Friday Funny – hottest decade evah! #showyourstipes @ed_hawkins

This week at the big 100 year anniversary shindig of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) there was a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever, and the decade of 2010-2019 was the hottest ever (by a few hundredths of a degree). Graphs like this were cited:

Of course, that made front page news. What didn’t make front page news is that when you look at other data, that isn’t exactly true. It’s all about perspective in time:

A couple of years ago, Ed Hawkins came up with idea to make a meme-style temperature art piece for the graph-challenged. I’ll have to say that it was brilliant, because serial regurgitators all over the world shared the hell out of it. They even got TV weather people to wear ties depicting it.

Source: https://showyourstripes.info/

However, Josh, creative as ever, decided to make a new set of stripes that went back in time a little further, for some…uh perspective that time myopic climate scientists like Hawkins seem to miss.

Since Ed Hawkins blocked me, I’ll leave it to you all to make sure he sees it on Twitter.


Be sure to visit Josh’s website and buy him a pint! Or, buy his book.

101 thoughts on “Friday Funny – hottest decade evah! #showyourstipes @ed_hawkins

  1. Climate — on Earth — is cyclic!

    Who knew!!!

    Well, what a relief.
    Take that to the bank.
    Only have to wait, apparently, about 200 years, and we’ll have another Ice Age.

    ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
    ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

    • Every single voter in America should see the graph here. If I were a GOP candidate, I would make a big giant display and show it at every single event.

      • Luke, makes me wonder why they don’t. Republican’s are good at legislation but bad at politics…horrible at nice clean propaganda.

      • As has been pointed out below that Holocene temperature graph above is deeply misleading – claiming it includes the year 2000 when it ends in 1850 – excluding modern day warming. “Every single voter in America” would be mislead. Of course Josh’s “creation” is also misleading. How can this be in any way a service to science?

        • I think it’s very misleading for the alarmists to show a graph with world temperatures to the tenth of a degree in 1880. This data did not come from all over the world and none of the thermometers in use outdoors at that time could give better than a .5 degree reading. So what you are saying is that NASA, NOAA and the AMS are liars? It’s good to see one of you die-hard alarmists is finally telling the truth.

    • I think the color bar charts are a LOT more informative than the line graphs, because – well, they show that climate change happens repeatedly, and – um, well, um – they – oh, yeah, they show that there are real variations within both the warming periods AND the cooling periods.

      Besides, the line graphs are all that most people see, not the numbers on the sides. Those graphs are what produce their episodes of climate panic.

    • Why does everyone ignore the fact they are cooling the past to make a warming trend?
      The 1930’s were much hotter than that new manipulated chart shows.

  2. Lies, tricks and hypocrisy. What else is there to AGW? Oh- money lots and lots of money to be made with lies, tricks and hypocrisy…

  3. ……. but, but, but, there never was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age. Michael Mann said so, and many sub-clowns did some whiz-bang research and concurred.

    Hansen and Greta may even believe it too, but Hansel and Gretel, not so much.

    (Thanks to whoever it was who posted on the origin of that story here).

    • LOL!
      Hansen and Greta!
      The jokes practically write themselves!
      Just two kidz out for a stroll one day, then suddenly they are about to be roasted alive…

      • Actually, they weren’t out for a stroll. Apparently it was allegorical for parents not being able to feed their kids due to the crop failures in the depths of the LIA, so they sent them out to fend for themselves.

      • And remember, Hansel and Gretel were suckered into their predicament due to their inexperience and gullibility.

        Amazing correlation with Hansen and Greta:
        R^2 = 0.995 (p 0.05)

    • In the graph above the Older Dryas is on the left side, it’s just not labeled. There was only a (geologically) brief interglacial between the two glacial periods.

  4. Of course, that made front page news. What didn’t make front page news is that when you look at other data, that isn’t exactly true. It’s all about perspective in time:

    Unfortunately the graph you show has no data since 1855.

    • Really? LOL

      I guess you exhausted all of your criticisms of Ed Hawkins’ cherry picked nonsense on his twitter account.

      Do share Phail!

      • Really? LOL

        Yes really, rather strange for a graph which claims to cover the last 15,000 year to leave out the last 165 years!

        I guess you exhausted all of your criticisms of Ed Hawkins’ cherry picked nonsense on his twitter account.

        Don’t know anything about him, I don’t do Twitter.

        • Funny that one of you guys would complain about leaving out facts! Project much? LOL

          And of course you have not corrected an alarmist statement, because you never do. Alarmism serves your desires. Got agenda Phail.

          • Crazy how the D team are happy to accept a graph like this as truth (with no indication of where it is from and at best only represents one specific area on the planet) yet they call into question genuine data that has all the code available for them to check. Funny old world this we live in.

          • Funny how the thermaggedonists are always claiming that they always produce original data and methods, but they almost never do.

          • PS, the last time Simple whinned about this chart, I provided dozens of links. Yes not all of them were original sources, but those sites were sites that collected original sources. As always, Simon never even checked one of them. Just declared that since a couple weren’t original sources, none of them were worth looking at.

          • The second chart bears a striking resemblance to the GISP2 ice core data which, as Phil states, ends in the mid 1850s and covers only one site – high on the Greenland ice cap.

            If that chart is showing GISP2 data then it is highly misleading, since the x-axis end date is shown as 2000 AD. It should be labelled around 1855 AD, long before the start of any modern warming. Maybe it’s not the GISP2 data; we don’t know because we are not told where it came from.

            I’m not saying that modern temperatures at that site are higher than they were during the Holocene warm period; possibly they aren’t. However, if credibility is to be maintained, then all charts posted should be properly accredited, the data linked to (if possible) and any errors should be acknowledged and corrected. We are proper skeptics after all, are we not?

          • Phail, what does that have to do with you unethically applying opposing standards to skeptics and alarmists?

          • All graphs should be correctly labelled no matter who is including them in a post (and preferably a correct reference to their origin).

          • All criticisms should be leveled evenly no matter who is posting (and preferably a correct reference to their origin).

            There, fixed it for you.

            Now go and shill now more.

    • Even an absolute moron should be able to figure out how to add the extremely small warming of the last 150 years to that chart. From the anomaly chart, total warming about 0.6C. From the longer data, the bulk of the last 10,000 years was as much as 5C warmer than today.

      Even if it had been included, you wouldn’t be able to see it.

  5. That Hottest Decades Evah (that in fact preceded the current milder ones) would make a fine ribbon for veterans of campaigns against fake emergencies promoted by insurgents intent on hiding the embarrassing full historic record from their fellow citizens.

  6. Wasn’t there a time when Ed Hawkins was actually seen as a sensible man fell among climate crazies?

    I guess he just decided that fending-off the Borg was no longer worth the candle.

  7. “The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said in a statement.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/2019-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-nasa-says/ar-BBZ1GbN

    Why stop there? Why not claim the last two decades are clearly the warmest on record? Well, for starters, it is irrelevant. It is generally acknowledged that we are in a warming trend. However, the $64,000 question is, “To what extent are humans responsible for what appears to be a trend that ended the Little Ice Age?”

    • Clyde, “The Team” wouldn’t get out of bed for a measly $64k prize.

      Also, if any quizmaster asked such a question, he/she would be called a “d3nier”, and Gavin would leave in a huff, refusing to share a stage with such a despicable heretic.

  8. That first graph in red, it says that it knows avg. global temp in 1880 to 0.02 deg accuracy, I do not believe it.

    • Back in 1880, there were a couple of hundred sensors, almost all of which were in Europe or N. America (even the N. American ones were almost all on the east coast.).
      Beyond that, all of the readings were taken by eyeball, sometimes in bad weather, not always by trained observers, and then the readings were recorded to the nearest degree centigrade.

  9. Excellent.

    Please send a copy to those idiots at the BBC.

    Mind you they’re so scientifically illiterate they probably still wouldn’t understand it even though it’s simple to follow and well presented.

  10. There is a mistake. The top graph is actually a graph of the climate “scientists'” receipts of grant money.

    • Thanks, Ben, for this fabulous news! Since hearing it I have conceived a new business model involving a large wind farm in Scotland that I won’t actually have to build, but will request constraint payments for the energy it’s not generating whenever those winds are excessive or the electricity is not needed anyway. This will spare me a lot of effort and expense for construction, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning while all the while strictly remaining an income source. This is going to look great on the company books.

      • I’ll go into business with you. Can I telecommute? I’m pretty sure you can NOT generate energy over the Internet.

        • PhilinCA, On the contrary, partner, while the crypto-currency I’ll have you generating during your telecommute working hours will expend considerable energy, you may keep half their proceeds. Welcome to the firm. And don’t forget that among the ‘perqs’ you will have access to a virtual-reality gym to keep you healthy, as well as wealthy; not to mention a wise guy.

      • Ben, Doc: I could serve as your accounts department. We should start sending out bills right now. Most would be paid. The customers are half on the dole and all are victims of a brainwashing education. I would add a 20% surcharge so subsequent bills would be received with relief.

  11. This is idiocy. As John Bell pointed out above, measuring temperature in hundredths in the 1800 was impossible. It’s actually impossible today. This is nothing more than a mathematical artifact of averaging. You simply cannot increase accuracy and/or precision through mathematical averaging. It is a total violation of the rule of significant digits! Thermometers in the 1800’s were probably barely accurate to the units digit because of manufacturing defects, calibration errors, and reading errors. Even digital thermometers of today are probably only accurate to the nearest tenth of a degree because of siting problems (including measurement device housing), calibration problems, drift from aging, etc. If the thermometer sites require periodic maintenance and re-calibration then then they have error bands restricting their accuracy to probably the nearest tenth of a degree.

    Remember, just because a sensor is capable of differentiating between two temperatures a hundredth of a degree apart that does *NOT* mean it can read an absolute temperature with the same accuracy. Even the best sensors require calibration charts meaning they are not perfectly linear to begin with. That, in turn, means their accuracy is not perfect.

    Trying to say the global average temperature is a few *hundredths” different than the global average in another year is totally a joke. It’s a farce being played out for the public by those who seem to be unable to understand that they are participating in the farce!

    • People keep disparaging the instrumentation used in “olden” days without considering that such were scarce, hand made, and the property of people who would have been poster children for the phrase, “obsessive compulsive” with regard to their care and accuracy. John Harrison’s endeavors in creating the first reliable marine chronometer may have been the pinnacle of the type, but few if any embarking on the journey of scientific discovery in those days had a casual attitude towards data collection and its quality.

      • I did not say that the thermometers of the day were crude, only that their accuracy was no better than the nearest digit. It simply doesn’t matter that they were handmade and owned by obsessive compulsive people. Their accuracy would have only been as good as the ability to bow a glass tube of standard inner diameter from the bottom to the top. Their accuracy would have only been as good as the purity of the media used inside the tube. Their accuracy would only have been as good as the standards they had to calibrate their thermometers. Calibrating the entries at the boiling point and the freezing point leaves a lot of in-between area which can’t be calibrated as accurately.

        This doesn’t even address the ability to actually read the thermometer with a precision better than +/- 0.5deg (i.e. the nearest degree). Any fluid with a meniscus, e.g. mercury or alcohol, means the reading has to be estimated. Usually the top of the meniscus is used for a convex meniscus and the bottom of the meniscus for a concave meniscus. Determining the top or bottom of the meniscus
        is always an estimate. Any deviation from horizontal when looking at the meniscus causes an inaccuracy in the reading.

        I know this is hard to believe for those who have been contaminated by the digital revolution. It’s not so hard to believe for those that were trained on analog computers and slide rules. Significant digits rules were mandatory when using that level of equipment. Again, 2+ 2 is *NOT* equal to 4.0.

        • Just take a look at the thermometers used in the first international meteorological network and you can see: your doubts are not funded.

          • That network first used “little Florintine thermometers” which were filled with wine and used calibration marks that were welded onto the glass tube. Thus the readings of those thermometers depended on the the alcohol level in the wine and the accuracy with which the reference marks were placed on the tube.

            They were primarily used for RELATIVE readings not absolute readings. If you think the accuracy of those thermometers were in the tenths or hundreths of a degree then I would respectfully point out that you are sadly mistaken.

          • Nope not the Medici Network,
            rather the Societas Meteorologica Palatina.
            Internatioanl stations in Europe, the USA and Greenland.
            Precission thermometers calibrated at on site.
            Thermometer reading 0.1 K.

          • MFK,

            I can find no information that the Societas Meteorologica Palatina used thermometers any more accurate that the littler florentine’s. They may have been more consistent in structure but they were still only calibrated at the freezing point and the boiling point leaving the accuracy of the measurements in between those two points in question. Precision and accuracy *are* two entirely different things.

            In any case, using measurements to the nearest tenth to try and determine variations in the hundreths reading is the very same violation of significant digits I am talking about! Readings to the nearest tenth simply can’t tell you if year X is .01 deg warmer than year Y.

        • Tim: I graduated in engineering with a slide rule calculator 1960. For quite some time after that l had never heard of a meteorological temperature reported in factions of a degree. Indeed, there wouldnt be any sensible global warming to report if that were true today. Trouble is young folk think it’s normal to report greatest warming ever by a hundredth of a degree. It may have in actuality been half a degree colder. And if we’re talking 100 yrs, we appear to have been warmer in 1930s than today – US Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, South Africa, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Australia all agree in their unhomogenized temperatures.

        •  It’s not so hard to believe for those that were trained on analog computers 

          I’ve used a lot of computers in my time, but never an analogue one. Even Babbage’s (arguably the first) computer was digital.

          I’ve used slide rules. Is that what you mean?

          • My, my, my. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about. No, I am talking about analog computers using feedback amplifiers, summing amplifiers, oscillators, and passive components to simulate all kinds of things like mechanical motion, fluid dynamics, and even fire control systems for the military.

            If you’ve ever seen the movie “Battleship” where they are firing shells toward the alien installation you saw the use of an analog computer being used for fire control. You’d input the weight of the shell and the distance to the target and it would calculate the size of the explosive to put behind the shell and the angle of the gun for firing. All analog, no digital.

            And, yes, a slide rule is a form of an analog computer. Did you learn the rules of significant digits for when you used it?

            This link may be of interest: https://acarter.people.amherst.edu/documents/tpt2013.pdf

          • The switch-over from analog to digital took place in the early 60’s particularly with the advent of integrated circuits. The MIT project developing the navigation system for the Apollo mission started off using analog computers but started the switch to digital in 1961. As Tim Gorman points out modern day op-amps performing computational functions are still used in modern instrumentation, you just don’t know they’re there!

          • Patrick
            You said, “I am a bio-chemical-electrical analog computer.” As am I. But, I also have 10 digits. Inasmuch as I have learned to count in binary with those digits, I claim to be a crude digital computer.

    • “measuring temperature in hundredths in the 1800 was impossible”
      Aside from the silliness of trying to come up with a world temperature as well either currently or from the past

  12. A bit off-topic, but last night I saw the new Japanese anime film “Weathering with You”. While the director Makoto Shinkai in interviews mouths the usual boiler plate about global warming and climate change threatening us all, in his film he has a Shinto priest mock the assertion of ‘rainiest weather on record” by saying, “How far back do the weather records go? 100 years? This temple is 800 years old.” At films end the rains have flooded Tokyo, disrupting people’s lives. But the point is made that the area used to be a swamp and is just returning to its previous state. It’s dependent on what time scale you use.

  13. City governments believe the crap released by NASA and NOAA and act upon it. Case in point, San Diego, CA.

    Max

  14. Could global warming end current interglacial, i.e. triger a new ‘ice age’ ?
    Possible, excessive evaporation can dump so much snow in the high latitudes and altitudes that may not melt in the following summer months. Few years of hotter than hottest year evah and there you go over tipping point into real and proper climate catastrophe. Greta Thunderbird you go and tell ’em loud and clear, they going to ruin your old age, you little darling.

    • Climate alarmists are ruining my life NOW, and promise to ruin it even more in the future. When do I get to address the UN? I have been practicing my “How dare you!”

  15. Payload delivered…! Can’t paste the screenshot of my Tweet to Ed here, but let’s see how long it takes before I too am blocked. Can’t take the heat ….

    Anyway … could you do an Ed-graph for the entire Holocene…? That would be a real doozy …

  16. Even NASA’s and NOAA’s postings on their own websites disagree with this claim. At least 6 years within the last 40 have been warmer according to NASA and/or NOAA: 1988, 1989, 1995, 1997, 2013, 2015, etc.
    How do they get away with this?

  17. Anthony, could you provide the data source for the graph of the temperature curve for the past 15,000 years? I would like to use it, and want to cite to the source of the data. Thanks.

  18. The colour choices are interesting, obviously blue indicates too cold for Ed, red too hot and white just nice.
    Many ask the question ‘what is the ideal av. global temperature’ and Ed has the answer, what looks like 14°C, or around the time of the 1953 North Sea flood that killed 2,551 people and the atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~310 ppm.

  19. The colour choices are interesting, obviously blue indicates too cold for Ed, red too hot and white just nice.
    Many ask the question ‘what is the ideal av. global temperature’ and Ed has the answer, what looks like 14°C, or around the time of the 1953 North Sea flood that caused the demise of 2,551 people and the atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~310 ppm.

  20. Well the drought that was never going to end, has certainly broken in “our” part of Aussie, the Gold Coast and SE Queensland. 10 inches overnight (255 mm, some reports of 300 mm in the hinterland) and it has not stoped raining. Not much joy for “hot and dry” M.Mann or “never going to rain again” Flannery. So the old wisdom of “droughts and flooding rain” comes around again and our dams are filling up nicely! (Surely good old Nick will lecture on some obscure place where the BOM has fiddled the data to make the rain go away😉

  21. When I saw his picture at the end I could have sworn it was Alfred E. Neuman. But that would negate the “What, me worry?”

  22. Very nice.

    I assume we have permission to download and use the stripes as facebook backgrounds and the like. It may generate a few talking points.

  23. Averaging daily temperature for the globe is largely meaningless. Its more useful to know max and mins, or if possible, median temperature. A day in tropics of 25C, max 27, min 23. Is a different experience to desert climes still 25C, but max 47C min 3C,…same average. Also a different experience if the amount of time close to max or min varies – hence reference to changes in median versus average. Coping with rising mins is probabky less harmful.

    There’s about 30 climatic zones around the globe. Averaging them is meaningless to those that live in each of them.

  24. … a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever, and the decade of 2010-2019 was the hottest ever…

    Unfortunately the article doesn’t provide a link to the press release. This appears to be it: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record

    I’ve looked through it and nowhere can I find the claim that 2019 was the second warmest year “ever”. It states that 2019 was “… the second warmest [year] since modern record keeping began in 1880.”

    Likewise re the decadal claim. They don’t say the last 10 years was the warmest decade “ever”. What they say is quite specific: “The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record …” Note: they specify ‘on record’, not ‘ever’.

    Putting words in your perceived antagonists mouth then shouting them down on that basis is a classic ‘straw man’ argument. It’s an informal fallacy, not skepticism.

    • “Are there any alarmists sites that don’t block all alternative views”
      There are plenty that block crackpot views that show graphs with not reference.

  25. So you consider the temperature plots of the last 250 years are just fakes.
    But you then consider the plot for the last 10,000 years are spot on

    this is just weird!

  26. Okay, if you want to make an impression on the average citizen and any grade school, high school, or college student Include the first graph (red line) and the second graph (green line) plotted against a Y axis in actual temperature. Maybe even show Fahrenheit and Centigrade. Now people, real people can relate to those graphs. AND, they would laugh their butts off at the insane climatologists that are trying to tell is that we are destroying the planet . The graphs would tell the whole story. Show them on a scale they can relate to! GAME OVER – WE WIN!! Learn to communicate clearly and succinctly with plane language. But only if you want to win this argument with the general public. Otherwise we will loose. I hate loosing!!

Comments are closed.