It’s that time of year again when some call the global annual average temperature for the year, even though there are still two months of data remaining. Such a premature declaration is done for political reasons, such as the current UN climate meeting in Doha.
The Met Office uses three “leading global temperature datasets” to conclude that the average temperature of 2012 is 0.45 +/- 0.10 deg C above the 1961-90 average. They add that these error bars mean that 2012 could be between the 4th and the 14th warmest year of the instrumental period, since 1850. Realistically though it’s going to be ninth or tenth. Fig 1 (left) shows the Met Office data.
The Met Office then adds that due to a La Nina 2012 is cooler than the average for the last decade. Statistically speaking that is not the whole story. According to the data we already have, taking the errors into account, 2012 is statistically identical to all the other years of the past decade and beyond. The recent global temperature standstill continues.
What is an obvious standstill to some – the global temperature hasn’t increased for 15 years – is to others a not so rapid warming, or as the Met Office puts it; “Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s.”
With so much data around on how the world is heating up/down I thought I would have a go at using Historical TSI Reconstruction to produce "evidence" of "Man Made" Climate Change that also chages the output of the Sun!
We all know "Man Made" Climate Change is true, but how many of you know that the more there is of it the more it shows up in the Historical records of Total Solar Irradiance!
As you can see in the above chart, It MUST BE TRUE as the TSI lines follow the direction of "Man Made" CO2! All we need to do is spend Trillions more in research to prove "Man Made" CO2 changes the output of the Sun. If we can get grants or loans from Governments we may be able to do something about the output of the Sun next year at COP19, why did I not think about this before COP18:)
Click source for latest TSI Chart, and no, its not the same as my overlay!
Lord Christopher Monckton is asked to leave corporate lunch party after airing his sceptical views on climate change.
The Caribbean sun was shining, the talk was of carbon prices, profits and enterprise and 400 of the world's most successful green corporate executives were nibbling salmon and prawns in Cancún's glitzy Ritz Carlton hotel. But then the protest began.
This was not peasant farmers or Greenpeace hanging from the roof, but the impeccably dressed British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton. Holding forth in the centre of the World Climate Summit lunch party, he claimed that man-made climate change was not happening and businesses should hesitate before investing in green energy.
Most people steered clear, but Monckton had no hesitation in barging in on conversations, reeling off statistics and arguments that, he said, proved not only that the world was not warming but that "certain newspapers" were not reporting the reality.
Lord Christopher Monckton reports from the UN Conference on Climate Change in Doha, Qatar with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). For more information on CFACT's activities in Doha, please visit www.cfact.org/qatar
The UN Climate Conference in Doha was living up to expectations. No agreement. Indeed it’s a very strange conference. The European parliament decided, for the first time, not to send any official delegation, since even the most passionate environmentalists amongst MEPs expected very little out of Doha. And reportedly the IPCC itself was not invited. Dr. Ravendra Pachauri, the IPCC Chairman who has made such a good living out of the climate scam, seemed a little rueful to have no invitation.
Approaching the scheduled close, there seemed to be no prospect of a deal. Then, as usual, at the last moment, a rabbit prepared to jump out of the hat. There was a move to get Western nations to commit to “compensation” for the “damage” which climate change might do to poor countries — especially to small island nations like the Maldives, who are past-masters at playing the post-colonial guilt card to squeeze funding out of richer countries.
This is potentially a disaster — a blank cheque payable to half the world against alleged damage that can neither be measured or properly defined, nor reliably attributed to human activity. The Americans — are they the only sane people who attend these events? — are rightly resisting this tooth-and-nail, while the EU (speaking for Britain — look at the global clout that EU membership gives us) seems ready to capitulate. No surprise there, then.
You likely did not read much, if anything, in the mainstream press about the climate change conference that was held in Doha, Qatar. The same applies to television and radio news. These are the folks who introduced the Kyoto Protocols in 1997 with the intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions said to be causing global warming. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected them in an exercise of good sense we don’t always associate with that august body.
COP18, shorthand for the Conference of Parties, brought together under the aegis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was especially devious. Thanks to the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow those of us keeping an eye on these charlatans, intent on transferring billions from developed nations to those that have failed to keep pace, we learned on December 8th that “The negotiations here in Doha have gone into overtime.”
As reported by Craig Rucker, CFACT Executive Director, “After going until after 3 AM last night, negotiations resumed today. Negotiators have sprung a dangerous proposal on the conference at the 11th hour. This time they have inserted a ‘Loss & Damage Mechanism’ into the final text which would require developed countries like the U.S. to pay poor nations for climate damages supposedly resulting from extreme weather events.”
Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.