I offer @ClimateOfGavin help understanding events -vs- trends

Yesterday, when Climategate 3 was released, the ever flippant Dr. Gavin Schmidt made this Tweet in response:


Source: Google Trends, searching the word “climategate” from December 2009 to March 2013 http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Climategate&date=12%2F2009%2040m&cmpt=q

It seems that Dr. Schmidt doesn’t understand the difference between events and trends. Climategate was an event, so of course it was represented by an event interest spike. For example, here’s a weather event, Hurricane Katrina, which also shows a “reverse hockey stick” when the dataset is cropped as Dr. Schmidt’s graph was:


Source: Google Trends, searching the words “Hurricane Katrina” from Sept 2005 http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Hurricane%20Katrina&date=9%2F2005%2089m&cmpt=q

Now, this is a trend in Google, it shows the “climate” cooling. 


Reference: Google Trends, searching the word “climate” http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Climate&cmpt=q

The interest in climate has cooled, losing more than half its value since 2004.

Of course, as Real Climate Scientists™ always tell us, it is the trend that matters, not any single event or datapoint.

And, the model forecast calls for continued cooling into 2013 and 2014:


Reality is a bitch, isn’t it Dr. Schmidt?

69 thoughts on “I offer @ClimateOfGavin help understanding events -vs- trends

  1. Shortly after he tweeted that jewel, I thought I’d look at Alexa rankings for RealClimate to see if there was a similar reverse-hockeystick in play.
    Sadly, as near as I can tell, RealClimate is not ranked highly enough for that sort of historical data to be kept.

  2. Anthony – stats on visitors to RC vs WUWT would be fun. You might need a logarithmic graph. 🙂

  3. Why would I need to google “climeatgate”?. I just type “wattsupwiththat.com” and find all the information I need…

  4. Whilst they don’t make land any more, I think you mean Reality, not Realty.
    REPLY: Fixed, voice recognition software sometimes messes those up. – Anthony

  5. I would be interested in how these trends appear relative to total searches through this time- frame. After all, the total number of searches processed by Google must be hugely more now that in 2004…..anyone able to integrate this?

  6. In a similar area , I always love the way they claim that somehow AGW sceptics are all powerful in stopping the public from buying heart and sole into ‘the cause ‘ and yet claiming that AGW sceptics are in fact tiny in number which few people believe. So how does this ‘power ‘ come about ?

  7. Just had a look at Google trends. Even more interesting to type in “climate change” and “global warming” and view them together. This clearly shows the “peak hysteria” in 2007 and the sad collapse thereafter. Weirdly, the low point each year is in August (with 2 years where July just wins) – very clearly so. It seems the committed environmentalist is a seasonal organism.

  8. This is so funny. I have also spotted a trend. Every time one of these guys thinks he has a slam dunk over WUWT and jumps up on his high horse he ends up getting his ass handed to him.

  9. Typical kind of pointless, nay childish response from someone who really has nothing to offer in terms of scientific input, right “Gav”?
    On my ignore list. 😀

  10. The hockey stick curve that really scares me in the UK is the one showing our national debt. This, coupled with a flat/ negative trend in our GDP, is not stopping a bunch of MPs trying to force a decarbonisation target of 2030 through Parliament in the next few weeks. We are bust and if we
    were a comany we would be in administration at best, but still the economic lunacy continues. The
    leader of the group is a director of at least one renewable energy company – what a surprise.

  11. If current ‘climate cooling trends’ continue then we got an ice age in 5 years! 😉
    It’s good to see the public is losing interest in the climate.

  12. Thanks for the tip to their trends analysis. Though I try to avoid that company, their tools are useful. Their Ngram thingie is also occasionally useful.

  13. It would appear that when it comes to “The Team”, PhD actually stands for Probably hokey data.

  14. One trend that is not a reverse hockey stick is the lack of integrity by Gavin.

  15. A day after Climategate happened someone at Google tweaked the search engine so that you no longer were automatically prompted for Climategate when you typed in Climate….
    Google are a nefarious lot. They do this kind of thing ALL the time. Remember this is the same company that had a bit of “rogue” code that allowed their map vans to acquire personal information….

  16. When funding for the “climate scientists” shows a reverse hockey-stick there should be a celebration.
    In the Great State of Washington – not the D. C. one –
    The Washington state Senate on Wednesday advanced a measure championed by Gov. Jay Inslee to study the best practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    Under the measure, an outside consultant would review both Washington state’s ongoing efforts to cut carbon emissions and similar endeavors elsewhere.

    They haven’t said who will do this study nor how much it will cost. When it is done, I trust the executive summary will explain how much lower Earth’s future temperature will be as a result of the State’s climate change efforts. It will be indistinguishable from zero – maybe they can make that number bold print.
    Thanks Anthony and everyone for the on-going efforts.

  17. Well played, Anthony.
    Problem is, these folks never did care for reality, or they would not, for example, say in AR4 that clouds cool, they are the biggest uncertainty, our models get them all wrong versus observation, but never the less we are certain about what will happen decades in the future. And when it didn’t (the pause), what do they produce but AR5 SOD, saying their confidence has increased! Right.

  18. How many searches are for political “climate” or “climate” in general as opposed to “climate” change? I’m sure the downward trend is for “climate” change, but there’s probably a “baseload” climate interest which will always be there.

  19. It would be one thing if Real Climate was merely misguided scientists who were mistaken about something, but it seems to be more than that. Real Climate seems to be an active tool, disseminating propaganda, and this could lead to trouble if it turns out fraud is involved. One then becomes an accessory to a crime.
    Therefore Gavin should fear any spike in interest, when the interest is in what he’s been doing with our tax dollars.

  20. GASP! My sensitive ex-sailor ears are offended by your language, Mr. Watts! I, personally, would have chosen a stronger, more vulgar word! /snark off 🙂

  21. Realty is a bitch, isn’t it Dr. Schmidt?
    I guess Schmidt would see climate as his property. 🙂

  22. These people like Schmidt aren’t scientists; they are manipulators of public opinion dependent on government money. They speak out of three sides of their mouths, and call anything that happens in weather, “climate change.” Anyone who studies their failed predictions knows that their “science” is anything but. Their models can’t predict past weather, much less future weather. Hell, they can’t predict the weather tomorrow, yet they expect us to believe they can predict climate years down the road. I’m through being civil with these charlatans who threaten our very existence with their frauds. They need to be exposed for exactly what they are.

  23. Well lets see now if we can apply some warmist graphing skills to that last figure. Pass everything prior to 2009 through a 2yr filter and cut off the data at 2010. Voila! an hockey-stick.

  24. I believe the technical term for this is “pwned.”
    Amazing anyone still takes Gavin seriously.

  25. Apparently, Gavin Schmidt would rather have negative attention than no attention at all.
    That doesn’t speak highly of him as a “scientist” or as an individual. Of course, the Genocidal Warmistas no longer offer much else.

  26. As an aside, publicity was not what the director of the Climate Institute wanted when he suddenly re-appeared on a Yahoo group. MacCracken kept towing the IPCC line with a smooth tone, while offering some insight to his own understanding of meteorological processes, atmospheric circulation etc… on which I commented.
    Here is Mike’s farewell message: “That CO2 is able to absorb and re-radiate IR radiation goes
    back to the 1850s, and has held up through all sorts of evaluation since
    then. Without water vapor, also a three-atom molecule, absorbing and
    re-radiating IR, there is no way to explain how surface temperatures can be
    as warm as they are given incoming solar radiation. So, how does water vapor
    have its effect, and yet not CO2.
    To suggest the CO2 proposition is “unsupported” is the reason that such
    denier views are so rapidly dismissed–why waste time on positions that are
    so counter to the evidence. Fine to have discussions on how sensitive the
    climate is, but to just dismiss it and express the belief that climate will
    continue to just fluctuate in the face of ongoing forcing by GHGs is denying
    the results of science, not drawing from it. Just not a basis of the type of
    interactive discussion that skeptics often say they want.
    With the need to work on quite a number of other tasks, I’ll sign off and
    let everyone get on with their discussion of the fantasy world you have
    created. Mike”
    The prima donna was given ample time and felt like the ears and eyes of Crispin Tickell ahead of any reaction on AR5. Visibly Climategate 3.0 might take up MacCracken’s time and Steve McIntyre decosntruction of Marcott et al. is not good news for the Climate Institute vanity.
    Good bye Mikey and to Yahoo guys, beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothes.

  27. So the truth will filter out slowly, that must be cold comfort to Gavin.
    Enough people read WUWT for the knowledge to reach out across communities and groups discussing whether the evidence behind theories of CAGW are supportable.The answer seems to be that the data was tampered with and presented in a biased way, and the evidence for this view just goes on growing and growing. Gavin can blow against the wind, all he will get is spit back in his face

  28. jc @ March 14, 2013 at 4:58 am said “Weirdly, the low point each year is in August (with 2 years where July just wins) – very clearly so. It seems the committed environmentalist is a seasonal organism.”
    Now, I know that just because something happens at the same time does not mean it causes the other, but Washington, DC basically goes on vacation in August (the “August Recess”) and the press corps naturally does, too.

  29. @ Tom Norkunas says: March 14, 2013 at 9:39 am
    This is closely related to “climate science” of course, so I don’t think we need be too concerned with niceties such as cause and effect.
    Could Washington DC be the hive for this species? The breeding ground?

  30. It’s not surprising I’m poor when fools and incompetents like Schmidt and Mann are given public funds to produce rubbish in pursuit of an agenda. The world is not only full of fools – it’s run by them

  31. Why is the graph of CO2 concentration essentially a straight line? WHY?
    Man started making CO2 from burning Coal, oil and other fossil fuel in about the 1600’s AND has burnt MORE each and every year since that first time. [Ignoring burning wood for fires as that is essentially lost in the noise level of forest fire burning.] The laws of physics says that if you start filling a very large tank with water and that if each time you add the amount that you added the last time plus 25% more, that the level of the water in the tank will NOT, and I repeat NOT, increase at a linear fashion. PERIOD. It is a curve or hyperbolic in nature. Since the 1800’s (back when the steam engine was invented) we have almost doubled the amount of fossil fuel burning each year. That implies the resulting curve should be close to logarithmic in nature (You would need a log scale on the Y axis to get a straight line.) WHERE is all of that CO2 going? Shouldn’t we be getting a Log increase in CO2? Something is fishy.
    The straight line tells me that the INCREASE in CO2 is the result of something much larger in scope than our burning fossil fuel. I feel it is the result of the increased rate of decay of organic material due to the slow LINEAR increase in temperature.
    Those that do not see this should use their brain.

  32. Why are any of the climate trends taken as linear ? Even a quick look at the rainfall graphs the met office should have used rather than the one they did show there is a clear cut cycle present, which means a near certainty that every other weather and climate factor is similarly affected. Who would think of predicting the voltage of a 50Hz mains at any time from a linear projection from the last 0.001 % of the cycle and saying this is what the future holds. Obviously climate scientists do but luckily for us engineers have far more acceptance of reality or electricity would be deemed too dangerous to handle the gigavolts projected in the future.
    As usurbrain says the climate scientist should be looking at the whole CO2 picture. Surely without modelling nature’s outputs and inputs they have no idea of man’s effects on the CO2 balance anyway. It is likely that it balances as the same level as if man’s output did not exist, and anyway by comparing to nature’s left overs in the atmosphere rather than nature’s whole output man’s proportion is overstated by a huge margin of up to a forty times multiplier.

  33. My translation:
    Gavin: “Haha! no one cared how awful we were then so no one will care now”

  34. claimsguy says: March 15, 2013 at 7:44 am
    usurbrain: Does this look linear to you?
    Find some better graphs. When you get rid of the 400 (or 1) thousand years before that and look at the graphs on a 200 year graph it is closer to a straight line (Actually two straight lines fit best.) than any curve that could be explained by the rapid constant increase in CO2 purported to be caused by man.
    Look at the graphs of population, that is a VERY curved graph and always has been. It is now reaching a plateau though. Compare a population curve with a CO2 “Linear” ( I do not want to save curve cause it aint) graph.

  35. I was just curious what Dr. Schmidt was saying at his site RC about the Marcott issue. My search was in vain. It was the proverbial “sound of crickets”.

Comments are closed.