World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal *Nature *found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century.

The team of scientists said the findings show some climate models have been too “optimistic” and previous estimates of a minimum temperature rise of only 2.7F (1.5C) could now be discounted. The optimistic models did not properly assess the impact of water evaporation, which sometimes rises only a short distance into the atmosphere and causes updraughts that reduce cloud cover, the study found.

”These models have been predicting a lower climate sensitivity but we believe they’re incorrect,” Professor Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, told The Sydney Morning Herald.


:popcorn: The thought police are at it again. Who cares what these pseudo scientists think, who cares what the British think?


That is what you call doubling down.

This report seems to say climate models have been too optimistic, while scientists such as Dr Hans von Storch et al put together a study titled, Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? and in an interview Dr Hans Von Storch speaks of the ‘15 years stagnation in global warming’ and that ‘something is fundamenetally wrong with our climate models.’

The language of ‘climate change’ used the Telegraph article and ‘global warming’ by other scientists is also not helping in the confusion.

Climate models in China have not had not an excellent track history in determing ‘extreme precipitation’ so if climate models for just one country produce a ‘poor reflection,’ then what of climate models on a global scale? Are climate models globally different or better than the ones in China?

And then there’s that Russian icebreaker that’s been stuck for days in the Antarctic “global warming,” as they went down to see how little ice was supposedly left.

I just spent 1-1/2 hours shoveling 6 inches of snow off my driveway and my neighbor’s driveway. I welcome Indiana warming.

The Vatican supports Global Warming Theory.

In 2010, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a scientific arm of the Vatican, released a report on climate change recommending that world leaders cut carbon dioxide emissions, reduce existing pollution, and prepare for the inevitable impacts of a changing climate.

National Geographic talks about it here:

I believe the idea is that we should be good stewards of God’s Creation, this planet, and not abuse God’s Creation.

Now, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t necessarily buy into man-made global warming theory hook, line and sinker, but certainly there may be some human role in it. I also believe God created a dynamic and adaptable system here on Earth that has been changing since the beginning. I think it may be human arrogance to think we can affect or “reverse” so-called global warming. I often like to say, if there were indeed Ice Ages, and their existence isn’t contradictory to Catholic teaching, then how did those Ice Ages end? The Earth warmed! Without humanity involved! Science can teach us a lot and shouldn’t be discounted, but I also don’t think it’s close to having all the answers or reasons as to why things like climate change happen.

Temps have been holding steady for a bit over a decade; however that doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening, didn’t happen prior to the decade, nor that we won’t see it rise in the future (all indications are that we will.) However, it may not be a bad thing (unless you are in the ski resort business; or live next to an ocean.)

Virtually every issue of National Geographic is a promoter of MMGW notions, which is why I no longer buy it. Well, and it has fallen from being a fairly scholarly work (old issues are virtually all text) to essentially a picture magazine. So, there’s not much content of any kind anymore. I was getting dissatisfied with it even before it became a MMGW house organ.

If a subsegment of the Vatican comes to believe in MMGW, that does not mean it is mandatory for me to believe it. Possibly the scientific segment has endorsed MMGW recently, but what I have seen is pretty old stuff.

And “concern for the environment” is not the same thing as believing in MMGW. And does anybody really believe Pope Benedict or any other Pope endorses the idea of making the heating bills of the poor “skyrocket” with artificial price increases?

It is truly irritating when the liberal media tries to pre-empt the Popes to push their often anti-human objectives.

Global mean temps

The trend isn’t down.

Personally, I would vote “aye” in favor of global warming as I sit here in 10 degree or so weather at the same latitude (Southern Mo) as southern Spain and North Africa.

I spend a lot of my time outdoors in all kinds of weather, and I would think that surely if there really is significant global warming going on, I would be able to notice the effect sometime. But it’s still not as warm as it was in the 1930s.

It seems to me the people who promote it go to an extreme amount of trouble to “prove” with arcane data and novel theories something that ought to be fairly evident if it was reality.

Me, I’m with the Russian scientists who greatly more fear global cooling than they do warming. And, of course, like all the MMGW promoters, they have their assertedly scientific data to “prove” their theories too.

And I have to wonder why ‘environmentalism’ always leads down the path to abortion and euthanasia.

Oh yes, there’s no doubt about the Liberal stance NatGeo takes on Global Warming issues. They aren’t a neutral publication.

But in regards to the Pope endorsing higher heating bills for the poor - of course none of us believe that. I think that was part of Pope Francis’ point in his address that created the Capitalism controversy, for better or worse. Its not either/or. Its not black and white. There are other ways where the poor wouldn’t be the bearers of the cost. They shouldn’t be the bearers of the cost! Its up to us to look out for the poor and our fellow man. Now whether that’s creating an uninhibited free market that keeps costs down, or through straight charity, I don’t have the answers. I do think the rich shouldn’t benefit on the backs of the poor, as I think Christ teaches. And that means the Rich in charge of the energy companies, AND the Rich in charge of Governments. It doesn’t mean forced redistribution! Still, we should always keep the poor in mind and do what we can to help them in the most graceful way possible, without creating total dependence in them.

Or unless a Venusian thermal runaway is possible.

While I have never been a greeny, it doth behoove us to be cautious with the atmosphere that keeps us alive; particularly when the science is uncertain.


Wish it was warmer here today !

Right, probably not human impact. However we had lots of volcanos then, similar impact. In fact we have quite a few going off now, and coupled with the human impact we probably are seeing some increased global warming.

I think there is a whole lot of willful ignorance going on in the USA. Just because one denies a fact does not make it untrue.

Can anyone recommend a good real estate agent in Greenland?

The " Vatican " can say all it wants about climate change. Don’t you realize that the Church is full of people with personal agendas. Besides such statements are nothing more than personal opinions and we don’t have to believe personal opinions. It was a similar group of professionals back in the 60’s who recommended to Paul the VI that he change the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics. This caused the Pope to utter the famous remark, " The smoke of Satan has intered the Church. " Shortly after, the Pope issued Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s teaching on contraception and abortion.


When volcanoes erupt they also throw particulates into the air which causes the sunlight to diffuse and the earth to cool.

Weekly volcanic report:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit