Is global warming real or just a weather pattern?

As a statistician you may want to calculate the following probability, and then re-evaluate whether you think global warming is happening or not.

In the last ten years there have been 2019 new record temperatures recorded around the world, 1805 of them were record highs, 214 of them were record lows. What is the probability that the number of highs happened by chance and were not influenced by global warming.

Another one. The climatic trend shows 47 consecutive years of warming, what’s the probability of that having happened by chance.

Statistics are used an awful lot in climatology, I use them myself pretty much every day. What statistics don’t do is tell is how or why warming is occurring, for that we need to turn to physics. It’s here that we find the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, this is where the irrefutable evidence is found, it’s forbidden territory for the skeptics as they know that these laws are invariable and provide the incontrovertible scientific proof and explanation of the mechanics of global warming.

Furthermore, the science is actually quite simple and can be demonstrated and replicated in pretty much any basic science lab. It’s kind of pointless to argue against something that can so easily be proven through experimentation and observation.

You’re absolutely correct to say that there are lurking variables, even a basic general circulation model has over 100 variables programmed into it. There are many things we don’t know about climates, there are almost certainly variables that are yet to be identified, there are some we know about but can’t explain and there are some that exhibit seemingly random behaviour and are therefore unpredictable. None of which detracts from the fact that global warming is inevitable when atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are enhanced.

The ice-ages (glacial maxima) that you referred to are not random, they are a cyclical consequence of orbital eccentricity and happen on a very regular 95,000 year cycle. This is just one of dozens of cycles that influence our climates. Because they’re cyclical they can be quantified and predicted, their effects can be measured; which is why we know that since 1979 the net effect of these natural cycles has been one of cooling.

The issue is scientific not statistical.

If the weather tomorrow is wet and windy it is because of the distribution of high and low pressure regions, the temperature of ground and air, the moisture content of clouds, geographical features such as the position of mountains, etc. The point is there are a series of physical reasons why it will be windy and rainy tomorrow. Weather forecasts involve taking data from a wide variety of sources, feeding that data into models of those physical systems, and forming conclusions based on the results.

Now, what some skeptics would have us believe is that, in relation to warming, the temperature increase and/or CO2 increase are 'natural variations'. Fine. But that still means there is a reason for this warming. You don't suddenly get a scientific 'get out of jail' card by claiming a 'natural variation' since all that means is 'a change in some physical parameter related to our climate'. In 40 years no one has managed to define that physical parameter. No one has managed to create a model of it. No one has managed to show that model predicts the historical data, the temperature rise, or the CO2 increase.

So, the problem is that we can't do science on what people think. We can only do science on the basis of theories that explain the data. At the moment we have one theory that explains what we observe. In the absence of an alternative we can only make decisions on what we know works, not on what we think could potentially happen in the future supported by speculation with no physical model behind it. As for the statistics, the confidence level in the IPCC reports is 95% that the recent warming trend since the 1970s has been caused by human activities and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a current rate of around 33 billion tonnes per annum.

<<As a statistician...>>

If you're a statistician I am the Pope.

Only 2 months ago you stated you were still in college while another month earlier you stated you were 18.

Now there's the remote possibility that you lied in those earlier questions and are in fact a statistician who gets a weird thrill out of pretending he is an 18 year old who's never had sex yet nonetheless seeks condom advice on YA, to name just a few of your recent questions here. But a quick look at you Q&A history, particularly the Q's reveals that 98% of your questions so far were 'anti-liberal' to put it mildly, 1% anti-global warming science while the remaining 1% is the typical 'teenager seeks advice' stuff.

And now you want everyone to believe you are a statistician? Right.

Personally I believe you are a Tea Partier who has followed their Guerrilla Tactics course and floods YA daily with unscientific garbage and with lots of propaganda while reminding everyone that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein.

This "Is global warming real or just a weather pattern?" question falls neatly into that category. You have no clue what you are talking about and do not seek an answer; you just want to influence the debate with lies and deceit.

The problem with what you are saying, is that you do not have a controlled experiment. However, if you were to take a bunch of CO2 and test its qualities, you'd find that it allows light to pass through it, and it reflects heat (infrared). Now you have a rising CO2 ppm, and at the same time increasing temperatures overall. There are some natural variations, however, the overall trend is increasing temperatures since the industrial revolution (when the pollution started).

And also, if there is one thing that science teaches you, it is first that you know nothing of the world, and second, both nothing and everything is random. (Things are all affected by physics, however, there is still a huge amount of randomness in movement, etc. It depends on the field)

It is most definitely a cycle governed by ocean circulation patterns. The most accurate global temperature compilations show that the warming has stopped over a decade ago. Why was 2012 not the top three warmest years, atmospheric CO2 levels are at 395 PPM, where is the continued increase in global temperatures as predicted by NASA, rewind the clock ten years and the earth shows a cooling trend. The metrics that govern climate indicate we are in for 30 years of cooling, and atmospheric CO2 levesl are far to low to prevent it.

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

It appears to me that you're not really asking a question, but just giving your opinion. Also, if you only look at statistics, you're ignoring science. Saying something is "...all just random" is neglecting hundreds of years of physics knowledge. Purely statistical weather forecasting fails in comparison to techniques that use the full dynamics of the atmosphere. Also, you should get your facts straight about what people really thought in the 70's--how many people actually believed in "global cooling" and what their reasons were.

By the way, there are many statisticians that work in climate science.

You are claiming that because you know absolutely nothing about climate, those who have studied climate must know nothing. Your rant is accordingly ridiculous. As a statistician, count the living creatures on earth and determine statistical likelihood that the earth is warm enough for life. If CO2 does not cause the atmosphere to retain heat, then life never evolved. Run a regression on that that.

If you ever come to you senses and wish to take a serious statistical look, I would suggest you review David Brillinger's analysis.

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/

It is best to do your homework before ranting. Otherwise you make a fool of yourself.

you'll have to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas first. It's pretty obvious on Venus and Earth's greenhouse gases make it warmer than the moon.

The planet does not work in random. There are laws of physics that govern nature. Like it or not, the atmosphere's composition is important to climate.

Many have learned this already, this is why we have scientists, universities and research organizations.

What you feel is not important, mother nature does not work by your feelings.

No evidence for man made warming at all.

Not one doom and gloom prediction has ever come true (you could do better by guessing)

Evidence of tampering with data.

UK met office figures show no warming for 16 years whilst co2 levels rose.

Blatant scientific lies such as ocean acidification.

No real idea how or which way the necessary feedback's go.

The ridiculous cure of taxation, letting grannie freeze in winter and moving jobs/industry to the far east.

The evidence is very much against this extremist anti human viewpoint, so it can be said with 99.9% certainty that it's not real.

Just look at all the phoney 'scientists' who express their views in a unscientific way.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2...

For over a decade the temperature has been going down. All the while the CO2 level has been increasing.

This is globally.