Human influence on the climate dates back to 1930s

March 8, 2016
Human influence on the climate dates back to 1930s
The human impact on our global climate has now been traced back as far as the 1930s

Humans have triggered the last 16 record-breaking hot years experienced on Earth (up to 2014), with the new research tracing our impact on the global climate as far back as 1937.

The findings, led by Dr Andrew King from the University of Melbourne and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, suggest that without human-induced climate change, recent hot summers and years would not have occurred.

It's also a conclusion that has been masked until recent decades in many areas by the wide use of industrial aerosols, which have a cooling effect on temperatures - another key finding of the paper.

"Everywhere we look the climate change signal for extreme heat events is becoming stronger," Dr King said.

"Recent record-breaking hot years globally were so much outside natural variability that they were almost impossible without global warming."

The record-breaking hot years attributable to climate change globally are: 1937, 1940, 1941, 1943-44, 1980-1981, 1987-1988, 1990, 1995, 1997-98, 2010, 2014.

"In Australia, our research shows the last six record-breaking hot years and last three record-breaking hot summers were made more likely by the human influence on the climate."

"We were able to see climate change even more clearly in Australia because of its position in the Southern Hemisphere in the middle of the ocean, far away from the cooling influence of high concentrations of industrial aerosols," Dr King said.

Aerosols in high concentrations reflect more heat into space, thereby cooling temperatures. However, when those aerosols are removed from the atmosphere, the warming returns rapidly.

This impact was seen very clearly by the researchers when they looked at five different regions, Central England, Central Europe, Central US, East Asia and Australia.

There were cooling periods, likely caused by aerosols, in Central England, Central US, Central Europe and East Asia during the 1970s before accelerated warming returned. These aerosol concentrations also delayed the emergence of a clear human-caused climate change signal in all regions studied except Australia.

"In regards to a human-induced signal, Australia was the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the world," said Dr King.

For the study, Dr King and PhD student Mitchell Black examined weather events that exceeded the range of natural variability and used climate modelling to compare them to a world without human-induced greenhouse gases.

The study has been published today in the journal, Geophysical Research Letters.

Explore further: Climate detectives reveal handprint of human caused climate change in Australia

More information: Andrew D. King et al. Emergence of heat extremes attributable to anthropogenic influences, Geophysical Research Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067448

Related Stories

Researchers reveal when global warming first appeared

September 22, 2015

The indications of climate change are all around us today but now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record and where those signals ...

El Nino begins decline after 'powerful' impact: UN

February 18, 2016

The 2015-2016 El Nino weather phenomenon, one of the most powerful on record, has begun its decline but continues to have a strong influence on global climate patterns, the UN's weather agency said Thursday.

Recommended for you

41 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://arxiv.org/...3762.pdf
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
R S Lindzen agrees that the level of CO2 is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate, but he also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. He is in the minority, as far as respected climate scientists go, by a long shot.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2016
While Lindzen would probably count as the single reputable climate change denier, he is wrong and has been proven wrong consistently.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2016
"Humans have triggered the last 16 record-breaking hot years experienced on Earth..."

Really? And you know that, how? Oh, you made it up. I get it. Go on...

How do you explain the record-breaking warming 129,000 years ago that caused sea levels to be 4 to 6 meters (13 to 19 feet) higher than today?

http://www.giss.n...nitz_09/

Or the warming 240,000 years ago? Or 325,000 years ago?

https://upload.wi...data.svg

It's difficult to separate how much of the recent warming is "caused" by humans when natural temperature variations fluctuate so much. Personally, I prefer the current warm period to 12,000 years ago when mile-thick ice covered most of North America.
szore88
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2016
These Marxist 'scientists' just won't stop. Desperate to destroy industry and Capitalism and private wealth. Disgusting. Fascism in its purest essence.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
These Marxist 'scientists' just won't stop. Desperate to destroy industry and Capitalism and private wealth. Disgusting. Fascism in its purest essence.


LOL. Fascism is corporatism - the belief that large companies should control the economy. It is the epitome of capitalism as it concentrates wealth in private hands. So explain to me how socialism could be fascism when socialism is about the sources of production being owned communally by the workers?

Words - find out what they mean. It'll make you look less dumb.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2016
A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

http://www.merria.../fascism

Words - find out what they mean. It'll make you look less dumb.

leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

http://www.merria.../fascism

Words - find out what they mean. It'll make you look less dumb.



That's totalitarianism. Socialism and fascism are economic systems. Communism (which is socialism implemented in a totalitarian manner) and fascism (because, shocker, there was no way for corporations to take over a country without totalitarianism so there is no version of fascism that exists without it) utilised totalitarianism to implement the economic systems but the totalitarianism could be utilised within other systems as well. You know that learning what words mean takes some research, right?

bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2016
You do know how to use a dictionary, right?

Google 'fascism meaning'.

Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems.

Fascism is a political system.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2016
Fascism is a political system.
@Blue
it is also not applicable to science

regardless of your political view... the problem isn't that people speak out against the gov't (or science) with regard to climate science, but that they can't actually support their claims with evidence

it isn't that anti-climate idiots don't believe what they say... it is that the DO believe in what they say and seek any means to justify what they believe, which isn't how science works (it's how religion works)

that is the power of the science (evidence) and it is also the reason why the anti- crowd fails

PS - you drank most of that scotch before you returned it.... how was it?

bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2016
Captain, it's odd really because until recently I believed that Fascism by definition of the word was as leetennant described. So I had already checked a few weeks ago and was surprised by the actual definition in dictionaries. That's why leetennants comment attracted my attention.

I'm sitting on the fence regarding anthropomorphic climate change, much to your disappointment I expect. I know there's plenty of evidence in support. It's just my less than scientific 'feeling' that other drivers of climate change are more influential. Nowadays I watch the debate and avoid getting involved because it gets boring reading the same contributors repeating the same views (on both sides).

The scotch was good and helped while watching that particular thread disintegrate into a verbal punch up.

I'll put you on my Xmas gift list .. Half a bottle of scotch ;)
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
@aksdad
You agree with the paper, if not you would have argued against it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2016
I'm sitting on the fence regarding anthropomorphic climate change
@blue
a lot of people are against it NOT because of the science, but because of the suggested solutions

i would suggest you don't allow your feelings, politics etc to get in the way... and read up on the important proven or validated science, like Lacis et al

Lacis talks about CO2 and why it is a focus GHG... it isn't so much the power of the CO2 so much as it is the feedback of CO2 with water vapor (WV) and it's vicious circle
(do you remember me posting that link?)

another point most of the anti's ignore: science isn't ignoring the other evidence
... it is still researching a lot of stuff, but when the overwhelming amount of evidence points to a few small problems, then there is a reason to take note

as for the "fascism" thing... i know many words can have multiple meanings. i personally hate politics, so i ignore most of that stuff

(you should really try the 21y/o Chivas IRL!)
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
The AGW Cult's lies revealed
https://angusmac....2006.pdf
Ojorf
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Posting a decade old articles anti? That the best you got?
A lot has happened since then.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Posting a decade old articles anti? That the best you got?
A lot has happened since then.


That's what he always does.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Posting a decade old articles anti? That the best you got?
A lot has happened since then.

It's a pity you haven't grown a brain since then.
Parroting the same lines, fed to you by the cult. That's the best you got?

We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920 – 1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
............
The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995–2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.

Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
To suggest that humans have influenced the climate since the 1930's is completely ludicrous. The dominant life form in a biosphere ALWAYS influences that biosphere, and therefor climate, among other things. Dominant life forms prior to the emergence of humanity have not only influenced the biosphere, they have completely changed it.Humans have been influencing climate for thousands of years or longer. Now we are beginning to see the change we are bringing to the biosphere.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
Ignorance is truly bliss. Stay blissful Chicken Littles.
https://angusmac....2006.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2016
Ignorance is truly bliss. Stay blissful Chicken Littles.
https://angusmac....2006.pdf

weather isn't CLIMATE
Greenland isnt GLOBAL

stay ignorant and blissful, antiG
LMFAO
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
weather isn't CLIMATE
Greenland isnt GLOBAL

OH, the chant of the indoctrinated ignoramus.
We got a winner.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
Greenland isn't GLOBAL

Let's see, according to Chicken Little geography, the US, Pacific, Atlantic, Antarctica and now Greenland isn't the globe. That's living in your own delusions.
Stay blissful Chicken Littles and remember, when it's handed to you, don't sip the special Kool-Aid.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2016
Greenland isn't GLOBAL
Let's see, according to Chicken Little geography, the US, Pacific, Atlantic, Antarctica and now Greenland isn't the globe. That's living in your own delusions.
Stay blissful Chicken Littles and remember, when it's handed to you, don't sip the special Kool-Aid.
@antiG
well, since i was replying to your POST which linked a pdf... lets see what the PDF states
e provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming
so, by your own link AND further quotes ... you are claiming that now Greenland is "the US, Pacific, Atlantic, Antarctica and" the globe?

I must have missed that in the abstract!
let me check...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2016
@antiG cont'd
e provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
WOW... still no suggestion of "the US, Pacific, Atlantic, Antarctica" and Greenland being representative of the globe!

maybe you are illiterate?
OH WAIT>.. you would NEVER misrepresent reality with a lie... like your intentional misrepresentation of the FACTS about warming with a graph ...
LMFAO

LEARN TO READ

PS - greenland is NOT the globe
and weather is NOT the same as climate

that isn't mantra , it is a statement of FACT
LMFAO

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
What you are missing is a brain. I've had repeated, countless times, by the Chicken Little club that the US, Pacific, Atlantic, Antarctica and now Greenland is NOT the globe when confronted with evidence of the AGW lies.

Now let's look at that other graph again -http://www.woodfo...15/trend
Now tell me, what kind of AGW Cult maths it takes to change that plot from descending to ascending when the highest data point in 1998 is included?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2016
Now let's look at that other graph again -http://www.woodfo...15/trend


your point failed here:

http://phys.org/n...mon.html

now you want to cross-post it to try to fail again?
whatever, troll-boy

learn to science!

Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2016
@anti
Here's another graph again
http://www.woodfo...15/trend
Are you convinced now?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
Bring out your dead (or seriously sick).

The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: "I'm getting better."

Large Man with Dead Body: "No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment"
.
The Dead Collector: "Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations".
...

[ the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Vietvet with a whack of his club ]

leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
it's odd really because until recently I believed that Fascism by definition of the word was as leetennant described. So I had already checked a few weeks ago and was surprised by the actual definition in dictionaries. That's why leetennants comment attracted my attention.


The problem with dictionaries is that words are defined by common usage. And clearly people are using fascism and socialism incorrectly often enough that it's changed the common usage. This is an issue because it means that e.g. the current US Republicans and our Australian Liberal party are implementing classical fascism. Put like that, I imagine most people wouldn't want that. By disingenuously changing the definition, they are producing a generation of people voting for policies they would explicitly reject if they understand the cultural context in which those policies were developed.

The so-called Tea Party is fascist and their economic policies would be just as home in 1930s Italy as now.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Lindzen is the only honest climate scientist among the bunch. Check out the 50+ failures of climate science: http://wp.me/pNj9c-er

The heat of the last 20 years that hasn't happened sufficiently has been accused of going deep into the ocean, of being found through massive adjustment program that makes the 30s look like a cool period in history. These people don't know what they are talking about and have no explanation for anything. They have been proven wrong 50+ times and the press refuses to call out the failures time and again.
Sherrin
not rated yet Mar 11, 2016
"... the wide use of industrial aerosols, which have a cooling effect on temperatures ".

I've never heard of this. What are 'industrial aerosols'? How do they cool? Is this the same as the much discussed use of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere to cool the globe?
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
The cooling effect of aerosols is pretty common knowledge although magnitude is still unknown. Aerosols are particulates that reflect solar radiation back into space cooling the planet. So e.g. particulate pollution from volcanic eruptions initially cool the atmosphere although they also release greenhouse gases.

The volume of air pollution is one of the reasons we saw a delay in the effect of increasing greenhouse gases and why cleaning up our air has led to an increase in warming.

Unfortunately, using particulate pollution to counteract warming is kind of like cutting out your lungs to stop cancer metastasizing. Yeah it technically works. But you're still kind of dead.

http://earthobser...age3.php
http://www.ucsusa...YTdCmpPQ

And yes, this is what they're talking about when they mention pumping sulfates into the atmosphere (a bad idea in my opinion).
brianamperesmith
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2016
The scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change was settled by Fourier, Arhenius et al more than a hundred years ago. It's settled physics. Modern theories and models have all confirmed and fine tuned this understanding. The physics that explains how increased greenhouse gasses cause global warming is the same physics that allows us to create devices in order post insane comments based on outright misrepresentations of data gathered via multiple techniques (i.e. paleoclimatological, satellite, weather stations and more). Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact. It's settled physics. The physics of gps satellite transmission is directly related to vertical temperature profiles of earth's atmosphere.Proper calibration is dependent on this Your pseudo skeptical denials of climate change
reflect a basic misunderstanding of broadly understood and confirmed applied scientific concepts. Every so called argument denying the reality we collectively face can be easily dis
brianamperesmith
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2016
...and based on self contradictory claims that both reject climate science and embrace some of its results-to argue (for instance)-that natural variation can explain away direct observation of increased greenhouse gas and increased average global temperature. This issue of climatic variation due to a multiple of factors is well modeled, well understood and does nothing to negate the variation due to greenhouse gases. This is just one example of misinformed, pseudo-skepticism giving birth to nonsensical, unreasonable doubt. Such doubt is predicated on an ideology of fear. This fear based perspective equates acknowledgement of historically unprecedented rapid global warming to being forced by Obama,those tree huggers at NASA and the US military into giving up one's Hummer.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2016
We were able to see climate change even more clearly in Australia because of its position in the Southern Hemisphere in the middle of the ocean, far away from the cooling influence of high concentrations of industrial aerosols

Poor GloBull warming, must go all the way down under, to reveal itself.
brianamperesmith
5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2016
So...all independently verifiable methods including 100 million dollar satellites that directly measure temperature dependent refractive effects for military and gps signals, thousands of scattered weather stations for the last 150 years, non random distribution of historical unprecedented weather records directly predicted by accurate modelling.....it's all les. wrong and tree hugging engineers from NASA, Rockwell aerospace and the other scum-cultist including planetary scientists, Stategic Military planners have lied, conspired and or got their undergraduate physical models wrong, misapplied measurements using methods that have random error in parts per thousand or better. In order to take your truck, gun and fantasy job that you (the denier) don't have.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2016
So...all independently verifiable methods including 100 million dollar satellites that directly measure temperature dependent refractive effects for military and gps signals, thousands of scattered weather stations for the last 150 years, non random distribution of historical unprecedented weather records directly predicted by accurate modelling.....it's all les. wrong and tree hugging engineers from NASA, Rockwell aerospace and the other scum-cultist including planetary scientists, Stategic Military planners have lied, conspired and or got their undergraduate physical models wrong, misapplied measurements using methods that have random error in parts per thousand or better. In order to take your truck, gun and fantasy job that you (the denier) don't have.

Wow... Go, Brian, go...:-)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2016
The actual temperatures across Australia tells a different story.
http://joannenova...warming/
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2016
It weird that link isn't to the BOM or CSIRO Anti. How about you try getting the data from the people who produce it rather than the people paid to lie about it?
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2016
Antigoracle
The actual temperatures across Australia tells a different story


No it does not - liar. http://www.bom.go...ual/aus/2015/20150106_SSTa_plot.png]http://www.bom.go...plot.png[/url]

From - http://www.bom.go...ual/aus/
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2016
The url for the graph above would not copy correctly. Just look at the BOM site - http://www.bom.go...ual/aus/ and look at the graph titled - "Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies for Australia".

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.