Burt Rutan: 'This says it all and says it clear'

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.

co2-temp-rss

The grey bars represent CO2 emissions in gigatons (GT).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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…

EJ

Beautiful

Terry Bixler

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.

skiphil

great visual !!
Sending this one to friends….. thanks!!

kwik

Paitiently waiting for this to appear on the front pages of all Norwegian newspapers……..

Mindbuilder

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.

Stephen

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.

johnnythelowery@gmail.com

It makes no difference. No one is

adrien

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

PaulH

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.

george e. smith

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.

MattN

Why is there a 1 year gap in the data from 1997/04 to 1998/04?

RobertInAz

“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.

Latitude

It’s obvious we’ve overloaded the system…and it’s going to crash any minute……

george e. smith

“””””…..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!

JA

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.”

Jimbo

Co2 is now the main driver of climate. Now, where did I hear that again?

While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
Last updated on 11 September 2010 by Michael Searcy.
skepticalscience

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.

Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

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.

Joe Shaw

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.

NikFromNYC

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

Russ R.

My those are some lovely cherries you’ve got there… did you pick them yourself?

Jimbo

Don’t you just love the internet thingy that very honest man Al Gore invented?

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 13 February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

I wonder what his view is now?

george e. smith

“””””…..RobertInAz says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm
“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……”””””
Well and the rest; the northern summer Global Temperature range on earth, is more like 150 deg C, not 15 deg C. From about -90 deg C (-130 deg F) at a place like Vostok Station to about +60 deg C in the north African tropical deserts (on the ground).
Well yes that is the cherry picked extreme range; but a range of 120 deg C is as common as dirt.
And due to an argument by Galileo Galilei, there is a near infinity of points on earth that will have each and every value in between those extremes; and that happens every day in summertime.
So who gives a rip if it might have warmed by 1 deg F in the last 150 years.

MF

The whole of data shows +1.31 per century.
Jeez, most life on earth easily mitigates temperature changes far in excess of 1.31 diurnally.
Where the heck is the dangerous climate change and who says that increase of this magnitude is not beneficial to ecosystems worldwide.

RockyRoad

So we’ve reached a tipping point: Put enough CO2 in the atmosphere and it begins to cool.
Cool!

Jimbo

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…..

You may have missed this:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

It’s all about the models my friend.

RockyRoad

Russ R. says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm

My those are some lovely cherries you’ve got there… did you pick them yourself?

Got them out of the “climate scientist” baskets. They were culling out the cherries and keeping the pits. Burt decided the pits were worthless and the cherries were worth far more.

Evan Jones

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.
Nah, that’s just as bad as starting in 1998, the peak of an El Nino. It’s starting in 2000, the pit of a La Nina.
In order to be “fair” about it, you’d need to start before the El Nino (1998) or else after the La Nina (1999 – 2000).
“Include” them both IN . . . or OUT.

Mark Bofill

D.B. Stealey says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm
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
——————–
Wow. Not trying to diss Burt Rutan, but I think your graph is more impressive. :> Apologies Mr. Watts! I know, no pleasing some people!

MarkG

“So we’ve reached a tipping point: Put enough CO2 in the atmosphere and it begins to cool. ”
Indeed. This proves we must now cut CO2 emissions to prevent a new ice age.

RockyRoad

Philip Peake says:
January 23, 2013 at 3:32 pm

That is actually a terrible graphic.
Let’s see what was promised, a simple plot of temperature vs CO2.

Whether you select “bar graph” like Burt has or “line graph” like several others with their links provided above, the results are the same–presentation mode doesn’t change the overall conclusion.

RockyRoad

MarkG says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:35 pm

“So we’ve reached a tipping point: Put enough CO2 in the atmosphere and it begins to cool. ”
Indeed. This proves we must now cut CO2 emissions to prevent a new ice age.

You’ll have this current administration and all those “climate scientists” so confused they won’t know what to do.

Werner Brozek

evanmjones says:
January 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm
In order to be “fair” about it, you’d need to start before the El Nino (1998) or elseafter the La Nina (1999 – 2000).
I did both with a combination of the two satellite data sets and it makes no difference. The slope is flat either way.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2000.9/trend

David A. Evans

I still see flat, jump flat!
It’s ENSO!
DaveE.

bones

For all you folks who want a direct plot of temp anomaly vs CO2. Try this.
http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/1993-2012_zps7947e219.jpg

Bart

Please note that, while emissions as shown went up 33%, the slope of the measurements went up only about 12%.
That is because the rate of increase has stabilized, along with temperatures, in the last decade or so. Atmospheric CO2 is controlled by temperatures, not emissions.

Sean

The science is settled – Obama is an idiot.

Scute

@ Ian Weiss
Thanks, you saved me the trouble.
In addition I would say that seeing as the alarmists are more concerned about atmospheric CO2 than bulk output (as it’s more closely related and relevant to the theories) it would therefore be more impressive to show the CO2 ppm. However, although you do see such graphs occasionally, I’d advocate plotting the number of parts per million above the 1880 baseline: as that’s when the modern temperature record started and, crucially, because they say temperature has been going up since then in line with ppm, it really is perfectly fair and mathematically sound to start the ppm axis at 280ppm, and plot the actual ppm line from 343ppm in 1983 to 363ppm in 1997 to 393ppm in 2012. That would depict a curve bending relentlessly upwards- even more so after the beginning of the 1998 flatline.
And the difference between this approach and others I’ve seen would be that the y axis being at 280ppm would at least give a hint of the fact that 26.5% of all the atmospheric increase of CO2 since 1880 has occurred during that 14year decline. Even if we don’t plot it, we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops!
An alternative would be to explicitly label the y-axis as being ‘ppm over and above 1880 baseline’ and plot 1983 as 63, 1997 as 83 and 2012 as 113, labelling the ppm just above the line at those dates. Seeing ’63;83;113′ would highlight those proportions above the y-axis and drive home the concept of the sudden recent rise during a flatline.
And, last of all, a third option would be to label the y-axis ‘accumulation of atmospheric CO2 above 1880 baseline (%)’. The labelled points on the line would then be roughly 56% in 1983; 73.5% in 1997; and 100% in 2012.
I think the third option would look really impressive. I’m no good with graphics…any takers?

TImothy Sorenson
M Simon

Temperatures have flatlined. Is climate dead?

R. Shearer

The basic problem is that global temperature rise has stopped. A continuation of this trend or a falling temperature trend clearly falsifies the hypothesis that manmade CO2 emissions cause rising temperatures. In the meantime, obviously climate scientologists have failed to predict reality.

Resourceguy

That sideways trend will be down soon with the PDO in decline, AMO topping and starting to roll over, the south Atlantic temp trend sharply lower and the solar cycle about to move into a 100 year quiet down cycle. That is the real alarm for some people that know it and they are starting to position their statements around it.

Here is a HadCRUT4 chart from 1900/01 thru 2012/12. I wanted to compare the change in CO2 with temperature. It also has a regression from 2001/01 thru 2012/12, It has a regression of the same length that I can more around with the spinner. What I found is that the last time there was a period comparable to 2001/01 thru 2012/12 was that from 1967/06 thru 1979/05. The first had a trend of -0.24 C / century. The second was -0.23 C / century.
I did not start the CO2 chart at zero because I wanted to compare the rate of change. Plotting from zero makes that difficult to see.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?996hm193b9x14k1

AndyG55

If you go back a couple of more years (1979 maybe) you will see that 1983-1986 was actually a dip, and this the slope of the first part of the graph is quite exaggerated. (use UAH)

cbrtxus

Here is a NOAA chart from 1900/01 thru 2012/12. It has the NOAA data plotted with four linear regressions, CO2 (Mauna Loa & Law Dome), and optical thickness. The regressions illustrate the two warm periods and the two periods with little or no warming.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?x187ovavw9d9rnh

AndyG55

evanmjones says:
“Include” them both IN . . . or OUT.
Which looks to be what they have done..both IN. They appear (through my wobbly eyes) to approximately cancel each other out as the start of the blue line.