Does the data support anthropogenic global warming theory?

In summary: References:- HadCRU global temperature warming per decade has been .12C with uncertainty intervals of .13C (since 1995) (using Santer17 formula) which given my thoughts of an upward heating bias due to data handling and urban heat island effect still indicates that since 1995 - there has been no statistically significant warming. - Other data metrics, such as UAH and RSS show cooling trends from 2001-2008 which invalidate the IPCC's 2C/century claim within 95% confidence intervals http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/- But does that refute the possibility
  • #1
Eric_meyers
68
0
According to HadCRU global temperature warming per decade has been .12C with uncertainty intervals of .13C (since 1995) (using Santer17 formula) which given my thoughts of an upward heating bias due to data handling and urban heat island effect still indicates that since 1995 - there has been no statistically significant warming.

Other data metrics, such as UAH and RSS show cooling trends from 2001-2008 which invalidate the IPCC's 2C/century claim within 95% confidence intervals http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/

Obviously this cooling trend is too short a time period to adequately correct for possible noise, but I do believe that since the PDO shifted to "cool" this year temperatures will decline immensely, recently a strong negative SOI came up almost erupting into a new La Nina, I do say if global warming is suppose to be occurring from all this build up of CO2 and other related GHG's, it sure is well hidden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
The AMO is also near a peak and will likely begin a downswing soon. So, yes, there may very well be a weak cooling trend over the next couple of decades. But does that refute the possibility of an underlying warming trend from CO2? No.

Come back to this thread in about 20 years and we can compare the cooling trend (if there is one) over the 2010-2030 period with the trends during past downswings of the AMO and PDO (say, with the 1955-75 and 1885-1905 periods). We can do all kinds of happy analysis, weighting for the amplitudes of the oscillations and factoring in solar cycles, sunspot activity, magnetosphere variations, correcting for ENSOs, geological activity, land use, piracy in the high seas and everything else you can think of. Then if there is no residual trend of warming, it's not very good news for the AGW models. If there is, then they get to gloat, justifiably or not.

Over the next 20 years though, I expect the state of the science to have evolved at least a little bit.

Right now, to paraphrase your own words - there's not enough data to ask a meaningful question about whether the data supports anything (especially if you are going to choose endpoints - like 1995 - that are not designed to minimize errors from noise).
 
Last edited:
  • #3
My personal take after going over the science is that yes, indeed there is evidence and strong correlation in the data sets with the anthropogenic hypothesis.

What I feel is controversial is exactly how much this effect is or is not important (judged by numbers like the climate sensitivity) and crucially what sort of confidence and statistics are used in ascertaining whatever number comes out. Frankly, there's some rather sloppy math in the literature (particularly by the IPCC groups) with regards to the latter question and I am skeptical if anyone really can make both a precise and accurate mathematical statement about it without using a simplified toy model.
 
  • #4
Haelfix said:
My personal take after going over the science is that yes, indeed there is evidence and strong correlation in the data sets with the anthropogenic hypothesis.

What I feel is controversial is exactly how much this effect is or is not important (judged by numbers like the climate sensitivity) and crucially what sort of confidence and statistics are used in ascertaining whatever number comes out. Frankly, there's some rather sloppy math in the literature (particularly by the IPCC groups) with regards to the latter question and I am skeptical if anyone really can make both a precise and accurate mathematical statement about it without using a simplified toy model.

:approve: my uneducated guess also.
 
  • #5
Haelfix said:
My personal take after going over the science is that yes, indeed there is evidence and strong correlation in the data sets with the anthropogenic hypothesis.

What I feel is controversial is exactly how much this effect is or is not important (judged by numbers like the climate sensitivity) and crucially what sort of confidence and statistics are used in ascertaining whatever number comes out. Frankly, there's some rather sloppy math in the literature (particularly by the IPCC groups) with regards to the latter question and I am skeptical if anyone really can make both a precise and accurate mathematical statement about it without using a simplified toy model.

Could you share those data sets, so that we can judge the science as well?

No need for links, just references,
 
Last edited:

1. What is anthropogenic global warming theory?

Anthropogenic global warming theory, also known as human-caused global warming theory, is the scientific consensus that the Earth's average temperature is rising due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

2. How do scientists collect data to support anthropogenic global warming theory?

Scientists collect data from a variety of sources, including satellite observations, weather stations, ocean buoys, and ice core samples. This data is then analyzed and used to track changes in global temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and other key indicators of climate change.

3. Is there evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming theory?

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence from multiple lines of research that support anthropogenic global warming theory. This includes not only temperature data, but also observations of rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and changes in plant and animal behavior.

4. What are some common misconceptions about the data supporting anthropogenic global warming theory?

Some common misconceptions include cherry-picking data to support a particular viewpoint, ignoring the overwhelming consensus among scientists, and confusing short-term weather patterns with long-term climate change. It is important to consider all available data and the scientific consensus when evaluating the evidence for anthropogenic global warming theory.

5. Is there any debate among scientists about the data supporting anthropogenic global warming theory?

While there may be some disagreement about specific details and the extent to which human activities are contributing to global warming, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the data supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes hundreds of climate experts from around the world, has concluded that it is extremely likely that human activities are the dominant cause of global warming.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
9K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
54
Views
11K
  • Earth Sciences
6
Replies
184
Views
43K
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • Earth Sciences
2
Replies
35
Views
21K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Back
Top