Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.
Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzen’s request.
If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s petition.
Good news. Lets see if Trump follows through.
The big problem is Ivanka. I believe that she is hanging over the fence. I would like to see her have a sit down with Roy Spencer and Will Happer.
Since sisterhood is powerful, how about with Judith Curry and Sally Baliunas?
“The big problem is Ivanka. I believe that she is hanging over the fence.”
Why? Because you read it in the New York Times?
This new paper concludes that the human CO2-input is only just over 4%. Here is the link:
Martin Hovland, that paper on CO2 was demonstrated to be completely wrong years before it was even written. The author apparently did not bother to read the previous easy-to-understand rebuttals of the previous papers making such claims. Here is more info: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/oh-no-not-again/
Is Kenji on the list. How do you spell the dogs name?
Think of it as the skeptic iceberg coming out of the waters as proverbial [political] salinity levels go up, showing for all to see that the 97% “consensus” so cherished by the alarmist establishment is no more than a mirage generated by an ice free Arctic… 🙂
I am confident that President Trump will put a break to that bullshit?
[But you add a question mark to your declaration? .mod]
Are there any Nobel Prize winners on the list?………..
Like Al Gore and what about Bill Nye?
Nobel Laureate Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever should be. He says he’s much more famous for opposing CACA than for his prize-winning work on superconductivity.
I note that world-renowned aerospace engineer Burt Rutan is also missing. The petition organizers still have a lot more co-signers to collect.
As Einstein once said in response to 100 authors against Einstein, “if I were wrong, one would be enough.” This is not a numbers game. Science is on Lindzen’s side. Unfortunately we are dealing with politicians not scientists. So they have to play the numbers game.
Kenji qualifies as a climate scientist easily. Being a skeptic requires to be human and many other things.
Good list. One or two weak links, but not a lot of ammunition handed to the opposition.
I was invited to sign, but I figured I’m too much of a lightning rod. My signature would have given them an excuse to attack the whole petition. So instead, I wrote and wished Dr. Lindzen well with his petition.
On the one hand I think you should be on the list as the work you’ve done is serious and follows the scientific method. That said I can see your point and agree with you on it. I hate having split brain on issues.
Good thinking Willis and you choose the team over your own chance for a few moments in the lights. Good man.
Sorry, but I can’t follow your reasoning, Willis. “Lightning rod”? Can’t that be said, to varying degrees, of all signatories simply because they signed? Isn’t Lindzen himself one? Yes, reactions will be mixed but, on balance, signatures add clout. Yours especially. Above all else, it’s the response of the addressee that matters and I can’t see him heeding mindless attacks just because your name is there. He’s demonstrably too smart for that!
Lord Monckton signed Willis, he’s also a lightning rod for greens.
Very true W. While you are very credible it would have had an averse effect.
An indictment of the warmist movement though, that you had to consider your position.
I think that you made the right decision. Have you seen the recent Hale 2017 paper on the Carbon Cycle. The Abstract looks very interesting, but since I have only seen the Abstract, I have not formed a view on the merits and strength of arguments. Perhaps it is something for you to get your teeth into. I know that many readers of this site (and your site) would be interested.
PS. I have posted the Abstract in my comment set out at February 25, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Willis, keep up the good work.
Yet another paper that seriously questions the validity of IPCC assumptions around CO2 has been published here:
“Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”, by Hermann Harde, 2017.
Short summary of this paper here:
Key conclusions: “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
“Lord Monckton signed Willis, he’s also a lightning rod for greens.”
Monckton lacks the humility to make the right choice. He has a self importance typical of the British aristocracy.
Congratulations to Willis on making a wise and humble decision. The quality of the signatories is more important than the number and need to be people with classically recognised credentials, not controversial bloggers with no formal training, as Willis correctly recognises.
Sadly, I find the wording of the petition and letter rather weak though to the point and focusing on UNFCCC is probably the most effect and fastest remedy, as suggested here by the legally competent ‘ristvan’
“…the signatories…need to be people with classically recognised credentials…”
Fair enough. Presumably only those people have been invited to sign. But shouldn’t those credentials be displayed in all cases? Some are not. Roger Bee is the first one.
Sensible move. You would definitely be a lightning rod.
Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat and is very unlikely to read through the list. Therefore, though I understand the purpose of the Alphabetical listing, from the attention span point of view and in order to make the maximum impact, I would have put the 50 most credible people first. Those are likely to be people with classical and relevant degrees or those with first hand experience in working for/running an appropriate and relevant organisation.
Thank you Richard Verney and others for citing this paper by Hermann Harde.
In my 2008 icecap.us paper, I cited two relevant papers by Dr. Jan Veizer et al. There appears to be similarities, based on a quick scan of Harde.
Veizer, “Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle”, GeoScience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005
Ferguson & Veizer, “Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth’s climate system”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, Volume 112, 2007
I have long felt that Jan Veizer was “miles ahead of the curve” on this important question.
The mainstream CAGW debate between the skeptics and warmists is about ECS – is it low or high? Both sides may be wrong, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
This observation suggests that global temperature (among other factors, which could include fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc.) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Cart before Horse? 🙂
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
• An alternative carbon cycle is presented in agreement with the carbon 14 decay.
• The CO2 uptake rate scales proportional to the CO2 concentration.
• Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
• The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
• Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well-reproduced.
• The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
• Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
richard verney and Allan M.R. MacRae.
Prior to about 1945, the natural sources of CO2 were higher than our emissions. CO2 actually increased by more than our total accumulated emissions since 1750 Since 1945 human emissions have been higher than the CO2 rise as the natural sink rate has increased.
–> 1850 –> CO2 rise to date 6.8 ppm; total accumulated human emissions to that date, 0.61 ppm
–> 1900 –> CO2 rise 16.1 ppm; total accumulated human emissions, 5.7 ppm
–> 1945 –> CO2 rise 31 ppm; total human emissions, 26 ppm
–> 2016 –> CO2 rise 123 ppm; total human emissions, 199 ppm
@ Willis, I’ll not second guess your decision.
I will say that your declaration here may even be better than a signature.
@ Greg, Monckton of Brenchley won’t wither under the stones you threw. Those who considered his principled positions and asked for his assistance, did not consider yours, nor extend to you an invitation (nor one to me.)
@ tonyb, You denigrate a man’s attention span and claim he lacks experience, or the ability to run a large organization and yet, that man has built a successful and lucrative worldwide business organization and with his entry into politics, just displayed the acumen to listen to the advice of a team he selected and proceed in a manner which won him the presidency of the USA.
You, on the other hand…
“Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat …”
You appear to be silly, big shot ; )
Alan said to me
‘You denigrate a man’s attention span and claim he lacks experience, or the ability to run a large organization and yet, that man has built a successful and lucrative worldwide business organization and with his entry into politics, just displayed the acumen to listen to the advice of a team he selected and proceed in a manner which won him the presidency of the USA.
You, on the other hand…’
I merely said he had a limited attention span. You completely made up the rest of the words you have attributed to me . Why would you do that? I said nothing of the sort.
My point was that, as can be seen on twitter he is a mercurial character whose attention flits about. He is very unlikely to read all the way through a petition of this nature-he must get lots of them on various topics. He might flip through the first dozen names though. My point was that it would be best to market the petition better by putting those with the strongest credentials at the top.
Not sure what you are saying to me. Looks like the old Mass Balance Argument, with which I am officially agnostic.
In any case, my following statement, repeated from my above post, allows for a wide interpretation of this issue:
“This observation suggests that global temperature (among other factors, WHICH COULD INCLUDE FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION, DEFORESTATION, ETC.) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”
I am NOT saying that the increase in CO2 has no manmade component. We just do not know enough about this issue, unless we make certain simplifying assumptions that may or may not be correct.
The CO2 satellites do not seem to show much of a fossil fuel urban component in high CO2 concentrations. From the satellites, it looks mostly natural.
You continue to be a class act. As you have been since I began reading what you have been presenting to the world! Facts should never be lightening rods. The just are!
tonyb – I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based on Trump’s tweets. There is method behind what appears to be at times madness. He has consistently attacked the media, and there is a good reason for that. If he is taking on a fight, I’m sure he knows by now fights incur a price and I don’t believe he would fight unless there is more to be gained than lost.
He is very resilient as he has demonstrated against a wide array of foes, some even in his own party. There is a huge force pushing the status quo many of us rail against. It will take some fighting to free ourselves of the globalistic oligarchy. The pain is worth it!
They’ll do it anyway.
@ tonyb, I stand corrected.
After seeing the first part of your post, I had scanned quickly through the rest, in disgust. “…with first hand experience in working for/running an appropriate and relevant organisation.” Having now re- read your quote in context, it’s apparent that you weren’t also directing that remark at POTUS.
I’m the one with limited attention span, especially before the coffeepot has started its work.
Nevertheless, I agree completely with JohnKnight.
“Donald Trump appears to have the attention span of a gnat”
“I merely said he had a limited attention span.”
Whereas you have an unlimited attention span, silly? ; )
You’re too modest Willis, your signature would have substantially improved the average level of the signatories qualifications.
@Pauly and Richard Verney:
That ScienceDirect paper which says the human contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 4.3% is close to the 3% figure the IPCC gave us (and the EPA acknowledged) years ago (back in 2001 I think).
That ScienceDirect paper… needs to get into the dust bin as fast as possible. It is a harrasment to the skeptic case as it starts with the same basic error as many times before: it is all based on the residence time of ~5 years, which is how fast any CO2 molecule, whatever the origin, in the atmosphere is exchanged (“swapped”) with exact one CO2 molecule from another reservoir. That doesn’t change the CO2 amount of the atmosphere with one gram.
That says absolutely nothing about how fast an extra shot CO2, whatever the origin, above the temperature controlled equilibrium is removed from the atmosphere and ends in the oceans or vegetation.
That needs much more time (~51 years e-fold rate) than simple exchanges…
It is the same difference as looking at the throughput of a factory (capital and goods turnover) and concluding anything about what the gain or loss will be…
I am discussing that at Notrickszone
Correct Christopher “MOCKTON” in the list…
Weak links? Do you mean like Bill Nye?
Has this already been sent? His statement that more are signing every day suggests that it hasn’t. If not, some minor editing is needed, starting with the first sentence.
It appears that Dr. Lindzen’s letter has been sent, but, that he is informing President Trump that the attached petition is in flux. Trump can, thus, if he chooses, go to the petition and see the latest version which is changing daily.
So, the letter is correct as written.
Janice, read the first sentence out loud. Unlike a lot of petitions, this one has the potential of making serious impact. It should be as polished as possible. : > )
Dear Mr. Slayton,
Please re-read my comment. It addresses only the “signing every day” concern you had. I did not comment on your second concern, editing such things as, “support of your.”
You have sharp eyes. Good catch.
Dr. Lindzen should run his drafts by you (and…. then…….. you can let me look over your list of suggestions for Lindzen, (ahem — smiling), just in case…..).
You make me nervous with that Mr. stuff. Takes me back to Fort Dix. Juan sounds better (and anyway civilians outrank majors).
Regarding the petition, I just wish I were qualified to sign it. I’m afraid linguists would be looked down upon by the 97%. And I hope Willis changes his mind.
How nice to hear from you again. 🙂 You, such a loyal, conscientious, well-informed, WUWT supporter, deserve the honor of a “Mr.”. You also deserve to have your wishes respected, thus, Juan it is!
See you around!
Your WUWT friend,
P.S. My credentials would be a “weak link,” too. Yours are more then mere credentials, though, you have demonstrated repeatedly that your linguistic training and native language ability are first class. I can see Willis’ point (and I noticed several other names missing….). I can also see the opposite view. Good for him to be true to himself. And good for you to so kindly cheer him on and encourage him. You are a class act, Mr. Slayton.
Janice, (I used to proof read tech manuals) I also spotted the odd construction in the first sentence but let it go. But Chris Monckton won’t like being listed as ‘Mockton’. 🙂
Is it time to do a new “Oregon Petition”? 30,000 signatures makes a much stronger talking point.
The CACA carbonieri have managed to ignore or pooh-pooh the original Oregon Petition, but it’s still as valid as ever.
Para#2, Line 4.
“…have, and will continue to cause…”
Oh dear! Please change to
“…have caused and will continue to cause…”
Note the absence of the rogue comma!
I hate rogue, commas!
I have comma rogues.
How good it is that this community of smart, diverse and open-minded individuals a cheerful mini-debate on punctuation can take place without digressing from the core issue of scientific integrity.
Brent Hargreaves, I stand to be corrected, but I do detect a hint of sarcasm in your comment! Is there a problem with rendering the submission more professional by applying a bit of spit and polish to its content?
Graham, no sarcasm from me. Many of the posters on WUWT are articulate people with signs of being well-read as opposed to the narrow joyless monomaniacs in the uebergreen camp. Jarome’s “I hate rogue, commas” is a witty little aside.
i use hyphens and ellipses these days…
william shatner made me commatose once; i was scarred for life
but jeez- a grammatical error that would get red penciled in jr high english class starts out the petition?
just say ‘oops’ and fix it. do not try to pretend illiteracy doesn’t matter or that those with standards triggered a flight to safe spaces.
(and no, muphry didn’t bite me and i don’t have an ee cummings fetish. my little finger doesn’t get along with the shift key and i don’t care cuz i’m not writing to the president of the usa, mmk?)
It appears that the most important need of all Americans is for the POTUS to sign an Executive Order stipulating that henceforth, ….. all written commentary and/or verbiage of a scientific nature, context or content, regardless of when or where it is published, must be composed and written by a Lawyer or team of Lawyers to insure that there is no possibility of anyone, anywhere, ….. 1) bitching about the choice of words or their order of usage; 2) misunderstanding what is being claimed or stated; or 3) being confused about what the ell they are reading.
Then everyone will be happy campers and the discussion of the “subject matter” can continue uninterrupted by “kibitzers” who think their “pet peeves” are more serious than a “heart attack”.
I have a parcel of rogues, Burns edition.
How does a comma go rogue? Did it get to friendly with the semi-colon?
It is plant food not poison.
The “Plant Food” term makes me cringe. Somewhere there’s a “Climate Crock of the Week” where that Sinclair guy has Monckton saying “Plant Food” over and over again in his wonderful aristocratic tones. Something along the lines of saying that Carbon Dioxide is the basic feed stock of all life on Earth might be a little bit more encompassing.
Chlorophyll: – C₅₅H₇₂O₅N₄Mg
Lignins, Amino acid, Anthocyanin, fatty acids, amino acids, esters.
ALL are based on ORGANIC chemistry, with minor atoms of nitrogen, magnesium, potassium, sodium etc etc etc
But BY FAR the major part of the structures are made of CARBON, OXYGEN and HYDROGEN
The whole world is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY DEPENDENT on those three atoms…
…. which are invariably sourced from CO2 and H2O
whoops forgot to do the subscripts…
… , I meant from CO₂ and H₂O
Sorry, Steve. No problem with “plant food”. None at all. It rocks. It’s understood universally. In an instant, it knocks the lights out of the brain dead claim that it’s a toxic gas.
What is wrong with “plant food”? That’s precisely what carbon dioxide is. Plants and other photosynthesizers split water molecules apart, attach the hydrogen atoms to CO2 atoms, making glucose (C6H12O6) or other sugars, ie plant food, and release leftover oxygen atoms to the air or water for us animals to breathe.
ok… how about Plant Crack?
Thanks for all the replies. Here’s Peter Sinclair’s “CO2 is Plant Food” crock:
[I’ve tried posting this twice and I think the YouTube link the Perter Sinclair’s Climate Crock of the Week is what’s making my post just disappear. So you will have to Google the “CO2 is Plant Food” Climate Crock of the Week for yourself ]
And if you do:
You can count how many times he has Monckton saying “Plant Food”. He does it because the term is easily made fun of. The Green Mafia knows how to use ridicule and they do it well. And conservatives continue to let them do it and define the terms of the argument.
Yes, we are a carbon based life form and every carbon atom in our bodies was once CO2 in the atmosphere. Here’s a little graphic to illustrate why that is:
However true the term “CO2 is Plant Food” is, I guarantee the left will make fun of it.
Enough already, Steve. Monckton repeats “plant food” ad nauseum. So what? How does that demonise the term? As for alarmists getting cranky, what’s new? I can’t see your suggestion, “Carbon Dioxide is the basic feed stock of all life on Earth”, going down a bomb. Any audience would switch channel before you’re halfway through!
As it turns out I’m not the first to use the phrase, “CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth,”
See Watts Up With That:
Guest essay by Allan MacRae June 13, 2015
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
I will not comment on the current draft of the petition, which seemed adequate when I read it.
I will comment on Richard Linden’s past writing style, which I found worthy of praise years ago.
Richard is not only brilliant, he is also courageous. Back when only a few were willing to speak out about the deeply flawed “science” of global warming alarmism, Lindzen spoke out, and he did so with ringing clarity and great courage. Bravo Richard!
I still re-read with admiration the excerpt of his 2001 WSJ article below, and suggest you do so as well.
I greatly admire Richard Lindzen.
Not only does he make sense, but the man writes like an angel.
Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal, 2001:
Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty
By Richard S. Lindzen. June 11, 2001
“The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge — and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.”
Richard S. Lindzen: “The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document.”
Allan: “I greatly admire Richard Lindzen.”
WR: Me too: Richard Lindzen wrote those words on June 11, 2001(!): “The Summary for Policymakers is [specifically directed at policy] ”
I have my doubts about the ability of ‘science’ to keep her scientific integrity. 16 Years passed since he wrote that words. Science should realize that it has not been able to correct what was going wrong. In fact IPCC (‘Government’) had manipulated herself into a position that she could manipulate the public opinion by suggesting that the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ represented the full IPCC report and even worse: that she represented ‘full [climate] science’. ‘Science’ did not correct what she should have corrected. A structural failure.
16 Years have passed. It is time to finally end up this scandalous situation that is at the detriment of whole societies. Who wants climate science to be real science should welcome this petition.
Moderator: If you have the time, please insert the word “with” in this sentence:
“Lindzen spoke out, and he did so WITH ringing clarity and great courage. Bravo Richard!”
[Reply: You’re welcome. -ModE ]
Thank you Wim, an excellent post.
I assume you are in Holland, and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I truly enjoyed my visits to the Netherlands and especially your outstanding art museums and the Dutch countryside, which was beautiful.
I will be even more condemnatory of the IPCC and the global warming alarmists, as follows:
I have known since about 1985 that global warming alarmism was a false crisis, unfounded in scientific fact.
Since about 2002 I have been convinced that it is a fraud, based on deliberate falsehoods.
When someone says “the science is settled”, you know they are not being truthful. Science, and particularly climate science, is far from settled.
The Mann hockey-stick papers, starting with MBH98, were never remotely credible – “Hide the decline”, “Mike’s Nature trick”. splicing dissimilar datasets, etc. What a farce!
Furthermore, the Climategate emails proved the extent of the fraud and identified some of the leading fraudsters.
Global warming alarmism is the most costly scientific fraud in the history of our planet – it has caused society to squander trillions of dollars of scarce global resources, damaged energy systems, and cost many lives.
I have published the following statements since about 2002, and all have proven correct:
1. “Green energy” is not green and produced little useful energy.”
2. “Green energy relies upon life-of-project subsidies.”
3. “Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of society”
4. “When imbecilic politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.”
Best regards, Allan
An interesting addition to the letter would be a link to the 31,000 scientists and engineers that have already signed a similar petition.
Bravo, Dr. Lindzen.
Let the ad hominem smear games begin.
There is a site called Change.org that collects online signatures to send the President. Professor Lindzen should start one there for this. It is primarily a liberal site, so it might cause some stir.
Thanks indeed to Dr. Lindzen.
I do wish he had emphasized that he was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Second Assessment (1995) and a Lead Author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” of the IPCC Third Assessment Report ( 2001). You don’t really get more qualified to judge the value of the IPCC exercise than that.
Side note: I’m really not sure how to take the presence of a signatory “Christopher Mockton”. It’s a good laugh in any case.
Let’s hope 300 credentialed scientists and engineers “trump” Ivanka.
Typo: Monckton, not Mockton
Yep. That’s what I was referring to. It’s in the signed petition as Mockton.
.. Lee L.
List of HEROs.
For those of you who now look down and see your own nakedness, good news; sign up and you may hide in the list of heros. GK
As I read down that impressive list of petition signers, I just kept shaking my head in amazement, thinking, “Wow. WOW. This is something, this is really something.”
Not only do all those credentials silently thunder, “LISTEN TO US. WE KNOW,” the depth and breadth of the knowledge of those signing is of such great magnitude that the only response of a sane opponent to such an army is:
Cue: “But they’re not Climate Scientists! ”
(Though some of them are.)
Yes, RoHa, no doubt. Once again, they will “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”
Freeman Dyson’s signature counts at least 100.
I might agree with you but the mainstream scientists include Tom Karl. His record is far greater.
He would show you if his computer hadn’t broke.
Better yet, withdraw from the UN entirely and throw that worthless organization out of New York.
Baby steps…. 🙂
An interesting and well-worded initiative. Refreshing too.
It will be interesting to read the climate-scientist version and their counter-letter-petition pleading for a permanent hand positioned in the public pocket to see whether or not Lindzen & Co are correct or maybe not.
Just look at tge placards of scientists’ marches. That’s all they have.
Don’t forget they have their white ‘lab coats’, those are issued by the protest organizers to improve credibility.
Frankly, my “black lab’s coat” is far more significant, not to say more useful in the winter. “Let the fur fly”. /sarc off
I thought all the “climate scientists” working for the government were invited to move to France.
The only words I know in French are: “bon appetite!” (Maybe the French government will at least feed them.)
OK, so here’s another important one for your “climate scientist” friends: Au Revoir
“Adieu” not “Au revoir”. The latter means “See you again”.
Why is there no place for new signatures?
Mr. Dewhurst: I think it is because Dr. Lindzen is coordinating it privately, i.e., no open sign-up as there is with the Oregon Petition (another great one). Those whom he has invited are, apparently, still stepping up to sign daily.
Anthony: Can you publish a contact e mail for Richard Lindzen, so people like Mr. Dewhurst can find out how to apply to sign the petition?
Just Google |contact Richard Lindzen| and follow the first link to http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
I have my web site tuned so people can use Google to contact me similarly.
The above link yields an invalid / out-of-date email address.
Here is one that works:
I have contacted Prof Lindzen and he says he has forwarded my name so that it can be added.
One needs to control a petition such as this because the warming theory supporters will jump in and add fake names etc. to the list to reduce it’s credibility. They have done this before
A “great cloud of witnesses” is cheering you on, dear warriors for truth in science:
(L->R: Kirby, Pasteur, Newton, Carver, Maxwell, Kepler, Boyle, Bell)
We are so proud of you (and they must be, too)!
And they are watching to see what you will do.
You know who you are…..
NICE JOB, LINDZEN!
your list (L->R: Kirby, Pasteur, Newton, Carver, Maxwell, Kepler, Boyle, Bell) can’t be real scientists…
… they’re not wearing white coats & carrying placards saying ‘Give ME more grants’ & they didn’t hide their data.
A strange assortment of basic and applied scientists, lifted from the anti-scientific ICR. Kirby collected insects and Bell was a surgeon, from a family thereof. As most Americans know, Carver was an ag products researcher. But four or five of them might be on most lists of ten most important scientists and at least one definitely would be at or near its top. Few if any however needed enough courage to rate as heroes. Newton kept his heretical unitarian beliefs secret.
On second thought, Sir Isaac did show courage in resigning his senior fellowship and Lucasian professorship at Trinity (!) rather than take the necessary holy orders in the Anglican Church, key tenets of its doctrine which he could not accept. It worked out well for him in the end, however, as he left Cambridge for London and a government job as director of the mint, not requiring ordination.
Newton’s theological writings are enormous, at more than a million pages, possibly much more, so there is plenty of room for interpretation on his undeniably Unitarian views (although some 19th century historians tried to defend his orthodoxy).
Sir Isaac has been accused of being an Arian heretic or worse (Keynes, who bought his papers, saw him as practically Jewish), and might well have been early in his scriptural studies on the nature of Christ. But, after reading the Early Church Fathers, it appears that he ended up, while still heterodox, opposed mainly to the doctrine of consubstantiation rather than being a more thoroughgoing Unitarian, like the Deists among the US Founders and Framers, who objected to the divinity of Jesus. This group includes, among many others, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and both John and Abigail Adams, as well as Lincoln, whom his wife called “not technically a Christian”.
It is quite possible that those who have come to the conclusion that Newton was either “orthodox” (Biot, Brewster) or an Arian (More and contemporary scholars) are simply interpreting his position in light of an inadequate framework of options. More illustrates this kind of framework:
The anti-Trinitarians can be classed under three main divisions: the Arians who denied that the Son was coeternal with the father, though he was begot before time began and by him the Father created all things…the Socinians who believe that he did not exist before his appearance on earth, but that he was an object of prayer; the Humanitarians, or Unitarians, who believe him to be a man, and not an object of prayer.
It may be that in the early 1670s Newton himself wrote out of a similar framework and saw the Arian position as the most consistent. It seems clear, however, that by the 1690s (or if Westfall’s dating of the Clark MS is right, by the 1680s) his trinitarian study was sufficiently nuanced so as to have adopted the homoiousian position over and against both Athanasianism and Arianism.
Rather than squeezing Newton into the standard seventeenth century schools of thought on the trinity, I am suggesting that the key to his thought is found in the broader categories of the fourth century upon which he had developed an expertise, specifically among those, like Eusebius, who held the homoiousian interpretation of the Nicene Creed, with which Newton was now obviously quite familiar and sympathetic. If the Newton historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have found it “a blot on his record” that Newton was unwilling to join Whiston’s attempt to restore “primitive Christianity” or to defend him when he was ousted from Cambridge, perhaps it was, after all, not due to Newton’s being “all too human” but because he believed Whiston, as an avowed Arian, had pushed his subordinationism too far.
Newton was neither “orthodox” (according to the Athanasian creed) nor an Arian. He believed that both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation. He was convinced that his position was the truly biblical one, in which the Son was affirmed to be the express image of the Father, and that this position was best represented by those Bishops at Nicaea who held the Son to be of the same kind of substance as the Father but not numerically the same. Newton may still be considered heterodox, but in light of the evidence of his theological development he may no longer be considered an Arian, that is to say, a heretic.
Science is a method, not a set of beliefs that you, or anyone else, dictates must be accepted, lest one be anti-scientific. Honest.
To this list I would Michelson and Morley, great experimenters who upset the leading paradigm of its day (the ‘aether ‘) because fact beats theory, and they sought the facts. Wonder what they would say about climate science today…
Global Garden Gets Greener
NASA Earth Observatory
* * * * * *
Earth getting greener due to rising carbon dioxide levels, global snapshot shows
(Australian Broadcasting Corp, April 2006)
“The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by 18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).”
* * * * *
Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth
(PNAS, January 2010)
Sean M. McMahona,b,1, Geoffrey G. Parkera, and Dawn R. Millera
* * * * *
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
(CSIRO, July 2013)
* * * * *
Greening of the Earth and its drivers
(Nature, March 2016)
“We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%).”
* * * * *
Accelerated plant growth: it’s the only “forcing” you can confidently measure.
Thanks for those links, they are driving my watermelon FB followers to “unprecedented” levels of dissent. 🙂
I got un-friended by many FB friends I actually know and banned from FB because of my views on climate change. In discussions about climate change and CO2, when I mentioned “Ideal Gas Laws”, gravity and mass, they ran away and un-friended me.
I’m sure that to the uninitiated
This from our comunist ABC? I’m flabbergasted!
They’re just trying to scare everyone.
Lots of people from other countries on that list. Sweden. Norway. But I think he really needs to get more people from Russian if he wants to influence Donald Putin.
Ah, skeptical… You haven’t really fallen for that CNN-sponsored (and hence the DNC) red herring fallacy, have you?
Wow, so being a climate kook infects all areas of thinking. Who would have thought it could be that bad? I wonder what came first, the brain damage or the belief on crazy climate?
Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole
I found the letter, but where can I get a look at the petition?
click on the box the letter is in (above) and then you should be able to scroll down.
Keep scrolling the letter to see the list of signatures
This is to Anthony and/or Eric,
Why don’t you do a post asking WATTSUPWITHTHAT readers from all over the world to send letters to Trump supporting the Lindzen petition. You may want to prepared a standard letter that we could all copy to our own letterhead. I wonder why Dr. Curry’s signature was missing?
A letter such as you suggest will go to a large secure building and tested for many things but the scientific worthiness of the ideas will not be one of those. If your wording suggests you are a bit nutty, your name will go on a list you might prefer not to be on. If your comments suggest you are favorable toward DJT or Republicans, your name and address may get sent to the Republican National Committee and you may receive a solicitation (please send money).
Your letter may get you a 1 digit increase in a tally that becomes an entry in a briefing book where a large number indicates letters from “deniers” (now crossed out and “skeptic” inserted) and another indicates “believers.”
After that, your letter becomes biomass to help heat the capitol building.
Some of the above might, maybe, could be true.
Whatever does happen, Mr. President will not see your letter.
I agree, but if thousands of similar letter, or tens of thousands that may make a difference. I have no idea how large the readership is at WUWT, but I assume it is quite large. Anyway, just a thought.
Where is the list? I see only a black box in this blog. I do not find it by Google? Is it secret?
The black box under the text below Dr Lindzen’s photo contains the petition and all signers by scrolling.
Maybe an issue with your browser?
My secure Firefox doesn’t like it. Insecure Firefox on another machine displays it. Midori doesn’t like it. Ubuntu browser displays it.
The American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society and the Association for the Advancement of Science will act proactively to Excommunicate and seek financial Retribution on those listed. Obama still has many Vietcong among the US Federal Government and many sympathizers in other countries especially European.
Well , I always thought a scorched earth policy on ones political enemies is the best course of action.
Pull their funding, let them swim on their own for a bit.
The sharks in the real world of commerce don’t care about your opinion,just working results.
Hope Anthony signed?
Trump is predisposed to this anyway, so he very well may get us out of a horrible just horrible deal.
This is a heavyweight petition, and deserves worldwide attention at peak levels of government. Unfortunately the first sentence of the introductory letter is cumbersome and contains a split infinitive. Delete the “everywhere”, or better, rewrite it. I am not being pedantic (ok I am), but its important that the message is not diluted by allowing pedantic people to get distracted or to mount irrelevant criticisms.
Scientists are not expected to be grammatical masters, that’s understood. This is an opportunity for the non technical people to assist the boffins a little.
That hasn’t mattered for a long time.
I would sign this but my highest qualification is Masters Law. Over 95% of people in that field are Warmists and we could not win in a battle of numbers by accepting scientific and non scientific opinion as equally valid “votes”.
Dr. Lindzen, I hold you in the highest regard. Thank you for maintaining your position in the climate field, despite what can only be described as fanaticism from those who disagree with your findings. Keep up the good work.
UN Framework on Climate Change Convention.
UN Fraudulent Climate Change Cult.
I’ll just check to see if this is reported by the BBC. No it’s not, so the letter must be true. All they report is some nonsense by Patricia Espinosa, a former Mexican diplomat, who knows nothing about the climate.
She will be left on the other side of the wall, on her next trip from Mexico to the UN offices.
Some impressive names. For example: WASTERLAIN, Serge. I mean, if Serge Wasterlain (unknown qualifications & background & nationality) who are we to argue…
All you need is a degree in railway engineering.
And hot, sweaty, top-shelf literature……
Not on topic but a new paper of much interest has recently been published one the Carbon Cycle.
This paper concludes that there is a very short residency time, such that manmade CO2 emissions account for only about 15% of the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution/pre industrial times. Unfortunately, the paper is paywalled so i have not reviewed it but perhaps it is something that one of the main contributors (such as Willis0 will look at since, if it is correct, it potentially has far reaching consequences and is a good reason in itself for the US pulling out of the UN Convention on Climate Change.
The abstract of the paper (Hale 2017) reads:
The reason the alarmists require, and write papers trying to prove, long residence time is that otherwise the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is insignificant as this paper shows. The alarmists do that kind of thing a lot.
I have always (past 15+ years) claimed/stated that it was utterly ignorant or stupid for anyone to claim or believe that human emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years.
“HA”, surely raindrops alone “wash” more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year …. than humans emit into the atmosphere each year.
@ Samuel C.;
I recall reading the argument that a CO2 molecule created when coal is burned becomes part of a “short term” cycle. That is, the coal was buried and thus not going to influence anything in the near future. However, the new (human caused) molecule becomes part of an apple that is eaten and/or rapidly decomposes. Millions and Millions of apples later that molecule (or its Doppelgänger) still manages to be in the atmosphere to cause warming. Thusly, they get to “tens to hundreds of years.” And, by implication, we are doomed.
Just for the record, I think the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is too low.
The paper is junk. More Salbyism. Look at the abstract: Residence time 4 years. The C14 bombspike proved average atmospheric residence time of a CO2 molecule is ~11 years. Look it up.
That experiment has been done. The paper is wrong.
Ristvan. You right, see my comments. There is a real experiment carried out by the radiocarbon 14C startin from the year 1964. The residence time for the anthropogenic CO2 is 16 years and for the total CO2 55 years.
The difference between four years and eleven years is a mere quibble compared with the claim that the residence time is a thousand years.
He gets the residence time of 4 years from the IPCC’s own numbers.
Regarding the decline of C14 after the bomb spike, that shows only the net removal. It includes a cancellation from C14 that is re-emitted back into the atmosphere, for example, each year when plant foliage dies and decomposes. The residence time is determined by the un-cancelled removal. That has to be faster than net removal and therefore faster than the decline of C14.
The 4-5 years residence time is caused by the full seasonal carbon cycle which is (nearly) as much in as out, thus doesn’t change anything in the atmospheric CO2 quantity. That has nothing to do with any removal of CO2 (whatever isotope) out of the atmosphere.
13C and 14C are really removed out of the atmosphere, due to the very long recycle time of the deep oceans of 500-1000 years. What goes in the oceans is the current isotopic ratio (minus the air-water isotopic shift), what comes out is the isotopic ratio of ~500-1000 years ago (including what happens in the deep and the water-air isotopic shift), which is quite different from the current one.
That makes that any extra 13CO2 (by humans) or 14CO2 (by humans) is removed a lot faster than any extra 12CO2 (which is the bulk of all CO2 at near 99%). See the fate of 14C vs 12C in 1960 at the height of the 14C bomb tests spike:
Of the total CO2 in 1960 going into the deep oceans, 97.5% comes back in the same year.
Of the 14CO2 in 1960 going into the deep oceans, 44% comes back in the same year.
That makes that the decay rate of 14CO2 (and also 13CO2) is much faster than for the bulk of CO2.
Based on the observed net sink rate (~2.15 ppmv/year) at the current extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere (110 ppmv, that is ~110 μatm) above equilibrium, any extra CO2 has an e-fold decay rate of ~51 years, or a half life of ~35 years, quite constant over the past 57 years…
Why does the IPCC use much longer times? They use the Bern model, where for each reservoir different sink rates are applied (no problem with that) but also saturation levels. That is true for the ocean surface (at 10% of the change in the atmosphere), but very questionable for the deep oceans and not at all applicable for the biosphere…
Anyway, the report in question does start with a complete wrong assumption – not the first time that happens – and thus is good for the dust bin, in good company with all the climate models there…
Just two comments. This issue of CO2 residence time comes up weekly. Hale does not specify the residence time, if it is for anthropogenic CO2 or for the total CO2. They are totally different and it looks like this residence time of 4 years is for the total CO2. It would mean that if the present CO2 emissions of 10 GtC/year would be stopped totally, the present CO2 amount of 850 GtC in the atmosphere would decrease to the preindustrial level of 600 GtC in 4*4 years = 16 years. It would mean that the CO2 flux into the sink (=the ocean) would be at least 15 GtC/year. Mission impossible.
I must be missing something. Different residence times for anthropogenic CO2 and total CO2? Does each molecule have a label identifying it as anthro or non-anthro? (so the biosphere and oceans know which ones to absorb preferentially)
i stand to be corrected, but it sounds a bit fishy to me.
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
April 30, 2012 New York Times
Lindzen concludes, however, that the IPCC is using a vastly exaggerated figure for the sensitivity to CO2 and net feedback.
Smart Rock. You should have a basic knowledge about the CO2 recycling between the atmosphere the ocean and the biosphere. About 25 percent of the CO2 amount in the atmosphere is changed every year. It means that about the same amount of the total CO2 is recycled back. Only 45 % of the yearly 10 GtC emission is removed into the deep sea and not coming back. The relatively small fluxes of 14C and anthropogenic CO2 is recycled back. That is why the residence time of 14C and anthropogenic (13C) is much shorter than the total CO2: the removal rate of these CO2 fluxes is greater than the total CO2. You are not the only one not knowing this.
Here is a link to my blog based on the scientific paper: http://www.climatexam.com/single-post/2016/08/29/The-residence-times-of-carbon-dioxide-are-16-and-55-years
Nice work! This seems one of the most difficult points to explain to the world…
Too bad no heavyweights like Michael Eric Dyson or Bill Nye.
It does however include Einstein’s replacement at Princeton’s IfAS Freeman Dyson, who also signed the Oregon Petition.
I can’t find a link to the original letter so it may be printed.
If the US withdraws, it will give the confidence to the politicians worldwide to drop the global warming pseudo-science and return to sane sensible policies.
Or just fuel the controversy that Trump is “Out of Control” to the snowflakes and cite this is an example of such behavior. I would think that such an action should be well orchestrated and planned in advance to maximize its impact and not get cited and therefore dismissed as another “example” of an out of control Presidential Action.
Confidence building is very important to politicians who have the power. The reason we are in this scientific mess is because of the lack of confidence by the political scene and a noisy but very vocal minority.
“Or just fuel the controversy that Trump is “Out of Control” to the snowflakes and cite this is an example of such behavior. I would think that such an action should be well orchestrated and planned in advance to maximize its impact and not get cited and therefore dismissed as another “example” of an out of control Presidential Action.”
Sorry, the MSM is going to portray Trump as out of control no matter what he does. Trump should not try to conform anything he does to what the MSM want. That’s what lilly-livered Republicans do. They let the MSM intimidate them and then these Republicans refrain from putting forward their conservative policies for fear of criticism from the MSM. Not so Trump.
There’s no pleasing the MSM when you are a Republican. Trying to please them is a fool’s errand. So many of the Elite Republicans desperately want the MSM to love them, but it will never happen, guys, so give it up and quit conforming to the MSM flawed view of the world.
I hope Dr Lindzen succeeds, but if he does I fear he is going to need bodyguards 24/7.
Petitions are Politics.
I want proper science to be done. If Trump commissions some proper science it will put an end to this farrago permanently. If the false assertions of the Climate Change fanatics are not exposed, they may be back again before we know it.
In particular, the media need to have their noses rubbed in the fact that they were wrong, and acting as propaganda support for a fraud…
Apparently, Obama looks “better” and “healthier” now that he’s not in the top job? Really? Telling/supporting porkies takes a toll…who knew?
Trivia time! Do the BBC…
A. Report on this highly significant petition from serious and credible scientists?
B. Lead with a new UN climate Czar puff piece?
Ah bugger, I see Phillip Bratby has beaten me to it with the same point up-thread. Must up my game!
Not being a scientist (despite some long forgotten science training) I am of the view that the top stratum of scientists should not sign or even less initiate mass petitions.
Individual request combined with public statements in any channels open to the world class scientist, ranging from science conventions and publications to the mass media outlets, would be noted and likely more effective.
Petitions attenuate individuality and personal achievements of the signatories.
Petitions are for the lower level of ‘scientific’ creature, as myself and perhaps one or two others, who despite shouting loudest are not even heard by anyone, let alone listened to.
… but good luck with it anyway.
The petition states:
“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions.”
That’s a testable claim.
According to combined surface observations (HadCRUT4, GISS and NOAA), which is the metric used by the WMO, surface air temperatures have risen at a statistically significant rate of 0.20 C per decade since the UNFCCC treaty was negotiated in June 1992. That’s a total rise of ~0.5 C in just under 25 years, or ~2.0 C per century.
The satellite record shows less agreement, but still warming. In the lower troposphere (TLT) UAH v6.5 beta shows warming of 0.13 C per decade since June 1992. UAH’s current published TLT set (v5.6) shows 0.15 C/dec warming. The RSS TLT v3.3 data set contains what its producers call “a known cooling bias”, but RSS’s recently updated total troposphere (TTT) 4.0 data show warming of the atmosphere at around the same rate as the surface since June 1992, 0.21 C/dec.
So what were the “initial model predictions” available to the UNFCCC back in 1992 and have observations really shown “much less” warming than was forecast?
The second IPCC report was published in February 1992, so it is to this document that the UNFCCC Treaty would most likely have referred. Section B of that document refers to model forecasts (they only had 4 models back then). Quoting from the Executive Summary of that chapter:
“All but one of the models show slow initial warming (which may be an artefact of the experimental design) followed by a nearly linear trend of approximately 0.3°C per decade. All models simulate a peak-to-trough natural variability of about 0.3°C in global surface air temperature on decadal time-scales.”
So back in 1992, the IPCC was predicting a long term rise in surface air temperatures of 0.3 C/dec after a slow start, but this rate could vary by +/- 0.3 C/dec, depending on natural variability.
Re the initial ‘cold start’, the text of the document goes on to say:
“…three of the models show relatively little warming during the first few decades of the integration rather than a constant rate of warming throughout, despite the near constant rate of increase in radiative heating. This so-called “cold start” is barely noticeable in the GFDL simulation, but in the UKMO and MPI models the warming is negligible during the first 2 to 3 decades.” [IPCC, 1992, B2.2, pg 104].
In summary, 3 out of 4 of the model predictions available to the UNFCCC in 1992 showed “negligible” warming over the first 2-3 decades of the forecast runs, followed by a long term warming rate of 0.3 C/dec (+/- 0.3 depending on natural variability). What has actually been observed in the25 years since 1992, the period during which 3 out of 4 models were predicting negligible” warming, has been statistically significant surface air warming of 0.2 C/dec and atmospheric warming of between 0.13 and 0.21 C/decade, the latter rate also being statistically significant.
How can anyone seriously claim that observations since 1992 show “much less” warming than the models available at that time were forecasting?
Perhaps because since 1998 there has been all but no warming notwithstanding that more than 30% of manmade CO2 emissions have been emitted since then..
Since 1998 there has been statistically significant warming in all of the surface data sets (between 0.14 and 0.17 C/dec): http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The “surface data sets” are antiscience fiction at best, fantasy and fr@ud more like it.
“The “surface data sets” are antiscience fiction at best, fantasy and fr@ud more like it.”
The recent RSS TTT v4.0 satellite data set shows exactly the same warming rate as the surface data sets since 1998: http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TTT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TTT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
I see DWR54 is still trying to use ENSO to claim a warming trend. That alone shows how desperate the true believers have become. Aren’t these the same people who claimed the 1997-98 El Nino was the cause of the pause? Since 1997 the satellite measured trend of ENSO neutral months is essentially zero. Your denial of the best data remains illustrative.
RSS has been “adjusted” now to conform to the fake consensus. But the interval between super El Ninos is far from the whole phony reconstruction. The fakers are constrained by the satellites since 1979 (ignoring space observations from the 1960s and prior ’70s). They do their dirtiest work and cook the books the worst prior to 1979. Then the charlatans hide their deeds with the lame excuse of having lost their homework, so they don’t have to show their chicanery.
Too short a period my friend Go look at more than 340 years of CET temp records with a long term trend 0.26C per Century . With more than 2C rise over a shorter period during that period before the industrial revolution took hold. Its all a “storm” in a teacup and lets face it we know the model predictions are in Thomas Crapper territory.
If the 25 years since 1992 is too short a period then why does the petition attach such significance to it?
DWR54 = WD40 (slippery)
My work suggests that The Pause would extend back to 1982, were it not for two huge volcanoes in 1982 and 1991; Bill Illis’s work suggests The Pause extends back to at least 1958.
Since there was global cooling from about 1940 to 1975, one could conclude that there has been no net global warming since about 1940.
Allan M.R. MacRae
My work suggests that The Pause would extend back to 1982, were it not for two huge volcanoes in 1982 and 1991; Bill Illis’s work suggests The Pause extends back to at least 1958.
The observed warming in the combined surface data sets since 1958 is 0.86 C; a rate of 0.15 C/decade. How this can be described as the continuation of a ‘pause’ isn’t immediately obvious. Where is your ‘work’ published Allan?
Read the cited reference, WD40 – it is all there.
See Billi Illis’s plot back to 1958. What “adjusted” temperature data are you citing?
Preferably, just do not write ma anymore. You are a troll WD, and I have no time for you.
I wrote above: “My work suggests that The Pause would extend back to 1982, were it not for two huge volcanoes in 1982 and 1991.”
Here is further corroboration of my statement, derived from a paper by Santer et al (2014). This comment is by Dave Burton:
2. THE “PAUSE” IS OVER TWO DECADES LONG. THE MEASURED WARMING IS ALL IN THE FIRST 14 YEARS. THEIR 3RD GRAPH (WITH CORRECTIONS TO COMPENSATE FOR BOTH ENSO AND VOLCANIC FORCINGS) SHOWS NO NOTICEABLE WARMING IN THE LAST 21 YEARS.
This conclusion says no significant warming since 1993, I say no real warming since 1982 (after accounting for major volcanos).
Note that the authors are all warmists. It appears they failed to adequately account for the major climatic effects of the volcano El Chichon (1982).
[excerpts from Dave Burton’s post]
A paper last year by MIT’s Ben Santor (with many co-authors, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) did an interesting exercise. They tried to “subtract out” the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) and El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. Here’s their paper:
These graphs are from his paper:
Look at that 3rd graph. Two things stand out:
1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show about half that. And,
2. THE “PAUSE” IS OVER TWO DECADES LONG. THE MEASURED WARMING IS ALL IN THE FIRST 14 YEARS. THEIR 3RD GRAPH (WITH CORRECTIONS TO COMPENSATE FOR BOTH ENSO AND VOLCANIC FORCINGS) SHOWS NO NOTICEABLE WARMING IN THE LAST 21 YEARS.
Curve fitting. Considering the parameterisations in the models and that at least two of the major datasets have been adjusted in such a way that they are closer to model expectation, then the ‘rough agreement’ of which you speak is hardly surprising. . .
What about all the other ‘climate indicators’? How did the models do on California’s ‘permanent drought’ (or not)? How about jet stream behaviour or conditions in Western Europe? How about Arctic/Antarctic projections? How many models/climate scientists predicted ‘the pause’? El Nino/La Nina behavior? I could go on.
To condense ‘climate change’ down to one property (a nebulous global average temp) and then compare model expectation to that alone is is, quite frankly, stupid – especially since we have little in the way of reliable measurement of what it actually is.
Let’s compare projections of actual climatic behaviour in the models with the ‘climate’ that we actually experienced, shall we. Only then will we know if the models are any good.
Or otherwise. . . Cc
The letter uses the word “benign”. Warming that is benign means that it is quite harmless. It does not refer to any defined rate of warming. Indeed, interstadial warming is not only benign, it is beneficial. How do we know? Flora and fauna organic debris is more abundant in paleosoils from warm periods than during cold periods. Warm periods are moist. Cold periods are dry. Better to have the occasional drenching hurricane than a dry steady wind.
Benign is a pretty generous description in my opinion. I noted in “GISS’s warmest evah year” that world agricultural production was outstanding. Regardless of the tortured statistical arguments over the methods and thousandths of a degree, real metrics like sustaining ourselves on this earth are not shown to be impaired in any way. Agricultural output this decade is a QED that there is no catastrophe.
Not just crops but global meat production is growing:
Anti-human doomsayers claim that is a bad thing.
Evidence of warming isn’t evidence of CO2 induced warming.
He says “warming from increased atmospheric CO2”, the climate changes naturally, always has, you need to prove the CO2 link and models aren’t evidence, they’re just an illustration of a theory.
Willis, I don’t know that you will see this, but this question was put to me:
‘If we are supposed to still be in a post-Ice Age, why is it that the natural warming trend is never removed from their figures and charts? Why do they continue lumping it together with what they think is man-made? Is it to make the claim for man-made effects look more sensational on their reports and projections.’
I don’t know that anything could really be done with it, but it seems like an interesting question to put to the alarmists.
The fact is, in the 1980’s the proponents of CAGW decided to “highjack” the natural warming that has been occurring during this Interglacial Period, but only from the year 1880 to present (2017), based on the historical Temperature Record maintained by the NWS.
Again, the simple fact is, ……. if they were to exclude the “average natural warming” from their “fuzzy math” calculated “average CAGW warming” …… there would be nothing remaining to warrant the publishing of their “fear mongering” commentary.
Thank you! Passing that onto him.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
EXTREMELY Important petition that the Trump administration must act on ASAP for the health and wellbeing of humanity and the environment worldwide!
Without access to fossil fuels (CO2) there would be mass casualties and environmental devastation on an unprecedented scale. People cutting down every tree in the planet to provide for their warmth, cooking and industry.
Notable Richard Lindzen comments about colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food CO2 over the years:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Which one is Leonidas?
Lindzen said from the very beginning all that crap is fake. He started calling it voodoo early and said for it to be a theory, it had to be science, which it is not.
I am surprised that Judith Curry did not add her signature.
It could be because Judith Curry has a potential to work for President Trump to whom this petition is addressed.
Or that she is marginal skeptic more tied to the usual Green left community. It’s the most superfluous comparison to think she is in Dr. Lindzen’s category of skeptical honesty about core issues with climate policy.
If true, this would be good news indeed! GK
Pure conjecture, but I sense in a lot of her writings and opinions that Dr Curry would still like to play a role in reconciling what now are two very divergent scientific camps. (Not everyone on the “consensus” side is an idealogue like Karl or a Schmidt.) Her blog can be seen as saying “let’s talk”.
She jumped out of academia to avoid the restrictions on her opinions; signing the petition may seem like a step too far if she is still to act as a neutral agent.
Or George there really is a delusional form of skepticism that can’t (won’t more accurately) resolve the underlying political motivations of being “green”/”climate” advocates or what the heart of the debate is really about.
It’s the “science only” framing skeptics that need to change.
The letter is basically softly worded but Dr. Curry has a hundred nuances to maintain climate statism even if she realized Big Kahuna climate authority was striking out over a decade now. Of course her name isn’t on the letter since like so many (including many labeled “skeptics”) that are comfortable with the status quo and aren’t committed to actual progress that eliminates their view. Dr. Curry would never sign the letter because she believes in some form of climate central- planning. That’s what the U.N. Framework is. It really is that simple.
Why not ask her?
Any country can just ignore this treaty. It has no enforcement mechanisms anyway and most international treaties are just ignored. See all the climate scientist trying to geo-engineer the planet’s atmosphere which is specifically forbidden under UN Convention.
You can pull out of this treaty now and the Democrats can re-sign it again if they ever regain power. I would just leave it as is.
The next point is that the US is probably going to meet the targets just by converting to combined cycle natural gas electricity production and efficiency drives by corporations which is happening on its own. The US government does not need to do anything except open up regulations against technology development and fracking etc.
I think you are confusing this…United Nations Convention on Climate Change…. With this… Paris climate agreement.
or are they the same??
The UN Convention on Climate Change was from 1994 commonly called the “Rio Convention”. This eventually lead to the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 in which industrialized countries committed to reduce emissions 5.0% below 1990 levels by 2020. Most developing countries were exempted.
The Paris Agreement from 2015 was based on trying to keep the temperature increase below 2.0C (or 450 ppm CO2e although no one seems to understand that is what it really was – we are already over that in CO2e numbers including all GHGs).
Each country built their own commitment. It has been ratified by over 100 countries now so it has now come into force (with no enforcement mechanisms of course).
The US committed to reduce GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 26% below by 2025. In 2015, US GHG emissions were 10% below 2005 levels so 5 more years to reduce another 7% and 10 years to reduce 16%.
And the UN Convention which forbids geoengineering the atmosphere without permission is the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992 Rio Earth Summit again but the geoengineering provision was added in 2012).
Except that humans have been geoengineering the atmosphere at least since the discovery of fire.
Although our effect on the atmosphere hasn’t been a pimple on the posterior of cyanobacteria’s.
Gloateus Maximus – doesn’t “engineering” imply intent. GK
If that’s your definition.
But smoke in the air is a byproduct of intentional burning of forests and grasslands.
The Paris “agreement” gives political cover to the holdovers in the US federal agencies in their resistance to any reformations by the new administrations.
Despite its lack of any real enforcement mechanism it is great to wave in front of the public and in today’s judicial climate they may use it in some Progressive court in a ruling that defies legal common sense (e.g. Judge Robart’s immigration ruling) to throw down roadblocks to DJT.
This is good news. A great petition.
I don’t know how President Trump will handle it, as he has many problems at present. He is fighting the establishment in BOTH parties as well as the deep-state. My biggest goal would be to stop the incessant war-mongering that has gone on since ’45. The USA needs a break from fighting wars overseas. My next goal would be to reduce all government activity including faking climate data. The government has defrauded the public in medicine every bit as much as in climate. The idea that only government should decided every issue of the day must be defeated.
I hope the president is good at fighting a multi-front war.
I’ve lurked on this site for years and this is my first post. I don’t have a scientific background, but as a layman even I can see that this petition is a game changer. Keep up the good work Anthony and the others that make this site a ‘must visit daily’.
I maybe should not do this, but several years ago a lady made a “first” comment much like yours as a reader but never commenting. I suggested to her that she too had information and ideas to share.
You might have seen her comments. Look above for the exchange between Janice Moore and Juan Slayton.
[Hi Janice and Juan. Juan, sorry about all the rain. So far this morning we’ve gotten 2 inches of snow. Part of WA’s “left coast” was to get some too. Janice?]
In California, we steal anything that’s not tied down. Including Caribbean doggerel. Forgive me if I’ve used this before.
De rain, it falleth on de just,
And also on de unjust fella.
But chiefly on de just because
De unjust steals de just’s umbrella.
: > )
Hey! How COOL! Someone wants to talk to me!! 🙂
Hi, John. Yes, indeed, Beaufort. It was Mr. John F. Hultquist who warmly welcomed my after my first feeble attempt at a comment. I will repeat to you the encouragement he gave to me that day in April, 2013, You know things. Share.
And I have been “sharing” — with gusto! — ever since.
And John H. is not the only WUWTer who would welcome your commenting. There are LOTS of wonderful scientists/engineers here who LOVE TO TEACH and who are kind. Ignore the jerks who “yell” at you (I try to…. sometimes, I go lick my wounds for a few days, but, if that happens to you, COME BACK — this is a great place to hang out! ….. er…. well…… most of the time, lol).
(still waiting, too — that Milton quote was SO appropos…. and encouraging).
Re: snow over here in zip code 98233, none. Just rain this am. Now! VOILA! It is sunny with partly cloudy skies. I was so happy when I looked out the garage door just now I nearly screamed for joy! 🙂
Maybe, just MAYBE….. spring is on the way!
I believe that there is a very rational and constitutionally supportable action that Trump should follow, rather than to simply withdraw. All legal scholars agree that this agreement is a Treaty – so Trump should publicly acknowledge that since it is a Treaty, it must be submitted to the Senate for approval, as all Treaties must be. And he should state clearly that he will support the Senate’s decision, whatever it may be.
And Trump can further promise to follow up the Senate vote without whatever EO’s are required to carry that decision out, if any are necessary.
Careful there, the senate has John McCain who is still pissed at the entire country for rejecting him as president and selecting a community organizer instead (he was used to his daddy getting him another plane whenever he crashed one), and Lindsey Graham who has his head stuck in his egomaniacal fundament. Now either of these guys would have been substantially better as president than the community organizer but neither can be depended upon in the senate to support rational action, plus possibly other turncoats and cowards.
“Careful there, the senate has John McCain who is still pissed at the entire country for rejecting him as president and selecting a community organizer instead (he was used to his daddy getting him another plane whenever he crashed one), and Lindsey Graham who has his head stuck in his egomaniacal fundament.”
Passing the Paris Agreement as a Treaty would require a two-thirds favorable vote of the Senate. There’s no way that many Senators will vote for this, McCain and Graham notwithstanding. Even many Senate Democrats will vote against this treaty, after the American public learns just how much it would cost U.S. taxpayers, while other nations pay nothing and have no restrictions on themselves.
The Paris Agreement is a non-starter in the U.S. Senate. It’s doomed because the science can’t make a case for it, and it’s doomed because it is an obvious financial boondoggle designed to suck money out of U.S. taxpayer’s pockets.
I would say take it to the U.S. Senate. Then, when it is defeated, it will not be the climate alarmists of the world against Trump, it will be the climate alarmists of the world against the United States. Trump should spread the credit around.
You may be underestimating the degree to which the Washington establishment wants to subvert Trump. Look at all the Republicans who bought into global warming scams and the Democrats usually march in lock step irrespective of the damage done to our country. Obamacare?
I would sign it but I’m just an old construction worker with some conman sense. I hope Trump has some conman sense.
I’m a 100% in the Dr. Lindzen framing of the climate debate. Regardless, 300?? Sounds like a Climate Thermopylae in the making.
If people interpret the cosigned as a mere “science” endorsement and then have it reprocessed by the activist media and the consensus cartel little will be achieved. Endorsement science is post normal. Climate alarmism should be rejected because it doesn’t meet the scientific standards of proof. Standards were changed (models) to fit the political goals of the climate regulatory agenda.
When people focus on the corruption of endorsement science and motives skeptics win the debate. I understand why the science is debated in itself but it’s beyond naive to think that is decisive to broad social debate.
The endorsement game is dominated by massive social trends (leftist academic culture in science and media) of political predisposition stacked against skeptical reasoning.
It’s only one specific letter outlining a positive policy step. Getting it reduced down to endorsement science isn’t going to help the goals of the letter. Denouncing the politicized history of green agenda science as a whole makes more progress and Dr. Lindzen is a hero in that regard as well. All-be-it in an overly scholarly fashion much of the time but understandably so since he’s a scholar first and likely could never imagined what 50 years of green advocacy would do to astrophysics.
Yes, support the goals of the letter but don’t delude yourselves that winning science endorsements (if those are the limited views of the letter) as if each side was fair, rational as if it was really mostly about “science” in the debate was ever true. That’s a false narrative in fact and a loser politically.
Science is about proof not endorsements and the climate policy debate isn’t about conclusive science through its recent 50 year period. The letter signers are highly qualified but billions go to much larger list of consensus supporters and they mostly share a driving political world view on to of it.
Sparta (300 warriors, plus helots) had better propaganda than Thebes (400 on the third day) and Thespiae (700). There had previously been an estimated 7000 Greeks guarding the beach and pass.
Donald Trump has already shown in just his first month that he has the courage and the instincts to do the right things – he’s shown that he’s got more common sense and is more conservative and is more individual freedom loving in one month than what many Republican politicians have shown in their whole careers.
And he’s also shown he will fight for what he believes, and win, as few politicians have ever done before. I have a good feeling that he can get “science” back on track, if anyone can.
I commented on the Dailysomething that since these 300 must be part of the 3% ( 100% – 97% ) , it should be trivial to put together a petition signed by 9,700 “real” scientists whose rice bowls are at stake .
Here is all the evidence you need to not only pull out of the agreement but to send some Climate “Scientists” to jail.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
While it would be nice to change Climate Science form “Model Base” to “Evidence Based”, I think the economic argument of Bjorn Lomberg is stronger:
Thing like the Paris Treaty create a miniscule change at an enormous cost, (that’s if they succeed in producing any change at all). The inevitable, assuming you believe the model would be postponed by only a few years. A far more economic strategy would be to fix the adverse events as they occur (if they occur) and enjoy the benefits (which have actually occurred on the planet itself as opposed to a computer model).
Trump is more likely to understand the economic argument since he is a businessman.
This is just the strangest thing. When arguing with alarmists I frequently try the economic case and say that even if I accept all of the direst predictions of IPCC, how much is it going to cost to effect what minuscule and likely beneficial change? They never engage with that side of the debate and invariably take it as watershed moment of you conceding defeat.
Don’t hope for it. Trump made a lot of promises but it’s been more than 100 days (?) and nothing is happening. (NATO, UN etc)
January 20 was not 100 days ago. More like 37 days.
Hey mountain monkey, skipped counting 101 in kindygarten?
I guess math is not your strongest asset, or is it honesty that you have a problem with ??
Hey, you’re right. Now you can go back to sleep.
Rome was not built in a single day, nor was it at 33. And many wars were then fought against the enemies of Rome, until it was finally established. The world and the universe is a cold place, Trump needs stability and support, no impatience. Trump needs more performances before supporters like the CPAC congress. The reaction to this was almost frightened, at least in Europe and probably also in the US [What, Trump still has supporters, although a CNN, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, the NYT, the Guardian, the “Bild”, the “Zeit”, the “Spiegel” and the “Welt” daily shows the opposite] And Trump should show even more reactions such as the exclusion of the hate press from the white-house press conferences and the absence of the self-adulation ball of the elite press. This is just the right reaction to show the Trump-bashing-Press-people and hater in the left the rake, on the other side he should be cool and prudent in front of the apparently low-equipped Democrats in the nominations to the secretarys of his cabinet and judge Neil Gorsuch. He is the undisputed leader in the GOP. It is this time, the mouse does not bite a faden. Trump is the most underestimated personality in the wider political history and will change America’s biography sustainably. For the better, after 8 years Mickey Mouse Obama.The most politically overrated and wrongly judged politician with more war history than an Attila, the Hun King created in 8 years. And who, as President, will go into the history as a “Buhler” of Silicon Valley, but holds the US infrastructure on the whole below the level of a newly industrialized country.
Good post, Hans-Georg.
IMO hostile “journalists”, ie Democrat propagandists, shouldn’t be excluded from press conferences, just never called upon to ask questions. Or select names out of a hat instead of rewarding rude behavior like Sam Donaldson’s.
Trump promised his replacement for the ACA within the first 30 days, now he is saying maybe by next year. He green lit a raid that was entirely unnecessary, resulting in a botched mission and unneeded loss of life. He has 2000 unfilled appointed positions and is making little progress towards filling those positions. He has the lowest approval rating at this point in his Presidency of any President in the polling era (last 50 years).
The polls are all over the place. Meaningless.
When did he promise 30 days for an ACA replacement? I missed that promise. Here is what he did say, from Commie NPR, no less:
I guess you missed today’s news that an ACA repeal and replacement has taken shape in Congress already, but awaits being written into legislative form.
Note difference between Likely Voters and All Adults, with same sample size:
Gallup 2/23 – 2/25 1500 A 41 54 -13
Rasmussen Reports 2/21 – 2/23 1500 LV 53 47 +6
Rasmussen BTW was right on in its Nov 7 poll:
“The latest national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Clinton with 45% support to Trump’s 43%. Libertarian Gary Johnson picks up four percent (4%) of the vote, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets two percent (2%). Three percent (3%) still like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) remain undecided.”
Compare with actual vote the next day (rounded), taking undecideds into account:
Clinton 48%, Trump 46%, Johnson 3%, Stein 1%, Other 2%. Johnson actually got 3.3%.
“The polls are all over the place. Meaningless.”
Wrong “All over the place” is your way of avoiding the truth – he’s the least popular President in polling history at this point in his Presidency. Even the right wing site Breitbart acknowledges that he is incredibly unpopular.
And the WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-least-popular-new-president-in-at-least-a-generation-poll-finds-1484690456
Regarding the ACA, here is his promise: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/11/donald-trump-addresses-obamacare-repeal-and-replacement-at-press-conference-in-new-york.html
Here is his backpedal on his ACA promise: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/donald-trump-health-care-law-repeal-replace-plan.html
I didn’t miss anything, Trump made a promise about replacing the ACA and has broken it.
Over and over research finds the previous Eemian to have been, at its peak, warmer than today. And over and over research uses INCREASED vegetation as that signal. Today’s warming has not yet risen over the previous interstadial and may have as much as 2 degrees more to warm before it matches it. Warmth is benign and indeed beneficial, were it not for the FACT we are heading for a jagged dive to another stadial. That period will be worth global commitments towards survival, not taxing plant food.