural cycles, the ice caps melt and dump a lot of cold, fresh water into warm, saline ocean currents, it shuts down the global conveyor belt, and WHAM! We’re back to having two miles of ice over most of the northern hemisphere.
No herds of mammoths to hunt this time, though.
Okay, but why talk to us??? The United States and various other countries have some of the most stringent emissions controls in the world. If you want to cut down on greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere, talk to the Chinese and the Africans.
S
SamH
Guest
W
Wolseley
Guest
Cattle breaking wind, too—mustn’t forget that cows with flatulence are contributing to global warming:
news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6046900/6046962.stm
As Rush is so fond of saying, you can’t make this stuff up, folks.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You have to consider the whole planet, including the oceans, re both the warming and the precipitation amounts and patterns, plus the fact that one year does not a trend make (even if it so happened there was less precip that year).
Here are some sources:
- epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/precipitation.html
- mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/climateChange/pdf/Dore2005-EnvironmenInternational.pdf
Is this really what we want to do to the people around the world on into the future?
There is also the issue of more frequent strongly negative arctic oscillations from global warming, tho the science is newer on that and not as well established. These bring cold arctic temps from north to south, instead of the usual west-to-east pattern, leaving the arctic a lot warmer than usual and destroying winter crops in subtropical latitudes – like the $billions in winter crop loss several years ago in northern Mexico, and killing our garden crops in the Rio Grande Valley. Crops don’t grow well here in the summer, because it is too hot, so we are dependent on our winter (fall & spring) crops. These strongly negative arctic oscillations occur naturally, and we get killing freezes here every 7 or so years, but it is expected by some scientists that they will become more frequent and severe with global warming.
These weather anomalies are just the beginning to become evident over the past few decades, with much stronger patterns in the future.
Even if there is only a slight chance that global warming is mainly (or partly) caused by our greenhouse gas emissions (and the science is very well established that it is – I’ve been following it like a hawk for 25 years), and it is increasing the frequency of these weather anomalies, I think we owe it to others and our own progeny on into the future to do what we can to reduced our emissions – which can be done in cost-effective ways that help the economy and our pocketbooks.
It’s hard for me to understand why so many people here at CAF, a supposedly Catholic site, are so much against lifting their little finger to do the right thing in this situation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Because it is less than convincing. Now, do I wish to breathe clean air? You bet. Eat food without female hormones or genetically modified food? You bet. Clean water? You bet. We are to be stewards of the earth but not foolish. Has to be humans - can’t be the sun now can it?
It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age
** Something is up with our winter weather. Could it be the Sun is having a slow patch? **
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Another way climate change, or rather climate change denialism, is impacting the U.S., is turning more youth away from religion and towards atheism, due to the religious communities’ not stepping up to the plate enough on this issue. Some talk from some mainstream churches, but not nearly enough action. (Tho I just heard it was America’s religious leaders pestering Obama that made him put climate change in his inaugural speech, even tho he’ll probably do next to nada about it over the next 4 years, so the ball is and will continue be in our voluntary action park.)
There are many things turning youth away from religion. I know 9/11 has had a terrible impact on the youth. Some very narrowly blame Islam and feel proud of their non-Islamic religions, but others blame religion in general for 9/11, and some also blame religion for all the other conflicts and woes of the world, including lack of action on climate change. I’m a non-determinist, so I’m neither an ideological (incl religion) determinist nor a material (including economic) determinist, but see all dimensions of our human condition impacting us (cultural, social, psychological, biological, environmental). But that is a really hard school of thought to promote today, when people, esp the youth, are taking a cultural determinist stance and blaming religion.
The other day an Environmental Awareness Club (EAC) member on the campus where I teach mentioned how the (new) atheist club on campus had the largest turnout after the EAC for a tree-planting event in a local wildlife preserve, and that none of members of the many religious clubs came to help, tho all had been invited. She concluded that religious people are not concerned much about life on planet earth, but atheists are.
I told her that the popes and leaders of all the mainstream religions have been very outspoken about our need to mitigate environmental problems, such as climate change, but you don’t hear about that in the local parishes. It doesn’t trickle down because the parish priests know who puts money in the plates, and it seems there are rich people in many parishes who work for the oil or beef industries, etc, who also serve on parish councils and try to quash environmental efforts or speech. At least that has been my experience over the past 20 years.
I also told her that according to stats I have, Catholicism does make some difference: 32% of Catholics are cliimate change denialists (either saying it is not happening, or it is, but it is not caused by humans), compared to 38% of non-Catholics. I told her I thought religious people are impacted by many factors, not just their religion, and some might be using their religion as a skirt to hide behind, or it might hurt their goody-two-shoes image to accept they might be contributing to harms against their fellow men and God’s creation.
I was sort of at a lost how to reply to her (me being the only religious person she knows who is concerned about the environment and doing things about it – an anomaly she can dismiss, then look to hope from the atheists). I have never heard priests in our parishes talk about global warming – and when I asked one priest why not, he said he was afraid of the reaction of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in the parish.
So that’s what’s happened to the Catholic Church in America – in Rush we trust, we are a Rush-fearing people. Lord, save us from ourselves.
It would be helpful if skeptical Catholics at least would say, “I’m not sure of the science, but let’s see what we can do to mitigate climate change since if it is a reality, then we owe it to our youth to try and solve this problem.”
It’s not just lives that are at stake; it’s souls. And woe to those who would cause one of these little ones to fall into into sin…
There are many things turning youth away from religion. I know 9/11 has had a terrible impact on the youth. Some very narrowly blame Islam and feel proud of their non-Islamic religions, but others blame religion in general for 9/11, and some also blame religion for all the other conflicts and woes of the world, including lack of action on climate change. I’m a non-determinist, so I’m neither an ideological (incl religion) determinist nor a material (including economic) determinist, but see all dimensions of our human condition impacting us (cultural, social, psychological, biological, environmental). But that is a really hard school of thought to promote today, when people, esp the youth, are taking a cultural determinist stance and blaming religion.
The other day an Environmental Awareness Club (EAC) member on the campus where I teach mentioned how the (new) atheist club on campus had the largest turnout after the EAC for a tree-planting event in a local wildlife preserve, and that none of members of the many religious clubs came to help, tho all had been invited. She concluded that religious people are not concerned much about life on planet earth, but atheists are.
I told her that the popes and leaders of all the mainstream religions have been very outspoken about our need to mitigate environmental problems, such as climate change, but you don’t hear about that in the local parishes. It doesn’t trickle down because the parish priests know who puts money in the plates, and it seems there are rich people in many parishes who work for the oil or beef industries, etc, who also serve on parish councils and try to quash environmental efforts or speech. At least that has been my experience over the past 20 years.
I also told her that according to stats I have, Catholicism does make some difference: 32% of Catholics are cliimate change denialists (either saying it is not happening, or it is, but it is not caused by humans), compared to 38% of non-Catholics. I told her I thought religious people are impacted by many factors, not just their religion, and some might be using their religion as a skirt to hide behind, or it might hurt their goody-two-shoes image to accept they might be contributing to harms against their fellow men and God’s creation.
I was sort of at a lost how to reply to her (me being the only religious person she knows who is concerned about the environment and doing things about it – an anomaly she can dismiss, then look to hope from the atheists). I have never heard priests in our parishes talk about global warming – and when I asked one priest why not, he said he was afraid of the reaction of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in the parish.
So that’s what’s happened to the Catholic Church in America – in Rush we trust, we are a Rush-fearing people. Lord, save us from ourselves.
It would be helpful if skeptical Catholics at least would say, “I’m not sure of the science, but let’s see what we can do to mitigate climate change since if it is a reality, then we owe it to our youth to try and solve this problem.”
It’s not just lives that are at stake; it’s souls. And woe to those who would cause one of these little ones to fall into into sin…
W
Wolseley
Guest
You’re saying that if someone doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, that lack of conviction will turn others from following God and turn them into atheists???
Come now. That’s a little far-fetched, don’t you think?
S
SamH
Guest
- Status