Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News

technology.org

Mainly because GW hasn't slowed down at all. What Big Oil funded media outlets, think tanks and bloggers keep pushing is that Global Warming has slowed down because air temperatures haven't risen significantly in 15 years. This is cherry picking and brainwashing so that those in power do not have to give up that power.

It is a fact, based on observations of air temperature, that the rate of global warming measured as surface air temperature has slowed over the past 15 years. The last decade is still the warmest in the past 150 years.


If you measure global heat content then global warming has not slowed. If you measure other indices including sea level rise or ocean temperatures or sea ice cover global warming has not slowed.

It is shining a spotlight on one matter and pretending other matters don't exist. We saw a similar tactic with the comparison of last years minimum ice extent compared to this years minimum ice extent and selling it as a recovery. Some even went as far as to try to sell the 6th lowest minimum in recorded history as the precursor to another ice age.

The 5th Assessment Report by the IPCC explains the slowing in the rate of global warming in roughly equal terms as the consequence of reduced radiative forcing (the difference between radiative energy that hits the earth and energy radiated back to space), increased heat uptake by the oceans and natural variability.

The reduced radiative forcing (the amount of energy available to drive the climate system) is due to the recent solar minimum (a period of low solar activity), and volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols (these are particles such as sulphur and soot, which block some radiation from hitting the earth).

The slowing in the rate of warming over the last 15 years is not in the least surprising. We have seen a combination of the solar minimum, anthropogenic aerosol emissions and back-to-back La Niñas.

What is surprising – and what is deeply concerning to me and almost entirely missed in the media commentary – is that we have not cooled dramatically over the last 15 years.

That last line is very important. For the cooling variables we've been witnessing over the past 15 years, we have had 0 cooling. None.

And this is bad somehow?

We are slowly working our way out of an ice-age so temps are going to be going up and this is actually good news.

Plant and animal life absolutely thrive during the warmer climates according to the fossil records.

Its totally natural and has occurred many times throughout earths history.

Buy some sunglasses and a blender cause summer is coming year round.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


It's not good because oceans will continue to acidify and temperatures will start to rise again, past the point humans can live in. The planet will be fine, it will recover... we won't.

And even if we indulge your fantasy that global warming is a good thing for just a minute... it will mean massive migrations, growing our food in different places, living different places. Does our current state of government give any indication that this will be done smoothly and with our liberty preserved?

reply to post by Kali74

I realize that this is a delicate issue and that you have put your heart and soul into it, in principle I commend your dutiful commitment to an apparently worthy cause.

I am not saying that we shouldn't improve our state of pollution, nobody really is.

My main complaint is the brazen globalization agenda using carbon dioxide as the excuse. It was a poorly planned ruse, if it was me I would have at least picked a greenhouse gas like methane. It really does tend to argue against the competence of the architects of the NWO. I suppose it was just too good to pass up, everybody's exhalation can be taxed? They must have been creaming their drawers.

I must say that I would not have put you in the believers camp given our conversations about power and corruption.

There are/will be many tremendous threats to the earth (including climate change btw) to be concerned about but, I would encourage everybody to focus on addressing corrective mechanisms rather than civilization reduction.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

It's not good because oceans will continue to acidify and temperatures will start to rise again, past the point humans can live in. The planet will be fine, it will recover... we won't.

And even if we indulge your fantasy that global warming is a good thing for just a minute... it will mean massive migrations, growing our food in different places, living different places. Does our current state of government give any indication that this will be done smoothly and with our liberty preserved?

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

You can't stop it no matter what you do.

Its a natural occurring event.

Keeping the world at an optimal temp for human existence is not within our control.

You know what the scariest possibility is from a conspiracy perspective?
1) Global Warming is real 2) its being keep in check secretly with geo-engineering (maybe chemtrails, talking treatment not cure, so if they stop it comes back with a vengence)

I mean, think that through. Whoever might be holding it in check with a secret technology basically has a gun to the head of all life on earth, we're totally dependent on them. And we thought dependency on Monsanto was something scary!

But for me at this point, you know the saying: It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I've been watching these "signs of change" videos, where the guy documents all the last weeks natural doom, including climate events. Here's a recent one:

www.youtube.com...

It's the year of the hundred year flood, all over the world. You can debate why that is, but it is. The wise are those who are preparing for extreme weather events.

reply to post by greencmp

My main complaint is the brazen globalization agenda using carbon dioxide as the excuse. It was a poorly planned ruse, if it was me I would have at least picked a greenhouse gas like methane. It really does tend to argue against the competence of the architects of the NWO.

Illustrate this for us please.

Wait a minute - there was just a post today that no sun spots means another min ice age (potentially). Which is it? I would prefer warm to cool if we get to vote but if this is true (an impending cold spell), wouldn't what were doing to the environment help get us through it? That is assuming we have an impact on greenhouse gasses, the ozone, etc (which I believe we do to some extent).

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

You can't stop it no matter what you do.

Its a natural occurring event.

Keeping the world at an optimal temp for human existence is not within our control.

It can be stopped because it is greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere trapping heat (energy) here vs letting it escape back to space.

You are right in one way, if it were the sun dumping more energy on us, there's nothing we could do about it. But that isn't the case. We can cut GHG emissions.

The problem that you have Kali, as well as others who are concerned about this issue, is that you cannot tell us how much humans are contributing to the warming trend as opposed to natural events. It may be 95% or it may be 1/10 of .01%.

Without that information, making recommendations on how to fix the problem is rather pointless.

There needs to be much more data collected to determine the exact impact that humans are having. Running around waving your arms in the air is not empirical evidence.

reply to post by Tinkerpeach


That's absolutely false. We can tell how much humans are contributing. It will take me a few to dig it up but I'll get the info for you.

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

My main complaint is the brazen globalization agenda using carbon dioxide as the excuse. It was a poorly planned ruse, if it was me I would have at least picked a greenhouse gas like methane. It really does tend to argue against the competence of the architects of the NWO.

Illustrate this for us please.

That the global carbon trading agenda is one of many tools for potentially implementing a world government.

Carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas while methane is and it is being released from the ocean floor in huge quantities. Why that isn't being brought up speaks to the reliance upon anthropomorphic global warming. You can't blame it on people's bodily functions and thus no excuse to euthanize the better part of humanity, which I believe is the goal. I cannot say that it is a conspiracy since the UN seems to openly talk about it and it is therefore public knowledge.

reply to post by Kali74


Why would the air temperature be increasing? The oceans have a higher heat capacity than that of air; the oceans will absorb the heat of air in the atmosphere and thus atmospheric measurements are not an ideal index for investigating global warming. Look at ocean temperatures over the last 15 years, also, check out some basic chemistry. All people on conspiracy websites should be adept at all basic disciplines, e.g. economics, sciences, psychology, etc, due to the fact that there is a higher likelihood of bs being preached that must be managed. This is vital or the whole cause of this website and organization is completely nil.

And to the person who thinks that this is some kind of natural "warming" cycle, you've got your metrics all messed up - it used to take over 100,000 years to increase the average global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius, it will take us a bit under 100 years. That is a rate increase by a factor of a 1000. That is not an object of the free equilibrium of the chemical substituents changing naturally, but rather an anthropogenically-accelerated one.

This becomes a problem as our bodies (and the bodies of the other 30 million species on the planet) are designed with respect to our environment, and the environment that our bodies happened to be designed for is one with a atm [CO2] of 150 ppm, not 400 ppm. We are meant for an environment with an [ozone] of 350 dobson units, not 125 dobson units. You see where I am getting at, we are no longer ideal for our environment. The body is an object of the environment, new species are only created due to the new stresses imposed by an ever changing environment. Evolution may only keep up with these environmental changes if they occur at a modest or slow rate - the faster the environmental change - the less likelihood of complex (e.g. multicellular) organisms surviving.

A rate of 1 degree change in 100,000 years was modest enough for human beings to evolve and exist. I wonder, if a rate of 1 degree change in

All this bickering is gonna get us nowhere.
I personally think we have contributed to GW based on the data I have seen and the actual weather changes I have seen in the past 10 years or so.
The question is can we afford to do nothing? nope we must do something otherwise in the next 20 years millions will be displaced, fresh water will be harder to get and arable land destroyed.
I would hate to think future generations will look at our posts and think "bloody idiots they wrecked the joint and did nothing".

reply to post by Kali74


Well if you can find that information I'd love to see it.

Because with that information the scientists would be able to tell us exactly the date in which the temperature would become warm enough to melt all the permanent ice on its own.

We can then see what their date is with the human contribution and determine if the time span is long enough to be concerned about.

boymonkey74
All this bickering is gonna get us nowhere.
I personally think we have contributed to GW based on the data I have seen and the actual weather changes I have seen in the past 10 years or so.
The question is can we afford to do nothing? nope we must do something otherwise in the next 20 years millions will be displaced, fresh water will be harder to get and arable land destroyed.
I would hate to think future generations will look at our posts and think "bloody idiots they wrecked the joint and did nothing".

No data exists which shows how much humans are contributing.

Its a guesstimate.

Kali74
reply to post by Tinkerpeach

 

It's not good because oceans will continue to acidify and temperatures will start to rise again, past the point humans can live in. The planet will be fine, it will recover... we won't.

And even if we indulge your fantasy that global warming is a good thing for just a minute... it will mean massive migrations, growing our food in different places, living different places. Does our current state of government give any indication that this will be done smoothly and with our liberty preserved?

edit on 24-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

See, now THIS is the definition of doom porn.

But its PC doom porn.

Its almost religious in its overtones believe us(have faith) even though the real evidence of recorded temperatures(ancient texts) is at odds with the manufactured evidence of computer models(reinterpretations) or be doomed(hell).

Keep up the good work, Kali

reply to post by Tinkerpeach

Isotopes are the Key

How can we distinguish between the different sources and sinks of carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide, or CO2, contains the key piece of information within the carbon atoms themselves. Although it may seem that a carbon atom is just the same as every other carbon atom out there (perhaps they appear to all be clones of each other–where each looks and acts exactly the same), this is not the case.

In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms - all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir - each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.

NOAA

There are those who argue that climate change is happening throughout the solar system.. If this can, or has been verified then it doesn't help the man-made climate change theory and nothing we can do will help matters. I'm on the fence but lean a little more toward the case that is made for the natural cycle of things. Solar activity history matches pretty in line with warming/cooling trends we have seen over the centuries..

The OP presents the idea that big oil wants us all to think it's slowed down etc, but I'm almost convinced that man made global warming has been a money making scheme by "environmentalists" from the get go..Didn't scientists say we were heading for another ice age back in the 70s? Meh, I dunno, I don't doubt climate change is occurring but this man caused everything argument seems to be weakening IMO.