I Believe The "dark Winter" Theory

[WVBigfooter]

I believe the Dark Winter theory because 1) John L. Casey says we're about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period. He says cool down periods are marked by increased seismic & volcanic activity and there has been a lot of both since 2005 and 2) Just about a week ago, a new study came out, saying 2016 was the warmest year in 125,000 years. Obviously, that means the earth was just as warm 125,000 years ago. Well before the industrial revolution

[Essay]

This does not seem to make sense.

 

If we were “about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period,” then showing how each of the last three years have been “the warmest year in 125,000 years” does nothing to support this odd “winter theory” you mentioned.

 

But regardless, climate scientists already understand why it was warmer briefly during the Eemian, around 125,000 years ago.  That was then due to a well-known orbital variation, which is not now having that same effect, so the comparison shouldn’t be taken too far.

===

 

It is well documented how anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere are now leading to extra warming. Since those “greenhouse” heating effects operate 24/7/365, in the long run those effects will overwhelm natural variations (that operate around a long-term average) of heating and cooling, which do still also continue.

 

Even if the sun does change, like it did between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the average temperature change from that was only about one degree C, and over 500 years!  And that is the normal variation around the long-term average.  It waxes and wanes, but it 'averages out' to have little long-term effect, and civilization manages to survive.  

===

 

CO2’s extra heating effects, as well as its ocean acidification effects, are ongoing and "unidirectional" (away from long-term averages)

and unprecedented in human history. 

According to the National Academies:

 

“At current carbon emission rates, Earth will experience atmospheric CO2 levels within this century that have not occurred

since the warm “greenhouse” climates of more than 34 million years ago.”

 

A "30 year cool down period" is not going to help much now, especially if that "cycle" is almost half over.

~

[WVBigfooter]

This does not seem to make sense.

 

If we were “about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period,” then showing how each of the last three years have been “the warmest year in 125,000 years” does nothing to support this odd “winter theory” you mentioned.

 

But regardless, climate scientists already understand why it was warmer briefly during the Eemian, around 125,000 years ago.  That was then due to a well-known orbital variation, which is not now having that same effect, so the comparison shouldn’t be taken too far.

===

 

It is well documented how anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere are now leading to extra warming. Since those “greenhouse” heating effects operate 24/7/365, in the long run those effects will overwhelm natural variations (that operate around a long-term average) of heating and cooling, which do still also continue.

 

Even if the sun does change, like it did between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the average temperature change from that was only about one degree C, and over 500 years!  And that is the normal variation around the long-term average.  It waxes and wanes, but it 'averages out' to have little long-term effect, and civilization manages to survive.  

===

 

CO2’s extra heating effects, as well as its ocean acidification effects, are ongoing and "unidirectional" (away from long-term averages)

and unprecedented in human history. 

According to the National Academies:

 

“At current carbon emission rates, Earth will experience atmospheric CO2 levels within this century that have not occurred

since the warm “greenhouse” climates of more than 34 million years ago.”

 

A "30 year cool down period" is not going to help much now, especially if that "cycle" is almost half over.

~

That doesn't explain away the sharp increase in seismic & volcanic activity over the past 10-12 years

[Turtle]

That doesn't explain away the sharp increase in seismic & volcanic activity over the past 10-12 years

Let's see some references to the alleged increase. (Real references; not anecdotes from

Casey. )

Moreover, the increase in deployed seismometers in the last 10-12 years would obviously result in an increase of records of seismic events. Extrapolating more records as evidence of more historical quakes is a non sequitar.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Turtle

[WVBigfooter]

Let's see some references to the alleged increase. (Real references; not anecdotes from

Casey. )

Moreover, the increase in deployed seismometers in the last 10-12 years would obviously result in an increase of records of seismic events. Extrapolating more records as evidence of more historical quakes is a non sequitar.

Have you been living under a rock? There are reports on the news all the time. Italy, Turkey, Indonesia, etc... 2016: http://www.world-earthquakes.com/index.php?option=eqs&year=2016

2017: http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/world/?view=1

[Turtle]

Have you been living under a rock? There are reports on the news all the time. Italy, Turkey, Indonesia, etc... 2016: WRLD EARTHQUAKES LIVE

Here's the table for the last 20 years from your link that shows your assertion,"sharp increase in seismic & volcanic activity over the past 10-12 years" is false:

Global Seismic Activity (GSA) for the last 20 years

 

Year Average Mw Seismic percentage GSA

 

2017 7.22500 0.6981 % VERY LOW

2016 6.93043 8.0279 % HIGH

2015 6.87377 10.6457 % VERY HIGH

2014 6.85306 8.5515 % HIGH

2013 6.87069 10.1222 % VERY HIGH

2012 6.97381 7.3298 % AVERAGE

2011 6.87308 9.0750 % HIGH

2010 7.28696 4.0140 % LOW

2009 7.14516 5.4101 % AVERAGE

2008 7.05556 3.1414 % LOW

2007 7.16216 6.4572 % AVERAGE

2006 7.20476 3.6649 % LOW

2005 6.99231 4.5375 % LOW

2004 7.06250 5.5846 % AVERAGE

2003 7.03448 5.0611 % AVERAGE

2002 7.22105 3.3159 % LOW

2001 7.30556 3.1414 % LOW

2000 7.52857 1.2216 % VERY LOW

1999 7.24444 1.5707 % VERY LOW

1998 7.05000 1.0471 % VERY LOW

Here is a reference that shows my assertion, "the increase in deployed seismometers in the last 10-12 years would obviously result in an increase of records of seismic events. Extrapolating more records as evidence of more historical quakes is a non sequitar", is true:

Earthquakes

...

Size and frequency of occurrence

...

The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes. The United States Geological Survey estimates that, since 1900, there have been an average of 18 major earthquakes (magnitude 7.0–7.9) and one great earthquake (magnitude 8.0 or greater) per year, and that this average has been relatively stable.[33] In recent years, the number of major earthquakes per year has decreased, though this is probably a statistical fluctuation rather than a systematic trend.[34] More detailed statistics on the size and frequency of earthquakes is available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).[35] A recent increase in the number of major earthquakes has been noted, which could be explained by a cyclical pattern of periods of intense tectonic activity, interspersed with longer periods of low-intensity. However, accurate recordings of earthquakes only began in the early 1900s, so it is too early to categorically state that this is the case. ...

Edited January 31, 2017 by Turtle

[WVBigfooter]

Here's the table for the last 20 years from your link that shows your assertion,"sharp increase in seismic & volcanic activity over the past 10-12 years" is false:

 

Here is a reference that shows my assertion, "the increase in deployed seismometers in the last 10-12 years would obviously result in an increase of records of seismic events. Extrapolating more records as evidence of more historical quakes is a non sequitar", is true:

Earthquakes

I call BS on that You just don't want to admit Casey is right

[Turtle]

I call BS on that You just don't want to admit Casey is right

Erhm, your call is immaterial. I gave the facts and you have nothing but opinion. Our rules require you to substantiate your claims with valid references.

[billvon]

I believe the Dark Winter theory because 1) John L. Casey says we're about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period. He says cool down periods are marked by increased seismic & volcanic activity and there has been a lot of both since 2005 and 2) Just about a week ago, a new study came out, saying 2016 was the warmest year in 125,000 years. Obviously, that means the earth was just as warm 125,000 years ago. Well before the industrial revolution

Warmest years on record:

 

2016 (warmest)

2015

2014

2010

2013

2005

2009

1998

 

And over the past 30 years:

 

Decade         Warming

1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)

1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)

2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)

2010–2014 0.728 °C (1.31 °F)

 

So no, we are not "about 11-12 years into a 30 year cool down period."  We are in a 150 year warm-up period.  And over the past 30 years we have been warming pretty continuously.

 

2) Just about a week ago, a new study came out, saying 2016 was the warmest year in 125,000 years. Obviously, that means the earth was just as warm 125,000 years ago. Well before the industrial revolution

 

 

No one is claiming that AGW gases are the only thing that can warm the climate.  Heck, go back 4400 million years and the Earth was hundreds of degrees.  All we know is that AGW gases are warming the planet THIS TIME.

Edited January 31, 2017 by billvon

[sanctus]

But Turtle, how does your table not prove rather than disprove his point of increase of seismic activities?

If you give integer values to the strings: Very High-->4, high-->3,...very low-->0 you get:

 

2016 % 3
2015 % 4
2014 % 3
2013 % 4
2012 % 2
2011 % 3
2010 % 1
2009 % 2
2008 % 1
2007 % 2
2006 % 1
2005 % 1
2004 % 2
2003 % 2
2002 % 1
2001 % 1
2000 % 0
1999 % 0
1998 % 0

Which looks like higher in the recent years

If you make some moving averages (5 years not 10 since not enough data), python code gives you:

 

 

ino=[3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0]

res=[]
N=5
l=len(ino)
for i in range(0,l):
    mi=max(0,i-N)
    ma=min(i+N,l)
    nn=ma-mi
    res.append(sum(ino[mi:ma])/nn)

res-->[3.2, 3.1666666666666665, 2.857142857142857, 2.75, 2.5555555555555554, 2.5, 2.3, 2.0, 1.9, 1.7, 1.6, 1.4, 1.3, 1.1, 1.0, 0.8888888888888888, 0.875, 0.8571428571428571, 0.6666666666666666]


OR only to the front (which is actually back in time):
res2=[]
N=5
l=len(ino)
for i in range(0,l):
    mi=i#max(0,i-N)
    ma=min(i+N,l)
    nn=ma-mi
    print(mi,ma,i)
    res2.append(sum(ino[mi:ma])/nn)

res2-->[3.2, 3.2, 2.6, 2.4, 1.8, 1.8, 1.4, 1.4, 1.4, 1.6, 1.4, 1.4, 1.2, 0.8, 0.4, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0]

I know this is not enough data to prove and does not take into account number of sensor bias etc.. but it does show why I do not understand that your table disproves it :-)
 

[OceanBreeze]

 

But Turtle, how does your table not prove rather than disprove his point of increase of seismic activities?

 

If you give integer values to the strings: Very High-->4, high-->3,...very low-->0 you get:

 

 

 

 

Which looks like higher in the recent years

 

 

 

I came to the same conclusion without all the math by just looking at the numbers.

 

Not that it proves anything one way or the other. My understanding is seismic activity is pretty much random over the long run, although there can be strings of years where it is higher (or lower) than normal. That would be like flipping a coin and getting heads several times in a row; still random.

[Turtle]

But Turtle, how does your table not prove rather than disprove his point of increase of seismic activities?

 

If you give integer values to the strings: Very High-->4, high-->3,...very low-->0 you get:

 ...

Well, there are 5 categories given and 20 data points.

Very high - 2 years: 2/20=10%

High - 3 years: 3/20=15%

Average - 5 years: 5/20=25%

Low - 6 years: 6/20=30%

Very low - 4 years: 4/20=20%

 

Looks to me like of the 20 years, 25% of the time activity was very high or high and 75% of the time it was average, low, or very low. :shrug:

 

If we take 12 years:

Very high - 2 years: 2/12=16.6%

High - 3 years: 3/12=25%

Average - 3 years: 3/12=25%

Low - 3 years: 3/12=25%

Very low - 1 year: 1/12=8.3%

41.6% of the time activity was very high or high and 58.3% of the time activity was average, low, or very low.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Turtle

[CraigD]

I found a couple of credible-looking webpages explaining that there wasn’t any significant increase or decrease in earthquake activity in recent (the past century or so) history: The BGS’s “is earthquake activity increasing?” and this “Earthquake Myths FAQs” page from the USGS. The BGS one makes a point of the problem with theories predicting an increase in earthquakes being that it’s hard to account for an increase in the tectonic plates energy such theories require.

 

I found this nice source of earthquake data from the USGS, and had fun applying a simple linear regression to a count of magnitude 7+ events from 1960 to 2016.

For 1960 to 2016, you get slight positive slope of about 0.0495204 events/year.

If you break it into 10-year long segments for the past 30 years, you a line with a steep up (0.518181) from 1986 to 1996, a steep down (-0.327272) from 1996 to 2006, and a near level (-0.00909) from 2006 to 2016.

 

I’m assuming that our ability to detecting 7+ earthquakes anywhere in the world hasn’t changed much since 1960. The USGS page goes back to 1900, with those years showing only a few events, so I don’t think this was true back that far.

 

I lazied out on calculating a confidence range, but am guessing it would show no significant long-term trend.

 

My raw data:

Year	# 7+ quakes
2016	16
2015	17
2014	12
2013	12
2012	12
2011	20
2010	24
2009	17
2008	12
2007	18
2006	11
2005	11
2004	16
2003	15
2002	13
2001	16
2000	15
1999	18
1998	12
1997	16
1996	15
1995	20
1994	13
1993	12
1992	13
1991	17
1990	18
1989	8
1988	11
1987	13
1986	11
1985	15
1984	14
1983	14
1982	7
1981	11
1980	6
1979	8
1978	12
1977	10
1976	14
1975	13
1974	11
1973	9
1972	16
1971	20
1970	17
1969	14
1968	22
1967	11
1966	9
1965	18
1964	12
1963	17
1962	10
1961	12
1960	13

[sanctus]

Still not getting your reasoning turtle, last 20 years 25% >=high, last 12 years 41%>=high...which again would validate the OP's point

[Turtle]

Still not getting your reasoning turtle, last 20 years 25% >=high, last 12 years 41%>=high...which again would validate the OP's point

 

Last 20 years 75% of the time it was average, low, or very low. Is 75% > or < 25%?

Last 12 years 58.3% of the time activity was average, low, or very low. Is 58.3% > or < 41%?

[OceanBreeze]

Last 20 years 75% of the time it was average, low, or very low. Is 75% > or < 25%?

Last 12 years 58.3% of the time activity was average, low, or very low. Is 58.3% > or < 41%?

 

Take the 19 years in Sanctus’ chart and dividing them up into two groups of ten, by including 2007 in both groups,

 

 

But Turtle, how does your table not prove rather than disprove his point of increase of seismic activities?

 

If you give integer values to the strings: Very High-->4, high-->3,...very low-->0 you get:

 

2016 % 3

2015 % 4

2014 % 3

2013 % 4

2012 % 2

2011 % 3

2010 % 1

2009 % 2

2008 % 1

2007 % 2

2006 % 1

2005 % 1

2004 % 2

2003 % 2

2002 % 1

2001 % 1

2000 % 0

1999 % 0

1998 % 0

 

 

Which looks like higher in the recent years

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then, the most recent group (2007 – 2016) has the following values: 2,1,2,1,3,2,4,3,4,3

The total = 25 and the average 25/10 = 2.5

The least recent group (1998 – 2007) has the following values: 0,0,0,1,1,2,2,1,1,2

The total = 10 and the average value is 1.

So, the most recent group has the higher seismic activity. (obvious from just perusing the numbers)

 

Anyway, like I said before, short strings like this have no statistical significance in the long run, and prove nothing, one way or another except perhaps to confirm the old saw "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Turtle]

Take the 19 years in Sanctus’ chart and dividing them up into two groups of ten, by including 2007 in both groups,

  

Then, the most recent group (2007 – 2016) has the following values: 2,1,2,1,3,2,4,3,4,3

The total = 25 and the average 25/10 = 2.5

The least recent group (1998 – 2007) has the following values: 0,0,0,1,1,2,2,1,1,2

]The total = 10 and the average value is 1.

So, the most recent group has the higher seismic activity. (obvious from just perusing the numbers)

 

Anyway, like I said before, short strings like this have no statistical significance in the long run, and prove nothing, one way or another except perhaps to confirm the old saw "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

:lol: Anyway, Sanctus asked me to justify my lie in light of his lie, and being his obedient servant I did his bidding. BTW, your font struck me as a damn lie so I redacted it. :P