Saturday, 11 July 2009

Global Temperature Is Dropping, Not Rising

Written by 

iceberg sunEnvironmental doomsayers may still be claiming that we must radically reduce carbon-dioxide and other “greenhouse” gas emissions in order to prevent catastrophic global warming, but they cling to that position despite the fact that the warming they’ve been forecasting has not occurred. In fact, the average global temperature has gone down, not up, in recent years.

The graph at this link from shows that the average global temperature has been dropping since at least 2002, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing.

A graph based on satellite temperature readings can be found at the appropriately named “algorelied” website. Here the data is put into a 30-year perspective. Markers indicate that the temperature has decreased by 0.74°F (0.39°C) since January 24, 2006. The significance of that date? That’s when Al Gore’s sci-fi-thriller An Inconvenient Truth was released at the Sundance Film Festival. The data showing this cooling trend was taken from thousands of satellite measurements encompassing the entire lower atmosphere of the Earth with an accuracy of 0.01°C. The satellite data is far more accurate than surface temperature measurements, which are limited to the 28 percent of the planet not covered by oceans. (Even in the United States, where one would expect the surface temperature measurements to be more accurate than elsewhere, a recent survey found that only 11 percent of the monitoring stations meet the National Weather Service’s siting requirements.

If we were to extrapolate the change in temperature in the last 42 months since Gore’s movie debut to the year 2100, we would forecast a decrease of 19.9°F (8.8°C) — temperatures not seen since the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago. Is such an extrapolation reliable? Of course not! But that’s the kind of extrapolation game global-warming alarmists like to play.

Still another look at global temperatures and alarmist predictions comes from EPA analyst Alan Carlin, who shows graphically in a March 2009 report (pdf) how IPCC temperature projections and reality diverge. Carlin’s graph is located on page four of his report. As he explains on the following page, the red, purple, and orange lines on his graph show IPCC temperature predictions assuming different emission scenarios; the yellow line shows what the IPCC claims would happen if the CO2 concentration were to remain the same; and the blue and green lines show the actual temperature records based on ground and satellite readings respectively. The blue and green lines — the lines reflecting the actual temperature records — are the only lines dropping instead of climbing on Carlin’s graph. In fact, the actual global temperature has fallen by 0.3°C in just the last three years according to the satellite data.

The EPA document also notes that the actual data conflict with the theory that CO2 causes temperature to rise:

What’s really rather remarkable, is that since 2000, the rates at which CO2 emissions and concentrations are increasing have accelerated. According to Canadell et al. (2008), fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s.  Similarly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline.

And finally some climate tid-bits from the Climate Depot that keeps up with such things:

• Cape Cod farmers lose crops due to “June that felt more like April”

• NYC has coolest June since 1958

• Another new low temperature at Bryce Canyon:  June 6th, 20oF.  Record had been 27oF set in 1951

• Every day in June was below normal in Los Angeles since temperature records began in 1944.

Why don’t global-warming alarmists address the issue of the recent decline in global temperatures? It raises questions about their real agenda, does it not?