That's what's called a "p-value", and as you guessed it is indeed calculated. It's a basic tool of science, to the point that even better probabilistic tools have been advocated for years, and it's one of the first things you check when you're reviewing a paper.
I'm aware of what a "p-value" is but what were talking about is reconstruction from historical samples and its perfectly calculable what kind of events wouldnt show up in that reconstruction (and p-values have almost nothing to do with it). Your attitude is obnoxious.
You say it's calculable and I agree. What's make you think it isn't calculated? Sorry if I came out as obnoxious, but "you should be able to calculate that" is a veiled accusation that it is in fact not calculated, as if no scientists take this seriously.
"How unlucky we would have been to see this data of the past, if a spike in temperatures had actually happened then" is P(data|hypothesis), the frequentist argument for or against a hypothesis. It's what a p-value is, but arguing what to call it is pointless anyway.
Im not making an accusation that climate scientists wouldnt calculate this, because its not something thats in the content of the paper were discussing. My accusation is that you (or whoever i replied to) didnt have that data.
At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if there were climate scientists who chose to avoid these sorts of calculations.
Also, the p-value might tell you whether or not an event like this would literally be one of your samples, but its not whats going to tell you whether or not a reconstruction from these samples contains information about these events. Although I guess its not much of a distinction.
I don't have the data, and it'd be a cool trivia to know. I don't think corradio said "incredibly unlucky" because he just flipped a coin. Rather because if the probability weren't so, global warming, as an unprecedented thing, wouldn't be discussed outside of scientific circles yet.
And that's fine, given that I nor that commenter have the data. But if you believe your critique against the science of the matter is something the whole set of climate scientists happen to have overlooked for decades, the burden is on you to read the actual papers and find out if you're right or not.
If you're right and all of them have overlooked it, you'll have material for a hell of a paper yourself: There's nothing more juicy than a paper that mathematically proves that a pile of accepted scientific literature is flawed.
Imagining possible flaws of a paper before reading it is so easy that it's hard to really strike gold (it is equally easy for the authors and reviewers). But it is also an enjoyable way to learn how those flaws have been taken care of.
Of course I don't think all climate scientists would've over looked it, I think probably the friction is between climate scientists and people who report on (and thus people who end up talking about) climate scientists. I think its perfectly possible that the results arent as dramatic or causally linked as theyre portrayed to be, and I have yet to see a genuine consensus to prove me wrong.
And lets not pretend one or two papers that make bold claims hold much water.
I've been misled by popular media many times, so color me unsurprised that they might be selling some bullshit about this as well. (Not that they certainly are.)
Agreed: you have to read the papers, or literature reviews by experts, to convince yourself. I'm a physicist and when it comes to physics, the articles journalists write might as well be completely made up.
The AGW papers I've read, though, are very solid, and more sophisticated than I expected.
