Hall of Shame

A Collection of the Silly, Misleading and Profoundly Wrong

And done with a proper regression, over the entire RSS record:

For additional perspective, same thing but using HADCRUT4:

The classic Spencer 95% of observations are wrong ...

 ... and what it should actually look like when properly baselined.

Updated February 27th, 2015, same trick:

And with correct baselining:

No, that's not Mann's Hockey stick, see this post for more details.

No citations other than the vague one to the IPCC.  Not a temperature estimate in sight.  Games with small numbers -- only 13% available for decarbonization measures! -- and a straw man to boot.  At 600 ppmv, the IPCC estimates are 1.5-4.5 °C, with 3.0 °C considered most likely as of AR5.  We're trying to keep it under 2 °C.  From the horse's mouth:
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.
That last bit is bolded because it just cannot be said enough times.

More screwy games with the "diminishing" effects of rising CO2 concentrations.  No citations, and for good reason; it's completely made up.  Whoever did this simply took the natural log of CO2 concentration and multiplied by 0.5 and subtracted that value from the previous bin.  A good primer on how to do a reasonable back-of-envelope calculation can be found in this RealClimate post.

Same plot as above, updated.

Anomaly from what reference period?  By my eyeballs, the divergence at 2014 looks to be 0.25 °C which is about correct.  By why a bar chart?  Other than that, it's Cato Institute, so it must be wrong ...

"Why not plot it in Kelvin?" I ask.  "It's what it looks like on an old-style Fahrenheit bulb alcohol thermometer," comes the answer.  You just can't fix that sort of stupid.  This has got to be my favorite one of the bunch so far.

1 comment:

  1. Here is a good one:

    It was used to claim upwards revision of recent temperatures, but in fact, is a consequence of a downward revision of the 1880's (done by NASA in 2012). The clue is in the choice of baseline, coupled with the mismatching Y axis values on the two overlaid plots ..