At least on paper... Google offers a fancy tool to sample the frequency of any words in its vast and growing pool of scanned books. A search of 'global warming yields the following figure
The hockey stick, on the other hand, continued its recovery from the Little Ice Age without any remarkable jumps or acceleration after 1998. Is its recent declined the result of natural variability or the response to evil forgings ?
Interesting but it is diagnostically less conclusive. Confer also my monitoring (Germany):
ReplyDelete"In later November 2009 we were able to watch Goggle's claim that the search engine got more than 27.000.000 hits for "climategate". 27.000.000 -- even already without attracting interest from most of the "Main Stream Media" ("quality"/"prestiged" papers/media etc.) Guess what! In mid December 2009 the Climategate term generated a greater number than the search results for "global warming" or "Co2".
But during that December something happened to climategate: nearly per day millions of ghits were seen disappearing, never to be seen again. Contemporary Google's algorithm asserts for example to count for "climategate" 3.500.000 and for climategate (searched without quotation marks) ~850.000 ghits. On the "other" side ghits for the search terms "global warming" and "CO2" increased immense by now to ~42.000.000 (GW) and ~41.000.000 (CO2)."
If I remember that correctly then the search term "global warming" generated an alleged result that was about three times higher than the alleged result for (")CO2(") around this time last year. What happend that CO2 triplicated this year it's number of Google search results? All in all, very alarming unequivocal(?) rises, don't you think? What do we know? Why did "global warming" numbers rose only relatively little? Will CO2 triplicate next year? What will happen to global warming?
namenlos
The graphics in this posting are not the internet hits. They indicate only the hits within the books scanned by Google
ReplyDeleteIs that IPCC as in the Irish Peat Conservation Council or the Independent Policy Complaints Commission?
ReplyDeleteIf you search for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change you will get this result. Of course, a hockey shape appears more pronounced if you include years before 1988 when it was founded ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting.Just two comments:
ReplyDelete1. If you google the term "global warming", there is also a peak around 1900, which is consistent with the IPCC graph.
2. By plotting simultaneously the terms "erosion" (as an example of instantaneous problem, which effects directly the population) and the "global warming" for the period:1800-today (even though that the comparison is possible only the last 30 year), the result is impressive for several reasons (direct link: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=global+warming%2Cerosion&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3).
A. The word erosion is mentioned 3-20 times more often the last 30 years.
B. After 1995 the trend of global warming is stabilized, but there is a clear fall for the erosion line.
C. As the plots are referred to bibliographic references and the books do not expire, we can sum up the time series and then the difference between the two quantities is really extreme.
I don't want and methodically I cannot generalize, but this comparison makes me wondering if the people understands the significance of the climate or they consider more important the present than the future.
@Reiner
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty conclusive evidence that the IPCC caused global warming.
Richard - wonderful!
ReplyDeleteJust a minute: "It began....in 1987?" But it stopped in 1998! That's 11 years of warming versus 12 years of no warming. Since they seem to use electrical control theory to describe the climate then this is a ramp input followed by minimally damped oscillations: Not much of a relationship to carbon dioxide increase.
ReplyDeletejgdes -- this is a discussion about data on the coverage in books of the issues of global warming. Kind of joke :-)
ReplyDeleteI wonder what meaning the term "hockey stick" had in the references before the year 2000. Do the books used as samples include those on sports?
ReplyDelete