Skeptics often get asked to show why they thinks climate change isn’t a crisis, and why we should not be alarmed about it. These four graphs from Michael David White are handy to use for such a purpose.
Note: the top chart of 10,000 years of climate change has been updated to reflect the x-axis on 1/31/17
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about overlaying NOAA’s past temperature reconstruction from the 1970s with the same period now, to show the chic@nery?
Thanks to Tony Heller
This is a good on from Anthony’s paper:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/watts/watts-fig-8-rural-mmts-airports-out.gif
Excellent and thanks!
+97%!!!!
Apparently this is a reference to the PROVEN FACT that 97% of the actual hard data and evidence supports the claims that humans have NOT usurped the vastly more powerful forces of nature that determine weather, temperature and climate and that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of trends in same.
Thanks!
Adding some knowledge about CO2.
#FAQ about #CO2!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/2016/06/questions-and-answers-about-co2.html
Oops. Chemtrails above!
“At above link,” I should have said.
Only had to read down to the 3rd bullet item under “Now let us talk about CO2” to find an untruth
“Is CO2 a poison”
The answer to that is definitely yes, when in the right quantities.
CO2 is toxic to some garden pests at 10,000 ppm 1%, and is toxic to humans after an exposure of 5 minutes to a level of 90,000 ppm 9%
Given the right concentration and CO2 is definitely poisonous to humans
all is poison, nothing is poison, the dosis alone makes the poison.
So i guess you can say that CO2 is a poison, but that’s not really fair. Water will kill you faster, does it means that water is a poison as you understand this word?
Let say that CO2 is a poison that doesn’t harm us because we have natural ways to cope with it, up to concentration 100 greater than normaly found. That is, a non poisonous poison.
Brian A, a lethal dose of milk will kill you. Marathoners have died from drinking a lot of water without also adding electrolytes (essentially salt), oh and like CO2, too much salt will kill. I think we have a law developing here:
Excessive Anything Will kill You.
Gary Pearse, I would like to commit suicide by having too much sex.
Well, and don’t think I’m one of those nuts who thinks the government is deliberately spraying us with some sort of harmful or mind controlling chemicals PLEASE, technically the water vapor in jet exhaust is a “chemtrail”, just not what those who are worried about them say it is! And it may well be that these “chemtrails” (visible jet engine exhaust, which is mostly CO2 and water vapor, isn’t it? What else is in there – other than perhaps some inefficiently burned fuel?) DO in fact have some SMALL effect on something like solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, or being reflected before getting well into the atmosphere. There was a paper that suggested a measured difference in this during the days following 9/11, when many flights were cancelled and the skies were unusually clear. What ever became of that theory? Any more evidence to support or refute it? Anyone know?
I thought if I had Google translate, it would help. It didn’t.
If You meant my article. Please just select the right language symbol. For English the flag of UK!
Only the flags with available article have a link, the others are greyed out.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Does not CO2 cause death by asphyxiation ie by exclusion of O2 & not by toxicity?
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of carbon monoxide?
No, it can be pretty toxic in itself. At high levels It changes the ph of blood which has a disastrous effect. It also has some effects which are essential to good homeostasis, but like everything, it’s a question of balance.
This is right. On the other side CO2 is the foundation of O2. Plants absorb CO2 to release O2 by photosynthesis. What they additionally need is strong sunlight and water.
So the rise of CO2 indicates missing sunlight and/or water.
We need the 21% O2 in air for breathing. If the rate of O2 sinks below that level and the rate of CO2 increases accordingly we are suffocated. CO2 level is a trigger for us to feel asphyxiation, before we are really in danger of death.
Below “essedelendam” suggests that,
“the rise of CO2 indicates missing sunlight and/or water.”
That is an interesting theory though I know of no evidence supporting any claim of a significant reduction in either sunlight or water, to any significant degree, but I also have no evidence I can provide to refute it at this time – that is to say I do not insist it is untrue, I just am not ready to believe it until I see evidence that either sunlight or water is missing. My opinion is that there are natural sources and sinks of CO2 that are ALWAYS of varying strengths, for various reasons, and I do see evidence to support this view of things, which is so obvious that I will leave it to those who don’t to ask me specific questions if they care to do so. Anyway, even the changes we have seen are not unprecedented, IMHO, with respect to rate or amplitude, at least as far as we are able to accurately ESTIMATE based on the proxies at hand, which are known to be rather flawed, the further back in time we try to guess, or if you wish, estimate, what things that were not actually directly measured were like.
Now yes, I know that “chemtrails”, which in this context are MERELY THE VISIBLE EXHAUST OF JET ENGINES, containing primarily water vapor as the visible part and the products of the combustion of jet fuel as well, often misrepresented as some devious chemical being sprayed by governments or some shadowy malevolent yet usually unidentified entity, but which have been hypothesized to perhaps have some influence on the Earth’s energy balance. That seems to be PERHAPS what is being claimed here, though I do not think that human activity has reached a level where that influence is significant. Is there any ABUNDANT evidence that I am wrong? Has anyone gone beyond (as I already mentioned) the paper which I did read that claimed to have measured a significant change in incoming solar energy during the time flights were grounded during the aftermath of 9/11?
“Only had to read down to the 3rd bullet item under “Now let us talk about CO2” to find an untruth” Could you please try the keep the context to today’s climate science? Unless you think we are heading towards 90,000 ppm? Or maybe it is a poison we cannot live without? Some whackjobs think we need to spend trillions to try and get back to 280ppm, like that is some kind of magic number, and I guess it is if you main goal is to limitthe number of people on earth…
Could You please what is the untruth in the list?
I am collecting basic knowledge about CO2, to show that the so called “climate science” is not science but a marketing religion for geoengineering.
Maybe You did not read the content precisely. I don’t think anything about CO2 when ask questions and give the answers.
So please don’t claim anything what I have not written there.
The geoengineering mafia may have intention about population reduction, because geoengineering is already damaging the environment and killing people. Their current goal is water grabbing for fracking and farming industry.
When You check other articles there, You will find that various aspects of geoengineering are explained separately.
that malleability of data one did grab my eye and confuse me for a moment. wasn’t able to read the text about deviation from start initially, once was able to rotate and read it all made sense.
Need a little further explanation of the third graph to make it comprehensible to a semi-scientist like myself – and to laypersons in general
It’s showing the global temperature on two scales. The right-side axis applies to the red line but the chosen scale seems to be arbitrary. If you graph average global temperate on a scale of -40°C to +40°C, the approximate highest and lowest temperatures found on earth on any given day, you can’t tell the temperature line has any slope at all.
All the graphs should show the source of the data otherwise alarmists are just going to “deny” them. : )
The source is shown.
Tom Trevor. You’re right! I didn’t realize the charts included the text. Thanks.
Greenland.
My bad. The 1st and 4th seem to be of Greenland (which doesn’t agree with global averages since other parts of the planet more than make up for the heat in the other direction).
The 3rd graph is just a stretching effect, saying that graphs are stretched to create feeling of seriousness visually. I think the idea is to make it clearer to see the numbers since it should be obvious that if you compress you cannot see them. And I think the range matters as many studies have suggested a few degrees rise would be a serious affair, especially if it’s not just the surface temp but translates to the deep oceans.
The 2nd graph is missing context and appears to be lined up badly towards the left side. Some of the missing context are the “error bars” of the projections and which projection are they talking about. Projections come from computer simulations. They are many such models and they use probability (stochiastic) to account for the fact we don’t have an infinite number of thermometers to carefully measure temp everywhere, nor do we have unlimited computing power so have to approximate. Also, the modelers must make guesses about many future things like CO2 release levels, volcanic activity, etc (eg, smog can cool the earth as can heavy volcanic activity while the air is opaque/whitish). You have to make sure to adjust the projections once you know these variables in the future; otherwise, the projection is burdened not just with modeling CO2 effects but also guessing what laws mankind will pass and how much CO2 will be released and the strength of the sun, etc. Models are more narrow in scope and focus on natural effects of what we have measured.
If the model graph (graph 2) is a variation of what was posted in 2013 (here and elsewhere, including by jonova) and made by John Christy, then the graph indicates the temp data is not surface data but data from balloons high up and data from satellite that covers a wide swath of the atmosphere averaged together. [We know from daily experience that something can be very hot near the core yet release little heat near the surface, eg, a hot oven insulated well.] Meanwhile, the model projection looks like the modelling of surface temperature not lower atmosphere area temperature. So is that graph overlay doing apples to oranges?
“All the graphs should show the source of the data otherwise alarmists are just going to “deny” them.”
True, but in my experience, even when MY SOURCE is THEIR SOURCES, (i.e. the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, peer reviewed papers published in respected journals, “climate scientists” including but not limited to Michael Mann, etc.) they STILL deny it if it forces them to re-evaluate their chosen world view and recognize their obvious cognitive dissonance.
Chart 3 shows a big change in gray and a small change in red. Both the gray and the red are the same numbers. The Y Axis on the left is for the gray and the Y axis on the right is for the red.
Overlapping graphs like this are common in some fields, but it is confusing, especially if your not used to it. Usually some clarification is added by making the scale match the color of the line it corresponds to. In this case the scale for the red line is on the left, and the scale for the gray line (with fill below it) is on the right. The data is the same, so the only difference is the gray is at a 10x vertical exaggeration to the red.
I hope I that was clear.
I suppose there could be a graph in one scale, then another graph in the different scale and then the combo. That might help people see. I like the graph. It’s hard to get people to understand that the scale on the graph matters a great deal.
For graphs in colour, it’s usually easy for the “graph maker” to match the colours of their scales with their curves. The malleability graph would have benefited by having the left vertical scale in grey and the right one in red. The Banality graph could have both vertical scales side-by-side on either the left or the right, but not use both. This way the casual viewer can see that they are essentially the same scales, just with a different/shifted zero datum.
Provide a +Button and a -Button to animate an increase/decrease in the y-axis scaling along with the corresponding animation on the resolution of what is being graphed.
Why’ve you compared the temperature change in one small region (Greenland) with the global climate change in the 4th graph? Wouldn’t you expect the temperature to vary more in a small locality than when averaged globally?
The last graph Y axis should be labeled ‘from Greenland’
I just use one….
Latitude, Nice chart. And that’s after adjustments were made to make the past cooler!
I use it too.
Catch up with the 20th century, and show us that in Celsius. Then we’ll see some Global Warming, won’t we?
better yet, in Kelvin
Absolute zero as base! That will look really impressive.
For reasons that were never made clear, the graph’s text refers to alcohol thermometers twice. I suspect that’s a mistake, and that it should refer to mercury as that freezes near -40F/-40C. Perhaps Latitude can explain that, I don’t think anyone has bother to inquire about it. Oh, I just checked the source. Alcohol because it’s usually red.
Lame.
Tufte would not approve.
Do the same thing with your favorite stock.
Personally for me, no need to do so for the majority of my stocks since they all tend to migrate to absolute zero upon purchase …..
Good job I scrolled down to check before posting the same….well done Latitude. This image totally humiliates ‘dangerous climate change’ theory in one single snapshot. Be warned though; using this against alarmists tends to make them very angry indeed. 🙂
It makes even more sense to plot that on a meaningful scale such as degrees Kelvin. That shows a total heat quantity, which might be uaeful. Darned hard to see any trends for the stability, though.
The Y axis range should be chosen to be just beyond the range of the actual variables being plotted. Examples of this can be seen in the post we are commenting on. To choose a Y axis range that is 50 times the range of the Y variable is an obvious attempt to minimize the appearance of change. Such a graph would be laughed out of any scientific conference, or corporate boardroom for that matter.
Piece of crap chart, especially used by itself. We’ve covered this before. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/#comment-2117915
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:15 pm Edit
I’m disappointed that no one has mentioned Edward Tufte, author of books like The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. If you have the opportunity to go to one of his One Day Courses, do so! Expensive ($420), but you get copies of several of his books.
One thing he recommends for graphs like this is to aim for a slope of about 45°. Too low and you get the ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over here, too high and it appears exaggerated, call it the analog SHOUTING in text.
It also helps if the readers have read his books too….
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:48 pm Edit
Lotsa of Tufte and words of wisdom from Dilbert. Doesn’t get much better than this.
http://www.jmp.com/about/events/summit2010/protected/elements_graphing_figard_ppr.pdf
Ric Werme
January 11, 2016 at 6:57 pm Edit
h/t to Steve Mosher for the Tufte reference to 45° while I was reading comments.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2117899
Steven Mosher
January 11, 2016 at 9:42 pm Edit
no problem.
everytime I see people try to attack the anomaly charts I think… have they read Tufte
Ric Werme
January 12, 2016 at 4:54 am Edit
I think “They need to read Tufte.” 🙂
commieBob
January 11, 2016 at 7:19 pm Edit
I totally agree. You don’t even need to buy the books. A bit of googleing around will get one a pretty good taste of Tufte’s wisdom.
… the ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over …
If you want to show that the earth’s average temperature is remarkably constant you would go for the flat graph. Other than that, I agree, such a graph is kind of useless. For instance, if I wanted to describe ice ages and interglacials I would make the vertical axis cover about ten degrees C. If I wanted to describe the annual temperature range in Saskatchewan I would make the vertical axis about 100 degrees C. (180 deg. F).
Aphan
January 13, 2016 at 2:32 pm Edit
That’s the point. The earth’s average temperature IS remarkably constant. Attempting to show otherwise, one has create graphs that make it APPEAR like earth’s recent temperatures are not ALSO remarkably constant by using “anomalies” and pretending they reflect temperatures accurately.
When scientists (or their fawning fans) are FORCED to compare earth apples to earth apples-instead of comparing WORMS in apples, to apples-it makes them go batcrap crazy and make statements like “that ridiculous flat graph people are fawning over”.
The first chart shows 10,000 Years of NATURAL Climate Change. When IPCC mentions Climate Change, they are referring to CAGW, the CO2 Armageddon Global Warming Climate Change.
The news showed the woman on the airplane going ballistic due to a Trump supporter. She hysterically mentioned that the Trump supporter didn’t believe in ‘Climate Change’, i.e., she understands the phrase Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, not the CO2 Global Warming Climate Change. She is incensed that intelligent people on this planet, including WUWT readers/commenters/posters, don’t believe in (Natural) Climate Change.
I’ve said it before, and most people ‘don’t get it’ – the IPCC purposely changed the topic from Global Warming cuz they knew (rather cleverly) that most people would now conflate Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, when they should be interpreting it as Global Warming (CO2) Climate Change.
OK, you people can eviscerate me all you want but I will tell you this: IPCC has wordsmithed the skeptics, especially the great scientific minds (NOT being sarcastic) and you just don’t get it. You’ve been played by a smarter group.
i always say climate always changes, to believe in a “stable climate” is believing in a lie.
“to believe in a “stable climate” is believing in a lie.”
And yet, the last 150 or so years have been remarkably stable.
Very little real temperature change compared to Ice age changes, or even the drop from the Holocene optimum. A small but highly beneficial rise out of the LIA,
Very little change in Hurricanes, rainfall..
Droughts etc probably less severe than in the past..
Altogether… pretty BENIGN. !!
Ah, no. “climate” is never stable, it changes constantly.
If you think of the Earth’s climate as a control system with feedbacks, it is definitely stable as evidenced by millions of years of having a temperature within a narrow, bounded range. For those involved in control systems design, by one definition, a system is stable if every bounded input produces a bounded output. Stability in that sense does not mean that the output is unchanging. I’d say the climate exhibits the characteristics of a stable system…and yes it does change a bit over time…almost entirely naturally except in heavily urban environments. My two centavos.
Yes the climate is stable because there has never been a runaway climate in one direction. Temperatures go up and down, bounded within some fairly narrow range. There is and has never been a tipping point. There is zero evidence of a tipping point as defined by the warmists.
+1 boulder skeptic
Climate is stable, chaotic, changing all the time with no need of any cause to do that.
“Stable climate” is an oxymoron, isn’t it?
exactly and this brings me to the claim many make about the earth being in “equilibrium” as its natural state and that humans releasing co2 have upset this equilibrium and are causing a NEW “equilibrium” at a warmer state…….there is NO EQUILIBRIUM in the real world, the entire record shows NO period of stability = NO EQUILIBRIUM, this means there are factors at work seeking a balance(thermodynamics as one example) but because the factors at play constantly change then the point of equilibrium also constantly MOVES and cant be found. like a teeter totter with changing weights on both sides, YES for a fleeting moment there is balance as it moves in one direction or the other, but it NEVER comes to rest at that balance point…
Sorry for getting off-topic, but IMO this miracle planet we find ourselves on has had a “stable” environment for life for the majority of its time orbiting the sun. Yes, there have been major extinction events, however none of those are attributable to our climate – changes have occurred however these are all due to extenuating circumstances and not due to natural changes in our climate.
And these major extinction events appear to be epitomes of “silver linings”. Life that evolved after each such event has been different from the past, and has usually left “something” behind for us to utilize.
The relative stability of the climate of earth, always in constant flux but always remaining within the window for life to evolve and flourish, is the reason for our presence on this planet. It is very unfortunate, IMO, that we have wasted so much time and resources on attempting to alter the natural course of the ever-changing climate.
For nothing.
Pollution is entirely another matter. CO2 is not pollution.
Really? Whenever anyone tries to bully me with “climate change” I just remind them that the alarmists are still claiming every year to be the “Hottest Evaaah”, so they’re actually still talking about “global warming”, not “climate change”, and that it’s semantics. Why play semantics? Because the “science” of CAGW is utter tripe, and they know it.
Yes, the alarmists are trying to play “us”, but they’re not a smarter group. When your success depends on bamboozling the stupid and the venal, you’re not really that smart, just manipulative (naughty words self-redacted).
I agree with most of your points but no we’ve not been played by a “smarter” group. We’ve been temporarily out maneuvered by a vastly more deceitful group.
And by temporary I’m not suggesting that we descend to deceit and manipulation of data. In the end the truth will win out.
Think of it like a chess game. Our opponent has thrown a full assault on our position and sacrificed material to gain a temporary advantage. Yes to a less skilled person they seem to have the advantage. Then comes the late mid game where our defense has held and then the end game where our superiority is a guaranteed win.
Resignations are accepted graciously. Hurling the king piece across the hall and storming off does occur but is frowned upon 🙂
“She hysterically mentioned that the Trump supporter didn’t believe in ‘Climate Change’, i.e., she understands the phrase Climate Change as Natural Climate Change, ”
You really are dumb if you think what she meant by “climate change”..
She definitely meant Al Gore type climate change, requiring immediate ranting and raving.
………
“You’ve been played by a smarter group.”
RUBBISH. Most people conflate “Climate Change” as “human forced” climate change.. as in CO2
Nobody has been fooled by the name change, except, apparently, you.
“You’ve been played by a smarter group.”
No, I was wise to their tactics all along. As they played their little game, trying to subliminally change “manmade global warming” to “climate change” to “extreme weather”, I morphed my own catchcry to its current, handy C6 acronym: CCCCCC – Capitalist Caucasian Caused Catastrophic Climate Change. Each time they play a game, I’ll just come up with another appropriate C to add. Roll on C7!
For years I’ve used the the term: Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult
That was my C5
Then you topped me with your C7
I can’t tell you how upset I was after reading your C7 — considered throwing myself off a building, but I couldn’t find an elevator.
But then I combined parts of your C7, with my C5, to come up with my new C9:
Caucasian Capitalist CO2-Caused Coming Climate Change Catastrophe Cult.
… and now you will have to go back to the drawing board.
In the leftist tradition, I (we?) know that naming something appropriately, for propaganda purposes, is far more important than knowing anything about the subject.
To save on typing, I often use the term “warmunist”.
And I give the warmunists the appropriate ridicule and character attacks they deserve.
The Global Warming Hoax is not real science — it’s just computer game wild guesses to scare people anf gain political power — so should not be treated as real science.
Kokoda, we are ahead of you there, and so is Trump.
It is actually the alarmists who do not believe in “climate change.” They believe that some arbitrary point in the recent past is the “normal” climate, and that any deviation from that point is abnormal and must be caused by man, since there is no such thing as natural climate change. Deniers!!! All of them!!!
Of course this article also reinforces my belief that there are “lies, damn lies, statistics… and charts/graphs..”
I thought the point of going from “man-made global warming” to “climate change” was that it was not falsifiable no matter what happened. The warmists can never be ‘wrong’ to say “the climate is changing”.
They will call it a crisis no matter what.
Skeptics have turned that on its head and pointed out natural climate change has been going on for 4 billion years.
The vast oceans are heat sinks and CO2 sinks, and its useful to turn this back around to marvel at the degree of natural negative feedbacks that moderates the climate, and will make any concern wrt CO2 a moot point, as the heat and CO2 both are moderated away.
The phrase “climate change” was not coined by scientists. It was first used by Frank Luntz, an American political consultant. See “Conclusions Redefining Labels” item number 1 [page 142 (12 on PDF)]
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
“It was first used by Frank Luntz”
Your link has Frank Luntz advising Republican congressmen on how to sound as if they care about the environment, without scaring anybody. He seems to think climate change is a good word for them to use.
Right. Skeptics as well as warmists use lack of falsifiability as a weapon when it is to their advantage in making an argument. Needed for resolution of the public policy issue is for falsifiability to be installed into the methods of the investigation.
The failure of the climate models to predict the magnitude of climate change falsifies the assertion of scientists who claim to have the capacity to see the future.
Michael David White:
An often misunderstood subtlety is that the climate models do not predict. If they predicted, the claims of these models would be falsifiable but they are not. For falsifiability a statistical population has to be installed beneath each of the models. Currently there is no such population.
Terry Oldberg: “An often misunderstood subtlety is that the climate models do not predict. If they predicted, the claims of these models would be falsifiable but they are not. For falsifiability a statistical population has to be installed beneath each of the models. Currently there is no such population.”
Chart Author: I don’t understand this comment. I have assumed the models are used for predictions of climate. If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?
Michael David White:
You ask ” If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?” I answer “nothing.”
Michael David White: ” If the models are not used to predict climate, what is used to predict climate?”
Terry Oldberg: I answer “nothing.”
Chart Author: Is the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming a prediction? If yes, is it invalid? if it is invalid, why?
Chart Author:
“Is the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming a prediction? If yes, is it invalid? if it is invalid, why?”
Oldberg:
To call dangerous manmade global warming a “prediction” or “hypothesis” is a misleading use of language as under the language of global warming climatology “prediction” and “hypothesis” are polysemic terms That each term is polysemic supports arguments that are equivocations. Whether the conclusion of an equivocation is true or false not resolvable.
Most people think climate change is something new. We have all been indoctrinated by the dominant media to believe climate change is new because a recent change will logically be attributed to man. The 10,000-year history shows climate change is old and normal. It throws the burden of proof on the alarmists. The climate has always changed. The alarmists need to prove carbon dioxide caused the recent changes.
Meanwhile, the propagandists are hard at it. I want to believe that Ethan knows better, but he consistently disappoints. Can’t believe Forbes published this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/18/climate-science-isnt-political-lying-about-it-is/#27dae701f854
Well, someone has to say it.
It’s worse than we thought!
The dissimulation, the massaging of statistics, the fudging, the fr@ud, that is.
If the new POTUS does indeed cleanse these Augean stables, many ‘scientist’ will be looking at serious jail time.
Who will turn state’s evidence first?
First movers get the best deals.
“He suggested I fudge the data . . .”
“She ‘hoped’ I would eliminate high temperate stations from the World Average.”
Auto. Waiting.
First one’s to turn state’s evidence get the only deals.
Once investigators have enough to officially deal with others or prosecute several, that’s enough.
More details will out as they squeeze the bad practitioners.
Any evidence regarding international collaborators may be shared with that nation’s officials. Though sufficient collaborating and malicious career targeting could cause RICO use.
Auto, spot on, wherever you are.
He is not the first person to be obsessed with the idea that ‘x-out-of-the-last-y-years-were-record-highs’ is somehow unexpected or unusual: The hottest day of summer is very likely to follow, or be preceded by, the second and third hottest days of the year. They tend to cluster together for good physical reasons.
Similarly, a new high in the stock exchange is likely to follow a new high the previous day. No surprises.
The loftier peaks in a mountain range tend to be clustered near each other. Well, duhhh…
But somehow, when it comes to global warming, some quite sensible people seem to lose many of their critical faculties.
Here’s another one:
There’s ZERO actual evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures at all .. notwithstanding the theory. But there’s plenty of evidence that CO2 sharply increases agricultural yields. Recent yields:
While I don’t doubt your premise, I don’t think CO2 explains everything in improved agricultural yields.
Right. I didn’t say that, but it could explain 30% of it, and with higher CO2 ppms to 1000ppm or more agricultural yields would continue growing steadily:
http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/student_exp/mckemy/figures/fig21.jpg
I agree. That is better stated “..increases in CO2 are ‘part’ of the reason why…”.
Warmer temps also play a part in increased crop yields, along with improvements in seed strains.
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., published a paper in October 2013 entitled, “The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change © 2013, http://www.co2science.org).
From 1961 to 2011, the estimate is an additional $3.17 trillion in crop revenue.
Forecast from 2012 to 2050, assuming that the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues on its current trend, is an additional $9.76 trillion.
Just shy of $13 trillion over 90 years. $4,554/second, for 90 years. One of the reasons why I call CO2 the “molecule of life”.
So the CAGW crowd would change the scale on your first graph so that the degrees ranges from -1 to 2. Then it would look more scary and also it would follow the CO2 line. They would all yell Ah Ha! See? It proves warming is caused by CO2!
The yield increase primarily associated, after green revolution technology introduction, with chemical fertilizer use and irrigation use. These I discussed in my book.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Eric Simpson January 28, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Your graph makes the same mistake as shown in example 3: Scales in Temp and CO2 have no connection to each other. You can both of them give them any angle you like.
Better to show something like that:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:49/from:1940
Its a single graph that explains a lot.
1. I have aligned the CO2 curve from 1970 to 2000 to the Temperature Curve, as many did to prove Global Warming.
2. It shows also how the the idea has unfolded and got “science fact”. 30 Years having a correlation seems to prove everything.
3. It also shows how the “pause” destroyed the whole idea.
4. Even before 1960 there was no correlation.
5. This Chart could be added to show how the data have been reworked to fit to CO2 again.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1963/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/from:1963/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:49/from:1963/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1963/to:2015
HadCRUt3 only has data up to May 2012. Here’s the most recent (up to last month) Hadley time series, and with more stations.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2015/scale:1.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:49/from:1940
Thanks. The topmost graph prooves that there IS a hockeystick (in the rightmost centimetre) 😉
Very nice. Chart 3 illustrates several points also made with other examples in ebook The Arts of Truth.
In OZ they prefer to just start at 1960 and work forward , that way it’s always hottest on record etc .
Perhaps a Top-Twenty collection of charts could be assembled.
Sort of was. See essay When Data Isnt in ebook Blowing Smoke, and then feel free to improve the top 20. The essay has 31 charts.
The alarmists have an answer for every one of these arguments just as the skeptics have an answer for every alarmist argument.
So there we have one of the shining lights of the alarmist camp reduced to gainsaying rather than being able to say anything intelligent.
Could someone comment on this, please: https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/do-you-really-want-to-know-if-global-warming-is-real/
Doug, I just commented there. It is a dishonest pushback, rather pathetic really.
Just read your comment there Brett – it’s just been belted out of the park.
No doubt buried under a pile of appeals to authority.
No doubt buried under a pile of appeals to authority.
You didn’t read the material and decided that was a sound basis upon which to comment?
What is the scale for the fourth graph? I ask because I would have expected the last points to match with the time scale being the only thing that changed.
The first graph is mislabeled. That is a NO-NO in this business…
but just off by a factor of 1000. That’s nothing in this biz, apparently.
how specifically – some are learning here
The units are marked in 1000s of years, but should be just years.
But the worse con is not mentioning that it includes no modern warming.
Do you mean the NOAA/GISS fabrications??
or the natural warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years ?
Nick Stokes January 28, 2017 at 10:03 pm
You really think that’s a con, do you? You really think that the author deliberately labelled an axis thousands of years when it was really just years. You really think that, do you?
I wonder why?
“You really think that’s a con, do you?”
No, I think it is an error. But I think the quoting of a graph with an unstated 1855 endpoint, and an implication that the graph shows there was no man-made warming, is a con.
Nick, you can’t just append the global temperature record to the Richard Alley calibrated Greenland temperature record before 1855. They are measuring different things and are computed using two different methods. And Alley did his in the wrong way anyway.
What he’s saying is that they axis is labeled “thousands of years”, but each of the numbers are not “thousands of years”. Otherwise, the 10000 on the left side of the chart means 10000 thousand or ten million years.
Thank you for the correction. I am changing the Y-axis label to: Years in the Past. Ending in the year 1855.
I am changing the X-axis label.
Anthony? I use a simple, direct sentence. Climate changes, humans don’t cause it and can not stop it. For those 11 words I get sh*t all over. Perhaps this will explain to persons who see my comments in various and sundry places why I get so “exercised” over this sh*t.
lol. you wear it well.
Aww, look! It thinks it can find some more “crack ho”s to exploit. What, exactly, do you get “from” them, sweety?
Tell us, darling, exactly what frightens you so much about intelligent, successful women? Why do you pee yourself whenever you see one on the TV? Go ahead! We won’t “judge” you, as you do them. Tell us.
i had to google that …lol
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=2hotel9+“…Kellyane+Conway+is+a+“crack+ho””&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
“Theres nothing more sexy, gentlemen, believe me when I tell you, than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote ’em all, I say.”
Here’s one of the Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.
That’s scary! If that trend continues, something will or won’t happen, and we’ll be doomed either way.
Antarctic Total Ice Mass is even scarier.
This NASA study from last year suggests you may be wrong regarding your flat line.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Gareth, I think you are missing the point. NASA (and most sources) only use net ice loss(gain) from year to year based on a nominal ice loss value. Andy G55 is stating that the total ice loss(gain) is so small relative to the total mass of ice in Greenland that the measurements are not likely accurate.
A graph with no attribution or source provided?
One thing that’s annoyed me since the beginning of the current climate scare is the idea that the entirety of the Earth’s temperature/climate can be expressed in one number: the average annual global temperature. To me this has always been BS, especially when this number is presented without any indication of margin of error. Does it make any sense to say, for example, the Earth’s temperature in 2010 was 57.5F (or whatever)? How accurately can that number describe the conditions in Frobisher Bay? In Borneo? In Nepal? In Antarctica? Does it really make sense to use that single number to describe annual or multi-year conditions off of Cape Verde and near Moscow?
To accurately describe a planet-wide climate you need more than a single number.
Just saying.
See this post by Nick Stokes, which addresses your exact questions: https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/global-anomaly-spatial-sampling-error.html
I have to agree Forrest. The only reason to statistically manipulate the data is to make more precise calculations. That makes them look more accurate. The data has a certain amount of variation, random and otherwise. That is the number that should be used. It gives a better explanation of the overall uncertainty.
I also didn’t like the idea of calculating anomalies for a station over 30 years, and then combining those anomalies by averaging. When you go one step further to form a temperature field representation as they do it goes even further from reality.
When a single, yearly, average temp is disseminated to the public, and it is reported as going up by some amount, the non-critical-thinkers assume that every city’s temperature in every country over every square inch of the earth went up by that same amount, and if this continues then all the scary stories of sea levels rising and desertification occurring, etc. etc. is surely coming to pass.
This article has plenty of the “Smoking Gun” charts.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
Also WUWT readers, I just wrote an article on this graphic and would appreciate some reviews and critiques. I’m not 100% sure on the interpretation of this chart.
Sorry, here is the link to the article.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
”..would appreciate some reviews and critiques.”
1) The K/day cooling rate at each wavenumber legend has a spurious blue block labeled 400 which does not appear in the original 1995 cite. Positive legend numbers are cooling rates and negative numbers are warming rates at each wavenumber.
2) Note that the cooling rate in K/day at each wavenumber around 650 show small warming rate (a slight negative cooling rate) and smaller cooling rate in the lower troposphere than the much higher cooling rates in stratosphere around 650 wave number. This is the classic signature of IR active atm. gas (wv, CO2) around 650.
Co2islife.
Your article is exactly right.
To add some additional proof to it, one can use Modtran to add different radiation profiles to the idea …
… change the Modtran parameter to “looking up” and change the height to “0” as in looking up from the surface rather than down from top of the atmosphere as it usually shown. Now you are supposed to see the “back-radiation” from CO2. Sorry, does NOT exist. Not until you move the altitude to about 3 kms and higher. Now there is a tiny bit of radiation. It becomes dominant after 10 kms height. Move around to other places like the US, mid-latitudes.
… and change the cloud parameter to any kind of clouds (only 65% present in the real atmosphere) and suddenly “looking up from 0 kms (to 4 to 5 kms) is nothing but a blackbody spectrum. Clouds are a blackbody and CO2 can have no real change on a blackbody spectrum. This is very very important and you never hear that anywhere.
… Now you can go back to the usual looking down and change the heights again to see where CO2 becomes a cooling mechanism for the planet after about 10 kms in height. It cools the planet. If there were not CO2 in the atmosphere, I guess it would happen from water vapor, clouds and the atmospheric windows instead but I think that could actually make the Earth warmer rather than colder.
… Now CO2 can still have an impact on the surface temperatures that does not show up in the radiation spectrums of Modtran. If it absorbs photons in its spectrum and then immediately thermalizes the energy into the rest of the atmospheric molecules of N2 and O2 and Argon. Which is actually what happens but there is no way to accurately model that. It happens at picosecond time frames between trillions of molecules colliding billions of times per second. Any model of this would only be based on what assumptions you used to model it. And this in NOT how the theory is explained to anyone.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Thanks a million. Your comment is greatly appreciated.
Bill I need your help.
The problem with modtran is the atm condition settings, an average is useless, it’s going to require a time series.
This graph shows the issue.
The effects are transient.
But I need to run modtran for a wide range of absolute humidity, and then for each of those I have to run it as it cools so rel humidity goes up, so I can make a contour map.
What it’s going to show is a rising plane, with a hockey stick edge at high rel humidity.
It’s a case of having a simulation tools and not using it right (15 years as a simulation expert).
I just have figured it out well enough for my modeling.
” change the Modtran parameter to “looking up” and change the height to “0”
When I did so, the back radiation was shown as 347.912 W/m^2 for a nonzero intensity around 650 wavenumber along with 0 altitude T(K) a little under 300K. This is contrary to Bill’s claim of “Sorry, does NOT exist.” One can double check that result with an inexpensive IR thermometer pointed up at clear sky reading brightness temperature much larger than 2.8K background of deep space. This is also consistent with the 1995 Clough paper chart posted.
I routinely measure temps under clear skies that are 70 to 100F colder than the surface, only the bottoms of clouds are anywhere near 340W/m^2
Further, as MODTRAN calculates for Bill’s parameters, the Clough paper chart shows the impact of CO2 on the lowest dense troposphere to be slight warming rate (~ -0.5 K.day) around 650 wavenumber and a cooling rate in the thin upper atm. as shown for no net change in total atm. temperature.
Micro 6:59am, agree. Change the modtran to subarctic winter, much lower clear sky emission to surface (backradiation ~162), your brightness readings there would be even lower, colder T than surface but warmer than deep space and find the atm. intensity much lower (due dry, low atm. emissivity ~0.7) for K(T) shown closer to 255K.
CO2 converts radiative to thermal energy by “activating” the CO2. Of course it is warmer than outer space. It is temporarily converting energy in form. The point is, once that activated CO2 drops back down to a lower orbital and releases that photon it has an easier path to outer space. Moving that energy br conduction or convection would take a relatively long time. Radiative energy travels at the speed of light.
I think the bright emissions at 15u in your chart, is this activity in action, I’d need to know more about that data sample though.
8:37am, the point is not clear, any emitted photon will have no “easier” (your term) path to space from that when it was absorbed, if emitted on the same vector. Molecule still at essentially same height. Any different vector will result in a different not necessarily “easier” path. A vector more toward the zenith than original will result in less probability of atm. absorption (thinner optical depth). Also, the electronic level is rarely the “activating” (your term) process as the energy jump needed is far higher than kT, the molecular rotational quantum level jump which is way more aligned with the energy (order kT) in Earth atm. molecular collisions around STP.
Assume each CO2 molecule is a net to catch photons, the higher you go up, the fewer the nets to catch the Photos. The density of nets decreases with height. It is simply easier to reach outerspace than it is to reach the surface of the earth.
11:53am, Better point. The big “net” (your term) in your Clough chart at 1000 mb shows the classic CO2 surface warming rate impact (the lighter blue) at the expense of the CO2 100 mb and above fewer “nets” cooling rate (yellow, red) around 650 wavenumber. In a sense, the surface denser “nets” are shading the upper thinner “nets”. I would prefer use atm. optical depth than your “net” terms to catch photon fish.
“I’m not 100% sure on the interpretation of this chart.”
I interpret it as showing that you need to improve your tie-dye technique. Nice colours, though.
Thanks…I think 🙂
The two key charts are the tidal gauges which show no increase in the rate of sea level rise (and thus warming) during the industrial age and the satellite lower troposphere measurements which actually show a decrease in the rate of warming as China industrialized and doubled human c02 production in the last 20 years