People send me stuff.
Engineer and aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan writes to me in an email today:
The chart the Alarmists do not want you to see. Human Carbon emissions vs. The ‘Gold Standard’ global temperature data set (chart from C3).
The alarmists are now fighting hard to protect their reputations and their damaged careers, not fighting to protect a failed theory of Dangerous Human GHG warming.
The grey bars represent CO2 emissions in gigatons (GT).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Carbon dioxide goes up and temperature goes down? That meets the standard of IPCC science where any two things that happen at the same time are causally related…ha. Although, carbon dioxide does after all have a higher emissivity than air, which means it cools better than air…
Beautiful
To prevent global warming we must increase our emissions of CO2. The trend is clear!
People will reasonably complain that this graph is misleading because the y axis for CO2 emissions starts at 250, thus making the bars give an exaggerated impression of the difference between emissions between 1983-1997 (331) and 1998-2012 (440).
But, that said, the flat portion of the temperature line ought to nonetheless be compelling to most people.
That is actually a terrible graphic.
Let’s see what was promised, a simple plot of temperature vs CO2.
great visual !!
Sending this one to friends….. thanks!!
Paitiently waiting for this to appear on the front pages of all Norwegian newspapers……..
A graph this deceptive is about as bad as just plain lying, with its second carbon bar appearing more than twice as big as the first, even though 440 is only one third more than 331. A note should be placed above it to warn people. However the point it makes does have some validity.
Philip Peake,
Here you go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise
Wait a second: Changing lines at an exceptionally hot year? This really does look a little cherry-picked. It would take a lot to overcome this dramatic difference, but if we set the line-change at 2000 instead of 1998, it looks like both lines would still come out positive. Burt Rhutan has made outstanding points on the matter, but as dramatic as the visual is, I don’t think this is one of them.
It makes no difference. No one is
Ian Weiss: and the y axis for temperatures starts at around 288K, doesn’t it ?
Another graph from C3 making the same argument from a different perspective.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d3dfd834e970c-450wi
Similar to this chart of global atmospheric carbon dioxide vs. temperature anomaly since 1980.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBQxE5mCAAASsIM.jpg:large
See the correlation? No? Neither do I.
Wow ! Temperature (anomalies) and CO2 plotted on the same graph.
I defy anyone; no matter their Statistical maths credentials, to make a credible logarithmic relationship out of that data.
Yeah I know ; I only bet after the results are posted; well that way I always win.
I bet Burt Rutan knows what a logarithmic curve is.
Why is there a 1 year gap in the data from 1997/04 to 1998/04?
“People will reasonably complain that this graph is misleading because the y axis for CO2 emissions starts at 250, thus making the bars give an exaggerated impression of the difference between emissions between 1983-1997 (331) and 1998-2012 (440).”
I will reasonably complain that it is misleading because the temperature range is a minuscule +/- 1 degree. It should be expanded to at least +/- 15 degrees to compare the temperature change to some reasonable number like the range of daily highs over a year in, say, Tuscon AZ.
It’s obvious we’ve overloaded the system…and it’s going to crash any minute……
“””””…..Stephen says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Wait a second: Changing lines at an exceptionally hot year? This really does look a little cherry-picked. It would take a lot to overcome this dramatic difference, but if we set the line-change at 2000 instead of 1998, it looks like both lines would still come out positive. …..”””””
Continue the red line to 2001 if you like (I would); the rest of the blue line is still flatish, and heading down.
Is it widely known out there in lalaland, that when a function reaches a maximum, the slope goes to zero before it becomes negative. As a corollary, when you look at the data in the vicinity of a local maximum, you will find a cluster of the highest values in the recent data.
It’s also why the highest altitudes on earth are often up in the mountains.
Burt: Good stuff. As a member of the ‘john doh’ clan, i think it’s a bit busy for the average warmer and members of congress, all of whom we have to convince! . I did study this as i’m interested but is there any way to simplify the essence. Can i suggest, with all due respect, comparing the same time frames. Changing the time frame on the bottom to the same time frame, i’m not sure what that does to the slope comparison, which is the main point of the graph, and so i’m not sure weather (!….scuse the pun) it’s apples to apples. Thx. Great to see you over here. Respect!
Let’s see; the chart presents 30 years of temperature and CO2 data .
And how old is the earth?? 2, 3 BILLION YEARS OLD.
So, we are to believe that 30 years of data is meaningful !
Sorry, but that is total bullshit.
Look, the AGW thesis is one big lie, a fraud that is being perpetrated by a bunch of radical leftists who seek to impose their socialist/communist worldview upon the West, and in particular upon the bastion of capitalist evil, the USA.
But , let’s get real, 30 years of data is meaningless. Sort of like flipping a coin ONCE and only once, and asking someone, “is it a fair coin.”
Co2 is now the main driver of climate. Now, where did I hear that again?
Indeed, co2 seems to be pulling temperature down slightly.
On a more serious note, these CAGW scamming calamatologist are sitting in front of their screens absolutely petrified. We know from the likes of Phil Jones that the temperature standstill concerns them greatly.
Recently the Met Office tried to pull a fast one releasing its updated graph on Christmas eve on an obscure page of its website.
Be in no doubt, these people are worried stiff about their already tarnished reputations.
This graphic is just a bogus as those often presented by CAGW advocates, and is just as unpursuasive. It deserves to be criticized roundly at WUWT. Many posters here have made the point that there are complex processes governing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that there are numerous sources and sinks, and that anthropogenic emissions are a minor contributor overall. It follows that temperature vs. measured CO2 concentration is the relevant relationship to examine. Evidence of flat – to slightly declining temperature with steadily rising CO2 concentration for an extended period is sufficient to show that CO2 is not a dominant factor driving temperature. There is no need for deceptive graphics.
At this scale, noise dominates signal. The most potent graph of all is contained in a recent Church & White standard sea level study update. Oddly, this simple average of world tide gauges is nowhere to be found on this or any high traffic web site. In it, signal very much dwarfs noise, that signal being a rod straight linear trend going back to the 1800s. It’s plotted in yellow behind dark plots of adjusted “sea level.”
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/links-to-church-and-white-sea-level-data/
Extracted graph:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
My those are some lovely cherries you’ve got there… did you pick them yourself?