Interesting graphs and charts department

[ZenGum]

"checking email"??? in 1974?!?!?!

[BigV]

yes.

zero percent.



come to think about it, what were you doing in 1974 when this hit the charts?

[ZenGum]

Probably crapping myself, maybe learning to walk.

I'm pretty sure there was no email checking involved.

[ZenGum]

Holy moolah!

[classicman]

From here ...

[classicman]

missed one ...

[BigV]

It's about Goldilocks, "just right", not only about size. :-)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The vehicle cost calculater make too many assumptions that are out of whack.

[Happy Monkey]

[Gravdigr]

How I view that chart:

[Happy Monkey]

Climate change skeptics sometimes say that temperatures are actually decreasing. They do this by picking a small span of years where there was a downward trend, while ignoring the long term upward trend. When there's a new record high, they start saying that temperatures are actually decreasing since that new date.

[Undertoad]

I saw that post and I am bothered by it. What are all his data points?

Here's the graph at Wikipedia's global warming page, which is similar but more understandable:



Annual mean, that seems like a sensible way to go, since that's all four seasons. Dude's got like twenty data points every 5 years, what is that data?

So... why did he start his graph in 1973? When you look at the annual mean on Wikipedia's graph, 1973 is the end of a three-decade period of no warming, and the beginning of three decades of great warming.

He has cropped the data to fit his narrative, doing exactly what he's accusing the skeptics of doing but on like a century scale rather than a decade scale.

Am I wrong? Tell me where. And how far out should the graph go before we understand what's happening?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I saw that post and I am bothered by it. What are all his data points?

Here's the source.

So... why did he start his graph in 1973? When you look at the annual mean on Wikipedia's graph, 1973 is the end of a three-decade period of no warming, and the beginning of three decades of great warming.

He has cropped the data to fit his narrative, doing exactly what he's accusing the skeptics of doing but on like a century scale rather than a decade scale.

Am I wrong? Tell me where.

I don't see any starting point on Wikipedia's graph that whould have changed the narrative much, should they have cropped it differently. A line would still go up. Maybe a curve would fit better if they'd started it in 1940, but the curve would still go up.

I searched for "global warming 1973" on Google, and one skeptic also picked 1973 to do his analysis. His reasoning was:

Originally Posted by Roy Spencer

I will restrict the analysis to 1973 and later since (1) this is the primary period of warming allegedly due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the period having the largest number of monitoring sites has been since 1973; and (3) a relatively short 37-year record maximizes the number of continuously operating stations, avoiding the need to handle transitions as older stations stop operating and newer ones are added.

Perhaps similar reasons were chosen for the 1973 cutoff on the original graph as well.

And how far out should the graph go before we understand what's happening?

As far as possible, I suppose, depending on the type of data being included.

[Undertoad]

A line would still go up, just wouldn't look so pretty and convincing.

I like this 1973 notion because, maybe that's it; there has been warming on a geological scale -- since glaciers covered NY State in 20,000 B.C. -- and man-made causes may have accelerated it post 1973.

It has always bothered me that the warming on some graphs goes back to 1830. Mankind wasn't doing anything much at that point. There were only 1B people on the earth, as opposed to the 7B today, and those 1B were still mostly digging in the dirt.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It has always bothered me that the warming on some graphs goes back to 1830. Mankind wasn't doing anything much at that point. There were only 1B people on the earth, as opposed to the 7B today, and those 1B were still mostly digging in the dirt.

Something to do with the industrial revolution, maybe?