It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That dip is now understood as being the result of two factors: a post-World War II surge in the emissions of aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning and the cool phase of a Pacific Ocean cycle related to the strength of the trade winds. (That same Pacific cycle suppressed global surface temperatures a bit over the past two decades.) But at the time, the causes of the dip were far from clear.
Hence, the sudden drop in SSTs in late 1945 is consistent with the
rapid but uncorrected change from engine room intake measurements
(US ships) to uninsulated bucket measurements (UK ships)
at the end of the Second World War. As the drop derives from the
composition of the ICOADS data set, it is present in all records of
twentieth-century climate variability that include SST data.
The Met Office Hadley Centre is currently assessing the adjustments
required to compensate for the step in 1945 and subsequent
changes in the SST observing network. The adjustments immediately
after 1945 are expected to be as large as those made to the pre-war
data (,0.3 uC; Fig. 4), and smaller adjustments are likely to be
required in SSTs through at least the mid-1960s, by which time the
observing fleetwasrelatively diverse and lesssusceptible to changesin
the data supply from a single country of origin9
. The new adjustments
are likely to have a substantial impact on the historical record of
global-mean surface temperatures through the middle part of the
twentieth century. T
This paper is junk?
The adjustments are unlikely to significantly affect estimates of century-long trends in global-mean temperatures, as the data before , 1940 and after the mid-1960s are not expected to require further corrections for changes from uninsulated bucket to engine room intake measurements.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage
Ah, OK. Wrong Christmas Island. Not a big point anyway. It's still a volcanic island.
I am not disputing the rise in carbon dioxide levels. I simply think only a total idiot would place a carbon dioxide monitor atop an active volcano like Mauna Loa. Or a scam artist... take your pick.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: mbkennel
C02 is increasing from burning fossils fuels, causing a slight warming of our earth. How has this been dangerous?
The predicted average change is of course for the globe, most of which is water. For us living on land it will be larger, and intermittently very large.
Yes, they know the difference very well, and can discern volcanic from atmospheric signals.
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
Because we are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere each year.
Why does CO2 continue to rise?