I am not saying the station data isn't useful, but I am arguing that it is not sensitive at
detecting changes in global temperature.
So the ability to
detect changes in the global temperature is the yard stick to measure the global effects of CO2 emissions.
As I pointed out here, there seems to be a developing and increasing problem with the station data having the ability
detect changes in the global temperature.
Not exact matches
«We really can't
detect these
changes yet
in the existing data
in the way we can
detect in changes, for example,
in the
global mean
temperature,» he said.
Which
in fact makes me think of the issue raised by some skeptics about our ability to reliably
detect global temperature changes of tenths of a degree
in the past century.
If the most commonly cited
temperature sets can not
detect the easy
changes in the climate, then how is it going to
detect the subtle
changes associated with the theory of
global warming.
It would have to be shown that the recent
temperature record can be statistically significantly distinguished from the statistically significant warming signal, which can be
detected when performing an analysis that uses data over multiple decades, from the mid-1970ies to present, or from the mid-1970ies up to the time, when the alleged
change in the behavior of the
global atmospheric
temperature is supposed to have occurred.
Reckova and Irsova (2015) also
detected a publication bias after analyzing 16 studies of carbon dioxide concentrations
in the atmosphere and
changes in global temperature.
1) a quasi-60 year cycle has been
detected in several proxy during the last centuries and for several millennia, For example
in numerous Holocene records, such as
in Davis J.C., and Bohling G., The Search for Patterns
in Ice - Core
Temperature Curves:
in Gerhard, Lee C., William E. Harrison, and Bernold M. Hanson, eds., Geological Perspectives of
Global Climate
Change, 213 - 230 (2001).
When trying to
detect global warming, the method that is most effective at
detecting changes in the Earth's
temperature is the better method.
«Working with data pertaining to 7450 cardiovascular - related deaths that occurred within Budapest, Hungary, between 1995 and 2004 — where the deceased were «medico - legally autopsied» — Toro et al. looked for potential relationships between daily maximum, minimum and mean
temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed,
global radiation and daily numbers of the heart - related deaths... scientists report and restate their primary finding numerous times throughout their paper, writing that (1) «both the maximum and the minimum daily
temperatures tend to be lower when more death cases occur
in a day,» (2) «on the days with four or more death cases, the daily maximum and minimum
temperatures tend to be lower than on days without any cardiovascular death events,» (3) «the largest frequency of cardiovascular death cases was
detected in cold and cooling weather conditions,» (4) «we found a significant negative relationship between
temperature and cardiovascular mortality,» (5) «the analysis of 6 - hour
change of air pressure suggests that more acute or chronic vascular death cases occur during increasing air pressure conditions (implying cold weather fronts),» (6) «we found a high frequency of cardiovascular death
in cold weather,» (7) «a significant negative relationship was
detected between daily maximum [and] minimum
temperature [s] and the number of sudden cardiovascular death cases,» and (8) «a significant negative correlation was
detected between daily mean
temperature and cardiovascular mortality.»
Climate
change in the latter half of the 20th century is
detected based upon an increase
in global surface
temperature anomalies that is much larger than can be explained by natural internal variability.
«Warming during the past half century can not be explained without external radiative forcing
Global Extremely likely (> 95 %)[1] Anthropogenic
change has been
detected in surface
temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1 % error probability).