Green World Trust

[NikFromNYC]

After years of studying climate science and lately delving into highly technical blogs that debate back and forth each paper on global warming that comes out (who I call the "Bicker Brigade"), I have finally come to a conclusion and have created a "worth a thousand words" picture to fully express it. I present The Central England Don't Panic Yet Chart!

http://i37.tinypic.com/14t0abr.jpg

Comment: I have simply not found many or even any "silver bullets" that have stood up to criticism. But a single three century long thermometer record can't be reasoned away with technical hand waving or innuendo about bad data behind the statistical results. It *is* data, with no statistics. And if a Hockey Stick exists for global average temperature, then why doesn't England show one too? This single chart blows all AGW theories out of the water as being HIGHLY SPECULATIVE, unless that is over the next decade the temperature does break far away from the trend line.

[NikFromNYC]

I've updated this for a typo on the date range and to include a link to a wonderful graphic map of the *other* long span thermometer records in existence. The result is that there is indeed a Hockey Stick in the last century or two but it disappears when older data is included.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg



Direct link to thermometer station map:

http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

[NikFromNYC]

Yet another update that shocked me: the global average "instrumental record" utterly supports the validity of Central England data! I guess England makes a pretty good global thermometer.

[Lucy Skywalker]

I've always had a hunch that we see the world in microcosm here in the UK. That's partly why I'm interested in all the old UK records - and hope to do a post on it, if GISS still needs exposing after the CRUtape Letters.

[NikFromNYC]

I know nothing about GISS, despite living two blocks down from them.

I've updated my chart. I hadn't' seen my old one in some time like I do now in this thread. I kind of like it better than my new improved one since who really will care about tainted science after our own short lives are writ onto it?

[NikFromNYC]

" Applying the correction in real time in the future will mean that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last 15 years data - because of the filter end effects. Best would seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !)." - Phil Jones, former director of the CRU (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=116&filename=929044085.txt).

"Filter end effect" refers to smoothing functions used to make graphs that effect public policy.

[Richard111]

Nice work Nik. You make a good point. What bothers me is that every one of your charts shows a slow relentless rise from 1650 to 2000.

Not quite what I see elsewhere, but then I am no expert in reading these things.

I can except the global temperature is recovering from a mini ice age, but so smoothly?

Since AGW hit the headlines I have been paying close attention to my local temperatures, to wit, my garden thermometer, and am quite astonished to how large and how rapid the changes are. Have been trying to figure out how to arrive at say a monthly average. Just using max and min does not seem adequate. I will try and get one of those USB gizmos from WUWT to record temperature changes over say one hour periods and see how it relates to the mean of max and min.

[NikFromNYC]

An improvement and a yet another example of graphing exposed. The later is merely showing how misleading a graph can be, not to demonstrate that it's really perfectly linear, which it's not. According to the Team, 1900 is the transition from handle to blade of a Hockey Stick. Copenhagen thus only shows the blade. The problem is that the blade is indeed a fairly straight blade instead of something that shows an upturn in response to CO2. And it's a blade that starts too early to be due to CO2. And it's a blade with a big kink in the middle in the global average data sets. The big problem is still Central England and other ClimateReason.com long running records. Thermometers simply do not support AGW theory like it's claimed they do unless you use visual or graphing tricks to emphasize the mere fact that it's warming from decade-to-decade.

[Richard111]

Gotcha! Lesson Number ##(whatever): pay attention to the trendline, if any, they can mislead. Ensure they are not arbitrary.

Very impressive graphics Nik. You generate them yourself?

[NikFromNYC]

Yeah, I am a chemist now doing art so turning a graph into a little online poster is kind of fun and it forces me to think through a given issue. I've been posting these little things to the comments sections of alarmist news stories. Instapundit often links to GW stories, so without needing a blog I can screw with thousands of people's minds a bit. These aren't likely to convert fundamentalists or stand up as fully formed arguments but hopefully will get fence sitters to look a bit deeper into things than just reading news articles.

It was fun to have someone diss my Central England graph based on Grant Foster's write up only to figure out that he had "lied with statistics" in a most brazen way imaginable.

Here's my latest. I really don't know what to make of it. In a way it's all in the open (unlike CRU's raw data) so is just a debate worthy issue. In another way it's utterly jaw dropping. It's even more confusing when you find out that the bottom one acts as input for the middle one, so GISS is un-adjusting things then re-adjusting them? WHY DO THEY ADJUST THE GRAND CANYON?! It's a thermometer in a box in the middle of a pristine nature park!

Tuscon is nearby. It's unadjusted data has a huge spike in 1887 that has been deleted from the GISS version! Ugh. At least GISS adjusts it properly downward to account for urban heating. It's just that this seems to have been done by blending it with nearby rural stations instead of leaving those alone and only adjusting Tuscon. This has been discussed on ClimateAudit.org as has so many other technical issues...with no real answers except a collective "HUH?!?". A paranoid might suspect that hidden in the seemingly effective urban heat correction for cities is the addition of that heat to rural stations.

Given that there's no science court this sort of thing seems to require trial in the court of public opinion. Fine with me.

I have to point out, I'm not a hardened skeptic. I do think climate science is a total mess and one worth making fun of though!

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900111AR42572274002x

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722740020&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

[NikFromNYC]

Found longer data for Copenhagen. When I show one of these to someone they scream "It's only ONE thermometer!". Well yes, that's my point. One actual thermometer instead of a proxy, and in a fixed location, in a Stevenson screen. It actually goes back to 1768 but spoils the super tight line fit since it was much hotter back then!

[Richard111]

One thermometer or one tree. What does it really matter? These are simply distractions from the huge scam being foisted on us. These people have been planning this power grab for a long time and this "climate change" issue is their final excuse.

Do continue with your art. If people just look they can't help thinking and then wondering.

I predict one of the first things to be shut down will be the internet.

[NikFromNYC]

I've gone for pure aesthetics finally. I was veering into information overload and am glad I've used this forum as a diary since it hit me that my first B/W and red graphic was better than the full page Tamino exposition. I'll just shoot that off when if his "debunking" is brought up, which is becoming quite rare, ha ha.

Had I, early on, known that so very many thermometer records failed to show any recent upturn, I'd have become a skeptic a lot earlier. The court of public opinion has suddenly turned its attention to these matters, providing unprecedented opportunity, via the Internet, to present serious skeptical arguments. Since a picture tells a thousand words, if my little graphics appear on the first page of comments, I can in ten seconds have more influence on readers than several hundred other posters combined. I don't think more than a handful of people have had their minds changed by online verbal debate on blogs or comments sections. Changing one's mind isn't usually a public affair but a very private one. My theory is that a snappy graphic will stick in people's minds better than a string of "!!!&*#$%!!!" comments.

What's most fun about this is that so far whenever I get a serious rebuttal (i.e. "It's just ONE thermometer!!!") I just go back to the drawing board and it ends up even more convincing.

[Richard111]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Yes.

On your oldest thermometer record - could you up date it to 2010?
It is the last few years AGW nuts claim are the "hottest" in a century.
Really it is a flattening of global temps before the big dive. Approaching 800 spotless days!

Doh! put my reading glasses on and looks like your graph does reach 2010.

[perseus]

Well I'm not wasting time trying to find out why your data doesn't match the official stats, however this is the comparison from the national statistics office. If this is wrong you need to find some excellent reasons.



With regard to the hysterical theory that the HadCRU figures are being cooked, you really have to answer why it matches everybody elses figures, including satillite records.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html
_________________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991