New analysis by CSIRO says 99.999% chance of AGW.

Raw Story:

We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.

We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.
Detecting and measuring human influence

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.

Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.

But AlGoreIsFat!

:-/

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #394,196 by Another Scott 9/7/14 1:33:30 AM Reply	New analysis by CSIRO says 99.999% chance of AGW. Raw Story: We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions. Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000. We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results. Detecting and measuring human influence Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence. We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined. Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data. There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions. But AlGoreIsFat! :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #394,203 by boxley 9/7/14 3:05:02 AM Reply	that is awesome!!! over the last 10k years how much have we warmed? Is it statistically noticeable (greater than 2 degrees F?)warmer or colder? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #394,213 by Another Scott 9/7/14 1:00:21 PM Reply	The relevant AGW period is since 1750 (pre-industrial). http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html Small changes can have big effects. Gentle breezes can make bridges fall down. An effect doesn't only depend on how strong the force is - it critically depends on the reactions of the components of the system. Small changes in CO2 can have big effects. If you want to know more about the details of the physics, The Science of Doom has a good, dispassionate, discussion. Yeah, most of us will be dead before the really big effects happen. Doesn't mean that it's not a big problem. HTH. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!