[Proculation]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Well, that's the thing, eh? Any weather anomaly - wet, dry, hot, cold, stormy, mild is presented as "consistent with the models". The same is true about climate. Did you not hear Hurley a few posts back claiming a 30 year cooling trend would not discredit global warming theory?

That is not at all what I said. If there's a 30 year cooling trend on the end of a much longer warming trend, and that cooling fails to cancel out the earlier warming, what's going on? Is global warming over as soon as we get a 30-year cooling trend? What happens if the year after the 30-year trend goes negative, it goes positive again? Is global warming happening again?

You've brought up a good point: What is the standard? Over what period of time does a trend get to say whether we're in global warming or global cooling? 1 year? Clearly not. The entire temperature record? Maybe. Let's take a look at it. Here's a chart of the slope of the entire temperature record, starting at the beginning, and running to a given point:

0:

entire.PNG

As you can see it's pretty jittery at the start, but by about 1890 it starts to settle down a bit. From about 1896 to 1911 it shows a warming trend (increasing warming to about 1902, then the rate of warming slows back to zero at 1911). From 1911 to 1920 it goes back and forth, but from 1920 to present, it's been a warming trend. The rate of warming reached a peak in 1947, and then retreated to 1980, and has been climbing again since. The pink, yellow, and blue lines are the 1-year, 10-year, and 30-year trends respectively. The 30 year looks somewhat calm, so let's take a look at it:

1:

30-year.PNG

The 30-year trend starts in 1910, and from that point to about 1917 oscillates about zero before being a very slight cooling trend to 1927. From 1927 to 1964 it's a warming trend with a maximum warming rate in 1946. From 1964 to 1974 it's cooling with a maximum cooling rate in 1967. In 1977 it touched zero again after a slight warming, but has since then been a warming trend. The 30 year average, as we see, is somewhat variable. It is too variable to define global warming or global cooling, or is it steady enough for that purpose? That may be a matter of opinion, but as the 30-year trend can give warming figures which back-calculate to the -30s in the year 0, I'd still say it's unreliable.

I cleaned up teh chart at this point, dropping the 1- and 10-year trends and adding 70- and 100-year trends:

2:

30-70-100-year.PNG

The 30 is now pink, 70 is yellow, and 100 is blue. The 70- and 100- year trends have been always warming since their starts in 1950 and 1980 respectively.

This, of course, doesn't tell us what time-scale to pick on which to base a determination of global warming or global cooling. Some are clearly higly erratic and some are relatively sedate. Unless there is some physical reason to choose one, any set time period chosen will be chosen based on the person's biases.

I would argue that the trend since records started being kept is the best we can do, and the freest from bias. Therefore, if that trend ever goes to zero or crosses into the negative, THAT would herald the end of global warming.

Since this record reaches almost back to the industrial revolution, unless there is a de-industrial revolution, such an end to global warming would be the death-knell of anthropogenic global warming, as anthropogenic influence would clearly be no match for the other, overriding influences.

I believe those graphics. But, they do not look like the "hockey stick" pattern of the IPCC.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

And on what basis will you be deciding who buys the beer?

If you show up at the bar on July 21, 2020 in bermuda shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, I am.

If you show up at the bar on July 21, 2020 in a parka sporting snowshoes then you are.

And if Zip shows up at the bar on July 21, 2020 in his Speedo, I'm leaving.

[N_Fiddledog]

I can post you links and graphs if you like Hurley, but the basic opposing argument goes something like this...

The long term warming trend begins as we exit the little ice age some time in the 1700s. That's natural, not CO2. The up and downs you see can match the trends of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which would be natural, not CO2.

The problem with saying CO2 is responsible for the up trends, but lets ignore the down trends, is if CO2 beats natural, (and you need to say that to postulate catastrophe), why doesn't it wipe out the downtrends on 30 year (1950ish to 78 ish), or even short term (2003 to 2009) when CO2 is making large rises? CO2 will not match the down trends.

Yes CO2 should offer a little bit of warming, but the question is always how much. And again 1 degree (assuming that's all CO2, which I doubt) is not catastrophic. To get to catastrophic warming of 3 degrees sensitivity, or greater by CO2 you have to postulate predominant positive feedbacks, and that just doesn't make sense. Also we haven't seen that yet, so it's more a what if.

Also when you're making graphs with GISS, or Had Cru you're playing with adjusted temps. Hansen in particular is famous for adjusting old temps down, and newer temps up. If you look at old temp charts before the adjustments on GISS you'll see the ups and downs are more recognizable. Yes, it's true GISS doesn't start to diverge from the satellite temps until after 1998, but it didn't have to. That was a period of stronger, and more frequent El Ninos within a positive PDO. Global temps were rising strong, pushed by a natural phase.

Had Cru has that problem of missing data, among others. Even the guy assigned to make sense of adjusted temps at Had Cru in the Climategate package admitted he couldn't do it. It was undecipherable.

[DerbyX]

Nope. We are not coming out of a little ice age. There is no scientific basis for supporting the theory that the earth is returning to a defacto baseline temperature and climate. There is evidence supporting what drove the climate into the LIA, namely decreased solar irradiation and volcanic precipitate blocking additional solar irradiation but those factors or the lack there of is not what is driving this warming. They have looked at solar output extensively and guess what? While the temperature is going up the solar output isn't. A lack of particulate is also not to blame since they have looked at that also.

There is no evidence to support that the factors driving us out of the LIA are natural and its particularly disingenuous to make the argument that there is no warming on one hand while claiming its all because we are coming out of a LIA. Even assuming we are experiencing warming as part of a return to baseline that argument we have exceeded that baseline unless the skeptics simply make up whatever baseline they want with no supporting evidence.

The similar argument maintains that this is all part of the natural cycle. For that argument to have merit you'll need evidence to establish what factors are driving that change and ultimately they'll need to conclude that CO2 is one of those factors. Assuming you are part of the no-warming crowd you have the additional problem of explaining why a 35% increase in the greenhouse gas CO2 is not having an effect when logically it will.

If CO2 is having little or no effect then why do we have evidence like this:



Are we experiencing a decline in temps?

Mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing and they have supporting predictions. The skeptics have no such models or predictions based on evidence and instead rely entirely on trying to attack the data they see as faulty by claiming manipulation and failing that simply fall back on the argument its all natural.

We have proven & reliable data showing a large increase in CO2 that can be linked directly to human activity.

We have conclusive data showing increases in global temperature, both surface and sea level temps. We have supporting evidence in many forms the most well established is the global decline of glacial ice, sea ice, and permafrost.

Basic knowledge of physics establishes the link between CO2 concentrations. We can directly link the rise in global temperatures to the rise in CO2 concentrations with a very high degree of confidence which is entirely why some 97% of experts agree with AGW. They have studied the data extensively and their theories have survived the scientific method.

The big controversy arises from the affects this temp increase will have, not to mention the unknown consequences the increased CO2 will have on things like ocean acidity. The skeptics want to say everything will be OK except they have no evidence to support that. The worst argument they make is "but the earth survived things like this before". This argument borders on the retarded. The earth survived a massive asteroid smashing into the planet also but it still had dire consequences. New Orleans survived also but it doesn't take a genius to realize that had they planned better in advance those dire consequences would have been minimized.

The alarmist predict great social upheaval. They actually do have evidence that such upheaval has always followed large scale changes in the environment to both human and non-human life forms. Rapid changes in environment are rarely good for most species as they tend not to be able to adapt that quickly. Does that mean all of humanity is doomed? Nobody is saying that but that doesn't mean large segments of the population won't suffer from the climate effects we are visiting upon ourselves.

[BartSimpson]

We're doomed.

[Zipperfish]

Hundreds of penguins wash up on Brazilian coast

$1:

Biologists suspect that unusually cold waters off the coast of Brazil were responsible for the deaths of more than 550 penguins that washed up on shore in the past 10 days.

...

It's normal for Magellan penguins to leave their colonies in the Antarctic in an annual migration in search of fish, following the plankton-rich, frigid water currents traveling north along the coast of South America. What has changed is that they are increasingly unable to return home because they get sick, weak or disoriented for reasons that have yet to be determined.

Climate change, overfishing and pollution of the water all could contribute to the penguins becoming lost.

Sydney Crosby is apparently fine.

[BartSimpson]

More likely, the issue with the penguins is that people give a crap anymore and when die offs happen it's news. Back fifty years ago if 550 penguins washed up on a beach in Brazil most people in Brazil would not know or care about it and, for certain, no one outside of Brazil would give a crap.

What we're seeing in many of these cases is a marked increase in reporting of these events, not necessarily an increase in these kind of events.

For instance, if I start posting on CKA every story I can find about sexual assaults at Ontario daycare facilities some people will invariably start to believe that there's an increase in such offenses in Ontario when, in fact, it's just me focusing on this topic. Same goes with reporters who've become 'environmentally aware' over the past 20 years.

Saying that there's a problem and maybe asking a marine resources agency to look into it is perfectly fine. Speculating about what may well be part of an ages-old natural process in order to promote a political agenda is another thing.

This summer, billions of grunion will wash up and beach themselves on Southern California beaches and "Climate change, overfishing and pollution of the water all could contribute" to this happening because that's unfounded speculation. Or, it could be a natural event.