I invite readers to list all the things wrong with this bit of agitprop by Ed Hawkins (a lead author in AR6; perhaps this foreshadows the tone of the report). It’s going viral on the Left.
“Warming stripes” at Climate Lab Book.
‘A new set of climate visualisations, communicating the long term rise in temperatures for particular locations as a changing set of colours from blue to red. Each stripe represents the temperature of a single year, ordered from the earliest available data to now.”
Here shows graphics for Central England, continental US, Toronto, and (below) “Annual global temperatures from 1850-2017. The colour scale represents the change in global temperatures covering 1.35°C.”
His Tweet: https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/999242147135188993
The inevitable fawning articles in the media: “This Has Got to Be One of The Most Beautiful And Powerful Climate Change Visuals We’ve Ever Seen” at Science Alert — “We are headed into the red.” The author is listed (with unintentional irony) at “Staff – Science as Fact.”
h/t to Larry Kummer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shift the zero point, or use a different color scheme, and one will get an entirely different subjective impression. This is just more Kabuki theater to influence the scientifically illiterate.
They forgot to add a solid wide black strip at the left.
It’s the TRICOLOR – The French flag, surely (gone wrong…)!
My understanding is that the original French flag has the red and blue sections velcroed to the underlying colour, so they can be easily removed in the event France goes to war.
If they adopt this sub-Mondrian work, their surrender will be delayed almost indefinitely.
Auto
And I enjoy cheap French red wine!
The ‘ scientifically challenged ‘ .
Clyde
Yes but that means this would be an EXCELLENT method to display the difference between the unadjusted temperature record and the adjusted temperature record. I wonder if Ed Hawkins realized that.
You might need a range wider than 1.35C for that one. Add more colors?
Adjusted temperatures are LOWER than raw temperatures.!!!!
Adjustments COOL the SST record ( 70% of the world)
and slighly warm the SAT ( land record) 30% of the world.
the NET of all adjustments is COOLING THE RECORD
of course you have been fed a steady diet of cherry picking which focuses on the most heterogenous record, the US record, which is 2% of the world. The US record has the most adjustments because of all the changes made: Changes to Time of observation, changes in location, and changes in sensors.
Luckily there are MULTIPLE approaches for adjusting data and reducing the bias. These methods have all been tested, and the agree with each other.
Wow now there is approach consensus too. Bet it is 97%
Why are you saying this like it somehow invalidated what we are saying? We know the Climate Scammers have cooled the past to increase the slope, and to get rid of inconveniences like the warm 1930’s or the earlier warm periods.
Heck, your side has even adjusted the temperatures from 20 years ago! How do you ‘bust’ the Pause? By reducing the highs you claimed we were reaching back when you started this Scam. That 98 super El Nino looked really good at the the end of the Hockey Stick, but it really turned into a problem as the years went by and the Temperature didn’t go past it. But look at it now! Most of the Temperature Records don’t even show a bump in 98 anymore.
You tell me we can’t be sure of the temperatures back a hundred years ago, and I’ll agree the might be off, but you tell me we can’t even be sure about the ones since the whole Global Warming scam got started? I’m just going to assume that the ones you’re taking RIGHT NOW are just as flawed. You’ll probably be adjusting them all in a few years too.
Congratulations, the Climate Faithful have successfully convinced me that the Global Temperature recording network is unsuitable for getting the resolution we’d need to monitor Climate Change, and that they have no real interest in actually fixing it.
~¿~
“Why are you saying this like it somehow invalidated what we are saying? We know the Climate Scammers have cooled the past to increase the slope, and to get rid of inconveniences like the warm 1930’s or the earlier warm periods.”
WRONG. If you look at the total record the past is WARMED to REDUCE the slope. You are a parrot
and so you parrot what you hear others say. the DATA , ALL the data shows that the past is WARMED
to reduce the overall slope.
Again, you have only looked at 30% of the data, the land. where the past is adjusted down, or cooled.
But GLOBAL TEMPS include SST and SST trends are DECREASED.
heck you even get Karl et al wrong. it REDUCED the overall trend.
Prove It. … provide both sets of numbers
Does it matter what the global temp is doing we hit a new record high CO2 emission in 2017 and we were up 4% on that for first quarter of 2018. The people have voted loud and clear and if it does become a big issue the real scientists and engineers will tackle it.
“Again, you have only looked at 30% of the data, the land. ”
As if you don’t that how little of the Earth has actual measurements before 1980, and most of the land data is the US. As if you never read
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SH-ocean-data-mostly-made-up.jpg
As if you don’t know how dodgy the Karl paper was.
As if you don’t know that “Adjustments COOL the SST record” is meaningless when talking about anomalies. Adjustments make what warming occurred fit the narrative better ie instead of most of the warming occurring before fossil fuel power exceeded that harnessed from horses, at a rate far above the 21st C, it now correlates better with All Gore’s travel itinerary.
Mosher,
You said, “Adjustments COOL the SST record ( 70% of the world).” It is my recollection that Karl argued that there was no hiatus by warming the SSTs of the ARGO records to agree with the warmer inferior ship water intake temperatures. Do I have that wrong?
So Mr Mosher, why would those past records be ‘warmed’ and recent records ‘cooled’ as you say to reduce the trend slope? Why would you do that? Obviously the raw data is not accurate for the purpose of determining a global trend. I get that and the basic reason for that is that the historical instruments were put in place for local reasons and were never conceived of as part of a global system. Accordingly their fitness for purpose is fundamentally at issue. Fiddle Fixing is not exactly the ideal solution to crap data.
Land thermometers tell you the actual local temperature whatever the adjacent conditions. If the local (HI affected or otherwise) conditions alter then the temperature readings alter irrespective of what it might have been if the HI creating elements were not there. HI effects can be up to 10˚C or more. From research Melbourne in Australia is estimated to have a peak UHI of about 5˚C near the CBD tapering out over the suburbs.
Sea temperatures were initially taken via a canvas bucket at the surface to check the cooling system effectiveness vs the engine power output. They were later taken at depth at the sea water inlets fitted near the hull bottom so there is a water depth factor in that at least. Under manual reading there was an incentive to understate temperatures so as to cover for overpowering engines to make port on schedule. That understatement might easily be a degree or two and I suggest that was systemic for the reasons above being a pretty much constant consideration.
The issue is not that temperatures have been adjusted but that the amount of adjustment can be many times greater than the trend over a century or so. In other words the fundamental accuracy of the whole exercise is in question. You might well adjust the raw data up or down just as you say if only to cover up just how wildly uniformative the raw data is and all you are left with is adjusted data that is still uniformative in any objective sense but it at least seems or can be presented as better than the raw stuff. In effect it is a marketing exercise and what we have now is “New Improved Temperature Data” , i.e. like it was some “new improved” washing powder.
You really have no basis to be trumpeting the veracity of this crap data. Get over yourself.
‘What’s wrong with this picture?’ … its a fragment of cherry-picked background noise in the context of the entire Holocene! … nothing more than natural variation …
Where is 1868 at only 0.18 degree less than 2017?
Where is 1834 at only 0.07 degree less than 2017?
or 1779 at 0.17 degree less than 2017? (0.17 degree warming in 238 years)
BTW, CET goes back to 1659. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
Since the IPCC generally regards about 1950 as the start of man made climate change, one notes that CET shows 1949 to be 0.06 degree WARMER than now!
It seems to me the key words in Hawkins narrative are “visualisations, “communicating”, “blue to red”. In other words this is ‘agit prop’ ( aka ‘science communications’, surely one of the great oxymorons of our time) where every picture tells a BS story and almost no amount of words can undo the propaganda effect. It has SFA to do with science rather is a form of ‘art’ that has dropped its pants and bent over for the benefit of politics. NB I initially typed “politrics” – how appropriate :-).
Given that we have had naturally occurring Ice Ages then their end, why on earth would you use blue to red for the temperature range in question? Surely blue-green-yellow-orange-red would be a proper scientific representation in general and in this case blue to greeny blue or even green is a proper range. Even the colour palette has been hockey schticked!
Why not show a similar graph going back, say several 100,000 years, using the same color range. Might give a better perspective on natural variation.
Spot on Jim but giving a better perspective, in fact any perspective at all, is the exact opposite of what eco nutter agit prop is about, unfortunately.
Less than a degree and a half? Really? What color would he use for a five degree rise? Infrared?
PURPLE!!! Not because it at the same end of the spectrum but because it is more SCARY!!!
Thats what the ABC does on its weather maps in Oz. RED kicks in at about 30˚C, which is just warm in Oz and its PURPLE when it gets to 40˚C. So, in summer most of the continent is always PURPLE cos its almost the end of the world hot….
Tom Halla, it’d have to range from far infrared to far UV.
He’d use a special color called ‘BS’.
+10 🙂
Hey look, someone flattened a paint-bombed hockey stick! ;->
I guess it’s inappropriate to ask for something like a scale for this graphic, or the raw data used to create it?
Also, the pictorial doesn’t encode the error bars, which is particularly important for the older data.
Sure it does!
Each bar is in error.
Absolutely, the height of the color bar represents the error – and it is the same VERY LARGE error for all the data. Obvious.
Whaddayaknow! My cell phone barcode reader app just told me that’s worth a three dollar bill…
It checks out to be barcode for a tube of Preparation H.
I remember this bone scaling argument from decades ago. I speculated as a callow youth that there are a many different kinds of bone structures. Birds, for example, generally have lighter and stronger bones than mammals. If an animal evolved to be larger than its ancestor’s bone structure could support then it would likely evolve a different bone structure that could accommodate the larger mass without necessarily increasing the diameter/length ratio. This lecture doesn’t discuss bone structure so we don’t know if there are structural differences in the different sized bones or if the smaller animal bones are just overbuilt. That part of the lecture leaves us hanging.
It assumes a monotonic underlying process. It’s a cute mode that presumes a god-like perception.
After the end of the Little Ice Age, these are the most beautiful examples of Natural climate change. We expected a warming planet after the coldest period in 10,000 years, and we got it.
Bravo
How idiotic. WHERE’S the SCALE ? Only 1.35 degrees C – yet ‘visually’ it is eye catching – almost that it just HAS to be more than 1.35 degrees, going ONLY from blue to red.
And there obviously can’t be ‘error bars’ on an image such at this, which would give more information to the actual value. AND what about a ‘max/min’ that plots should have, and they should be generally in the areas of ‘max/min’ that are experienced.
What a load of garbage this is . . .
I just posted the below over at the Warming Stripes site:
“This is quite ridiculous. Over a range of only a few degrees, it goes from ‘dark blue to dark red’. AND, that range is different for different geographic locations. So no way to truly ‘compare’ change from on location to another. That really distorts one’s impression of the illustrations
But the most absurd thing is there is no way to compare the small change in average temperature over time, to the TOTAL RANGE of temperature a given area experiences throughout the year. A few degrees (going from ‘red to blue’, vs. a TOTAL RANGE that can be , what, maybe 10, or 20, or 30 TIMES THAT much is so misleading of what is occurring.”
I’ll check back later at that site to see if it REALLY got posted . . .
I bet on “Not Posted”
not sure, but my post at Warming STripes still shows (to me) to be ‘in moderation’. Yeah, right . . .that means ‘not posted’ . . . unless , does it show up to anyone else?
If you get banned or snipped, it means that the proper coward got your message. Take intrinsic reward from that, at least.
The error bars could be created by having the centre of each bar a ‘constant’ colour, with the length of that colour indicating the certainty. The colour should vary on the top end towards red (hot) depending on the upper range of 95% confidence. The lower end should be the lower limit tending towards blue (cold).
The constant colour in the centre would have a length that also varies with the coefficient of variation (CoV) with a shorter centre length indicating a higher CoV.
This would present the data as a temperature (sort of), the confidence in that value, and the up and down limits of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval.
What it would show, easily and quickly, is that properly calculated uncertainty is in almost all cases greater than the variation over several decades. The tops of all the lines would be red and the bottoms all dark blue.
More directly answering the question about what is missing, is the hot years in the 1930’s. To have a single white stripe is plainly wrong. That period should just as red as it is for the late 20-teens.
The error bars could be created by having the centre of each bar a ‘constant’ colour, with the length of that colour indicating the certainty. The colour should vary on the top end towards red (hot) depending on the upper range of 95% confidence. The lower end should be the lower limit tending towards blue (cold).
The constant colour in the centre would have a length that also varies with the coefficient of variation (CoV) with a shorter centre length indicating a higher CoV.
This would present the data as a temperature (sort of), the confidence in that value, and the up and down limits of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval.
What it would show, easily and quickly, is that properly calculated uncertainty is in almost all cases greater than the variation over several decades. The tops of all the lines would be red and the bottoms all dark blue.
More directly answering the question about what is missing, is the hot years in the 1930’s. To have a single white stripe is plainly wrong. That period should just as red as it is for the late 20-teens.
No, Martin, this stuff is not idiotic, on the contrary this linking by ‘progressives’ of their CAGW message to meaningless but nevertheless ’emotive’ images is a very clever psychological propaganda technique. After being bombarded for a while with this sort of stuff the audience unconsciously make associations between any similar ‘art’ with the CAGW meme. Then the ‘progressives’ can then use such images in their propaganda (aka Dem political articles and videos) to trigger emotional, rather than rational reactions in the brainwashed masses.
George Orwell described this well in his novel ‘1984’, which was a warning against just this kind of creeping totalitarianism. Unfortunately modern ‘progressive’ education has whitewashed any literature with such warnings out of the curriculum, leaving the past 2 generations of school leavers (at least) dangerously ignorant of this insidious form of brainwashing.
Martin C,
I posted and it’s in moderation, so it will stay that way till the cows come come home basically
Color scale emotional manipulation at its finest.
Of course. Whether he’s smart and manipulative or just dumb as a sack of bricks, he used the a scheme that would cause an emotional reaction rather than a logical one. That’s the left for you.
Spectral sensitivity of human retina to red is much broader than for blue, thanks to L type cone cells. Using this color scheme (Blue and Red), thus, encourages us to perceive red as the outstanding element in the presentation.
Using a nonlinear scale to represent a linear process is wrong. If this is deliberately done to accentuate a point of view it is unforgivable.
How many global temperature stations were there in 1850? How many airports in 1900? How many jets at those airports in 1950?
1850? depends which series, dozens to over 100
Airports?
I built an Airport free database.
The answer was the same.
Ending point bias.
cherry picking now as the end is….what?
I thought it was a distorted photo of Saturn’s rings, turned sideways.
What’s wrong with it? The use of red is incorrect. Mr. Hawkins should be required to wear a shirt with the letter “L” stuck on it 24 hours a day. A half degree of anything is something you can’t even feel. What’s next? Photos of eggs fried on the sidewalk in winter? Tearful photos of dogs stuck to fireplugs on walkies?
Keep it coming, CAGWers. The more you rattle your noisemakers and the more you say stupid things, untrue things, and jump up and down and point at your own mendacity, the more the rest of us reasoning, “woke” people will slip right out of your grasp.
IDIOTS!!!!
Hey, I have a question: if I create a story in which the “climate” has changed and it’s set 250 years ahead, with blizzards and thundersnow in May and October and only one week of bikini weather at the end of July, will that make the CAGWers buy it and burn it as a symbolic protest because they’re afraid I might be right?
Good idea Sara. I’d like to see a movie based on humanity struggling to survive on an ice ball Earth set just a few hundred years in the future. Warmists need to see how much harder it would be to survive then, compared to an Earth with a temperature just a few degrees higher.
They already made that movie, its called “Day After Tomorrow”. Of course, all of that cold is caused by Gorebull Warming in the movie.
@RicDre I love that movie so much! Its one of my favorite comedies!!
The scene where Los Angeles gets destroyed with the ravaging pack of tornadoes- comedy gold!!
Now I want to watch it again!
Actually, Jon Salmi, it’s more along the lines of ice fields slowly advancing their southern borders and people emigrating to other planets, plus a major war against an implacable enemy that likes to raid settled planets (like the aliens in War of the Worlds) and discovery of other civilizations embroiled in the same war. It’s fun. And there is an iceball/snowball planet, but it’s not discovered or settled for another 1200 years, but it’s not Earth. It is light years away from Earth.
I don’t think Earth will go snowball again unless the breakup of the African continent causes so much tectonic disruption that the planet becomes uninhabitable by and hostile to humans. Good reason to find other more user-friendly planets, isn’t it?
@ur momisugly Jon. There is a book that that fulfills your request. The title is “Fallen Angels” by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. Many Watt’s Up With That readers should enjoy it. A quote from Wikipedia: “The novel takes aim at several targets of ridicule: Senator William Proxmire, radical environmentalists, and mystics, such as one character who believes that one cannot freeze to death in the snow because ice is a crystal and “crystals are healing.” It also mocks ignorance in journalism, which greatly helps the main characters (for example, one “expert” cited in a news article believes that the astronauts must have superhuman strength, based on a photograph of a weightless astronaut easily handling heavy construction equipment) and the non-scientific world in general.”
Unfortunately, it would never become a movie because it lampoons MSM and Hollywood’s worldview.
Richard, “stealing Nitrogen from the atmosphere” was such a good green reason…
I guess this was pretty easy to dismiss on a scientific basis as it isn’t science. But you’ve all made very good points. The science is garbage! They resort to emotion because it’s all they have.
What’s wrong with this picture?.
For the die hard warmists at least.
lt may suggest that that the longer term warming trend has now peaked.
Apparently they are putting the picture above together with this for maximum effect-
Or was it this one, sorry I cant remember-
Rob,
You probably meant 1960’s for jets at airports. In 1950 the only jets around would be military. The British Comet flew passengers in 1952 and the Boeing 707 flew in 1958…So just a decade early…but your point is taken…
Mike
No. That was my point exactly. Few stations 1850. No airports 1900. Few jets 1950. By 2000 there were airports and jets everywhere being used to measure temperature.
or was it this one, sorry can’t remember-
I love this graphic. What it says clear and simple is this:
We have no alarming data. All we have is ways of presenting data so that it looks alarming.
😎
That really is priceless, isn’t it? Admitting to one and all that they, themselves, know that they are full of hot air (GLOBULL WARMING!!!) and just want your attention.
Attention-seeking behavior is what happens when you take your two nieces to the grocery store and they yell as loudly as they can “Hey, Aunt Sara, did you see that guy? He’s HOT!”
And then you have to say “They aren’t mine. I found them on the sidewalk outside a few minutes ago.”
What’s the white? It goe from blue (cool) – with varying shades of blue, then a batch of essentially white bars, and suddenly – boom – red bars.
What’s white?
I would like to know what is the highest temperature that is shaded blue, and what is the lowest temperature that is shaded red (pink). What is the gap between the two? 0.1 degree C or 0.01degree C?
SR
Steven,
Yeah, funny how Anthony didn’t include the labels, huh? He made it look as meaningless as possible so everyone will be able to ridicule it properly. You have to follow the link to find out the real story, as usual.
Those who don’t like the graphics are free to comment on the page.
Kristi, I followed the link. Anthony relayed all of the info the source article presented, i.e. 1.35 degree C for the total range of the global temperature graphic for the period 1850-2017. No further breakdown.
As I asked about temperature info for the switch over point from blue to red, I have to ask – Did you actually follow the link? What “real story” do you mean?? Maybe you didn’t actually read my question, either? (I know you didn’t read my name.)
SR
Privilege?
You all got this wrong. It’s a bar code. If a warmunist takes it to a suitable institution (eg UN, EU) building, he/she can swipe it at the front door and get thousands of taxpayer dollars, euros etc as needed.
Apparently, it no longer works at any US government buildings but it still works well at the Houses of Parliament.
May is the new Obama?
Of course, there’s that blue photons are high energy and red ones lower energy. So Ed Hawkins is inadvertently saying Earth is going from a higher energy climate to a lower energy one. Oops.
We all knew 2 things about it. We were rising out of the LIA when people could walk on ice from Manhattan to Staten Island, the Thames and even the Bosphorus froze over, one third of all Finns died because of frost killing crops, General Washington spirited cannons from British held Mannhattan by rolling them away on ice to New Jersey …so the progression in a gross sense should be ‘warming’.
The other thing is jiggering of temperatures.
Until 2007, the mid1930s-40s were hotter than the 1998 El Nino year until Hansen shoved those temperatures away down and also raised the 40yr cooling period from its embarrassing decline (ya know the period that had scientists worried about the next ice age that ideologgies have tried to erase from the record). A lot of declines have been clobbered by the climatalarmforce.
Indeed the warming we see actually rose to near todays temps by 1940, which means that the much steeper warming of the 1850 to 1940 has been stretched out another 70yrs because it wouldnt do to have all the warming of the 19th and 20th Centuries occur befor the rise of CO2.
OH NO…….RED!
trigger warming….trigger warming
“Chart junk”. Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
Chartjunk refers to all visual elements in charts and graphs that are not necessary to comprehend the information represented on the graph, or that distract the viewer from this information.