Many WUWT readers have seen the famous bit of propaganda produced by John Cook at the antithetically named “Skeptical Science” website, where he creates a series of steps along the graph of global temperatures suggesting that every time climate skeptics see a “pause” they claim global cooling. Of course, that’s nonsense, but for Cook, it has propaganda value much like his 97% consensus meme which is now falling apart.
The problem with The Escalator from “Skeptical Science”, is that it doesn’t show the alarmist favored view of temperature rise, for example, these IPCC projections from the Third Assessment Report that rocket skyward.
![TAR_projections[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tar_projections1.png?quality=75)
Here at WUWT, we are happy to help with a new, more humorous visualization of “The Escalator”, which I call “The Rocket”.
h/t to WUWT reader Mark Eastaugh
Note: Some readers in comments apparently are just too serious, and miss the humor and satire tags along with the headline. Just laugh, it’s funny. When we get claims like “the oceans will boil” and temperature rises of 6C by the end of the century all you can do is make fun of it.
Here’s more examples of rocketing temperatures:
![Copenhagen-Diagnosis-2009-Temperature-Anomaly-500-2100[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/copenhagen-diagnosis-2009-temperature-anomaly-500-21001.jpg?quality=83)
![2.01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-2100[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2-01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-21001.png?quality=75)
![carbon_pollution_to_end_stable_climate[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/carbon_pollution_to_end_stable_climate1.jpg?quality=83)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What happens to the rocketscalator if you broaden the time frame to start in 1850 or 1650?
Bob, the graph doesn’t need to show those years. Look at the Date ranges. 1970 is when all “hell” broke loose. This is a good graph showing the truth. Also, looks like things are off about a factor of 10 on the temp side.
Brilliant!
Thanks Mark Eastaugh.
The scam is they always use the start year as 1970s. If they change the start year to 1940s they get a completely different result. They get only half the warming rate.
I suggest everyone should look very carefully at how well the “alarmist” red line fits in the IPCC result in the previous figure. Given the different scales it isn’t easy, which I suspect is intentional, but the line is highly misleading. Perhaps Anthony could make a new attempt based on the real IPCC-data?
The flat line before 1970 is especially amusing. Gentlemen, your models know sh*t about real climate.
Good point Bob, I always ask those folks from SKS why the graph starts in the coldest decade of the last century and runs through one of the hottest…of course, these people think we never had a storm north of the Mason-Dixon line before Sandy….
“Good point Bob, I always ask those folks from SKS why the graph starts in the coldest decade of the last century and runs through ONE OF THE HOTTEST”
Well it might have something to do with the most recent decade being the hottest and the anti-reality crowd starting up their nonsense around the early 80’s.
Ya gotta love that escacherrypickalotor. Unfortunately for them, even with C02 levels (supposedly) reaching the highest levels in some 800k years, temps have been flat for the past 17 years now. So, they are stuck inventing “reasons” why temps have been flat, and continually moving the goalposts.
Ryan says:
May 31, 2013 at 6:03 am
Warmth is what you get when the earth pulls out of a Little Ice Age. Thank goodness, too!
Juraj V. Another troll with a degree in excrement?
Well, lefty Tend to be behind the times.
It’s not so foolish if you still living in the 20th century.
faboutlaws says:
May 31, 2013 at 6:20 am
“Juraj V. Another troll with a degree in excrement?”
You say he’s trolling?
In other words, you say that before 1970 temperatures changed only by +- 0.1 deg C, as the IPCC models seem to suggest?
Did they really have that graph in their report? That’s pretty barmy, even for IPCC programmers.
In my opinion, blue lines are alarmists’ notion of what skeptics see, and the red line is the skeptics’ notion of what alarmists see.
I’d definitely not call the blue part “what Climate actually does” because not just the blue line but even the green line is not what climate actually does. Things are way more complicated than that.
What always struck me about the “escalator” was that the most recent pause is the longest that SKS shows in their plot and this is when CO2 in the atmosphere is growing the fastest. If CO2 had anything to do with it shouldn’t it be just the opposite?
If you put this escalator over the past 2,000 years, you’ll see a very pretty up and down wave. With two times even warmer than today.
From the graph, I cant see. Is this global or just northern hemisphere? I can seen the “70’s cooling” period has been largely “smoothed out” (Heh!), so not a surprise that 80’s it a bit warmer, apart from the mid-80’s bitter winters. But 2-4c increase, doubt it! (Oh dear another Sks fail?).
By eye it looks like the red line increases about 0.8oC between 1970 and 1990, that’s about 0.4oC per decade. From memory that’s actually twice the rate of warming than the IPCC expect. You need to go back and adjust the red line to give a more reasonable comparison.
Edohiguma (May 31, 2013 at 6:47 am) et al: you are all missing the point – you should never let facts get in the way of a good (scare) story…
It would be nice if you pasted the HADCRUT4 Global annual temperature on the first figure. The lack of signal between 1850 and 1970 is completely bogus.
I had a look at HADCRUT4 and did a 31 year rate of change calculation. The figure is here:-
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADCRUT4Global_zps5c19cb37.jpg
It shows rather nicely the slowing of the RATE of temperature increase.
Look at the first graph. In 1970 the temp anomoly is >0 (say about 0.2oC). By 2000 it’s <1 (say about 0.6oC). Your added red line suggests "alarmists" believe the temp should have increased by 1.2oC in that time. The first graph shows this is clearly not the case. THIS IS A FAIL.
“If CO2 had anything to do with it shouldn’t it be just the opposite?”
If warming from CO2 was instant or rapid, yes. But it’s quite gradual. Even more gradual than that red line suggests it should be.
A little bit off-topic, but did you notice that, according to GISS, five of the six coldest winters in the last 12 years have happened in the last 6 years? That looks like a clear down trend to me, at least WRT winter temperatures (December + January + February).
“Look at the first graph. In 1970 the temp anomoly is >0 (say about 0.2oC). By 2000 it’s <1 (say about 0.6oC). Your added red line suggests "alarmists" believe the temp should have increased by 1.2oC in that time. The first graph shows this is clearly not the case. THIS IS A FAIL."
While this is true, he at least had the courtesy to tag it as humor/satire this time. Though the commenters seem to be unaware of that point….
Ryan he’s also tagged it ‘climate data’. But it’s neither climate data nor humour. it’s bad maths.
I suspect Cook’s escelator will never admit a down step. Instead, the start point for the final stair will just slide backward.
JAXA looks interesting so far. I suspect we’re all waiting to get past the point of last year’s sudden drop before pointing it out.