Has climate change slowed down?

[Frida Space]

According to a new NASA press release, the temperature of the oceans' abysses hasn't changed at all between 2005 and 2013, and the surface temperature is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures. However, scientists say global warming is still very serious stuff.

That said, I do believe (as all of you, I hope) in global warming.

(I'm not English myself, but please note the difference between stop and slow down. The latter one means that the temperatures are still rising, but not as fast as before).

What do you think of this discovery?

UPDATE: For those of you saying that climate change is so obvious it shouldn't even be discussed, I totally agree; however, I just wanted to report an interesting finding.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Frida Space

[Darnok]

Global warming doesn't exists... look at last 400.000 years

[Elthy]

Discussing about this topic should be banned like religios discussions...

[jfull]

I think I understand what you're getting at, but would you kindly explain what that data is supposed to mean rather than just declaring it disproves global warming?

[-Velocity-]

What's the relevance of the last 400,000 years other than showing that Milankovitch cycles are enough to overwhelm any warming caused by a 80 PPM CO2 increase? Your charts aren't even up to date, we're now sitting at over 400 PPM CO2- 120 PPM higher than any other interglacial. So we're in uncharted territory. Heck, 400 PPM (and I'm sure it will get much, much higher) might even be too much for the Milankovitch cycles to overwhelm.

Edited October 6, 2014 by |Velocity|

[N_las]

Here we see the current CO2 concentration for comparision:

http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-336286-galleryV9-oexc.jpg

[Frida Space]

Between November 2012 and December 2013, 2,258 peer-reviewed articles written by 9,136 authors were published on the topic of climate change. Of all 2,258 articles, only one rejected man-made global warming.

While this isn't a scientific proof of global warming, I think it's safe to say that if 99.990% of the world's scientists agree on something, it's very probably true.

Discussing about this topic should be banned like religios discussions...

I agree. I just wanted to report an interesting finding.

[DragonShadow]

50 years ago the United States was worrying about global cooling. Russia currently is preparing for this rather than a warming period. Hence the all-encompassing term 'climate change' that is now the norm.

[N_las]

50 years ago the United States was worrying about global cooling. Russia currently is preparing for this rather than a warming period. Hence the all-encompassing term 'climate change' that is now the norm.

How are those claims still around on the internet? They were all debunked ages ago.

[Darnok]

What's the relevance of the last 400,000 years other than showing that Milankovitch cycles are enough to overwhelm any warming caused by a 80 PPM CO2 increase? Your charts aren't even up to date, we're now sitting at over 400 PPM CO2- 120 PPM higher than any other interglacial. So we're in uncharted territory. Heck, 400 PPM (and I'm sure it will get much, much higher) might even be too much for the Milankovitch cycles to overwhelm.

400.000 is small scope, look at larger scopes and you will see that 700ppm wasn't dangerous to plants and animals in past. Yes we are now in 400ppm, so we need 300 more to reach levels that were before dinos died and back then was no ice on poles.

I was gathering data for other thread about same topic and when I will find some free time I will write there longer post about "global warming is total lie" with some data, arguments and plot twists

[N_las]

400.000 is small scope, look at larger scopes and you will see that 700ppm wasn't dangerous to plants and animals in past. Yes we are now in 400ppm, so we need 300 more to reach levels that were before dinos died and back then was no ice on poles.

I was gathering data for other thread about same topic and when I will find some free time I will write there longer post about "global warming is total lie" with some data, arguments and plot twists

I am not sure if you are serious. As you said: CO2 was at 700ppm, and THERE WAS NO ICE ON THE POLES. How can you spin that to "global warming is a total lie"? Thats exactly the opposite...

And nobody claims that a higher temperature would be fatal to live on earth in general. But it will be devesting to OUR Ecosystem.

[m4v]

As I understand it isn't that global warming has slowed down, just that there's something absorbing a lot of heat and scientist have no clue what it is. Once whatever that's taking the heat gets saturated we'll see temperatures climb at faster rate.

[CaptainKipard]

look at larger scopes

No, no, no. YOU show "larger scopes" whatever that means.

[AngelLestat]

its already estimate (with the last studies) that temperature would rise 5 degress to the end of century. That is a lot more than previous estimations.

That would trigger a chain of events that would put all species (us include) on our knees.

I really dont know if we can do something to stop it.

[ZedNova]

400.000 is small scope, look at larger scopes and you will see that 700ppm wasn't dangerous to plants and animals in past. Yes we are now in 400ppm, so we need 300 more to reach levels that were before dinos died and back then was no ice on poles.

I was gathering data for other thread about same topic and when I will find some free time I will write there longer post about "global warming is total lie" with some data, arguments and plot twists

The fact that's it's increasing at such a rapid rate is what is alarming climatologists.

Maybe you should watch this.

[randomness5555]

I'm not too worried either way. I believe it's happening-what would anyone gain from pretending it was even if it wasn't? If it's going at full speed still, well, I'm looking forward to it. Either England gets snow all year (which would be awesome) or finally gets warmer, depending on who's theory is right. If it's slowing down, then I don't have to worry at all, at least for now.

[m4v]

400.000 is small scope, look at larger scopes and you will see that 700ppm wasn't dangerous to plants and animals in past. Yes we are now in 400ppm, so we need 300 more to reach levels that were before dinos died and back then was no ice on poles.

I was gathering data for other thread about same topic and when I will find some free time I will write there longer post about "global warming is total lie" with some data, arguments and plot twists

Those CO2 levels didn't change in the span of 200 years, 700ppm wasn't dangerous because life had the time to adapt to it. The sudden change of the environment means that there's a major extinction event in progress right now. Of course life will recover, in 10 million years or so.

I would rather try to mitigate the damage to the current biosphere since I kind of like it.

[Kulebron]

I am not sure if you are serious. As you said: CO2 was at 700ppm, and THERE WAS NO ICE ON THE POLES. How can you spin that to "global warming is a total lie"? Thats exactly the opposite...

What time are you talking about? No ice on poles was in Pangaea time when energy was transferred with water currents much better than now. It works only in Pacific now, but is closed in the north, and in south is closed by a strong circular current.

Imagine having Gulfstreams all over north and south polar areas, with cilmate in polar circles like in Britain. That's what it was before continents came to current positions. Also, equatorial seas were not as nice as in Carribean, but rather cold as Pacific.

That was not CO2, but heat exchange. And this is far off the data scales in the 1st page.

[Albert VDS]

There shouldn't be a discussion on if CC is real, slowing down or anything else.

The actual discussion should be; how can we stop CC and safe ourselves.

[m4v]

There shouldn't be a discussion on if CC is real, slowing down or anything else.

The actual discussion should be; how can we stop CC and safe ourselves.

Turning off the AC would be a start I guess?

[N_las]

What time are you talking about? No ice on poles was in Pangaea time when energy was transferred with water currents much better than now. It works only in Pacific now, but is closed in the north, and in south is closed by a strong circular current.

Imagine having Gulfstreams all over north and south polar areas, with cilmate in polar circles like in Britain. That's what it was before continents came to current positions. Also, equatorial seas were not as nice as in Carribean, but rather cold as Pacific.

That was not CO2, but heat exchange. And this is far off the data scales in the 1st page.

Have you read the comment I was responding to? I assumed the guy was talking about the cretaceous periode.

[-Velocity-]

400.000 is small scope, look at larger scopes and you will see that 700ppm wasn't dangerous to plants and animals in past. Yes we are now in 400ppm, so we need 300 more to reach levels that were before dinos died and back then was no ice on poles.

I was gathering data for other thread about same topic and when I will find some free time I will write there longer post about "global warming is total lie" with some data, arguments and plot twists

Logic? Where is it?

1) So because there were plant and animal species that adapted to a warmer Earth long ago (and these species are now extinct), and the Earth is now cooler, with a new, different set of species adapted to a cooler planet, then if the Earth turned warmer again, none of these new species would go extinct? /facepalm

2) No one seriously believes that global warming will make Earth uninhabitable by itself. Even in the worst-case warming scenario, Earth remains a relatively verdant cornucopia of plants and animals. It's just that a few species around now might not be in the picture then.

3) The above assumes that Earth life does not face additional negative effects from humans.

4) The above is not a valid assumption. Global warming's real cost comes to human civilization. It could create some very expensive problems (cities swamped and even entire countries that must be relocate due to rising sea levels, for example), and reduce our ability to produce the food necessary for our overpopulated species. That in turn could lead us to take some very negative environmental actions to sustain ourselves. Humanity's reaction to global warming is likely to be more damaging to Earth's life than global warming itself.

Edited October 6, 2014 by |Velocity|

[rtxoff]

We could do so much about it but humans are just humans and we are all doomed. I won't live long enough to be really affected however everyone who comes after me will be.

Even in the case that global warming is not true, humans have already done so much damage to the eco system that a full recovery is impossible. Just think about all the species that got extinct because of us.

Mankind claimed this world in prepotent arrogance and mankind will die in this world in prepotent arrogance, we are not going to learn anything, we never did, we never will. Even if some of us survive, it won't change a thing, a few millennia later they will face the same situation and the circle starts over.

[-Velocity-]

We could do so much about it but humans are just humans and we are all doomed. I won't live long enough to be really affected however everyone who comes after me will be.

Even in the case that global warming is not true, humans have already done so much damage to the eco system that a full recovery is impossible. Just think about all the species that got extinct because of us.

Mankind claimed this world in prepotent arrogance and mankind will die in this world in prepotent arrogance, we are not going to learn anything, we never did, we never will. Even if some of us survive, it won't change a thing, a few millennia later they will face the same situation and the circle starts over.

Society is slowly evolving towards one where we care more about environmentalism and sustainability, but it's a slow process. If you don't believe me, then you have no idea with what reckless disregard people 100 years ago treated this planet with. The question is, will society evolve to the point where we are good stewards of the Earth before it's too late? Also, is society capable of evolving to the degree necessary? I think that it is, but I think the changes necessary might break forum rules about discussing religion. I guess to put it nicely, people need to start caring about Earth, life, and conservation the way they currently care about God.

Edited October 6, 2014 by |Velocity|

[Kulebron]

Have you read the comment I was responding to? I assumed the guy was talking about the cretaceous periode.

Excatly Cretaceous. Then, continents were far from current position, and stimulated oceanic heat exchange.

Just compare: Calgary, Winnipeg and Novosibirsk are about at the same latitudes (51, 49, and 55) as London. We here and in Canada have 5 months of subzero temperatures and yearly average ~0. London has yearly average ~11 degrees and very mild climate. That's what heat exchange does, not greenhouse.

Arctic is perfectly insulated from warm oceans by landmasses. Antarctica is insulated by the cold circular current which interrupts any streams from going south. (Before Antarctica detached from South America, it did not exist, and currents from lower latitudes circulated freely.) If you could move continents, even nowadays you could make Earth polar areas like Norway or Sweden, without ice caps. Carbon dioxide has little to do with this.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Kulebron