Monday, April 06, 2009

Chart of the Day

Warming alarmists dismiss current global cooling data as over-influenced by short-term trends that soon will cause temperatures to rise again. Now, in some ways, that's my point: "Climate change is a natural, dynamic process where weather and heat ebb and flow over centuries--there is no single, static, global temperature." Or, as Christopher Booker and Richard North say, "The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing."

But to the extent such "TOOTSIFs" defend the IPCC's predicted warming, I recommend page 8 of Dr Syun Akasofu's presentation at the Heartland Institute conference:

source: Akasofu

As Dr. David Evans explains on JoNova:
The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction:

1882 -- 1910 Cooling
1910 -- 1944 Warming
1944 -- 1975 Cooling
1975 -- 2001 Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.

There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.

(via Planet Gore)

1 comment:

OBloodyHell said...


> Warming alarmists dismiss current global cooling data as over-influenced by short-terms trends that soon will cause temperatures to rise again.

And if their models had actually PREDICTED any of this, they might have a valid basis for that claim. The fact that they DID NOT, in any way, shape, or form predict this is blatant evidence of the unreliability of their modelling processes.

More simply --

The Swartzberg Test:
The validity of a science is its ability to predict.

If it can't predict anything, it's not science, it's speculation.

The real fact of the matter is that all manner of predictions that are either directly attributable to it, or extend from its claims, have been found to be false --

The "signature" in the atmosphere? Not There.

The increase in deep-water ocean temperature? Not There.

The melting ice caps? Not There.

The rising sea levels? Not There.

No evidence of warming on other planets? Not There.

In short, there are a whole host of pointers which should unavoidably SAY "Yes, AGW is real, and it's indisputably man-made".

And what statements to we actually find?

"Not There."