About half a century ago I was teaching postgraduate students about the presentation of work, the use and misuse of statistics and the difference between significance and importance. I’m not sure what my charges thought about it all — the course was voluntary, because they were all PhD students wedded to their thesis, the only aspect of their work that would actually be examined. But I had fun. There was a book that I thought they might all read, because it was short and humorous: Darrell Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics, which I had bought as an undergraduate. It had some chapters on graphs, and I must have taken some of his strictures to heart, because I still look at a graph to see if it qualifies as a technically good one.
I hadn’t thought much about graphs recently until, in January, I came across an essay on WUWT that was good-humoured and sensible, and stored it away for a later post — this one. It was by C. R. Dickson, a retired physicist and chemist, and he made two good points I thought worth passing on — actually, one good point that has a good and important consequence. And although I’ll use graphs about climate for this essay, the lessons apply anywhere where you see a pictorial representation of data. Graphs are important because we perceive pictures much more easily than we can interpret numbers, and that means we can be easily persuaded about something if the graph is dramatic. Let’s start with a familiar example, which I’ve taken from John Brignell’s Chartmanship.
Suppose you have a plot of temperature over time, like this one from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia:
It seems to have two rising phases and two falling or static phases, with a rise overall. Can you make much out of it? Well, here’s how to do it, if, like the people at CRU, you want to suggest that something dramatic is taking place. You convert the temperatures into anomalies against a baseline that is useful for your purpose, and then you use colour — red for warm (and of course danger) and blue for cold. You get something like this, where the zero line is set just where the red starts to rise:
Hey! That second picture tells a story. But so do the next two, which offer the same basic data, presented in two different ways.
In the first we see temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, while in the second we see the anomalies again. What is the difference? Just the way the data are presented. The first says that average global temperature has been very similar for 120 years (though if you look very hard you can see the tiniest of rises towards the present), while the second says that there has been a sharp change in the anomalies. Can there be a sharp change in the anomalies without a sharp change in the temperature? Why, indeed there can be, because using anomalies magnifies the change. In fact, you would get the same shape as the right-hand graph if you simply truncated the left hand one, and made the vertical axis measure temperature, not in degrees as there, but in tenths of a degree or even hundredths of a degree. Truncating the vertical axis is almost the contemporary fashion. Sometimes you’ll see a little jagged line at the bottom of the vertical axis, which tells you that truncation has occurred. But very often the axis starts wherever the presenter wants it to start.
Dr Dickson used a nice analogy to remind us of the effects of magnification: the smoothness of a sheet of glass:
We’re used to seeing glass as smooth and uniform (figure 2). But if you use a powerful microscope (figure 3) you will see that the surface of a glass plate has all sorts of small imperfections on it — it’s really quite rough! Dickson argues that we don’t drive along the freeway using a microscope and that, like the Bureau of Metereology and the weather girls, we talk about the day’s temperature, or the average for the month or the year, in terms of whole degrees F or C. The use of magnification, as in the CRU graph above, distorts our perception of weather. I think there’s a lot in that remark. We’re having an el Nino right now, though it has passed its peak, and Sydney had a hot February. But, as the weather girls keep telling us, it’s the hottest since the last time. One did say, of one weather episode, that it was the hottest since records began. Those records are the official ones, however, and they start only early in the 20th century. There are other records in the 1890s that leave today’s weather extremes well behind.
The general point is that it is mistake to become obsessive about the anomalies. They are used, in my view, to convey a message, and the message is that warming is bad. We don’t actually know if that is so and, on the evidence, the warming we have had over the past century has been accompanied by greater food production and the greening of arid areas. Perhaps warming is a good thing, and should be coloured green. Why do we use anomalies at all?
Dr Dickson defines them like this: A temperature anomaly is the difference obtained by subtracting an average temperature from real temperature data. Climate studies work with anomalies instead of real temperatures because anomalies are assumed to be more accurate over large geographical areas. Paul Homewood sets out some other reasons, and two of them seem significant to me: that using anomalies allows us to pick up regional trends, and that it allows us to compare time periods like months — February is usually hotter than March, where I live, but the anomaly can tell us whether they’re both hotter than ‘usual’ — if we know what ‘usual’ means, and why we have chosen that baseline.
I have no objection to the use of anomalies, but it is always sensible not to be overpowered by the graph. The changes that we observe in temperature anomalies are usually very small, not withstanding their appearance on the graph. And often the error bars, as I’ve said before, are larger than the change.
For those interested in the business of drawing technically good and effective graphs, I recommend a short paper by Dr Steve Figard, which you can read here. I think everything I have written above is covered in it. It too is well written, good-humoured and an excellent reference. Not only that, he has some entertaining Dilbert cartoons as well. The great book is Edward Tufte’s The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, which Figard refers to with great approbation. Tufte is a political scientist of some distinction, who moved to ‘information’ with this book, which he self-published (and made a motza). I read the first edition many years ago, and it is indeed very good. Graphs lend themselves to humour.
Endnote: Earth hour seemed to take place on Saturday last, though I wasn’t aware until Sunday evening. A few years ago we were all being asked to turn our lights off for an hour, but the focus now seems to be turning off the floodlights on structures like the Sydney Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. Oh, and there was a kind of movement to get the PM to turn the lights off. I’m not sure where he was supposed to do it, and I don’t think it succeeded. If I’m wrong someone will tell me.
Supplement: A commenter via email wondered why I hadn’t used an IPCC graph to illustrate my points, so here for his benefit, and perhaps for the interest of others, is an IPCC graph about temperature. It comes from AR5 WG1 Box 2.2 Figure 1.
What is being graphed is global mean surface temperature (GMST) as measured by HADCRUT4, with 1961-1990 being the baseline. The straight black lines are least squares trends for 1901-2012, 1901-1950 and 1950-2012. The lower graph shows the same data with a smoothing spline, with 90 per cent confidence intervals around it (these intervals are omitted from the higher graph for clarity). There were many other ways in which the data could be provided with straight lines, but since the IPCC is looking at human-induced global warming, its message is reinforced by the rising black lines. If a sceptic were doing the same graph, he or she would be likely to show the obvious and separate phases in the data with some horizontal or even slightly lower black lines along with the rising ones. It’s all about presentation.
Even then, you wonder why the models can’t explain the more recent warming without CO2 being introduced, since the increases are virtually the same for both half-century periods. I’ve asked that question in the past, and never got any kind of persuasive answer
Don thanks for this post. Of course fig 4 is the most honest graph of them all. Anthony Watts has used that graph a number of times to try and bring some sanity to the delusion of their CAGW nonsense.
The Concordia uni study shows just 0.7 C warming since 1800 ,( OZ about 0.006 C) or over the last 215 years. HAD 4 shows about 0.85 C since 1850 or 165 years and GISS shows about 0.9 C since 1880. But this slight warming has come at the end of the LIA ( coldest period for thousands of years) so there is nothing unusual about it at all. We know that the previous 4 interglacials were warmer than the Holocene and the earlier Holocene was warmer than today.
So we are at the cool end of the coolest Interglacial for the last 500,000 years and human well being and life expectancy has boomed since 1900. And the CSIRO has shown that the planet has greened since 1970 because of the extra co2 plant food emitted over that time. We are very lucky to live in such an era compared to the hand to mouth existence suffered by so much of the planet’s population just 100 to 200 years ago.
Yes, I endorse Neville’s thanks, Don, for this most useful piece (and Neville for his concise resumé above).
On the human preference for information in visual form, this may be where statistician and novelist have ground in common. I gather we take in some 85% of our perceptions by eye, and every novelist knows, as Conrad wrote in his preface to ‘Nigger Of the Narcissus’ the aim is “to make you hear, to make you feel – it is before all, to make you SEE. That, and no more, and it is everything.”
Well said Don and Neville. Good reading made much better by the news that Earth Day came and went and I didn’t know – nor, it seems, did most of the press.
Thanks Don, as a retired cartographer I had plenty to do with graphs. I remember one graph I had to construct was the percentage increase of police numbers for a particular town. The town previously had one copper and was allocated a second one. The percentage increase was 100%. Looked good on the graph.
Kinda’ like ocean heat graphs plotted in joules instead of degrees C … oooh scarey!
So this is how they came up with the ‘pause’ in global warming. Thanks Don.
The 2015 Lancet study found that cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather. They also found that the majority of deaths come from moderately cold or warm weather. Here’s their quote——–
An inconvenient truth from medical research: cold is far worse than global warming at killing people
Anthony Watts / May 21, 2015
From the respected medical journal The Lancet comes this (h/t to Dr. Indur Goklany)
the-lancet
International Study Reveals That Cold Weather Kills Far More People Than Hot Weather
Summary:
“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
This just backs up Dr Goklany’s work over the last 40 years and used by Lomborg and others to show that warming may not be such a bad thing after all.
So Global Warming is a good thing, then, Neville? Because it kills less people than cold weather?
Seriously silly post, Nev. But then, you do quote ‘statatician’ Lomborg, so I guess I can see where it’s coming from.
That should read ‘statistician’. Apologies. I blame the left.
Dr Goklany’s work on deaths from all causes and extreme weather events has been around for a long time. He has been an IPCC reviewer since 1990 and has been the US delegate for those reviews over the years.
His latest analysis about extreme weather events shows that there has been a decline in death rates of 93 to 98% since the 1920s. Droughts and floods were the big killers in earlier times, but people are much better fed today because of modern agricultural research and technology. Flood mitigation works and early warnings have also helped save millions of lives over those years. Here’s a link from the GWPF.
http://www.thegwpf.com/indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/
Great ,Neville. But…so what??
Enlighten us Ross – why do you think warming is bad? Is it just because… or is it because someone with a megaphone told you it is, and anyway, no-one questions it ?
You have a chance to grab the moral and intellectual high ground here – run with it!
Well gee,Gnome. I guess if the the Earths climate continues to get hotter and hotter every year, never cooling…
Do I need to paint you a picture, Gnome?
The someone with a megaphone I listen to? All the worlds scientist, Gnome. Yourself?
Just a question of you, Gnome.
The two industries most likely to be affected negatively by action on climate change are Oil and Mining. That we can agree on, I think.
Not being short of a buck, why do they not set up a lab, school, hell, even a university or twelve and have the scientists therein, come up with peer reviewed science that totally debunks the theory of man made global warming? They don’t, do they?
Instead, they spend their money channelling it through front companies (Heartland, etc) to sponsor web and blog sites. Watts up with that, Gnome?
Ross I’m sorry that you dislike PR scientific studies, like the Lancet study above. Dr Goklany has shown the reduction in deaths over the years and his research has been used by govts and the IPCC as well. Lomborg has used Goklany, WHO and UN numbers for his research to build a credible case that casts doubt on a lot of scare stories used by Gore and others.
But tell us, do you really think the world is a more dangerous place today than it was in 1900 and 1800?
Another clue for you, how has China prospered so quickly and dragged hundreds of millions of people out of dire poverty in just a few decades? Just compare China to Cuba and you might begin to understand.
Is that it? Is your claim to the intellectual and moral high ground that you listen to all the worlds scientist (sic). You don’t , you know, all you listen to is a stream if disinformation from a filter of incompetent journalism and green propaganda. Surely even you can’t believe that you listen to any, let alone all the worlds scientist (sic)?
The specific question was “why do you think warming is bad?” Your answer seems to be “just because.” Is that all there is?
I don’t agree that oil and mining are the two industries most likely affected (sic) negatively by “action on climate change”. I think electricity generation and industries which depend on it are. Manufacturing and metal refining, specifically.
Big oil looks on with amusement, and mining is so varied that whatever happens, mining will be needed. Quarrying the caves we will have to live in counts as mining. Of course, as manufacturing dies off bulk commodity mining will reduced. Most industries just hope the madness will die before their industry does.
No, Gnome, I did not write, “just because”. If the world climate keeps getting hotter and never cooling as has been shown by all scientific data… Again, do I really have to paint a detailed picture for you? You really can’t see the issue?
I don’t know how you acquire information on the topic of WWGW.
My guess would be web pages and blogs, but feel free to set me straight. ( and correct my spelling, cheers)
You don’t agree that oil and mining are concerned about action being taken by the worlds governments on climate change. (really, Gnome?)
Well as I said Gnome, they spend an awful lot of money funding ‘citizen scientists’ blog and websites around the world, through front companies, think tanks and trusts, etc. They are NOT looking on bemused. They are active.
So again I ask; Why don’t don’t they invest in real science so that communist green fools like me (not to mention Scientists, world governments and wot not) can see the evidence and settle the issue once and for all? Just because?
Gnome, I think the bigger impact will be in
Small to medium Enterprises – which employ more people than he big end of town
Agriculture, I remember doing some work in regards to plant selection for keeping carrots cold. One of the local MP’s coined he term energy carrot after seeing how much energy is used in getting them out of the ground / clean / storage / transport.
You can not disprove religion.
Religion, no. Science, yes, Mike. Stay with us.
On the topic of sponsorship, Don. Does the Don Aitkin blog site get any outside funding?
It isn’t mentioned in “About”. I’m not accusing you of anything, Don. Just wondering.
No. It was designed by my daughter-in-law (Blue Giant P/L). There is no outside funding, no ads and no tip jar. I can afford to run it, so I do. The cost is time, rather than money — once it’s set up, that is.
Cheers, Don.
Thanks for the info.
BTW. Kudos to your daughter in law, Don. Nice clean looking site. Very professional. Credit where it’s due.
Her names not really Blue Giant though, is it? (joke).
Ross here is another link to the 2015 Lancet study.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
Another interesting study found that South OZ has a higher death rate from hypothermia than Sweden. The study from the Uni of Adelaide found that typical SA hypothermia deaths were elderly women living alone, while the Swedish deaths were mainly drunk middle aged males who were found later in snow drifts.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news68322.html
Don I’ve landed in mod again. I must be doing something wrong.
You’ve used two links, Neville. I think that’s what’s the problem.
There is a God.
Neville. On Gore; Actually I agree with you. I think he did overstate the imminent danger of WWGW. I think his heart was in the right place and possibly told the odd small lie to illustrate a greater truth, but ultimately this was unwise. He is not a scientist.
I do respect scientific studies, Neville. I just couldn’t fathom what point you were trying to make by using this particular one. At least Dr Goklany accepts the science of WWGW, which is a step in the right direction.
Do I really think the world is a more dangerous place than in 1900 or 1800?
Umm… I’m not sure, Neville. Kind of depends where you currently live in the world, I guess (??)
Do I think the worlds climate has gotten hotter since those times? Yes.
Do I think it’s getting hotter due to WWGW? Yes.
Finally… Thanks for your clue, Neville, about China and Cuba. Obviously I’m guessing now…is it something to do with China being colder than Cuba? Sorry, what was your question, that required a clue?
I get comments via email as well as here. And one, or part of one, that I thought ought to have been here went like this:
‘One comment I would have added is that the anomaly graph (or whatever highly magnified graph) often gives a false impression of how accurate the data is.
And why do we use anomalies? It’s not just a comparison of data with a temporal shift (months, seasons) but also shifts in latitude. Only using anomalies can we determine if Singapore and Hobart (for example) are both warming. The same principle applies for global scale temperature data – the temperature at all locations on Earth is pretty meaningless; it’s the anomalies and the change in those anomalies that (might) tell us the bigger picture.
Don,
Regarding the article you wrote about Spencer’s comparison of a model ensemble with temperature data
http://donaitkin.com/arguing-about-models-and-observations-with-respec t-to-global-warming/
there are a couple of tricks Spencer uses to bias the graph in favour of his argument.
For instance, observe how he uses an extremely short baseline (1 year, 1983) to normalise his graphs. Why did he cherrypick 1983? With such a short baseline short term fluctuations have a large effect on the various plots. The reason he chose 1983 is because that year there is a large variation between data and the ensemble plot. It’s a fluctuation just for that year, but by setting all graphs to zero at 1983, he in effect pushes the model projections well above the data plots.
Also note his failure to use uncertainty bands for data, so there is no way we can really make an assessment of model consistency with data by looking at the graph.
Bobo,
I have tried quickly to find the post that included the graph, and I’ll have another go later. But my memory is that the lines start at 1979, not 1983, and the reason is that there are no satellite measurements prior to 1979. I think he explained how it looks like 1983, but, as I say, I can’t find the right post. I find him most honest, open and accessible, so I don’t think he did what he did for the reason you give. Uncertainty bands — I think the graph is thick enough as it is without providing more. Perhaps he dealt with that in the post. I will do my best.
There’s a space in the URL: try
http://donaitkin.com/arguing-about-models-and-observations-with-respect-to-global-warming/
No, I was there, and found the original article on Spencer’s website. But he doesn’t explain there why the graph seems to start at 1983, but the legend says 1979. I’ll keep looking.
Ross you’ll find that Gore had advisers to help with the science when he published and filmed AIT. One was a senior CSIRO scientist and the other was Dr Hansen the then head of NASA GISS. So why didn’t they advise him that he was telling porkies and exaggerating?
The British judge certainly understood that Gore had made numerous mistakes, so why not the two leading scientists? Ross I’m sure you understand that most scientists accept that the world has warmed slightly and AGW may have added some of that warming?
The China, Cuba comparison is fairly simple. Cuba has been a family run communist dictatorship for over 50 years and is a still an economic basket case and mess to this day. But China is a communist system that has allowed free enterprise and markets to flourish. You name any brand on earth and you will possibly find it being made in China. Cars, trucks, perfumes, handbags, almost any top brand you can buy here is now manufactured in China. India will advance too in a decade or so and use fossil fuels just like China has done.
China’s economic advance is amazing and it has been achieved in only a few decades that would previously have taken over a century. Here’s a link to Dr Graeme Pearman from the CSIRO. Of course Hansen advised Gore on AIT as well.
http://www.claxtonspeakers.com.au/speakers_profile/1322
Hi Nev, Yes, I take your point with Gore. It was a fair while ago but he did have the two scientists advising him. Did he take their advice and triple it? I don’t know. But as I said, I was never a true believer in his prognostications to begin with. But l concede the point.
I have a feeling Americas 60 year economic blockade of Cuba didn’t help their cause a whole lot, either.
But again, I agree. China’s economic rise has been swift and impressive.
Pretty sure I haven’t argued otherwise. That’s why I seemed a bit confused by your clue. Unless you’ve misread something I’ve written.
Was there a particular reason you brought up the comparison?
Neville, I’m sure you are aware that the vast majority of the worlds scientist accept the planet is warming and agree that it is due to AGW. If the worlds leading scientists have changed there opinion, I missed it.
“Neville, I’m sure you are aware that the vast majority of the worlds scientist accept the planet is warming and agree that it is due to AGW. If the worlds leading scientists have changed there opinion, I missed it.”
Neville believes climate science is a communist/socialist plot, so he is impervious to reasoning. Nothing can ever convince him that his belief is wrong. It’s like trying to convince someone religious that there is no God. Neville’s confirmation bias ensures that his belief is regularly “verified”.
No bobo I take notice of the data, but there is little doubt the pig ignorant left have taken their so called CAGW to extremes. Just look at the ignorance displayed by Suzuki in an open forum like Q&A. Then there is the stupidity by the likes of the ABCs “100 metres Williams” and all of Flannery’s dud predictions. There are plenty more examples but I think everyone can see where the true religious fanatics are found.
But please tell us how to fix your so called CAGW.
I see what you mean, Bobo.
🙂
A vast majority of the worlds scientists have a conflict of interest. They don’t get government grants to study issues that are not perceived to be a problem. An objective analysis reveals CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
A simple conservation of energy equation, employing the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and an approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles achieves a 97% match with measured average global temperatures since before 1900. Including the effects of CO2 improves the match by 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Good to be certain about these things, Dan Pangburn.
But it’s good to have a link to another scientific source to back up ones claims.
I was a little worried when I noticed your link was to a blog site rather than an actual scientific study. But then I forgot that they all have a conflict of interest.
What blog site does Dan Pangburn link to, to back up his claims? The blog site of Dan Pangburn.
Think you might be struggling with the concept of ‘peer reviewed’, Dan.
Maybe cast your net just a little wider?
A lot of paychecks depend on CO2 being a problem. Nearly all funding goes to failed attempts to try to prove CO2 is a problem or effort to do something about it. A few are on the right path such as this http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/02/yes-sun-was-driving-global-warming.html but I am not aware of any other work that matches measurements 97%.
Enough information on method, links to data, etc. is provided so that anyone with adequate skill set can verify my findings. As the downtrend develops, lots of folks will realize that they have been hoodwinked by ‘experts’ proclaiming AGW.
Dan, are you referring to the ‘work’ of Prof. Willie Soon? Who would be funding his ‘theories’?
Maybe one of those disinterested petro chemical/oil multi-nationals, through The Heartland Institute, perhaps? My goodness, their grubby fingerprints are everywhere, aren’t they?
Apparently you have been egregiously misled regarding Dr. Soon. Here is another assessment: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/28/dr-willie-soon-a-scientist-in-the-humble-quest-for-truth/
I have seen no evidence that Dr. Soon is aware of the 97% match with measured values as shown at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Dan,
Have you produced a graph for total thermal energy content in the climate system with time? Would be fascinating to look at.
What matters is not so much the total energy but the change. The change is proportional to the temperature anomaly shown in Figure 8.
Here’s more of that pesky data showing the pause, even after the big jump in Feb. Ken Stewart updates this data monthly for a number of areas of the planet using UAH V6. Antarctica has shown no warming since Dec 1978. Plenty of graphs to look at here.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-pause-update-february-2016/
Kens kingdom? Hmm, sounds like an authority Nev. Or a used furniture outlet.
Don,
There’s a great new publication about the PETM:
Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
Richard E. Zeebe, Andy Ridgwell & James C. Zachos
Nature Geoscience (2016) doi:10.1038/ngeo2681
Received 23 October 2015 Accepted 19 February 2016 Published online 21 March 2016
In particular they have quantified the amount of GHGs that were released during the PETM.
What this implies is that there is now a way to calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity due to GHGs without using GCMs. I remember trying to calculate this last year using PETM data but the estimates of GHGs emitted were too unconstrained to use. I’ll get around to trying again later today but you might want to beat me to the punch.
Before you get too excited you’d better red the critical commons of Gary Kerkin and Rud Istvan on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/claim-human-driven-carbon-release-rate-unprecedented-in-past-66-million-years/
WUWT? Another Heartland fav Dan?
Blog, quotes blog, quotes blog, quotes blog. Handy, eh? Watts up with that?
My rule is to read what is there, if it seems interesting, and then make my mind up. I read RealClimate, too. Indeed I read almost anything that seems like a useful link. Not everything proves to be so when I get there. But if you don’t know or read what Istvan says you should sample what he says. He is very experienced and across the physics and mathematics. Look him up.
At your age, Don, you should know better than to bother engaging someone like Ross. Buy yourself a piglet and water a patch of the backyard to wrestle it in. As long as the warm weather lasts you will get much more fun, and probably a better class of conversation while you’re at it.
At least the pig will learn something as it gets older.
Clever and wise as always, Gnome. Got a blog site?
Still, Gnome. All things considered, the heat, Dons age and agility. The smart money would probably be on the piglet. Perhaps you could be his second. You seem to know a bit about wrestling with piglets on warm days. (shudder).
Don is if fair to say that in the past that you would have crossed the street to avoid some of the critics of AGW who now post to this site?
I guess the skeptics club is a bit like the Liberal Party… broad church and all that.
Liberal party? Hmmm. Church? Hmmm.
Is that why he’s never held a huge piss-up to celebrate the big cheque from big oil which Ross is so sure must arrive regularly to support bloggers who question the faith?
A tasteful and illuminating post, as always, Gnome.
“I have no objection to the use of anomalies, but …”
So Don you should recognize that converting raw temperatures to anomalies is a form of “homogenization”. Its done to present the data in a manner that is readily interpretable. Of course the some hysterical denialists see a plot in every arithmetic calculation and every three-syllable word.
It is, with all respect, no form of homogenisation at all. It is simply a piece of arithmetic.
Bob Tisdale looks at the alarmist nonsense peddled by the urgers about their so called CAGW. Amazing what the data shows when two big NATURAL el nino events are compared.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/more-alarmist-nonsense-with-the-release-of-the-redundant-noaa-global-temperature-data-for-february-2016/
Dan, are you referring to the ‘work’ of Prof. Willie Soon? Who would be funding his ‘theories’?
Maybe one of those disinterested petro chemical/oil multi-nationals, through The Heartland Institute, perhaps? My goodness, their grubby fingerprints are everywhere, aren’t they?
Sorry, sent twice. Fingers not grubby, just fat.
Neville
If you graph a 6 month running average of temperature against the mean of course you are going to wash out any trend.
Neville, go buy yourself a book on statistics. Read the chapter on means. Then read the chapter on variance. Then get back to me.
David; I don’t think WUWT sell books on statistics.
Ahhh WUWT. A corporate gish gallop, par excellence. I expect Neville, will be bringing us many explosive stories from this proud and noble ‘blog site’. The more, the murkier. That’s the trick.
The Philip Lloyd PR study found that the standard temp deviation per century over the last 8,000 years was about 1 C. He also found that the warming for the 20th century was 0.7 C, So why do we have this panic over a below average global temp deviation since 1900?
He used ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica to produce his findings. Here is the full study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Centennial_Variability_of_Global_Temperatures
Here is a quote and summary of Dr Philip Lloyd’s work. You’ll note he has worked as an IPCC lead author and has an extensive publishing record.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
You do waffle Neville. Here is Lloyd’s the concluding paragraph.
“During the 20th century, thermometers recorded an increase of about 0.7 deg C. It seems reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but it seems difficult to estimate the magnitude of this warming in the face of a likely natural variation of the order of 1 deg C. The signal of anthropogenic global warming may not yet have emerged from the natural background.”
So a “maybe”. The colloquial phrase is “piss and wind”.
David we can all agree that there may be some warming from human co2 emissions, but so far it hasn’t shown up in the data since 1950 and it just doesn’t show at all compared to the last 80 centuries. In fact Leclercq et al found that world glacier retreat had slowed since 1950 and Goklany has shown that death from extreme weather events have dropped by 97% since the 1920s. And SLR is the same as the previous 100 years.
Sure you can follow your alarmist group-thinkers and use the NATURAL sun fuelled el nino warming to give you comfort, but it won’t help much when the next big la nina comes along.
That is not what Lloyd says. (See above)
” reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” etc
It may help if you turn your graph the right way up
Don,
Could not agree more. As part of my engineering course we did a case study on how to / how not to present information, it also went into agree audience etc… The case study was on lessons learnt from the challenger explosion and NASA.
How you to present the data is key, based your target audience. In the AGW scare – they know this and are playing politics with it.
I’ve responded to a commenter via email with a new graph and discussion at the end of the text of the essay above.
Don,
To convince yourself and others of your doubts about AGW, you have lost the plot. Sitting chopping up the time series data concocting arguments as you go. The way you analyse time series data should be used as an exemplar of what NOT to do. You should not chop time series data without FIRST having a theoretical reason to do so!
What NOT to do if you are serious about the topic. Exactly what you SHOULD do if you simply want to run interference. Remember, skeptics; Rule 1: The more, the murkier.
Not sure what the point is here. I thought it was explained below the new graph. But another try: the theoretical reason for the IPCC to present the data as it has done is to persuade the reader that there is warming (and that CO2 is responsible, that comes later). For a sceptic, or at least for one class of sceptics, the theoretical reason is that from their perspective warming has been going on for a long time, and comes in fits and starts, not in any kind of straightforward way.So they are as interested in the pauses, or cooling periods, as they are in the warming ones.
I hope that helps. I did think I had explained it …
Okay, now I’m confused. Could you give us a guide to the different ‘classes’ of skeptics, Don.
Which class do you belong to, and why all the others are wrong? Or is everyone right… Just different.
Ross I empathize.
I have been a regular on this site for a while now and I do sometimes think it is not the best use of my time. But I have found that analyzing the way Don defends his anti AGW position has really taught me how to recognize different rhetorical strategies, leaps in logic etc. I think participation on this site has been very useful in ways that I did not expect.
Don,
” the theoretical reason for the IPCC to present the data as it has done is to persuade the reader that there is warming (and that CO2 is responsible, that comes later).’
Don! 🙂
Your answer might be reasonable if you were lecturing a political science class. But what if you were lecturing a class in statistics? Pretend you are an impartial scientists, with no personal interest in result. Then the correct answer in a multiple choice exam would be “c”,….. “your hypothesis”
By hypothesis I mean the question you are trying to answer.
Do you know, David, that I am beginning to think you are just a time-waster as well as a goal-post shifter — not to mention a patroniser?
You asked for a theoretical reason, and I gave two perfectly sensible ones for you to think about. Now you say that an impartial scientist should have no interest in the result. How much science have you done, David? Every scientist whom I know, and there are dozens, follows a hunch. They do have an interest in the result, or they wouldn’t be doing the work. Put that Feynman video on if you haven’t done so, and reflect on its message. All science starts with guesses! Then you formulate them into hypotheses, and you test them. If it fails the test, you start again. The link is up there, or perhaps in the earlier post’s comments.
I am beginning to doubt that you know much about statistics. You prate about it, but I don’t see any evidence that you have worked in it, or thought about it. So here’s a useful link. What is in it is not new, but it is salutary.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/09/on-inappropriate-use-of-least-squares-regression/
And you will pardon me if I take rather less notice of your comments in future.
Don can’t you see the difference. Sure as people, we may have a stake in the outcome. But as a scientists we are not trying “persuade” anyone. We simply should be analyzing the evidence and presenting our conclusion.
Professor Muller is a good example of how we should all behave. His initial position was that homogenized temperature data skewed the relationship between CO2 and temperature. But when he analysed the un-homogenized data, he shrugged his shoulders, and reported reported a different conclusion. You cant ask for more than that.
Once we start looking to “persuade”, then we end up doing things like chopping up the data so that the results then fit a certain narrative.
‘Some of my best friends are scientists’ doesn’t really cut it, Dan.
Come on Mate. It’s time for you and Neville and Jonova etal, to crawl out of the blogosphere. It’s time to present your final presentation to the worlds governments on how and why AGW is all wrong.
It’s been a while now. Have they set a date yet? No? Not quite ready yet? Oh well, back to swapping cards with you fellow blogs. Wonder watt next weeks theory will be? Clouds, perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc
If it disagrees with experiment it is wroooooong!
Youtube! Finally someone with a serious point of reference.
Chrisl, this is the second time you have posted this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc
What experiment are you referring to? Have you got a second planet orbiting the Sun with CO2 held constant at 300 ppm??
Is the theory of AGW falsifiable David?
Yes. But not with an experiment. Too impractical.
Need to find factor X
Prof Curry wrote this summary just 2 years ago about the differences between IPCC AR4 and AR5.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Just 2 years ago the IPCC AR5 SPM definitely weakened the case for AGW and certainly CAGW. Here is part of her summary stating facts that support her case That’s after this nonsensical statement from the IPCC.———–
AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely (>95% confidence) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)
This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:
Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
Recent hiatus in surface warming and discrepancies with climate models
The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:
[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.
The significance of this hiatus in warming since 1998 is in context of comparison with climate model projections. The IPCC AR4 stated:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. (AR4 SPM)
For the IPCC AR5, CMIP5 has produced a multi-model dataset that includes long-term simulations of twentieth-century climate and projections for the twenty-first century and beyond. The IPCC summarizes near-term projections of global mean surface temperature anomalies in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that observations particularly since 2005 are on the low end of the envelope that contains 90% of the climate model simulations. Observations in 2011-2012 are below the 5-95% envelope of the CMIP5 simulations. The trend in the model simulations is substantially larger than the observed trend over the past 15 years.
Here ia a link to her summary of AR5. https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Prof Curry wrote this summary just 2 years ago about the differences between IPCC AR4 and AR5.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Just 2 years ago the IPCC AR5 SPM definitely weakened the case for AGW and certainly CAGW. Here is part of her summary stating facts that support her case After the nonsensical statement from the IPCC.———–
AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely (>95% confidence) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)
This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:
Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
Recent hiatus in surface warming and discrepancies with climate models
The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:
[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.
The significance of this hiatus in warming since 1998 is in context of comparison with climate model projections. The IPCC AR4 stated:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. (AR4 SPM)
For the IPCC AR5, CMIP5 has produced a multi-model dataset that includes long-term simulations of twentieth-century climate and projections for the twenty-first century and beyond. The IPCC summarizes near-term projections of global mean surface temperature anomalies in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that observations particularly since 2005 are on the low end of the envelope that contains 90% of the climate model simulations. Observations in 2011-2012 are below the 5-95% envelope of the CMIP5 simulations. The trend in the model simulations is substantially larger than the observed trend over the past 15 years.
In the book “Taxing Air” the authors tell us that the IPCC prefers the Had 4 temp data. I’ve tried this before, but can anyone tell me why the alarmists get a free pass trumpeting their so called CAGW? Here’s the 3 warming trends used by Phil Jones in the 2010 BBC interview, but I’ve extended the 1910 to 1940 trend to 1945. That’s 36 years (inclusive), so the 2 early trends shown here are 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1945. Both are clearly before the 1950 impact from human co2 emissions.
The later warming trend is from 1975 to 1998 and should be impacted by extra co2 emissions. Please can anyone tell me the difference in the last warming trend? It looks very similar to me and Jones agreed that there was no SS difference during the interview.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1998/trend
Now even alarmists like Santer and “upside down Mann” admit that the pause in warming was real. Here is a link to their 2016 study. Just imagine the result if all their data infilling and homogenisation hadn’t occurred over the last few decades. Their CAGW delusion is a joke.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/28/study-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real/
If even Mann is now starting to come clean about the pause, I suppose there is some hope for the future.
Here’s one of Steve McItyre’s earlier posts about Mann’s upside down skills. He used the complete Tiljander series upside down to show his HS con. A down tick in the series became a HS up tick. Unbelievable but true. And since that time other con merchants encouraged by this corruption have used and abused the data the same way. Wonderful PR as long as you’re using data upside down to further their agenda.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
Don, did not know where to post this, but can the recent comments be date and time stamped. Would assist with identifying what one has and has not read. But a great site in any case.