Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

DonGlock26 · Mar 29, 2013

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

March 30, 2013 12:00AM

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
Click to expand...

It doesn't puzzle me because I never believed Man was causing GW. We certainly haven't slowed down in using carbon, so why haven't we experienced the expected hockey stick handle??

leftysergeant · Mar 29, 2013

So surface temps are the same. The bottom of the ocean is warmer. Bad news when the warm water starts rising.

logical1 · Mar 30, 2013

It sure get all the global warming loons underlovlies in a wad when you slap them in the face with reality doesnt it? The above post blows the hell out of their agenda!!!!!!

Eighty Deuce · Mar 30, 2013

leftysergeant said: ↑

So surface temps are the same. The bottom of the ocean is warmer. Bad news when the warm water starts rising.
Click to expand...

Please do tell us how the Laws of Physics are now left to some arbitrary decision ? Perhaps we can change it to "The Moods of Physics" ?

cjm2003ca · Mar 30, 2013

global warming is caused by man..but in phoney reports because this is how they get money from grants to make a living..they know the left will throw money at them all day long..and all they have to dois just write some bs story

waltky · Apr 27, 2013

How worms aid the study of climate change...

Antarctic nematodes and climate change
26 April 2013 - Climate change affects not only air temperature and sea levels, but soil as well. And an American scientist is on an award-winning quest to reverse the damage.

The frozen desert valleys of Antarctica are among the world's most inhospitable environments. The landscape is so barren that just 30 years ago, experts did not think it could support life. But beneath the surface, microscopic worms called nematodes thrive in a unique ecosystem - and they are helping researchers understand the effects of climate change.

In a battle of the nematodes, Scottnema lindsayae (left), is under threat from Eudorylaimus glacialis

Soil scientist Diana Wall has spent two decades studying Antarctic nematodes, ground-breaking work that this year earned her one of science's top awards - the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. "Antarctica is pretty fantastic," she says. "I can only equate it to what it must be like on Mars. There's just nothing there. "The first thing I always notice is the silence - unless the wind is blowing. There are no birds. Nothing moves, and you see no green." All life is hidden in the soil, under frozen lakes or in meltwater streams that run just a few weeks a year.

To work in such harsh conditions, the 69-year-old director of Colorado State University's School of Global Environmental Sustainability must pass tough physical tests and train daily to keep fit. "I'm used to it now but I don't take it for granted," she says. "As I tell my students, people die here." But that harshness makes Antarctica the perfect outdoor laboratory for testing theories about the relationship between the earth's climate and the creatures that live in the soil. Nematodes and bacteria capture and store carbon that otherwise contributes to global warming when allowed to overload the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide gas.

A handful of dry soil in most other regions would contain millions of organisms, making the soil difficult to study. But in the Antarctic there is just one - Scottnema lindsayae. The ability to isolate the single organism makes possible the study of the environment's role in its life cycle. "I call it the Rambo," says Dr Wall. "It's not ugly, but it's a really tough-looking nematode." But Rambo is on the ropes. As temperatures rise and more ice melts, another nematode that thrives in wet soil, Eudorylaimus glacialis, is moving in. And as the two species slug it out for Antarctic dominance, Rambo appears to be losing, declining 65% in the last few years. That could prove a problem. Scottnema is a great carbon hoarder, and if its population is waning in Antarctica, Dr Wall theorises a similar calamity may be striking other important nematode species around the globe, potentially contributing to climate change.

More http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22177221
Click to expand...

fiddlerdave · Apr 28, 2013

Global Warming Policy Foundation
Click to expand...

Another thread started with a hackneyed PR statement by a "think tank" whose STATED PURPOSE is to oppose energy policies that would harm fossil fuel interests. There is to be NO thought given to any truth of the matter, they exist simply to OPPOSE taking any steps against AGW. PURE PAID DENIALISM!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]
Click to expand...

While claiming to to be funded by small donations from the public, this disorganization, comprised almost entirely of political interests with virtually ZERO science, they SOMEHOW get a nearly $1 MILLION dollar annual budget from ONLY 80 members.

ANOTHER example of where the Right Wing so-called "charity donations" go! Not to widows and orphans and the sick, their tax-deductible "charity" go to propaganda firms like this!

What a bunch of paid propaganda LOSERS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[23]
Citing privacy concerns, Director Benny Peiser declined to reveal the sources of funding for the GWPF. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16]
In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[10] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[10]
Click to expand...

Jiyuu-Freedom · Apr 28, 2013

I have moved this thread to a more appropriate forum. This is a global issue.

Please enjoy the debate.

Sincerely,

Jiyuu-Freedom
Site Moderator

waltky · Aug 6, 2013

As oceans get warmer, sea life gets re-arranged...

Marine Life Reacting Faster to Climate Change
August 05, 2013 > Marine life is reacting to global climate change faster than land-dwelling species, according to a new three year study published in the journal, Nature Climate Change.

The researchers said their findings show that the distribution of marine life is being re-arranged as the oceans get warmer. The research team includes 19 scientists from Australia, the United States, Canada, Britain, Europe and South Africa. According to the scientists, marine species are escaping the warming waters by heading toward the Earth’s polar regions at a rate of up to 72 kilometers per decade. That compares to land-based species that are moving toward the poles at an average of six kilometers per decade. “We found that, on average, marine organisms are moving three to 10 times faster than land-based organisms,” said David Schoeman, a member of the research team from the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia. “They are moving at a rate of 30-72 kilometers per decade, compared with estimates of 6-16 kilometers per decade for land-based species.”

Many fish and other marine life are migrating toward cooler waters because of climate change.

One of the study‘s two leaders, Dr. Elvira Poloczanska from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, said that winter and spring temperatures, over both the ocean and land, are warming fastest and that this could alter the rhythm of events such as feeding and the timing of marine life reproduction and migration. She also points out that the ocean’s absorption of carbon dioxide produced by humans is changing the chemistry of seawater, which can impact some marine organisms. "Given these findings, we expect marine organisms to have responded to recent climate change with magnitudes similar to or greater than those found for terrestrial species," Poloczanska said.

Even breeding cycles affected

Anthony Richardson, the study’s other leader, explained that the timing of marine life breeding is taking place, on average, 4.4 days earlier each decade, which is also much faster than land based species that are breeding around 2.3 to 2.8 days earlier each decade. Among the marine species that have been showing the greatest reaction to the warming ocean environment, according to the researchers, are phytoplankton, zooplankton, and bony fish. To reach their findings, the researchers built a large database that noted 1,735 changes in marine life. The information for the database was taken from peer-reviewed literature from around the world that was based on observations made over an average of 40 years.

The researchers said their work is different from similar studies that were done in the past because those studies relied on terrestrial data to estimate the impact of on marine life. "This is the first comprehensive documentation of what is happening in our marine systems in relation to climate change," said Camille Parmesan, a member of the research team who is with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in California. "What it reveals is that the changes occurring on land are being matched by the oceans. And far from being a buffer and displaying more minor changes, what we're seeing is a far stronger response from the oceans."

http://www.voanews.com/content/marine-life-climate-change/1723835.html
Click to expand...

See also:

Warmer Temps Trigger More Disease
August 02, 2013 > Climate change is often associated with extreme weather events, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. But it could also have a major impact on human, animal and plant health by making it easier for diseases to spread.

Various germs and parasites may find the coming years a time to live longer and prosper. Rising temperatures are changing environments and removing some of their natural impediments. Sonia Altizer is an associate professor at the University of Georgia’s Odum School of Ecology and lead author of the study. She said it’s a review of research done over the past 10 years to see what trends and new information on climate change have emerged. “One of the big themes that has emerged is that there’s a lot of diseases, especially in natural systems, where there as a pretty clear signal that either the prevalence or severity of those diseases has increased in response to climate change.” She said some of those natural systems where the signal is strongest are in the arctic and in warmer oceans. “So in the arctic there are parasitic worms that affect muskox and reindeer, for example, that are developing faster and becoming more prevalent and expanding their ranges.

And then in tropical oceans, like Caribbean coral reefs, there’s a large amount of evidence that has mounted that shows that warming interferes with the symbiosis of corals – makes them more vulnerable to disease and at the same time increases the growth rate of some lethal bacteria,” she said. But a second theme emerged indicating that sometimes climate change may have no effect at all. “The other main point that we focused on is that knowing why different pathogens respond differently to climate change is what’s needed to help us predict and ultimately manage disease outbreaks in people and animals and plants,” she said.

Undated file photo provided by the U.S. Forest Service shows egg masses of the hemlock woolly adelgid. Scientists say climate change is a contributing factor.

Some countries will be much better prepared to handle the disease threat than others, like those in Europe and North America. “Surveillance, vector control, modern sanitation, drugs, vaccines can be deployed to prevent outbreaks of a lot of diseases, especially vector borne disease or diarrheal disease that are much more problematic in the developing world. And so these can counter the effects of climate change and make it hard to detect increases in those pathogens,” said Altizer. Controlling vectors means controlling such things as mosquitos and ticks, which can carry malaria or dengue fever. In developing countries, pathogens affecting agriculture and wildlife could adversely affect food security and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples.

So how concerned should health officials be? Altizer said there’s no simple answer. “I think that the answer to it really depends on the location. So where, when and what pathogen? So I think we’re at a stage now where in the next five to ten years scientists will be able to move towards a predictive framework that will be able to answer questions about where in the world and what pathogens are responding and will continue to respond most strongly to climate change.” Altizer says the effects of climate change will unfold over decades. So it’s vital to follow long-term standardized data for many diseases and pathogens. She said crop management may be a good example to follow. It has a long history of tracking disease outbreaks, forecasting potential threats and responding to those threats early.

http://www.voanews.com/content/climate-disease-2aug13/1722616.html
Click to expand...

waltky · Sep 2, 2013

Granny says dem insects'll drive ya buggy...

Crop Pests, Diseases Move to Higher Latitudes
September 01, 2013 > Insects and diseases that attack food crops are moving to higher latitudes as climate change alters their habitats, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

With the bulk of the worlds agricultural production today taking place in the temperate zones, the study raises questions about future food security in a warming world. Plant diseases alone claim an estimated 10 to 16 percent of the worlds crops in the field, experts say, and destroy another 6 to 12 percent after harvest. Meanwhile, research has shown wild plants and animals are moving toward the poles as the planet gets warmer. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture is adjusting northward its map of zones suitable for growing certain crops. That got us thinking, said biologist Dan Bebber at the University of Exeter in Britain. Is a similar process occurring with pests and pathogens that attack our agricultural crops?

Hundreds of pests

To find out, Bebber turned to reports of first sightings of new insects and diseases around the world. The data came from the agriculture research organization CABI, which began collecting the information from developing and industrialized countries about a century ago and now tracks hundreds of pests and pathogens around the world. Bebber and his colleagues studied 612 of them - from viruses and bacteria to beetles and butterflies - and found that since 1960, they had shifted toward the poles at an average rate of about 3 kilometers per year. That puts some of the most productive farmland in the world in danger. As new species of pests and diseases evolve and potentially the environment for them becomes more amenable at higher latitudes, the pressure on the breadbaskets of the world is going to increase, Bebber said.

Warmer conditions brought on by climate change are producing more hospitable environments for pests such as the emerald ash borer

Invasive hospitality

Farmers have other emerging threats to deal with, as well. Invasive species introduced through global trade and mobility also are a threat to crops. Entomologist Gene Kritsky at Ohio's College of Mount St. Joseph said climate change may make the environment more hospitable for some invasive species. It means that species in other parts of the world that might do well in warmer temperatures can now do well in the breadbasket of America. Kritsky was not involved in the research, but said it confirms what hes seen in the field. He added that more species will be able to survive the winters at higher latitudes as temperatures increase.

'We should do something'

Entomologist Christian Krupke at Purdue University in Indiana pointed out that the effects of these shifts will depend very much on the crop, the pest and the disease. But he said that the research is another warning sign of what may be in store for the future. I think a lot of these papers are all pointing in the same direction that are all saying, OK, we should care about climate change. We should do something other than zero, he said.

Crop Pests, Diseases Move to Higher Latitudes
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

leftysergeant New Member

logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

cjm2003ca Active Member

waltky Well-Known Member

fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jiyuu-Freedom Keep the peace Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

leftysergeant New Member

logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

cjm2003ca Active Member

waltky Well-Known Member

fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jiyuu-Freedom Keep the peace Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches