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.
This is what happens because Mann can no longer produce a robust Hockey Stick.
Maybe Hansen can give him some of his special Climate Viagra.
Then Mann too will be Rocketing off the charts.
Maybe then Mann can make Pachauri happy again.
William Astley says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:19 am
Not sure what you mean. WFT still carries UAH. But, it is tropospheric, not surface.
In reply to Werner & Bart
Werner Brozek says:
May 31, 2013 at 11:24 am
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
William:
The Woods for Tree UAH data is is lower tropical not global mean. The majority of the 20th century temperature rise was high northern latitude. The full set of UAH data is global mean, tropical, Northern hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2013-0-10-deg-c/
The manipulation of the GISS data is the reason why it does not match UAH.
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.
HadCRUT4 has been adjusted from HadCRUT3 to make it match with the GISS adjusted.
Here’s my take on the Marcott et al plot as reworked by Tamino.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/tamino-loses-the-plot-with-new-hockeystick/
And what happens to the escalator if you take Hansen and Jones away from the data !!
Do we end up in the basement ??
William Astley says:
May 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm
there is a reason that Woods for Trees has dropped the UAH global satellite anomaly ……..
William:
The Woods for Tree UAH data is is lower tropical not global mean.
WFT did not drop anything that was there before although for a short period it was not updated after a new version came out several months ago. But I believe you are mixing up two words that sound almost the same but which mean very different things. WFT shows the “lower tropospheric temperature”, not the “lower tropical temperature.” WFT just shows “trop.” which does not help either.
While tallbloke mentions Marcott it reminds me of this Marcott-unrobust blip-extrapolation by Joe Romm.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/?mobile=nc
So we can say that, yes, that is indeed how alarmists see it. I have shown this link to an alarmist guinea pig and he confirmed it.
Please request a higher resolution graph at thinkprogress; I also have no idea why Joe Romms extrapolation is not exactly linear, but I’m sure he can help any interested party out there; he has written books about our very warm and megadroughty future so he should know what he has been doing there.
The “Rocket”, what a great visual!
In reply to Brozek and Bart,
Werner Brozek says:
May 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm
William Astley says:
May 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm
there is a reason that Woods for Trees has dropped the UAH global satellite anomaly …….
WFT did not drop anything that was there before although for a short period it was not updated after a new version came out several months ago. But I believe you are mixing up two words that sound almost the same but which mean very different things. WFT shows the “lower tropospheric temperature”, not the “lower tropical temperature.” WFT just shows “trop.” which does not help either.
William,
The GISS and HadCRUT4 data sets were manipulated and adjusted to push an agenda.
If there is no extreme AGW problem, the CO2 increases are unequivocally beneficial to the environment.
The UAH data was been limited to the tropical region as the UAH tropical data agrees with the GISS and the HadCRUT2 for the tropical region. There has been no significant net warming in that region.
The majority of the 20th century warming has been in high latitude regions of the northern hemisphere. The AGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming would be in tropics rather than in high latitude northern regions. The pattern of the 20th century warming does not match the AGW theory.
That is fact. Facts do not change if due hiding of the data. Facts have implications as to what theory is or is not correct.
I would assume that the full UAH data set (Global anomaly, tropic region anomaly, Northern hemisphere anomaly, and Southern Hemisphere anomaly) has not been included in the Woods for Trees data set, as that would enable a person to easily identify the manipulation of data to push an agenda.
William Astley says:
May 31, 2013 at 4:59 pm
I would assume that the full UAH data set (Global anomaly, tropic region anomaly, Northern hemisphere anomaly, and Southern Hemisphere anomaly) has not been included in the Woods for Trees data set, as that would enable a person to easily identify the manipulation of data to push an agenda. Emphasis mine
The data for the tropics according to UAH for January to April, 2013 is as follows: 0.371, 0.168, 0.226 and 0.168.
The data for the globe according to UAH for January to April, 2013 is as follows: 0.504, 0.175, 0.183 and 0.103.
For the above, see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2013-0-10-deg-c/
The data for the globe according to what WFT records for UAH for January to April, 2013 is as follows: 0.504, 0.175, 0.183 and 0.103.
For the above, see:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2013
Do not blame WFT for anything! He is doing an excellent job!
These ‘looming disaster’ plots really are funny! They all look like they projecting a LARGE dose of ‘climate viagra’ to take effect any day now! I can here the ‘voice over’ announcer (Mikey Mann?) offering similar precautions: “If a climate graphical erection should last longer than 1000 years, please consult with your Climatologist immediately!” };>)
MtK
Of course, they only use the fully bunked Mannian hockey stick chart to portray past temps. I prefer this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif?w=640
I like this one too:
http://andysrant.typepad.com/.a/6a01538f1adeb1970b0168e819f09b970c-800wi
In reply to Werner Brozek,
Werner Brozek says:
May 31, 2013 at 5:17 pm
Your comment is correct. The WFT data is lower tropospheric UAH global mean.
The following is a comparison of the GISS adjusted, HadCRUT 4 adjusted, and UAH global mean.
The issue is the adjustments to calculate the GISS global mean and HadCRUT4 global mean and the urban heat effect which the UAH data set does not have.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1979
Is there a chart anywhere that compares what alarmists were claiming the climate would go to and what it actually did?
Well, the graph above is from the IPCC TAR. The actual projections from that can be found here.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/552.htm
Estimated rise 1990-2010 for the closest actual scenario (A2) was 0.16 C/decade. Observed was 0.15 ± 0.08°C/decade.
But no comedy in the actual FACTS, sadly 😉
William Astley says:
June 1, 2013 at 12:10 am
The issue is the adjustments to calculate the GISS global mean and HadCRUT4 global mean and the urban heat effect which the UAH data set does not have.
I have added slope lines to your graph and offset the UAH by 0.34 to clearly show the difference in slope for all three. Note that UAH has a lower slope than the other two.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1979/offset:0.34/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/offset:0.34
The one thing that struck me about “The Escalator” is it shows that there is at least one person at SkS that sees the truth: that a top “step” is there, and it shows a slightly negative slope since about 2003.
So maybe someone from there can stop by and answer a question: will the length (and direction) of the top step continue to increase, or will they see a need to add a new top step?
Because if you overlay the two parts of THEIR chart (the step vs. the slope), you’ll see that their lines have been diverging since about 2009 (slightly decreasing “top step” vs. increasing “slope”).
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/1710/escalator.png
If they admit to a pause they are admitted to the science being junk standard. If instead of S= U T + 1 / 2 A T squared you used 1 / 4 AT squared you get the right answer after a pause but no one in their right mind would consider the science right still. Why is climate science subject to such different rules to what we are used to thinking of as real science?
Pravda