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?
Every time Gavin opens his mouth some fool talks.
Methinks someone is worried about the Schmidt hitting the fan….
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.
“Now, this is a trend in Google, it shows the “climate” cooling”
LOL
“amazing that anyone still takes Gavin seriously” Do you mean someone does??!!
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.
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
jc @ur momisugly 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.
The trend for WattsUpWithThat” is also a hocky stick… Just saying
@ur momisugly 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?
Silence is the wisdom of fools.
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
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.
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.
usurbrain:
Does this look linear to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
My translation:
Gavin: “Haha! no one cared how awful we were then so no one will care now”
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.
Cornered and unaware of an exit.
A dangerous creature indeed.
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”.