2011-01-31 22:58:06Graphical representation of Monckton's cherry picking
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144

My graphical and illustrating skills are pretty weak, so I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in trying an idea I had.

 

Monckton cherry picks a few years from different datasets to support what he's saying, and ignores everything else. Could we have a few graphs showing loads of data (I'm thinking 30-40 datasets here) with the bits Monckton used highlighted somehow and the bits he hides highlighted differently? If it was done with good graphic design I think it could be pretty high impact.

2011-01-31 23:02:37
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.211

It sounds like a great idea.

(But I don't have any graphic-arts skills either.)

2011-01-31 23:08:51Big fan of this kind of idea
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

I took this approach in a critique of Steve Goddard. It was probably a mistake as all it did was send his new blog traffic. Nevertheless, I couldn't resist the chance to post these two graphs:

 

So if someone wants to write a post and needs help plotting a graph like this, don't hesitate to ask for help. I or someone else can help you.

 

2011-02-01 01:35:27This is a really good idea
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135

I’m envisioning it as several graphs (which could be spread out over a blog post or grouped together in a composite graphic like the “all human fingerprints” graphic), in which the data selected by Monckton are coloured blue (for “cool”) and the rest of the data are coloured red (for “warm”).

2011-02-01 06:03:07snow cover
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
We could do this for the snow cover data, if you've still got the file I sent you, John.  Monckton only looked at the winter of 2008-2009, so just December '08 to February '09 from that entire 40+ year record.
2011-02-01 08:31:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Yes, one could also add SAT anomalies and Arctic sea-ice to the list-- he has cherry-picked from those records as well.

2011-02-01 08:57:04
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.211

Suggestion as to format:

Step 1: Show Monckton's version of the data, and the conclusion he draws from his presentation

Step 2: Now show ALL the data, with Monckton's selection highlighted, and state the better-informed decision.

 

Rinse & Repeat

2011-02-01 10:03:35
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.211
And maybe mark, in step 2, the section Monckton selected with a small bunch of cherries...
2011-02-01 13:49:11Monckton and Arctic sea ice
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135

Actually I’ve just remembered this old SkS post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Just_Fine.html

It does a similar thing, comparing the two data points Monckton cherry-picked to the entire dataset.

Incidentally this should be added to the list of SkS posts on Monckton.

2011-02-01 13:56:52Arctic sea ice
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
I think it was that Arctic sea ice post that gave me the idea to do the sea level rise cherry picking post. I've added it to the list of SkS posts on Monckton. Thanks for the suggestion (I'll make this editable in the future too).
2011-02-01 14:13:59comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.14.78
Do we need a rebuttal to the Arctic Temperature claim by Monckton?

I think that could be put together easily (he claims it was warmer in the 1940s.
2011-02-01 18:07:44Yes to Arctic warmer in the 1940s rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
This has been on the to-do list for a long while.
2011-02-01 18:54:55comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.14.78
How long a post do you need. It seems like it is very quick to do a rebuttal of.


Robert Way
2011-02-01 19:12:20As long as it needs to be and no longer
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Would probably Need to check where this argument comes from, to see what data they use to support it. There are links at http://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=93
2011-02-02 03:45:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John and Robert,

Monckton uses this particular canard quite often.  I found it here:

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009)

"Temperatures in the Arctic and in Greenland were warmer by up to 3 Fahrenheit degrees in the late 1930s and early 1940s than they are at present"

See here.

Right, the CCC analysis.  That ought to do the "trick".  I was looking at individual GHCN station data from GISTEMP, could only find three sites on Greenland that had continuous records going back to 1920-- so the CCC data are much better.  Did they do an analysis specifically for Greenland?

Also, this graphic kind puts a dent in Monckton's claim (used 1935-1945 base period to be consistent with his time frame when the temperature were allegedly warmer than present, 250 km smoothing.  Image below is the same, but for using 1200 km smoothing.:

 

 

 


 

2011-02-02 07:30:05Arctic Post
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Hey everyone, can I get some thoughts on this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Temperature_Change.html

cheers.