Global temperatures still not soaring [update 4]
If we’re going to see global warming at all we’re going to see it in the temperature record, right?
And if we’re going to see it where the warmists’ models say we should, then we’re going to see it in the global troposphere. Globally, the troposphere should warm about 1.2 times more than the surface; in the tropics, the troposphere should warm about 1.5 times more than the surface. That’s what their models say.
So let’s take a look at temperatures in the global troposphere over the modern warming period, from 1979 to just last month, courtesy of Roy Spencer and John Christy’s University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature Record, which seems to show that, as of June, global temperature anomaly
Which means the decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade, and the difference between global temperatures at present and the thirty-year average is, wait for it, zero.
And there’s not a climate model in the world that ever predicted that.
UPDATE 1: From The Spectator magazine: “Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick.” [Hat tip Don R.]
“UPDATE 2: It’s Getting Cold out There,” says Debra Saunders:
No wonder skeptics consider the . . . belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion -- last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth's temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. . .
The funny part is: G8 leaders can't even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? "This question is a mystery for everyone," an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.
And while President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as "likely unattainable."
No worries, the language was non-binding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief. Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion.
While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said of the bill, "We need to be a leader in the world but we don't want to be a sucker."
UPDATE 3: "It's getting chilly but still not cool to be a sceptic", says Andrew Bolt.
UPDATE 4: The leaders of the G8 countries “suffer from a psychiatric disorder,” says Czech physicist Lubos Motl. “They have commanded the Earth and the waters to keep their temperature within two degrees. Moreover, the CO2 output of most countries should drop by 80 percent or more - by a factor of five or more - by 2050. Yes, it is hysterical. Well, this is actually not an agreement of G8, at most by G7 because the newest eighth member, Russia, finds this talk unacceptable and will reject it.”
First of all, the two points of the plan are pretty much unrelated. What will happen with the emissions is pretty much uncorrelated with the temperature change in any time frame that we can talk about. . . The typical change of the global mean temperature in 40 years has always been something like 0.3 °C. So far, it doesn't look like mankind has changed anything about it. So getting to 2 °C is nearly a 10-sigma effect, a statistically impossible thing. . .
The global 80-percent reduction of CO2 by 2050 may contribute by 0.05-0.30 °C of cooling before 2050. . . depending on the feedbacks that reduce or amplify the bare greenhouse effect. And this change will be clearly indistinguishable from other effects and noise. . . So it makes basically no impact on the climate. But does it impact the economy? You bet.
How much? Well, there my be improvements in “carbon efficiency” -- “one may get something like a 1-percent increase of the carbon efficiency (GDP divided by CO2 emissions) a year by "non-radical" technological improvements” – but the goal is approximately equivalent to an 80-percent reduction of the GDP by 2050!
A net GDP that drops to 1/3 of the present value is . . . pretty terrifying - especially if you realize that because the population may jump by a factor of 1.5, we're back to the five-fold reduction of the GDP per capita. It could make the world look like a world that was just decimated by a pretty large global war, one that may dwarf World War II.