Pick your temps to prove your point.

USA Today tweeted this graphic yesterday with the statement: “The colors on the map show temperature changes over the past 22 years (1991-2012) compared with the 1901-1960 average”.

Image

Why did they compare 1991-2012 to 1901-1960?  Why compare a 22 year average to an earlier 60 year average?  Why skip 1961-1990?  I can only assume that they tried various combinations to get the best looking graph which best supported the statement that they wanted to make.

This is what I’ve learned in years of following the global warming climate change hysteria: ask questions and look at the big picture.  A good question to ask is “how was the data collected?”.  Surfacestations.org is one place to start.  Many climate measuring stations have been shut down and many others are in drastically different environments now which means that historical comparisons are biased.  Some stations are surrounded by asphalt or located next to air conditioning units both of which increase ambient temperatures.

People can pick a time frame to show whatever trend it is that they’d like to emphasize.  The blog uddebatt.wordpress.com has excellent examples.  Pay attention to the y-axis on the graphs because that can also be used to exaggerate small differences.

Also, don’t forget that an average is in the middle so, for whatever time frame is considered, approximately half of the years will be below average and half will be above average.  Change the time frame, change the average and the pattern.  A longer time frame is always better to consider natural climate patterns.  For example, Jo Nova’s blog has graphs from David Nappi, a geologist, of temperatures in Greenland over millions of years.

https://i2.wp.com/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Climate has always changed and will always change.  Our role is to adapt to that change.

 

Note:  If you’re interested in global warming and climate change, you need to follow Watts Up With That.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Pick your temps to prove your point.

  1. ” I can only assume that they tried various combinations to get the best looking graph which best supported the statement that they wanted to make.”

    “People can pick a time frame to show whatever trend it is that they’d like to emphasize.”

    Like the Lappi graph, right?

    GISP2 “present day” = 1950

    So the graph ends 95 years before that. So nothing after 1855 is shown.

    To quote R.B. Alley (as noted on the graph)

    “Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s