Bad Correlation: Climate Hype Vs Global Temperature

Posted: November 28, 2012 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, climate, Cycles, data, flames, humour, Philosophy


Etc Etc

  1. Tim Cullen says:

    Bad correlations can be “corrected” in five easy steps:
    1. Reset TSI to a lower benchmark with SORCE-TIM
    2. Throw a few IPCC embarrassments to the wolves
    — pause for bad winter —
    3. Return CO2 to a negative feedback
    4. Rerun models
    5. Bingo! Back in business: Catastrophic CO2 Climate Cooling

    Steps 1 and 2 seem to be going according to plan [so far].
    Just ask Rajendra…

  2. Doug Proctor says:

    Sorry, Rog – don’t know where the temp graph came from. Followed the links. Didn’t find it.

    But did find some rubbish that the sea-levels are rising at 3.2 mm/yr. Just looked at the sea-level rise graphs from a few days ago (a blog on here? forget). If they took the last two years of the data and projected linearly, then okay.

    But that is what the worriers of the world do, don’t they? Consider that yesterday they had 1 bad thing happen, that today they had 2 bad things happen and project the “pattern” to the end of the year when they now expect the planet explodes.

  3. Zeke says:

    Bennett: “We do know that consistently all of the indicators of climate change of global warming, have moved much faster than scientists have been expecting…”

    Lilley: “So the scientists have all been wrong?”

    Bennett: “Everything has been at the upper end of projections, or well beyond the projections…

    Lilley: “Except the temperature…”

    I thought it was delightful the way that Lilley slipped in the fact that he had to agree to IPCC reports before appearing on the program, and that the alarmist claims on the BBC were actually in excess of anything the IPCC was saying. And he did well showing that the subsidies merely move jobs from one sector to another. His zingers are pretty funny in print.

    [Reply] Peter Lilley is quick on the draw – smart guy.

  4. Craig M says:

    Doug believe this is the 3.2 rubbish you saw. Saw a brief write up in today’s Metro (free london paper) which by the alarmist press release was enough for me to switch off:

    “The investigation, led by Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), gauged the accuracy of computer simulations that the IPCC used in its landmark Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.”

    A free pint of local ale if you can spot the word observation. It is getting to the point where the models say “it’s warm outside” when there’s a heatwave melting your fridge.

    I only wish people had the capability of distinguishing reality from the models as we have a very false sense of climate reality.

  5. Craig M says:

    Erm I meant cold not warm (i.e. models go opposite)..these models have me very confused these days 😉

  6. Arfur Bryant says:

    “A free pint of local ale if you can spot the word observation.”


    o from POtsdam
    b from By
    s from Stefan
    e from StEfan
    r from Rahmstorf
    v from inVestigation
    a from RAhmstorf
    t from RahmsTorf
    i from Institute
    o from cOmputer
    n from simulatioNs

    Can I get my pint of real ale now please? 🙂

  7. AJB says:

    Aftershaft Norms
    Farthermost Fans
    Fantasm Frothers
    Transfer Fathoms
    Trashman Efforts
    Naffest Shortarm
    Hamsters Affront
    Shafters Formant

  8. AJB says:

    Maintop’s Duettist
    Spitted Mutations.

    Attuned Optimists
    Stamp Destitution
    Midst Outpatient’s
    Tautest Midpoints

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roger, does your graph start and end with the same month? It should to avoid using the seasonal cycle to create the trend.