Was global warming already detected before 1980?

[Roger J Smith]

I wouldn't say the 1982-83 winter events "went unnoticed" -- there was a lot of talk about it both in professional circles and among the general public. This came after a number of very cold winters some of which had a lot of snow, others being dry and cold (1979-80 was also rather mild, everything else from 1976 to 1982 in eastern North America had produced cold winters). Not only were there records at Christmas 1982 as you mentioned, but early in the month it hit 20 or 21 C which was 4 or 5 above previous monthly extremes and monthly means were about 2 C deg above previous highest values. That sort of record shattering was similar to the Dec 2015 experience in the UK and the rest of the winter was remarkably snow-free even up in the snow belt regions well to the north of Toronto. It was difficult to find any snow in the bush within 200 kms of Toronto as late as mid-February. (the big east coast snowstorm of that month missed Ontario). 

As to the denial / acceptance debate, I think nowadays most of the debate is about which set of projections is most likely to prove accurate, how the solar downturn might interact with the AGW signal, and how much of the accepted warming to date is human caused and how much is some sort of natural peak analogous to the MWP. 

Whatever numbers you favour here, it all means very little in terms of knowing who is more credible, until 2050 to 2100 when a result is measured. I tend to agree with the concept that better safe than sorry and to accelerate the move away from carbon, as long as it comes with realistic economic frameworks that don't cause stress on poorer nations' food supplies in the interim, or huge economic hardships. I think the "average voter" is probably rather skeptical of some political rhetoric about this subject in part because he sees himself paying while elites are not expected to sacrifice anything themselves, even the major spokespersons fall into that category. It can easily seem like a disguised tax grab to benefit the public sector and there have been wasteful subsidies for very small power production alternatives that end up too costly to be efficient on any large scale. As for that section of public opinion that goes to the opposite extreme and says no warming ever occurred and an ice age is coming, that is perhaps a case of the best defense being a good offense. I don't think anyone really familiar with recent weather statistics goes in for that position.

I do think that a long solar downturn of Dalton to Maunder proportions may "save our bacon" and the climate is sure to become quite volatile as the two opposite tendencies interact. Hopefully we get the greenhouse gas trends under control fairly soon and then ride out this period to enter what is bound to be a return to more average solar forcing some time later in the century. Nobody is going to remember what you or I predict will happen but I think the climate will prove fairly resilient through feedback and stay within the 2 C increase limit that seems to be the tipping point for widespread arctic land ice melt. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it and the ranch is 480 metres above sea level so even an Antarctic meltdown can't quite reach that. 

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

16 hours ago, Sunny76 said:

I have friends from Toronto, and they mentioned the December in 1982 was a very mild one for Canada. 

I read up about it, and temperatures on Christmas Day that year in Toronto were 14-17 degrees(which is balmy even by uk standards, but must have been very strange for anyone who witnessed this during December 1982. 

Perhaps the climate started warming in 1982, but nobody took notice.

We have been warming for 150 years when we came out of the LIA, but on a grander scale over many millennia the trend is down despite the small warming we have seen.  Climate change is and has ALWAYS been....and ALWAYS will happen.....that’s the simple fact

 

BFTP

[Sunny76]

From a modern day standpoint, I would say that 1982 seems to be a period when climate change started getting noticed by the general public, especially in North America. We 

[WhiteFox]

On 02/09/2018 at 09:33, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

We have been warming for 150 years when we came out of the LIA, but on a grander scale over many millennia the trend is down despite the small warming we have seen.  Climate change is and has ALWAYS been....and ALWAYS will happen.....that’s the simple fact

 

BFTP

Of course the climate varies; I don't think anybody disputes that fact, and I haven't seen anybody saying so (except Nigel Lawson who should really just disappear from public view).

I think the issue is over the gamble, as Roger states above. Those who say we should do nothing because it is purely natural variation are taking a gamble; you could argue the same is true on the flip side. However, the difference is that those who would gamble on the side of doing nothing are risking absolutely everything if they are wrong. Those who say we should do something are gambling a small amount of growth in the greater scheme of things in order to keep the planet habitable. Far better to err on the side of caution and risk losing a small amount of money now (and let's be honest, the greatest amount of that money goes to the wealthiest anyway) on something that may not happen rather than blithely continue on and risking a meltdown...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

26 minutes ago, WhiteFox said:

Of course the climate varies; I don't think anybody disputes that fact, and I haven't seen anybody saying so (except Nigel Lawson who should really just disappear from public view).

I think the issue is over the gamble, as Roger states above. Those who say we should do nothing because it is purely natural variation are taking a gamble; you could argue the same is true on the flip side. However, the difference is that those who would gamble on the side of doing nothing are risking absolutely everything if they are wrong. Those who say we should do something are gambling a small amount of growth in the greater scheme of things in order to keep the planet habitable. Far better to err on the side of caution and risk losing a small amount of money now (and let's be honest, the greatest amount of that money goes to the wealthiest anyway) on something that may not happen rather than blithely continue on and risking a meltdown...

Its the deceit I don’t like. A good point you make but I’ll hold back any response in case of any ‘denier attack’  by scientists on here.

I think things will become apparent and clear ‘either way’ within a decade.

BFTP

Edited September 19, 2018 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[cheeky_monkey]

14 minutes ago, BLAST FROM THE PAST said:

Its the deceit I don’t like. A good point you make but I’ll hold back any response in case of any ‘denier attack’  by scientists on here.

I think things will become apparent and clear ‘either way’ within a decade.

BFTP

Haven't people being saying that for the last 30 years>?..how much the globe has warmed is still up for debate..looking at the USA back in the 1970's 90% of the data was made up of actual thermometer recordings the other 10% were estimated to fill the gaps...now that is 50/50..so 50% of the data is based on an estimations

[reef]

Closing this, as its more suited to the climate area.

Further to this, there's no issue if people want to restart this topic in the climate area, so long as the rules for that section are followed.

We have strict rules in that section for a reason and won't accept people sending things off topic in other areas in an attempt to circumvent them.

Edited September 19, 2018 by reef