Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling trends with cherry picked data all the rage

With temperature records tumbling across Australia the (fake) sceptics are doing their very best to convince themselves and the gullible the planet is cooling.

However it is not enough to simply shout at the top of ones lungs the planet is heading for another ice age: one must produce evidence. And what stunning evidence the climate denial crowd have amassed this past month.

As long as it has an X-Y axis and presents the trend they want, the deniers are happily proclaiming victory over climate science and “mainstream scientists”.

That the evidence is nothing more than cherry picked data massaged to produce made-to-order trends is beside the point. What matters is producing graphs that look “sciencey”.

Some call it fun with statistics: I call it lying. But hey, I have an old-fashioned attachment to reality.

Tamino was the first to pick it up in his post Cherry picking is child’s play:

Anybody can do it.

Fake “skeptics” of global warming do it all the time. One of the latest and most extreme — this one is a real doozy — comes from John Coleman. Of course it’s regurgitated by Anthony Watts

Indeed, anyone can do it, and it seems to be all the rage within the denial-o-sphere at present.

Evidence of this latest sceptic trick?

Today Perth sceptic Jo Nova claimed the planet has been cooling for the past eight years:

The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005. And here’s the political point: how many of the policy makers, the media, or the public are even aware of the current trend? Approximately no one. I’ll bet even most skeptics didn’t know it.

The ever gullible Andrew Bolt picked up Jo’s claims and promoted it on his blog, yet again proving his blog is Australia’s premier clearing house for the disinformation produced by Australia’s wing-nuts.

Nova produces a series of graphs using data taken from the four major temperature sets from across the globe, including this one utilising HadCRUT4 data:

hadcrut4-2005-2013-global-temp

Never mind that data Nova is using are temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 period: its all about producing the trend she wants. 

How long till the next ice age then? At least the polar bears will be happy.

Of course I looked at that and was curious. 

So, I popped on over to the website of the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre to download the monthly temperature (HadCRUT4) data to try and reproduce Nova’s graph.

I grabbed the data and ran it through Excel and applied a trend line.

Low and behold similar results:

HadCRUT4_1

But my graph lacked something: a trend line pointing to the 2020!

Sure, my trend lines points down – but not at the same angle as Nova’s. You can’t have a real cooling trend without fiddling with the graph a bit more. So I extended the date range to 2020 to produce a graph identical to Nova’s:

HadCRUT4_2

Ahem – a “eight year cooling trend”.

However I don’t like downward temperature trends. Being a warmanista I always want to see temperature trends going up.

Or at least according to the cartoon version of climate science the fake sceptics promote. In their mind, scientists are stunned by any slight variations in data. If the trend is not perfectly linear they claim a) the science is suspect or b) scientists are at a loss to explain it (or make both claims at the same time).

So if the fake sceptics are manufacturing cooling trends, I might as well take a leaf from their book and randomly cherry pick data to produce warming trends. Cherry picking is easy – and fun!

How fun? Let’s find out!

I choose to start my graph at 2008:

HadCRUT4_3

There you go: back to a warming trend.

Up, down! Weeeeeeee! This is fun!

It’s like geoengineering the planet’s climate: pick a start point and push the trend line up or down. One minute we’re all heading for a Venusian hell world: the next snowball Earth.

Luckily none of this has any real world consequences like misleading the public…  oh wait.

Still, my graph didn’t produce enough of a warming trend for my liking. I need to make it scarier, after all presentation matters.

Thus I turned the trend line into what I affectionately refer to as the “Red Trend Line of Doom”. I also fiddled with the background colour and font:

HadCRUT4_DOOM

See how I made the trend line all fiery, a scorching wave of doom propelling us into a Venusian hell. The black background emphasizes the drama of the “OH MY GOD WE’RE GOING TO DIE” spike in global temperatures.

Scared now people?

You may think I’m not being fair, given that Nova’s claim that the world has been cooling for eight years was ripe for ridicule.

So in the interests of fairness I’ve reproduced a custom version of Nova’s graph. I call it “Ice Age Now” in honor of the global cooling trend she has discovered through the magic of Excel trend lines:

HadCRUT4_Brrrrrrr

Notice how I made elements of the graph blue to signify the cooling trend?  Break out the thermals guys, an ice-age is coming.  

Obviously statistical tricks and fiddling with the presentation of data is a meaningless exercise. As Nova admits:

Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…  

Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.  

Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is “still warming” in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets. 

But what about the last 4 years of warming – surely that is statistically significant?

How many policy makers or sceptics are aware of the 4 year warming trend?

Some may accuse me of cherry picking, but honestly it’s all in the presentation.

Telling the difference between science and pseudo-science: easier than you think

We could play tricks with statistics all day. Alternatively, we could marvel at the recent work of scientists who reconstructed the temperature for the last 11,500 years:

 

Now that is a trend worth noting.

Philosophers of science often refer to the problem of demarcation, the supposed difficulty in telling the difference between science and pseudo-science:

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience. The debate continues after over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method. 

Contrast Nova’s eight year statistical tricks with the analysis of 11,500 year of data.

I think the line between science and nonscience is rather clear.

About these ads

175 thoughts on “Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling trends with cherry picked data all the rage

  1. […] Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling … […]

  2. […] Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling … […]

  3. […] Since then, he’s divided his time evenly between deliberately generating controversy and posting inept climate change graphs. He drifted into the spotlight in 2009 when he claimed in a column that fair-skinned Aboriginal […]

  4. Snafu says:

    “Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling trends with cherry picked data all the rage”

    How’s that Marcott et al paper going?

    • klem says:

      Lol! After all of that bickering back and forth, there seems to be a long awkward silence with respect your question, mr.Snafu.. its been 2 days now…still nothing.

      Perhaps they’ve simply moved on, yea that’s it…Lol!

  5. In the last year, in the US, heat records are outpacing cold records four to one. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/15/winter-wrapping-up-a-year-of-warm-records/

  6. john byatt says:

    one world government search result at the creationist climate sceptics blog gives dozens of posts

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au

    enter “one world government” into search box

  7. Stuart Mathieson says:

    It seems some bloggers, the obsessive types, are a bit like Pokie addicts.They seem absolutely oblivious of the real world outside the Pokie parlour. For them the whole world turns on sincere but bizarre interpretations of improbabilities.

    But not all of them are sincere. When we divide the totality of experience into small enough segments it becomes possible to cast doubt and delay by splitting hairs and endulging in semantics. It’s a trick used by narcissists to erect and maintain fortified positions. Frequently used by the unscrupulous to camouflage absurdities or culpabilities. People that are good at it deploy it with vindictive glee recognising responsible people tend to be  vulnerable to such tactics. Personally I think a good tazering up the arse is the answer.

  8. john byatt says:

    What to bet on? The Planet is warming, any amount accepted

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast

    I would bet that 2013 is above both 2011 and 2012.

    Met best estimate is for a new record, but only remains an estimate

  9. Ah well, playing with deniers is only fun for a time. I feel a bit mean, it is a bit like teasing the slow ones at the back of the science class in high school – the ones who claim they’re right and most of the answers in the back of the text book must be wrong. In the meantime there are serious issues to address. http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/03/top-ten-effects-global-warming-business/

    • john byatt says:

      According to the world’s largest professional services firm, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), “Now one thing is clear: businesses, governments and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world – not just 2C, but 4C or even 6C.”

      eric is planning for the future by taking his kids to the tropics,

  10. john byatt says:

    The Planet warms no6

  11. john byatt says:

    The Planet warms no4

    global near surface temperature NASA

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

    .

  12. john byatt says:

    The Planet warms no3

    Ocean warming to 2000M (slide 2)

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

    .

    • Ah, c’mon Byatt, everyone knows that the only numbers that count are 17 years and surface measurements. Don’t bullshit me on polar bears, shrinking ice, advancing seasons, more extreme weather. 17 years and surface or it doesn’t count. Are we clear now?

      (Maybe a Poe. Possibly.)

      • john byatt says:

        He is not even looking at 17 years, he is just looking at one strong el nino year 1998 and 2012, he ignores the record 2005 and 2010 years and that the past decade was the warmest in the modern record,

        that ain’t scepticism that is la la land denial

      • Yeah, but from stringing him along I get a real insight into how deep and political the rage is. It has a strange fascination. Some of today’s are utter hoots. Poor Skeptical attacking SkS and defending Watts. Eric defending Heartland to the very bitterest end. And the woodfortrees blog science is just, well, classic – almost endearing in its naivety. I wonder if he’ll spring his $20 to go beyond the paywall and read it first hand. And you can almost hear him clap his hands with childish glee as q disaffected employee walks out the door handing out a password as he goes. It is quite fascinating. Heck, I’m probably a commie in his eyes, certainly a watermelon. I reread Lewandowsky’s papers on the train into town tonight. He really does have this buttoned down.

        Mind you, it is a bit wearing, admittedly. The same silly memes plopped out with every post. 17 years. No. Climategate. Nine time loser. Deniergate forgery. Probably not. There’s something else going on here. It isn’t just the inevitable libertarianism (some of which I too share). It isn’t just the inability to take on board new data. It#s a deep-rooted “I must be right” and need for everything to be viewed through their prism.

        A case in point. I don’t think the IPCC covered itself in glory over the Himalaya glaciers. It’s a really minor matter, amongst a smattering of really minor errors in an enormous report. But, still, they could have done better. And I said so. I also said that the deniers partially brought this on themselves with their denial of science antics. And this is true, receiving scores of FoI requests on a weekend is just plain bullying. There was no recognition there, no compromise. Very interesting. It’s as if, as per the GOP in the US now or the UK Labour party in the ’70s and 80s, there’s an implicit purity test. You can’t admit any shortcomings on “your side” on you can’t be a member of “your side”. The good news is that it’s self-defeating. As new rules are introduced to keep people pure fewer qualify. Ultimately you end up with one pure guy in the corner.

        Anyway, thank you. It’s been enlightening. I hope to be out of circulation for a few weeks.

      • john byatt says:

        meanwhile the creationists are pushing the One world government of revelations explanation

        http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/the-war-on-west-part-2-agenda-21.html

        Now eric also believes that nonsense

      • Nick says:

        And the other thing with Eric is that the process of gathering knowledge stops with the particular piece of contrarian chum he might quote that day.

        HE HAS NEVER FOLLOWED THE SCIENCE SINCE. [If he even had a clue about it before.] It’s total incuriosity. So if Keith Briffa said something 15 years ago,that’s presumed to be Briffa’s view now,etc.

        If the IPCC got a typo on Himalayan glaciers,sure as shit Eric knows nothing about the state of observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers now. No curiosity whatsoever.

        He’s oblivious to how this shines a light on his lack of credibility.

      • zoot says:

        I will also add that I don’t remember Erric ever admitting that Reverend Watts got it wrong in any of his sermons. For example, Erric appears to believe the yellow highlighter shows the revealed truth.

  13. john byatt says:

    The Planet warms no2

    Ice sheet mass balance / sea level rise

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.short

  14. john byatt says:

    The Planet warms no1

    Global glacier retreat (Cogley 2009)

  15. Yet it warms. If you look at all the data. But if you do you have to turn your deniar badge in when you leave.

    • Dr No says:

      I have a colleague who does not feel as if the globe is warming and is quite happy to offer me odds of 5 to 1 against this year being a new record. I have accepted and wagered $10 with him. I will keep you posted on the outcome.

      The point here is that we have somebody who is a true skeptic (since they are not bothered with following the scientific arguments and therefore is not interested in refuting them). Instead, they have looked at the numbers and are courageous enough to put their money where their mouth is. I respect him more than fake skeptics and “denialists”.

      Note that neither Eric or Skeptical are willing to risk a lousy dollar on this year not being a record warm year -despite protestations that the globe is “flatlining” or cooling. What a farce!

  16. Eric Worrall says:

    CG3 has just hit the blogosphere – FOIA has released the archive key, to at least a few people.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/

    Already a juicy tidbit – an email from Simon Tett of Hadley Centre which suggests their common view is the Mann reconstruction is cr@p (see the link for details).

    • Sigh. Someone signs a protocol and then breaks it. So someone is a liar. And the denial echo chamber broadcasts a liar’s “scoop”.

      Every time you guys quote mine from your premature ejaculate quote mining publishing you have to be corrected. I suppose deep thought was never one of the echo chamber’s defining characteristics.

      Climategate 1.0 – you lost nine times. 2.0 was a non-event. 3.0 – too much crying wolf?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann
      et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because
      we think it is crap!)

      Climategate – the gift which keeps on giving.

    • Berbalang says:

      So FOIA has revealed himself to about a dozen people and given them the password. I wonder how many of those people reside in countries that could arrest them for withholding FOIA’s identity?

      Of course to protect themselves they could make the argument that they made it all up and they really don’t have the password. It would certainly be difficult to prove that they did have the password. All we really have is their word that they do and some email they claim is from the encrypted file. Just saying.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Obama got pretty excited when he found out about the third tranch of emails – hopefully there will be some juicy political stuff buried somewhere in the set.

        It poses me with somewhat of a dilemma though – 200,000 emails. I don’t know how I’ll fit all that into my Climategate app.

    • Nick says:

      Mann again! Stop masturbating,Eric,that was 15 years ago. Time to grow up.

      What you children of ignorance don’t understand is that a host of observations –Sea Level history, retreat of ice fields and what they reveal,etc.–actually physically show that a warm period in the middle ages is insignificant compared to the present. We KNOW the MWP was not synchronous,not as warm as now and that’s all.

      In your obsession with attacking a finding that has only been strengthened by further work,you are eddying in circles. Mann was never the evidence. He’s your symbol. MBH 98/99 are more important as the target of your impotent rage.

      You’ve never gotten past that rage. Idiots. Do some f’ing science,will ya?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        We KNOW the MWP was not synchronous,not as warm as now and that’s all.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3759.txt

        Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and
        actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with
        strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s
        based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you
        have to review (hint, hint!).
        In terms of rbar, sample size, and eps, it is
        probably okay back to about AD 980 at this time. I still have 3-4 more
        subfossil sections to process, but it is doubtful that the story will
        change much. When I come over in October, I am thinking about asking
        Jonathan Palmer to come over from Belfast for a visit. What do you think
        about that?

        In other words, the MWP and LIA were global – Ed supplied Keith with the real data series, to keep Keith in the loop, but the paper Keith was reviewing contained a fake data series with the MWP and LIA signals smoothed out.

        You lot are pretty handy with the data smoothing, when you want to get rid of inconvenient bumps in the data. Marcott is just the latest of many, and more clumsy than most – though I’m happy to put that down to inexperience.

      • Gosh, all that quote mining. Will your wrists take the strain?

        Yet it warms.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yet it warms.

        Not for the last 17 years – and thats long enough to qualify as a climate trend, according to Ben Santer.

      • Yet it warms. If you look at all the data. But if you do you have to turn your deniar badge in when you leave.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        “Yet it warms” is a statement of faith, not fact.

      • No, it’s a statement of data. If you decide not to look beyond 17 years, that’s ignoring data. If you decide to ignore the oceans that’s ignoring data. You’re being deliberately ignorant. Your call, of course.

    • (Mind you, if you must quote Megan, and I wouldn’t, but if you must, she thinks Climategate was a damp squib. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/11/climategate/30702/)

      It was either Colnel Mustard in the Drawing Room or an Bast draft. There were errors of course; maybe Weatheboy helped?

  17. The underlying assumption that the IPCC is some sort of radical organisation is just nuts. Anyone who has ever had any dealings with the UN will know that they are incredibly conservative (small c). They have to carry the member states with them. The key problem with the IPCC models is their projections understate the measured data due to the inherent conservatism. I know the right needs a boogie man and the UN is one of theirs (and, yes, the left has their boogie men too). But the reality is the UN is slow to react to data and trends, by its political design. The radical thinkers are elsewhere.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Their track record suggests the IPCC are highly politicised and slipshod. Pachauri defended the ridiculous grey literature claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 35 years, which somehow made it into AR4. He accused anyone who disputed the ridiculous claim of “voodoo science”.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

      • Nick says:

        I accuse you of practising ‘boo-hoo’ science. The evidence is against you .Use all of it,or go home. Booker is a dunce. Gets paid for it.

    • A great fuss was made of a very few small errors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report.

      Christopher Booker really has no credibility in my book. He denies passive smoking is cancer causing. He does the same with asbestos. He really is an alarmist.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If Pachauri had thanked people who disputed the claim, checked the sources, then announced an correction, we wouldn’t be having this discussion – because that would have been the right thing to do.

        Instead Pachauri publicly attacked people who disputed the claim, accusing them of “voodoo science”, without first making any effort to check whether they were actually right.

        Makes you wonder how many other scientists have been bullied by the IPCC into staying silent.

      • You have a point and I have a point.

        Yes, Pachauri could have done that. Fair point.

        OTOH, the denier industry specialises in “denial of science” attacks on multiple fronts. Perhaps if they weren’t so hell bent on their mission they’d be treated more courteously.

        As a footnote, you don’t see many deniers admitting error. Muller is an honourable counter-example (although a bit sullen).

        The real bullying comes from your side, attempting to dissuade the science from being done.

        The National Journal asked Marcott about entering the fray of the climate change “debate;” Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had “gone through hell” before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists.

        “When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way,” he said. “I’m curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper.”

        Now, have a look at Al Gore’s picture at Climate Despot.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Marcott deserves to be ridiculed for joining 2 incompatible data series to produce his hockey stick.

        As I’ve demonstrated, by cherry picking the right smoothing you can show anything – such as my Marcott technique graph which demonstrates global temperatures peaked in the late 1800s.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:1000

        My silly graph was created by applying different smoothing to the *same* temperature series. The opportunities for creative graph plotting are far better if you join different temperature series. I could have a lot of fun welding say GISS and Hadcrut data together in creative ways.

        My point is the Marcott hockey stick is misleading and bogus – and I think I’ve provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate this.

      • You know full well this is a losing line of argument. Points are awarded for persistence, and then deducted for obduracy. If you really think that’s all it takes, write it up and send it to the journal as a letter – they’re very interested in intelligent critique. It’s the only intellectually honest thing for you to do. Who knows, you may have a point. One would hope peer review would take care of that – but peer review is only necessary, not sufficient.

        The hockey stick is dead. Welcome to the hockey scythe.

        (On a bet, have you actually read the original paper yet?)

      • Eric Worrall says:

        No reason to – a construct as ridiculous as the graph I’ve been complaining about kind of makes the rest of the paper moot, don’t you think?

        Would you like me to attempt some more Marcott data art, or do you accept my point that his technique is BS?

      • Publish or admit you’ve bottled it.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Good grief, can’t you even admit one climate hero might be wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence? Its not like Marcott is in the same league as Mann or Jones.

      • Your evidence is far from compelling. It doesn’t even exist – except in your head.

        I debunked your 17 years meme in 30 seconds and you wouldn’t admit it. Yet you persist with similar techniques on a paper you probably haven’t read. You have negative credibility.

        You may be incurable. You cite Watts, a website Scientific American automatically culls. You cite the Oregon Petition, a complete nonsense. You wasted your family’s money on visiting the charlatan Monckton. You quote Christopher Booker.

        Good grief indeed.

        Write to the journal. To not do so is to admit your blog science isn’t up to scratch.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I demonstrated that by welding two different sections of the *same* data series together, with different smoothing, I can make it appear that global temperatures peaked in the late 1800s.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:1000

        Marcott’s hockey stick is the product of welding two *different* data series together, with different smoothing.

        The Marcott hockey stick is junk science.

        But you can’t admit the fallibility of even a minor climate hero – because for you its not a matter of science, its a matter of faith.

      • john byatt says:

        Weld this together

        .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Ah, that was a bit more of a challenge, but I realise why you are having so much trouble accepting my bogus graph showing that global temperatures peaked in the late 1800s – it doesn’t end in a hockey stick.

        So I added the Antarctic series to the end, to give the customary uptick.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/to:2003/mean:60/offset:0.23/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1998/mean:60

      • Eric Worrall says:

        After all, if Mike Mann can add the real temperatures to the end of his tree ring proxy, to hide the decline, I don’t see why I can’t mix numbers as well, to produce the right shape graph.

      • Eric owes it to science to get his insights published. He could earn a Nobel. He could be our next Galileo. He could receive a bloggie. You could be the next Mcintyre (oh, that really wasn’t much, was it, still).

        Or he could be Bozo the Clown, as per Carl Sagan.

        Don’t bottle it, like Heartland did. If you do no shred of credibility will you have left.

        Read the original paper, Eric. It spends quite a bit of time on this very topic. If you think this hasn’t been scrutinised from top to bottom you’re fooling yourself. Of course, if you really do have a point then you really must comment to the journal, for the sake of mankind. You only kid yourself with your inane 17 year flatlining by ignoring data. You kid yourself with your blog science. Only your fellow travellers believe you.

        As this is, oddly enough, the same inane patter across denierland, you could wait until someone competent simply demolishes the argument. It would save you time. There’s a minor industry in competent people taking apart Watts. Let them do their job here too. Tamino, Rabett and many others truly enjoy knocking seven bells out of Watts’ yellow highlighter. Or you could read the paper, presuming you’re actually allowed to by your High Priests.

        Yet it warms – with all the effects predicted – just a bit more quickly than predicted.

        I hear you guys have a new Pope. The Church of Denial has anointed FOIA. I look forward to weeks of out of context quote mining that don’t change the facts.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,you are just not getting it. So what if you’ve welded a graph together and made it look like warming peaked in 1800? It has no bearing on Marcott unless you’re stupid enough to believe he’s done what you’ve done

        What you have done is NOT a replication of Marcott’s methods,as you know you have admitted you haven’t read the paper to look at the methodology.

        And as we know the 1800s were cool from direct and indirect observation [thermometry,writings and photographs of glacier extents], what is your point? Just to demonstrate that false claims can be made from nonsense analysis? We f**Kin’ know that!

  18. Eric Worrall says:

    I just did a Marcott. By welding two differently smoothed instrumental records together, you can clearly see global temperatures peaked in the late 1800s.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:1000

    If he can do it, so can I.

  19. zoot says:

    Can Erric and/or Notskep explain what is meant by “statistically significant”?

    I thought not.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      If a trend is less than the margin of error, then you cannot say for sure that the trend is real – it could just be observation error. The trend is indistinguishable from no change.

    • I like to know my “p”. I wish we’d all say “statistically significant at X”. I know the usual default is 95% and it goes unstated. But if someone said, “but at 90% (or 85 or even 75) that’s useful to know. Smart business leaders know enough to ask – and act at lower levels of confidence – and fire people who try bamboozle them with “statistically not significant” as the same as “no trend”. Grr. Off soapbox. This happened to me more than once.

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, I can understand that… I’d fire you too.

      • zoot says:

        John, I’m pursuing this line because of Sister Coddling’s statement

        The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.

        which I suspect is total crap. Unfortunately I don’t have the expertise to tackle it head on.

      • Skeptical – you would never have had to. I made it a point not to work for fools. See, I saved you the effort.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Even AR4 only claimed 90% confidence, 5% short of the usual 95%.

        You’re building an emergency out of something you don’t even know for sure is happening.

      • A. Wait for AR5.
        B. Fire yourself. Are you really in business? If something is 90% certain you sit on your thumbs?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        No, but I also don’t call people who take the minority view “deniers”.

      • No, but you do call people with the majority view alarmists.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Is this the beginning of an admission that a 10% scientific minority position is not unreasonable?

        Of course its only 10% by the IPCC’s estimate – which given their Glaciergate debacle, is as likely to be accurate as the claim Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 35 years.

      • I’m glad you like 10 to 1 odds. Don’t go to a casino on payday.

        The IPCC understates due to their conservatism. As you know, their projections have overwhelmingly understated the problem. The climate is changing more quickly than their conservatism allowed.

        Besides the scientific minority is 0.1%. 34 of 34,000 don’t hold with AGW. You have to be a special type of foolish to stare at ten to one and say “meh”.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The IPCC understates due to their conservatism. As you know, their projections have overwhelmingly understated the problem. The climate is changing more quickly than their conservatism allowed.

        If you are suggesting the IPCC reports are more political than scientific, then we’ve found something we agree on. Though Pachauri’s vigorous defence of the ridiculous Glaciergate claim suggests that the IPCC is actually alarmist rather conservative.

        Besides the scientific minority is 0.1%. 34 of 34,000 don’t hold with AGW. You have to be a special type of foolish to stare at ten to one and say “meh”.

        Not counting the 30,000 or so scientists who signed the Oregon petition, including 20th century greats such as Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson.

      • The Oregon Petition? Seriously? I signed it. Gosh, that is truly desperate. How debunked can you get? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

        Look, if I do a survey of estate agents and they agree to a carbon tax can we get on with it now?

        Honestly, how damnably stupid.

      • Yup, the politicians in the IPCC process water down the science and make it more soothing.

  20. Skeptikal says:

    Alternatively, we could marvel at the recent work of scientists who reconstructed the temperature for the last 11,500 years:

    Yes, let’s marvel at how they combine a low resolution time series for the handle with a high resolution time series for the blade to create a really scary Hockey Schtick.

    • How’s your ocean cooling theory doing their Skeptiknot?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Skeptical, you’ve got to have a hockey stick at the end, even if you have to weld two totally different analysis together to achieve it.

      In climate seance, its not the quality of your analysis which counts, its the height of your hockey stick.

      • Skepical is doing just fine at denying. He still believes in the climate fairy that causes ocean cooling. He holds his position, despite the facts, very well.

        On the other hand, every serious study keeps validating the hockey stick. Odd that. All those different ways of looking at the data and the earth is warming all lead to a hockey stick. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

        But, if you stick with years, instead of decades, pick your year carefully, ignore anything but surface temperatures – and, above all, refuse to address the energy imbalance, you can mathurbate to deniergasm.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Because there is pressure to tell a nice tidy story.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4872.txt

        I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.

        As far as I know, Briffa never went public with his concerns – he knuckled under to the pressure to tell a “nice tidy story”.

        Why would scientists be subject to this pressure? We can see the results in the latest analysis – where scientists responded to pressure to tell a “nice tidy story”, by blatantly disregarding any semblance of scientific integrity, creating a totally misleading graph by joining a heavily smoothed proxy with an unsmoothed instrumental record.

        If you smooth the instrumental part of the graph to the same extent as the proxy part of the graph, the hockey stick at the end disappears.

        If you could “unsmooth” the proxy reconstruction, you would probably find it covered in sharp temperature spikes, similar to the hockey stick at the end.

        Welding two so totally incompatible series together, to create a hockey stick at the end, is misleading nonsense.

      • Skeptikal says:

        John, the atmosphere hasn’t warmed in 17 years, the oceans haven’t warmed in 10 years…. and that’s despite all the hot air that alarmists have been blowing.

        You can make as many hockey sticks as you like, but that isn’t going to make the planet any warmer than it is.

      • My dearest sceptical. Do read

        http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html.

        So, again, it’s the surface – and the reason is the cold water from the various meltings of a warming planet.

        Below the surface, where 90% of the globe’s capacity is, it warms.

      • Oh, and because you don’t cite your sources, it could just be that whatever your meme is has been updated and you’ve not noticed. If it’s the Josh Willis paper, that’s long been understood. I’d posted a response the last time you stated the oceans didn’t warm. You may not have read it. Have this http://www.celsias.com/article/ocean-cooling-science-lesson-denialistsdelayers/, it links back to the NASA citation.

      • Eric needs to invoke the Climate Fairy. So, where we don’t have measurements there *might* be hidden spikes, just like today’s spike – he hopes. It’s a bit like the duffers who claim the CO2 is due to hidden undersea volcanoes we’ve not yet discovered.

      • Damn those shorter periods. Obviously 25 is better than 17. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1987/plot/wti/from:1987/trend

        And yet it warms.

      • It’s vital that we smooth out the best data we have. Imperative. Our cover is blown with better data. Burn the thermometers as work of the warmist devils.

      • Kevin MacDonald says:

        Cool, lets see your post 1975 reconstruction of the instrumental data with 140 year smoothing then.

        Easily done.

        You appear to be struggling with the word “post” in this context.

      • Nick says:

        Under pressure to tell his nice story,Eric has coughed up Keith Briffa again…what a surprise..Just as useless a citation as last time,dear.

    • Kevin MacDonald says:

      Yes, let’s marvel at how they combine a low resolution time series for the handle with a high resolution time series for the blade to create a really scary Hockey Schtick.

      Are you aware of a high resolution multi-millennial reconstruction that could’ve been used, or a post 1975 low resolution data set?

      • Skeptikal says:

        Kevin, it’s easy to turn a post 1975 high resolution dataset into a low resolution dataset… but then you wouldn’t have a blade for your hockey stick.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You can convert a high resolution data set into a low resolution data set by smoothing it.

        But if you apply enough smoothing to the instrumental record, to match the smoothing applied to the proxy record, the hockey stick disappears.

        My point is, given a choice between showing a graph which was at least self consistent, or showing a hockey stick at the end, the scientists who created the reconstruction decided to go for the grand gesture – they wanted something pretty rather than something meaningful.

      • Yup, ignore the most recent good, relatively fine, data so that you can achieve denier flatline nirvana.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m not suggesting the most recent data be ignored, I’m suggesting it be treated the same as the proxy data, to put it into context.

        You do understand why the graph is misleading, don’t you?

      • It’d be very nice to have good measurements from 10,000 years ago. But it’d be daft to reduce what we do know to suit the paucity of measurements from a millennia ago. You do understand why to ignore the data is misleading, don’t you?

        You are rather stuck here. You don’t want the recent good measurements over the last century or so. On the other hand you do want to emphasise the slowdown in surface temperatures over pretty exactly 17 years. You want to use the El Nino spike of 1998 on the one hand, and ignore a century of good data on the other.

      • Kevin MacDonald says:

        Kevin, it’s easy to turn a post 1975 high resolution dataset into a low resolution dataset… but then you wouldn’t have a blade for your hockey stick.

        Cool, lets see your post 1975 reconstruction of the instrumental data with 140 year smoothing then.

      • Kevin MacDonald says:

        I’m not suggesting the most recent data be ignored

        You pretty much are, 140 year smoothing would end the data in 1942.

        I’m suggesting it be treated the same as the proxy data

        Why? It’s not the same as the proxy data, it’s much more robust; far greater spacial resolution, much higher degree of accuracy.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Cool, lets see your post 1975 reconstruction of the instrumental data with 140 year smoothing then.

        Easily done.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:1680

        My “smoothed” instrumental data set incorporates all the data in the instrumental series, but the extreme smoothing removes the spikes.

        This is what I mean when I suggest the graph is misleading.

        CO2 is generally accepted even by alarmists to have not had a significant effect before 1940, because up until 1940ish, humans had simply not emitted very much CO2 into the atmosphere. But climate still bounced around quite violently before this date.

        If these violent swings were replicated in the smoothed proxy graph, it would be covered with spikes similar to the spike at the end – the spike at the end wouldn’t look at all special.

        But by attacking a high resolution instrumental series to the end of a heavily smoothed low resolution proxy, the misleading impression is created that climate didn’t vary much before the 20th century.

        Since we can’t “unsmooth” the proxy, the only thing which could be done to produce a graph which treats its component series consistently is to smooth the instrumental record.

        But this would make the hockey stick disappear – and we can’t have that.

      • Skeptikal says:

        Kevin, that turns it into a single point… you don’t have to be a genius to realise that you’re not going to make very good hockey stick blade with a single point.

      • Damn those shorter periods. Obviously 25 is better than 17. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1987/plot/wti/from:1987/trend

        And yet it warms.

      • It’s vital that we smooth out the best data we have. Imperative. Our cover is blown with better data. Burn the thermometers as work of the warmist devils.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      So you’re okay with Mann et.al then?

  21. Eric Worrall says:

    The planet has been flatlining for the last 17 years, and according to climate hero Ben Santer, this makes the flatline a valid climate trend.

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    I expect more entertaining milestones to crumble, as we laugh our way to a 30 – 40 year flatline – just like the flatline in the mid 20th century.

  22. Stuart Mathieson says:

    If you listen to Newstalk ZB on this side of the ditch you may hear one Leighton Smith promoting the “it’s cooling” line. There website is also promoting the interests of Big Tobacco too re the plain packaging issue. So there is a correspondence between climate denial, corporate interests and anti science.
    Anyway, back to cooling. I rang Leighton one night and fed him a line of crap about an ice age beginning and that I had My cross country skis, sea kayak, bow, sleeping bag and tunnel tent all ready. I explained I had friends who raised Highland cattle as a hobby and their hides would be fantastic for clothing. Because of his denial stance he had to sit there and pretend to take it all seriously. I wonder how many actually did?
    Anyway I had a great old time.

  23. EoR says:

    So the planet has been cooling for the last 8 years, but also warming for the last 4 years! Still, none of those denier efforts are a patch on the wonderful dowser, Nils-Axel Mörner. If the data doesn’t fit, tilt the graph! Gee! Climate science is so easy!

  24. Sou says:

    Oh boy, I haven’t chortled so much all day – probably not all week. Wiping tears from my eyes. That’s just too good! Thanks, WtD.

  25. […] It looks like Sou from Hotwhopper and Watching The Deniers were visited in the night by Al Gore brandishing a copy of 1984 as […]

  26. Nick says:

    Nova offers : “I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase,this is what we would look like”

    Oh,really? What a crockload of bullshit. To take her seriously for a moment [hard not to laugh,I know] but that is not in any way what it would look like!…where are all the other indices? Ocean heat content,SLR, glacial mass balance, trends in summer/spring /autumn snow cover etc.TOA radiation balance. Taking one metric renowned for its inter annual and interdecadal variability,cherry picking 8 years and lying about its physical significance is sure as shit fooling yourself. Ignoring OHC in the knowledge of what it represents in energy terms is deliberate. But Jo says “I’m not even saying the world is definitely cooling” We know, Jo… we know that you are signalling to your blind idiot orchestra,who are hungry for new loony tune from their one eyed conductor.

    It’s only when all the indicators,with their respective lags,start to show some tendency to falling into line in the same sign that a real analyst would declare that ‘This looks like the start of a cooling trend’.

    But of course,she can feed this chum to bright sparks at News Ltd,because she knows they are even more credulous than she is. They need something so they can fiercely ignore all the info from real research,and continue their scurrilous infantile bullying of Tim Flannery,surely one of the lowest points in public behavior of the last decade.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: