2

Thanks to Wolfram Alpha we have access to a great deal of historical temperature data. One would think that through Wolfram Alpha one would see a visual trend in temperature upwards as it has gradually moved with the increase in CO2 since 1980.

Here are some examples though where the average temperature do not appear to be changing:

I tried a few other places, but none showed any of the change in temperature that one would expect if changes in temperature were occurring.

This appears inconsistent with the theory of climate change, namely that temperatures are increasing. How might one explain this inconsistency?

EDIT

This question is quite similar to

Does the regional localisation of global temperature trends suggest contamination by urban development?

... but in this question the data is from a specific (well reputed source), Wolfram Alpha, and there is no link to the theory of urbanization–warming.

I am concerned about deferring answers to the urbanization question, good as it is, because I feel it does not address the crux of this issue, namely: why are some places not experiencing any global warming according to the data in Wolfram Alpha.

It is not fair to call the sample cherry picking because I chose to look at data from England and the "edges" of North America and the centre (Chicago), being reasonable "corners" of a familiar geography; I did not choose the data based on the result (i.e. cherry picking), though it is obviously biased to North America, but that is where Wolfram Alpha has data.

I would expect, given the huge amount of research on the topic, that the question may be (and likely already is) answered with a map that shows places affected by global warming (a "heat map" of sorts) – which should show that the above places are exactly as mentioned, a variant of the inadequate sample size problem or biased generalization (being only North America).

Community
  • 1
Brian M. Hunt
  • 17,999
  • 13
  • 99
  • 176
  • 4
    The average global temperature has increased since 1980 by about half a degree (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg). So what sort of "visual trend" do you expect? At least my own eyes would definitely not be able to spot this in the plots that your links point to. However, getting the data and performing a linear regression should be sufficiently accurate to reveal the trend. – Saibot Sep 20 '15 at 17:54
  • @Saibot So are you saying that the trend is small enough that it is impossible to discern visually? (Which is not to say that the trend does not exist or is not important, only that the graphs on Wolfram Alpha do not portray the trend). Is that fair? If so, that may be the answer. Or is it that the global temperature you linked includes ocean temperatures? – Brian M. Hunt Sep 20 '15 at 19:39
  • 1
    possible duplicate of [Has global mean temperature at sea level increased since 1900?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1065/has-global-mean-temperature-at-sea-level-increased-since-1900) – Russell Borogove Sep 20 '15 at 20:05
  • 2
    According to the raw temperature data the majority of warming is concentrated in a small number of areas geographically. I'm about to ask a separate question on this, but the effect is obvious if you look at regional anomalies. There are plenty of US states or countries that show no net warming. – matt_black Sep 20 '15 at 20:25
  • Intersting discussion on the topic [here](http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3338). – matt_black Sep 20 '15 at 20:50
  • 2
    I would argue there is no notable claim here: that no climatologist has predicted even warming in every geographical location over the past 35 years. It is a strawman. Do you have an example of such a claim, because that would be more meaningful to address? – Oddthinking Sep 20 '15 at 22:00
  • 1
    I suppose the claim is: climate change causes global warming; the skepticism arises because of the observational data from Wolfram Alpha. Perhaps this is an original question and deserves a better SE home, but it "feels" rather skeptical, in the sense that one ought to be able to apply the scientific method to incorporate the inconsistent data (i.e. theory => inconsistency => explanation => new theory). Perhaps I'm hoping for elbow grease here, given the notability of the data (a substitute for a notable claim?) and what one would expect to be an "easy" explanation from the GW theory. – Brian M. Hunt Sep 21 '15 at 00:34
  • 2
    Also no notable claim because it's not really clear from the graphs whether annual mean temperature is increasing or not in the locations specified. We'd need the actual figures. – DJClayworth Sep 21 '15 at 02:29
  • 4
    The question appears to be asking us to generate a model of the climate change based on five cherry-picked cities, over 35 cherry-picked years. Rather than doing original research, our role is to point to the conclusions produced by climatologists. A duplicate question already covers that. – Oddthinking Sep 21 '15 at 03:26
  • @BrianM.Hunt: yes, I was trying to say that the expected trend is much too small to be noticeable by visual inspection. But if you use a data analysis method like linear regression, you will be able to compute the trend with sufficient accuracy in each city to tell you whether that city has experienced more or less warming since 1980 than expected from the global average. – Saibot Sep 21 '15 at 08:47
  • By the way, while a warming of 0.1 degrees per decade may seem small, this rate of change is allegedly still large: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/ – Saibot Sep 21 '15 at 08:47
  • @BrianM.Hunt I've posted a related question based on a more specific claim: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30104/does-the-regional-localisation-of-global-temperature-trends-suggest-contaminatio Have a look and see whether it covers the point you wanted to make. – matt_black Sep 21 '15 at 09:45
  • 2
    There seems to be some confusion in the scope of the site. If there is anyone out there making the notable claim "As a result of global warming, every location on Earth has a visual trend upwards in average temperature", I would upvote the question - that is a ridiculous-sounding claim, that sounds like it is totally at odds with the consensus of climatologists, and I would like to see evidence to support or reject it - evidence that came from peer-reviewed experts who had processed the data, not from raw thermometer readings. But is anyone making that claim? – Oddthinking Sep 21 '15 at 23:00
  • 8
    The Wolfram alpha plots are of the raw data, which includes the seasonal cycle, which for the U.K. is a swing of 15-20 degrees C. The expected warming from climate change is much smaller (IIRC 0.2 degrees per *decade* on average), so it is not going to be visible over the seasonal signal. That is why climatologists use anomalies, where the mean value for each month is subtracted off, which eliminates most of the seasonal signal. This means there is no notable claim here, just an error in the analysis. –  Sep 22 '15 at 07:01
  • 4
    BTW, for England, we have the Central England Temperature dataset, which the oldest instrumental records (going back to 1659!), and the anomalies are available from the MetOffice here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ . The recent warming is readily apparent, although there is considerable variation (the smaller the area you look at, the more variable temperature records will be). HTH. –  Sep 22 '15 at 07:48
  • @Oddthinking There are many reputable claims that global warming is *not* uniform, and it is experimentally observable. The answer I was looking for is something like Dikran Marsupial and others posted, namely 1. the inconsistencies are explained by the data being "raw"; and 2. non-uniformity is ok. If the question were open, I'd encourage him to post something like that as an answer. :) – Brian M. Hunt Sep 22 '15 at 15:58
  • 2
    The IPCC reports are quite a good resource for checking these sorts of things. Annex 1 of the most recent AR5 report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexI_FINAL.pdf) has lots of info (mostly "heat map" plots) on the GCM projections for various regions (and the world). In short, climate change is not uniform and not expected to be uniform. This is especially true on the timescale of a decade or so, where variation in ocean circulation (e.g. ENSO) has a big effect. It may be better to ask this at EarthSciencesSE, rather than here, as there is no notable claim. –  Sep 22 '15 at 16:43
  • @DikranMarsupial I think you're probably right about EarthSciences.SE - good suggestion. – Brian M. Hunt Sep 23 '15 at 12:56

0 Answers0