How to lie with global warming statistics

The oldest trick in the How to Lie With Statistics book is to truncate the data set.  See how helpful it is to focus on the record from the point in the 19th century when official met recording began.

This is the 4-minute record of the analysis of an ice core 3km in length extracted at a site in Greenland. The core extends back 120,000 years and the last 10,000 have been analysed to obtain an estimate of the ground temperature when the snow fell and turned into a layer of ice.

The illustrations in the video cover the last 4000 years starting when the temperature Greenland was thought to be some 4.5C warmer than it is the present day. In this picture the pointer indicates the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago.

Here we see a low point in the mid 17th century before there was someslight  relief in the 18th century.

And finally the lowest point circa 140 years ago that conveniently concides with the period when meteorological records based on scientific measurements began, giving detailed official records of warming as the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age.

And we are supposed to be alarmed by a return to the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, or if civilization lasts that long, to something like the Holocene Optimum some thousands of years earlier.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to How to lie with global warming statistics

  1. Paul says:

    this is too advanced for the 2+2=5 settled scientists

    The lefty warmists still won’t understand this.

  2. Ian MacCulloch says:

    I think it is an excellent summary as far as it goes. The narrator is raising the fundamental issue of you can’t differentiate between man and naturally occurring results. The end of the ice records does dovetail quite neatly in with the change at the end of the little Ice Age.
    I would be more concerned with the flat line back towards the 10,000 year mark as there is an abrupt change in sea level movement about 6,500 years ago when changes to the sea level flat lined. Now that is not replicated in the core temperature logs so the question then becomes what are they really measuring.
    The sea level changes from 10,000 years to 6,000 years are some of the most rapid ever recorded. What is going on today is but a mere fraction of earlier events.
    In some respects, arguments are being made in isolation rather than in context with global events. That is the area of concern in this summary.

  3. Rafe Champion says:

    Yes the line goes back 8000 years so it should indicate events 6000 years ago.
    I wonder about the precision of the figures as well, it would be good to see bars through the dots to signal some estimate of errors in the measurements.

  4. Weeny says:

    Isn’t it fact that for 95% of earth’s existence it has been warmer than it currently is.

  5. Alan says:

    Thanks Rafe. Is this link the source you used for the video?
    I’m hoping to find the actual documentary source (eg Rumble?)

  6. Justinian the Great says:

    Rafe, assuming this scientist is not a nutter I think you have produced a good factoid. Our temperature data sets commence with the lowest temperatures in 10,000 years, hence it is unsurprising temperatures are now warmer. Linzden has made the same point but starting from the Little Ice Age. Lot’s of other scientists have argued this point in the past but from the cherry picking of time (which this is also and goes both ways) argument but without strongly emphasising the linkage to when thermometer based temperature records began, i.e. at the coldest point. This is before you even tackle questions like reliable world wide coverage. it is also closely related to the Hockey Stick fraud (Steyne law suit). It also goes to the issue that we cannot identify a human / anthropogenic signal to current climate (IPCC best guess is greater than 50%, i.e. could be 50.1% or 99.9%). These differences matter. And regardless of your Climate Change bias they show that current data is impossible to make policy decisions on.

  7. Dr Faustus says:

    …so the question then becomes what are they really measuring.

    Yes indeed.
    It seems to be a ‘preserved’ temperature and, as you point out, very smoothed.
    However the same general observations are seen in other studies of the temperature proxies – ie the sudden post industrial spike is not a peak, nor exceptional within the Holocene.

  8. Baa Humbug says:

    @Rafe
    The ice core is from Greenland not Iceland. I don’t think they drill ice cores in Iceland.

    These proxy studies have academic value, but should never be used to assume the past or predict the future. The error bars would be (should be) much too large for any use other than academic curiosity.

  9. Dr Faustus says:

    While we are being enraged about how The Science respects data, let me present a summary of the CMIP5 climate model intercomparison (not the latest CMIP, but close, and the modelling suite that has driven alarmism over the cliff).

    The 30-odd models were spooled up to hindcast up to 2005 to prove their ‘skill’ – and then let rip to skilfully and conclusively prove we need to shut down the global energy economy. Or fry.

    The discerning viewer will note the close fit between all models and the ‘average global temperature’ prior to 2005. And that they promptly burst into a contradictory spaghetti tangle as soon as they start modelling the future – unconstrained by whatever fudge factors that tied them the historic ’data’.

    This is the dismal shite that is directing our future.

  10. wilrex says:

    For a highly factual, in-depth, scientific, mature, non-biased and well produced series about global temperature, look no further than the four part series now on the ABC 7.30 report.
    You will need no further evidence of the depth of knowledge and presentation that comes out of that dignified and relevant government funded broadcaster.

  11. Eyrie says:

    The “models” of the future are warm biased integration of not quite random noise. Very clever.

  12. jupes says:

    Meanwhile back in Lalaland, SloMo is busy changing global temperatures:

    Scott Morrison inches Australia towards 2050 net zero emissions

    We really do live in the most idiotic times.

  13. MACK says:

    A sight glimmer of realism has emerged with the Environmental Defense Fund finding out that you can’t run a modern economy on solar, wind and batteries: https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/

  14. Dr Faustus says:

    The “models” of the future are warm biased integration of not quite random noise. Very clever.

    Exactly what they are.
    Warm bias comes from delta CO2 = delta Temp
    Noise comes from the various degrees of simplified physics and ocean/biosphere/atmospheric models.

    The Climate Priesthood joins the outputs together in ‘ensembles’ – a dignified and sciency-sounding way of saying ‘average’. And the whole mess looks better as a shaded range block.

  15. billie says:

    the life of Jesus was cherrypicked in the same way in my opinion

    people naturally want to believe in something and the climate religion seems a good alternative to many

    they probably don’t get that they crave a belief in something

    from the outside though, it’s quite scary to watch

  16. Fat Tony says:

    billie says:
    April 21, 2021 at 5:58 pm

    billie – it’s all about the money, always was – always will be.

  17. Rorschach says:

    A really great resource to track long term temperatures [and more particularly the changes to these by HadCRU / GISS etc] is the Climate4you site.

    https://www.climate4you.com/

    Ole Humlum who maintains it is a global treasure. The effort to put this together as a resource is invaluable.

    The discerning viewer will note the close fit between all models and the ‘average global temperature’ prior to 2005.

    On C4U you will find the adjustments that are done to the existing temperature data sets [as at 2008 when the changes began to be monitored by Humlum] to both adjust the “average global temperatures prior to 2005” to match the hindcasts, and of course the adjustments done to current temps to match the predictions.

    Without both … the hind and forecasts would be seen to be absolute trash and garbage.

    Here are the adjustments to GISS for example:

    https://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS%20MaturityDiagram

    You can see how the early part of the 20th Century has been cooled, and how the later part and the 21st have been warmed.

    Without this “adjustment” the CIMP models beyond are useless. Here are the Reykjavik GISS values (in red) versus the Iceland Meteorological data:

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/Reykjavik%20MAAT%201900-2011%20IcelandMetOfficeAndGISS%20WithMonthlyCorrections.gif

    And this issue exists in Australia big time too! One of my retirement plans is to go to the newspaper archives [at trove.nla] and see what the very professional meteorologists recorded and what BoM has now. Some work on this has been done already [not by me].

    http://patcrackpot.blogspot.com/

  18. Chris M says:

    Big push since they cheated out Trump.

    Their time is short; due to solar minimum dropping global temperatures they must act urgently.

  19. Rafe Champion says:

    Thanks MACK, great find, just the kind of thing I am using at present to explain how wind droughts kill the green fantasy. As they wrote
    Average daily output from today’s California solar and wind infrastructure in the winter declines to about a third of the summer peak. Periodic large-scale weather patterns extending over 1,000 kilometers or more, known as dunkelflaute (the German word for dark doldrums), can also drive wind and solar output to low levels across the region that can last days, or even several months.

    That should be the end of the story right there but of course they are just planning, and I don’t think that worst case scenario ever got costed, but even so they were prepared to admit…
    Solar energy has much more generating potential in California than wind energy, so solar power will dominate the renewable portfolio as a result. Because solar resources provide power only when the sun is shining, we found that reliably generating the electricity needed in 2045 from solar and wind power would require building the system up to nearly500 gigawatts of power-generating capacity. This is roughly half the capacity of the entireUnited States electricity generating system today, including nuclear, gas and coal generating stations, hydroelectric dams, and everything else,.

    That was another place where they could have stopped as well. But on they went.

  20. Rorschach says:

    A really great resource to track long term temperatures [and more particularly the changes to these by HadCRU / GISS etc] is the Climate4you site.

    https://www.climate4you.com/

    Ole Humlum who maintains it is a global treasure. The effort to put this together as a resource is invaluable.

    The discerning viewer will note the close fit between all models and the ‘average global temperature’ prior to 2005.

    On C4U you will find the adjustments that are done to the existing temperature data sets [as at 2008 when the changes began to be monitored by Humlum] to both adjust the “average global temperatures prior to 2005” to match the hindcasts, and of course the adjustments done to current temps to match the predictions.

    Without both … the hind and forecasts would be seen to be absolute trash and garbage.

    Here are the adjustments to GISS for example:

    https://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS%20MaturityDiagram

    You can see how the early part of the 20th Century has been cooled, and how the later part and the 21st have been warmed.

    Without this “adjustment” the CIMP models beyond are useless. Here are the Reykjavik GISS values (in red) versus the Iceland Meteorological data:

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/Reykjavik%20MAAT%201900-2011%20IcelandMetOfficeAndGISS%20WithMonthlyCorrections.gif

  21. Rorschach says:

    And this issue exists in Australia big time too! One of my retirement plans is to go to the newspaper archives [at trove.nla] and see what the very professional meteorologists recorded and what BoM has now. Some work on this has been done already [not by me].

    http://patcrackpot.blogspot.com/

  22. Chris M says:

    the life of Jesus was cherrypicked in the same way in my opinion

    If you have additional legitimate info it would be most interesting. There were thousands of witnesses and many were willing to die for what they saw.

    people naturally want to believe in something and the climate religion seems a good alternative to many

    Yes, except – like Darwinian evolution – we are scratching to see much evidence of this fable.

    they probably don’t get that they crave a belief in something

    We all believe in things. But it’s always wise to test our beliefs.

    from the outside though, it’s quite scary to watch

    Yes, in the USA they are trying to set up Government funded climate corp like the Hitler Youth.

  23. Ragu says:

    Rafe

    Speaking of statistics. I posted a paper from a medical journal, a few weeks back, and they had put a p-value of 0.0001 to a mean %.
    Is that scenario just dishonest bullshit?

  24. Aynsley Kellow says:

    It has been quite dunkelflaute for a couple of days here in Hobart.

  25. Ellen of Tasmania says:

    it is also closely related to the Hockey Stick fraud
    (Steyne law suit).

    Did anyone else listen to BBC’s recent ‘HardTalk’ interview with ‘Mr Hockey Stick’? I listened to it last night. Spruiking his new book. Apparently, Mann was and is right about everything. (Steyne was definitely not mentioned.)

    An absolute ‘Softer-than-a-goose-down-pillow-Talk’.

  26. DaveR says:

    @Justinian

    Our temperature data sets commence with the lowest temperatures in 10,000 years,

    Our temperature data sets commence with the lowest instrumental temperatures in 10,000 years,

    The Australian BOM have been pulling this trick for a long time, and continue to do so today, without almost any media focus. They conveniently start any discussion or graphics of “Australia’s temperature record” from say 1910, designed to avoid the embarrassment of the Federation Drought (1896-1903) when temperatures were demonstrably higher than today (and there was significant loss of life). They also refuse to use older continuous temperature series that go back to the 1860s.

    Oh yes, and then they adjusted the measured Federation Drought temperatures downwards. Nothing to see here.

Comments are closed.