13 deleted 56 characters in body
source | link

tl;dr- This claim is false and has been retracted. The figure shown in the claim is wrong because it used one data sourceinterpretation method before 2010 and then switched to another after that, causing a false trend.

As explained in @DikranMarsupial's answer, it appears that the source of this claim has retracted it as mistaken. Additionally the webpage The website that hosted the original plot, "Weather Bell Models", appears to have has removed that plotit from their page, though they appear to still have other graphs with the same mistake.

"Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph" (2017-08-14) explains their take on these events. As they tell it, the original plot produced by Ryan Maue was factually incorrect, andleading the GWPF to retract their claim asked about in this question based on that plot has been retracted on that basis.

However it turns out that, the plot was already known to be bad, as. This falsehood was pointed on out to Maue on Twitter over a year before the claim was made:

The above tweet shows both the incorrect plot that this claim was based on and a correctcorrected version of it used on the second data source over the same time span.

tl;dr- This claim has been retracted. The figure shown in the claim is wrong because it used one data source before 2010 and then switched to another after that, causing a false trend.

As explained in @DikranMarsupial's answer, it appears that the source of this claim has retracted it as mistaken. Additionally the webpage that hosted the original plot, "Weather Bell Models", appears to have removed that plot from their page.

"Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph" (2017-08-14) explains their take on these events. As they tell it, the original plot produced by Ryan Maue was factually incorrect, and the claim asked about in this question based on that plot has been retracted on that basis.

However it turns out that the plot was already known to be bad, as pointed on out Twitter over a year before the claim was made:

The above tweet shows both the incorrect plot that this claim was based on and a correct version of it used on the second data source over the same time span.

tl;dr- This claim is false and has been retracted. The figure shown in the claim is wrong because it used one data interpretation method before 2010 and then switched to another after that, causing a false trend.

As explained in @DikranMarsupial's answer, the source of this claim has retracted it as mistaken. The website that hosted the original plot has removed it from their page, though they appear to still have other graphs with the same mistake.

"Climate Science Denial Group GWPF Admits It Used False Temperature Graph" (2017-08-14) explains their take on these events. As they tell it, the original plot produced by Ryan Maue was factually incorrect, leading the GWPF to retract their claim based on that plot.

However, the plot was already known to be bad. This falsehood was pointed out to Maue on Twitter over a year before the claim was made:

The above tweet shows both the incorrect plot that this claim was based on and a corrected version of it.

12 added 138 characters in body
source | link

@DavidHammen's answer has more technical information and perspective on the topic.

@DavidHammen's answer has more technical information and perspective on the topic.

11 Larger image of the tweet so that the comparison between the wrong and right graphs in it can be seen.
source | link

enter image description hereenter image description here

In theThe above, we can see that there's a significant dip after they switched data sets. But since it's a 90-day running average, the dip isn't immediate; the points within 90 days of the switch are using an average of tweet shows both data sets, hiding the dipincorrect plot that this claim was based on and a bit. For example, the point 45 days after the switch should be 50% fromcorrect version of it used on the oldsecond data set and 50% fromsource over the new data setsame time span.

enter image description here

In the above, we can see that there's a significant dip after they switched data sets. But since it's a 90-day running average, the dip isn't immediate; the points within 90 days of the switch are using an average of both data sets, hiding the dip a bit. For example, the point 45 days after the switch should be 50% from the old data set and 50% from the new data set.

enter image description here

The above tweet shows both the incorrect plot that this claim was based on and a correct version of it used on the second data source over the same time span.

10 deleted 1 character in body
source | link
9 added 634 characters in body
source | link
8 deleted 28 characters in body
source | link
7 added 416 characters in body
source | link
6 added 481 characters in body
source | link
5 Copyright law permits fair use.
source | link
4 added 316 characters in body
source | link
3 added 1628 characters in body
source | link
2 added 53 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link