No evidence of global warming

In UK there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1998

In attempting to give quantified reasons for combating Climate Change, like many others Colin Baglin (December) confuses climate and weather. 

Climate is, in essence, the average sum of meteorological events over an extended period; weather is an individual meteorological event. Further, I think he will find that most if not all the weather events that he quotes are not unprecedented, although magnitudes may differ. And, to contradict one example he gives, the flooding in Queensland was caused principally by a political decision not to proceed with previously planned flood defences. This was because the authorities had been told that Climate Change would reduce the risk of flooding to an extent that would render them unnecessary! The number of hurricanes hitting the USA in 2012 was exceeded in 5 other years, all of them prior to 1975. Indeed, the number of annual global hurricanes continues to fall (PoliClimate.com). 

The significant loss of ice from the artic this summer was caused by a massive artic storm (authority NASA) dispersing the sea ice into warmer waters, again a weather event. Only 17 out of 109 stations in the Arctic show any signs of warming, and only one of these shows a statistically significant trend (Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 39). Admiralty records going back to the 19th century contain mention of massive loss of Arctic sea ice so even this would not be unprecedented. Even the conclusions of the recent study reporting melting glaciers in Greenland (ice free in the 12th and 13th Centuries!) and the west Antarctic are suspect, as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had already asked for funds for a new satellite to study this topic because the current data, on which the new findings are based, is so inaccurate it could not be used safely. Even the Himalayan glaciers are starting to grow again with the increased snowfall in the area.

Global temperatures have been rising since the Little Ice Age, but have still not reached the level achieved in the Medieval Warm Period. The warmest year in the last century was 1934, the year of the “dust bowl” in the mid-west of the USA, at least it was until “adjusted” to fit the Climate Change script. In fact, here has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1998, a period of 14 years, whilst the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by almost a third since 1998 (Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii figures). Sea surface temperatures have also stayed sensibly constant. According to satellite data, the Pacific, which accounts for approximately one third of the surface area of the world and is larger than all land masses put together, has not warmed since 1994, but then actual sea surface temperatures do not feature in the annual global temperature records. The balance of temperature between the troposphere and the surface is the opposite of what climate models have predicted. The sun is going through its quietest period for 200 years. These could all be considered quantitative reasons for not doing anything to combat so called climate change.

A small, very gradual increase in global temperature is to be expected as the world population increases and human activity becomes more intense, but one must ask oneself why it is that the original descriptor, Global Warming, was changed to Climate Disruption and then subsequently to Climate Change. Could it be because there is currently no evidence of global warming so an alternative descriptor had to be used, one that could not be so easily contradicted? None of the climate models used by the IPCC to forecast possible future temperature rise predicted that global temperatures would stabilise as they have. Carbon dioxide, even at 400m parts per million is, without argument, still a trace gas. And at such a low concentration it would require some other mechanism for it to cause global temperatures to rise significantly. This “mechanism” is referred to as positive feedback and is a feature of all the predictive models. It assumes that minor atmospheric heating caused by the CO₂ increases evaporation and hence further atmospheric warming, as water vapour is itself a “greenhouse gas”. It is upon this basic assumption that the whole of the concept of man-made global warming, aka Climate Change, appears to be based. On the evidence of the past 14 years, its validity could very reasonably be questioned.

Geoffrey Glover, Ferndown, Dorset

Next letter: Climate change is happening