This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea

by Guest Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:09 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 900x506

This is what climate change looks like, up close and personal.
In this town of 403 residents 83 miles above the Arctic Circle, beaches are disappearing, ice is melting, temperatures are rising, and the barrier reef Kivalina calls home gets smaller and smaller with every storm.
There is no space left to build homes for the living. The dead are now flown to the mainland so the ocean won't encroach upon their graves. Most here agree that the town should be relocated; where, when and who will pay for it are the big questions. The Army Corps of Engineers figures Kivalina will be underwater in the next decade or so.
because the town's days on the edge of the Chukchi Sea are numbered, no money has been invested to improve residents' lives. Eighty percent of the homes do not have toilets. Most rely on homemade honey buckets — a receptacle lined with a garbage bag topped by a toilet seat.

Residents haul water from tanks in the middle of town, 25 cents for five gallons. The school is overcrowded. Still, the unpaved streets here ring with the laughter of children, the buzz of all-terrain vehicles, the whoosh of the wind.
Earlier this summer, White House advance staff cased the slender, apostrophe-shaped island to see whether President Obama could get here during his visit to the Arctic this week — the first by a sitting White House occupant. At the very least, he is scheduled to visit Kotzebue, less than 100 miles away, the heart of Alaska's Northwest Arctic Borough.
Obama has high hopes for addressing climate change during his remaining time in office. The Alaska trip is part of a global warming tour. In Washington he will talk environmental issues with Pope Francis in late September, and in Paris he will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in November.
The Alaska trip is part of an effort to "speak openly, honestly and frequently about how climate change is already affecting the lives of Americans and the strength and health of our economy," senior White House advisor Brian Deese said.
NEWSLETTER: Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >>
Alaskans, Obama said Saturday in his weekly address, are already living with climate change's effects: "More frequent and extensive wildfires. Bigger storm surges as sea ice melts faster. Some of the swiftest shoreline erosion in the world — in some places, more than 3 feet a year.

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 750x422

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 750x422

One of Kivalina's main roads. The tiny village of 403 residents on the Chukchi Sea lies 83 miles above the Arctic Circle. (Maria La Ganga / Los Angeles Times)

"Alaska's glaciers are melting faster too," he said, "threatening tourism and adding to rising seas. And if we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and 12 degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever."
Although Obama views this state as the U.S. poster child for climate change, some Alaskans beg to differ. They are glad the president agreed to allow limited offshore oil exploration. They want more access to the vast state's natural resources. And they are wary of a leader who views their home as a global warming disaster area.
Gov. Bill Walker, who will meet with Obama during his visit to the Last Frontier, said he wants the president to support a natural gas pipeline and allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But most of all, the independent governor said in a news conference Tuesday, he doesn't want the Lower 48 to achieve its environmental goals on the backs of Alaskans by barring access to natural resources.

"We probably have the smallest footprint per capita in the nation, if not the world, on impacting climate change," Walker said. "We have some impacts, there's no question, but ... I'm going to talk a lot about the economic climate change that we're experiencing today. That's really what my focus is going to be on with the president."
Shelby Adams has a different message for Obama. That is, if she gets to talk to him when he travels more than 3,600 miles from the Beltway to see the Arctic with his own eyes. Shelby, who just turned 13, has lived in Kivalina her entire life, and she loves her island home dearly.
"It's where I grew up, where everybody I know is," she said five days before Obama was scheduled to land in Kotzebue. "We need to relocate because the ocean is slowly eating away our island."

Shelby was in fourth grade when much of Kivalina was forced to evacuate during a fierce storm in 2011. She and her family were on one of the few planes that made it to the mainland before flying conditions became too dangerous. Everyone else sheltered in the school, the highest point on the nearly flat island.
"We had people sleeping in all the classrooms and the gym," said Emma Knowles, who was Shelby's teacher at McQueen School that year. "Someone had gotten a caribou the day before, so we made a huge pot of caribou stew.... The school didn't even budge. As dilapidated as it looks, it survived."
Kivalina is no stranger to harsh weather, and erosion worries have dogged the 27-acre town almost since its inception in 1905. In the 21st century, however, warming temperatures and the perilous changes that cascade from them have stripped the island of its major source of protection: ice.
Normally each fall, ice begins hugging the Kivalina shoreline around the end of October and stays until the end of June. Even during fierce storms, ice keeps the raging ocean away. But climate change has caused the ice to appear later and melt earlier, leaving the barrier island more vulnerable to storm surges.
Thinner ice also makes it harder for the Inupiat to go whaling. Normally, crews will build camps at the edge of the so-called shore-fast ice and hunt bowhead and beluga whales as they swim north in spring.
"If the shore-fast ice is thin and weak, it's not safe to make a camp," said Timothy Schuerch, president of the Maniilaq Assn., a tribally operated health services organization with clinics in Kivalina and the other borough villages. "Whaling crews have drifted out to sea."
The Inupiat who live in Kivalina get most of their food from the land and sea around them. The increasingly warm weather means an abundance of cloudberries and low-bush blackberries, said Millie Hawley, Kivalina tribal president, but it also threatens many of the food staples on which Alaska natives here depend.
"With the caribou, usually it's like clockwork," Hawley said. "Every June, we'd hunt. We haven't done that in years. It's unpredictable. We don't know when we'll see them."
Kivalina residents hang the caribou's hindquarters outside of their homes to age. The frozen meat is eaten raw, dipped in seal oil, which is also harvested in June. Trout is eaten the same way. The Inupiat also depend on seal for meat.
"Usually we get 80 to 100 seals for the whole community," Hawley said. "This year, we were looking to get eight. The community now has to go without dried meat and oil."

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 650x366

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 650x366

Millie Hawley, Kivalina tribal president, in front of the sea wall that village residents hope can protect them from the Chukchi Sea until plans are made to relocate. (Maria La Ganga / Los Angeles Times)

When their traditional foods become scarce, island residents must depend on the Kivalina Native Store, the only one in town. Kivalina is closer to Russia than it is to Anchorage, and nearly all supplies are shipped here by air. Which accounts for astronomical prices:
A quart of shelf-stable whole milk runs $4.19. A can of Campbell's tomato soup is $2.95. A 5-pound bag of unbleached, all-purpose flour is $8.75. A 25.5-ounce bottle of Bertolli extra virgin olive oil is $23.79.
The store is Kivalina's pride and joy, the newest building in this wind-battered town. The old store burned down in December. Its replacement opened in July. It is big, clean, warm and well-stocked. And it stands out in a town of peeling paint and crowded, threatened structures, most on short stilts to protect from flooding.
The school, attended by 154 students from pre-kindergarten through high school, is so jammed that every available space is used for storage. Hallways, stairwells and classrooms are lined with books and supplies. A working washing machine stands at the end of one hall.
The main drags, Bering and Channel streets, are unpaved, their gravel surfaces deeply rutted from the rain and the ATVs that residents use to get around in summer.
Small houses crowd together; each is home to extended families, some of up to 17 or so. At least two houses, Hawley said, are in imminent danger of tumbling into the water. The cemetery lines Kivalina's slender runway, its crosses visible on takeoff and landing.
Because of erosion, there is almost no room to build, Hawley said, so "we break every state and federal regulation. The airport is supposed to be a mile or a mile and a half from the dump. It's 500 feet away."
The fuel tanks that run the power plant were in danger of falling into the Chukchi Sea, so the town moved them to higher, safer ground. Fifty feet away is a small cluster of housing for teachers, which cozies up right next to the school.
When Hawley is asked why her people don't move — somewhere, anywhere to be safe — she is polite but firm. The land and the water make the Inupiat who they are. If they moved to Kotzebue, they would be visitors.
Moving to Anchorage or Fairbanks, she said, "would be like asking us not to be a people any more."
So what does she want to tell the leader of the free world when she greets him next week — in Kotzebue, if not Kivalina?

"We are American citizens," she said, fast and fierce. "We have as much right as all of America to have access to the resources Washington provides. ... If you are going to provide millions of dollars to stop hunger in Africa, my people are hungry. Stop hunger here."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arctic-obama-20150830-story.html

It'll be under water in a lifetime.

by nicko Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:57 am

Did we have ,cars,power plants and millions of people millions of years ago when the earth was hotter than it is now? I agree the climate is getting hotter, but no way is it only our fault.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:48 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy the twat on one hand argues that man made heat is responsible for climate change... this heat is trapped in the atmosphere... nothing to do with heat from the sun... but then that all man made heat from every man made heat source across the world somehow disappears without trace, to somewhere outside of our atmosphere, and using a route that bypasses all the man made stuff that traps it into our atmosphere!!!

that has got to be one of the most confused post i have ever read

Tommy there is a specific layer in the upper atmosphere made primary of carbon dioxide, that essentially acts like the clear roof in a greenhouse. Humans via cars and power plants (burning stuff) produce Vast amounts of carbon dioxide (really it is the carbon atoms that then attaches to the oxygen atoms already in the air) some of that carbon dioxide joins that layer making it thicker and provides greater insulation.
The heat largely from the sun is then trapped in lower atmosphere just like a green house traps the heat

man made heat is localized, it may have a small effect but it is energy not matter so it dissipates naturally (if it is not applied to a physical object the energy will be 'consumed' by the air molecules around the heat source in them vibrating and rising)

Carbon is matter, it was in the tree/coal/oil by burning it we separate the molecules allowing some of the carbon to float around(smoke)

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.html

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/oxygen.htm

Thanks for the 'science' lesson... but you know fuck all!!!

Either the heat is coming from the sun... or it is coming from all the other things I mention... or both!!!

Think about it... we make more heat between us all as a global population... engines, lights, tvs, cookers, even fridges and freezers and air conditioning units give off loads of heat!!!

Add it all up and you have an impact on overall global temperature!!!

On top of the natural heat levels from the sun... which are also not a constant and of varying levels... plus there are always a load of other volcanic heat sources ploughing enormous levels of hot air into the system...

by Guest Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:55 pm

tommy.you have the knowlege and scientific understanding of a shrimp...... Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:15 pm

You are an ignorant fool...

What do you think happens to all the heat generated across the world from vehicle engines!?

Office buildings full of lights and pcs etc...!?

When you are sitting at home with your tv and pc and lights and oven on and it starts getting a bit warm and You open the window to let the heat out... does it just vanish!!!???

Or does your little bit of added heat plus millions/billions of other peoples added heat actually have a collective impact on overall global temperatures!!!???

So You climate change twats won't accept varying levels of heat from the sun as being a major factor on heat levels on earth... and also won't accept man made heat levels having any impact.... so where does the heat bond from exactly...!!!???

lol!

Maybe it's all down to your lot of collective hot air...!!!???

lol!

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:20 am

Tommy Heat is energy it is expended by making the co2 rise!!!

yes man made heat might have some effect but not enough.

the suns is relatively stable, the trend in earths temperature rise is consistent with the increase in co2

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:14 pm

Temperature has fluctuated across all of time.

Although global temperatures haven't changed over the last twenty years... plus measurements only go back for a relatively short time... then only in fewer and fewer places looking back... plus inaccuracies in what little measurements there are, are highly likely too!!!

You might want to pick a very slight rise in co2 as being the cause of anything... but you could also find multiple correlations with other things too...

The fact remains... all engines and electrical devices give out heat... it adds warmth to our atmosphere... if we all stopped using these for a few days then global temperatures would...

a) go up?

b) go down?

c) stay the same?

Correct answer is obviously 'b'!!!

So then the question is 'by how much?'...

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:24 pm

Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Climate Myth...

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
"Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.

It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming." (Norm Kalmanovitch).

Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double thegreenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists atNASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:31 pm

So Tommy thinks that global warming theory has to do with the heat generated by human activities.

Even a child knows better than that.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:50 pm

Really dodge!!!???

Based on a totally estimated historical temperature level as there was no widespread and/or accurate measurements of temperature happening over 100 years ago!!!

lol!

If global temperatures were not being accurately measured everywhere before, then how can anyone claim to definitively know exactly what it ever really was???

Or then subsequently try to accurately tell us what any change may have been!?

Seriously!?

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:53 pm

You just got schooled again Tommy

Like Victor said

you have the knowlege and scientific understanding of a shrimp.....

I suggest you go onto the links and actually read and understand them, if you claim to understand science that is. You would then see how poor your points are.

by eddie Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:00 pm

I always thought global warming was caused by humans, mostly.

Isn't that true then?

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:04 pm

Really dodge...!!!???

Maybe you can tell us a bit more about the history of measuring temperature and how long this has been going on, how widespread, and how accurate these historical methods might be in relation to historical accuracy of global temperatures over (not only) the last few decades but going back over a hundred years ago...!!!???

Come on dodge... I know you like to pretend to 'know' everything in history... why don't you 'school' us a little bit about the history of reading and measuring temperature...!!!???

And then when you confirm the truth of what I say... we can start to have a sensible debate from there...!!!

lol!

by eddie Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:06 pm

Isn't recycling about reducing waste and climate change?

We are highly encourage to do so.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:22 pm

... more about money Eddie...!

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:24 pm

eddie wrote:Isn't recycling about reducing waste and climate change?

We are highly encourage to do so.

It is Eddie, because of the carbon emissions in making things, which combine withe the oxygen in the air to make CO2.

by eddie Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:25 pm

Tommy what is your opinion on why theire is climate change?
In a sentence please.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Really dodge...!!!???

Maybe you can tell us a bit more about the history of measuring temperature and how long this has been going on, how widespread, and how accurate these historical methods might be in relation to historical accuracy of global temperatures over (not only) the last few decades but going back over a hundred years ago...!!!???

Come on dodge... I know you like to pretend to 'know' everything in history... why don't you 'school' us a little bit about the history of reading and measuring temperature...!!!???

And then when you confirm the truth of what I say... we can start to have a sensible debate from there...!!!

Happy to help you here. just let me know exactly what you want to know on accuracy and time of temp checks.
Are you saying you do not know?
Did you read and understand both links I presented?
If you are claiming they are wrong, then present your evidence, because all you have done is deflect as per usual lol
So your first port of call is to disprove the links I gave you.

I shall look in with great excitement tomorrow, in the hope you have replied with something intelligent for a change lol

So goodnight to one and all, see you tomorrow

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:33 pm

Sassy... stop talking shit!!!

Eddie... all depends what you define 'climate change' as...

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:42 pm

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?
Link to this page

What the science says...

There are many lines of evidence which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by humans. The clearest of these is simple accounting - humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half). There is no question whatsoever that the CO2 increase is human-caused. This is settled science.

Climate Myth...

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation...it may be the Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 – “Never mind…” (Anthony Watts)

Simple Accounting

The easiest way to prove that the atmospheric CO2 increase is man-made is through a simple accounting approach (i.e. see Cawley 2011). The equation for the change in atmospheric CO2 (ΔC_atm) is

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = Emissions - Absorption] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

This says that if we ‘emit’ a ton of carbon by, say, triggering a volcano then the atmosphere will gain a ton. If we ‘absorb’ a ton of carbon by growing a tree, then the atmosphere loses a ton. We can expand the equation by counting human emissions (HE) and absorption (HA) and natural emissions (NE) and absorption (NA) separately.

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = NE @plus; HE - NA - HA] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

This works because carbon is additive. If a volcano emits a ton of carbon and a factory emits a ton then the atmosphere has gained two tons. This is a very simple balance sheet for the carbon cycle and fortunately there are ‘accountants’ who have measured some of these values for us.

Recently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising at ~2 parts per million per year, or around 15 billion tons/year. Meanwhile human emissions excluding land use change (like clearing or planting forests) are 30 billion tons per year. In billions of tons per year we have:

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = 15] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=HE = 30] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=15 = NE @plus; 30 - NA - HA] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

We can rearrange this:

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA - HA = -15] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

Humans are also clearing rainforests and changing land use, but here we'll assume that human effects on absorption (HA) are not much different from zero, i.e.

[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA = -15] $This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Gif$ [/url]

So Natural Absorption (NA) must be bigger than Natural Emissions (NE). Nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. It is not causing atmospheric CO2 to rise at all - in fact it is acting to try and reduce atmospheric CO2, and thus the long term rise is entirely because of humans.

Ocean Acidification

The oceans are the Earth's largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2 increase were "natural", it would likely be coming from the oceans. But we know the CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans, because the pH of the oceans is dropping (a.k.a. ocean acidification).

When CO2 is absorbed into a solution, it binds with a water molecule to form a molecule of carbonic acid:

CO₂ + H₂O = H₂CO₃

H₂CO₃ has a rather strong acidifying effect in that 95% of it turns into HCO₃^-. This loss of an H⁺ ion causes the ocean pH to decrease (for more details on ocean acidification, see the OA no OK series).

In short, the fact that the pH of the oceans is decreasing tell us that they are absorbing more carbon than they are releasing, not vice-versa.

Oceanic CO2 Rising Fastest at the Surface

If CO2 were being driven into the ocean from the air, the oceanic concentration would rise fastest at the surface. If CO2 were being expelled from the oceans, we would expect to see the opposite - decreasing concentrations at the surface.

The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) has observed that as we expect for CO2 being driven into the oceans, concentrations of CO2 in the oceans are rising fastest at the surface.

Atmospheric O2 is Decreasing

Burning carbon requires oxygen (O2), and when we burn an atom of carbon, the required oxygen becomes part of the CO2 molecule. So if the CO2 increase is caused by burning carbon (fossil fuels), we would expect atmospheric O2 levels to decrease at the same rate. And that's indeed what we observe (Figure 1).

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 CapeGrim_O2

Figure 1: Atmospheric Oxygen Concentration observed from Cape Grim, Tasmania

There's no reason to expect that a natural release of CO2 would have any effect on atmospheric O2 levels. On the other hand, the O2 concentration is changing exactly as we would expect from a fossil-fuel driven CO2 increase.

CO2 Rise is Smoother than Temperature

Some, most recently Murry Salby, have argued that the CO2 rise is in reponse to the temperature rise. However, the temperature rise has been quite erratic (because there are many factors which impact the average global temperature, especially in the short-term). If atmospheric CO2 changes were in response to temperature changes, then we would expect to see an erratic rise in CO2 as well. Instead, the atmospheric CO2 increase is very smooth, similar to the increase in human CO2 emissions.

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 CO2_Emissions_vs_Concentration

Figure 2: Human CO2 emissions (blue, left y-axis, Source: IEA) vs. atmospheric CO2 concentration (red, right y-axis, Source: Mauna Loa record)

Isotopic Signature

Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in the Industrial Revolution.

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Cg_d13C

Figure 3: Atmospheric carbon-13 ratio observations from Cape Grim, Tasmania

These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. Some "skeptics" like Murry Salby argue that the carbon-13 ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels. However, because the carbon-14 ratio has also decreased significantly (Figure 4), we know it's from old (fossil fuel) sources, not modern sources. This is not new science either, it's something we've known for over half a century (Revelle and Suess 1957), and there have been many studies confirming these results. For example, Levin & Hesshaimer (2000):

"It has been erroneously argued that the observed atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 19th century may be due to an ongoing natural perturbation of gross fluxes between the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. That the increase is in fact a predominantly anthropogenic disturbance, caused by accelerated release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, has been elegantly demonstrated through 14C analyses of tree rings from the last two centuries (Stuiver and Quay 1981; Suess 1955; Tans et al. 1979)."

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 14Cratio

Figure 4: Temporal change of carbon-14 ratio in tree rings grown at the Pacific coast (Levin & Hesshaimer 2000)

Settled Science

As you can see, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion. Each one of these lines of evidence is very conclusive on its own, and when all put together, it's abundantly clear that the science is settled on this issue.

Intermediate rebuttal written by dana1981

Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:44 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Really dodge...!!!???

Maybe you can tell us a bit more about the history of measuring temperature and how long this has been going on, how widespread, and how accurate these historical methods might be in relation to historical accuracy of global temperatures over (not only) the last few decades but going back over a hundred years ago...!!!???

Come on dodge... I know you like to pretend to 'know' everything in history... why don't you 'school' us a little bit about the history of reading and measuring temperature...!!!???

And then when you confirm the truth of what I say... we can start to have a sensible debate from there...!!!

Happy to help you here. just let me know exactly what you want to know on accuracy and time of temp checks.
Are you saying you do not know?
Did you read and understand both links I presented?
If you are claiming they are wrong, then present your evidence, because all you have done is deflect as per usual lol
So your first port of call is to disprove the links I gave you.

I shall look in with great excitement tomorrow, in the hope you have replied with something intelligent for a change lol

So goodnight to one and all, see you tomorrow

And dodge has run away again... a leftie exposed to truth dissolves quicker than a vampire exposed to sunlight..!!!

lol!

I asked you some simple questions about the validity of any historical claim on global temperatures dodge...

The truth is that any such claim is pure speculation as there WERE NO GLOBAL MEASUREMENTS OF TEMPERATURE BEING TAKEN EVEN A FEW YEARS/DECADES AGO!!!

LET ALONE A HUNDRED OR MORE YEARS AGO!!!!!!!

SO YOUR EARLIER POST CLAIMING A DEFINITIVE RISE IN TEMPERATURE FROM OVER A CENTURY AGO WAS PURE BULLSHIT BECAUSE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NOT KNOWN FROM THAT TIME!!!!!!

lol!

You really are a twat sometimes dodge...!!!

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:46 pm

CO2 - the major cause of global warming

Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO₂ is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. The emissions of CO2 have been dramatically increased within the last 50 years and are still increasing by almost 3% each year, see graph below:

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 CO2-emissions-world-by-year

Graph 1: CO2-emissions world-wide by year (data from wri.org)

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 CO2-emissions-concentrations

Graph 2: CO2 emissions world-wide by year and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by year

The carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere where it remains for 100 to 200 years. This leads to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (see above on the right hand side), which in turn causes the average temperature on Earth to raise (see graph below).

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Temperature-increase-by-year

Chart 3: Increase of global average temperature for the last 20 years (source: wri.org)

Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere.
As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now. See here for some graphs about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse gas emissions by sector.

Mitigation goals for the main cause of global warming: carbon dioxide emissions

As a result of the above mentioned findings, there seems to be a consensus among the leading developed countries that the temperature increase caused by global warming must not exceed 2° C (3.6° F). For example the European Union (EU) has committed itself to this threshold already in 2005.
To reach this target the annual global CO2 emissions have to be reduced from about 28 Gigatons in 2006 to 20 Gigatons of CO2 by the year 2050 and to 10 Gigatons of CO2 by the year 2100 according to IPCC. At the first glance, this does not look like a major reduction. However one should keep in mind that the world population will grow from 6.4 billion people in 2007 to about 9.5 billion people in 2050. At the same time more and more developing countries will progress their industrialisation and as a result they will want to copy our western life style causing high CO2 emissions.
The world-wide average CO2 emissions by capita was about 4 tons per year in 2005. For North America it was about 20 tons and for Europe about 10 tons per year per capita. By 2050, the world-wide average CO2 emission per capita needs to be reduced to 2 tons per year. In the following years, the emissions will need again to be cut by half. Download and use our Excel calculator to simulate cause and effects of global warming . Based on an average carbon footprint, you can test ways to mitigate global warming yourself. Alternatively, you can have a look at some simulation results how global warming can be stopped below 2 C.

Have a look at the CO2 emissions per capita by country to see how far away from this goal value of 2 tons per year our western life style is.
In a fair world, there is absolutely no justification for the western world to pollute the Earth more than others. So we should aim to reduce our carbon footprint to 2 tons per capita per year until 2050. This means people in industrialised nations will have to cut down their carbon dioxide emissions to values reaching 10% to 20% of the current values.
The above mentioned goal can only be reached if our life style becomes a sustainable one. The first and most efficient measure is a reduction of our energy consumption. In addition, it is inevitable to make thoughts about the true meaning of life and change our personal behaviour accordingly.

http://timeforchange.org/CO2-cause-of-global-warming

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:48 pm

The longest continuous temperature record is the Hadley Centre's Central England Temperature series. It starts around 1850.

Weather balloon temperature measurements become useable by about 1958.

Satellite measurements had started by 1980.

The longest useful record of carbon dioxide concentrations is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and was started by Charles Keeling in about 1958.

Observations of sunspots and maritime records go back further.

The longest high-precision paleoclimate record are the EPICA ice cores. They give us an idea of carbon dioxide levels and temperature levels going back about 600,000 years.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:51 pm

Sassy... stop talking shit... why do you always fail to question what you want to believe...!?

This just makes you a gullible fool!

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:54 pm

You do realise you are compounding the view you are a complete and utter idiot don't you.

by Guest Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:56 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Really dodge...!!!???

Maybe you can tell us a bit more about the history of measuring temperature and how long this has been going on, how widespread, and how accurate these historical methods might be in relation to historical accuracy of global temperatures over (not only) the last few decades but going back over a hundred years ago...!!!???

Come on dodge... I know you like to pretend to 'know' everything in history... why don't you 'school' us a little bit about the history of reading and measuring temperature...!!!???

And then when you confirm the truth of what I say... we can start to have a sensible debate from there...!!!

Happy to help you here. just let me know exactly what you want to know on accuracy and time of temp checks.
Are you saying you do not know?
Did you read and understand both links I presented?
If you are claiming they are wrong, then present your evidence, because all you have done is deflect as per usual lol
So your first port of call is to disprove the links I gave you.

I shall look in with great excitement tomorrow, in the hope you have replied with something intelligent for a change lol

So goodnight to one and all, see you tomorrow

Run away? lol
No I just have things to do, so again answer the questions
You ask me questions anyone can look up on
So hence your questions were meaningless, unless you can offer substantial proof on your claims.
You never did and made speculation

So you are just being too lazy as per usual

http://io9.com/how-do-scientists-know-what-the-temperature-was-thousan-1714597561

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

Not too bright poor Tommy is he.
So to claim I need to produce something which I can, as the method is there to get accurate temps from the past. You poorly attempt to discredit scientific facts based off a poor question. You need to disprove methods, not off some poor claim to a time frame, when that is factored in

Doh

Seriously I have things to do, you have one last chance Tommy to disprove the links I gave you as your reasoning was shockingly embarrassing.

Laughing

Night

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:09 am

Sassy... can you tell me how the Hadley centre in central England measured global temperatures from there...!?

And how small number of localised whether balloons from 1958 managed to accurately measure the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE from decades and centuries earlier...!!!???

The fact is that these small numbers of localised whether balloons in 1958 wouldn't even be accurately measuring global temperatures then...

So You are further proving the point I was making about any claim to actual temperature change from decades or centuries ago are based on falsehoods as the actual global temperature was NEVER really known!!!

lol!

But, don't let the truth get in The way of a good bit of bullshit...

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:13 am

When ever Tommy posts:

lol!

He embarrassingly thinks he is right lol where in reality hr tends to be the opposite and very wrong lol

So that is your 3rd strike Tommy, you failed to disprove my links.
You only offered up some poor reasoning about how you claim something is wrong, without ever proving it wrong.

Laters ha ha ha

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:25 am

Dodge... you posted a claim to actual global temperature changes since 1880 (or so)... this was claimed as fact!!!

When the real fact is that global temperatures are not accurately known from that time... and even now are questionable!!!

lol!

Which leaves the whole 'climate change/global warming' argument in tatters!!!!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:38 am

Oh FFS, you wouldn't think anyone could be that stupid and not know it.

What do they say about you are not mad if you think you are mad, but you're mad if you don't?

For more than a hundred years, scientists have known greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. But despite trapping more and more heat, earth's surface temperature over the past decade and a half has risen slowly. And understanding where the extra heat ends up can be more complicated.
We talk to Dr Richard Allan, lead researcher on a new project called Deep-C, about how the tools to take earth's temperature have changed - and how new measurements can help scientists investigate what's behind the surface warming slowdown.
Allan is a climate science researcher at the University of Reading's department of meteorology. His career has focussed on combining measurements with climate models to understand changes in earth's climate.
Heat sink
When we talk about the earth's temperature, we usually mean the temperature of the air above the land and ocean, or surface temperature, as it's what humans experience most directly. But surface temperature is only a small part of the climate system. In fact, most of the extra heat the planet absorbs goes into the oceans below the surface. Allan tells us:

"The vast ocean has a huge capacity to store heat … There's a very good relationship between the extra radiative energy entering the top of Earth's atmosphere - due to increases in greenhouse gases - and ocean heating."
This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Greenhouse_effect_589x442

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Greenhouse_effect_589x442

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, causing the climate system to warm. Source: Okanagan university college in Canada.
Some heat also goes into melting earth's bodies of ice: the Arctic, the ice sheets and mountain glaciers. But compared to the oceans, it's not much:
"[T]he amount of energy that goes into melting that ice is very small compared to the amount of energy that goes into heating the ocean."
These heat flows mean that understanding how climate change is affecting the planet means you need to understand more than how surface temperatures are changing, Allan says.
"To balance the books you need to be measuring the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere and all the places where it's going to really understand how the climate is heating."
Improving temperature measurements
Allen tells us that scientists have a wealth of data documenting how air temperatures have changed, dating back from the first thermometers in the 17th century:

"[W]e still use the methods for measuring air temperature over land that we used hundreds of years ago but global coverage increased during the 19th and 20th centuries."

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Anderscelsiusyoung

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Anderscelsiusyoung

18th century Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius, who founded the temperature scale which bears his name.
Although the area covered by temperature data has expanded over the centuries, some parts of the world, like the Arctic and Antarctic, still aren't very well sampled. Data from satellites has helped fill in gaps in temperature measurement, although it can't take the place of direct measurements just yet. Allan says:
"[W]e're not really at the stage of accurately measuring temperature over land from satellites only, we still need to use meteorological instruments. With satellites you're indirectly measuring temperature, so you have to be careful about other factors that can influence what the satellite sees."
To draw robust conclusions about how the climate is changing, Allan says scientists need data that covers at least 100 years. This means historic thermometer data is still needed to give a full picture:
"[There are] slow natural fluctuations in the ocean ... if you're measuring for a period of ten, 20 or even 30 years, you might just be measuring part of that natural cycle. You need to have a longer term perspective so you can put these bumps and troughs in context of longer timescale changes."
Ocean warming
So is new data telling scientists new things about recent warming? Despite greenhouse gas concentrations continuing to rise at a fairly steady pace, earth's surface hasn't actually warmed very much in the last decade and half.
Scientists think the most likely reason for this surface warming slowdown is because natural climate cycles are causing heat to enter the deep oceans instead of staying in the atmosphere.
In the past, it's been difficult to test this theory. But there have been huge advances recently in how scientists monitor ocean temperature.
It used to be that scientists sent instruments over the side of ships to measure temperature to a depth of about 700 m. But that has changed in the past decade with the ARGO project - a network of free-floating buoys traversing the world's oceans to measure temperatures. Allan explains:
"[ARGO buoys] float freely with the ocean current, sinking down to a depth of 1,800 m then coming back up again to transmit their data to satellites, then sinking back down again, and so on."
This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Argo_590x405

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Argo_590x405

ARGO floats repeatedly sink to a depth of about 1,800 metres then come back up to transmit temperature data via satellite. The lifetime of each float is about four years. Source: Met Office
ARGO floats first started sending temperature data in 2000, but Allan says that coverage has been more or less global since about 2005:
"We now have almost the whole global ocean sampled down to nearly 2,000 metres with these ARGO floats … There's going to be some even deeper ARGO buoys in the future which will go down to below 2,000 m, which will help us understand where the heat is going in the oceans."
This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Argoarray_590x338

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 Argoarray_590x338

Argo floats have been deployed since 2000 and have now near global coverage of the world's oceans. Source: Met Office
Scientists tackle surface warming slowdown
The Deep-C project brings climate scientists from across the UK together to investigate the root cause of the recent slowdown in surface warming. Allan says the Walker Institute at the University of Reading is collaborating with several other partners on the project:
"We are linking up with NASA's Langley research centre, who are world leading experts in measuring how much heat is coming into earth's system. We're collaborating with the UK National Oceanography Centre who are the leading expertise in the oceans. And we've got leading climate modellers down at the Met Office and experts in ocean processes."
Allan tells us the way climate models and temperature data have matured in the last decade or so means scientists are now well equipped to tackle this fundamental question of recent warming. He says:
"I think we're very well-placed to be able to tackle the mechanisms of where heat is being [transported] into the ocean … We now have the tools and expertise available to do this."
While many seek rapid answers to the question of what's causing slower surface temperature rise, scientists know it's likely to be a complicated one to unravel - and one that may take longer than the four-years of the DeepC project.
But Allan is confident the lifetime of DeepC will see key questions starting to be answered and beyond that, drawing together the wealth of data available will be a lasting legacy in terms of how scientists continue to tackle fundamental climate questions in the future.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/05/how-scientists-take-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-an-interview-with-meteorologist-richard-allan/

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:51 am

So just more copy and paste waffle...

You do know that the ice levels in The arctic increased over 30% in 2014...?

Any chance of you answering my questions as to how anyone can have any claim to accurately know what global temperature was in The past...!?

When this is unknown...!!!

lol!

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:06 am

"...The Deep-C project brings climate scientists from across the UK together to investigate the root cause of the recent slowdown in surface warming..."

"...While many seek rapid answers to the question of what's causing slower surface temperature rise, scientists know it's likely to be a complicated one to unravel - and one that may take longer than the four-years of the DeepC project..."

lol!

In other words... oh shit!!!... there is no global warming!!!... How the fuck are we supposed to explain this!?... Let's create a group of twats to come together and tryto think up a new load of bullshit to explain the reality of facts that show no rise in temp over 20 years although co2 levels have risen... um... ah... well... um... ok... well... yes... er... ok... right... well...

Well... of course it can't be our measurements that are wrong... or inaccurate... er... um... ok... well... er...

Although we don't really have any real accurate measurements that are verified as 100% accurate... or widespread enough to have any real legitimacy... but... er... um... don't let any of this truth get in The way of anything... er... um... ok... well... er... um...

The bottom line is that co2 levels have gone up but temperature has not!!!

Plus none of The official measurements of global temperature are accurate...

Plus none of The previous claims of global temp are real either...

Er... well... um... er...

Well... as Sassy's post says... in The bit I copied... they know the official story is bollocks... have grouped a load of twats together for four years to explain this... but then admit that it will take more than four years to explain this non rise IN temp...

What a load of bollocks!!!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:27 am

PMSL at such stupidity yet again by Tommy.
His scientific reasoning has nothing to back it up. He states something which he believes holds true just by saying so.
You cannot make it up how embarrassing he is further looking.

So still nothing to refute the scientific facts I presented on Methodology., Which again for some reason Tommy has shied away from explaining his methodology to counter my facts. His answer was to now ignore the evidence I precented and hope nobody notices he did not read them lol

I shall leave the best to last:
Tommy states quite stupiditly of course:

The bottom line is that co2 levels have gone up but temperature has not!!!

Yet he is that much of a dumbass, he neglects to note that his own copy and paste proves his claim wrong.

"...While many seek rapid answers to the question of what's causing slower surface temperature rise

lol the word rise, seems to have escaped Tommy lips ha ha ha
Clearly temperature is going up and still is but not at previously present rate. I mean seriously, what a school boy error proving that he has not the first clue as to what he is talking about.

So what more poor excuses to expect next from Tommy lol?
I think its fairly obvious why there can be slowdowns over a very small time frame window. I just think its hilarious Tommy equates the info as no global warming. ha ha ha
Even though there is so much documented evidence there is man made global warming. Tommy the unqualified part time busker, believes he has solved something no academic Peer reviewed paper has yet to refute Man made global warming.

Of course Tommy also chooses to leave this tit bit of information out and no wonder why. ha ha ha ha

What fun, until tomorrow

Laughing

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:00 am

Blah and waffle.

Some scientists believe it's man-made and some don't.
Scientists disagreeing and not knowing whether something is a fact?

Never! lol!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:07 am

eddie wrote:Blah and waffle.

Some scientists believe it's man-made and some don't.
Scientists disagreeing and not knowing whether something is a fact?

Never!

You mean 97 percent of them back its man made and of the 3 percent who do not, none have been able to present a peer reviewed paper to deny the findings that prove man made global warming.
Science allows for being wrong Eddie, but the evidence clearly points to man made global warming.

by eddie Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:19 am

I think it's man-made too.
Don't know why anyone wouldn't.

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:49 pm

The rise in temperature is measured by ocean temperatures, not air temperatures, as the oceans absorb the heat.

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 C63d7596-d8f3-482d-88ad-68cc501116d7-bestsizeavailable

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 C63d7596-d8f3-482d-88ad-68cc501116d7-bestsizeavailable

Ocean temperatures have increased — to put it in layman’s terms — a shit ton. The spike is so significant that NOAA will have to rescale its heat chart.

http://grist.org/news/this-chart-of-rising-ocean-temperatures-is-terrifying/

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:53 pm

Slower temperature rise is another way of saying 'no rise' dodge...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

Can't you idiots understand this fundamental flaw in The claims!!!???

And still yet to hear any real argument as to what effects on global temperature might be from combined heat from vehicle engines and other electrical equipment and other heat giving machinery/equipment...!?

lol!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:55 pm

Tommy states quite stupiditly of course:

The bottom line is that co2 levels have gone up but temperature has not!!!

Yet he is that much of a dumbass, he neglects to note that his own copy and paste proves his claim wrong.

"...While many seek rapid answers to the question of what's causing slower surface temperature rise

Priceless

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:59 pm

Making Sense of the Slowdown: Commentary

The term 'hiatus' is often applied to describe a slowdown in the rate of global warming since the late 1990s or the early 2000s. However there are two separate questions which are often confused in discussion of the hiatus. The first is whether there has been a change in the rate of warming, while the second concerns whether the rate of warming is in line with model projections. When looking at the rate of warming, the year-to-year variability makes it hard to draw conclusions from short periods, especially if we are allowed to cherry-pick a start date. Separating a change in the rate of warming from a few chance cool years is hard, however careful analysis of climate models suggest that recent changes in the rate of warming can occur naturally, but are uncommon (Roberts et al 2015).

However the interesting scientific question is not whether changes in the rate of warming can be explained by chance, but rather how they affect our understanding of the climate system. Given that one way we understand the drivers of climate is by doing experiments in climate models, any difference between the models and observations is interesting.

Climate models

Climate model projections are based on predictions of what the drivers of climate will be over future years - which involves making educated guesses of not only human activity, but also solar cycles, and volcanic eruptions. The problem is that if those guesses are wrong, the climate models will give the wrong results, even if their simulation of the physics is perfect. Climate model projections for temperature have been higher than the observations for most model runs over the last decade - see for example IPCC (2013) figure 9.8. That could mean that there is a problem with the models, but it could also be a problem with the inputs.

The problem is further complicated by internal variability - the long term climate signal is hidden under chaotic short term variations - which we can loosely describe as weather. If the same model is run several times with the same inputs and almost identical starting points, it will give different results. Any difference triggers a 'butterfly effect' leading to wildly divergent results. We can retrieve the climate signal from a climate model by running it lots of times and averaging the results. The real world shows chaotic behaviour too, and we can't average that out because we only have one reality. But to determine whether the models are giving realistic results over periods of a decade or two, we have to first eliminate the chaotic part of the signal.

So comparing models to observations is hard. First we must correct the inputs to match what actually happened since the models were run, then we have to correct for the effects of internal variability. A number of recent papers have attempted exactly this, and we will look at some of them in detail.

[url=http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Reconciling Warming Trends.pdf]Schmidt et al (2014): Reconciling warming trends[/url]

Schmidt and colleagues estimate the effect of updating the inputs to the models, including the effects of increased volcanic activity (stratospheric aerosols), a weak solar cycle, the cooling effect of pollution (tropospheric aerosols), and also higher than expected greenhouse gas emissions (although this last term is tiny). They adjust the model outputs to match the observed variability in the Pacific (the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO) by estimating the contribution of El Niño to global temperatures in previous years

When they compare the adjusted model results with global temperature series from NASA GISTEMP, and from Cowtan & Way (2014) they obtain a good agreement. The largest contributor to the hiatus by this method is the increase in volcanic activity, followed by increased pollution, and then the weak solar cycle and a recent trend towards cool La Nina events.

The animated comparison of the model outputs to the data shown in the lecture is based on this paper.

Huber and Knutti (2014) Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus

Huber and Knutti perform a similar analysis: Like Schmidt and colleagues, they adjust the model outputs to account for the difference between the predicted volcanic and solar contributions and what actually happened. Unlike Schmidt and colleagues they do not include any adjustment for an increased cooling effect due to human pollution. The biggest difference in their approach is that rather than estimating the temperature impact of El Niño cycles from the historical record, they select segments from existing climate model runs which show similar El Niño behaviour to what actually happened, and use these to estimate the impact on global surface temperatures.

In contrast to Schmidt and colleagues, Huber and Knutti find the the trend towards the cool phase of the El Niño cycle is the biggest contributor to the hiatus, with the solar and volcanic contributions each being about half the size of the El Niño contribution. However they also find good agreement with the UK Met Office temperature data once it has been extended to global coverage.

Risbey et al (2014) Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase

In an approach similar to that of Huber and Knutti, Risbey and colleagues select segments from climate model runs which show a similar trend in El Niño over overlapping 15 year periods. They do not however update the volcanic or solar contributions. When they compare these selected model segments to the observed trends from global temperature series from NASA GISTEMP and from Cowtan & Way (2014) they obtain a good agreement. This supports the suggestion of Huber and Knutti that the El Niño contribution is the most significant.

Saffioti et al (2015) Contributions of Atmospheric Circulation Variability and Data Coverage Bias to the Warming Hiatus

All of the preceding papers have examined the contribution of the tropical Pacific, and in particular the El Niño cycle to the slowdown in warming. However this presents a conundrum: The slowdown in warming is not a global phenomena. In fact, most of the planet has continued to warm, however this warming has been masked by a much larger localised cooling of the northern mid-latitudes, particularly over Asia. Furthermore, the cooling is primarily a winter phenomena (Cohen et al, 2012).

Saffioti et al examine air pressure data for the northern hemisphere excluding the tropics, and find two modes of internal variability (one being the North Atlantic oscillation, also investigated by Trenberth and Fasullo 2013) which have contributed to a cooling over the hiatus period, with a similar geographical pattern to the observed cooling. These variations, along with the omission of the Arctic from observational datasets, explain the majority of the slowdown in warming.

Evidence for and against the different contributions to the hiatus

In the lecture, the different contributions to the hiatus were summarised in this graphic, illustrating how the greenhouse warming has been offset by cooling effects from some combination of the El Niño cycle, volcanic activity, the solar cycle, pollution, and incomplete coverage of the observations.

This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea - Page 2 HJixXLhXtBf8DmCMsHlk-_YP9hNGi5h74nW0rbrIYnFPj5l5SeiFAQsSSJgShMeqw-EeFdruVnY39pDFEBCDBbXCDJ67wrmD-odxsWgPPX3hZapYxRpbfaGm9lMn2jtuYweukrw

Unpicking the precise impact of the different contributions is clearly not a solved problem. We can however look at the evidence for the existence of each effect in turn.

El Niño

The influence of the El Niño cycle has long been known, and can be seen by simply comparing the El Niño cycle against the global temperature record over various time spans, demonstrated by papers including Lean and Rind (2009) and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). However the fact that the cycles agree does not necessarily mean that one causes another - additional evidence is required.

Kosaka and Xie (2013) (blog post) used an ensemble of climate model runs and constrained the ocean surface temperatures over a small region of the Pacific to match observations, and found that the resulting global temperatures tracked observations well, suggesting that El Niño does indeed play a driving role in global temperature, and that the El Niño trend plays a dominant role in the hiatus.

England et al (2014) (blog post) find a possible mechanism for the El Niño trend in a strengthening of easterly winds in the tropical Pacific, driving heat down into the western pacific ocean, but with impacts in the Indian ocean as well. When replicated in models this mechanism explains a large part, but not all of the hiatus.

The El Niño cycle is not the only natural cycle in the climate system. Some have questioned whether other cycles might be involved in the hiatus. Steinman et al (2015) (blog post) address this question by examining the effect of both Atlantic and Pacific oscillations. They develop a method to isolate internal climate variability by subtracting out the human contribution from climate model runs, then look for the same signature in the observations to determine the impact of internal variability in the real temperature record. They find a small contribution from the Atlantic to the current warmth, but a major role for the Pacific in the slowdown in warming.

These studies provide a range of evidence for a role of internal variability, particularly in the tropical Pacific, in the slowdown in global warming. The results typically explain between half and most of the slowdown.

Volcanoes

Climate projections assume an 'average' frequency of volcanic eruptions, and while the 2000's have not featured any massive eruptions like the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, there have been an increasing number of modest eruptions. Our graphic shows all of the volcanic eruptions with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 4 or greater, however in reality the type and location of the eruption are also important.

One of the primary sources of evidence comes from satellite observations of the transparency of the earth's atmosphere: Vernier et al (2011) detected the impact of volcanic particles using three different satellite instruments. Santer et al (2015) also detect the volcanic influence in surface observations, including incoming solar radiation, air temperatures, tropical and global sea surface temperatures and water vapour observations.

The impact of volcanic emissions is also demonstrated through a number of modelling studies, for example Fyfe et al (2013) who find that volcanic emissions could have cooled the earth by 0.07°C compared to projections. Other studies include Solomon et al (2011), Ridley et al (2014), and Haywood et al (2014) with the last study finding a smaller effect.

Solar cycle

The influence of the solar cycle on recent climate is in some respects the simplest to understand, since the intensity of incoming solar radiation has been directly measured by satellites since 1978 (e.g. Fröhlich 2000). The last solar cycle has featured a prolonged minimum followed by a rather weak maximum, with a corresponding cooling effect on the climate. However while the amount of incoming radiation is measured, there are possible secondary effects from the impact of variations in ultraviolet radiation on atmospheric chemistry which could amplify the direct impact of the weak solar cycle (e.g. Shindell et al 1999).

Pollution

The [url=http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Reconciling Warming Trends.pdf]Schmidt et al[/url] study found a cooling contribution to the hiatus from industrial pollution particles (aerosols) emitted into the atmosphere, with the principal change being rapid industrialisation in Asia. This was also suggested by Kaufmann et al in 2011. In our graphic the factory symbols track the growth of the Chinese economy. This is probably the most contentious contribution to the hiatus, with recent studies like Regayre et al (2014) and Gettelman et al (2015) finding little or no impact from pollution aerosols over the hiatus period. However Schmidt et al do include the effect of nitrates, whereas the other studies are restricted to sulphate pollution.

Coverage

The widely used HadCRUT4 temperature data from the UK Met Office only covers about five sixths of the planet, with significant areas of missing coverage over the Arctic, Antarctica and central Africa. Cowtan and Way (2014) examined the effect of missing coverage, and found that if the observations are extended to cover the whole globe either by infilling from nearby weather stations, or using satellite data to fill the gaps, the temperature trend over the hiatus period substantially increased.

About half of the increase comes from the Arctic, which although comprising a rather small region has been warming many times faster than the rest of the planet. The rapid warming of the Arctic is well established from observations (e.g. Berkeley Earth), weather models (Simmons and Poli 2014, Saffioti et al 2015), and infrared observations from satellites (Comiso and Hall 2014), and is of course implicated in the decline in Arctic sea ice.

The other half of the coverage bias is split between Antarctica and the rest of the world. For the rest of the world, coverage is reasonable and the agreement between Berkeley Earth, NASA GISTEMP and Cowtan and Way are good. Antarctica is more difficult with very few stations covering a massive area. GISTEMP and Cowtan and Way show similar trends, however Berkeley Earth shows slower warming and better agreement with the weather models. Therefore while most of the coverage bias is well founded, the Antarctic contribution is more uncertain.

Discussion

There is substantial evidence that pacific variability, volcanic cooling, the solar cycle, and incomplete data coverage have all contributed to offsetting greenhouse warming since the late 1990s. Pollution may also have played a role, but is more contentious. In size, the effects of El Niño, volcanoes, and coverage are all substantial. The impact of the weak solar cycle is smaller unless it has been significantly amplified through effects on atmospheric chemistry. If all the effects reviewed here are as large as the authors suggest then the hiatus probably over explained, however this assumes they are independent - some of the effects could be different ways of looking at the same phenomenon.

So we have a good idea what factors are causing the hiatus. The size of each of the effects is less certain - together they may fall a little short of explaining the slowdown in warming, or they may overshoot. Estimates for the different cooling influences over recent years will continue to be improved, giving us a clearer picture of how climate changes over short as well as longer timescales.

The hiatus has not changed our understanding of the fundamentals of climate science in terms of the greenhouse effect and amplifying feedbacks. However the desire to understand short term trends, rather than the long term changes on which climate science has traditionally focussed, has driven significant new work into internal variability, volcanic impacts and observational biases. In other words it has forced us to improve our understanding of the climate system, but so far those changes have not affected our expectations concerning future climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/making_sense_of_the_slowdown.html

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Dodge... we all know how you struggle with the English language and it's subtleties at times, so I will explain again...

Slower temperature rise is another way of saying 'no rise' dodge...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

Can't you idiots understand this fundamental flaw in The claims!!!???

And still yet to hear any real argument as to what effects on global temperature might be from combined heat from vehicle engines and other electrical equipment and other heat giving machinery/equipment...!?

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:10 pm

They were your words Tommy and you contradicted yourself in the same post.
It was hilarious and no amount Houdini acts is going to get you out of that gaff
There is no flaw in the claims, if there was, then a peer reviewed paper would have been able to demostrate how you claim it is wrong, but no such paper exists. Seriously there is a lot more smarter denialists out there than you who have not been able to refute the damning evidence of man made global warning

You keep making unfounded claims you cannot back up with any reasoning, so have a read:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:12 pm

Read the daily mail link dodge you twat...!

lol!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:15 pm

The daily Mail?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

Again produce me any peer reviewed paper backing your claim?

Doh

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:17 pm

The facts speak for themselves dodge...

You just don't want to see them!

lol!

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:19 pm

You have no facts as seen.
The only fact is that you are clearly a pillock.

lol!

Again produced the peer reviewed paper which makes your claims,m that countless other expert denialists have failed to do so?

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:20 pm

The facts speak for themselves dodge...

You just don't want to see them!

lol!

Try this link instead...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10322332/Climate-scientists-urged-to-cover-up-slow-in-global-warming-it-is-claimed.html

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:22 pm

Wow another newspaper.

Ha ha ha ha ha

Priceless.

I have given you the facts Tommy, where you are sadly going.
"La la la la, I'm not listening, la la la la la"

lol!

by Tommy Monk Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:31 pm

You have provided bullshit backed up by bullshit...

Still waiting for you to tell us about the 'accuracy' of temperature measuring 100 years ago!?

And how widespread this was?

And how this means that any claims to accurately know global temperatures historically are in any way credible...!!!???

lol!

You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

lol!

Well dodge...!?

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:33 pm

Hilarious.
I am waiting for you to produce any evidence to your claims.

Oh here is that leaked report Tommy:

2013 SkS News Bulletin #16: Leaked IPCC Report

5 terrifying statements in the leaked climate report
Carbon emissions sure to prompt rise of sea levels
Climate change deniers live in ignorant bliss as seas keep rising
Climate leaks are 'misleading' says IPCC ahead of major report
Climate panel cites near certainty on warming
Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming
Climatologists more certain global warming is caused by humans, impacts are speeding up
IPCC report to be closely watched on climate sensitivity, sea-level rise
It's more certain that humans drive global warming
Rising sea levels up to three feet by 2100
The climate may be changing, but the IPCC remains the same
The contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

5 Terrifying Statements in the Leaked Climate Report

Climate Desk has obtained a leaked copy of the draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 Summary for Policymakers report, which other media outlets are also reporting on. The document is dated June 7, 2013. We recognize, as we've previously reported, that this document is not final, and is in fact certain to change.

Most media outlets are focusing on the document's conclusion that it is now "extremely likely"—or, 95 percent certain—that humans are behind much of the global warming seen over the last six decades. But there is much more of note about the document—for instance, the way it doesn't hold back. It says, very bluntly, just how bad global warming is going to be. It gives a sense of irreversibility, of scale…and, of direness.

In particular, here are five "holy crap" statements from the new draft report:

5 Terrifying Statements in the Leaked Climate Report by Chris Mooney, Mother Jones,Aug 20, 2013

Carbon emissions sure to prompt rise of sea levels

Unless the governments of the world find immediate solutions to curb their respective fossil fuel consumptions and carbon emissions, the global populace might as well retire to an impending plausible scenario of rising sea levels by year 2100 to as much as three feet high.

Carbon Emissions Sure to Prompt Rise of Sea Levels by Esther Tanquintic-Misa, International Business Times, Aug 21, 2013

Climate change deniers live in ignorant bliss as seas keep rising

A new climate-change report from the United Nations that was leaked to the media this week says sea levels could rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the 21st century and that there is a 95% likelihood that the global warming that is causing this rise is largely a result of human activity. You may now cue the deniers who say somebody is just making this stuff up.

Climate change deniers live in ignorant bliss as seas keep rising, Op-ed by David Horsey, Los Angeles Times, Aug 22, 2013

Climate leaks are 'misleading' says IPCC ahead of major report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned against drawing too many conclusions from the latest leaked version of its upcoming, and eagerly awaited, Assessment Report 5 (AR5).

Climate leaks are 'misleading' says IPCC ahead of major report by Matt McGrath, BBC News, Aug 19, 2013

Climate panel cites near certainty on warming

An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming by Justin Gillis, New York Times, Aug 19, 2013

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Climate hawks are buzzing over leaks from the fifth big climate report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be officially released in September. Spoiler: Scientists are pretty damn confident that we’re screwing up the climate.

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming by Lisa Hymas, Grist, Aug 19, 2013

Climatologists more certain global warming is caused by humans, impacts are speeding up

Of course, nothing in the report should be a surprise to readers of Climate Progress, since the AR5 is just a (partial) review of the scientific literature (see my12/11 post, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was). The draft AR5 confirms that natural forces played a very small role in warming since 1950, which again means that human activity is highly likely be a source of virtually all of the recent warming.

Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up by Joseph Romm, Climate Progress, Aug 18, 2013

Experts surer of manmade global warming but local predictions elusive

Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major U.N. report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.

The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multi-billion-dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for coastal regions considering extra sea defences or crop breeders developing heat-resistant strains.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities - chiefly the burning of fossil fuels - are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

Experts surer of manmade global warming but local predictions elusive by Alister Doyle, Reuters, Aug 16, 2013

IPCC report to be closely watched on climate sensitivity, sea-level rise

Part of the much-anticipated IPCC Fifth Assessment Report are to be officially released in late September, with much interest certain to focus on the approach to climate sensitivity and projected sea-level rise increases.

IPCC Report to be Closely Watched on Climate Sensitivity, Sea-Level Rise, The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, August 23, 2013

It's more certain that humans drive global warming

Scientists are more convinced that human activity is behind the increase in global temperatures since the 1950s, which has boosted sea levels and the odds of extreme storms, according to a leaked draft of an upcoming U.N. report.

"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," according to a summary of the draft obtained by CNN. "There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century."

U.N. panel says it's more certain that humans drive global warming by Matt Smith, CNN, Aug 20, 2013

Rising Sea Levels Up to Three Feet by 2100

According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change could cause sea levels to rise by up to three feet by 2100, creating potential disaster areas in some of the world's most densely populated cities including (but not limited to): New York, Miami, New Orleans, London, Shanghai, Venice and Sydney.

Climate Change Scientists Warn: Rising Sea Levels Up to Three Feet by 2100 Could Sink Miami, New York, Latinos, Adam Janos, Latinos, Aug 20, 2013

The climate may be changing, but the IPCC remains the same

By 2021, climate scientists should be 99 percent certain that climate change is our fault—up from 95 percent certain presently and a mere 90 percent certain all the way back in 2007. This conclusion of the leaked draft of the forthcoming assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) begs the question: Is any of that certainty changing anything?

The Climate May Be Changing, but the IPCC Remains the Same by David Biello, Scientific American, Aug 21, 20113

The contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

Climate contrarians may concede more than they bargained for when the next IPCC report is published.

With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate by John Abraham, Climate Consensus-the 97%, The Guardian, Aug 18, 2013

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2163

by Guest Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:40 pm

Global warming hiatus explained and it's not good news

You may have heard that global warming has 'paused' but it's only one part of a bigger picture and the search for understanding has equipped climate scientists with better tools than ever.

"It is frustrating," says climate scientist Michael Mann from his office at Penn State University in the United States. "There certainly has not been a hiatus in global warming — global warming hasn't stopped, even though you still hear those contrarian talking points," he says. Professor Mann, the director of the university's Earth System Science Centre, is famous for his 'hockey stick' graph that reconstructed 1,000 years of global temperatures showing a dramatic spike towards the end of the 20th century.

The 'pause', also known as the 'slow down' or the 'hiatus', refers to the average rate of warming across the whole planet's surface in the last 15 years or so. The latest major report (pdf) from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 had been about 0.05°C per decade.

This rate, the report said, was "smaller than the rate calculated since 1951" which was 0.12°C per decade. "The occurrence of the hiatus in global mean surface temperature trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it," the report said (pdf).

This was proof enough for some commentators that computer models of the climate were wrong and that the risks of global warming may have been overblown. Businessman and former ABC chairman Maurice Newman, the Prime Minister's top business advisor, has written that "temperatures have gone nowhere for 18 years". Dr Scott Power, senior principal research scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology, was an author of the IPCC report. "If you look at just these 15-year periods of globally averaged surface air temperature, then they fluctuate quite a bit," he says. "We expect these fluctuations. What we know is happening is that the planet is warming in response to human increase in greenhouse gases very largely but there are fluctuations because of natural processes."

Power said that 1998, the start of the 'pause', was a particularly hot year due to the natural El Niño climate pattern that has a warming influence on worldwide temperatures.

Power said that if you choose a 15-year period starting in 1996 instead of 1998 then the rate of warming almost triples to 0.14°C per decade.

"Globally average surface temperature is just one measure of changes in the Earth's climate system," he says. During the 15-year 'hiatus' period, studies of other aspects of the climate system have continued to show warming as expected. The world's oceans have continued to gain heat, a recent study has found. And, in late March, a study in the prestigious journalScience found Antarctica's ice sheets were melting at an accelerating rate. Many scientists have pointed to the recent extended periods of ocean cycles that are in phases that tend to have a cooling effect on temperatures at the surface of the planet. The sun has also been in a state of unusually low activity, which can also have a cooling influence.

Volcanic eruptions generally cool the planet's surface. A study in the journal Nature Geoscience found that some climate models did not properly account for the higher levels of volcanic activity in the early 20th century. This meant that some models had overestimated the amount of atmospheric warming during the so-called slow-down.

Two studies led by scientists at the University of New South Wales found an increase in the strength of trade winds around the equator in the Pacific Ocean had pushed warmer surface waters deeper, having an overall cooling effect on global surface temperatures.

Dr Shayne McGregor, of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre and an author of both the studies, said: "We have a certain amount of energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere and a certain amount of energy going out. With global warming we are changing that balance so the system is retaining heat.

"About 97 per cent of all the heat capacity of the Earth is in the ocean — that's where all the energy gets stored."He said the increase in the trade winds was temporary. When they returned to normal, the rise in global temperatures would "come back faster".

A separate study by Dr Power found computer models were not simulating the changes in trade winds. Professor Mann is a co-author of research published in February in Science that also found a role for the oceans in temporarily slowing the rate of global warming. He said: "Our research reinforces work that tied the slow-down in surface warming — what I call the faux pause because it's not a real pause — with increased heat burial below the surface of the tropical Pacific Ocean.

"The problem is that it's temporary. We will fairly soon see the climate warm even faster than the models predicted." An analysis by US government scientists published in Nature Climate Change suggested if temporary natural fluctuations were ignored then world was probably now warming at a rate of about 0.2°C per decade — higher than the IPCC's longer-term average. By 2020 this rate was expected to rise to 0.25°C per decade. One group of scientists working at Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science wrote last year that the term 'pause' was "ill-chosen and even misleading" in the context of climate change. In the journal Nature Climate Change, the scientists showed during the 'hiatus' there had been an increase in the number of extreme hot days being experienced around the world.

"This is particularly relevant for climate change impacts, as changes in the warmest temperature extremes over land are of the most relevance to human health, agriculture, ecosystems and infrastructure," they wrote.

Click here to read the rest from Graham Readfearn at ABC Environment

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2932

by Sponsored content