21 August 2015

Wishful trendline on Tamino wildfire graph?

Stats guru Tamino is like the bizarro superman, the anti-hero, of the statistics world, using his statistical powers to mislead his readers rather than inform. In a 2 1/2 year old post, he attempts to debunk a Washington Post article.

He graphs US wildland fire acreage and adds a curiously extreme red trendline. It would be nice to know if that red line was algorithm generated or custom-manipulated.

Look how close to the top of the data range his trendline gets just before the graph ends at the right. At the year 2012 the data and the trendline are almost equal, but the trendline should stick more to the middle of the data range, like Tamino does for the earlier years of the graph.

Could this be some sort of wishful thinking on Tamino's part, really hoping wildfires will increase, to prove CO2 causes Armageddon? As if a degree or two of air warming can increase wood fires with an ignition temperature of 300C.

(They'll claim warming causes more fire via more drought like the current California one. But NOAA says the oceans, not AGW, caused this drought.)

Next, compare the wildfire acreage with rising CO2, or temperature, and you'll see there's not much relation.

Temp (red line), CO2 (green line)
If CO2 causes more fires why did rising CO2 cause falling wildfires up until the year 1990?

Thinking Tamino's trendline is a bit skewed, I graphed the data and drew freehand a trendline (red and purple line) I believe is fairer and more toward the middle of the data range at both ends of the graph, not just one end. Using only data to 2012 to match Tamino's graph:

When you overlay mine with his you can see his line is much steeper toward the right and really takes off:

Tamino's post was written in 2013 so it is expected that the last two years of data wouldn't be on his graph.

2013 and 2014 data did not pan out as Tamino had so wished; doom-a-geddon once again postponed. Here's with those two years added:

These two more recent years had a downturn in wildfire acreage. With these two years added the trendline (black and white checker) should be even less extreme than Tamino's trendline:

Now if you take just the last few years and put a linear trendline on it, the acreage is actually falling, totally defying Tamino's trendline. Greenie activists foiled again by Gaia!

Tamino objected to the Washington Post article author George Will using wildfire count rather than acreage to show a declining trend. It's true acreage may indeed be a better measure of total wildfire, but even that trend doesn't show any particular relation to either temperature or CO2.

And in any case it's only the wildland area of one country. The global data is limited, but what we do have shows no uptrend:

The drought in America's west is more likely the cause of increased wildfires, and the drought is caused by ocean cycles, not CO2 or global average temperature which hasn't warmed for 18 1/2 years. Worldwide, as well as no fire increase, there's also no drought increase:

The above graph from the Bob Tisdale blog. See also the drought section of the extreme weather page here. That page summarises the utter lack of climate crisis in just about any climate metric you care to mention. Now the lack of global fire increase can be added to the long list of failed AGW predictions.

Also worth a look is the following page regarding precipitation trends around the world. That page is hilariously named Precipitation Patterns due to Global Heating yet when you look at the graphs some go up some go down and some areas stay the same, with no particular trend overall.

One day, a few years from now, the AGW scare will be dead and Tamino and his fellow 'world changers' will have to move on to some other scam to foist on the people at large.

06 August 2015

Manufacturing sea level rise acceleration

It's claimed that both increased land ice melt and ocean heat uptake are occurring. Melting land ice is supposedly on the increase, and the missing heat of the global warming pause is supposedly going into the ocean.

If the missing heat was miraculously going into the deep ocean it would cause thermal expansion, but this expansion is not observed [1, 2, 3].

For there to be both increased land ice melt and ocean heat uptake there must surely be significant sea level rise acceleration (though some like David Appell disagree), yet no acceleration is evident in any individual tide gauge [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Global satellite altimetry shows no acceleration either:

(See also)

So an acceleration must be manufactured by up-tweaking:

Obama can stop sea level rise acceleration...simply by stopping all the up-tweaking! [1, 2]

You can see above in the pre-tweaked data a deceleration around 2005 that was unacceptable to the climate gravy-train-fraud.

But even that up-tweaking's not enough because all it did was eliminate the 2005 to 2015 deceleration and restored it to a straight line trend; there's still no acceleration. So different data sets must be spliced together to finally produce the desired acceleration in sea level rise:

And voilĂ : like magic your theory is proven...by changing the facts! See how easy climate science is?!

Now I take this up-tweaked product of govt-funded consensus-science and compare it to the New York tide gauge data I plotted and you can see the up-tweaking fraud laid bare:

CSIRO's in on the act too taking a non-trend in individual tide gauges and homogenising an uptrend, the up-tweaking even surpassing that of satellite up-tweaking with its GIA adjustment.

CSIRO Certified Homogenisation Up-tweaked ✔
Of course there are local differences in sea level. But these are small and cancel each other out. For example there was local sea level upswell on the US eastern seaboard in recent years [1, 2], but even that didn't have any noticeable effect on the NY tide gauge.

When you take a broad cross-section across many areas and there's still no global trend, it's clear some up-tweaking tricks are being used to create upward trends where none exists.

Claims of accelerated land ice mass loss in Greenland of Antarctica are also not substantiated in these sea level rise observations, nor in theory either: it snowing more during warm times, more than offsetting any increased ice melt at the edges from warming [1, 2].

Claims of GRACE and other satellite measures of accelerated land ice loss are too often skewed by arbitrary glacial isostatic adjustments (guesswork) – bias can creep in.

The above graph is supposed to show how greenhouse warming's still heating the earth. Yet it is not explained why the air should stop warming in 1998 and all greenhouse heat suddenly move exclusively into the ocean.

It's glaring holes like this that make AGW theory look silly; it's not science when every observation is skewed in favour of a pre-decided outcome. Too often data is changed to suit theory instead of the other way around, in order to keep the AGW gravy train rolling.

And anyway, if all of the AGW heat (some 93%? [1,2,3]) goes into the ocean so readily then it's not doing harm on the surface, so why the need to spend trillions on it? Problem solved: the ocean ate my warming.

There's no anomalous warming from greenhouse gases or any other source, and any warming that does occur is a good thing for the planet and its inhabitants.

08 July 2015

Robert Scribbler only accepts comments that agree with him

I tried to publish a comment on the recent Robert Scribbler blog post regarding recent Arctic weather (of course blamed on CO2): 


Mine was #comment-43955. 

It was rejected and doesn't even appear in the moderation queue anymore. Other comments with higher numbers than my comment have since been published.

Here is my rejected comment. No rudeness, just a contrary view:

Strange that there's an improvement in Arctic ice, yet models predict increasing fragility. If anything the Arctic ice loss slowdown should reduce the doominess of models. Usually models conform to reality not the other way around.
Last two years has seen a recovery in volume

Arctic extent has boomed in the last month:
No evidence these natural changes in weather/climate are influenced by CO2.

Such a shame dissenting views aren't allowed on Robert Scribbler's website. Contrary views are the lifeblood of scientific discussions. An echo-chamber of one's own ideas serves no-one.