Many WUWT readers have seen the famous bit of propaganda produced by John Cook at the antithetically named “Skeptical Science” website, where he creates a series of steps along the graph of global temperatures suggesting that every time climate skeptics see a “pause” they claim global cooling. Of course, that’s nonsense, but for Cook, it has propaganda value much like his 97% consensus meme which is now falling apart.
The problem with The Escalator from “Skeptical Science”, is that it doesn’t show the alarmist favored view of temperature rise, for example, these IPCC projections from the Third Assessment Report that rocket skyward.
![TAR_projections[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tar_projections1.png?quality=75)
Here at WUWT, we are happy to help with a new, more humorous visualization of “The Escalator”, which I call “The Rocket”.
h/t to WUWT reader Mark Eastaugh
Note: Some readers in comments apparently are just too serious, and miss the humor and satire tags along with the headline. Just laugh, it’s funny. When we get claims like “the oceans will boil” and temperature rises of 6C by the end of the century all you can do is make fun of it.
Here’s more examples of rocketing temperatures:
![Copenhagen-Diagnosis-2009-Temperature-Anomaly-500-2100[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/copenhagen-diagnosis-2009-temperature-anomaly-500-21001.jpg?quality=83)
![2.01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-2100[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2-01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-21001.png?quality=75)
![carbon_pollution_to_end_stable_climate[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/carbon_pollution_to_end_stable_climate1.jpg?quality=83)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting that 1936 was hotter than 1998 and yet it hardly lifts off the abscissa of the IPCC graph.
http://voices.yahoo.com/1936-year-global-warming-climate-change-america-5565671.html
Ryan says:
May 31, 2013 at 7:04 am
“If CO2 had anything to do with it shouldn’t it be just the opposite?”
If warming from CO2 was instant or rapid, yes. But it’s quite gradual. Even more gradual than that red line suggests it should be.
Actually, Ryan, your “C02 warming” hasn’t gone beyond the conjecture stage. In fact, the modern warming is well within the bounds of natural warming. But then, you live in the CAGW fantasy world, so can’t be expected to understand that, I guess.
Ryan, do you truely believe that last decade is one of the hotest? Paleo-climate data points to a much different scenario.
HR says:
May 31, 2013 at 7:04 am
“Look at the first graph. In 1970 the temp anomoly is >0 (say about 0.2oC). By 2000 it’s <1 (say about 0.6oC). Your added red line suggests "alarmists" believe the temp should have increased by 1.2oC in that time. The first graph shows this is clearly not the case. THIS IS A FAIL."
Still hoping that the models will be vindicated? Forget it. They're useless junk.
Job opportunities for holders of climate modeling degrees:
The last trend line is much longer than the other ones. SkS doesn’t see that as significant?
Bob asked
“What happens to the rocketscalator if you broaden the time frame to start in 1850 or 1650?”
Here’s the answer in 10 and 50 years slices for CET-said to be a reasonable proxy for global temperatures
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
tonyb
I am a global warming skeptic, and as such I believe it is important to “play fair.”
The first graph in this article does indeed give an accurate account of the “alarmist” view. Take a close look at what that graph shows between 1970 and 2000. It shows a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C.
Now take a close look at the second graph. The red line purports to show us “How Alarmists See Global Warming.” That line shows an increase of 1.2 degrees C from 1970 to 2000. That is clearly not what is shown in the first IPCC generated (alarmist) graph. So it appears to me that the red line in the second graph is a strawman that does not really represent the views of most alramists.
The second graph has the green data labeled “What the Climate Actually does.” It shows an increase of about 0.5 degrees C from 1970 to 2000, which is about what the IPCC graph shows. I believe the green graph is a closer representaion of the alarmist view of the temperature history from 1970 to 2000
It is possible that there is some alarmist claim that the temperature rose by 1.2 degrees C from 1970 to 2000 from some source unknown to me. If that claim is common among alarmists, and a reference can be provided, them I will retract my assertion that the red line in the second graph is a strawman that misrepresents the views of the alarmists.
Does it bother you when alarmists make the strawman claim that skeptics believe that CO2 is not a greenhous gas? Does it bother you when alarmists make the strawman claim that skeptics believe that there has been no warming in the last 100 years?
C’mon – Lets play fair.
REPLY: Dude, its humor/satire. Note the headline. Just laugh, its funny. – Anthony
Ryan said;
“Well it might have something to do with the most recent decade being the hottest and the anti-reality crowd starting up their nonsense around the early 80′s.’
Here is CET graphed to 1538 (my reconstruction from then to the start of the instrumental record in 1659. (Cet is said to be a reasonable proxy for global temperatures)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
There is a sharp drop in recent years whilst co2 continues to climb. The period around the 1500’s appears to be around as warm as the period ending 2000 when the temperature dropped, and the 1730’s were not far behind
Giss is merely a staging post of increasing temperatures not the starting post
tonyb
What is the slope of the red line based on? I know it’s a Friday funny, but is the red line based on an older IPCC report? If so, that’s fine, but just label it that way or mention it in the text.
Guys, guys……
Why so serious?
Ryan said:
“If CO2 had anything to do with it shouldn’t it be just the opposite?”
If warming from CO2 was instant or rapid, yes. But it’s quite gradual. Even more gradual than that red line suggests it should be.
Instant or rapid has nothing to do with it. If it is slow, that just means that the temperature correlates to an earlier part of the exponentially increasing CO2 curve. So the most recent temperature increase should still be caused by the highest and fastest changing part of the CO2 curve that is currently having a temperature effect.
Maybe a little extreme: from 1970 (-0.275C) to 2000 (1.0C) amounts to 4.25C/century.
Scenario A+.
OTOH: The warmists claim they want to stop a 2C growth, but I can’t figure out if that is 2C from 1850 or from 1988. I think it goes back and forth depending on whether the speaker is full-on CAGW or just AGW.
What say you?
“Still hoping that the models will be vindicated?”
What makes you think that? All I’ve said is the trend on the red line in incorrectly calculated.
John Cook’s graph of planetary temperature is the GISS adjusted temperature data set. The GISS global temperature anomaly is roughly 0.3C higher than the UAH satellite global temperature anomaly.
There is a reason NOAA does not use the NASA satellite temperature data when discussing planetary temperature anomaly and there is a reason that Woods for Trees has dropped the UAH global satellite anomaly from their data base making it more difficult to compare satellite data to the HadCRUT and GISS adjusted temperature data sets.
It is interesting that the change from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 raises the HadCRUT temperature data to match GISS. Does anyone remember climategate?
The following is a link to the UAH global temperature anomaly 1979 to April, 2013. Does that graph look the same as the GISS global temperature anomaly? It does not why?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_2013_v5.5.png
Not only is the GISS temperature global temperature anomaly roughly 0.3C higher than UAH for current anomaly, GISS is adjusted from time to time (reducing past temperatures and increase current temperatures) without explanation.
Part of the reason the GISS temperature data set is higher than the UAH satellite data set is the urban heat effect. A second explanation is that the temperature stations used to ‘create’ the graph have been selected to increase the anomaly. A third reason is it appears based on the climategate emails and the unexplained recent ‘adjustments’ to the global temperature anomaly (see links below) there are senior scientists who will adjust data and analysis and/or will cover up the adjustments to support the ‘message’.
The following is an abbreviated summary of the continual GISS hi-jinks. Very funny as the adjusted data is the basis for billions of dollars of spending on green scams.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/12/massive-data-manipulation-at-nasa-warms.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/the-chinese-demonstrate-that-uhi-has-a-real-and-essential-effect-on-regional-climate-change/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
GISS Data Manpulation?
It is alleged that the GISS data set originally had 6000 temperature monitoring points. The base temperature was used the original 6000 temperature monitoring points. The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1000 points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude points and the high latitude points have been removed. In addition an algorithm is alleged to be used that “homogenizes”. The effect of the “homogenizing algorithm is to raise the temperature. GISS data manipulation might explain why the GISS data does not correlate with satellite measurement of planetary temperature.
THINNING MOST WHERE COLDEST
Most of the warming in the global data analyses is in higher latitude areas like Russia and Canada and in higher mountainous regions. These areas have seen significant dropout of stations. The warming comes from interpolations from regions further south, at lower elevations and more urbanized.
* Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
* In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to ….
This paper notes before the 10 years of adjustments to the GISS global temperature anomaly there were statistically unexplained differences between the satellite temperature global anomaly and the GISS and HadCRUT temperature data.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
It seems likely that SkS will write a response to this article and label WUWT as “distorting the facts”. Just saying
re:
“Dude, its humor/satire. Note the headline. Just laugh, its funny.”
The best humor comes from pointing out the irony in the truth. Where is the truth? Where is the humor?
REPLY: if you can do better, by all means, go for it – Anthony
The escalator or “pause” explanation doesn’t actually explain anything. Had someone theorized from other evidence that warmth increases will exhibit a stepwise patter, and then showed the pattern to actually exist, then the claim would have some credibility. But to simply abitrarily
select points to enable a stepwise representation means practically nothing.None of the global warming models have ever postulated a stepwise warming trend.
…some of you need to take a break…go on vacation..take some naps…drink better booze…Like Anthony stated: FUNNY…it is an amusing show of stupid + stupid = 2stupid from the CAGW abyss. 🙂
Is there a chart anywhere that compares what alarmists were claiming the climate would go to and what it actually did?
This analysis by Steve McIntyre confirms that has been 0.3C adjustments to the GISS temperature data to increase the global temperature anomaly. It appears that is the reason why the UAH satellite global temperature anomaly is roughly 0.3C lower than the GISS global temperature anomaly.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/
NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments
As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.
As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.
This reference provides more details concerning how the GISS global temperature anomaly was manipulated.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
GISS Data Manpulation?
It is alleged that the GISS data set originally had 6000 temperature monitoring points. The base temperature was used the original 6000 temperature monitoring points. The current published GISS planetary temperature only uses 1000 points. The points used appear to be points that are warmer. (The colder high altitude points and the high latitude points have been removed. In addition an algorithm is alleged to be used that “homogenizes”. The effect of the “homogenizing algorithm is to raise the temperature. GISS data manipulation might explain why the GISS data does not correlate with satellite measurement of planetary temperature.
William Astley says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:19 am
there is a reason that Woods for Trees has dropped the UAH global satellite anomaly
It is there. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2012.5/plot/gistemp/from:2012.5/plot/uah/from:2012.5/plot/rss/from:2012.5/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012.5
My bigger concern is why Hadcrut3 and 4 have not published their April anomalies yet.
The other problem with The Escalator from “Skeptical Science is that each step in it has been caused by an El Nino. Now, with PDO switched to its negative phase, steps will become smaller and less frequent with perhaps even cooling in between.
Tim says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:56 am
Is there a chart anywhere that compares what alarmists were claiming the climate would go to and what it actually did?
Here are the links to three:
Satellite
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
Hadcrut4
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/
Another diagram:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/
tommoriarty says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
re:
“Dude, its humor/satire. Note the headline. Just laugh, its funny.”
The best humor comes from pointing out the irony in the truth. Where is the truth? Where is the humor?
REPLY: if you can do better, by all means, go for it – Anthony
——————————
It’s a tough room, Anthony. 🙂
HR says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:15 am
““Still hoping that the models will be vindicated?”
What makes you think that? All I’ve said is the trend on the red line in incorrectly calculated.”
I take that as a No.