Petition to the President
Feb 27, 2017 Guest Post by David Holland
Dick Lindzen has sent to President Trump a letter and petition signed by some 300 scientists and experts (H/T Anthony Watts). The petition is for the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I had some difficulty accessing it but eventually located a pdf of the letter and the petition itself here.
I'm sure Dick speaks for many BH readers as well some of our MPs. Even at the high water mark in 2008 only a little over half of British voters thought humans were responsible for most global warming and less than half thought it a pressing problem. Recent opinion polls now show that barely 10% of the public regard climate change as a serious concern. Few can now dispute the global agricultural benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration, but in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments.
Hopefully when Parliament debates the Grand Repeal Bill some of our smarter MPs will push to dump any directives requiring reductions in carbon dioxide emissions or support for the UNFCCC.
Reader Comments (404)
Phil Clarke, with Greenpeace now admitting they lie in legal documentation submitted to a Court, do you feel more or less confident or justified, in your alleged factual statements?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-shit/
PC
Using numbers from here, I get an anomaly of 0.54 for 1997 and a whopping 1.23 for 2016. Totally inconsistent with 'no warming since 1998'.
But, LOL (as you like to put it) you're yourself are invoking the point-to-point problem.
And originally, I was careful to avoid El Nino years as being atypical. Now you resort to sample from a non- El Nino year to smack in the middle of an El Nino year. LOL indeed.
What?! You've inserted the word scenario in front of captions for a graph. Those are not descriptions of the actual scenarios. You can see the projected concentrations of GHGs under the scenarios on page XIV. Scenarios B&C have CO2 at c400ppm by now, Scenario A well above. Observed is around 406. You have to factor in the other forcings of course, methane actually tracked well below most projections, and CFCs were reduced by the Montreal Protocols. This has been done.
All four scenarios of IPPC 1 predict CO2 levels now of less than 400 ppm.
I made my insertion of the word scenario perfectly clear through the use of square brackets.
And I'll quote the paragraph I originally cited fully:
"To illustrate the emission-concentration relationship
clearly, the effect of hypothetical changes in carbon dioxide
fossil fuel emissions is shown in Figure 4 (a) continuing
global emissions at 1990 levels, (b) halving of emissions in
1990, (c) reductions in emissions of 2% per year (pa) from
1990 and (d) a 2% pa increase from 1990-2010 followed by
a 2% pa decrease from 2010"
And behold! Figure 4 labels these Scenarios A, B, C and D. So there's nothing wrong with my insertion of the word "scenario".
And the Appendix (as you very kindly explain) explains them further:
"In Scenario B the energy supply mix shifts towards lower carbon fuels, notably natural gas. Large eflicicncy increases are achieved Carbon monoxide controls are stringent, deforestation is reversed and the Montreal Protocol implemented with full participation.
In Scenario C a shift towards renewables and nuclcear energy takes place in the second halt of next century CFCs are now phased out and agncultural emissions limited.
And so we have your claim that scenario C is a good model for where we are now. Only thing is, we haven't moved significantly towards nuclear, if anything we're building coal plants like they were going out of fashion (ask a German), and we've done nothing to limit agricultural emissions. Indeed, we're now chopping down the trees to burn them for electricity!
Ssat, Ethnic people are not Orang utans? Absolutely staggering.
"Why are polar bear numbers not declining?
Because they are hunted less than they were? Polar bears are a bit of a sideshow, and number are hard to measure accurately, however most populations are stable or declining."
Mar 3, 2017 at 6:15 PM | Phil Clarke
"Because they are hunted less", is the accurate bit. Nothing to do with ice extent at all.
"Polar bears are a bit of a sideshow" is a lie. Polar Bears were presented as being the most important and cuddly bit of the show. Climate Science would like them to be a sideshow now, because they won't die as modelled, and are becoming an embarrassment to Climate Science
"numbers are hard to measure accurately, but most populations are stable or declining" The first bit is accurate, therefore the second statement has no basis in fact. It is bluster. Evidence from polar bear specialists not in the pay of Global Warming Alarmists does not indicate any decline in numbers, and based on Phil Clarke's usual levels of unreliability, the benefit of any doubt does not fall in Phil Clarke's favour.
Stats now show Ireland absorbing record numbers of second hand cars upon Sterlings decline but not enough to compensate for Februarys new car sales if it becomes a trend.
source : CSO & Irish "Beep" vehicle sale website.
But, LOL (as you like to put it) you're yourself are invoking the point-to-point problem.
Linear trend then: 0.16C/decade since 1998. Pretty much the same as pre-1998.
No lack of warming there.
The planet does not care how or how the greenhouse gases were emitted; what matters is the actual concentrations and consequent forcings, these are graphed in figures A.5 and A.6 for the four scenarios. B&C do not diverge much until around 2010 and are the closest to how forcings actually developed. The associated tempertaure predictions also match observations.
Evidence from polar bear specialists not in the pay of Global Warming Alarmists does not indicate any decline in numbers
Susan Crockford covertly receives $750 / month from the Heartland Institute to write her propaganda. That, and a doctorate in the domestic canine are reasons to be sceptical of her musings on Polar Bears. I'll stick with the experts, thanks.
But, LOL (as you like to put it) you're yourself are invoking the point-to-point problem.
Linear trend then: 0.16C/decade since 1998. Pretty much the same as pre-1998.
No lack of warming there.
If you don't mind, rather than you cherry-picking from non-El Nino year to an El Nino year, or vice-versa, I'll stick with the time period I originally quoted: 1997 to 2014:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2014/magnitude/plot/uah5/from:1997/to:2014/magnitude/plot/none
Approximately 0.05 C/decade. I'm terrified.
The planet does not care how or how [sic] the greenhouse gases were emitted; what matters is the actual concentrations and consequent forcings, these are graphed in figures A.5 and A.6 for the four scenarios. B&C do not diverge much until around 2010 and are the closest to how forcings actually developed. The associated tempertaure predictions also match observations.
So we have moved on from your bluster about graph (a) being something different to Scenario A - thank goodness. The pay-dirt figure you're trying to reach in the IPCC first report is, I think, Fig A.11 which manages to predict a rise of temperature of ~0.3C between 1990 and 2015 - if you're not too offended by cherry-picking from the graphs. That prediction is predicated on a 2 % p.a. cut in CO2 emissions from 1990 onwards, which is actually scenario D. What has actually happened over that period is a 0.2 C rise: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2015/magnitude/plot/uah5/from:1990/to:2015/magnitude
It seems that the planet not only doesn't care about where the CO2 comes from, nor even if there's any great change in the level of CO2. (It is amusing to note that your trusted scenario C (2 % cut in emissions from 2010) predicts a temperature rise of 0.6 C between 1990 and 2015).
Susan Crockford covertly receives $750 / month from the Heartland Institute to write her propaganda. That, and a doctorate in the domestic canine are reasons to be sceptical of her musings on Polar Bears. I'll stick with the experts, thanks.
Well, I don't really expect the WWF, Greenpeace, or the BBC to come out with reports about rising polar bear numbers either, and I'll bet Attenborough's paid more than £750/minute. All we need here is a bear counter. Even Michael Mann can manage that. I think I'd trust Crockford rather more than any cabal from your side.
I'll stick with the time period I originally quoted: 1997 to 2014:
But it wasn't was it? You originally said there was a need to 'Explain the lack of warming since 1998'
Apparently you meant 'the lack of warming if I carefully include an El Nino at the start of the period but inexplicably stop observations just before the onset of the El Nino at the end of the period.
Because even if you switch from the GISS surface measurements to the satellite troposphere temps the reality is that there is no lack of warming since 1998.
@Messenger
"A glimmer of hope is given by some conservationist groups whose remit includes protecting the forest, looking for sustainable employment opportunities and promoting tourism in carefully selected places.."
-- I'm guessing that your daughter is somewhere like Jakarta or Bali and not on the ground.
NGO's Greenpeace Indonesia inspired by foreign activists often push the romantic idea of eco-tourism, the reality is almost always it's pennies compared to thousands of dollars of real industries. Such project usually suck in foreign subsidy money, a few photos then disappear cos they are not sustainable.
IMO It's better to have proper industries like mining, providing real money and jobs,
But set up properly zone the mine set up the proper procedures.
Meanwhile zone other areas as National Park, and others as complete Conservation areas with no human access (cos even tribal people have explosives, chainsaws and pickups these days)
Last I looked President Jocko had done something right cos after 20 years he's got control of the bi-annual forest fires.
The pay-dirt figure you're trying to reach in the IPCC first report is, I think, Fig A.11 which manages to predict a rise of temperature of ~0.3C between 1990 and 2015 - if you're not too offended by cherry-picking from the graphs. That prediction is predicated on a 2 % p.a. cut in CO2 emissions from 1990 onwards, which is actually scenario D. What has actually happened over that period is a 0.2 C rise:
I fear you are still confused. The report has two classes of Scenario, science described in the annex section A.1.2 and labeled S1-S4, and policy described in the body of the report and labelled A-D. I have only ever referred to the policy scenarios. Thus the relevant figure is actually A9.
We now know that Scenario A was too pessimistic in terms of emissions and forcings and B&C, which do not diverge much before about 2010 were closer to concentrations actually rose. In words the report stated
under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)
Eyeballing the graph A9 indeed shows a predicted rise from 1990 to now somewhere in the region 0.3-0.4C. The data shows linear rate of increases of 0.189C/decade (surface, NASA GISTEMP) or 0.135C/decade in the troposphere (RSS). Multiplying the annual rate by 26 years gives a rise of 0.49C at the surface and 0.35C in the satellite data. The 1990 models were slightly cool but within the limits of eyeballing a lo-res graph, not too shabby.
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
#http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
#
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2016.92
#Selected data from 1990
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0189198 per year
1990 0.303992
2016.92 0.813251
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.558621
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Remote Sensing Systems
#http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
#
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2017.17
#Selected data from 1990
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0135546 per year
1990 0.0171317
2017.17 0.385366
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.201249
http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/trend
@Capell You'll win every time against Pigeon Clarke but
"It is like playing chess with a pigeon,
No matter how good I am at chess,
the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces,
crap on the board,
and strut around the table puffing out its chest."
Mar 5, 2017 at 10:43 AM | Phil Clarke
With your response based on warped logic, you have now established that polar bear numbers have become an Inconvenient Truth, and that just like the rest of Climate Science, if you don't waste money looking for problems that don't exist, no problems will be reported.
Trump has worked this out. You have helped identify Susan Crockford as a reliable source on polar bears, and rather better value for money than the other 97% of polar bear experts consuming million$ per year, who might as well be studying computer generated chocalate mice, at their own expense.
I'll stick with the time period I originally quoted: 1997 to 2014:
But it wasn't was it? You originally said there was a need to 'Explain the lack of warming since 1998'
Apparently you meant 'the lack of warming if I carefully include an El Nino at the start of the period but inexplicably stop observations just before the onset of the El Nino at the end of the period.
Because even if you switch from the GISS surface measurements to the satellite troposphere temps the reality is that there is no lack of warming since 1998.
I detect gnats being strained here.
Look at 1996 to 2014
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2014/plot/uah5/from:1996/to:2014
Note in passing that there's little or no warming in 1997, the El Nino year that you're now including.
1997 to 2014 warming: 0.18 C. 0.11 C/decade. Still not exactly terrifying.
I fear you are still confused. The report has two classes of Scenario, science described in the annex section A.1.2 and labeled S1-S4, and policy described in the body of the report and labelled A-D. I have only ever referred to the policy scenarios. Thus the relevant figure is actually A9.
What you really mean is that you are only now making it clear which set of scenarios - policy, not science - you are referring to.
Yes I was confused. I wonder how that happened?
So, we're on figure A.9. Thanks: we now know which particular plot you've cherry-picked as an (perhaps the only one) example of a climate model that works.
But that's showing about 0.5 C of warming since 1990. It shows that for scenarios B, C, and D. They're all far too warm.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2015/plot/uah5/from:1990/to:2015
That's 2C/century.
@SSat I go with modern language usage, cos things move away from the original Sanskrit.
Yes even 10 years ago I would have translated Bumiputra/putera as "sons of the soil"
Yet the political context became that they seemed to be using it to mean "princes of the soil"
And in conversation people tend to omit the suffix and just say Bumi.
Then ironically "One Malaysia" is the next word that pops up on TV.
Capell - still truncating in 2015. Why?
Mar 5, 2017 at 3:11 PM | Phil Clarke
Still ignoring Inconvenient Truths. Why?
@ stewgreen
Thank you. If you want to lecture me on modern use of Malay, please read and comprehend my post first.
@ Martin Mason
Your "Orang utans"
Apart from the fact that 'orang' is either the singular or the plural form and the [s] is not Malay, link me to any Malay dictionary that defines Orang utan[s] as any form of ethnic homo sapiens whatsoever as opposed to ponginae.
If you can, my next post will be while wearing a baju melayu, sampin and songkok.
srewgreen, Martin Mason & ssat,
Orang utans should replace Climate Scientists. They are cheaper to maintain, don't really panic, and most people like Orang utans
"Mar 5, 2017 at 3:11 PM | Phil Clarke
Still ignoring Inconvenient Truths. Why?
"
I thought that was your birthday.
Jesus Ssat don't be so bloody thick. Who said that orang utans were humanoid you plonker? Orang utans as plural is also correct, I happen to speak English so (s) on plurals is correct and I know what the many meanings of the word orang can be. I don't need to google it, I've done it.
stewgreen, my Iban friends call it satu Malayu
Phil, nobody is buying the CC chage propaganda now.
"Who said that orang utans were humanoid you plonker?" martin mason Mar 5, 2017 at 4:58 PM
You did.
...ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest such as Orang Utans. martin mason Mar 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM
Sorry to post this here, but WUWT say there is a petition about the BBC here, but I can't find it. Can someone post a link, please? Thanks.
Ssat, read it again not just a part of it
This not only destroys forest but all of the wild life and livelihood of ethnic people that live in or survive on the forest, such as OT's
Now if you are stupid enough to interpret this as People are Orang utans then that's a problem you need to deal with.
@Barry Click on Unthreaded top of this page
@Martin Mason Actually you only used to mean the animal
I was the one who after @ssat tried to correct you , said I think you can actually use it to mean people if you wanted to though no one does these days.
And I have always understood that words like utan and hutan are the same word
and cos Malay was original written in Jawi writing there are alternative ways of transcribing it to Roman alphabet.
So that's why you see the same word spelled differently.
putra/putera = ڤوترا
martin mason
I don't need to read it again: it doesn't even have ambiguity in mitigation.
@ stewgreen @ Belle
Sanity
Belle, then you are as pedantic and stupid as ssat. Grow up the pair of you.
Meanwhile, back at the thread ....
Trump announces his budgets on March 13th. I think Climate Science may experience a sudden chilly blast from the direction of the White House, that may cool the Climate Science debate, that they thought was settled years ago.
Hopefully, Trump will be able to conclude the debate with greater confidence and certainty than Climate Science ever managed.
Regarding Morner's work on sea levels and the Maldives. It now appears climate-driven catastrophe has been averted so the Maldivian government have abandoned efforts to save the islands from immersion in the rising waters of the Indian ocean and are instead now going flat out for commercial growth. Naturally the Guardian has denied reader comments, which kind of says it all.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/03/maldives-plan-to-embrace-mass-tourism-sparks-criticism-and-outrage
Mar 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM | CheshireRed
It is a catastrophe for Global Warming Alarmists that Sea Level won't rise in accordance with the computer models, that they had programmed.
They still deny any irresponsibility, but expect to be paid by taxpayers.
I am still curious how orbital gravity gradiometers can have any bearing on measurement of sea-levels. It is a shame my most likely source for a reliable answer seems to have been called away for urgent business.
(Yes, yes… I know I could Google it, but I have a suspicion that I will still not be able to get my questions answered, and I have the vanity of actually dealing with one of the persons involved in their deployment!)
Mar 6, 2017 at 10:37 AM | Radical Rodent
" ...my most likely source for a reliable answer seems to have been called away for urgent business."
If your most reliable source also advocates for Climate Science, you may need to reassess your judgement of "reliable". Allegedly, 9 out of 7 of them still agree with Mann's mathematical ability, to prove nonscience is right.
GC: you may have been somewhat distracted by the bickering of a few of the orang belanda higher up in this tree to notice that my tongue was wedged quite firmly in my cheek with that description. Still, it would have been nice to have been given an explanation as to how this “constellation” would help.
Radical Rodent, my gravy gradingometer works best without the interference of satellites, and is down to my personal preference
Climate Scientists only prefer the results of satellite gravity gradiometers, when they match their expectations, otherwise they deem them unreliable.
....Oliver Manuel, who believes the sun has an iron core....
Can anyone explain to me why PC should think that believing the sun has an iron core should be treated as a smear? It sounds like a perfectly respectable hypothesis to me...
http://www.space.com/18873-sun-x-ray-light.html
To elaborate, Manuel not only proposes an iron core, but in his theory, iron is more abundant that hydrogen in the sun and it it is the fusion of iron not hydrogen that powers our star. Only problem is fusing heavier elements consumes more energy than it releases, to get around this Manuel basically assigns properties to neutrons and protons which are, shall we say 'novel'. To call it a fringe theory is a kindness.
(Then there's his novel approach to parenthood, but we won't go there.)
No more absurd than believing that humans can control the climate... but let's not go there, either.
Still stuck on the ad homs, eh, Mr Clarke?
@Golf Charlie. Not just lack of evidence. I think its also due to the people touting alarmism and their values.
I imagine Clarkie being on the Titanic shouting 'Climate scientists and me first, then the women and children'
they cant do anything wrong , because they are saving the planet
EternalOptimist, I suppose Climate Scientists could rig up a petition to President Trump listing all the proof they have for their theories and why they qualifiy for billion$ more per annum.
This may establish the extent of Trump's sense of humour.
GC,
Given the number of predictions made by climate catastrophiliacs that should be a pretty easy list to pull together :)
Regards
Mailman
Good idea. You could start with sea ice.
Mar 7, 2017 at 11:48 AM | Phil Clarke
Sea ice is fine. What are you comparing it to?
@RR ha ha "orang belanda " impressed you know that phrase
..Probably couldn't be used in English, cos could be construed as racist the way it is used.
(trans as Dutch man = all white people = a particular kind of big nosed ape
thus showing you can use Malay words to apply to both people and animals
Thus RR could have been calling us "big nosed apes".)
Back to the thread : As Authority petitions go well done DavidH for highlighing it
and I hope it does its function of highlighting to Team Trump that large group of experts don't accept dramagreen dogma.