Apparently, one of the proudest achievements of the website SkepticalScience is their “Down the Up Escalator” gif animation. They prominently display it in their right sidebar. The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.
The first version was created using the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) land surface air temperature dataset. That, of course, made SkepticalScience appear two-faced, because the papers associated with the BEST dataset had not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and SkepticalScience downplays any research efforts that haven’t been peer reviewed.
ONE OF THE TRENDS IN THE REVISED ESCALATOR IS MISREPRESENTED
Bogus Escalator
In an effort to distract from their duplicity, SkepticalScience revised and reissued the animation (modified screen cap above), using the average of the GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4, and NCDC land surface air plus sea surface temperature anomaly datasets. If you were to click on the mini “Escalator” animation along the right-hand side of their main page, you’re brought to the updated GISS-, UK Met Office- and NCDC-based Escalator. SkepticalScience describes “The Escalator” animation as (my boldface):
Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, May ’77 – Dec ’85, Jan ’86 – June ’94, Nov ’94 – Dec ’00, Jan ’01 – Aug ’12.
You’ll note that they’re now calling it “The Escalator”—no longer calling it the “Down the Up Escalator”. Yet each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly.
SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.
Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator
How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880.
GISS LOTI Global Surface Temperature Anomalies Since 1880
The following animation will give you an idea what “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step. Depending on your browser, you may need to click on the following gif animation.
The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends
A COUPLE OF NOTES
As noted in my WUWT-TV presentation “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”, “The Escalator” is an exercise in cherry-picked start and end dates. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming will incorrectly cite “The Escalator” during my blog discussions of ENSO-related upward shifts in Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180) sea surface temperature anomalies. (In recent years, I typically present that dataset as the “Rest-of-the-World”, because I usually now start with the East Pacific data, which shows no warming over the entire 30-year term of the satellite era.) When the disciples of SkepticalScience link “The Escalator”, they are simply trying to distract from the process-caused shifts. Those natural processes were described in the WUWT-TV presentation and detailed with numerous datasets in my book Who Turned on the Heat?
Rest of the World Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies With Linear Trends
The above graph was presented in the post Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have another, related, inconsequential complaint about my research. They claim the decade-long time periods between the 1986/98/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events are too short for the trends to be significant. Curiously, when SkepticalScience is trying to make a point, they have no trouble presenting a series of decadal trends, and when SkepticalScience is trying to mislead their followers, they have no trouble misrepresenting the trend for a shorter 6-year period. Apparently, linear trends over periods as short as 6 years do have significance. Looks like another example of the double standards of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming.
In the next few days, I’ll present PBS’s sleight of hand about “The Escalator” when they presented it in their Frontline report Climate of Doubt. They were pretty blatant about it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tisdale: “The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.”
Really? Really?
You lost me right there in the first para. Actually, people should go read the original, the animation was to show the error of cherry picking time intervals and confusing noise with reality. While the original post was more tongue-in-cheek than a real scientific article–after all, it was “published” on the internet, right?–it was pretty funny and it made its point clearly.
That someone would actually try to answer it with real criticism is sort of cute (in a sad way), but I thought that made the response almost more humorous than the original article. Too bad it was not written in a more straightforward way so more people could appreciate it.
-T
PS You guys should really stop changing the data sets every paragraph, you start to look like used car salesmen. Stick with one and make your point. Sheesh.
markx says: “But all this fuss about one slightly crooked step in an upward series of steps? http://i46.tinypic.com/2gyd91g.jpg still looks like a staircase to me, albeit a roughly built one.”
markx, I found it entertaining for a couple of reasons. First, SkS had to misrepresent one of the trends in order to make the graphic work. There were other options. Second, no other visitors to SkS bothered to check the trends; that is, they all assumed the Escalator was correct—just like climate science in general, assuming everything they’re fed is correct. Third, I wanted to see how they would react—and as opposed to noting the error and correcting the problem, one of their regular authors elected to stop by my website and tell me how I missed the point of the Escalator in a drawn out comment:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/skepticalscience-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-6490
DWR54: Sorry I didn’t respond to your earlier comment, but you’ve in effect answered your own question, so I figured it was rhetorical.
renewableguy says: “If you are an open science site for open discussion, then why call people names?”
There was no name calling involved. The definition fits:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
BTW, the hypothesis of AGW is fatally flawed. There is nothing in the satellite era sea surface temperature records or in the Ocean Heat Content records that indicate greenhouse gases had any influence on the warming.
Adios!
Gail Combs says: “Bob, you have done such a good job of investigating ENSO there is nothing much to add.”
Thanks, Gail.
Bad case of irony bypass going on here.
The SKS graph is a SATIRICAL parody of the sort of cherry picking and short-period manipulation of data that is rife among those motivated to reject the science.
That one step is inaccurately calculated or labeled just makes it a more accurate parody….
renewableguy:
Although you have snowed this thread with nonsense, you make a sensible post at November 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm where (although you link to a climate porn site) you write in total
Yes, as you say, the “escalator was made” as pure, misleading propaganda.
The falsehood of the escalator is explained in my post above at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am.
Richard
trafamadore:
Thankyou for emphasising my point as you do in your post at November 26, 2012 at 10:05 pm. You write there saying
Yes, as you say, the escalator is pure, misleading propaganda concerning “noise” and “reality”.
This falsehood of the escalator is explained in my post above at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am.
Richard
Greg House: You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs.
Hmm. Would this perhaps suffice?
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
I am still trying to understand the purpose of this article? The escalator graph employed by SS was, in my opinion, merely a tool for helping us folk (who generally believe in the findings of mainstream science) to understand the rationale of those who would claim (contrary to the observed data) that the global warming has stopped since 1998 (or 2005, or 2010, depending on the angle used). The graph, therefore, is for illustrative purposes only. The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend. Which is exactly as it should be, given that 11 of the top 12 hottest years on record occurred post-2000, with both 2005 and 2010 surpassing 1998. The point SS tried to make was 1) that cherry-picked data could be used to say just about anything, and 2) the earth is still warming merrily. And I think it’s a point well made.
Douglas Hollis says
….to understand the rationale of those who would claim (contrary to the observed data)
Henry@Douglas
Truth is that most global data sets including my own show a peak at 1998 and subsequently, a downward trend from the beginning of this century.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
In my own data set I included maxima as well which gives us a sense of energy-in. Of these measurements I analysed about 650000 daily data from 47 weather stations from 1974. Clearly, I found a change of sign in 1995, from warming to cooling.. Obviously there is a bit of a difference between energy-in and energy-out, hence the difference between 1995 and 1998. Further to this the best fit I can find for the drop in maximum temperatures is given here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
You cannot “cherry pick” so many daily data and come up with a curve that looks as though somebody has thrown me a ball. In fact, I hope that the sine wave is correct, because if the curve is binomial the expected drop in maxima will be a lot more.
So some climate change is indeed happening, but it is as a result of (natural) cooling.
The polar-equatorial differential is now increasing and “the weather” is trying to equalize this.
This is one of the reasons we are all alive today: the whole weather system protects us from extreme temperatures. Nevertheless, the steep fall in maxima still looks a bit frightening. But if you count back 90 years, you realize soon that we have been here before. But be prepared for wetter, snowier, cooler and more windy weather, with the occasional bad storm.
izen:
Your post at November 27, 2012 at 3:14 am says in total
NO!
The “SKS graph” is false and misleading propaganda.
Bob Tisdale called them on it.
Now it has been discredited, you try to pretend it was “a SATIRICAL parody”.
The only “irony” is that you probably wrote your silly post because you believe what you have written following convincing yourself that the propaganda was presented as a joke.
Richard
Douglas Hollis:
At November 27, 2012 at 3:51 am you say in total
That seems to be the classical ‘Fifth Column’ ploy: i.e. subverting a ‘side’ from within.
The data DOES show stasis for more than the last 15 years.
You present a blatant falsehood when you say,
“The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend.”
The facts were listed by Werner Brozek in his post at November 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm. To save people needing to find it, I quote it here
Stasis of this length is statistically significant and, therefore, you again provide a falsehood when you extend your assertion saying;
“The real graph (which ironically I haven’t seen anywhere on this page), shows a consistent warming trend. Which is exactly as it should be, given that 11 of the top 12 hottest years on record occurred post-2000, with both 2005 and 2010 surpassing 1998.”
A person who climbs a hill remains at his greatest elevation when walking across the plateau at its top. Similarly, the global temperature rise before 2000 has stopped but global temperature is still high so the hottest years are recent.
In my post at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am, I explain the true importance of the recent stasis and why SkS are attempting to pretend earlier – but shorter – periods are similar to the recent stasis.
So, the “point” SkS tried to make was misleading propaganda. Therefore, I conclude that your claiming it is a “point well made” is an assertion that misleading the public is something with which you agree.
Richard
KR says in response to David A. Evans (“I’m actually curious as to how Bob can provide error bounds when the only data he has to work with has none.”):
“By examining the residuals of whatever fit is applied (linear, stepped, etc.) against various noise models.”
Why this endless obsession with statistical analysis when you have perfectly reliable and comprehensive data from the real world right in front of you? Why not just look at the data? “We do not have to model what we can see. No statistical test is needed to say whether the data has changed. We can just look.” (William M. Briggs) That’s what Bob’s doing – he’s looking at the data. He’s letting the data tell the story. He’s not telling the story first and then manipulating the data (statistically) afterwards to fit the story. Only when the data doesn’t show what you want it to show (for example an anthropogenic signal), you start modelling (employing your preconcluded assumptions) and applying statistical tests ad absurdum.
BTW: Did I miss somewhere in your post where you attempted to contact SkS and find out the _exact_ data set they used? Or suggest a mistake was made? I know they mentioned the rough intervals they used, but I also know that adding or pulling a single point at the ends of an regression can markedly change the slope.
Given that you are already so close to replicating their “results”, couldn’t that could be the simple explanation for the differences rather than accusing them of misleading the public?
You don’t even seem to consider it. Why?
trafamadore:
At November 27, 2012 at 7:57 am you ask Bob Tisdale:
Given that it is possible to bake a Christmas cake in your kitchen, couldn’t that could be the simple explanation of what a known burglar is doining your kitchen rather than accusing him of trying to steal something?
You don’t even seem to consider it. Why?
Richard
Venter says: “One more ” slayer “, Greg House is back again with his no back radiation nonsense. Mods, can we put a stop to these kind of posts from the slayers?
[then who would be next and where do we stop? You are not forced to respond to his or any post and we are tolerant of opinions here . . mod]”
==========================================================
Thank you, mod, and please note that I have never said “there is no back radiation”.
My point is that the alleged warming (or slowing cooling down) effect of “back radiation” has never been proven even by a single scientific physical experiment, hence it should be considered as a pure fiction and not as a scientific fact. Sounds logical to me: no proof = fiction (assumption, conjecture, whatever), but not fact. In other words, I do not question the existence of this back radiation, but I do question the alleged effect.
At the very moment such a valid experimental proof has been presented I will change my opinion and congratulate warmists, because then this fiction would become science. I am completely open to any outcome.
It would be nice, if my opponents could refrain from distorting this simple point of mine, thanks in advance.
Wait…let me get this straight. Is anyone on here seriously contending that there’s been no warming since 1998? First of all, I think it’s disingenuous to pick the 3rd hottest year on record for the starting point of such an argument. Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something? Sure, it could be argued that the rate of warming has slowed down, but surely it would be demonstrably false and misleading to claim the earth has somehow begun cooling down. If you look at the longer term trends, you’ll find that between 1979 and 2012 the earth has been heating up, on average, by 0.16 deg C.
See also this statement by the Met Office: “Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.”
Could someone perhaps provide more insight on the above?
Douglas Hollis says:
“Is anyone on here seriously contending that there’s been no warming since 1998?”
See for yourself.
Depending on your time frame, global warming has occurred since the Little Ice Age. But it regularly pauses, with no regard to aerosols, CO2, soot, or similar factors. In other words, “carbon” has no measurable effect. Can you follow that logic?
Further, if we look back hundreds of years we see that global warming has to be entirely natural, because the long term warming trend has been the same, whether CO2 was low, or high — proving that CO2 makes no measurable difference to the planet’s temperature.
The entire “carbon” scare is a false alarm. I trust you can understand that now.
Douglas Hollis says:
November 27, 2012 at 10:41 am
Also, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, while the decade 2000-2009 was the single hottest decade on record! Have I missed something?
Four data sets show that 1998 still has the record, however if you wish to use GISS and you want us to avoid 1998, no problem. There is one thing you are missing and I have to say that a large number of people are missing this point, namely that being hot is NOT the same as warming. For the GISS record, the last 11 years and 8 months have been hot, but warming has STOPPED as shown below.
GISS: No warming since March 2001 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to October) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/plot/gistemp/from:2001.1/trend
I find it humorous that the true believers like Douglas Hollis have all migrated to the GISS fantasy. They are desperate.
The fact is the only reason people think it’s warm now is because of adjustments. And, it’s likely the biggest problem with temperature data is they are too high now due to UHI and site problems. With proper adjustments the 1930s were probably warmer than now.
Let’s face it. The scientists put the horse before the cart. They started trumping catastrophic warming before the science was understood. That forced them to save face with silly adjustments that essentially claim people were too stupid to read thermometers. Absolute nonsense proving once again you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Greg House says: “You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs.”
Douglas Hollis says: “Hmm. Would this perhaps suffice?
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/“
=============================================================
No, it would not, because it misses the point. The alleged “greenhouse effect” should work through it’s “back radiation”, according to the IPCC. CO2 absorbing and emitting IR is not what I question, but the warming effect of this back radiation on the warmer surface is.
@ur momisugly Greg House,
I can think of an experiment to measure if back radiation can have any effect, though I don’t know if it has ever been attempted. Note: I don’t have the equipment to do this.
Heat a plate of metal to some temp x. Place it in a vacuum chamber and measure the rate at which it cools. In a vacuum chamber the only cooling can be from radiative heat loss.
Then take two metal plates, heat one to temp x and the other to temp x/2.
Place both plates into a vacuum chamber in close proximity but not touching. If the plate heated to temp x takes longer to cool than in the first test then the IR radiation from the second cooler plate is having an effect on the first plate.
Does anyone on this blog have the equipment to actually try this?
HenryP says:
November 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm
…I predict temperatures to be falling, with more wind, more storms and more snow, and more extreme cold….
_________________________________________
Seems New York City is about to get another snow storm, the second in November. This has not happened in 74 years. link and it looks like they did get light snow (trace) between noon and 4 PM and are calling for more snow tonight. link
I wonder if this will be called “Dirty Weather” on the TV tonight in NYC?
And back in January 27, 2011
It will be cold enough to snow here tomorrow night in mid NC (23F the normal low is 38F) but the rain is moving out before it hits the low temps… I hope. It has been a dry cold November with most nights at freezing and below. I want some global warming I’m freezing.
Greg House says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:28 pm
…You have neither presented a description of a scientific physical experiment proving CO2 causing warming nor a link to it, so you apparently have nothing. Zero. Exactly like other warmists I talked to on various blogs….
________________________________________
I am no ‘warmist.’ I think CAGW is a crock but I know enough to pick my fights. CO2 absorbing IR is a fact. IR is energy and energy can be turned into heat. The atom bomb proved that. However when someone wants to take those facts and say that 400 ppm of CO2 can warm the oceans I am going to laugh in his face.