What is the deal with this junk science graph?

Question

This junk science graph was cited to prove that the planet isn't warming:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs.html

It claims to be plotting the global mean temperature during the MSU era (1978-present) of land-ocean data from NCDC. The graph is available direct from NCDC here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

The trend looks about right, as the average global temperature increases from about 14 to 14.5 deg C in the junk science plot (0 to 0.5 deg C anomaly in the actual NCDC plot).

But what are the oscillations plotted in the junk science graph? Is it just connecting the monthly or seasonal global temperature data points? And what's the purpose of plotting the data this way?

Answer 1

With those oscillations that data can’t be global land-ocean data that they are claiming to be using and looks more like hemispheric land, not global ocean. It’s my guess that they are using something like US surface temp data but the oscillations still look too uniform for that.

I too plotted the source they are claiming to be using ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat . In mine http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/3626092455_10358ea81c_b.jpg you can clearly see the 98 el Nino and the Pinatubo eruption and looks nothing like the data they are claiming to be using.

It appears Junkscience is aptly named.

Answer 2

I do believe "Icarus" has saved us all the trouble of answering this one in detail.

These guys like P.P. are so retarded. It isn't simple, so i guess it overstretches their cerebral capacity. Wolves in shepherds clothing!



Global warming, cooling cycles, all part of the one problem. Most life, including human, is dependant on a narrow range of temperatures. So Arctic animals and plants have as narrow a range as a camel. So long as a remnant of their preferred range exists, they exist. Here's the sting: These environments ARE remnants. The beauty of this planet is that somewhere on the planet many animals and plants have found niches, and survived for millions of years.



Mankind; humans have altered the balance, and with the coming of industrialisation, at a highly accelerated pace. We haven't even seen the domino effects from the last 50 years fully played out, and these deniallists propose business as usual, and this proposal relates supposedly to a global and therefor massive proportions by definition. If man has warmed the oceans greatest depths and will warm them more, then we may easily be unable to prevent catastrophic changes anyway.



BUT, we can possibly reduce suffering, and use the time to redirect energy to create a civilisation which is sustainable. If the deniallists persist, and win support then the outcome could be very grim. If they are correct, no harm is done.

If the concerned people are wrong we have only gained by improving the environment, social and financial equity.

Answer 3

properly, many scientists dispute plenty with regard to the international warming ingredient, that is, that the earth is going nonetheless those regular warming and cooling cycles. humorous, nonetheless, that interior the 1970's it replaced into all approximately international cooling and a few estimated a coming ice age. yet no count any ones view in this project the easy actuality is that international is over-populated and the inhabitants could be extra under administration. we can do it now interior the subsequent 2 or 3 generations or we can wait until eventually there is not any determination.

Answer 4

I tried plugging in some of the raw data points into excel. Surprise surprise, I saw nothing like the constant oscillations in their graph. Whether I used a monthly or yearly average, it looked just like a normal random scatter plot with a slight upward trend.



I don't know where they got their temp data from, but it certainly wasn't the data set they cited as the source. My uneducated guess is that they (accidentally, of course) only used data from the southern hemisphere to give it the seasonal fluctuation, then smoothed it out to reduce 'noise', etc. Who knows.



Do you know what article the graph is based on? It seems like something they would use to argue that CO2 levels are dominated by sea surface temp, since the maximums of the two always line up on the graph. Just a hunch though.

Answer 5

I clicked on the link to their"sources", and ALL the ones they cited, showed INCREASED CO2 and INCREASED temps. They don't even read the sources !

The topic of "warming" is getting old.

There are other deadly problems with a substantial increase in CO2 from fossil fuels.

Answer 6

"... and what's the purpose of plotting the data this way?"



To disguise the warming, obviously.

Answer 7

Kinda reminds me of the Mann 'Hockey-Stick' graph ..... remember?.... the one that ruined Mann's reputation/credibility??