Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.

This year has already seen scorching heat around the world, with the average global temperature peaking at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880, with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat.

But Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.

“In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years. There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).”

This is VERY serious news here. The Earth is warming at a rate unseen in over a millennium! Now let me stop anyone here who wants to point out that the Earth has been warmer in the past. This isn't ABOUT being warmer in the past. This is about the rate of change of the heat increase. In other words the derivative temperature increase is higher than it has been in the last 1000 years. Here is a graph of said derivative



You see how the blue part shoots up really high at towards the right of the graph? That's us. THAT'S the effect of man made climate change. YES climate changes naturally, BUT we adding onto the Earth's natural changing climate. THUS the derivative of heat exchange increases. For some reason people refuse to understand this. Do they not understand calculus?

Schmidt repeated his previous prediction that there is a 99% chance that 2016 will be the warmest year on record, with around 20% of the heat attributed to a strong El Niño climatic event. Last year is currently the warmest year on record, itself beating a landmark set in 2014.

“It’s the long-term trend we have to worry about though and there’s no evidence it’s going away and lots of reasons to think it’s here to stay,” Schmidt said. “There’s no pause or hiatus in temperature increase. People who think this is over are viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles. This is a chronic problem for society for the next 100 years.”

I REALLY suggest you click on the link and scroll down to the middle of the article. You'll see a graph with a parabola that represents the temperature over a single year change over time from the early 1900's to the late 1900's. This will give you a good idea of how derivatives work and why Man Made Climate Change is so alarming.

Temperature reconstructions by Nasa, using work from its sister agency the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that the global temperature typically rose by between 4-7C over a period of 5,000 years as the world moved out of ice ages. The temperature rise clocked up over the past century is around 10 times faster than this previous rate of warming.

Again derivatives are higher than they've EVER been.

Lingering carbon dioxide already emitted from power generation, transport and agriculture is already likely to raise sea levels by around three feet by the end of the century, and potentially by 70 feet in the centuries to come. Increasing temperatures will shrink the polar ice caps, make large areas of the Middle East and North Africa unbearable to live in and accelerate what’s known as Earth’s “sixth mass extinction” of animal species.

PS: I put the word derivative in bold throughout the thread to stress that word since so many Climate Change deniers like to stress previous temperature levels and fail to look deeper into graph analysis.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As I understand, the way we factory-farm animals is a large contributor to this issue... deforestation can't help either. And if something doesn't change, acidification of the oceans will ruin us for good

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do you suggest we do about it? Do you think this is a permanent trend?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Could be a reason for the massive amount of "bunker" building we have seen the last few years..


At least the UK would get a tropical climate the winters are hideous...



RA

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

Well that's a mighty short timespan.

(the period covers the last 0.00000002% of the Earth's existence.)

Also, it means that it is not unprecedented. What happened following the other times it rose at this pace? For how long should the pace continue to be unprecedented?

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do you suggest we do about it? Do you think this is a permanent trend?

It could be a permanent trend. And with the way things are going, it probably will be...

As for what to do. The first thing we need to do is get the majority of people on board with fixing this issue instead of arguing amongst ourselves whether it is real or not. Then we can have as many brains as possible thinking about solutions.

I can say for a fact that whatever IS to be done isn't going to be fun and will probably make a lot of people upset because it will ruin their comfort levels, but something needs to be done soon.

a reply to: DupontDeux

First, human civilization has only been around for about 6000 years. Human civilization will fall before we go extinct. Do you not find the end of human civilization to be alarming in anyways? Oh just because the Earth will go on, all is fine. Then we can continue to gas ourselves to death right?

A thousand years is a long time to humans but not in the geological world. In a billion years, that time period is .000001%. to over simplify, it's like you are talking one pitch in a whole baseball season.

The time frame is huge and it's hard to wrap your head around. So it makes fear an easier emotion to grasp. in 20 years, the same people will be says no that the earth's population goes over X, we are in trouble. Just like they have done in the 1970's and every generation since

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hopefully this signifies the end of the world AFTER my children have lived and passed. Then Earth can be rid of us terrible humans.

a reply to: thinline

You understood nothing I typed. Hell I doubt you even read it. You CERTAINLY didn't read the article.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do you suggest we do about it? Do you think this is a permanent trend?

Not quite permanent but ongoing for the foreseable future unless we change our ways. I am an optimistic person but with climate change I am pessimistic because of the all too obvious denial not just of climate science but of actual science itself. The problem is once it gets to the point where even the most stubborn politicians implement change it will be far too late. There is lag in the system which means it will take 2 or 3 decades to see the change. Look at the Ozone hole, recovering now but the changes were implemented 30 years ago.

NB it won't be permanent because at some point the climate will have changed that much that the consequences for the human race will be devastating and we will stop affecting the climate because we cant!!!

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hopefully this signifies the end of the world AFTER my children have lived and passed. Then Earth can be rid of us terrible humans.

So you want your grandchildren to suffer.......nice.......

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't clear that we can steer the climate change in the direction we want it. It's still the right thing to do and would represent the legacy of those born in the past 60 or so years. Otherwise we're going to see global temperatures reaping havok across the planet. We need to leave this planet in the best condition we are able to.

I know there's a huge US-based notion that we need to let things happen. It's that crazy paranoid conspiracy that science is a con to raise taxes. It follows that climate treaties will be withdrawn from and an energy free-for-all kickstarted for economic growth. It's the essence of repent at leisure and imo anti-intellectualism.

The knock-on effects aren't just about leaving our consequences to unborn generations - all our grandchildren. There'd be mass migrations away from drought areas to temperate climes. Weather systems could make some hurricane alley areas across the world too costly to live in. Again, these have economic impacts on employment and the movement of populations. Parts of Europe experience flooding now and insurance companies are making proprty sales problematic. It's compicated like the Butterfly Effect.

Gentleman, can you now draw a correlation between this thread and one of the more popular thread subjects ?
Since the 1970s, its always been about attempting to achieve some type of positive reaction or effect.
I hope and pray that people will now understand the " Why " of it.
As you can clearly see there was no choice in the matter, countermeasures on a major scale had to be set in motion.


Buck

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There must be something we can do other than taxing people and stopping cows from farting. I hope global warming stops so you can stop posting these global warming threads. You created one less than two weeks ago. Whats your agenda?

a reply to: Kandinsky

I know. It's bizarre how people point out time periods before human civilization was a thing. Yes, I understand the Earth is billions of years old, but human civilization ISN'T and it is FAR more fragile.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hopefully this signifies the end of the world AFTER my children have lived and passed. Then Earth can be rid of us terrible humans.

Your children might want their children to have a shot on this planet too!

Humans will adapt and carry on under desperate conditions because it's what we've always done. It just seems reckless to potentially loading the dice against the following generations. I'm not aiming that at you...just thinking out loud.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

My agenda? It's to show you that we are seriously damaging the planet. I thought that was obvious? Maybe instead of derisively dismissing solutions that I haven't even suggested in the thread, you suggest some of your own?

PS: I'll create threads until this is considered a more serious issue than it is here. Because this is probably the most dire situation facing humanity currently with TONS of evidence backing it, and it is dismissed so casually while lunacy like the NWO and other conspiracy theories are believed with little to no evidence backing them.

Hmm...scientists are giving us warnings based on data.
But thats not how half the people in murica think..gotta ask them what corporations and some politicians think to counter it.
heh

...seriously though, we're screwed.

Who is gonna tell China and India to stop polluting..or tell westerners to eat less meat and drive less, etc.

We need an active global discussion on technology to counter our lifestyles. thats the only way humans will get ahold of the damage they cause.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kandinsky

I know. It's bizarre how people point out time periods before human civilization was a thing. Yes, I understand the Earth is billions of years old, but human civilization ISN'T and it is FAR more fragile.

Priorities! It's possible an older generation needs to pass on before there's a stronger consensus for making the effort to reduce the rising temps. Yeah I say 'effort' because it's not a guarantee is it?

Unforeseen consequences