Comments on: Spot the Hockey Stick #n

By: Dave Brewer

Dave Brewer — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:44:43 +0000

Chu also has his bibles mixed up. His slide 30 shows 1962 as the year “The Population Bomb goes to press”. In fact, 1962 was “Silent Spring”. The Population Bomb was first published in 1968.

By: curious

curious — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:24:35 +0000

Noted – like the new post on trends!

By: John M

John M — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:04:24 +0000

Re: curious (#50), I suppose I could, but with such an old graphic, you'd think someone would have told him it was time to "move on".

By: curious

curious — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:22:10 +0000

Re: John M (#49), I think the best thing to do is to write to him to ask the source of the graphic – perhaps he’ll be grateful for the clarification

By: John M

John M — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:26:25 +0000

Re: pete (#46),

Wow, if he was just casually using any old figure, it’s a good thing this didn’t turn up first in his intern’s Google search.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lambh23.jpg

By: RomanM

RomanM — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:52:05 +0000

Re: pete (#46),

Or he's just thrown together some powerpoint slides and used the first picture he found on Google.

So, we're talking some sort of amateur production here...

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:32:32 +0000

RE #40-45, the important part of Chu's graph on slide 7 of the linked 4/7 talk is not the instrumental record, but the fact that he is passing the long-discredited HS itself off as science. The graph he shows is essentially Fig. 1(b) of TAR WG1, with the captions rearranged, and some background coloring added in. This in turn evidently comes from MBH99, even though it is truncated at 1000 AD. See, eg, TAR HS graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy. Even the politicized IPCC AR4 had the discretion to suppress this graph as a stand-alone figure. Let's hope Barton gets a chance to nail him on this one as well as the source of the Alaskan oil. Chu's equation of 3°C with 11°F in the talk linked by Norman Yarvin (#11) is downright bizarre, since this appears to be a prepared talk and not just an off-the-cuff slip of the mental calculator. Any 8th grade science whiz with a pencil and paper could tell him that 3°C = 5.4°F. Chu is 100% wrong in more ways than one! (Speaking of corrections, the Arctic Circle is not at 60°N as per Roger Dueck #38, but rather at 66° 33', though some might count 60°N as "sub-arctic." At least Roger, unlike Chu, is only about 6% wrong.)

By: pete

pete — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:26:33 +0000

Re: RomanM (#45),

He is DELIBERATELY CHOOSING a graph which ignores what has happened since 1998.

Or he's just thrown together some powerpoint slides and used the first picture he found on Google.

By: RomanM

RomanM — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:03:47 +0000

Re: pete (#44),

Chu isn't deliberately choosing to end the graph at 1998. That's just where the graph he used ends.

Blame it on the graph! He is DELIBERATELY CHOOSING a graph which ignores what has happened since 1998. Up-to-date graphs are available although the behaviour of the temperatures may not conform with the advocacy of the AGW message. That's NOT opportunistic?

By: pete

pete — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:22:45 +0000

Re: John M (#43), 1999 is relevant because that's when the graph was made. It's not "opportunistic" to use all the data available. Chu isn't deliberately choosing to end the graph at 1998. That's just where the graph he used ends.