It has come down to this – climate science has become a stick fight

stickwars_romm-booker

I have to chuckle at the battle going on with stick graphs this weekend. Choose your weapon, flat or vertical blade, real data, or proxy data with an arbitrary extension added by the special effects department.

First, Christoper Booker’s flat bladed tool, made of real data from the UK Met office:

Booker_flat_stick

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9919121/Look-at-the-graph-to-see-the-evidence-of-global-warming.html

Next we have Joe Romm’s vertical bladed tool, made from proxy data, with the “natural extension to the Marcott et al. graph” (according to Michael Tobis at planet 3.0) added, pulled out of some orifice and spliced on.

Romm_stick-Carbon-Final

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/

Which one would you rather have, young Jedi?

About these ads

89 thoughts on “It has come down to this – climate science has become a stick fight

  1. “Next we have Joe Romm’s vertical bladed tool, made from proxy data, with the “natural extension to the Marcott et al. graph” (according to Michael Tobis at planet 3.0) added, pulled out of some orifice and spliced on.”

    Well,we know it wasn’t one of his ears,as there is nothing there. And people STILL believe this poop about hockey sticks,unless they’re in the NHL??

  2. Something that I didn’t know about Romm’s blog: “It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.”

    They don’t identify it as sarc…..

    IanM

  3. So darned many armchair warm-mongers believe temps are rising out of sight because they are told that over and over and they have never bothered to look up actual graphs and see for themselves that global warming is not happening, nor is “extreme weather”. It is all so laughable! However I think the tide has turned and now as global temps slowly start falling people are changing their views.

  4. Well I suppose that Christopher Booker’s must be the sounder choice since it is at least based on actual measurements rather than reconstructions and amazing projections. But in his article he says that his is a “a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective”
    Duh?
    What is proper about using the Celsius scale? Why not use the Fahrenheit scale and show the baseline even further away?
    Or really put it in proper perspective by using the absolute scale showing current temperatures around 288K instead of a measly 14 something. In this ‘true’ case the temperature graph would appear as a horizontal straight line (on any piece of paper that will fit it).

    I heard someone on the BBC describe an Arctic temperature as “3 times as cold as your freezer” .Quite a meaningless statement which assumes that -54 deg.C is three times colder than -18 deg.C. I hope everyone realises by now that such a ratio depends entirely on which temperature scale you choose. Only a scale with a zero at absolute zero is valid in making such comparisons.

    Apart from that, it is about time that someone tried to show the miniscule temperature fluctuations, of a few tenths of a degree that sustain the Global Warming hysteria, in some sort of proportion.
    As Professor Richard Lindzen said:

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

  5. I wonder what Dr. Freud would say about this obsession with things that stick up, and the “mine’s bigger than yours” contests?

  6. What is really worrisome about the Marcott article is that the National Science Foundation and one of its Program Directors, Candace Major, are quite happy to publish their enthusiastic support for Marcott’s new hockey stick. We should call it the “NSF Hockey Stick.” Given the shoddiness of the science behind this new hockey stick and the hype used to introduce it, my guess is that NSF wanted to produce a new visual that might capture the public’s eye and help revive the CAGW movement. (How could the NSF have fallen this low?)

    “The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age,” says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences. The research was funded by the Paleoclimate Program in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences.

    “This research shows that we’ve experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution,” says Major, “as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history–but this change happened a lot more quickly.”

  7. Kajajuk says:
    March 10, 2013 at 9:35 am
    Niether, both are misleading and irrelevant.

    Curious. What would you find pertinent and relevant? In other words, if we are to be concerned about changing global temperatures, what, in your opinion, is a sufficient record of that change and why?

    Frankly, I don’t find anything in either graph to be of concern. It is the record of the past 5 million years that gets me all nervous. Those periodic dips into ice ages are downright terrifying!

  8. ‘It’s all about the title’ – Booker’s tautological ‘global average mean [sic] temperature’ without range or standard deviation and Romm’s moronic ‘carbon pollution set to end era of stable climate’, finishing with the upward ‘predicted’ flourish in rouge red. Professor Richard Lindzen, dignified as ever, sums up the travesty of science enabled by the gaggle of sheeple exploiters nicely. Politicised climate science and sociology make good bedfellows – Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose.

  9. I dug and I dug and I dug, like a cat in kitty litter, looking for that graph’s source. Yep. Grey literature. Is that like the same thing as grey water?

  10. Kajajuk says:
    March 10, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Niether, both are misleading and irrelevant.

    Not sure I’d go as far as “irrelevant.” Even the Team don’t think the recent flatlining is irrelevant. Regardless, it’s a silly apples-and-oranges comparison. All harmless fun though, I suppose.

  11. I like the one that will melt the ice off my driveway. It’s March 10th with no spring in sight.

  12. “It is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.” Joe romm, in the comments thread of the post linked to. Is that accurate?

  13. Unfortunately I am becoming more inclined toward a nicely balanced cudgel, for use on alarmists of all kinds.
    Sorry boys, get your hands out of my pockets and your nose out of my affairs.
    Of course using “extreme” language, we mention sticks,war, we must be advocating these things.SARC.
    But lets see how long before another wing nut, starts screeching about “violent deniers”.
    How does a rational person, hold a reasoned conversation with zealots?
    If people who demonstrate deep commitment to their cause, state they mean me harm, why should I doubt them?
    Its stunning how a graph of temperature change over time, with an honest temperature scale, demonstrates the lack of change.
    Storm in a teacup springs to mind.

  14. I think the logic warmists use is similar to this:

    I am 58 years old. I am 2 foot taller than I was 50 years ago. Clearly then, by extrapolation, in another 50 years I will be 108 years old and 7′ 10″ tall.

    Now I get all stroppy and tell you you can’t argue with the figures.

  15. MikeB @ March 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

    “Well I suppose that Christopher Booker’s must be the sounder choice since it is at least based on actual measurements rather than reconstructions and amazing projections.”

    I am pleased to see you described Booker’s “stick” as “based on actual measurements”, rather than constructed using actual measurements. We must never forget or ignore the “adjustments” which change the “actual measurements” into the temperature record.

  16. Christopher Booker in his excellent article goes on to say that the Climate Change Act is going to cost our country £18 Billion pounds a year. A few weeks ago he said that man-made CO2 only accounts for 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and the UK only contributes 2% of this, it has been estimated that we can reduce our CO2 emissions by about 30%. So we are paying £18 billion per year and disfiguring our landscape to prevent 30% of 2% of 3%, which is 0.00018%!
    If all the world’s governments were to display the same stupidity as ours and go all the all the way and totally curb CO2 emissions by man (presuming we are still allowed to breathe), the total cost would be £37,800,000,000,000 per year. Or to put it another way if all the nations in the world had paid £567 trillion over the last 15 years, the world would now be 0.08 Celsius (0.144 Fahrenheit) cooler.
    Now that is real value for money!

  17. “…man-made CO2 only accounts for 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere…”

    I’m sure there’s some funky way to come up with that number but it doesn’t mean much (if not totally wrong). Also you can’t then use the 3% as a factor in this statement: “… totally curb CO2 emissions by man…” because you only are asking to curb the alleged 3%.

    “the total cost would be £37,800,000,000,000 per year”

    Also very unlikely. The 18 billion pounds that Britain is spending is hitting low hanging fruit. Curbing more CO2 production would cost more, the cost might well be infinite (i.e. it is impossible). Nonetheless the proper math would be 18 billion divided by 0.6% or 3 trillion pounds to stop manmade CO2, but like I said, that’s likely impossible at any price.

  18. “[ThinkProgress] is not only the most widely read climate science blog in the world, it is also the fastest growing in social media. We’re very much an expanding circle.” –Joe Romm

    ⸰ ∘⚬⚪ ੦ ⵔ ୦ 〇 ◯

    No matter how much it expands, it’s still a big zero.

  19. After Climategate, it was clear that Warmist claims would become more frequent, more hysterical, and more mendacious. There is nowhere else for them to go.

  20. Re: Bookers Graph

    1) 30 years is the minimum acceptable period for which any assessment of temperature change can be made, aside from his use of the 1997 maximum as a starting point. This is not a quibble about his choice of period, it is a mathematical essential for any statistical interpretation.

    2) The choice of axes on the graph as well for such a short period would make even a large temperature increase look flat.

    To quote Daniel Kahneman…”An exaggerated faith in small samples is only one example of a more general illusion. We pay more attention to the content of messages than to information about their reliability, and as a result we end up with a view of the world around us that is simpler and more coherent than the data justifies. Jumping to conclusions is a safer sport in the world of out imagination than it is in reality.”…Thinking, Fast and Slow

    Better to look at the most recent temperature reconstruction

  21. Jim Clarke says:
    March 10, 2013 at 10:29 am
    “Curious. What would you find pertinent and relevant?”
    ============================================
    Not sure. Only sure that this graphs are sides of a silly coin.
    I think developing a metric based on free energy would be relevant, but not able to state what that would be. And i admit even that would be pertinent only in its multidimensional changes. Has the ‘heat’ content of the globe changed? Temperature averages can be wildly misleading in such a large varied system with such interrelated constituent parts and phenomena.

  22. Romm’s posting of the Marcott paper (blue) even got the paper wrong. The abstract says temperatures are only 75% of the Holocene max. Thatbis not what the blue curve shows.
    Figure 1b attempted to agree with Mann’s 2008 faulty hockey stick by using his Nature trick to splice on thermometer temps. Which then contradicted both the paper’s primary conclusion, and it’s unpaywalled abstract.
    Marcott’s effort to be consistent with Mann’s faulty science only went to show that his proxies have faulty temperature calibrations. Which were expressly only lab determined, and not post hoc adjusted to what thermometer temps at the 73 sample sites are showing. Bad agreeing with bad does not make good. It makes double bad.

  23. Global warming? Temperatures rising, making England into a sub-tropical paradise? I wish.
    Sunday 10th March. No daffodils in bloom. Snowdrops just emerging. Just in time, too.
    It’s now 2100hrs and it has started to snow. This is on the south coast of England where the climate (weather?) is supposed to be the balmiest.
    I dare not comment further lest I transgress various laws pertaining to on-line obscenity and the policies of this most excellent blog.

  24. When they have such incredible reconstructions and amazing projections at their disposal, I wonder why they limit themselves to a mere 8.25 degree F rise in temperature. Why not go for broke and claim 30 degrees before the whole party ends. These days there is only one place for CAGW to go and that is up.

  25. Re: Romm’s graph
    What does Romm predict the temperature “anomaly” to be in 4000 AD? Follow his “projection”, and it looks a lot like the seas are going to be boiling in about 3 weeks.

    Mr. Romm is scaring us with these projections of his…

  26. Pamela: Grey water is what’s left from cleanup activities, such as dirty laundry. The metaphor doesn’t, um, wash. Unfortunately.

  27. Presumably Romm didn’t get the memo.

    If you make it look too catastrophic, you can’t indulge in industrial scale corruption on the pretext of being able to do something about it.

  28. Stephen Brown says:
    March 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    “Sunday 10th March. No daffodils in bloom.

    I understand the point you’re making, but, there are daffodils beginning to bloom, I can go outside now and snap a photo of some covered in snow and ice, there are hardy varieties that are not effected too much by temperatures or snow and frost, they come-out earlier late winter-early spring. I have a good laugh when I hear alarmists use the same argument to make-believe that spring has come earlier.

  29. Vince Wilkinson (@Archeobiognosis) says:
    March 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Re: Bookers Graph

    1) 30 years is the minimum acceptable period for which any assessment of temperature change can be made, aside from his use of the 1997 maximum as a starting point. This is not a quibble about his choice of period, it is a mathematical essential for any statistical interpretation.

    2) The choice of axes on the graph as well for such a short period would make even a large temperature increase look flat.

    To quote Daniel Kahneman…”An exaggerated faith in small samples is only one example of a more general illusion …….

    Better to look at the most recent temperature reconstruction
    =====================
    The 30 year limitation is an arbitrary decision founded on nothing but supposition. 1997 wasn’t the maximum 1998 was. So, you’re right, yours isn’t a quibble. It’s just wrong. Even if you do use the most recent 30 years of temp data you still don’t get the nonsensical spike as your silly reconstruction shows.

    As to the choices of axes, who exactly is the arbiter of that? I would submit the most common choices lend for an over-exaggeration of what is happening. The axes and scaling are done for emotive effect. Here is a graph which is scaled to human perceptibility. This is our global temps. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/how-the-earths-temperature-looks-on-a-mercury-thermometer/

    As to Marcott’s reconstruction….. without the idiotic splicing, you can see it here….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-hockey-stick-resurrected-by-marcott-et-al-2012/

    Yes, let’s look at the last reconstruction, shall we?

    Sorry for the horrid self promotion, but, I thought they were apt for the comment. :)

  30. Grant Foster tries to accuse John Coleman of cherry picking :

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/

    He replaces John’s straight line with a bendy one and explains : “Here, in red, is an analysis using all the data:”

    Analyis? What analyis? What does the mysterious red line actually represent. What is this powerful new tool of science of which the name shall not be spoken?

    I politely asked three times. The world never even got to see the question since Tammy simply binned my posts and refused to answer.

    Must be that ‘Open Mind’ of his getting in the way again.

    Now why would he wish to censor the question? Odd. Perhaps there’s something about the model he is fitting that does not bear the public scutiny.

  31. 30 years is the minimum acceptable period for which any assessment of temperature change can be made, aside from his use of the 1997 maximum as a starting point. This is not a quibble about his choice of period, it is a mathematical essential for any statistical interpretation.

    Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age. The whole scare about ‘Global Warming’ which followed in the 80s and 90s was based on just a few years of warming. Did you insist that 30 years was “a mathematical essential” then? But now the warming has stopped for the last 16 years and so 30 years suddenly becomes the minimum acceptable period?
    Give me a break!

  32. Vince Wilkinson,

    “2) The choice of axes on the graph as well for such a short period would make even a large temperature increase look flat.”

    Define large.

  33. 30 years gives you one single climatic data point. A second 30 year period is required just to give you two data points in which you can now plot a trend, with of course the caveat that you still only have two data points. We have about 33 years of high quality unbiased satellite data. This gives us one climatic data point, with 27 years to go before we get our second.

  34. Greg Goodman says:
    March 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    … I politely asked three times. The world never even got to see the question since Tammy simply binned my posts and refused to answer.”

    Grant Foster binned two of my comments on his hack job “OhPleeze” a while back too. He mocked two of Goodridge’s statements about trends, but in his post he failed to even plot a trendline on his graphs. I politely asked him why he didn’t see fit to even plot a trendline, since Goodridge’s two statements were about trends. Like you said, his ‘Open Mind’ got in the way of the fact that his post was not factually correct. His actions show that he isn’t interested in facts or truth, but advancing an agenda. Also shows the sad state of climate science, since he is a publishing climate scientist & is so openly hostile to facts & truth that he censors it from seeing the light of day.

  35. Since neither represent anything physically meaningful (i.e. there is no global temperature), I’ll ignore them both.

  36. Joe Romm, I’ll see your 7-11F rise by 2100 (Oh, and thanks for mixing F and C, chart and your text) and raise you 8-16C 24-26 times between this interglacial and the last one back.

    But not in a century, I also raise you in terms of a few years to mere decades.

    There were 24-26 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations between this interglacial, the Holocene, the interglacial in which all of human civilization has occurred, and the last one, the Eemian. D-O oscillations average 1,500 years, and have the same characteristic sawtooth temperature shape that the major ice-age/interglacials do, a sudden, dramatic, reliable, and seemingly unavoidable rise of between 8-10C on average, taking from only a few years to mere decades then a shaky period of warmth (less than interglacial warmth), followed by a steep descent back into ice age conditions. Each D-O oscillation is slightly colder than the previous one through about seven oscillations; then there is an especially long, cold interval, followed by an especially large, abrupt warming up to 16C. During the latter parts of the especially cold intervals, armadas of icebergs are rafted across the North Atlantic (Heinrich events) their passage recorded reliably by the deep ocean sediment cores which capture the telltale signature of these events in dropstones and detritus melted out of them. We know with absolute certainty that these events happen, with evidence of D-O oscillations extending back some 680 million years. We do not know yet precisely what causes them. What we do know is that the past 6 interglacials (dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition) have lasted roughly half of a precessional cycle, or 11,500 years, which just happens to be the current age of the Holocene. What we know is that N65 latitude insolation values are very close now to what they were at the close of the Eemian, and already below the close of the Holsteinian (MIS-11).

    But.!!!!!!!!! But !!!!!!!!!

    “In short, thanks primarily to carbon pollution, the temperature is changing 50 times faster than it did during the time modern civilization and agriculture developed, a time when humans figured out where the climate conditions — and rivers and sea levels — were most suited for living and farming.”

    So…… We, meaning us, have already created a post-industrial thermal pulse on the order of 8C, according to Marcott et al 2013, to which you opine:

    “We are headed for 7 to 11°F warming this century on our current emissions path — increasing the rate of change 5-fold yet again.”

    Uh, math may just not be your thing,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    just sayin………….

    And call

  37. Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age.

    Actually, not. Some did. others didnt. “the 1970′s scientists” is not what I would call a very cogent claim. Its a sweeping generalization.

    “The whole scare about ‘Global Warming’ which followed in the 80s and 90s was based on just a few years of warming. ”

    Actually not. The realization that c02 would cause warming was first postulated in the 1800s before any global temperature series was developed. Second, the “scare” has never been based on the observed warming, the scare is based on the predicted warming given known physics. Third, in the late 80s and early 90s we already had evidence of warming that went back hundreds of years.

    “Did you insist that 30 years was “a mathematical essential” then? ”

    The necessity of 30 years or more of warming is not dependent on anyones opinion regardless of whether that opinion is consistent or not ( fallacy of hypocrisy ) The 30 years “requirement” is a function of the data. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    “But now the warming has stopped for the last 16 years and so 30 years suddenly becomes the minimum acceptable period?”

    The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.

  38. === Pamela Gray says: March 10, 2013 at 10:40 am I dug and I dug and I dug, like a cat in kitty litter, looking for that graph’s source. Yep. Grey literature. Is that like the same thing as grey water?=== Just add some yeast to the grey water. Helps the septic system to burp. The literature on this is rather murky.

  39. This too, gets a little murky.

    As in someone has not rebooted to PDT from PST…….

    Nevertheless, assuming this is the case for WUWT and not aware of the time-change status of ThinkProgress, it took from 6:47 PDT to 7:16 PDT, or about 1.5 hours for my post above to post on WUWT.

    As of this moment, we, meaning a colleague of mine and I, are standing at nearly 8 hours for a collaborative post to clear Joe’s ThinkProgress website. Which, hasn’t happened, yet……

    Which means that if you are indeed a true progressive, you might be 5 times (and counting) faster (meaning slower) than a knuckle-draggin’ skeptical website!

    Which, in case you are interested, defines (de minima) the Joe Romm progression of thought.

    The Theory of Inverse Reality in real time………..

    [Odd. Usually, moderation time is much less than that. Mod]

  40. William McClenney says:
    March 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    [Odd. Usually, moderation time is much less than that. Mod]

    Agreed.

  41. Steven Mosher says:
    March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    CO2 does not cause warming, The 1970′s anthropogenic cooling scam has been documented, the same scientists who were involved in promoting it are now promoting this warming nonsense. The over all impression I’m getting is that climate science is used as political advocacy.

  42. @William McClenney

    I’m having problems here too. comments are disappearing for hours, I don’t think it’s WUWT or the mods. there maybe updates taking place somewhere.

  43. Steven Mosher;
    Second, the “scare” has never been based on the observed warming, the scare is based on the predicted warming given known physics.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Bull. The known physics relates to the direct effect of CO2 increases. The scare is due to the assumption of large positive feedback from water vapour which isn’t known physics at all and which data increasingly suggests is an ill founded assumption.

  44. Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age. Actually, not. Some did. others didnt.

    Yes Steven, but the ones who predicted the ice age got the headlines

    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Just the same today, some scientists say CO2 will lead to catastrophe, some say not. The ones that say it will get the headlines (and funding).

    The global warming scare took root because we had a fraction of a degree warming recovering from the falling temperatures from 1940 to 1970. Without that warming there would have been no scare. It is true that the effect of CO2 was known in the 19th Century, but that is not the issue – there was no scare band-wagon at that time. In fact Arch-Warmist Stephen Schneider said, during his Global Cooling period:

    “We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”

    “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

    Steven, you say “The 30 years “requirement” is a function of the data”. What requirement is that? Is it something derived from the data? As we both know, 30 years is an arbitrary span of time. A bit too short for my preference; something like one or two centuries is probably necessary to establish whether climate is really changing beyond the level of natural fluctuation.

    The warming has stopped. In fact the trend for this century is cooling. Short time span I know, but that’s a requirement of the data (not enough of it this century).

  45. Sparks says:
    March 10, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    @William McClenney

    I’m having problems here too. comments are disappearing for hours, I don’t think it’s WUWT or the mods. there maybe updates taking place somewhere.

    I think you are correct.

  46. Steven Mosher says: March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age.

    Actually, not. Some did. others didn’t.

    97% did.
    ;-)

  47. Steven Mosher says:
    March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    “The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.”
    =====================
    Are windmills the answer ?

  48. “Choose your weapon, flat or vertical blade, real data, or proxy data with an arbitrary extension added by the special effects department.”
    ========================================================

    My favorite one is (surprise!) a real thermometer. Not a global one for measuring “earth global temperature”, no, it is a real thermometer for measuring the alleged “back/trapped radiation effect” also known as “greenhouse effect”. A real one is much better than the global one, because the global one must be huge, besides, you do not know where to stick it. A real one is just fine and works perfectly, all the necessary details here: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html.

  49. clipe says:
    March 10, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Don’t know what to think about this headline

    Rainforests may be more resilient than feared: study
    ==============================
    I do.
    Meaningless; just more model macramé…

  50. Steven Mosher says:
    March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm


    “But now the warming has stopped for the last 16 years and so 30 years suddenly becomes the minimum acceptable period?”

    The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.

    I hope you’re right, Steven. I’d hate to hear your screaming once the temperatures drop off into the next Ice Age.

    Personally, I don’t think we’re going to avoid the next one, or even delay it much. So while the earth is warm and warming, I defy your foolish alarmism with celebration.

    Viva la CO2!

  51. Oh no. Now Michael Mann is making a fool of himself by sharing Joe Romm’s “scythe” on Facebook.

  52. “Steven Mosher says:

    March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm”

    Actually yes they were, more were than not. It was all over the media, many documentaries about it, even David Attenborough was a “believer” then.

  53. Anthony Don’t be concerned about the deceptive attempt by Joe Romm to “Frame the debate” against CO2 by using terms such as “Carbon Pollution” or “Dirty Carbon” to rally Joe Public to the cause and unfairly convict CO2 as the “evil planet destroying component”. Ordinary citizens are smarter than the Joe Romm’s and SKS think. Here in Australia Julia Gillard has been very deliberately using both terms with her usual droning emphasis to reinforce her message that the Carbon Tax is necessary to “Fix Climate Change” and all it has done is turn off a generation of voters who are sick of the deception, sick of being treated as dummies, and just praying that she will still be the Labor leader so they can give her a very special Personal message at the polls in September. The words are toxic here and her endless repitition of an obvious political lie has been one of the issues that cause voters to “turn off from climate” and turn off Toxic Julia. I suggest that Joe Romm has the same effect on those who hold science dear to their heart and for Joe Public they have really had enough, they want to be heard too..

  54. Interesting -comment section keeps expanding – I’ll repeat my post, Mods please delete my last.
    Anthony Don’t be concerned about the deceptive attempt by Joe Romm to “Frame the debate” against CO2 by using terms such as “Carbon Pollution” or “Dirty Carbon” to rally Joe Public to the cause and unfairly convict CO2 as the “evil planet destroying component”. Ordinary citizens are smarter than the Joe Romm’s and SKS think.
    Here in Australia Julia Gillard has been very deliberately using both terms with her usual droning emphasis to reinforce her message that the Carbon Tax is necessary to “Fix Climate Change” and all it has done is turn off a generation of voters who are sick of the deception, sick of being treated as dummies, and just praying that she will still be the Labor leader so they can give her a very special Personal message at the polls in September.
    The words are toxic here and her endless repetition of an obvious political lie has been one of the issues that cause voters to “turn off from climate” and turn off Toxic Julia.
    I suggest that Joe Romm has the same effect on those who hold science dear to their heart and for Joe Public they have really had enough, they want to be heard too..

  55. Shouldn’t all climate data come with a ‘health warning’ that ‘past performance is no guide to future performance’?

  56. Steven Mosher says:
    March 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    Don’t forget Vince, that in the 1970s scientists were predicting a coming ice age.
    Actually, not. Some did. others didnt. “the 1970′s scientists” is not what I would call a very cogent claim. Its a sweeping generalization.

    Really? I remember otherwise, for an entire decade.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

    Second, the “scare” has never been based on the observed warming, the scare is based on the predicted warming given known physics. Third, in the late 80s and early 90s we already had evidence of warming that went back hundreds of years.

    Maurice Strong, Baron Edmund de Rothschild and I. Michael Sweatman (4th WWC, Denver 1987) were quoting Dr. Mintzer of the World Resources Institute (DC)–BA in Literary Arts, MBA in Business Administration, and PhD in Energy Resource, all Berkelely–who used models only. For them, he was definitive.

    The warming has not stopped. People who are estimating linear trends in temperature time series need to unfool themselves.

    Got a link for that?

  57. stan stendera says:
    March 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Anthony might want to get this sluyts chap to write a guest post. Impressivwe work!
    =============================================
    Heh! Stan, I think that’s “suyts”. Yes, it’s an adolescent acronym, but, it’s not quite “sluyts”. :) But, thanks! Much of my knowledge of climate issues is derived from here. Anthony is always welcome to cross post my humble offerings.

    If you’re referring to the Marcott critique, I can’t take credit. That was a guest post. Yes, it is impressive. Maybe another number cruncher can come by and independently validate? I’ll do it myself, but it doesn’t seem proper for me to say I’ve validated it when it’s a post on my blog.

  58. Booker’s graph shows 0.08C rise. Hardly the unprecedented dangerous rise in temperature that the UK Met Office still claim is happening. Perhaps they do not believe their own figures.

  59. Steven Mosher 30 years has ‘picked ‘ not becasue its some magic number by which we reach statistical purity but becasue that number matches the data availability from satellites. And people could take this idea seriously if it were not for the frequent changes in it depended on what helps ‘the cause ‘ where 1 year is enough to claim proof but 16 years mean nothing when the data works against ‘the cause ‘

    In reality we should use much longer time scales , if we are after perfection, but we don’t have the data for that to be practical and these time scales don’t help the ‘political’ angle at all either . The ‘scare’ has been all important to AGW right from the start so saying we need to wait hundreds for years of data is not going to work.

  60. Gotta admit, Joe Romm’s schwartz is looking pretty healthy next to the flat line of reality.

  61. James Sexton says:
    March 10, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Now I know why your participation at this site has declined; I am very pleased to learn about your site, suyts, and I will visit regularly.

  62. Stephen Brown says:
    March 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    UK tropical?
    You wish! The UK is at a “crossroads” between cycling air masses from the south AND the north as well as ocean currents warm and cool(er). If the anti-anti-alarmists are correct..if you do not like the weather wait an hour or so. If you didn’t like the season, fear not, next time will be different. Get yourself a sturdy umbrella and lots a lip balm.
    Eventually you would get winter in Scotland and summer in southern England….at the same time.

  63. oflo says:
    March 11, 2013 at 1:51 am
    Theyre both pretty bad arent they.
    How do you compare a 15 year graph and a 12000 year graph?
    =================================

    Any way you want ;)

  64. Hey, i just came up with a new “talking point”…Carbon Terrorism is on DRUGS!
    Time to cut myself off and drink a glass of H2O…

  65. “30 years is the minimum acceptable period for which any assessment of temperature change can be made, aside from his use of the 1997 maximum as a starting point. This is not a quibble about his choice of period, it is a mathematical essential for any statistical interpretation.”

    That 30 points assumes each year is an independent random variable. If yearly temperature is NOT a random variable- and it isn’t- with 22 year sunspot cycles, a possible 30 year oscillation in the PDO, etc, you’d need more like 30*30= 900 years to be able to deduce that such and such a fluctuation would happen by chance is under 5%.

Comments are closed.