What are you saying exactly? That man cannot possibly by the dominating factor post 1960 because we weren't the dominating factor prior to 1900? And what exactly is it that you think I'm having both ways here?
Again with the wanting to have it both ways. If, as you have said that the La Nino was "expected", wasn't also the El Nino? You don't get to have it both ways. If you believe it appropriate to discount the effects of the "expected la nina, you also have to discount the effects of the expected el nino. Right? And when you suggest that the temps are "way up", you are only making a reference point to the deviation from the average temp, which only compares the current average to the historic one, right? So, that being the case, the fact that we see more variation as the temperatures decline, shouldn't that warrant more impact or concern? So, even as you say "the temperature is still way up", what really does that mean? That we are about 1-1.2 F higher than the historic average for the last 150 years? Where is the significance of that?
I think what I'm saying is very clear. Your attribution "since 1960" has been described by you as "dominant" "exclusive" even. You have pined previously that "all of the CO2" produced by man directly contributes, etc. The standard being described is yours. It is disingenuous for you to balk at being cited for what you so often say. We do have the tape, so to speak.
But, I'm not ignoring El Nino or La Nina here. That's why I specifically told you to look at the last 48 months instead of the last 24. If you focus on only the last 24 you are only considering a La Nina. But, if you consider the last 48 then at least that includes an entire ENSO cycle with both an El Nino and a La Nina. Better yet, let's look at the last 6 decades. It covers several ENSO cycles.
Yes. I agree with this statement. I do, in fact, claim that most of the warming since 1960 is because of humans. The contribution by humans could be as high as > 90%. Yes it does. Then again, so does all of the natural emissions and absorptions as well. As does many other components besides CO2. Yes. It is. I don't deny any of the above. What I reject is your implication that because nature was primarily responsible during the pre-industrial era then that necessarily means that humans cannot be primarily responsible during the post-industrial era. I think what you're trying say by "having it both ways" is that you think this isn't possible. I say it is and that is your beef with my post. Is this a fair assessment of your critique here?
And this is where you fall off the rails. I have NEVER said that humans cannot impact the environment, ever. And that little disingenuous assertion is for whose benefit? The observation you continue to make is that in the last 6 decades all or most causality is attributable to human causes. I continue to point out that there is virtually zero effective or otherwise repeatable experimentation that supports your assertion. Period. And yet, you'd continue to make the case that cyclic variation is only notable when it demonstrates an increase in overall average temps. (Again, the value of which is unknowable to begin with). So, pointing out that there is always an expectation that an El Nino event increases temperatures, you discount that. I ask, again, why? If we know it happens, why does it deserve, in your mind, more air time than the equally expected lowering of the temp averages that occur during the la Nina? You've justified your discounting of it by saying that you expect the temp to decline. Ok, if you expect it, you also have to expect the opposite dynamic. You seem to unduly then weight the outcome of the El Nino event, and ignore the la Nina event. And they you ask for consistency. I suggest that the only consistency is your inconsistency then. Face it, we experienced the 1rst and 4th largest temp decline since we've been recording these things. It seems wholly disingenuous of you to ignore the significance of that.
There is a lot of evidence that supports this claim. In addition there is a lot of evidence that shows that there is no natural process that can account for the temperature increase especially after 1960. Hold on. You need to reread post #300. Read it carefully. At no time did I discount an El Nino. In fact, I said that we should consider periods of time that are sufficiently long enough to cover at least 1 entire ENSO cycle instead of just cherry-picking a single La Nina event and calling an end global warming. And just so we're clear here...ENSO cycles are an example of a natural process that causes variations in the global mean surface temperature both up and down. El Nino usually causes an increase in the air temperature at the expense of a decrease in ocean temperatures and vice versa. I have never unduly weighted an El Nino event over an La Nina event...ever. I'm a huge advocate of letting all of the data speak for itself instead of selectively removing El Nino events (like what skeptics like Dr. Christy do) or La Nina events (which nobody does). The fact is that since 1960 there have been several ENSO cycles and the temperature is still higher today than it was 60 years ago. That is a fact. Again, reread post #300. I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I believe in my post I even claimed that it was more than just NASA who said the temperature declined by a lot in a 24 month period. I just pointed out that using this period is a cherry-pick that happens to align perfectly with a La Nino event and only a La Nina event. That is flat out ignoring that an El Nino occurred 24 months prior to that. So you tell me...who's the one doing the ignoring here?
Interesting dynamic here. So, what you're now agreeing to is that irrespective of anthropogenic means, the global average temps both increased, and then decreased. Right? Well that's progress for sure. Because riddle me this... If only CO2 production produces temp increases, the natural cycles that you discount didn't impact that? This is what you again spent real time asserting above, right? So, no additional CO2 concentration was available at the time the onset El Nino increased the global averages was there? And again, no corresponding CO2 concentration dispersal then corresponded to the associable global averages decreasing.. right? So which is it? Anthropogenic caused? Naturally occurring? From the data, meaning CO2 concentration, it doesn't seem to have influenced the actual dynamic changes, did it?
Absolutely. You're building a strawman again. No climate scientist claims that CO2 is the only thing that effects the temperature. Like, not even close. In fact, AGW claims that it is the net effect of all process (both natural and anthroprogenic) that drive climate change. In fact, AGW claims that some human behaviors actually produce a cooling effect. My concern here is that you are arguing against AGW and you don't know what AGW is. A good place to start would be the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report. It is pretty good introduction to AGW. Yes. Natural processes and variability did not magically turn off around 1960. Both the air and ocean temperatures are going to have erratic short term up and down swings embedded in the otherwise long term secular upward trend. AGW does not in any way claim that natural process and variability cease to exist. In fact, AGW embraces the idea that natural processes are in play. In other words AGW makes this mathematical statement regarding the change in temperature dT where N is natural forcings and A is anthroprenic forcings. dT = N + A Even the N and A are subdivided into individual mechanisms such that. dT = (N1 + N2 + N3 + Nx) + (A1 + A2 + A3 + Ax) It just so happens that when you sum up the effect of all of these process you find that dT should be increasing over long periods of time with a lot of short term up and down variability. And that's exactly what we observe today. There are even specific Ax components (namely aerosols) that actually have a negative effect on the temperature. That's right, AGW says that some human activities actually work to cool the planet. It's just the net sum of all the Ax components is significantly positive while the sum of all the Nx components is slightly negative when viewed over long periods of time. When viewed over short periods of time the Nx components rapidly change between being significantly positive to being significantly negative. An example of this ENSO cycles. Correct. This ENSO cycle saw the temperature go up and then down as a natural process that had little to do with CO2. CO2 and other anthroprogenic effects produce a smaller but steady upward forcing to the temperature. That's why even though the temperature swings up and down erratically the slope of the temperature trendline viewed over long periods of time is now positive (up). BOTH! Natural processes do a great job of explaining the short term changes in the temperature, but they do a terrible job in explaining the long term changes. Anthroprogenic processes do a great job of explaining the long term changes in the temperature, but they do a terrible job in explaining the short term changes. That is why AGW considers everything. The best way to visualize this is to use a graphing calculator (I'll recommend https://www.desmos.com/calculator). Plug the following two equations into the website. Equation N: y = sin(x) Equation A: y = x Natural processes produce an effect that is most like equation N while anthroprogenic processes produce an effect most like equation A. Now, combine the two equations like this. Equation N+A: y = x + sin(x) Do you see what happens? It's this last equation that is most like how AGW predicts. Well, it definitely has when viewed over long periods of time. That's why we see the temperature trendline doing a pause-up-pause-up type of movement instead of an up-down-up-down type of movement. The anthroprogenic effect produces an ever present constant upward pressure to the temperature trendline. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings of AGW.
^^ What an incredibly long winded way to ignore the questions asked. This is not a strawman, it's asking for justification of the use of AGW as a relevant lever. You continue to ignore the idea that absent the only lever AGW have identified as being the primary cause of variation having not been a part of or otherwise having either induced or otherwise mitigated a natural event. The two events, el nino and then la nina changed the global average temps. They did so in an environment that otherwise didn't change, meaning the total level or PPM rate of CO2 didn't change, and yet, the observable data demonstrates that the events happened. This has no explanation then from the perspective that climate averages are being effected by CO2 outputs and concentration levels. If CO2 had an effect, as you have asserted just now, please indicate the rate the observable event averages were effected by it. Can you? More, and just because it's necessary, indicate what percentage of that change was induced by the less than 4% of CO2 output cause by humans. Can you? Again, I doubt it. So, the observation is, absent a noticeable change in PPM CO2 concentration levels, global temperature changed, significantly both by increasing, and then by decreasing. The assertion you continue to make is that the only lever that does this is CO2 concentration levels, and that the effect is always positive, meaning temperature increases. Clearly, without consulting you, nature had it's own moment, which now, you cannot explain . Your lever didn't produce the changes meaning temp increases, not did it stop the temperatures from declining. That seems super problematic for the assertion then that CO2 concentrations had the effect you claim from them. So, without boring me to tears, yet again with an analysis that doesn't respond to the question asked, please indicate whether you can demonstrate any of the indicators you have advocated your reliance on effectively produced any measurable difference to what was otherwise a naturally occurring event.
You are certainly correct...... the Little Ice Age of the 16th - nineteenth centuries was probably caused by volcanic activity..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age This information also relates to President George W. Bush and P. M. Stephen Harper eventually getting some credit for their rather pragmatic policies that may have actually kept the Global Warming effect to a minimum over this past decade or so. Did President G. W. Bush and P. M. Harper deliberately use Global Dimming to.. .... mask....... to decrease..... to hide.......to postpone......... a general Global Warming trend? A second legitimate question is..... within fifty years is it at all possible that we may find out that they may perhaps have had a basically good idea in doing this?
Remember "The Day After Tomorrow". The melt of the warm up shuts down the oceanic thermoconveyors and we are all going to die horrible, freezing deaths. If not painfully starve to death for lack of food. Well the Lord promised never to destroy us by flood again, but didn't promise anything about freezing us
Strawman. AGW does NOT claim ENSO cycles are caused by an increase in CO2 concentration. Of the 0.9C increase in the global mean surface temperature since 1960: - CO2's contribution is believed to be greater than 0.9C. This is possible because other factors are trying to force the temperature lower. Most notably aerosols (ironically from human emissions) work to cool the planet. - The net anthroprogenic effect accounts for about 90% of the long term change in temperature (1960 - 2017). - The net natural effect accounts for about 90% of the short term variations (for example a single La Nina or El Nino event). Note that these short term natural variations net out to approximately zero when viewed on long time periods (1960 - 2017). Correct. And note that natural variability is characterized by up and down swings that net out to zero. Read that last sentence again...carefully. It is important. While natural process do, in fact, cause erratic up and down swings in the temperature, they net out to zero when viewed over long time periods. False. Read post #309 carefully. I go out of my way to explain that it is a multitude of processes (both natural and anthroprogenic) that effect the temperature at any specific moment in time.
Exactly,......... Luke 23:31 "For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" I believe that Rabbi Yeshua meant by this statement is that if innocent people can be crucified during times of relative peace and prosperity..... how will humans behave if and when the environment becomes terribly unpredictable.
I agree......... and on that note I would be honored to get the opinions of a NonMan on this idea: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/should-sorek-2-be-in-australia-or-california.530861/ Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California?
Sweet. So, absent AGW causes, natural causes will produce variation. That, I think is progress. The fall back though is that the .9C you identify is change that is observable since 1865 or so. Your assertion is that had CO2 concentration wasn't included that temperatures likely would have declined? Seriously? So, of the .9C observed, you believe that absent CO2 concentration increases, the total average temperature would have declined instead of rebounded? Seriously? Second, I point out that, for you, your rhetoric has suggested that CO2 concentrations are in fact responsible absent other causes for the temp increases that we have seen. No? You seem to be attempting to equivocate here, and yet, you continue to say it. So, as you pointed out initially, the absence of CO2 increases would have continued the downward temperature trend of the late 1850s... and absent it's growth, no other natural effect would have been able to stop that slide. But, you're still willing to acknowledge that the natural levers do induce or reduce temp movements. Ok, that sounds roughly like both sides of your mouth,.
Correct. They always have and always will. That 0.9C is since 1960. The change since the mid 1800's is closer to 1.5C give or take a few tenths. Correct. If all other things remained equal AGW suggests that if the CO2 concentration remained unchanged but the other processes continued as-is then the global mean surface temperature would have remained level (aside from the natural variability) or more likely they would have declined. Yes. Absolutely. Total solar irradiation has been on a secular decline since 1960. Volcanic activity had a spike up since 1990. And finally aerosols (ya know...actual pollution from human emissions) have continued to increase and that blocks shortwave radiation. These effects are working to try to cool the planet right now. Yes. Yes, mostly anyway. And only after 1960. No! The CO2 effect did not kick in with any real significance until at least 1900. But even then it's effect was still too small to significantly alter the long term trend set forth by natural mechanisms alone. Most of the warming since the mid 1800's can be adequately accounted for by natural process only. Namely, the lull in volcanic activity and a grand solar maximum that peaked in 1958. The period from about 1900 to 1960 marks a transition era where CO2 (and other anthroprogenic processes) ramped up. In other words, the anthroprogenic effect wasn't a lightswitch moment in which it was turned off prior to date X and then turned on at full blast after date X. It's more like a dimmer switch dial that slowly over several decades was turned up. Absolutely. I have no choice. That's what physical law says should happen and that's what we observe. It actually wouldn't even make sense on a first principal reason to suggest that natural processes turn off. What am I missing here? What specific part of my explanation doesn't make sense?
@drluggit @iamanonman What's missing is how many natural levers are coming into play now, during the solar minimum lever since we all agree there are many levers. Anyone know what is currently going on with Earth's orbit? How about axis? Any convergence? Solar Minimum and . . . Or other levers Moi
I just discovered this. I don't understand it. But, it agrees. Anyone know what it is saying? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation Atlantic multidecadal oscillation Not to be confused with North Atlantic oscillation. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a climate cycle that affects the sea surface temperature (SST) of the North Atlantic Ocean based on different modes on multidecadal timescales. A 2017 study predicts a continued cooling shift beginning 2014, and the authors note, "..unlike the last cold period in the Atlantic, the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies in the Atlantic is not uniformly cool, but instead has anomalously cold temperatures in the subpolar gyre, warm temperatures in the subtropics and cool anomalies over the tropics. The tripole pattern of anomalies has increased the subpolar to subtropical meridional gradient in SSTs, which are not represented by the AMO index value, but which may lead to increased atmospheric baroclinicity and storminess." Moi The Cool Down Is Coming
It's one of the natural cycles. There are many of them. Namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and many more. Meteorologists will use metrics developed for determining the magnitude of these cycles to make seasonal forecasts up to 12 months in advance. Forecasts of this nature aren't your typical exact properties at exact locations at exact times style of prediction though. The forecasts look more like average properties over large regions spanning 1-3 months and involve a more probabilistic approach which makes these forecasts more difficult for the layperson to understand. These forecasts do demonstrate useful skill and are used mainly by the energy and agricultural sectors and for drought, flood, etc. planning. Climate scientists also look at them because they can be used to make predictions of the global mean surface temperature and ocean heat uptake without using numerical models.
@iamanonman And then it can all change as fast as https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/science-chosen-absolute-worst-history-140000038.html Science Has Chosen the Absolute Worst Year in History To Have Been Alive A foreboding cloud of black ash blocks out the sun from Europe to Asia. An outbreak of bubonic plague coincides with a piercing cold snap. Crops fail. Starvation, darkness, and squalor abound. All of these conditions were pervasive throughout the northern hemisphere in the year 536 A.D. The year was a tipping point in an era of unprecedented devastation. It was so bad that researchers are now labeling that year the worst time to be alive in the history of humankind. Or as Harvard History professor Michael McCormick told Science: "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year." Although the origins of the black, ashen cloud were previously a mystery, a new paper published in the journal Antiquities indicates that a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland triggered the 18 months of darkness. Two more eruptions in the years 540 and 547 would compound the cloud. The ash blocked out the sun, ushering forth frigid temperatures that blighted crops, resulting in starvation. Adding to the gloom, an outbreak of bubonic plague spread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire in 542 A.D., killing droves and giving way to an economic downturn that lasted 30 years. . . . How fast it can all turn around. Isn't that the time King Arthur's realm went "dead". The wastelands, etc. Moi oopsy the scientists' model didn't plan for . . . . Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
We have had climate eruptions in the past 150 years and while they do result in temporary lower temperatures, the trend is always upward.
@Distraff see #322 above too Eruptions with effects not beyond a few years. Not like 536 AD or there abouts. Look - A few hundred years known as "The Dark Ages" Be thankful we have only witnessed "little eruptions' " effects. There certainly are records written by people some 1400 years ago. Records of harvests. Society. . . .
Yes. It can change very fast. Large eruptions are a prime example of how nature can modulate the climate. Scientists are fully aware of this possibility. But we don't have any reason to believe that any large eruptions are imminent. They are the exception rather than the rule. But even if a series of VEI 6+ eruptions were to occur it might not cool the planet that much (example Pinatubo 1991), but even if it does the effect will be temporary. Volcanic ash and other aerosols fallout within years or a decade or two at most. Contrast this with CO2 most of which will remain for 100 to 1000 years with the remaining amount sticking around for 10,000 to 100,000 years. A large volcanic eruption may cause the warming to pause or even cause cooling. But the effect is temporary.
