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.
A good number of commenters have complained that the graph from mr Rutan is misleading , because of misscaling or because he [breaks] up the temperature anomaly curve in 1998 etc. , but it seems to me they totally ignore the point i think he is really making even though it glares in their faces, the point being the fact that from 1998 till present the accumulated emission of 440 gigatons CO2 of attributed human activity for those 15 years is around 33% higher than the 331 gigatons for the previous 15 year period from 1983 to 1987 , while the linear anomaly trendlines for the same two periods differ by around 1.25 °C centurywise, with the lower emission period being the clear winner of the anomaly championship wiggle race ( ” by a factor of 16 surely unprecedented since long before beginning of history 🙂 /sarc”).
I just bet ya will eventually come to realize… That warming was caused by a lack of volcanic activity. Lack of stratospheric dust and SO2.
1995 seemed to be a turning point. A point where activity began to slowly ramp up noticeably after Pinatubo settled out.
Well kids, it looks like a need to lay low for a while. My big mouth has attracted attention. Love it here. Ta ta for now.
Eddie
You say its warming,
And i say its cooling,
You say its cooling and i say its warming,
Cooling, warming,warming, cooling,
Lets call the whole thing ooooooooffff.
Can we have our taxes back now?
We should be near solar max for this cycle. Wonder what the CAGW calamatologists are going to say when the multiyear line starts going down, say by 2020? [ not really, they should just stfu ]
Box o’ Rocks says:
“We are warmer now.
2012 is still warmer than 1982!”
==================================
Although what you wrote is true, please note the name of IPCC’s theory is Anthropogenic Global WarmING and not Anthropogenic Global WarmER.
It’s becoming obvious the Earth’s temperature anomalies aren’t cooperating with IPCC’s climate model projections.
In NASA’s 2008 State of the Climate Report, it says periods of no warmING exceeding 15 years would be highly improbable and if such a phenomenon were to occur, it may mean the climate models contain some erroneous assumptions…
Well, it’s now been 16 years of no warmING, despite annual CO2 emissions increasing about 60% since January 1997….
With this year’s La Nina cycle, it now seems highly likely 2013 will make 17 years of no warmING.
It’s now fairly safe to assume NASA’s assessment is correct, and there is a high probability the GCMs got something terribly wrong.
This isn’t a cherry-picking data. It’s simply a statement of observed phenomenon.
One man’s cherry-picking is another man’s cherry-flavored Kool Aid…
How many more years of the temperature standstill is required before the likes of the IPCC et al must openly revisit the theory and pronounce their findings to the world? I have 15 years (achieved) and 17 years (very soon). Yet all I see is that they alter their projections (IPCC leak) and Met Office (pulling a fast one) and speculate about the causes of lack of warming, having told us that co2 is now the dominant driver of global warming.
Refeences: NOAA / Santer et al
Sorry, but not impressed. Here’s another, equally valid way of looking at exactly the same data.
And it proves something completely different. This posting is just pandering to the “escalator” theory beloved of SkS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1985/plot/rss/from:1985/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985/normalise/scale:0.5
Steveta_uk said:
“Sorry, but not impressed. Here’s another, equally valid way of looking at exactly the same data”
Not equally valid.
It shows a steady monotonic CO2 rise but our emissions have accelerated fast whilst the CO2 rate of increase has barely changed at all.
That suggests that the CO2 increase is primarily natural and so if it were linked to global temperatures it would still not be our fault.
Here is another chart showing global cooling from 1980 to nowadays, with a brief, intense warming episode limited to the 1994-2001 period:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/normalise/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss-land/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1994/to:2001/trend
The chart the Alarmists do not want you to see. Human Carbon emissions vs. The ‘Gold Standard’ global temperature data set (chart from C3).
————-
How on earth can it possibly be called “the chart the alarmists don’t want you to see” when the alarmists published the chart in the first place.
I could just as intelligently say Burt designs and builds planes that he doesn’t want people to fly in.
The graph is yet another example of perverted data analysis.
Here is an exercise in analysing trends. Just continue the early part of the trend , the big fat red arrow, and extend it further. Then measure the area above the trend line and compare it with the measurement of the area below the trend line. I say those two areas are equal in magnitude and cancel each other out. This is what you would expect for random variation about a constant trend.
Why don’t the auditors make a fuss about these kind of data analysis abuses?
The problem is that CO2 is only one forcing factor in global temperature. For instance, Rutan’s blue line commences with the large temperature spike due to the el nino year of 1998 which is die to pacific ocean currents.. Other factors affecting temperature are la nina years, solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, airborne particulates, cloud cover etc. etc.
Philip Shehan says:
January 24, 2013 at 4:15 am
What volcano erupted between 1998 and 2012?
What other solar cycles have occurred between 1996 and 2012 …. that we don’t know about and that the so-called “climate scientists” are telling us don’t affect climate anyway?
What is the change in MEASURED aerosol levels worldwide? (Local changes – such as India and China? Certainly. Global changes in aerosol levels are ????)
What measured changes in cloud cover have occurred between 1994 and 2012?
You’re waving your hands and claiming “effects” from theoretical things that affect climate…. But you forget that there were no actual such changes in the last 16 years.
RACOOK.
Simply pointing tothe fact that temperature data is very noisy due to the multiplicity of factors affectingtemperature. You can’t expect a smooth correlation between one factor, CO2 concentration, and the temperature. Rutan’s distinction between 1983 and 1997 and 1998 forward demonstrates how one particularly strong factor can affect short term data sets.
Going back to the beginning of Muana Loa data in 1958 and comparing temperature from that date shows a fairly good correlation through the noisy temperature data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise/scale:0.75/offset:0.13
Have you been watching over the years? We were told that co2 is now the main driver of climate. Natural causes of variations would increasingly take a back seat. One simulation rules out 15 years of of no warming, while another rules out 17 years of no warming. These periods are so we can distinguish out the noise from the human ‘fingerprint’. THAT is the issue.
Philip Shehan,
Below is what I was referring to:
Philip Shehan says:
January 24, 2013 at 4:15 am
The problem is that CO2 is only one forcing factor in global temperature.
No, the real problem for Warmists is that C02, and in particular man’s C02 has so little effect that it can hardly be called a “forcing”. The take-home is that it’s nothing we should be alarmed by, and most certainly nothing we should be spending multi-$billions on, and forcing energy prices up. It’s a non-problem. Cooling is something we should be concerned with though.
Can someone remind me if the step increase around 1998 (I know an El Nino year but then persistent higher temperatures) is actually valid? Or was there a c 0.2 degrees adjustment somewhere in the data? Because that is what it looks like. I’m aware that this has been looked at a lot but being a simple sole trained in data analysis we seem to have flat, jump, flat – but no explanation for this shape? Just wondering…
Anthony,
Several years ago I read a piece by Joe D’Aleo on the urban island effect and “corrections” that were made in 1997 to fix it. Joe showed that the corrections were additive and not negative, so instead of reducing temperature, they were added. He used, if I recall, a Central Park location to show the error.
On all these temperature graphs you see a step function in the late 1990s and, my guess is that it is not an actual increase but the backwards and incorrect official fudge factor that Joe noted.
I think it would bear a note to Joe and get his comments on what may be going on here, since, if there is an incorrect modification to the temperature record, then there might not have been much of an actual increase. Instead we would have a gradual increase, a flattening and, based on the past, an eventual decrease.
If my memory is right and Joe can confirm it, you will have another nail in the manipulated temperature record coffin.
While I agree with the point Burt makes, there are several things wrong with the graph.
1. The bars for CO2 start at 250.
2. The important number is not added CO2 per time. The important number is absolute atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm.
3. The atmospheric CO2 concentration should be plotted logarithmically (as any doubling of CO2 concentration leads to the same absolute increase of temperatures) to see relevant changes. (An increase from 250 ppm to 500 ppm has the same effect as going from 500 ppm to 1000 ppm – hence the need for a logarithmic scale).
I think one can make the point Burt attempts, but with a graph that is correct. Just because the alarmists do shoddy hockey-sticks gives us no reason to do shoddy anti-hocke-sticks.
– – – – – – –
Tony Mach,
Or we can juxtapose both charts, your suggested one & Burt’s, next to each other. We get an even better understanding through comparison. Nothing would be lost in having both.
John
Thanks to all those who did graphs going back to 1900 or more with atmospheric CO2 y-axis starting at 280. It does show up the lack of a clear link.
I find useful both Burt’s chart and many of the other charts that commenters suggested. I thank Burt for prompting this educational discussion on the failures of the arguments of alarming AGW by CO2.
To me the two charts most devastating to the IPCC’s support of alarming AGW by CO2 are Holocene charts similar to the following two charts at the top of this WUWT post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/21/its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age-london-mayor-boris-johnson/
What alarming possibility about AGW from CO2 are people talking about ?
Anthony, thanks for the thousandth time for your truly open venue.
John
@ur momisugly Charles Bruce Richardson Jr.
Thanks for that.
@ur momisugly Tokyo Boy
I find your claim incredible. Can you give me a link to any article that supports it? Am I missing something? Was that supposed to be sarcasm?
@ur momisugly Lazy Teenager
You seem to be trying to say so much more than you actually trouble yourself to put into words. (A technique which deprives you of any grounds to decry those who don’t follow your reasoning.) My gues is that your crypticism about ‘the auditors’ is that you perceive hypocrisy in those (such as Steve McIntyre) who call out the nonsense in statistical abuses by the Hockey Team, but not in this particular graph.
To which the reply is, it has already repeatedly been debunkend here. There is therefore no need to do it again, nor hypocrisy in not doing so again.
My two cents worth is as follows:
I want to go on record as decrying this graph. I call on everyone here who considers themselves to be an honest skeptic to also touch base and decry it. Truthful though it may be, for a given value of truth, it really is intentionally misleading.
That said, I propose to use the graph to demonstrate to an alarmed friend that being skeptical is not the same as being a Holocaust Denier, and that there are reasonable grounds to re-open a closed mind about the issues. Then, of course, I must confess that this graph is almost as dishonest as Mann’s ‘Nature Trick’.
IMO, the people criticizing the graph are missing the point of it. Mr. Rutan is fighting back using the alarmists’ own style of presentation. How often have we seen graphs that show a short period of time (e.g., 20-30 years) with what seems like a worrisome upward trend? So Burt just took a similar length of time, but included the most recent data. Even without the trend lines, this shows that something isn’t following the usual CAGW predictions.
And as for the CO2 bars, well I don’t think that’s misleading, either, because it fits in with what the alarmists have done, too. They often show CO2 on a similar scale in order to magnify the extent of the change visually. (And no, I’m not going to include links, we’ve all seen this sort of thing before.)