Environment & Energy

xchrom

(108,903 posts) Mon Sep 2, 2013, 07:11 AM Sep 2013

Is global warming really slowing down?

http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-global-warming-really-slowing-down/

?w=470&h=241
Fox News in October 2012.

Chances are you’ve heard people say that global warming has “stopped,” “paused,” or hit a “slowdown.” It’s a favorite talking point of political conservatives like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently declared that there has been “no recorded warming since 1998.” Climate skeptics frequently use these arguments to cast doubt on climate science and to downplay the urgency of addressing global warming. Last year, for instance, Fox News pronounced global warming “over.”

Scientists disagree. It’s true that they also acknowledge the slowdown: A new paper just out in the prestigious journal Nature, for instance, cites the “hiatus in global warming” and seeks to explain it with reference to changes in the tropical Pacific. The recently leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, too, cites an “observed reduction in surface warming.” But scientists say the slowdown is only temporary — a result of naturally induced climate variability that will soon tip back in the other direction — and that more human-caused global warming is on the way.

So who’s right? Here’s what you need to know about the slowdown, why it’s happening, and why the threat of global warming is still very real:

Have temperatures really stopped rising? Not exactly. First, “global warming” never meant that temperatures increase relentlessly, year after year — it’s more complicated than that.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is global warming really slowing down? (Original Post) xchrom Sep 2013 OP

No dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #1

Nope panzerfaust Sep 2013 #2

Interesting statement from the OP article, ... CRH Sep 2013 #3

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

1. No

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 07:18 AM

Sep 2013

but , in years to come , what could confuse the issue is the sun cycle / polar change which in theory could lead to a mini ice age. That would completely cloud the issue which would remain real in the background.

panzerfaust

(2,818 posts)

2. Nope

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 08:05 AM

Sep 2013

The recent claim for this is simply a replotting of some sea-surface data using a stair-step instead of a linear curve.

If one would like an objective look at what we need to do to respond to global warming, I strongly suggest an on-line course offered by Coursera from an Australian university - Oz recognizes that it is the first of the large developed nations which is going to have to address climate change:

One does have to sign-up and enroll to be able to view the lectures, but one does NOT have to actually do the course - you will not be locked out if you do not do the tests:

https://www.coursera.org/course/climatechange

(It is free, though they will try to get one to pay for course verification)

The future for the world's coastal cities - perhaps by the end of this century. Make wise choices.

CRH

(1,553 posts)

3. Interesting statement from the OP article, ...

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 10:14 AM

Sep 2013

We often hear that the atmospheric heat is masked by being absorbed into the oceans. 93% of the rise in global temperature is being absorbed. Then the article quantifies the heat absorbed.

“The important thing in terms of climate change is that the world ocean has continued to store heat,” says Levitus. The amount of heat, by the way, is staggering: If the heat stored in the oceans from 1955 to 2010 were all to suddenly go to the atmosphere (which, thankfully, would never happen), Levitus and his colleagues estimate that would translate into a 65-degree F temperature increase!

That is 36*C. No wonder the oceans are suffering toward mass extinctions.

Reply to this discussion