Remember White House science advisor John Holdren’s wackadoodle video about the Polar Vortex? The opening line of the video spoken by Dr. Holdren says
” If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one we’re having in the United States now disproves global warming…don’t believe it.”
He then goes on to present evidence, like this plot of mid-tropospheric temperature, which looks like it is from UAH/Dr. Roy Spencer, though no citation is given in the video.
The funny part? Watch these two guys blow the glossy WH take on this visual out of the water with just a ruler and some common sense.
For more information on the UAH temperature record, see our most recent update here: Global Temperature Report: January 2014 Upper Michigan was ‘coldest’ spot on the globe in January
Then there’s the other satellite record, from RSS: Satellites show no global warming for 17 years 5 months
For more on the polar vortex, see the new WUWT Polar Vortex Page.
@timetochooseagain
– you may well be right
– it was Anthony who first suggested it was probably UAH
– but it doesn’t matter as all the satellite temp series are fairly similar due to the fact they are measuring the same thing (temperature) with the same thing (satellites)
– I’m not sure about the others, but RSS & UAH actually use the same raw satellite data, but have different algorithms for processing the data.
If we assume that UAH is a good example of temp graphs, and if we are happy to use Lower Trop, rather then Mid-Trop we can see that the 35 year trend is up
– and if you move the start & end points by a few years, the trend doesn’t alter much
Also note, we can show a nearly flat trend for 1979-to1998 *and* for 1998-to-2013 on the same graph, and also show a positive trend for the whole 35 year period
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/trend/plot/uah/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
It just depends on how you pick your start and end points….
😉
“The video is actually in good humor. Elaborating on the original graph, it’s a 2-D graph shown in a 3 dimensional environment for effect, I’m actually astounded more you don’t find it funny that it was pointed out.”
Yes, it was distorted to give a 3D effect. Is that an appropriate was to present data? No.
Applying distorting linear transformations do a graphical presentation of data is clearly not acceptable, however “artistic” the result may be. In view of the blatant deception included in the carefully worded SOTU address “climate change is real and it’s happening now” there is no reason to think this 3D graphics trick increasing of the slope is anything other than another attempt to mislead.
I see that Tamino has tried to do his usual slant on this post.
Don’t bother going there but the link is here.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/q-how-do-you-outdo-anthony-watts/
Grant Foster behaves like a gutless coward. If he had something to say he could come here and do it in the open without being censored instead of hiding behind the censorship he controls on his own site laughably called Open Mind.
Sparks on February 7, 2014 at 7:25 pm
David L says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm
—————
Maybe I’m misunderstood, I do find it funny! And I do think that graph was tilted on purpose to make the trend look “worse than we thought”
Amazing how a straight edge honestly and openly applied can refute a web of confusion, for those with eyes to see. Was that Carbomontanus’ point? Was his an excerpt from Finnigan’s Wake? Or does he post for the record a response to the question that will one day be addressed (pray it be soon) to fully exposed warmunista functionaries .. “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?”
I laughed and laughed. Thanks. Humor is the best medicine.
Glenn Beck’s video? What a crock of misinformation. Some people here are trying to pass it off as humour a bit belatedly, though many people posting here obviously take it seriously. It was embarrassing to watch.
REPLY: No, what’s embarrassing is this sort of snarky dismissive response from people like yourself with fake names and fake email addresses, who can’t understand that tilting a graph gives a visual impression of a greater trend. I find it telling that you are too cowardly to put your opinion with your real name – Anthony
Jammy.Dodger@jupiter.com – Result: Bad
MX record about jupiter.com exists.
Connection succeeded to jupiter.com.p1.mx-route.com SMTP.
220 Postini ESMTP 250 y690_pstn_c2 ready. CA Business and Professions Code Section 17538.45 forbids use of this system for unsolicited electronic mail advertisements.
> HELO verify-email.org
250 Postini says hello back
> MAIL FROM:
=250 Ok
> RCPT TO:
=550 No such user – psmtp
Perhaps it was embarrasing for old Jammy to watch because his only response was an ad hominem attack against the messenger, not the message.
The thing that makes this seem suspicious to me is that the horizontal axis has been tilted but the vertical one, as far as I can tell, has not. Had the whole chart simply been tilted I think viewers would have readily spotted it because the vertical axis would be leaning to the left. The selective skewing of the chart is more subtle.
I don’t think they should have tilted the x-axis, this is deceptive, however I don’t see what the big deal is… they could have stretched the y-axis to make the upward trend look much steeper that what is shown without tilting the x-axis … beside no one is denying there is warming anyway
Err, it’s a perspective rotation – so that’s what it looks like
– the verticals remain parallel, the horizontals converge on the vanishing point – so they are no longer parallel
– many graphics packages used in TV production can do this…
Gail Combs
The Propagandists in the Progressive MSM have done a good trashing of Beck
Much like they have done to AGW Skeptics?
You are allowing one side to control the narrative and control where people get information.
In a comment above you mentioned “neutral” sources of information. I doubt any of the independents you refer to can identify a single source of information that is actually neutral on any policy debates. Instead they are fed a steady stream of left-leaning propaganda from the standard information outlets.
Just caught up with this video. It has given me a opportunity to learn about the wonderful abilities of climate models. As John Holdren say, “Climate models tell us, there are many different factors influencing these patterns”, (of climate or weather, maybe)
Stupid me thought the scientists would be the people to ask not the calculator. Anyway, I understand that the models are continuing to debate what it all means.
That dotted line he points to looks like the least squares linear regression of all the anomalies (via satellite data) going back to 1979, not an axis of the graph tilted upwards. If so, it shows an increase of about one tenth of a degree over thirty years, which is nothing. An increase of only one tenth of a degree over thirty years lends proof to the assertion that the Earth is not warming out of control and that the Warmists are totally hysterical. That’s more damning than tilting a graph a little.
@NotTheAussiePhilM: how many hours have you spent now on this mission complaining that a 4 minute exposure of a 3 second lie was disproportionate?
Wait a minute. President Obama just said in the State of the Union that “climate change” is settled. Would the president lie? I’m SHOCKED!!!
@NotTheAussiePhilM-“you may well be right”
Well we can’t know, can we, since the White House provides no citation, no source. We can only guess.
I base my guess on the assumption that the White House did not mislabel the data.
“it was Anthony who first suggested it was probably UAH”
Yes, and I am almost certain he is wrong
“but it doesn’t matter as all the satellite temp series are fairly similar due to the fact they are measuring the same thing (temperature) with the same thing (satellites)”
Note true. Methodology matters a great deal. STAR has trends in places in the mid troposphere which are twice as large as UAH. And they are clear outliers, too, being higher than all radiosonde datasets, and also higher than RSS. And yet this appears to be the data the White House cited.
“I’m not sure about the others, but RSS & UAH actually use the same raw satellite data, but have different algorithms for processing the data.”
This is mostly true but it really doesn’t have the significance that you think it does. As I said above, it appears they are using a dataset deliberately chosen for it’s extreme, almost certainly erroneous trends.
“If we assume that UAH is a good example of temp graphs, and if we are happy to use Lower Trop, rather then Mid-Trop”
Why are we happy to assume that the White House mislabeled their graph? I’m not.
Hi all,
To those interested, using photo editing software I have corrected the distortion effects and updated the graph using the full UAH dataset (1). I have also extended the red trend-line shown in the White House video and included the trend for the UAH data from WoodforTrees (2) in green.
1. My image
2. Wood for Trees graph
• From this image (1) we can observe that the linear trend presented in the video is actually LOWER than than the 1978-2013 UAH trend as calculated by WtF (2). Thus, the White House could have increased their trend line by using the full data-set.
• The trend for the UAH data (shown in green) is only 1.43 degrees Celsius per century. This is noteworthy in itself as it implies a low climate sensitivity and is under the hallowed 2 degrees warming so feared by the White House. (The red line presented in the original image shows only 1.14 degrees Celsius per century!)
• IMO the distortion applied to the y-axis is not overtly problematic in the perception of the graph, however I also am of the opinion that the creator of the graphic did not have entirely wholesome intentions when skewing it as such. A moot but nefarious point. – in short: shouldn’t have been done but matters little IMO.
• I take more issue with the glowing red planet than with the graph but that’s just me.
Kind regards
Matthew
PS. This is my first post after many years of regular reading. I only post now because I saw much undue negativity, hostility (and bainality) in this comments thread. I’m of a mind that we should all aim to keep WUWT respectful to all.
PPS. Anthony, thanks for simply doing what you do. You have played no small part in my ambitions and aspirations to date and I wish you continued success.
Hi all,
To those interested, using photo editing software I have corrected the distortion effects and updated the graph using the full UAH data set (1). I have also extended the red trend-line shown in the White House video and included the trend for the UAH data from WoodforTrees.com (2) in green.
1. My image
2. Wood for Trees graph
• From this image (1) we can observe that the linear trend presented in the video is actually LOWER than than the 1978-2013 UAH trend as calculated by WtF (2). Thus, the White House could have increased their trend line by using the full data-set.
• The trend for the UAH data (shown in green) is only 1.43 degrees Celsius per century. This is noteworthy in itself as it implies a low climate sensitivity and is under the hallowed 2 degrees warming so feared by the White House. (The red line presented in the original image shows only 1.14 degrees Celsius per century!)
• IMO the distortion applied to the y-axis is not overtly problematic in the perception of the graph, however I also am of the opinion that the creator of the graphic did not have entirely wholesome intentions when skewing it as such. A moot but nefarious point. – in short: shouldn’t have been done but matters little IMO.
• I take more issue with the glowing red planet than with the graph but that’s just me.
Kind regards
Matthew
PS. This is my first post after many years of regular reading. I only post now because I saw much undue negativity, hostility (and banality) in this comments thread. I’m of a mind that we should all aim to keep WUWT respectful to all.
PPS. Anthony, thanks for simply doing what you do. You have played no small part in my ambitions and aspirations to date and I wish you continued success.
Underlying the decades-long dreck-ology of Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber is a savagely reactionary death-wish. “Thanatism” is neither nihilism nor Luddite primitivists’ “nostalgia de la bue”, but an existential “phobia of being”.
Ehrlich in 1968 raised virtual hosannas to the pending extermination of 97% of Earth’s existing population by famine and disease, while Holdren in 1974 famously characterized humanity as “a mass of seething maggots”. Farnish proposes immediate demolition of all post-medieval global infrastructure, lamenting (for example) High Dams as sources of hydro-electric power. Linkola is an explicitly murderous advocate of “culling the bourgeoisie”, Schelllnhuber a ranting communo-fascist ideologue whose New World Order would make North Korea blush.
However this peculiar mindset may originate, its policies are always-and-everywhere the same: Divide-and-rule, something-for-nothing, us-against-them. Churchill had much to say of this mentality, as did T.S. Eliot in “The Wasteland” and Eric Hoffer in his “True Believer.” Anyone who thinks to combat this Wrecking Crew with reasoned argument or sober scientific fact will “light a candle” not of civilized debate but at the Stake.
The reason why the TMT (mid Trop) series is the right one to use is because that is where the polar vortex sits. Here is an appropriate link from NOAA. Geez
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/wobbly-polar-vortex-triggers-extreme-cold-air-outbreak
Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords is learning how to drive again.
Remember, she was a victim of a Beck & Palin fanatic. “Don’t retreat, instead RELOAD”
Your charge linking Beck and Palin to Gifford’s assault is a blatant lie: Her assailant was extremist democrat-anarchist, was an independent crazy fool who strongly opposed both George W Bush and Giffords, but believed in many 9/11 and other anti-republican/anti-Bush government conspiracy theories. He had supported several your democrat causes, but the ADL found no links to any conservative principles or religious beliefs of any form at all.
In any case, your comment is off-topic.
@Ed Mertin 8:07.
Nice smear.
Shame it ain’t true, but whats a good progressive to do?
Smear on, show us all your true character.
Oh my bad, sure, he never saw Glenn’s jack boots or her crosshairs list. Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.
Ed,
You aren’t exactly creating a climate of love or tolerance by making up wild assumptions about total strangers and a paranoid schizophrenic who hated Gabrielle Giffords, and posting them on science thread. I can give you a list of angry, hateful comments made by the left if you’d like. You want to be fed troll….I’ll give you a feast.
@Ed mertin – It is your bad – very bad. You might try education. Such as these:
And that is just this century. For a more complete view, check this one out. http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/10/efficient-gun-control-that-actually-makes-sense
Seems all the crosshairs are being used by liberals.
wws @ur momisugly here
Sea ice has an annual cycle. Therefore all the posts on whether the trend is declining, advancing or back to normal are meaningless.
The sun has an 11 year cycle. Therefore all the posts on solar trends are meaningless.
Sea level has a seasonal cycle. Therefore all the posts on sea level trends are meaningless.
Etc.
None of that is true, of course. You can determine a trend from data that has periodic or quasi-peridoc fluctuations. This is most clearly seen in the 56 year CO2 data, which has an annual cycle.
If one can’t determine linear trends from cyclical data, then no one could say that Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.
Ed Mertin says: @ur momisugly February 8, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords is learning how to drive again.
Remember, she was a victim of a Beck & Palin fanatic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SORRY, YOU are the victim of a lying left-wing fanatic masquerading as a reporter. It is about time you broaden your reading habits and took the blinders off.
Jared Loughner was a liberal socialist, I saw some of his writing. It was actually on a board I sometimes read. However Keith Olbermann, reported less than 15 minutes after Loughner attempted to murder Gifford, (with ZERO FACT CHECKING) that not only was the shooter a rightwing activist, but he was under the direct, personal influence of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
The story was picked up, and quoted as fact by the rest of the media. The lie was too egregious for MSNBC and Olbermann lost his job for LYING! No doubt Olbermann would still have his job and the lie that Loughner was under the influence of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would still stand, if Loughner’s ramblings had not been unearthed at the board I read and spread all over the internet.