I know that I shouldn't discuss peoples deeply held religious beliefs, it only causes problems
 

But here is yet another nail in the global warming coffin.... No offense to the true believers here on GFY....


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown


(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments' willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first showed in the 1890s how man-made carbon dioxide, from coal for instance, traps heat in the atmosphere. Many of the exact effects are still unknown.

Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.

UN PANEL SEEKS EXPLANATION

A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s - when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth's surface - made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel's chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

According to Pachauri, temperature records since 1850 "show there are fluctuations. They are 10, 15 years in duration. But the trend is unmistakable."

The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in temperatures.

Experts say short-term climate forecasts are vital to help governments, insurers and energy companies to plan.

Governments will find little point in reinforcing road bridges over rivers, for instance, if a prediction of more floods by 2100 doesn't apply to the 2020s.

A section of a draft IPCC report, looking at short-term trends, says temperatures are likely to be 0.4 to 1.0 degree Celsius (0.7-1.8F) warmer from 2016-35 than in the two decades to 2005. Rain and snow may increase in areas that already have high precipitation and decline in areas with scarcity, it says.

EXCEPTIONS AND CHALLENGES

Pachauri said climate change can have counter-intuitive effects, like more snowfall in winter that some people find hard to accept as side-effects of a warming trend. An IPCC report last year said warmer air can absorb more moisture, leading to heavier snowfall in some areas.

A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now more sea ice in winter. It concluded melted ice from Antarctica was refreezing on the ocean surface - this fresh water freezes more easily than dense salt water.

Some experts challenged the findings.

"The hypothesis is plausible I just don't believe the study proves it to be true," said Paul Holland, an ice expert at the British Antarctic Survey.

Concern about climate change is rising in some nations, however, opinion polls show. Extreme events, such as Superstorm Sandy that hit the U.S. east coast last year, may be the cause. A record heatwave in Australia this summer forced weather forecasters to add a new dark magenta color to the map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129F).



.:2 cents:

so you don't believe that climate is changing one way or another at all? I'm not talking about it being man made, just that there is change happening.

yea, the climate changes ... profit

Of course it's changing. It's always been changing. It will always continue to change.






.

funny thing about climate science is how the geological record shows the earth has been uninhabitable for humans for nearly all of 4 billion years. But we live in a 20,000 year quiet period whereby every abnormality is now caused by Man. bad hurricane? global warming. bad tornados? global warming. no tornados? global warming. its become comical to hear the climate change crowd blame everything on Man.

End game is to tax breathers.

I know you care about it because if there were warming, all the mud would dry up and then what would you race in? Sand? Psh, yeah right. Sand racing is for dweebs. So let's keep the mud people!

first listed expert:

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

and then the article goes on to agree with climate change, and then cite opinions to disagree?

You mean religious nutters like gun nutters? Who blindly repeat anything their leaders tell them?

Any excuse to reduce fossil fuels is fine by me. When your water supply is poisoned by the sun and wind, then you can cry me a river.

bingo!!!!!!!!!!

How many of you are old enough to remember clean rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes that were clean enough to swim in, clean enough to drink from, clean enough to fish in, and then eat the fish?

Within just a few decades most of this water has been polluted by fossil fuel greed, and still, there are many of you who like to laugh and ridicule all attempts at trying to fix this before it gets even worse (assuming that's possible).

Pathetic.

No, I am offended by religions period, none of them, concerning god, are all harmful to someone else. Your a fucked up soul if you go to church every Sunday!

THe slow down is the sun for chrst sake, we are still killing the planet but its temp is not our fault.

ok. some people seem to want to use the idea that climate change isn't man made to continue to poison our world. is this your view? that we shouldn't be striving for clean energy regardless?

People need to present facts and not speculation, I beleave the main thing that warms our planet is the sun and its been overly active for the last ten years and is now very, inactive, so yeah, our planet will cool, but in 50 years at this pase there will be no oceans to fish in since we are killing everything in it, the real problem is what were doing to our food supply.

i agree. the climate change debate should not degenerate to a decision between siding with the environment or the polluters. people should be allowed to be skeptical of climate change science without being labeled as in cahoots with polluters.

the climate is impacted by numerous factors, & some of them we have no idea why they happen, such as el nino. but its impossible to be a skeptic without being called names like polluter.

pathetic.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck



https://youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE

God, protect us from Sperbonzo's brain farts he posts here ... Give him something else to do. Amen.

(I think you are referring to Reuter's brain farts actually..... but never mind. I knew that a few of you true believers might be upset that anyone dare to question your faith, so I'm sorry that you were offended. You have every right to keep on believing buddy, and I will never try to take that away from you! :thumbsup)





.:)



.

Apology accepted...

To me the climate change debate has a simple solution. The climate is changing. Everyone agrees on that. The debate is whether or not we humans are having an affect on the climate. There is evidence that shows we are and there is evidence that show we aren't. We likely won't know for sure one way or the other for potentially 100's of years.

The suggested solution to any man made climate change issues is to clean up our environment. Pollute less and reduce the amount of crap we put into the atmosphere.

If it turns out that we do affect the climate then cleaning our environment up will help lessen out impact and reduce the issues caused by climate change. If it turns out that we don't really have any impact on the climate yet we still cleaned ourselves up, then we still win because we have a cleaner, nicer planet to live on.

By cleaning up and reducing the crap we spew out into the world we can't really lose. If we choose to do nothing and we end up being wrong about having an impact on the climate we could lose badly.

If it were just that simple, I would completely agree with you.


Unfortunately it is being used as an excuse for massive increases in taxes, spending, and regulation, (basically government power), on an national, and international level, as well as moves to try to redistribute wealth, by force, around the planet. Using the power of the badge and the gun to be "generous" with other peoples money is not my idea of a free society.

If it was just, "hey, we all need to pollute less", then I would be all about it. I'm very active in local clean up groups, and I try to do my part. I just don't like all of the massive power grabs being done in the name of "climate change", that's all.

:2 cents:


.


.

Exactly :thumbsup

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...81zso1_500.jpg

damn those are cool keywords

how about we start calling it what it is:

regulation: "Cost of doing business"
taxes: "making sure we all don't live in modern day Beirut"
infrastructure: " making sure the peons have education/opportunity/ability to buy my product!"

however, now that we have called it what it is, lets cut it all. The only good country is one of 5% actually calling themselves 'wealthy', solely populated by fighter jets, tanks and anti-nazi symbols (ideally located next to current rendition and torture programs'

this kind of thing will always exist in government to some degree. if it wasn't climate change it would be something else. i am not suggesting to just put up with it but without necessity, there is little innovation. if there is no incentive to work towards cleaner forms of energy, it won't happen. we have made our world so sick but still people want to repeal environmental regulation in the name of profit. that sucks. you can't eat any fish without mercury. that's fucked up. there is a sea of plastic in the ocean, that's fucked up. we all share some of the blame but if we do our part at our level while industry continues their polluting ways, it makes what we do seem pointless.

How did you feel when Bush changed the clean air and clean water acts and allowed coal miners to start dumping in streams again? Happy I guess. Another nail in some coffin somewhere.. I win. Hooray for everything.

Did you know they use 21 nails in coffins to mirror the 21 gun salute? More interesting.

I won't argue that there is some corrupt crap going on in this industry, but if there is going to be clean up efforts and less pollution there needs to be some kind of regulation and there needs to be consequences for not following those regulations. If businesses are left to police themselves they simply won't do it.

That said, there is too much being put into it in the way of power and money grabs. Those who would fashion the laws seem to be doing so in a way that allows them to hand their friends and donors ways to make millions off of this. That needs to change.

Just as happy as when Obama did the same type of thing....


http://grist.org/clean-air/2011-09-0...ush-clean-air/


.... but in the meantime, the WHOLE thing is about money and control.... and government officials are all about that. When we give more power to them, in order to "save us", from this and that. they happily take it. First of all because they are motivated by power, in and of itself, and secondly in order to monetarily enrich themselves and their friends, at the people's expense. I can't understand how people don't see that. The bottom line is that government is the only entity that can legally use force to make you comply. No corporation or free market can do that legally. It's a very basic difference and it's a power that people continue to just hand over more and more without really thinking it through.




.:2 cents:


.

do you really think the 'free market' would regulate itself responsibly when it comes to the environment if given the chance?