|
Post by sankari on May 17, 2013 5:09:10 GMT
What an almighty beatdown.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 17, 2013 21:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 24, 2013 15:47:07 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 7, 2013 12:48:03 GMT
A brave (or complacent, depending on your point of view) article in The Huffington Post: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-james-hannam/global-warming-is-not-as-_b_3536598.html Global Warming Is Not as Scary as We Thought There was relatively rapid warming in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, there was more warming than you'd expect from rising carbon dioxide levels alone. To reflect the data, the models built in positive feedback, whereby increasing temperatures gave rise to knock-on effects that make the world even hotter. These models necessarily expected this rapid warming to continue. But it looks likely that the big increases in temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s were noise rather than signal. The cooler 2000s were just a return to a more modest trend. In that case, the models had been over fitted to the data. An alternative (with many supporting links) view in The Guardian: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/24/global-warming-pause-buttonWe haven't hit the global warming pause buttonRecent articles about a global warming 'pause' miss that the planet as a whole is still rapidly warmingIn the 1980s and 1990s when air temperatures were warming in step with the overall warming of the planet, that was fine. However, over the past decade, the warming of surface air temperatures has slowed. At the same time, the overall warming of the planet has continued, and if anything it has accelerated. This has been difficult to reconcile for those who previously focused on surface air temperatures – what do we say about "global warming" now?The result is a spate of articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, and Der Spiegel, all of which get most of the facts right (including noting the warming of the oceans), but that all begin from the premise that "global warming" has slowed. It would be more accurate to say that global surface air warming has slowed, but the overall warming of the Earth's climate has sped up.Ideally people will begin using the term "global warming" to refer to the planet's overall heat accumulation. Or use the term "global heating" or "climate change" or "climate disruption." Whatever term is chosen, we need to stop misleading people by saying that global warming has "paused." The overall warming of the planet has not and will not pause until we stop increasing the greenhouse effect through our reliance on fossil fuels. Until we hit that 'pause button,' the warming will only continue to grow.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 9, 2013 18:43:49 GMT
Is rapture-readiness a major factor in global warming scepticism/denial/apathy? www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/7144/does_end_time_belief_really_cause_climate_change_apathyEnd time belief has an almost salacious appeal in America—and not just to the four out of ten Americans who believe that Jesus Christ will return to Earth by 2050. At least since the Millerites were laughed off the national stage in 1844, watching prophecy fail has become something of a national pastime. The attitudes of the two groups—heavenly-minded believer and smirking spectator—are well captured in a pair of bumper stickers: “In case of Rapture, this car will be unmanned” and “In case of Rapture, can I have your car?”
But some in the spectator camp hold that America’s remarkably durable “rapture culture” is no laughing matter; that it might, in fact, be a menace to society. At issue is end time believers’ perceived lack of investment in the earth’s future. That is, if they believe Jesus is coming back, do they have any incentive to preserve and protect the environment for future generations?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 11, 2013 4:06:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 11, 2013 16:48:16 GMT
Thank you fortigurn, that was a revealing post - at once demonstrating links between Christianity, science and care for the environment.
No Christian could seek to minimise the need to take action to protect our environment (and our neighbours) and to do so as quickly and effectively as possible.
Well done to all those signatories to the letter. acting in a truly scientific and christian manner.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 12, 2013 1:02:13 GMT
Thank you fortigurn, that was a revealing post - at once demonstrating links between Christianity, science and care for the environment. No Christian could seek to minimise the need to take action to protect our environment (and our neighbours) and to do so as quickly and effectively as possible. Well done to all those signatories to the letter. acting in a truly scientific and christian manner. I was impressed. Given the rich Judeo-Christian tradition of environmental care and responsible stewardship, this is a sine qua non of Christianity and lifestyle evangelism.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 12, 2013 6:56:55 GMT
I agree with you both that it is a very good, much needed initiative. Hopefully it will have an effect on fence sitters. Whether this will have much effect in die-hard GOP circles is a different question (apart from the problem that Sojourners is a progressive magazine so it is unlikely to be read by those who should). Several Republican-alligned media seem bent on extirpating any straying from climate scepticism or denial. For instance, Gingrich was pressed to remove a contribution by one of the signers mentioned in the above article (source).
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 12, 2013 11:44:46 GMT
I agree with you both that it is a very good, much needed initiative. Hopefully it will have an effect on fence sitters. Yes I think this is a good influence for those still in the middle. Well at least they know it's hurting them.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 21, 2013 13:53:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 27, 2013 10:37:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 2, 2013 19:57:35 GMT
Well at least they know it's hurting them. There has been an article in The Guardian last month confirming this. Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views "ignorant, out of touch or crazy".
The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama's climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.
On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama's climate action plan.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Sept 8, 2013 20:31:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 9, 2013 5:16:41 GMT
It always seems to be the same old bad science and bad mathematics - quote a few facts that show that temperatures are not rising in a straight line, quote one or two "scientists" and, voila, the problem has evaporated! But climate data are subject to a range of effects, not just the predicted global warming, but El Nino - La Nina cycles, and much more localised variations in time and space. All of these have to be superimposed, and so we get a temperature vs time graph that goes up and down day to day and seasonally, plus longer (15-30 years or more) cycles, but overall keeps climbing. One only has to look at the graph over the past century to see this. There was a 30 year "pause" in global warming during the 1940-1970 period, then the rising temperatures resumed. Depending on the exact statistic used (there is more than one way to calculate average global temperature, and there are other statistics used sometimes too), some graphs show several "flat" periods over 130 years. Therefore a flat period means nothing unless it lasts a lot longer than the present one. But of course conspiracy journalism doesn't want nuanced facts, only the most bleeding "obvious", even if it is scientifically and mathematically crap. Is the UK telegraph a Murdoch paper? That would help explain a few things, but I didn't think it was.
|
|