Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Last Global Warming Chart You'll Ever Need

Courtesy of Steven Hayward, over at Powerline, we look today at global warming, as defined by the alarmists, and we find a standard chart.  We've seen plenty of these over the past decade and they normally look something like this.

OMG!  We're all going to die.  Look how fast temperatures are increasing.  But, look at that vertical scale, it's a tiny range, representing about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.  We would probably be better informed if we looked at the same data, using the normal range of temperatures we can expect to experience worldwide.  So, lets do that in the second chart.

That doesn't look nearly as threatening, does it?  I'm really amazed at how stable the average temps have been since 1880.  We can probably attribute that tiny temperature increase to better record-keeping.  It's certainly not indicative of climate change.  In fact, it's not worth worrying about at all.

It's the same data, represented differently.  Personally, I think that the second chart more accurately represents trends, which is to say that there is no trend at ll.

So, why are we having this discussion?


Old NFO said...

Damn good question... And no, we don't need to have a discussion...

Rivrdog said...

Sorry, guys, if you look at the physics of climate, you DO find that major changes occur with a 3-degree rise in the mean. On your "flatline" chart, if we ever got to a 130-f mean, the planet would be uninhabitable, and even the 3-degree rise in the mean makes HUGE changes in world agronomy.

That said, we need to focus our attention on the ACCURACY of temperature measurements over time, and the ACCURACY of computer modelling with which predictions of future temperature means are made. Mensuration of global temps was NOT accurate enough (re: measurement intensity) to model with before 1980, and there is evidence that temperature records WERE "massaged" for the computer models which predicted "runaway" warming and upon which the entire Global Warming Cult bases their Socialist income-redistribution monetary fraud.

The best temperature data available CAN NOT support accurate modelling at all, simply because the record of accurate temperature measurements is too short to model, and because all the suspected climate cycles have not been identified and proven yet. The mathematical "confidence factor" inherent in the current modelling efforts DOES NOT logically allow for the range of government's efforts to tax, spend and redistribute money to affect "climate change".

Bottom line, we have at least 19 consecutive years with either cooling or no warming, anyway, and that is about half the period of accurate records. The " massaged" models are just beginning to reflect the current and historical hiatus in warming, and that error factor dooms their believability.