Dear WMO:
Thanks for furnishing the lovely graph of global temperature anomalies in your WMO Statement on Status of the Global Climate in 2012. I’ve reproduced it here.
The caption for it reads:
Figure 4. January–December global land and ocean surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1961–1990) for the period 1950–2012; years that started with a moderate or strong La Niña already in place are shown in blue, years that started with a moderate or strong El Niño already in place are shown in red; other years are shown in grey.
If you’re not aware, persons see the following three periods in that graph.
Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.
The graph that you’ve provided as part of your press release is worse. The funky blue shading at the bottom of the 2012 bar will make persons wonder what you’re trying to show with it. One thing is for sure: it draws the eye down. Odd that you should do that when you’re struggling to show global warming.
A question: The WMO recommends that the base years used for anomalies be updated every 10 years. Many organizations, such as NOAA, comply with that recommendation. They now use 1981 to 2010 as the base years for anomalies for many of their datasets. Is there any reason you continue to use 1961-1990, other than to make the temperature anomaly map look warmer? Also, the non-linear color-coded scaling of the contour intervals is very awkward.
Last, earlier this year I prepared an illustrated essay that discusses global warming. It’s titled “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”. The preview is here [4MB] and the full essay is here [42MB]. It’s easy to read and understand. I thought you might be interested in a copy.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
As if there are actually people in the world who don’t understand what an “open letter” is… no, it’s not designed to make the “recipients” suddenly realize their errors and change their ways. It’s a public notice that we’re on to you, everyone is on to you, and for those who didn’t realize something is going on, well, now they can see what’s going on. “Open Letters” were a favorite tactic of the left for passive-aggressive aggression during the Nixon years, among other times. Some people see them as a sort of “are you still beating your wife?” thing, since the “recipient” doesn’t usually have the ability to respond in the same manner in the same forum.
The WMO graphs are intentionally misleading, as are the majority of warmist diagrams. They’re designed to communicate “the message” quickly to a gullible audience, and rarely stand up to any level of scrutiny. But the average guy on the street doesn’t really scrutinize, does he? Why would he? He trusts the WMO and other official organizations to be honest and thorough. They are not. And placing one’s trust in a science “organization” is no longer even remotely the right thing to do.
Again, WHOSE recommendation is it to change the baseline every 10 years? Why…. the same people who fail to do that because it would reduce the impact of the fake, fraudulent, ridiculous message.
Oops – only meant to italicize one word: “trusts”.
@richardscourtney
Oh! We could exchange vapid posts all day (I am not going to do that btw). But when you write:
“Unfortunately, it contained as much useful information as all your other posts; i.e. none.”
after you have admitted that:
“Seriously, nobody reads past the first sentence of any of them.”
then it seems to me you are a) reading the content of my posts or b) making it up as you go. In any case you need to come up with something substantial if you want to escape the reciprocal posting of content free messages.
Reich.Eschhaus said (May 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm)
“…With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47…”
It’s amazing how in trying to be clever, SkS actually proves a couple of points.
First, using their “escalator” portion, they’re able to show what some see: since 2003, there’s been a slight decline (negative trend) in global temps. Their chart, their figures, negative trend for the last 10 years.
True, when you look at the second portion (the slope), they do show overall warming of slightly more than .6 degrees since 1970. But take it one step farther: superimpose the “escalator” lines with the “slope” line (like I did here: http://imageshack.us/a/img515/1710/escalator.png)
You’ll see another potential “hide the decline” moment. You’ll see that the “escalator” trend since about 2009 actually goes BELOW their overall slope line. So take your snapshots now. This is SkS, after all.
Questions: 1. How long will we have this current negative slope, increasing the length of the latest top step?
2. If “global warming” continues, at what point will they find a need to provide a new upper step to “the escalator”?
There’s nothing Warmists hate more than when their own team are forced to present data which undermines their beliefs.
Full marks to the WMO for presenting the data so clearly.
I just love that squealing noise that people like Reich.Eschhaus makes, you know you’ve hit the target!
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale
First you write:
“I’ll let others attend to the rest of your nonsense. Based on my past experience with you, Reich.Eschhaus, you simply repeat your same argument over and over again, no matter how many times or ways I offer evidence to the contrary. I have no want or need to deal with a troll.”
Thanks for the compliment by the way! Then you still post another reply:
“You ended your reply to Bryan A with two words: “valid point”. Yet you’re wasting your own time on this thread belaboring your differing opinion about what I wrote as a personal opinion. You’ve expressed your opinion, nothing more. You haven’t made any authoritative statements. Why would you expect valid points when you offer none.
The only thing you do quite well is play the role of troll.”
Thanks again! However you only quoted ‘valid point’. You did not quote:
“It was Bob I was quoting. He said ‘no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report’. I remarked that that didn’t sound quite right on a website that prides itself on being skeptical.”
Don’t you think that your original post
“Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”
sounds definitely un-skeptical?
Bob Tisdale says:
May 3, 2013 at 3:03 pm
pokerguy says: “Respect you Bob along with the work you do, but the snarky attitude is not helpful.”
Thanks for the preliminary kind words, pokerguy. I went back a read what I wrote and I don’t see it as snarky. I will say that it’s not written as I would write a professional letter. It’s more down to Earth. I pointed out my observations and I don’t think I was being overly critical. But that’s how I view it.
Thanks again.
=========================================================
I disagree Bob.
I think that there is snark.
Well written and well deserved snark.
Keep up the great work !
@henrythethird
“…With other words, Nuccitelli is half right with the escalator graph!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47…”
It’s amazing how in trying to be clever, SkS actually proves a couple of points.”
I agree, take snapshots, and we will see how it compares a few years from now.
The reason I brought Nuccitelli in is because it seems suddenly everybody wishes to take issue with him around here. This, I guess, has a lot to do with the escalator graph. Bob sees stagnation – rise – stagnation which appears halfway between the two options in Dana’s graph.
Good night!
I see “No Warming” then “Warming” then “No Warming But Still Freakin Hot”
and I’m no warmist.
This is what NOAA does to the US temp record.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355
Anything based on the NOAA temp record is based on a LIE !!
@Charles Gerald Nelson
“I just love that squealing noise that people like Reich.Eschhaus makes, you know you’ve hit the target!”
squeal! squeal! squeal!
Reich.Eschhaus says: “sounds definitely un-skeptical.”
I’ll play along one more time. In your viewpoint, what does “un-skeptical” mean? To me it means gullible or trusting. I don’t see how the opinion I wrote portrays gullibility and trust.
@dbstealey
“Reich is a real complainer, isn’t he?”
If, after several rounds of negotiations, we could agree on the term “selective complainer” then I agree!
That’s my interpretation of this particular graph as well; i.e., it shows steady warming from 1965 to 2005, and a pause in temperature rise since 2005.
But regardless of what graphs like this one show, Global Mean Temperature must decline steadily for a continuous period of from thirty to fifty years before the climate science community ever begins to question its fundamental AGW dogma.
In the meantime, only concerted efforts on the part of AGW political activists to impose strict limits on carbon emissions through legislative or regulatory action could instigate the kind of transparent and unbiased public examination of AGW theory needed to disprove, in the general public’s mind, the dogma the climate science community is now pushing.
Matthew W. writes:
“I disagree Bob.
I think that there is snark.
Well written and well deserved snark.
Keep up the great work !”
>>>>>>>
Well at least we can agree on the tone of the letter.
@ur momisugly Bob Tisdale
Still playing along? Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “sounds definitely un-skeptical.”
I’ll play along one more time. In your viewpoint, what does “un-skeptical” mean? To me it means gullible or trusting. I don’t see how the opinion I wrote portrays gullibility and trust.”
As I said in my first comment and which you didn’t reply upon (on that part):
“And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report”
shows no inclination to consider arguments that go against your opinion. That is what I would call not skeptical at all.
Beta Blocker & Kasuha: For me, the mistake they made was only color-coding the years that begin with moderate and strong El Ninos and La Ninas. The red lines in 1998 and 2010 catch the eye and create the impression of a separate time period.
Regards
I see warming to 2002, then level to 2009, then dropping.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?”
Nope. I was too busy to go to the book store today, so I’m bored, but I think I’ll watch a rerun of TopGear when I’m done with this comment.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “…shows no inclination to consider arguments that go against your opinion. That is what I would call not skeptical at all.”
Must be that you’re misinterpreting it because you’ve taken the sentence out of context. Here’s the paragraph in its entirety.
“Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”
Earlier you expressed pleasure at being called a troll, Reich.Eschhaus. I’m not sure why. Like most trolls, you argue for argument’s sake and offer nothing of substance. Let me be more frank: your lack of substance is not an enviable trait. Alas! Such is role of the troll.
Have good night.
Anthony, Allowing these ongoing useless unscientific comments between Mr Righteous and the others lessens the quality and value of WUWT. Reich as far as I can see made his point early – the rest of the discussion is crap.
Snarkiness?? *gasp* Why, it’s almost as if Bob Tisdale were….mortal! A brilliant mortal who has taken enough snark from the batcrap crazies in the past to earn a complete pass should he determine to compose an entire Broadway musical filled with snark, but a mortal nonetheless.
Of course, those who would declare that “Bob should write his ideas down in an article and submit it to some meteorological or climate publication” because “maybe” that would help him ” get some traction” with the AGW crowd, most likely have some loose wires in their connection to reality in the first place.
And to CGN-
As far as that squealing noise…it’s more like the sound an overinflated balloon makes when you stretch it’s neck and let all the air out of it quickly. *evil grin*
Meh!
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “Am I now a troll that deserves your attention?”
Nope. I was too busy to go to the book store today, so I’m bored, but I think I’ll watch a rerun of TopGear when I’m done with this comment.”
You call me a troll, then you say you don’t interact with me no more, then that you are too busy, and here you are reacting! Am I still a troll or is it time to take your accusation back? Are you still at the bookstore?
“Just thought you’d be interested. That’s what I see, and I suspect many other persons see the same three periods in the graph. And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report, what people will see and take away from your report is that global surface temperatures warmed for a couple of decades, starting around the mid-1970s. Then surface temperatures stopped warming a decade and a half ago.”
“And that means no matter what you’ve written in the rest of that report”
Bob Tisdale, simply accept that you screwed up with that sentence! Who cares, errors happen, accept it, everyone does it.
“Earlier you expressed pleasure at being called a troll, Reich.Eschhaus. I’m not sure why. Like most trolls, you argue for argument’s sake and offer nothing of substance. Let me be more frank: your lack of substance is not an enviable trait. Alas! Such is role of the troll.”
you mean I was making fun of people calling me troll, quite possibly 😀
Actually I like this graph.
If we take just the end points we get 0.25 + 0.45 °C over about 60 years giving a sensitivity of 0.7 * 100 / 60 < 1.2 °C per century. And that's using the maxima rather than the nearest means.
One can get higher rates over shorter periods or one can use sine fits as henryp does, but this is extrapolation which I was taught in my engineering courses is always risky.
Regards,
John.
Bob, for my own tastes in casually looking at graphs, 1998 is an obvious outlier, regardless of what color the bar is.
So I ignore that year as I am visually interpreting the series of vertical bars shown on the graph.
This gives me a visual interpretation of continuous warming between 1965 and 2005 — for whatever that is worth to anyone, alarmist or skeptic alike.
Reich.Eschhaus,
You’re arguing with multiple other commentators on various different threads.
Are they all wrong? Or is it you?