Humans have produced enough concrete to thinly pave the entire surface of the Earth, while carbon dioxide emissions are rising 100 times quicker than at any time during the past 800,000 years.

Such dramatic transformations of the planet are showing up in the world's sediments and warrant the declaration of a new geological epoch - aptly known as Anthropocene to reflect humanity's role - according to a new paper published in the journal Science.

The research, compiled by two dozen scientists and academics, identified planet-wide impacts ranging from nuclear fallout from weapons testing to mining that displaces 57 billion tonnes of material a year - or almost three times the amount of sediment carried by the world's rivers.

Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean1, 2, 3, 4. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challengerexpedition12, a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths13, and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections5. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.

read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2915.html

Australia’s chief scientist through the bitter “climate wars” has some advice for scientists denigrated and disparaged by those who do not like their evidence-based advice: “don’t flinch”.

And as he prepares to leave the job on Friday, Ian Chubb has some unflinching parting advice – Australia will inevitably have to adopt tougher greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Chubb is also on the board of the independent Climate Change Authority, which the Abbott government unsuccessfully sought to abolish, and he is convinced Australia will eventually have to adopt targets similar to those advocated by the CCA.

The CCA found Australia should be cutting emissions by between 40 and 60% by 2030, measured against 2000 levels. Measured the same way the target announced by Tony Abbott and then adopted by Malcolm Turnbull equates to a cut of between 19 and 22%

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/19/outgoing-chief-scientist-ian-chubb-says-tougher-greenhouse-gas-targets-inevitable

So do I challenge the global warming consensus? Absolutely not. But that does not mean that all critical questions have been satisfactorily answered, and many of them depend on historical research and analysis. Pace the New York Times and large sections of the media, there is no such thing as “established science,” which is immune to criticism. If it is “established” beyond criticism and questioning, it’s not science.

Scientific claims must not be taken on faith.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/history-and-the-limits-of-the-climate-consensus/

--------------

Philip Jenkins is a Christian. Philip Jenkins is not a scientist. He is an historian. And as a historian, he should know that the data used into defining the present global warming goes further back than a million years — further back than Jenkins history of religious studies which at best might cover the last 7,000 years of humanity. 

The scientific data can also refer to eras and aeons as far back as the genesis of this small planet. Many scientists know the intricacies of what changed, including the higher sea levels of certain periods possibly nearly 100 metres higher than the present. The scientists have done many calculations, permutations and verifications. No bullshit. The surface of this little planet is warming up at a rate of knots in geological terms due to human input of EXTRA warming gases in the atmosphere. Other factors in warming and cooling the planet have been accounted for, including the earth wobbles on its axis and the sun cycles. Simple enough. 

But this is where we have a dilemma. These EXTRA warming gases come from human comforts and technological advancements, unprecedented in human history. They come from burning ancient cemeteries of life, decomposed into what we call fossil fuels. These fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years through climate changes and tectonic upheavals. Bringing these back to the "surface and burning them is a recipe for trouble. Simple maths in step with observation of previous times such as 120 million years ago.

According to bracketed scientific estimates, always in a flux due to feed-back mechanisms of life/atmosphere/colours/oceans, there is enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere to warm this little planet by between 6 and 9 degrees Celsius. And we are doing fuck all about it. 

We have to back pedal at a rate of knots. And scientists do not take anything at face value... They recalculate daily, they observe hourly and they shit in their pants.

see also:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/hanna-what-record-heat-means-for-o...