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.
The grey bars represent CO2 emissions in gigatons (GT).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Shearer says:January 23, 2013 at 5:30 pm
…….A continuation of this trend or a falling temperature trend clearly falsifies the hypothesis that manmade CO2 emissions cause rising temperatures………
I think inserting PREDOMINANTLY between “emissions” and “cause” is the main point.
I wish the AGW crowd would help reduce the amount of human produced CO2 by not exhaling for the next 24 hrs.
So does this mean that the earth has been in equilibrium over the past decade or so, with incoming radiation balancing outgoing? Or is there an imbalance that is being absorbed by the oceans?
Philip Peake says: Let’s see what was promised, a simple plot of temperature vs CO2.
I’m not a scientist, but maybe it’s so simple you are just missing the point, or maybe you just don’t want to see what’s right in front of you:
Temps going up, up, up during low CO2 period; temp goes flat during the current, higher CO2 period. I’d love to see a counter argument.
So what if the graph is misleading?
We are talking climatology standards here.
I could push for real confusion to our leaders, for this is proof CO2 emissions from the west cause warming and Asian co2 causes cooling .(using climatology standards per IPCC)
Geographical source is the key, to get the planet warming again we must emit more CO2 in North America.
The “Climatologists” pushed a claimed correlation, over 22 years as significant and as causation.
Here is another view of the CO2/T [non-]corellation.
Not a fan of this graph for many of the reasons already stated. Lets avoid playing their game here please.
I think the graph posted by D. B. Stealey deserves to be in the main article a lot more.
Why do people always assume that a linear regression is appropriate for this data set? My engineering professors would kill me for assuming so. You must know the underlying relationship in order to trend plot scattered data. Sometimes it is linear, sometimes it is logarithmic, sometimes it’s a different relationship. If you just plot a linear regression you are fooling yourself into thinking there is a relationship that doesn’t necessarily exist.
Some of you are forgetting that there were two large volcanic eruptions in the first data set of the graph, which mostly explains its positive slope.
It’s refreshing to see a website where so many regulars are ready to call bullshit when they see something isn’t right. One of the reasons I come here.
Burt! STOP making sense!
/sarc off
“”Chris says:January 23, 2013 at 7:27 pm: Some of you are forgetting that there were two large volcanic eruptions in the first data set of the graph, which mostly explains its positive slope.””
Strongly agree. If it had not been for El Chichon (1983) and Pinatubo (1992) eruptions, the temp anomaly curve may have been flat throughout the time frame 1983-2012.
D. B. Stealey says: Here is another view of the CO2/T [non-]corellation.
D.B.–this is what I keeping harping on–it shows 1936 as the warmest year, at least up to 2011–yet we keep showing graphs on these postings that show 1998 and 2005 and now 2012 as being hotter globally. Could you elaborate on who did this graph (I see it is supposedly NOAA data) and what data set they (you) used? This graph looks consistent with what I’ve learned here, that the past has been cooled and the present made hotter–so more “current” graphs are incorrect.
If 2012 is added in, what happens to this graph? Thanks for putting this up and I hope you elaborate.
I believe that if we had had satellite average global temps from 1880, the graph would be dead flat like CET (Central England Temperature), charts. Most data from GISS and Hadcrut, ect., reflect UHI as well as fraudently manipulated as shown again and again by WUWT and Steven Goddards etc..What is really weird is that most climate scientist cannot consider that not only will temps remain flat for the next 1000 years but may actually FALL (as well as rise)
The first 21 days of this January were the coldest in Idaho Falls, ID since they started recording temperatures way back in 1850! Average temperature was just 5.6 degrees F. Blame it on a stagnant high and temperature inversion and too much “bubbly” consumed on New Year’s (obligatory inclusion of “warming caused by CO2”, otherwise it might have been even colder).
Ot but looks like AMSU 600mb has broken down at least no data for a week now…
The AGW disciples are only going to say that this is a spurious graph and it’s an example of “going down the up escalator”.
D. B. Stealey says:
….
I say look at the 2nd derivative and then tell me what you see!
We are warmer now.
2012 is still warmer than 1982!
The US rivals Saudi Arabia in Fossil Fuel resources with enough Oil, Coal and Natural Gas estimated to last 600 years into the future. However, because of President Obama’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (CAGW) aka [Climate Change] beliefs he has just declared war on the use of these valuable resources decreeing their costs should “skyrocket”. I wonder if he cares that his Climate Change Policies will hurt the poor the most? It seems the only people being enriched by President Obama’s Green Energy policies are the greedy rich. If these resources were freed up for use they would solve our unemployment problems, grow our economy, eliminate our debt and improve the lives of millions of poor people. So are there any viable alternatives to the proven and cheap power source Fossil Fuel provides? For example Green energy: wind turbines, bio fuel and solar? The dirty little secret is Green Energy is unreliable, more costly, does quite a bit of harm to Mother Earth and can provide only fraction of the energy fossil fuel does. President Obama’s belief in Man Made Climate Change is not based on empirical data. It is based on Models. Models that do not take into account the impact of the Sun, Ocean and Clouds on the Climate The real world data shows that the AGW models were wrong. As CO2 has risen the temperatures have not as the models predicted. Given these facts President Obama should reevaluate his belief in Climate Change and start taking advantage of the vast energy resources available to us. The use of these resources would improve the lives of millions of people. especially the poor. Is President Obama’s dream for American one of desolation and hopelessness not growth and prosperity? Do they mirror the dreams of Greenpeace that do not reflect the dreams of the American people for a better more prosperous life?
If you don’t explain WHY temperatures have not increased in accordance with CAGW theory, most people will assume the the lack of warming is due to some unexpected cycle that will soon change direction resulting in rapid warming to catch up with the projections. The CAGW theory says that increasing CO2 will cause water vapor in the upper atmosphere to increase (especially over the tropics), making the greenhouse effect (GHE) stronger, thereby increasing temperatures. Here is the graph of upper atmosphere water vapour versus CO2 in the tropics.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400TropicsVsCO2.jpg
Increasing CO2 reduces upper atmosphere water vapor, allowing heat to escape to space. The correlation R2 = 0.729 is higher than most any correlation in climate science.
But we continue building useless, burning windmills. See animation:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Windmills-burning.gif
No mention in this whole set of the anthropogenic CO2, the supposed cause. Most of the CO2 show in the natural material, not the stuff put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel and other industrial processes. It is all interesting and goes to show that the temperature may not be driven by CO2, but the real problem is the political facts that are screwing the energy processes and destroying our economic systems. That is what keeps me awake at night.
This is crazy talk – I just saw the Al Sharpton thread and he knows for damned sure what he is talking about. This Rutan guy has to be some kind of right winger – probably an engineer, not a for real scientist like Michael Mann.
/sarc
Yea, I won’t be whining any longer. I unfortunately read this post before I read, “A question for Zeke Hausfather”
So I withdraw my question about the graph. I now have an understanding of what’s been going on with 1936, 1998, 2005, and 2012. Whew… could not wrap my head around why we kept accepting “their” data for the “hottest ever” years and such—(whoever they are at any given time). I could dance for joy with this post—thank you Anthony for putting the “Zeke” post up, one of the most useful posts ever.
I meant : I could dance for joy with that post—thank you Anthony for putting the “Zeke” post up, one of the most useful posts ever.