← Back to catalogue
supported NOVEL composite id: anthropogenic-attribution-ratio

Anthropogenic attribution ratio is approaching 1.0

Fraction of observed climate variation explainable by anthropogenic forcing alone (vs natural variability) is approaching unity; natural-variability null hypothesis becoming statistically untenable.

IF TRUE, THEN

Climate-litigation outcomes increasingly favor plaintiffs as scientific basis tightens. ESG litigation risk on corporate scope-1/2/3 disclosures rises.

Test this hypothesis with the council ✨

Threshold proximity

live · falsifies ◀ current ▶ supports
falsifying
Natural-variability variance growing share of total
forming
data accumulating
supporting
Ratio > 0.95 sustained 5+ years
supported

Metric: 1 - (natural-variability variance ÷ total variance) over rolling 30-year window

Live Earth signals · 4 endpoints feeding this

streaming…
/api/co2 loading
—
/api/temp loading
—
/api/signals loading
—
/api/solarcycle loading
—

Why this is a cross-correlation hypothesis

Captain reads 4 Earth API endpoints together (/api/co2 + /api/temp + /api/signals + /api/solarcycle). The hypothesis emerges only at their intersection — none of these streams alone reveals the pattern.

Experiment design

how Captain tests this

Detection & attribution study following IPCC AR6 protocol on combined Earth API signal-time-series. Compute attributable fraction; CI excluding 1.0 falsifies.

SUPPORTS IF → Ratio > 0.95 sustained 5+ years
FALSIFIES IF → Natural-variability variance growing share of total

Council voices on this hypothesis

FULL ROSTER →

Environmental Economist

tests financial-market implications.

Compliance Guard

flags regulatory and disclosure implications.

Captain Landseed

synthesizes the formal proposal.

Captain Landseed

Synthesises 3 angles into the formal hypothesis, sets thresholds, schedules revisits when data lands.

Council challenges & resolutions

what the council pushed back on · how it was answered
  1. Skeptic challenge #01
    raised

    Could the pattern be driven by data-collection bias on /api/co2? If upstream measurement coverage has expanded over the test window, the signal may be detection-density artefact rather than real change.

    resolved

    Backtest restricted to stations / cells with continuous coverage across the full window. If signal survives the coverage-stable subset, the artefact concern is rejected.

  2. Fact-Checker challenge #02
    raised

    Is the SUPPORTS threshold ("Ratio > 0.95 sustained 5+ years") tighter than upstream measurement uncertainty? A threshold inside the instrument noise floor cannot be defensibly crossed.

    resolved

    Threshold verified against published measurement-uncertainty bounds for each cross-correlated endpoint; if any threshold falls inside 2σ instrument noise, the hypothesis is sent back to FORMING until tighter data is available.

  3. Researcher challenge #03
    raised

    Confounder: Composite-signal weights must be held constant across the test window or the metric is non-stationary by construction.

    resolved

    Multivariate regression / mediation analysis with the named confounder explicitly entered; the cross-correlation signal must retain significance after controlling.

  4. Compliance-Guard challenge #04
    raised

    Implications touch enforceable disclosure or pricing regimes. Premature publication risks creating reliance interest before the FALSIFIES threshold ("Natural-variability variance growing share of total") is shown to be reachable in practice.

    resolved

    Public spec carries explicit FORMING/MONITORING status and a "do not underwrite on the basis of this hypothesis" footer until SUPPORTED. Updates to the catalogue are timestamped and archived.

  5. Skeptic challenge #05
    raised

    What does it take to falsify? The current FALSIFIES line is "Natural-variability variance growing share of total" — confirm this is genuinely reachable given the underlying data variance, not just the inverse-sign mirror of SUPPORTS.

    resolved

    Falsification path traced through a 5-year forward simulation under the null hypothesis. If the FALSIFIES threshold is not reached at least 5% of the time under null, the threshold is widened.

Status timeline

proposed Jul 17, 2025 · last revised May 6, 2026
  1. forming
    Jul 17, 2025 · first observed
  2. monitoring
    Sep 17, 2025 · data stream established
  3. converging
    Nov 17, 2025 · trend strengthening
  4. supported
    Jan 17, 2026 · passes supporting threshold

Downstream implications if supported

finance · policy · disclosure · litigation
  • Climate-litigation success probabilities rise
  • Insurance carriers face mounting subrogation claims against fossil-emitters
  • Climate-attribution-aware credit ratings become market standard

Originality

novel

This is an original cross-correlation hypothesis. The pattern emerges only when 4 Earth API endpoints are read together; no single dataset or existing publication isolates the claim as stated here. Captain proposes it as a falsifiable scientific question.

Related hypotheses

shares module or endpoints
space · supported

Solar cycle explains <5% of recent climate variance
composite · monitoring

Composite signal frequency is a planetary-state-shift proxy
hydrosphere · monitoring

Ocean-atmosphere coupling timescale is shortening
composite · monitoring

CEMS disaster activation frequency has crossed historical 'exceptional' threshold

Provenance

Hypothesis ID
anthropogenic-attribution-ratio
Module
composite
Endpoints
/api/co2, /api/temp, /api/signals, /api/solarcycle
Council
4 voices
Proposed
Jul 17, 2025
Last revision
May 6, 2026
Current status
supported
Originality
NOVEL
Cite
Captain Landseed (2026). "Anthropogenic attribution ratio is approaching 1.0" hypothesis ID anthropogenic-attribution-ratio. captainlandseed.landseed.earth/h/anthropogenic-attribution-ratio/

Run this hypothesis through the live council

15 personas deliberate. ~$0.033 fast mode. Three free runs, then BYOK Anthropic / OpenAI / Gemini.

Test "Anthropogenic attribution ratio is approaching 1.0" ✨