Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.
Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
🙂 Thanks Josh. Sometimes a laugh is almost beyond price.
Sure, CoRev, but we have scads of other data that show the hockey stick, even if Marcotts data is too uncertain here. Scientists combine independent lines of data all the time – they have to, really.
So I guess I don’t really get the humor. Show a misleading graph, make people laugh? But I guess it wouldn’t work if we actually showed our best global temp reconstructions from the last 5-10k years. There’s no humor in reaffirming Nucitelli’s narrative.
Windchaser, misleading? Its data! Was that misleading? Talk to Alley.
+1 Josh. Got a good laugh out of it too!
Felix-
Climate4you demonstrates a fairly common practice of using ice core data to simulate historical periods of temperature changes due to the length of the record. Since the video was drawing attention to the SAME THING that the Escalator video was created to highlight-temperature changes/trends over time, it is perfectly scientific to compare the trend in global sea surface temps to the trend in the Greenland dome core.
“Clearly Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature changes. However, they do tend to reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009), with the notable exception of the Antarctic region and adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations shorter than ice-age cycles (Alley 2003). ”
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
“The period since 1979 only covers the most recent example of global warming (ca.1977-2001), but no examples of the many previous periods of warming or cooling. This should prudently be borne in mind when interpreting the temperature record since 1979 only, such as shown in several of the diagrams found on this website. As mentioned above the time since 1979 would only take up the final 3 cm of the entire 4600 km long geological climatic record, if each year is represented by one millimetre.”
In other words, the video maker isn’t comparing global temps in greenland to average sea surface temps since 1979-although Dana seems to think that amount of data is perfectly capable of capturing exactly how all “climate change sceptics” view temperature changes-(a highly stupid and unscientific declaration to make in the first place), he’s comparing how AGW believers only focus on ONE period in time, the modern era, when getting hysterical about warming, while ignoring the scientific FACT/DATA that demonstrates it’s nothing new AND less warm now than in the past.
But nice try 🙂
Oh man! That was awesome! Haven’t laughed that hard in a while.
Windchaser-
“But I guess it wouldn’t work if we actually showed our best global temp reconstructions from the last 5-10k years. ”
That’s just it-the video puts the past 150 years into PERSPECTIVE of the past thousands of years.
Here’s some pictures…maybe they’ll help. In a global historical sense, even the past 10k years are the blink of an eye.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/clip_image0024.jpg
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/17/another-swipe-at-the-hockey-stick/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
jai:
…so where did the blade come from? Whose side of the fence is the “mistake” on?
Felix says:
“dbstealey: Non sequitur.”
Felix disregards 4.6 billions years of data with his throwaway line: “non sequitur”.
In fact, that chart deconstructs the SkS human-caused global warming nonsense rather completely.
It is not a ‘non sequitur’; it shows that SkS has cherry-picked a very short time interval in order to argue that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. But the reality is that current climate parameters are well within historical norms. [There] is [nothing] occurring now that is out of the ordinary, or unusual, or unprecedented. Everything observed now has happened before — and to a much greater degree.
There is no scientific evidence measuring any human fingerprint. That idea is nothing but a fabrication; an opinion. A conjecture.
Wake me when Felix uses the Scientific Method. So far, he has not even started.
dbstealey says:
December 6, 2013 at 3:31 pm
“Felix is almost as dopey as jai mitchell. Here is the long view of global temperatures. Notice where we are today.”
There is an error in the graph. At the left hand end, at 4.6B years before present, the temperature curve should be way off the top of the page. When the earth was formed (so we are told) the earth was a molten ball, and it would have taken a few million years for the earth to cool to the same temperatures as Venus is at now – which would still have been off the page. And then a few more hundreds of thousands to get to the top of the ‘comfortable’ range we have been enjoying ever since.
Absolutely the best! Oh, I so hope that spreads far and wide! Well worth it. Thank you. 😀
So the climate changed in the past? Wow, I bet the scientists never thought that could happen.
I wonder where those graphs going back thousands of years came from.
CoRev: Pielke’s point was that the paper is not a good source for 20th century. But we have other data for the 20th century warming. A more serious issue is that if there were similar century long spikes in the period they cover the “inherent smoothing in [their] statistical averaging procedure” might obscure these. Excellent point. So, the results of the paper are consistent with a “hockey stick” but do rule out other similar naturally caused warming spells. This is what the SkS re-posted article says! “The study of Marcott suggests that the earth is warming rapidly from a historical perspective, though the authors warn that the low time resolution of about 120 years and subsequent smoothing preclude a hard statement on whether it is truly unprecedented.”
Aphan: The source your link uses for the claim about Greenland temps is from a paper that is only concerned with the period 1840–2007. I’ll check out your link as time permits. I had not seen it before, so thanks for sharing it. You might want to check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html
dbstealey said: “There is no scientific evidence measuring any human fingerprint.” You may disagree that the evidence presented by climate scientists is sufficient to establish the claim to a reasonable degree, but you are in denial if you deny such evidence exists.
“I bet the scientists never thought that could happen.”
I thought we were talking about the boyz at Skeptikal Seance?
NikFromNYC
The blade came from actual temperature data. That is why there is very little uncertainty in that data compared with the earlier portion of the curve. The proxy data (and the Greenland ice core data too by the way) all pretty much end around 1855.
Dear Felix,
Re: you at 8:36pm today: “… you are in denial if you deny such evidence exists.”
Please present that evidence. Until then, the logical presumption is that there is none.
Your side has the burden of proof. You have not yet created even a rebuttable presumption that there is any evidence. You have not presented one scintilla of evidence. You ask us to simply BELIEVE. Well, we won’t.
Unless it is with relevant evidence of discernible probative value, please do not bother to reply.
Fighter for Truth and Logic, thus, for the time being,
Your Opponent,
Janice
Bill Illis says:
December 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm
I speculated that this was the case a month or so ago on another board when all the old GISS temp records were suddenly adjusted up by 0.01C
So that’s it!
I noticed something rather odd as well. When I gave the statistics with September data, I wrote the following for GISS:
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)
However when I gave the statistics with October data, this had changed to:
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to October)
Of course a huge drop below the zero line can change the time for a slope of zero by 5 months, but the problem was that the October anomaly was 0.61. This was above the zero line of 0.59! So the time should have increased by only one month.
Then we have this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/cei-wins-foia-tiff-with-nasa-via-judicial-order/
Is there some connection here?
I’m sorry, I was distracted looking at 17 years of steady temperatures while the CO2 levels steadily rose…. Was looking at 25 years of declining temperatures between 1945 and 1970 while CO2 steadily rose. Saw 25 years of increasing temperatures while CO2 was steady just before that…
1) Now, just what is your “evidence” of man-released CO2 affecting global temperatures?
2) What is the specific credible HARM that increasing CO2 is supposed to cause? (We are, after all, supposedly purchasing an “insurance policy” by causing 200 years of guaranteed HARM to the world and its people by deliberately restricting energy use and deliberately increasing energy prices. You and your policies are credited with killing 25,000 innocents in the UK last winter. You and your policies are specifically the root cause of 7 years of high energy prices and restricted energy development worldwide that have caused a running recession you are proud to claim as your own legacy.)
Thus, I need to know what the “cost” of this insurance policy of causing guaranteed harm for 200 years to billions of innocents is going to avoid? there is NO harm from an increase of global temperatures of 1, 2, or even 3 degrees.
Now, what exactly is the probability of man-released CO2 causing a temperature increase of 4 degrees C? So far, as CO2 has increased, temperatures have a history of going down. Or holding steady. Yet, when CO2 was steady, temperatures had that nasty habit of going up, holding steady, and going down.
CO2 increased, the number of tornadoes is down.
CO2 increased, the number of hurricanes is down.
CO2 increased, there are no extinction events, and all plants worldwide are growing faster, stronger, more resilient, taller, wider, and heavier. Result? More fuel, more food, more fodder, more farms, more fields, more feed. More fish, fowl, flocks, phytoplankton and furry critters.
CO2 has increased, and malaria has decreased.
You may argue that the Arctic has less ice, but why is that a problem or a threat? At 82 degrees latitude at the time of minimum sea ice extents up north, there is no solar heat gain and the exposed water loses more heat by evaporation, convection, and radiation and conduction than it gains from the sun. But down south?
The increased CO2 has apparently caused three years of record-setting Antarctic sea ice extents, and THOSE millions of square kilometers of sea ARE reflecting more solar energy into space at substantial and ever-increasing rates. Which will cool the planet even more.
So, to return to the intent of dbstealy’s original question: What exactly is your evidence that increasing CO2 as each man and each woman tries to improve her condition for their children, save lives and help people grow will cause any harm to the planet or its inhabitants?
Whooo — hoo! — GO, R. A. Cook!!
Game — set — and MATCH to Cook the Magnificent.
No wonder the AGW gang won’t debate our side.
Admiringly,
Janice
It’s weird to look at the site you view every day as an avid reader and see your own video. Glad you enjoyed it. I’ve a six minute video in the works too, about how science is done by counting papers, not by reading the contents of them. Cheers.
FINE JOB, Mr. Clark (lol, and you didn’t even say anything about the dozens of people above who thought Josh was its producer, not just the promoter)!
I’m sure everyone will be looking forward to your next production.
Congrats!
There was a comment upthread that referred to science in general, but I’ll amend the sarc if you like….
Wow, SkS never imagined climate changed in the past.
Third time I have watched it, coupled with my third glass of wine. My wife thinks I am nuts LMAO all by myself!
Dogs have also moved away into the bedroom…however the ghost of my paleontologist grandfather, Dr. Stuart A Northrop, UNM, is laughing with me.