Lord Monckton has written a guest post at WUWT. In this post he is showing graphs, which are meant to show atmospheric CO2 concentrations of the IPCC’s A2 scenario (AR4, fig. 10.26, p. 803) compared to NOAA’s global trend data.
Here they are:
In both graphics the slope of the “IPCC scenario” as depicted by Monckton is way higher than observed at present. However, if one simply overlays the NOAA data on the IPCC plot using identical scaling one ends up with the following:
The NOAA data corresponds very closely to the IPCC A2 scenario.
IPCC scenario atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be found here:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-isam.txt
An overlay on Lord Monckton’s plot shows, that he is not depicting scenario A2
Have you nothing better to do with your time?
How about something original or interesting?
Yes, it’s eating up time and is not original. Yet none of the selfprofessed skeptics bothers to check. So this is just a little experiment of mine. How many selfprofessed skeptics will challenge Monckton, when they see how his plots compare to a the real data. Monckton is wrong, but these are the bits that anyone can see, heck, could do themselves with nothing more than a spreadsheet program and a bit of endurance. It’s comparing images, nothing more, and Monckton’s plots don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Ask yourself, what is the take home message of Monckton’s 10-year plot? Can we agree on “The best fitting scenario of the IPCC overestimates the rise of CO2 by 50% over a period of just 10 years”? Can we agree, that this is utterly wrong?
So, what’s your opinion of Monckton’s gross distortion of the IPCC projections and the free pass he gets on it within the “sceptics” community? Watts is silent, McIntyre is silent, the Pielkes are silent, the WUWT followers do not take this up. What’s your take?