Random figures tell us nothing

I had intended to take issue with Peter Gardiner with reference to his letter (Friday 28 Sept) on the subject of wind turbines and climate change.

However we have news of the latest IPCC report on climate in which they forecast on apocalyptic state for the world if the average global temperature should increase by 4.0 C (previous reports had said that plus 2.0 C was the figure).

Now I have been labelled denier, flat earther and waste of space, but I consider that I am a sceptic and in Scottish legal terms the case for warming is “non proven” but now I admit that I have to add confused, so let’s look at details that cause this confusion.

Climate change in grammatical terms could mean anything, so why not say global warming.

Averages give indicators and tell us nothing without detail, take four area temperatures centigrade 16+15+20+5=56 average 14 or 18+22+25-9=56 average 14. These random figures show that verifiable data should be available to form an opinion.

The current average is in the order of 14.0 C when the Arctic is –30.0 C and the Antarctic –50.0 C, remember Harry’s heroes encountered –30.0 C in the Antarctic summer.

The position of plus 3000 temperature recording stations are not evenly distributed across the world with N America having most and the Antarctic only 9, so it would be interesting to know how “balancing” is done.

It took about 100 years for the global temperature to rise 1.0 C and now we are told that there is a danger that it might increase by 4.0 C. This would result in an average of 18.0 C, in “old terms” of 64.4 Fahrenheit.

Despite increased CO2 levels there has been no global temperature increase for 16 years. This is on record by the Met Office,NOAA, NASA and the World Meteorological Organisation.

The effect of increased levels of CO2 on global temperature, I’m told, is not directly proportional but follows the law of diminishing returns. Any comments?

Historically, in the Mediaeval Warming period the Vikings colonised Greenland and farmed along the coastal regions when there was no CO2 emission.

If any local “warmists” can enlighten me I would be grateful. I have read the 48-page Executive Summary of the IPCC report and I am none the wiser. Although I finished my technical education 65 years ago, I still have a fair grasp of mathematics and basic physics so please don’t hold back.

Brian Beck