Friday, January 16, 2009

Chart of the Day

From Christopher Monckton's Temperature Change and CO2 Change - A Scientific Briefing, at the Science and Public Policy Institute:

source: Monckton Briefing at 6

As the paper explains:
  • the brown line is the SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, based on "the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets"

  • the straight red line "shows the least-squares linear regression on the composite temperature anomalies"

  • the pink region "shows the IPCC’s projected rates of temperature increase"

  • The blue region "shows the IPCC’s currently-projected range of increases in CO2 concentration"

  • the blue curve beneath the blue region "is NOAA’s deseasonalized global trend" of actual CO2 concentration changes

  • the cyan line "is the least-squares linear regression on that trend, equivalent to ~200 ppmv/century"
What's it mean? Temperatures are not only below the IPCC's predicted increases, they're actually declining of late. This is despite increased atmospheric CO2, though that rise remains below IPCC projections as well. (Related charts with updated temperature data here.)

Remember, 2008 was supposed to be the hottest in a century. Not. So as the Scientific Alliance sees it, "The climate change lobby desperately needs 2009 to break records for high average temperatures and extreme weather." Thus, neither experience nor embarrassment slowed alarmist industry doomsaying:
2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.

According to climate scientists at the Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since 2005.

During La Niña, cold waters rise to the surface to cool the ocean and land surface temperatures. The 2009 forecast includes an updated decadal forecast using a Met Office climate model. This indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature. Warmer conditions in 2009 are expected because the strong cooling influence of the recent powerful La Niña has given way to a weaker La Niña. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Niño develops."
Meaning, there's a dual climate change consensus--alarmist predictions along side no-reason-for-panic facts.


bobn said...

And MSM continue to act as if Global warming is proven beyond any possible doubt. Amazing.

BTW, Carl and OBH, something new for you here ;-)

Carl said...

Agreed as to warming. See David Harsanyi in the January 16th Denver Post:

"The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.

The same congressfolk who are now handing out thousands of tickets to this ecological disaster only last year mandated the phased elimination of the incandescent light bulb — a mere carbon tiptoe, if you will. The whole thing seems a bit unfair.

And, on the day millions of Americans were freezing their collective backsides off, new Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman announced that Congress would fast-track climate change legislation. Waxman claimed "inaction on the climate issue is causing uncertainties that make it more difficult to emerge from the recession," according to The Associated Press.

Waxman's methane emission would merely reek if it weren't so catastrophically sad. I learned long ago that any dissent on climate alarmism will be met with unflinching fury, but is there anyone who can genuinely argue that inaction on "climate issues" (formerly known as global warming) has had a fundamental impact on the economic downturn?"

bobn said...

LOL at "The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration".

As for Waxman, in a peculiar way I agree with: "inaction on the climate issue is causing uncertainties that make it more difficult to emerge from the recession,": People in the know are waiting to see if Obama goes all the way and has EPA treat CO2 as a HAP. If so, instant Depression!

OBloodyHell said...

It's gonna be so amusing if nature drops a load of snow on them.

I didn't hunt up historical temps, but borderline freezing weather is expected.


Now THAT is a word verification:

Carl said...

bobn & OBH: