Petition to the President
Feb 27, 2017 Guest Post by David Holland
Dick Lindzen has sent to President Trump a letter and petition signed by some 300 scientists and experts (H/T Anthony Watts). The petition is for the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I had some difficulty accessing it but eventually located a pdf of the letter and the petition itself here.
I'm sure Dick speaks for many BH readers as well some of our MPs. Even at the high water mark in 2008 only a little over half of British voters thought humans were responsible for most global warming and less than half thought it a pressing problem. Recent opinion polls now show that barely 10% of the public regard climate change as a serious concern. Few can now dispute the global agricultural benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration, but in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments.
Hopefully when Parliament debates the Grand Repeal Bill some of our smarter MPs will push to dump any directives requiring reductions in carbon dioxide emissions or support for the UNFCCC.
Reader Comments (404)
Russel, I'm just pointing out that in the midst of all of the scare stories about sea level rises it just isn't happening to any significant degree in just about every area that I've ever worked or just sailed in the world. I can also state that this also applies to climate in those places. This is fact not model generated sensationalism.
Why is it Russell that every doom laden prediction made by the warming industry advocates has been wrong?
Apart from the fact that the GCM's aren't capable of accurate prediction or hindcasting and based on very questionable science, observations everywhere show that what is happening is perfectly within natural variation. There is not a shred of proof that CO2 is causing significant warming or any climate change. Yes there has been a fairly insignificant warming since the end of the LIA exactly as you would expect, there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 both have been wholly beneficial.
Radical Rodent at Mar 2, 2017 at 9:47 PM: Thank you for highlighting the lack of "un" in front of "inhabitable". I am sorry to say that I failed to spot that. Certainly the sense of what Sir David was saying implies "uninhabitable". However it is also possible that what he said was originally sensible, but the error crept in when his words were transcribed.
One does have to raise the point that, had there been no rise in global temperatures since the Little Ice Age, we would still be in the Little Ice Age, with the high probability that humanity would still be eking out an existence, living hand to mouth and dying dreadful deaths at woefully young ages.
There are some people who actually want to return to that… well… to be more accurate – for everyone but them to return to that, while they, themselves (naturally), watch over us.
Yes, Budgie – but my “cynic-o-meter” kicked in. Was he being deliberately obtuse, assuming that everyone would interpret his message as UNinhabitable, but, if called to account, can claim to be the victim of misinterpretation? After all, it’s not HIS fault people misunderstood him. Such manipulation of the language is how cases are won in court.
@DavidHolland
I copied comments about diesel over to the Drs against Diesel discussion thread.
Stewgreen
Like you I’ve seen the ecological vandalism inflicted on Malaysia and Indonesia by policies introduced and encouraged by Green lunacy. Virgin forest is being torn down to make way for revolting palm oil plantations to enable us to put bio-Ethanol into our fuel based on climate pseudo-science. This not only destroys forest but all of the wild life and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest such as Orang Utans.
My recent trip was a memory lane ride to Singapore, Kuching, Miri and KK, absolutely wonderful.
I was very lucky to work in Malaysia and Indonesia for 15 years and visited Batam. It has been very saddening to see these wonderful forests being totally eliminated on the altar of corrupt politicians and massive corporate greed. These warming industry useful idiots need to be ashamed at how green policy does damage everywhere it rears its ugly head and start looking at real environmental damage rather than the fiction of significant negative effects of increasing CO2. While there are real ecological and social problems worldwide not a cent should be spent on “climate change”.
While I am still here, Russell, (and presuming you are still reading this) could you please conclude our earlier conversation about orbital gravity gradiometers. Yes, I do not understand what they are, what they do or why contemporary space navigation would be impossible without them.
Telling us what they are would be useful, as would what they do; why contemporary space navigation needs them is irrelevant to the conversation, unless I am very wrong. What I (and, perhaps, others) would like to know is how they are so important for determination of sea levels; how accurate are the measurements obtained; how is this accuracy determined, and how regularly (and how) are they calibrated; what they are measuring these levels against; and, what historical measurements they are being compared with to determine longer-term rates of sea level rise.
Unless good evidence can be given to demonstrate otherwise, I shall remain of the opinion that claims of annual rises measured in millimetres are nothing but bunkum. We are assured that sea-levels have risen over 1 foot (30cm) in the last hundred years or so, yet photos of Blackpool (or Brighton or Scarborough) sea-front from the early 1900s show the sea level to be little different from what it is at present.
Radical Rodent, there is genuine panic amongst Global Warming Alarmists about the rising tide of contempt and loathing of Climate Scientists by Politicians around the Earth.
A tsunami is expected in Washington DC, on or around the 13th of March, which followed a tectonic shift in grass roots across the USA in late 2016.
Big ripples will spread East across the Atlantic to Western Europe, where post BREXIT tremors are still causing waves of discontent to spread across the Channel.
Any change in sea level will continue to be of academic interest, to those with nothing useful to do, but if it has continued in a linear fashion, without hint of a pause or hiatus, there would appear to be a standard Global Warming correlation/causation discrepany error of about, precisely 97% +/-50ish.
This not only destroys forest but all of the wild life and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest such as Orang Utans. Mar 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Mason
Orang Asli (original man) not Utan (forest).
There is a long list of questions that so-called climate scientists need to answer:
Why was the analogous warming in the first part of the 20C natural while that later in the same century was anthropogenic driven?
Explain the lack of warming since 1998, a period when there as been a strong increase in CO2 levels
IPCC4 predicted a hot spot at the top of the tropopause in the tropics (aTTP might need some help here as I recall he didn't know what it was last year). Where is it?
Why do all the temperature forecasts (apart from the odd 2-3 %) exaggerate warming?
How come we have seen periods even in the historical record when warming has been as strong as it was over the latter part of the 20C?
Why are polar bear numbers are not declining?
Why are shifts in Artic and Antarctic sea ice cover asymmetric?
Why is the rate of sea level rise not accelerating?
Why are hurricanes and tornadoes not increasing in frequency?
Why are droughts and flooding not increasing?
and there's probably more.
Then we could comment about the transgressions of the climate science community - the hickey stick, climategate, Himalayan glaciers, NOAA sea water temperatures will do for starters.
And we could have a quick look at some of the mitigating actions we have been persuaded to take, but that's quite enough for one session!
Mar 3, 2017 at 3:36 PM | Capell
I think Trump has realised that answers to your questions, and many more, are not about to be supplied.
I think he is going to suggest that US Taxpayers are entitled to some answers, and offer Climate Scientists unlimited time-off to find them.
Ssat, I did say animals and people. Forest in Malay is hutan btw not Utan and the people who live off the forest aren't necessarily Orang Asli who are by definition from Peninsular Malaysia. The forests I was discussing are Sarawakian and Indonesian. ;-)
Sorry ssat, I did mean to add that Asli is Malay for real not original.
David, this might show you the technological advances in diesel engines. 90% less NOx and 99.9% less particulates.
http://www.peugeot.co.uk/bluehdi/
Mar 2, 2017 at 11:55 PM - golf charlie:
Not true: their climate scientists gave them different advice.
Asli is Malay for original and orang asli (literaly, people original) is Malay for aborigines. There are aborigines on both the Malay peninsular and Borneo.
Orangutan is understood to derive from orang hutan meaning forest people but is one word when describing an ape.
Your post confuses aborigines and apes. You are correct to point out that both are under threat from apparent disregard by the ruling and self-defining Bumi Putra (people/man of the soil) chasing profit via destruction.
But it is a green obsession of the west, including those that drop their haiches, that encourages it.
:)
Not true: their climate scientists gave them different advice.
Mar 3, 2017 at 5:15 PM | Robin Guenier
A very good point! Possibly proving that Chinese Climate Scientists stand head-and-shoulders taller than US/EU/UK ones.
The Chinese are far too clever to return Western manufacturing as a straight swap for Western Climate Scientists.
90% less NOx and 99.9% less particulates.
But 20% more frontal area without significantly improving drag coefficients with the now popular SUVs.
The disconnect between regulators and buyers increases as they give two fingers to the NGOs. Trump recognises that.
Heh, RG & gc, I used to say that the Chinese had a Tibetan Tree Ring series untouched by the hand of Mann, and perhaps they understand that mild global warming would be good for the Middle Kingdom. And wouldn't they be acutely sensitive to the greening caused by AnthroCO2?
And I wondered if Maurice Strong was in China rightly advising them, or being advised of his rights.
And I knew back then that China covered its chagrin at the failure of the shakedown of the guilt-ridden West at Copenhagen by pretending outrage at the neo-colonial machinations of one Obama.
It is not just a joke that some consider climate alarmism to be a 'Chinese Hoax'. As with many jokes, there is an element of truth in it.
It's all speculative, but the actions of the Chinese have been consistent with it. Is there any doubt that Western competitiveness has been diminished, and more to come?
===============
Why was the analogous warming in the first part of the 20C natural while that later in the same century was anthropogenic driven?
In the HADCRUT data the linear slope from 1900-1940 is around 0.09C/decade, from 1970 to present day it is 0.17C/decade, so they are not strictly comparable.
During the first period solar output increased while volcanic activity was low. TSI has basically flat-lined since 1950.
And there was an anthropogenic component: CO2 rose from around 295 to 310 ppm, plugging this into the formula for ECS gives an expected rise at equilibrium of approximately 0.2C
Explain the lack of warming since 1998, a period when there as been a strong increase in CO2 levels
1998 is a cherry-pick of course, featuring the most powerful El Nino of the last century. But what lack of warming? The linear trend in HADCRUT since then is +0.13C/decade, the 1998 El Nino peaked at 0.67C, the one now faded peaked at 1.07C
IPCC4 predicted a hot spot at the top of the tropopause in the tropics (aTTP might need some help here as I recall he didn't know what it was last year). Where is it?
It has been observed over the short term, in the longer term the data is not good enough to draw a conclusion. The hotspot is not a feature exclusively of greenhouse warming, of course.
Why do all the temperature forecasts (apart from the odd 2-3 %) exaggerate warming?
The first IPCC report gave projections under 4 scenarios, under Scenarios B and C, the ones closest to reality, the predicted between 0.1 and 0.2C / decade, which is what we have observed.
How come we have seen periods even in the historical record when warming has been as strong as it was over the latter part of the 20C?
We have not.
Why are polar bear numbers not declining?
Because they are hunted less than they were? Polar bears are a bit of a sideshow, and number are hard to measure accurately, however most populations are stable or declining.
Why are shifts in Artic and Antarctic sea ice cover asymmetric?
Well, the Arctic is a sea (nearly) surrounded by land, the Antarctic the opposite. However the two poles seem to be aligning now, Antarctic sea ice is at a record low and Arctic not far off.
Why is the rate of sea level rise not accelerating?
It is.
Why are hurricanes and tornadoes not increasing in frequency?
Tornadoes are not forecast to increase in frequency, on hurricanes the factors that cause them to form are forecast to be stronger while wind shear is forecast to decrease, leading to an overall forecast of fewer, but more intense hurricanes. There's a lot of noise in the data, however and a signal has yet to emerge.
Ssat, what I said should have been very clear, also I make no confusion between aborigines and Apes. Are you perhaps confusing those who live in the jungle with those who live off the jungle which is what I said. You don't have to be an aborigine to live off the jungle, in fact I shared a lovely meal of jungle pig and deer with non-aboringines only last week.
There are definitely no Orang Asli in Sarawak or Sabah and as far as I know none in Kalimantan and that is all of Borneo; I believe that they are unique to Peninsula Malaysia. My wife is Malaysian btw from Sarawak and she's on my side so I think that it's a yellow card for that one.
If you're picking me up on how I spelled orang utan, then thank you very much but it is permissible to spell it orang-utan or orang utan. It is undoubtedly derived from orang hutan (jungle person) so the two word version is technically more correct :-)
Mar 3, 2017 at 6:15 PM | Phil Clarke
More toxic PCB's
Phil Clarke Bollox
Phil, you really need to get a grip of yourself. You and your kind are trying to class unproven and unfalsifiable hypotheses as settled science, model output as data and climate myth as fact. You have lost the debate on ACC and what should be done about it and I seriously believe and hope that a lot of politicians, their pet scientists and many of their useful idiots who troll sites like this should face prison.
The predictions of what would happen as CO2 increased have quite simply been wrong, the GCMs are worse than useless and there isn't a shred of evidence to show that the recent beneficial warming since the LIA has anything other than natural causes. Sea level rise isn't accelerating, temperatures aren't rocketing and there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about current climate. 85% of what climate change we are going to get from doubling of CO2 has already happened and yet no signal anywhere, no water feedback, no 5-6C temperature rise.
Shame on you for your nonsense.
Oh dear, Mr Clarke; you just are not paying attention. Over the last century and a half, the world warmed anywhere from 0.8° to 1.5°C, depending on which “homogenised” figures you use. Paleoclimatologists agree that, with changes in global temperature variations, a good average is around 1°C per century, rising or falling; in other words, what warming we have had is well within what is considered normal, natural variation. “Ah,” you are going to interject, “but it has risen so much faster over the past few decades!” That may well be so, but the average over the century remains less than 1°C per century. You see, the thing is, it is not possible for proxy readings to give realistic rates over periods of less than a century, so, while the temperature from, say 717 to 817 AD, might have risen 1°C, we have no idea if this was a steady, linear rise or if it was the result of 30 years increasing at 0.2°C per decade, followed by 40 years decreasing at 0.05°C per decade, and culminating in a 30 year increase at 0.2°C per decade – i.e. (in case you haven’t cottoned on, yet) something similar to what we have measured over the last 100 years. If you want to compare measured rates with proxy rates, then you do have to use the same time scales.
I suspect we will know by 2020 whether the present plateau in temperatures is just a pause in the slow rise, or its peak. Personally, I hope for the former; I fear the latter.
The rest of your “answers,” of course, are, like this one that I have addressed, just pure hokum, as you, and everyone else on this site, are well aware.
Quick aside @SSAT Borneo/Malaysia language/customs are little bit complex; @MartinMason is correct in the way he uses it.
In Malay language Orang Asli has a specific meaning ..Aborigine minority (of Peninsular Malaysia)
..... In Borneo tribal people are not a minority they are the majority so they are not Orang Asli, and it is difficult to say that Borneo born-Malay are not aborigine. (Malay are not abororiginal to Malaysia)
Orang Utan can be used both ways I guess just like German Shepherd
A lot of modern Malay language is made-up words for political purposes "Bumi Putra" means princes of the soil.(really means "we are more entitled than ethnic Chinese/Indians. I know much more about the regions politics than I wish to)
@MartinMason you can correct PC but he's not here for truth. Seems like he's here to disrupt, he slings mud, you spend time correcting ..he smiles cos he's achieved his job of disrupting.
It's best to stay on topic and not take his bait.
You've got it Stew. The Malays call it positive discrimination btw :-) My wife is Dayak and so she is a Bumi which is a fortunate position to be in. I'd love to discuss the politics with you sometime but not in a public forum.
Yes, I understand the purpose of activists like PC and you're right about not rising to the bait. They must realise that the CofG in the MMW debate is moving away from his side though. there must be a lot of panic in the ranks at the thought of grants and subsidies drying up?
@NeilC Thanks for that ..It's a bit strange that those calling for the magic solution of banning diesels fail to acknowledge the existence of pollution filtering tech like AdBlue.
..Plenty of people do know about it.
David Holland:
"You can google it same as me, but you would have to been on another planet not have heard the many reports in the MSM. But for instance see here:" etc
Many reports in the MSM? As a cited reference? Without any cross checking and investigation? IMO you have fallen into the trap of lazy repetition of general claims.
However, apologies if you do have some bottomed out and specific references. If so, please supply them as previously requested. Thank you.
Once US Climate Scientists have thermometers and temperature records prised from their hot sticky hands, and independent analysis is carried out, will UK based temperatures suddenly appear overcooked and unnecessarily adjusted?
ClimateGate indicated that key UEA CRU personnel were not over enthusiastic about Mannian methodology involved in Hockey Stick fabrication, and it may be that recent historical records about the hottest year evah, have to be revisited. If it was Athletics, some might have their Gold Medals snatched back.
I think cups of coffee may be simultaneously tipped into computer servers.
Mar 3, 2017 at 5:58 PM - kim:
True - especially when you add the "in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" bit.
@ stewgreen,
you may be confusing putra with putera.
kim & Robert Guenier, Phil Jones' missing Chinese Data for his UHI busting paper, has always been a bit of a joke. It has been keeping readers at Climate Audit amused for years.
https://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/
Where did the data come from? It has certainly been of great benefit to China.
@ssat ..am I going crazy ?
checks ..no both spellings are OK
In Malay I hear it as prince..I see in Indonesian it's son ...(I've never used it that way)
@DH BTW https://phys.org/ is not a physics site ..rather it is an advertising site which seems to automatically take science press releases and turn them into web articles packed with advertising.
there must be a lot of panic in the ranks at the thought of grants and subsidies drying up?
Mar 3, 2017 at 8:18 PM | Martin Mason
The US Budgets get announced 13th March 2017. It would be interesting if the absence of funding from US Govt Depts has a direct effect on Internet Blogs in the US and elsewhere in the World.
Commercial investors will probably decide to cut their losses.
Wealthy philanthropists and "Charitable Trusts" may then have to decide how generous and gullible they really are, should any of them come to their senses, having removed their designer label Green tinted glasses.
Only the Green Blob know the amount of other people's money, that they will miss.
@stewgreen “Am I going mad?” "Bumi Putra means princes of the soil.”
No it does not.
Putra means son. Bumi putra, literally son of the soil.
Putera means prince. Bumi putera, literally prince of the soil.
As I said, you are confusing the two. However, as one word, bumiputra and bumiputera are both used politically to discriminate ethnicity and have the same meaning in that.
@Martin Mason “I did mean to add that Asli is Malay for real not original.”
No it does not.
Sebenar is real.
Asli is original.
“...and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest such as Orang Utans.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan see Etymology.
@Martin Mason
My granddaughter lives in Indonesia and she has drawn my attention to the problems in Aceh.. This is an extract from an article I wrote about it for a local magazine.......
Mar 3, 2017 at 9:00 PM not banned yet
"the trap of lazy repetition" I look forward to a lazy day and hopefully will get one before too long.
Instead of diesel in my post I could have said CFL lamps, bat and bird killing windmills, inducement for poor farmers to grow crops for fuels or other waste of tax payers money. The point is that to date global warming has been overwhelmingly beneficial as I see it, subjectively, whereas attempts to reduce global emissions of CO2 appear to me, again subjectively, to have been an overwhelming failure. Perhaps I should add diesel to my mental list of taboo words.
Ssat, you've been wrong on everything so far so I shouldn't be surprised to see you wrong again. Asli and sebenar are interchangeable and can mean real or original or anything remotely like the two.. I speak Malay well and traditional usage is asli for real. Bumiputra and Bumiputera are the same thing and again are interchangeable. Normal spelling is Bumiputera although the main bank and many other institutions use Bumiputra. The accepted meaning is Son of the Soil.
Don't be pedantic and selective about what I said neither
- - -but all of the wild life and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest - -
Is English your second language or do you just struggle with comprehension?
We have enough pedantism from climate science without introducing it in normal discussions on here. Please give it a break.
Messenger, it is a tragedy and it's the reason that I have such contempt for most greens and the complete warming industry. There is massive ecological damage being done in areas that ideally would be protected sites and yet they have an agenda not to protect the environment but to de-industrialise the West.
Mind you I still remember the valid point that Dr Mahathir made in the 80's. He said that the UK had felled its own forests to build a navy and colonise the world and that they would do the same if they wanted to. Basically that it was nothing to do with environmentalists in the West. If we want to see forests then we should pay for it rather than wasting money on climate change.
Why was the analogous warming in the first part of the 20C natural while that later in the same century was anthropogenic driven?
In the HADCRUT data the linear slope from 1900-1940 is around 0.09C/decade, from 1970 to present day it is 0.17C/decade, so they are not strictly comparable.
In 1910 we have an anomoly of -0.5, CO2 at 300 ppm, 1942: 0/310, 1972 -0.13/325, 2015 0.7/400. So between 1910 and 1942 we have a rise of 0.5C for a ln CO2 ratio of 0.03, 1942 to 72 -0.13/0.05, and 1972 to 2015 0.83 and 0.2. As you say, they're not comparable - by a long margin.
Explain the lack of warming since 1998, a period when there as been a strong increase in CO2 levels
1998 is a cherry-pick of course, featuring the most powerful El Nino of the last century. But what lack of warming? The linear trend in HADCRUT since then is +0.13C/decade, the 1998 El Nino peaked at 0.67C, the one now faded peaked at 1.07C
GISS 1997 (pre El Nino) +0.48, CO2 364, 2014 +0.44, CO2 390; Temp -0.04, Ln CO2 +0.07. So again, the CO2 as a driver of warming explanation fails completely.
IPCC4 predicted a hot spot at the top of the tropopause in the tropics (aTTP might need some help here as I recall he didn't know what it was last year). Where is it?
It has been observed over the short term, in the longer term the data is not good enough to draw a conclusion. The hotspot is not a feature exclusively of greenhouse warming, of course.
The CO2 greenhouse effect may not be the only cause of a hot spot, but a hot spot should be an observable feature of the greenhouse effect. The fact that it has not been seen, or is transitory indicates either that the direct temperature sensitivity of air temperature caused by IR energy trapping in CO2 molecules is less than thought, or that other energy transport mechanisms, such as convection, reduce CO2's impact. Either way, global warming caused by CO2 has a reduced impact.
Why do all the temperature forecasts (apart from the odd 2-3 %) exaggerate warming?
The first IPCC report gave projections under 4 scenarios, under Scenarios B and C, the ones closest to reality, the predicted between 0.1 and 0.2C / decade, which is what we have observed.
From first IPCC report, which you cite: "The relationship between hypothetical fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide and its concentration in the atmosphere is shown in the case where . . . [scenario] (b) emissions are reduced by 50% in 1990 and continue at that level, [scenario] (c) emissions are reduced by 2% pa from 1990 (taken ).
These are hardly conditions comparable with what has happened in actuality - see figures quoted above.
How come we have seen periods even in the historical record when warming has been as strong as it was over the latter part of the 20C?
We have not.
We have.
Why are polar bear numbers not declining?
Because they are hunted less than they were? Polar bears are a bit of a sideshow, and number are hard to measure accurately, however most populations are stable or declining.
Not according to Susan Crockford:http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/06/Arctic-Fallacy2.pdf
Why are shifts in Artic and Antarctic sea ice cover asymmetric?
Well, the Arctic is a sea (nearly) surrounded by land, the Antarctic the opposite. However the two poles seem to be aligning now, Antarctic sea ice is at a record low and Arctic not far off.
Cryosphere Today shows the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice area anomalies and at present there seems to be rapid change, but over the last decade we have had the Artcic in decline, and the opposite in the south. Why should that be: this is global warming?
Why is the rate of sea level rise not accelerating?
It is.
It isn't. See Figure 13 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
Why are hurricanes and tornadoes not increasing in frequency?
Tornadoes are not forecast to increase in frequency, on hurricanes the factors that cause them to form are forecast to be stronger while wind shear is forecast to decrease, leading to an overall forecast of fewer, but more intense hurricanes. There's a lot of noise in the data, however and a signal has yet to emerge.
IPCC 2007: "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."
And yet this has not been observed.
so are we in a interglacial or NOT ??
whats the lates scientific opinion, and whats the latest BBC gospel
For you, Mr Clarke:
This is not a warning of an impending catastrophe, though. Oh, wait…HTH
In 1910 we have an anomoly of -0.5, CO2 at 300 ppm, 1942: 0/310, 1972 -0.13/325, 2015 0.7/400. So between 1910 and 1942 we have a rise of 0.5C for a ln CO2 ratio of 0.03, 1942 to 72 -0.13/0.05, and 1972 to 2015 0.83 and 0.2. As you say, they're not comparable - by a long margin.
The trouble with comparing two years is you lose the data points in between, which is why I prefer using the linear (OLS) trend. Just comparing two years means your difference might be affected by natural variability. Also you seem to believe that the temperature will respond immediately to the increased CO2 forcing, which nobody else does. Adjust for these factors and there is no discrepency between theory and observations.
GISS 1997 (pre El Nino) +0.48, CO2 364, 2014 +0.44, CO2 390; Temp -0.04, Ln CO2 +0.07. So again, the CO2 as a driver of warming explanation fails completely.
LOL. Again the point to point problem. You've started in 1997, thus including the 1998 El Nino but ended in 2014, excluding the 2016 El Nino.
Using numbers from here, I get an anomaly of 0.54 for 1997 and a whopping 1.23 for 2016. Totally inconsistent with 'no warming since 1998'.
@Martin Mason
"Asli and sebenar are interchangeable and can mean real or original or anything remotely like the two."
You stated that asli meant real, and did not mean original. your post Mar 3, 2017 at 4:14 PM
"Bumiputra and Bumiputera are the same thing and again are interchangeable."
Exactly, as my post of Mar 4, 2017 at 8:32 AM. So what's your beef?
“...and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest such as Orang Utans.”
Ethnic people are not Orang Utans. I gave you the etymological link. To claim otherwise is perverse.
And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension!
Mar 4, 2017 at 11:24 AM | David Holland
I do take asthma seriously, though I do not suffer it myself. Asthma is a fairly sweeping diagnosis, with symptoms relieved by common treatments/drugs, that do not actually "cure", or actually identify the cause of the "attack".
Diesel cars are far more common as a result of Green Blob pressure and lobbying groups, particularly within the EU. The Green Blob are now very enthusiastic about making manufacturers and drivers out to be the bad guys responsible for a situation created by the Green Blob.
Where is all the evidence that they "missed" 20 years ago about diesel causing asthma? The quantity of diesel emissions has increased, but the quality has improved dramatically.
Significantly, in London the quantity of emissions from BioDiesel must have increased dramatically. Is there any evidence to exclude BioDiesel from the statistics on asthma, or even prove it improves the situation?
I do not think I am the only one here, that treats the latest Green Blob panic/scare with sceptism as a first response. The Green Blob have a proven track record of it. Greenpeace have now admitted (in Court submissions) they lie, but don't expect to be held accountable.
Major drop in Irish new car reg this February - the canary in the global scarcity mine is beginning to enter its second big sleep.
Small correction, I quoted the land-only numbers from GISS above, the land+ocean index is more appropriate and it rose from 0.48 to 0.98 between 1997 and 2016. Both number totally falsify the 'no warming since 1998' claim, of course.
From first IPCC report, which you cite: "The relationship between hypothetical fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide and its concentration in the atmosphere is shown in the case where . . . [scenario] (b) emissions are reduced by 50% in 1990 and continue at that level, [scenario] (c) emissions are reduced by 2% pa from 1990 (taken ).
What?! You've inserted the word scenario in front of captions for a graph. Those are not descriptions of the actual scenarios. You can see the projected concentrations of GHGs on page XIV Scenarios B&C have CO2 at c400ppm by now, Scenario A well above. Observed is around 406. You have to factor in the other forcings of course, methane tracked well below the projections, and this has been done.
Small correction, I quoted the land-only numbers from GISS above, the land+ocean index is more appropriate and it rose from 0.48 to 0.98 between 1997 and 2016. Both number totally falsify the 'no warming since 1998' claim, of course.
From first IPCC report, which you cite: "The relationship between hypothetical fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide and its concentration in the atmosphere is shown in the case where . . . [scenario] (b) emissions are reduced by 50% in 1990 and continue at that level, [scenario] (c) emissions are reduced by 2% pa from 1990 (taken ).
What?! You've inserted the word scenario in front of captions for a graph. Those are not descriptions of the actual scenarios. You can see the projected concentrations of GHGs under the scenarios on page XIV. Scenarios B&C have CO2 at c400ppm by now, Scenario A well above. Observed is around 406. You have to factor in the other forcings of course, methane actually tracked well below most projections, and CFCs were reduced by the Montreal Protocols. This has been done.