Clarifying the Science Behind Global Cooling
“It is easy to lie with statistics; it is easier to lie without them.” – Frederick Mosteller
Global Cooling Trend |
Yesterday I posted this image of what climatologists are claiming is evidence of warming in the last decade, and explained how it actually shows a cooling trend; however, it has come to my attention that the methodology I used, while completely legitimate in a completely fallacious sense, did violate the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor, which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely.
The problem with this graph is that there are way too many dots on it, making it too complex. A much simpler graph, with fewer dots, would clear things up and show how the world has actually cooled in the last decade.
Global Cooling Trend Simplified |
See? Isn’t that cleaner? Easier to understand? Occam’s Razor baby. That’s right. This is what those Global Warming cooks don’t want you to see. How about we apply this principle to the whole last century of temperature data?
Global Cooling Trend over the Last Century |
Warming |
Where’s your warming now Al Gore? Huh? As we can see from this graph, most of this century has been on a cooling trend. Take all those shaded parts that I’ve so helpfully shaded and all the non-shaded parts that I’ve so helpfully not shaded and put them on a statistical bar graph thing like you see in power point, and look what you get. You get this pic over here to the right, with the red cooling bar being much much bigger, like three times much much bigger than the warming bar.
How can anyone look at this concrete visual data and not see Global Warming’s a crock?
Absolutely fantastic post. Bravo!
Comment by Kav — March 26, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Hey, Mr. Smarty Scientist…you cut off the blue dot for the year 2000 in your first graphic (assuming the chart takes us to 2007). Such an omission of important scientific data renders your graphic completely useless to me, and therefore I will resume beating my head against this brick wall until such time as I see fit to either pass out or play more connect-the-dots. I personally think you could use your dot-connecting to better prove the existence of Nessie. You can kind of see her profile if you take a measured bong hit and look hard enough.
Comment by flyingsirkus — March 26, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
LOL! What is the measurement on that bong hit anyway? (For scientific purposes, of course.)
Comment by Clint — March 26, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
My comment seems to have got lost.
I think this is quite brilliant. I shall be referring to this post in all future arguments with AGW proponents. I used to be one but on the strength of this I have been converted to the truthiness!
Comment by Kav — March 26, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
My comment seems to have got lost.
I think this is quite brilliant. I shall be referring to this post in all future arguments with AGW proponents. I used to be one but on the strength of this I have been converted to the truthiness!
Comment by Kav — March 26, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Ohhh… Good point. Bong hits are easier that photoshopping graphs! Occamz Razor afterall!
Comment by ideonexus — March 26, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
I’m wondering what exactly is that bar graph’s totals are based off of? The amount of time a cooling/warming period is in affect, or the temperature change seen in a cooling/warming period. I’m guessing time, in which case why not use temp difference?
So I’m a bit confused by that graph. What is the temperature side represent? Temperature change off a given base temperature? What’s that base temp? That seems an odd way to plot the graph considering earth’s temp has never stayed the same over the course of its history. Or am I wrong about that?
Comment by Sour Swinger — March 26, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Actually SourSwinger, those are important things to consider in keeping a perspective on this graph and what it can and cannot say. We are examining variability, looking for a trend, but the Earth has been much hotter and much cooler in the past.
The chart in question (not my photoshopped charts (for visitors who don’t get satire)) is based on the HADCRUT 3 data, blue dots representing yearly averages of the data, the red line representing five-year averages.
The Zero baseline for temperature anomalies is an interesting one, as they use the average temperature from 1960 to 1990 rather than the average temperature for the whole chart. I’m not sure why they use that timeframe. It looks like using the whole chart’s average temp would set the zero lower, but then we’d have the problem of the zero climbing over the decades, putting 1980 below the average, and eventually 1990 if current climate models prove accurate over the next 100 years.
They have more up to date versions of the chart here, and an explanation for why January 2008 improperly temporarily skewed the graph here.
Comment by ideonexus — March 27, 2008 @ 12:12 am
ROTFLMAO! This is lovely, especially after seeing so many of the the zealots puffing their chests out taking themselves WAY too seriously. I’m gonna show this to one of my classes next week. Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in days.
Comment by chas — March 27, 2008 @ 1:49 am
I made you a LOLCat:
Comment by flyingsirkus — March 27, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Arrrgh! No preview button!
Comment by flyingsirkus — March 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am