Are WUWT graphs just Rorschach inkblots with Titles?

Graphicconception –

That’s really my point. Your two graphs are clearly similar – but they are not the same. The common explained variance is 67% (the unexplained variance is 33%). I downloaded the CRUT3 data and calculated it myself, so I’m sure. The simplistic explanation is that mean annual global temperature (for the periods 1895-1946 and 1957-2008, at least) are mostly (67%) caused by the same thing(s) – but something(s) else is causing them to be different (33%) (1/3-rd).

Whatever the graph does in the future, the same scientific and mathematical requirements will apply. If, by then, we have more accurate definitions of the various component signals and/or examples of the current pattern repeating itself, we will know more than we do now. However, the rules for how we know what we know will still be the same.

======

I don’t know which is more depressing - Maxx’s inane answer or the fact that at least three people think that Maxx has an informed opinion.

As others have said, the graph is an excellent example of cherry picking; both the data set and the start point. It is a product of the natural variability in the system, but the time period is too short to reliably indicate the underlying trend. Indeed it is, or should be, obvious that the strong El Nino year of 1998 has tended to flatten the trend line.

2014 was the warmest year in the the thermometer record and was a neutral year in El Nino terms. With 2015 almost certain to be even warmer, I'd be surprised if they are able to make this claim for much longer.

It's just a simple graph of the un-manipulated RSS satellite data for the last 18 years that shows man-made Global Warming is a myth and a SCAM. It's easy to read, only Alarmists have difficulty with it.

The experts claim to understand the pictures below.

One shows human induced global warming and the other shows natural global warming, allegedly.

If the curve starts rising in the future, will you be emphasizing the fact that it might still be flat really or will you be saying look, I told you it would warm again?

So, the answer is no. WUWT is no more guilty of suggesting that a flat line means no temperature rise than anyone else is for showing a rising line and claiming that it shows an increase.

Which reminds me of an inkblot story (somewhat cleaned up) ...

The psychiatrist shows the patient an inkblot. "What does that look like?" he asked.

"It looks like a man and a woman holding hands," said the patient.

"What about this one?" asked the psychiatrist.

"It looks like a man and a woman cuddling," said the patient.

"And this one?"

"It is a man and a woman kissing," said the patient.

"You have filthy, one track mind," said the psychiatrist disgustedly.

"Why are you shouting at me", asked the patient, "They're your filthy pictures!"

"And there are no scientific laws or theories that justify using the graphical data for this purpose." This method is the same method many of those same scientists who made that inane statement were using to convince us back in the eighties. It is the same method that little Jimmy Hansen supposedly used to lie to Congress back in the late eighties. We now know that his data was doctored. The greenies made up the rules and now they are crying that the rules are no good. What a sick bunch of hypocrites!

NO. WUWT has a huge reference section with everything from ocean temps, atmospheric, solar. ice caps and so on, which is hugely useful for anyone interested in such things.

How you interpretate such graphs as the one you show is up to you, but my impression is the same as nearly all the climate scientists, 'That there is an ongoing Pause/Hiatus'

Stupid climate deniers. It a graph was the severity of the warming trend. In other words, there is warming. Are climate deniers using this graph as proof of no warming. If they are, they are completely stupid.

Pretty easy to figure out.....a simple graph that tracks 18 years, five months of temps.

How one chooses to use it is their decision.

Has more credibility than the (now discredited) Hockeystick.

no. inkblots are more meaningful

i agree with s