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.
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.
Correction: UNFCCC
Not:
UN Framework on Climate Change Convention.
actual name.
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39081783
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:
See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
Ian,
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
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
aveollila ,
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..
Richard,
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
DWR,
The “surface data sets” are antiscience fiction at best, fantasy and fr@ud more like it.
Gloateus Maximus
“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.
DWR,
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.
DWR56
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.
Frank,
If the 25 years since 1992 is too short a period then why does the petition attach such significance to it?
DWR54 = WD40 (slippery)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/23/december-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update-with-a-look-at-the-year-end-annual-results/comment-page-1/#comment-2404993
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.
Regards, Allan
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).
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/20/study-from-marvel-and-schmidt-examination-of-earths-recent-history-key-to-predicting-global-temperatures/comment-page-1/#comment-2104175
[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:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
These graphs are from his paper:
http://www.sealevel.info/Santor_2014-02.png
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:
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/figure3-1.PNG
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.”
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/bureaucratic-dioxide/
‘300’
Which one is Leonidas?
Tick VG!
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.
@bleD,
Why not ask her?
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/
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%.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/US-emissions-chart-637×279.jpg
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
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’.
Beaufort,
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?]
Hi John,
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).
Thanks, John!
(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!