Bishop Hill Hiding the pause
Aug 28, 2014 Climate: Models Climate: Parliament Climate: Surface Corrine le Quere of UEA is another of the scientists who were asked to address the All-party Climate Change Group about AR5, her topic being what is the evidence for that man is causing climate change. Audio is here, her slides can be seen here, an example of which is shown below:
;)
Anybody spot the pause in temperature rise there? No, you don't, because the data has been obfuscated by means of rolling them up into decadal averages. This is troubling, because I thought that everyone agreed that you should not smooth time series:
...you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!
Looks like another statistics fail by a climatologist to me, and another set of policymakers misled.
But by accident, or design?
Reader Comments (118)
HaroldW wrote: "one correction. My understanding is that the decadal points were computed as the average over 1900-1909, plotted at the abscissa of 1905 (or so), etc. The last decadal point would then be the 2000-2009 average, plotted at 2005."
Frank replies: It was difficult to tell. I compared the AR4 (which can't have data after 20005) and AR5 figures and concluded they both used the same decades centered on years divisible by 10. Perhaps I made a mistake.
Getting back to the original point of this thread, it seems to my (admittedly non-scientist, therefore flawed beyond any consideration in the debate, according to some) eye that the graph is presenting a false impression about global warming – particularly as it gives the impression the temperatures are still rising at a noticeable rate, which, as we all know, they aren’t. Which means that the presenter is engaging in serious obfuscation – close to the point of outright lying – to try to influence people whose decisions affect the lives and livelihoods of almost an entire country; that the attempt is to force these decisions whose effects will generally be detrimental to so many takes this level of lying close to criminal.
Can we stop calling it a 'pause'?
Warming has STOPPED
Sherlock Holmes said: 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'
"That has always struck me as the most arrogantly stupid thing anyone ever wrote. History of science is littered with examples of people who thought they had all bases covered, only to be found wanting later. Lord Kelvin being a prime example." --SandyS
Holmes (or Watson {or Doyle}) was talking in context about closed systems where the number of alternative explanations was very limited.
And Godwin's Law has no bearing on the truth of anything. It is nothing more than a red herring, as applied to climate debates...or anything else.
Frank -
I hadn't looked at AR4, but its version's (SPM.4) caption has: "Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950."
So its first point would be the 1906-1915 average, plotted at an abscissa of 1911.
This is for your eyes Your Eminence. On a recent thread on WUWT it turned out one David Appell was trolling the site to disrupt it. The scumbag even bragged about it in an E-mail to Anthony Watts. I strongly suspect that and there's
physics or what ever his name may be is doing the same despicable thing. We already know how devious the warmist cultists are. This idea is not a bridge to far.
..and Then There's Physics
The Purpose of the event the graph was used nothing was not to show 'forced runs' because the audience would not even have understood what they are. The Purpose of the event the graph was used for was to show current , past and future conditions, and for that the use of this graph was either a dishonest or poor choice. Regular or not does not change that particular fact and its UEA repeated poor science with a willingness to lie to the public that has earned them the reputation it has gained.
Smoothing can hide a great deal of things and I wonder if you had someone pulled this trick on you on data you knew to be far more complex if you be happy to just brush it off. So once again do you think this approach is good one ?
Martin A tool over to ATTP's (aka wottsupwiththat) site, the comments are more censored than the press in North Korea.
The fact is that the Met Office, whether they like to think so or not, has become the publicity arm of a political movement to the absolute detriment of the people of the UK. Hiding facts isn't a scientific activity and decadal smoothing is simply hiding the decline. Shame on them.
Back on the thread 'Atlantic Wot Done It' Richard Betts says
If Richard is around I wonder if we can add to the tactics of campaigners using graphs with the intention of misleading, a la le Quere?
M. McNeil,
1) note the bit from Brigg's before the bolding " [u]nless the data is measured with error."
2) refer to your link and read the first two sentences "Inherent in the collection of data taken over time is some form of random variation. There exist methods for reducing of canceling the effect due to random variation." (also known as measurement error).
3) figure out how you can have a measurement error in a value (Global Mean Temperature) which is calculated and not measured.
"IMO, many people regard being told that they're probably wrong as a form of bullying."
I don't know if you believe this tripe, but for sure you can't censor me saying so on this site as you do on your own site which censors any views that differ from your own. So maybe your projecting your own feelings of being bullied when people point out you're wrong onto other more eminent and experienced climate scientists and physicists. The grace and tolerance they show in the face of the contempt amd lies being hurled at them by a bunch of scientific wannabes is remarkable.
Geronimo,
Well, I do believe that many people feel that being told they're wrong is a form of bullying. Whining appears to be standard practice in the online climate debate.
Apart from the very obvious fact that me moderating comments on my site is not censorship, let's test your honesty. I went through my comments and found that you'd made 16. I discovered that your most recent comment had been moderated for being inflammatory (if I wasn't trying to be civil, I would describe it differently) and two of your other comments had been edited, one for being rude and the other because it referred to something else that had been moderated. That is shocking isn't it? A small fraction of what you've said on my blog has been moderated : CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!!!!!
Not at all. I have no problem being told I'm wrong. I regularly am.
Really? Your definition of grace and tolerance must be remarkably different to mine. Some of the people I think you're referring to are amongst the rudest and most insincere I've ever encountered.
Geronimo: I suppose when you know you are right, no amount of cat-calling will have any effect upon you. It is when you suspect that you could be completely wrong, yet cling to the hope that you are absolutely right that any criticism becomes intolerable.
Geronimo: I suppose when you know you are right, no amount of cat-calling will have any effect upon you. It is when you suspect that you could be completely wrong, yet cling to the hope that you are absolutely right that any criticism becomes intolerable.
geronimo
Radical
if you want to see the alarmist mentality at work have a look at this thread where ScienceofDoom dares to ask questions that undermine the faith of the true believers
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/oh-no-now-i-need-to-eat-my-words/
H/T Dan Hughes
Dang! Why have I been double-posted? Perhaps it is something to do with the site problems mentioned in a later thread.
H2O – I shall take the time to read it. Great moniker, by the way, and it is a truly under-rated molecule – so perfect that you could be mistaken for believing that it was designed so! (Cat, meet pigeons…)
As an aside, and under the possibility that aTTP is still reading this thread, I have visited the site he promotes (other than his own), to find that I am unable to post any comments on it, even as a visitor. Though registered, I am not allowed to login, nor am I allowed to resubmit myself for registration. It would seem that there are severe constraints upon who is eligible for commenting; could he perhaps enlighten us to what they might be, and how to qualify?
I have also visited Desmogblog, to find that they are even more stringent; judging by the utter lack of any opinion contentious to the blog, it would seem that I, or almost any other contributor to this site, would never be considered suitable for commenting. Why do both these sites fear dissenting voices?
aTTP: the Bishop has well-known, if unpublished, criteria on the language used on this site, primarily not allowing the use of profanity (aka swearing, foul language or, in the more rarified atmospheres of the likes of the BBC, “strong” (ho-ho-ho) language). He also brings people up on the tone that they use; there are many who would not be allowed your rather inflammatory attitude, so be grateful that he is allowing you to vent as you are. Most of us accept this: his gaffe, his rules. On other sites, though, often, all that is required for a comment to be censored is to express a view contrary to the blog-owners ideas. Again, their gaffe, their rules. But, do not be surprised when people who feel they cannot engage in rational argument on a site start to avoid it, and express their disdain for such sites on sites such as this one.
Godwin's law is not a prohibition. It's a report with regard to past behaviour and a prediction with regard to future behaviour.