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

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?

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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.

@ur momisugly 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?

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)

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.