First some background graphics before we demonstrate the cherry pick.
We’ll start with the IPCC graphic from the AR5 draft.
Then we’ll look at Christy and Spencer’s recent graph.
![CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?quality=75)
Now let’s look at what Marlo Lewis brought to our attention at globalwarming.org. He writes:
============================================================
Seeing is believing, but things are not always what they seem. Skeptical Science, a Web site devoted to “debunking” global warming skepticism, asserts that Spencer’s claim about recent warming being only 50% of what the model consensus projects is “flat-out ridiculously wrong” (original emphasis). Observed warming has been “spot on consistent with climate model projections,” Skeptical Science contends. The evidence, supposedly, is in the graph below (click on it to activate the presentation if it doesn’t animate).
![Skeptical-Science-Predictions_500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/skeptical-science-predictions_5001.gif)
Figure explanation: This animation compares the observed global temperature change since 1990 (black curve) to projections of global temperature change from the first four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (red, pink, orange, green) and from various “climate contrarians” (blue, purple, green, gray dashed). The observations are given by the average of 3 primary global temperature datasets (NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4). All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable.
So who’s right: Spencer and Christy or Skeptical Science (SS)? The SS graph and commentary are misleading in two ways.
The period covered in the SS graph is a decade shorter than that covered by the Spencer-Christy graph and looks suspiciously like cherry-picking. By starting their graph in 1990, SS can use the Mt. Pinatubo-induced cold period of 1992-93 to tilt the trend to be more positive. The Spencer-Christy graph begins at the start of the satellite record — 1979 — providing a longer and more representative period.
More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere. In contrast, Spencer and Christy use temperature data from the tropical troposphere — the place where the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.
As Christy explained in testimony last August, the popular surface datasets often touted as evidence of model validity are not reliable indicators of the greenhouse effect. Land use changes (urbanization, farming, deforestation) “disrupt the normal formation of the shallow, surface layer of cooler air during the night when TMin [daily low temperature] is measured.” Over time, TMin gets warmer, producing a trend easily mistaken for a global atmospheric phenomenon.
==============================================================
Full essay here: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/06/10/climate-models-epic-failure-or-spot-on-consistent-with-observed-warming/
evanmjones says:
June 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm
> I miss Reverse Polish Notation.
I have a HP11C at home and a HP16C at work (that’s the hex/oct/bin/dec calculator for geeks). Then (free) HP11C and HP15C aps on my iPhone.
Having had a few computer science courses before I first saw a HP35, I was using it comfortably in less than a minute. The owner was crestfallen when the HP45 came out and he no longer had the coolest thing on the planet.
10 digit accuracy. My slide rule was no match….
Every time SkS produces one of these charts (and there have been many), each one has got different numbers in it.
Observations, IPCC, Hansen, it doesn’t matter.
They get away with it and the authors/fakers just get more and more popular in the climate science field every time they produce/exaggerate another one.
It seems to be the best way to get invited to speak at conferences for example.
(sigh)
you’re just mad that they didn’t start in 1998 and used real temperature data.
if they had corrected for solar variations, El Nino Southern Oscillation and stratopheric volcano effects then they would have shown much more warming (which would show the CO2 effect!)
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure05.jpg
jai mitchell says:
June 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm
(sigh)
————–
Most warmers seem to exhibit this “emotional response”. Rather than looking at the real data (or examining Grant Foster’s real data and methodology), we get a sigh.
I’d be happy to show you how fake Tamino’s chart and Grant Foster’s paper is, but I would have to use real numbers which I suspect is not going to have an impact on you.
BarryW
That is what I was saying…if you look at the IPCCs graph they have error bars on the observations, SkS is using the highest point on the error bars for each point on their graph.
jai mitchell says:
June 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm
????
There have been no significant volcano\s recently (during the “flat earth” no-global-warming period you need to explain away), so how is anybody supposed to “add in effects” in ANY temperature record?
See, your models NEED periodic artificial constraints added in routinely (aerosol adjustments, volcanoes, El Nino’s) to allow their inherent calculation errors to be “corrected” such that the printed graphic outcomes match the temperatures that you need to re-create. But, in almost 16 years now of no significant El Nino’s nor La Nina’s nor volcanoes nor solar variations, the earth’s temperature measures out flat-lining (cooling very slightly actually) while CO2 increases by nearly 13% ….
And no model can predict when the flat-line will end,although one model (out of 23) (one time) shows it lasting this long either!) …. And that one run of that one model will cross today’s decreasing temperature trends in 10 months time.
But the collective group of all 23 models continue tracking off their writers’ fantasies. So, if only one is correct, are you going to throw out the other 22 and defund their labs and turn off their supercomputers and fire their writers and staff?
From jai mitchell on June 10, 2013 at 6:30 pm:
*sigh*
We’re just irritated you subsequently flashed a link to a graph from the discredited Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 paper and expected us to bow to the exalted wisdom you have graciously presented.
Didn’t you do your research?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
Which was followed by the also-debunked Rahmstorf, Foster (tamino), and Anny Cazenave 2012 paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/
We’re here to help you get through the disinformation clogging your brain as presented to you previously by tamino and fellow currently un-indicted co-conspirators, help you see the real science clearly. If you need any further enlightenment besides what’s in those links, you can ask here or on the next related thread.
Are we on the alternative sceptical website? When will alternative forecasts be
shown in a graph for all of us to discuss? This instead of regurging the deadbeat AR5
horse meat over and over again. We know by now that AR5 is smelling. Anthony, show
us the good stuff, the alternatives, please…
It is too bad most of the comments are focused on the superficial issue of Marlo Lewis using SS vs. SkS or some other acronym. His actual argument is also worth discussing!
Marlo thinks the SkS graph is misleading “in two ways” – starting at 1990 and using surface temperature data.
Is starting at 1990 a kind of cherry picking, as Marlo insinuates? No, it is simply as far back as you can go – to the First Assessment Report. That should be clear from the first chart included by Anthony Watts in this post. There can be no projections prior to that. Nothing nefarious or cherry picking going on here.
Is it misleading to use surface temperature data? Marlo makes two claims himself:
and (in the full article linked to)
Well, no, Marlo, that isn’t quite right. The conclusion of the US Climate Change Science Program was that the satellite data had errors. From the Executive Summary (John Christy was one of the Lead Authors):
So it isn’t “implausible” that observational systems have errors that are explanatory. That is the favored explanation! Nor is it particularly helpful to quote Christy before Congress trying to resurrect UHI under the moniker ‘land use change’, you’d think the BEST results would have kept that poor beaten horse in its grave.
@Kadaka
your assertions are far from scientific or even correct. That is the problem with this site, tons of hypotheses about why the data or science is wrong. (everything from conspiracy theories to your own pet theories about physics) your “debunk” page simply hypothesizes that the PDO is a stronger effect than ENSO and that PDO is caused by solar activity. . .and then says the correction is incorrect, “because he says so. . .” This is the worst form of denialist behavior.
@RACook1978
in 16 years we went from the strongest el nino on record to a period of cool negative pacific decadal oscillations so strong that it is only similar to the 1945-1979 period of warmth stagnation. The negative PDO is caused by human activity and only leads to increased warming of the oceans, that is why the surface air temperatures stay cool.
oh and the Pinatubo eruption is in the chart they provided so, yes, volcanos. Though there are many more to compensate for than that one. see here: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp
jai mitchell says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:33 pm
The negative PDO is caused by human activity and only leads to increased warming of the oceans, that is why the surface air temperatures stay cool.
—————————–
Interesting wierdness there for sure.
Cook should win the “climate craziness” prize every week.
What bugs me is that someone I care for goes to his site to be re-indoctrinated after talking with me, and then comes back with a chart or graph like the above, and confronts me with, “Ah Ha! What have you got to say about THIS, smarty.” Then it’s my turn to give them the old, “Sigh…”
I think eventually Cook will be relegated to the back burners of the internet, where he will share company with other bizarre sites proclaiming unfounded theories. It is the price we pay for a free press.
Cook chart has most-recent temps more than a half degree above normal, while last month’s UAH data had us less than a tenth of a degree above normal.
It’s hard to even start on the same page with the guy.
James Smyth says:
June 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm
[Zeke]Akasafou does not disappoint.
Was this posted on the wrong thread? I used a diagram by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu on my post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
From jai mitchell on June 10, 2013 at 7:33 pm:
*smirk*
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a natural pseudo-cycle that runs approximately 60 years total, spending about half that in either its positive or negative phase.
And right about when it could and should be expected, it flipped to negative, in 2005.
A natural thing changed course when it should naturally be expected to, therefore, in your view, what happened was caused by human activity.
Just like how much of the warming has already been shown to be natural, and all of it is not extraordinary in historical terms, but despite being natural it too is caused by human activity.
You’re in luck, Willis Eschenbach just got done with an informative post about the PDO, which contains information you have obviously been denied as it would interfere with making you conclude mere humans have so dramatically shifted an entire planet’s climate. Well it’s less than a degree or so over the past century, but it looks very dramatic when Tami graphs it.
Bob Tisdale has also posted many informative pieces about the PDO, ENSO, and other things you would benefit from knowing real facts about.
“More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere.”
Looking through AR4, it seems that most of the “global mean temperature” projections they report are based solely on surface air temperatures. Their predictions did not therefore even attempt to represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere, let alone the climate as a whole. So SS was comparing apples to apples. But the IPCC’s use of the term “global mean temperature” in this context was more dishonest than the cherry picking by SS.
You post a graph listing the “mean surface air temperature,” and people will ask what about the rest of the climate. But you just label it “global mean temperature,” and the average voter has no idea that you are hiding huge gaping holes in your knowledge.
I for one don’t think we have a clue what the “global mean temperature” is to any reasonable degree of accuracy. So using the term to describe the reported surface air temps is propaganda, not science.
evanmjones says:
June 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm
“…I miss Reverse Polish Notation….” I use my HP12c everyday. I almost cannot make a TI or el cheapo calculator work. RPN seems to mirror the way my mind works. Those two little machines – 12c and 15c – are iconic examples of great technology.
You have missed one important detail in the Spencer’s graph – it is comparison of middle troposphere tropical temperatures, models and reality. Middle troposphere, not surface temperatures. And tropical, not the whole world (although about half of it). While this graph is okay to show how wrong models got it in this particular metric, it cannot be used for comparison with graphs of global surface temperatures as it does not work with global surface temperatures.
Sceptical of Science. The “of” is silent.
I apologise for derailing the thread.
Yet, my dislike of “SS” as a name for those who we disagree with, is sincere.
Keep it classy and stick to the facts. The facts are on our side. Don’t put neutrals off with petty smears.
Remember, the squirmers who are trying to argue that their predictions aren’t proven wrong just yet (petty smear, I know) have already conceded the real argument.
They predicted the end of the world, mega-disasters and other things that would have been noticed by the man in the street. Luckily they were wrong.
And, despite fiddling with fake surveys and fake graphs, everyone can see they were wrong.
Perhaps SkS might like to tell us why the Met Office’s decadal forecasts were so wrong then.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
weltklima, are you asking for “Skeptics” to commit to a temperature trend prediction?
Can’t speak for all, but my personal position is that we simply don’t have enough information on what is driving temperatures, and those who think they do are idiots. Nothing in nature moves in a straight line, not even light. NO trend continues unabated. NOTHING in our atmosphere just monotonously alters climate without a feedback mechanism kicking in and knocking it down. And most important, CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE.
Again, to me, it appears likely that we are going to see some cooling over the next few decades. I think it’s pretty obvious from looking at all temperature records that temperatures oscillate around an average, whether the underlying trend is up or down. Yes, I’d love for someone to explain exactly what drives “recovery from the LIA”, however the “climate scientists” that we are paying for that sort of science are playing hooky, frittering their grants away trying to prove something unprovable, since CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE.
And any one of you recent visitors from whatever bastion of AGW thinking who claims that 30 years is sufficient to determine anything about climate have completely invalidated any credibility you MIGHT have brought with you. Climate is in MINIMUM 60 year cycles, and has been documented to be that way for centuries. You’ve seen the up, now the crest, should be interesting to watch the anti-science AGW crowd trying to explain an actual cooling trend.
In reply to:
Kasuha says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:26 pm
You have missed one important detail in the Spencer’s graph – it is comparison of middle troposphere tropical temperatures, models and reality. Middle troposphere, not surface temperatures. And tropical, not the whole world (although about half of it). While this graph is okay to show how wrong models got it in this particular metric, it cannot be used for comparison with graphs of global surface temperatures as it does not work with global surface temperatures.
William:
Your comment is correct, however, you may be missing Spencer’s scientific point which is there are fundamental errors in the general circulation models which the IPCC have used to base their future climate change predictions on.
The extreme warming hypothesis predicts and requires for there to be extreme warming that the most amount of warming on the planet shall occur in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space and where there is amply water to amplify the CO2 forcing by the greenhouse effect.
The amplification mechanism that the extreme warming hypothesis includes and requires to create extreme warming is only a hypothesis. The satellite temperature measurements Vs general circulation models predictions indicates there is no amplification in the tropics. The data shows there is almost no long term warming of the tropical troposphere which indicates there could be a second problem in addition to the lack of amplification.
Spencer’s graph obviously shows the general circulation models fail (to model the tropical troposphere). The assertion that there is something fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models is supported by other peer reviewed papers.
For example Lindzen and Choi’s 2009 and 2011 papers note planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis used top of the atmosphere radiation measurements from satellites compared ocean surface temperatures. As Lindzen and Choi note in their paper, if there is no amplification of the CO2 forcing, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in 1.2C warming. As the planet resists forcing (negative feedback) the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand.
The general circulation models that are currently used by the IPCC assume that low level planetary cloud cover either stays the same when the planet warms or decreases. It should be noted that the IPCC reports are predicting 1.5C to 6C warming for a doubling of CO2. The general consensus is that warming up to 2C will be beneficial to biosphere. Lindzen and Choi’s finding that the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) and that that the planet will hence only warm roughly 1C due to doubling of CO2 is therefore very important.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
The second paper by Douglas et al. notes that tropical tropospheric have not warmed as predicted by the general circulation models. As Douglas’ paper notes the general circulation models predict that water vapour amplification will cause a large amount of warming (more than the surface) due to the increased greenhouse effect of more water at 8km above the surface of the planet. The warming at 8km will then cause increased warming on the surface of the planet by long wave radiation emitted down. Douglas found that below 8 km the GCM models predicted tropospheric temperatures are too high by 100% to 300% when compared to observations. At 8 km the troposphere cooled rather than the predicted warming.
Douglas et al’s results support Lindzen and Choi’s finding that the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease of clouds in the tropics.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Hypothesis
The UAH Global temperature anomaly data series (ref: http://www.drroyspencer.com) can be modeled as a sequence with the following terms:
1. 24 hours
2. 12 months (both implied in the creation of the above temperature anomaly data series)
3. 37 months
4. 48 months
5. ~12 years
6. ~60 years
7. Weather
Data Analysys
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/uahtrendsinflectionfuture_zps7451ccf9.png.html
Cascaded central output running average filters of 12, 16, 21, 28 and 37 months span and the original data plotted on a scatter graph.
Inflection points extracted at the conjunction points of the filter outputs. (These indictate local ‘zero’ crossing points in the data.)
Periodicity observed in these nodal values clustered around 37 months, 48 months, ~12 years (3.0833.. * 4.0 = 12.33.. years?) and partial ~60 years.
Prediction
The values will, in the future, continue to be bounded by an envelope dictated by the observed periodicity.
William Astley says:
June 11, 2013 at 3:18 am
In reply to:
Kasuha says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:26 pm
William:
Your comment is correct, however, you may be missing Spencer’s scientific point which is there are fundamental errors in the general circulation models which the IPCC have used to base their future climate change predictions on.
________________________________________
I have no problem with Dr. Spencer’s conclusions and with the graph itself. But its usage in this article and especially this sentence:
“So who’s right: Spencer and Christy or Skeptical Science (SS)?”
is misrepresentation.
It’s comparing apples to oranges.