Are any weather related phenomenon, hot summer days, longer winters, more number of hurricanes, or other phenomena like these in the contiguous United States can be definite proof ( definite as in statistically significant) of climate change. This is all based on observations before the year 2020 ?
Excluded are observations made with sophisticated instruments.
My understanding is that all weather related events for the next few decades fall in the domain of statistical noise. Is that correct ?
Individual events are each below the noise level. The sum total of all events together over ten years, however, reveals quite a clear signal.
I love that thermometers are considered sophisticated equipment.
Here you go:
The hottest fifteen months on record have all occurred within the past three years.
The most recent record-setting cold month was back in 1929; the rest of the coldest 15 months on record are scattered in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
We haven’t even had a “cooler than normal” month in over three decades.
Not sure about the OP’s proscription against sophisticated instruments. The assessments of hottest/coldest months are based on global average temperature, which requires a huge array of temperature sensors. I suppose you could argue that this is nonetheless measurable by human senses; in lieu of thermometers, you’d just need to survey people all over the world to confirm that the weather in their location was warmer than what they were used to for that time of year.
The real issue is how to determine climate change using non-long-term trends in data. Because that’s not something humans do very well at all. It might even be why we invented science!
Or, to go the jokey route:
Or a bit more long term:
The warming statistics are massive and consistent. They are the opposite of statistical noise. Therefore, your statement is the opposite of correct.
Best evidence anyone can see:
The accelerated loss of cap ice, a natural thermometer. Not only at the poles but in glaciers of the USA.
(Short TED video)
As has been pointed out, no individual weather event can confirm climate change. Climate change is demonstrated by the change in the frequency of events.
But the impact of long term changes in the frequency of events can be observed rather easily. The retreat of glaciers and the melting of ice caps is one of them. Another is changes in the distributions of plants and animals. In the US, for example, many species of birds occur farther north than they used to in previous decades. Likewise in the tropics the distributions of plants and animals is changing with altitude as high mountains become warmer.
Thanks Colibri. So what it feels like: an unusually hot day or hot month or too many hurricanes for the season; are not a scientific confirmation of Climate change (nor is it a confirmation of no climate change).
What’s with the snarky response ? As I understood the thermometers used in Climate change research have two to three decimals of significant digits. Or are they common household thermometers ?
Correct. And similarly, a snowstorm in DC (and a U.S. Senator holding a snowball) doesn’t disprove climate change.
Climate change occurs on a scale too vast for human senses. Human memory is how it can be detected and tracked.
Writing is how we store human memory outside of these fragile vessels we call our bodies.
Do you consider a tide gauge to be a “sophisticated instrument”? The sea level rose by about 6 inches in the past 100 years.
Closely paralleling the rise in sea levels would be the very noticeable recession of most glaciers on the planet.
Yes, I have to add too that I was referring to the human sense of sight. While time lapsed, the examples presented are indeed about how through the decades and years the ice is clearly retreating.
Sure, a single observation on location will not make that apparent, but what I wanted to point out is that there would be an even bigger act of denial to refuse to compare the images of the past with the present.
An individual event is a data point. Statistics combines data points to test whether they are collectively meaningful or over time point to longer-term trends. The difference is critical.
For a simplified example: The average temperature for a particular day at a given spot is a data point. The movement of the average temperature over time provides statistical meaning to statements about change in that period. The collection of all average temperature for all spots over time is the basis for understanding climate change.
What information did you use to reach that understanding?
They are the same technology as a household thermometer, or at least used to be and can be. You just need to have a thinner tube to allow for a finer reading.
You want observations from the future?
Cite please ? Whenever I have used mercury thermometers for high resolution, I have found them limited to a resolution to about 0.05C. And they have to be read in conjunction with a correction curve that accounts for the manufacturing variability in the bulb/capillary. It’s nothing like a household thermometer.