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?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 14, 2013 3:34 am

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.

Paul Sheraton
March 14, 2013 3:42 am

Or an even better reverse hockey stick
Google trends for realclimate
peaks Nov 2009 and then dives

March 14, 2013 3:49 am

Was there a sustained interest in climate during the medieval warm period 😀

March 14, 2013 3:52 am

Like trying to find a trend in a cyclic system. Depends on start time and data choice.

March 14, 2013 3:54 am

Sad when Gavin can be taken to school so easily.

tim maguire
March 14, 2013 3:59 am

He also apparently has difficulty with the difference between science and snark.

March 14, 2013 4:09 am
cui bono
March 14, 2013 4:10 am

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

March 14, 2013 4:15 am

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

March 14, 2013 4:16 am

Arguing with Warmists is like shooting fish in a barrel!

March 14, 2013 4:17 am

I wonder what the trend for “Gavin Schmidt” would be?

March 14, 2013 4:17 am

Why google “climategate”? Just type “wattsupwiththat.com” and get all the information and entertainment you need…

Dermot O'Logical
March 14, 2013 4:23 am

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

March 14, 2013 4:23 am

even more interesting is the annual cycle of interest in climate, perhaps its the weather!

March 14, 2013 4:33 am

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?

March 14, 2013 4:48 am

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 ?

March 14, 2013 4:58 am

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.

Lew Skannen
March 14, 2013 5:05 am

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.

March 14, 2013 5:07 am

Try Google Trends for “Real Climate” since 2009. 😉

March 14, 2013 5:10 am

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. 😀

March 14, 2013 5:13 am

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.

March 14, 2013 5:19 am

whoops typo: ‘company’

March 14, 2013 5:19 am

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.

March 14, 2013 5:34 am

“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.” — Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton, English politician and poet, b1803 – d1873

Doug Huffman
March 14, 2013 5:35 am

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.

Just an engineer
March 14, 2013 5:37 am

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

Fred from Canuckistan
March 14, 2013 5:37 am

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

March 14, 2013 5:38 am

The Gavin disappoints.

March 14, 2013 5:57 am

try plotting Gavin Schmidt and Anthony Watts…graph here

The Other Phil
March 14, 2013 5:58 am

I tried “global warming” which is a trend, not an event, and a similar picture emerges, not quite a reverse hockey stick, but come to think of it, neither is the temperature trend, so the “global warming” trend is closer to a reverse hockey stick than temperature is to a hockey stick.

March 14, 2013 5:59 am

Although I think not all the Anthony Watts are the same!

March 14, 2013 6:11 am

Anthony, here’s one that shows both the medieval and modern warm periods, though I think the x axis needs bit of Mannian Massage. Paul.

March 14, 2013 6:33 am

compare Real Climate with WUWT
Real Climate is headed for the toilet. WUWT is headed for the sky.

March 14, 2013 6:34 am

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….

March 14, 2013 6:41 am

This guy has long gone past his ‘best before date’

March 14, 2013 6:44 am

What is the Google Trend for “Gavin Schmidt”?

John F. Hultquist
March 14, 2013 6:51 am

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.

Rud Istvan
March 14, 2013 7:04 am

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.

March 14, 2013 7:06 am

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.

March 14, 2013 7:07 am

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.

Greg Roane
March 14, 2013 7:14 am

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 🙂

James Allison
March 14, 2013 7:15 am

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

March 14, 2013 7:16 am

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.

Bloke down the pub
March 14, 2013 7:27 am

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.

March 14, 2013 7:30 am

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

March 14, 2013 7:42 am

seems like he’s begging to have the actual mails released to test his theory

March 14, 2013 7:43 am

I like the way Gavin truncated the graph on the left to hide the incline.
Once a ****, always a ****.

March 14, 2013 7:54 am

Reality is a ….
Realty however, is personal real property, real estate.

Doug Proctor
March 14, 2013 8:20 am

For some, Junior High was not a stage but a lifestyle.

Phillip Bratby
March 14, 2013 8:29 am

Every time Gavin opens his mouth some fool talks.

March 14, 2013 8:33 am

Methinks someone is worried about the Schmidt hitting the fan….

March 14, 2013 8:35 am

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.

Jeff Norman
March 14, 2013 8:40 am

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

Doug Danhoff
March 14, 2013 8:40 am

“amazing that anyone still takes Gavin seriously” Do you mean someone does??!!

March 14, 2013 8:54 am

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.

March 14, 2013 8:57 am

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

Tom Norkunas
March 14, 2013 9:39 am

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.

Just Saying
March 14, 2013 11:25 am

The trend for WattsUpWithThat” is also a hocky stick… Just saying

March 14, 2013 12:59 pm

@ 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?

March 14, 2013 2:01 pm

Silence is the wisdom of fools.

Sam the First
March 14, 2013 3:32 pm

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

March 14, 2013 5:43 pm

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.

David Cage
March 15, 2013 12:15 am

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.

March 15, 2013 7:44 am

Does this look linear to you?

Dave in Canmore
March 15, 2013 8:44 am

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

March 15, 2013 9:55 am

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.

john robertson
March 16, 2013 1:33 pm

Cornered and unaware of an exit.
A dangerous creature indeed.

March 17, 2013 8:22 pm

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”.

%d bloggers like this: