Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Bullshit CO2-Temperature Graphs

You know the ones, lots of variants. They are from icecap.us I think. A whole batch of bullshit graphs comparing co2 to temperature in a denier friendly way. The one below has temperature since 1997 plotted against co2, with the co2 axis scaled up ridiculously large to make it look like a total mismatch. Here is one version of the bullshit co2-temperature graph on a psuedoskeptic blog:

http://globalsham.blogspot.com/2008/03/co2-vs-global-mean-temperature.html

The way it's scaled they imply an expectation of about 0.7C warming from a 5% increase in co2, or 0.7C warming per decade. Here's it scaled better (not perfect, but it's closer):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/mean:12/detrend:0.5/plot/uah/from:1997/normalise

Maybe if the idioteam directed some of their witchhuntgate paranoia onto their own material they would have a lot more success at uncovering "fraud". Of course as Wade pointed out (I suspect this will become a "law of Wade"), they will probably claim they only do it because the "AGW crowd" do it.

3 comments:

  1. Wow. You and your blog are really pathetic. You scale graphs to show differences and trends. People with an education can read them, people with the background provided by TV news gape at them and wonder what they mean.

    Why were these graphs significant? What does it mean that temp is not climbing with CO2... did you read Jimmy Hansen's testimony before Congress?
    Did you follow MBH '98 (the AGW Manifesto)? Have you followed Phil and the boys at Hadley who are all saying that temperature follows CO2 concentration as a direct, first-order effect?

    Those mysterious graphs show that not to be the case. It was educational that you attacked them without saying why. You trashed Joe d'Aleo because of his graph scaling without ever managing to add anything of substance to your attack.

    If you can handle a little Latin you would know that to be an 'Ad Hominem' attack. One that is defined as personal rather than issue based and therefore without merit or value and a reflection on the attacker's weaknesses and failings rather than the 'attackee'.

    Here are some sample ad hominem questions for you...
    Are you this way because you failed science in 4th grade?

    Do you attack people with more experience than you because they cause fear in your heart?

    Do you portray yourself as a scientific imbecile as a cry for help?

    Do you really want help or just self-gratification?

    See, ad hominem is no fun and not much use. What do you think those graphs show, why do you think that, and what do think will happen next?

    That last one is important because it is what real science is all about... making predictions to test your ideas in the cold light of day with observations of nature.

    What single mechanism proposed for 3.7 W/ m2 extra energy still stands up? Why has the Southern Pacific cooled so much in the last 8 years? Where are the mid-tropic / mid-troposphere heat bands that were predicted when CO2 hit 375 ppm?

    Comment on that if you have the time between swinging between trees you reactive, second hand outrage-driven knuckle-dragger. (oops, did I just launch an ad hominem attack?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think humans believe they are very important and have a say and weight on the Earth existence.

    Humans, first invented gods and did sacrifices for them to make sure the earth was a better place to live. Later they ran into science and by merely discovering it started left and right to prove how important they (as humans) are in the Cosmos. And even invented the Big Bang Theory that according to most state of the art online search engines is a cool American sitcom…Wow!!! I am impressed!

    So, you cool respectful scientists, tell me and crunch the numbers of how much solar wind or slight shift of the moon it takes to wipe us out from the Earth? Eh?


    ReplyDelete
  3. I could never figure out the CO2e math:

    Flying economy class from A to B for say $999. And during the flight barely served pretzel crumbs and unable to attend the washroom because 90% of the flight time the seat belt light is on and huge line-up when off. Mind you, the watchful and dutiful hard working flight attendants giving you the “dirty” look even if you slightly shift your ass to release a silent fart.

    VS

    One, two hours max in All You Can Eat restaurant for $9.99 and all the burping, farting, and numerous visits to the washroom after the event…Oh, how many gallons of water we flushed just after a small family birthday party, Eh?

    ReplyDelete