3 ms·
DM left out the first 8 months of 1997. Intuitively, it's fair that January is colder than September, but HADCRUT4 is temperature anomalies, so that's probably
by mseebach2 14y ago
DM left out the first 8 months of 1997. Intuitively, it's fair that January is colder than September, but HADCRUT4 is temperature anomalies, so that's probably what went wrong.
That said, I think the article cherrypicks some (it seems to me) very minor issues, adds in an appeal to their own authority, while neglecting to explain why the conclusion that there "was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures [in the last 16 years]" is wrong. You can cherrypick any value within one year of the beginning and end of the graph that will show anywhere between ~0.3° rise and ~5.5° fall.
- ars 14y agoThe 1997 slopes are repeated at 3 other times in the graph. Cutting them out makes little difference to the overall conclusion which is that this graph shows random variation and no long term trend. If the blog author wanted to make some kind of point he should have included MUCH longer graphs, not just half a year.
- mseebach2 14y ago> If the blog author wanted to make some kind of point he should have included MUCH longer graphs, not just half a year. They do, in the "looked like" link of the second paragraph (http://sargasso.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hadcrut4_a.jpg http://sargasso.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hadcrut4_a.jpg). But that doesn't change the fact that they're beating on DM for misrepresenting the data, rather than making the argument that 16 years to too short.