NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony
by Joe Bast
Dear Fred,
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.
For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.
Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.
Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.
In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.
Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.
You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.
While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”
Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.
Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.
I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:
First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.
Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.
Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.
Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.
Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.
Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.
He should stick to the science and squelch his remarks about ‘the Left,’ and the ‘liberal environmental movement.’ That stuff simply perpetuates the political name-calling.
I agree with his views on AWG, but am a thoroughly far-left liberal. Whaddya gonna say about that?
No point in it – just like kids in the schoolyard.
izen says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:45 am
“Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.”
It’s not the temperature of the surface warming alone, it is the temperature relative to a particular baseline established by the current state of carbon fluxes from the lands and oceans. The data show this very clearly.
To predict the level of CO2 in the atmosphere very closely at any time in the last 50 years, all one needs is the starting value, and the global temperature anomalies in-between. It is clear that temperature is driving CO2 levels because CO2 levels lag the temperature. Human inputs are rapidly sequestered by nature, and are insignificant and largely superfluous in determining the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else.”
Only because there isn’t much of a “right”, akin to American conservatism, elsewhere.
Entropic man:
Following your having trolled about the Stern Report, at August 15, 2012 at 8:42 am in this thread I asked you to justify your falsehood which said the Stern Report and the Lords Select Committee Report only differed in “emphasis”.
I cited only three statements from the Select Committee Report and asked you to cite statements in the Stern Report which differed from them only in “emphasis”.
You have failed to respond to that but during the hours since you have made posts on this and other threads including in this thread (at August 15, 2012 at 9:17 am) a flaming post. For example, it includes this gem of untrue flaming
Of course, you are not an “observer”: your posts demonstrate you are an anonymous, offensive troll. And there could not be a more clear demonstration of troll flaming than your assertion that you are (deliberately?) blind to the difference between “creationists” and those who conduct scientific discussions of the AGW-hypothesis which – to date – has yet to obtain any supporting empirical evidence.
So, perhaps you could take some time off from trolling on this and other threads and spend that time in responding to my request that you show statements in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from the three quotations I provided. Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?
Richard
Lichanos:
I think you may want to read my post at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm.
Richard
jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
“No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise.”
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes. A linearized model would give you something like this:
Tdot = (To – T)/tau
where T is the surface temperature, To is the equilibrium temperature, and tau is a time constant. For an homogenous atmosphere composed of a single gas, theoretically, as you add more gas, To and tau change. Generally, To will increase, up to an upper limit, as you add more gas.
What is interesting is what happens when you have a complex atmosphere composed of many emitters. In general, energy will start to dissipate more and more rapidly as the lowest frequency emitter becomes more and more excited. But, the higher frequency emitters will continue pulling the surface temperature up, as they reflect back increasing energy in their emissions band (the reflected emissions increase as the surface temperature increases, and the central mass of the Planck emissions spectrum moves closer to the emissions band of the higher frequency atmospheric emitters – this is the positive feedback effect of which I speak).
It is my hypothesis that, if you have two major emitters which are both being excited significantly in the equilibrium state, then adding more of the lower frequency emitter will necessarily draw the surface temperature down. It is like having a dam with two levels of floodgates, which are both spilling water out to establish an equilibrium level of water behind the dam. If you add more floodgates on the lower level, then the equilibrium level of water behind the dam is going to go down, rather than up.
This is the situation with the Earth, where H2O and CO2 are lower level emitters, but CH4 is a higher level emitter which is also being significantly excited. If you add more CO2, which has its emissions band close to the central mass of the Earth’s emissions spectrum at current temperatures, there will be more energy radiated away and the surface temperature should stablize at a lower level, i.e., the surface temperature should actually go down.
I have significant doubts that current theory has properly accounted for the interaction of all the emitters in our atmosphere.
Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
So, to sum these two comments up:
1) the data show that humans have very little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, which are determined by temperatures
2) Increasing CO2 may actually tend to decrease, rather than increase, surface temperatures
Add to those:
3) the current hiatus in temperatures shows that the AGW models are wrong
4) there is zero possibility that China, India, and others are going to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions
5) there are benefits to both higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
and you find that the whole controversy is moot, beside the point, futile, and just overall an overwhelming fiasco and a monument to hubris on the part of what are effectively religiously motivated activists on the pro-AGW side.
Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
You deny global warming exists
As Anthony said, it is the ‘catastrophic’ part that most of us do not agree with. Below is a very brief summary of comments and things that have happened over the last 7 years. Can you tell me why I should believe global warming is ‘catastrophic’ based on science and not consensus?
Are you aware of Phil Jones comment on July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Then there is the ‘travesty’ comment by Trenberth. My interpretation is that privately, they were shocked to see a period of 10 years with no warming. But when that actually happened, they said it appeared in 1 out of 8 model runs. Fair enough. I will accept that. However I also read that no model runs showed 15 years of no warming. Now that three of the data sets show over 15 years of no warming, Santer says we need 17 years for something or other. I am not sure if he is implying that 17 years of no warming means that CAGW is false. But if that happened, I would not be surprised if the goal posts get shifted again.
So what am I trying to prove? We are beyond Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ in terms of time of no warming and are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. With 15 years and 8 months on RSS, we are 92% of the way there. Hadsst2 is right behind at 15 years and 6 months of no warming.
Personally, I would say we are already at the point where we can say the warming is NOT catastrophic, but I cannot prove it mathematically.
Bart:
It is simply true that AGW is not a right-left issue anywhere except in the US. Deluding yourself about this inhibits opposition to the AGW-scare because – although you may not like it – the US is not the world.
And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.
Richard
richardscourtney;
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patience Richard. There is method to my madness.
Though our friend Eric Grimsrud now seems missing in action. He has the opportunity to strut his stuff in response to Greg House. He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.”
I think that was my point.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Following your having trolled”
I prefer not to give rudeness any reward.
Re:davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm
…He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.
What critical details do you think I have overlooked? (crypto-comments are a pain)
Entropic man says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
Greg House says (August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am)
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–
Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
====================================================
I said “experimental proof“. And exactly as I expected your link does not contain any link to a real experiment proving that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
There are only 2 references there containing the word “experiment”: one to a “thought experiment” and the other one to a “model experiment”. Both have as much to do with real experiments as hot dogs with dogs.
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?”
I could be paid to do this? Who do I contact?
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Richard, you are not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues. The first is CAGW. The current status is that there is support from those whose belief is based on studies that they have seen, there is support from those whose belief is based on faith, and there is skepticism from those who have a better understanding of data and analysis (according to a Harvard study). Regardless of who believes what, it is irrelevant.
The second issue is critically important. That issue is what we as members of various governing units are forced to do in mitigation of CAGW. When Lord Monckton spoke at Schenectady, he was asked why if the economic argument against mitigation ($1.5 quadrillion/ C°) was so strong that he bothered with the scientific argument. The professor asking the question had intuitively understood, that if the real cost of mitigation was understood, that political support for mitigation would be equivalent to the votes for the Communist Party USA.
The Republican party would love to see the scientific basis for CAGW demolished, but until that happens, we are happy to have the federal government waste billions of dollars in energy research if we can keep the federal government from crippling our economy and reducing our standard of living by limiting energy production and driving up energy prices. The Democrats have made membership in the first church of AGW a political issue. We are not going to accept mitigation as the Democrats propose in order to make the scientific argument pure and academic.
Re:Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes
No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
If you wish to understand whether a particular bandwidth of radiant energy warms a surface, you must examine the net energy. In the case of our planet, whether over land or water, the up=welling LWIR is always greater then the down-welling LWIR. The planets’ surface is not warmed by LWIR, it is warmed by the sun.
Down-welling LWIR does not warm the planets surface.
Cooling slower is not the same as warming
Going broke more slowly is not the same as becoming wealthier.
Neutralizing alkalinity is not the same thing as acidification.
No, it is not “quite complicated”, it is very straightforward.
jjfox;
Stay tuned for 24 hours or so.
Greg House;
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERIC GRIMSRUD
The question begs an answer! Are you going to step up? You’ve told me repeatedly that you are a SCIENTIST and that you are a TEACHER. So… teach Greg House some science…. please.
As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. I will do this in my own way and in manner designed to teach only the basic principles involved. My explanation is in no way rigorous with respect to all relevant details.
For starters, let’s talk about how solids (such as the terrestrial Earth) and then gases (such as our atmosphere) can both absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Solids can absorb essentially all EMR of all wavelengths. Thus, when either UV, Vis, or IR radiation strike the Earth, absorption occurs and the energy of those photons is converted to thermal energy within the solid – causing its temperature to increase. Solids emit EMR only over a specific range of wavelengths, however. Solid objects with Earth-like temperatures emits over a continuous and broad range in the IR (wavelengths say from about 2 to 50 microns). Objects with Sun-like temperatures (about 6,000 C) emit continuously over the UV, Vis, and near Vis range of wavelenghts about 0.1 to 2 microns).
Gases interact differently with EMR, however, and those interactions depend entirely on the chemical composition of the gas. If, for example, the gas in question contained only O2, N2, or Ar (the three major components of our atmosphere), there would be no interaction of that gas with either visible or infrared radiation. All of that radiation would simply pass through that gas as if nothing was there – as all radiation does pass through a vacuum. Also a gas consisting of these three substances will not emit any radiation at all if that gas that near-Earth-like temperatures.
If, on the other hand, the gas in question contained what we call “IR-active” molecules, then the interaction of that gaseous mixture with IR radiation will be very different.
(Time out: What are IR-active molecule? – they will include any molecule that has three or more atoms. Why? such molecules have vibrational modes in which the center of electron density is altered as the molecule vibrates. So what? Just as a radio antennae can absorb and emit EMR of the radiowave frequencies, an IR-active molecule can emit and absorb EMR of the same frequency as the molecule’s vibrational frequenies.)
Thus, that gaseous mixture will be able to absorb the portion of IR radiation that passes through it that happens to have the same frequency as the specific frequency of that of an IR-active molecule’s vibration. The rest of the IR radiation will simply pass through. ALSO, that gaseous mixture will emit IR radiation at the frequencies of the vibrations of its IR-active molecules.
OK, so now lets get to our main point. The surface of the Earth is emitting broad band IR radiation. So let’s next consider what would happen if the atmosphere had no IR-active molecules. The answer is – nothing would happen. That IR emitted from the surface would simply sail out into outer space thereby cooling the Earth. As a result, that surface emission – all by itself- would be able to match the amount of energy that is being received from the Sun (less the amount of sunlight reflected – called the albedo). In that case, the surface of the Earth would have a Temp of about -15 C (determined from straightforward calculations).
But now, what if the gaseous mixture, such as our atmosphere, contained IR-active molecules (such as H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, and myriad others). Then much of the broadband IR emitted from the surface would be quick absorbed – especially at the lower elevations where total atmospheric pressure and partial pressures of all components are the greatest.
So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).
So in putting all of this together, lets compared the condition #1 in which we imagined that all of the IR emitted by the surface simply sailed out into the universe. In that case, the only EMR hitting the Earth was that from the Sun. In condition #2, we have the same amount of sunlight hitting the Earth BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth and changes its average T from about -15C to about +15C.
The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.
In summary, this provides an example of how radiant energy (IR) emitted from a colder region of the Earth (our upper atmosphere) – because of the presence of GHGs in it – causes the temperature of a warmer region (the surface) to be increased.
Hope this helps. Glad to try to answer any questions if sincerely delivered. More on this, along with direct physical evidence can be found in Chapter 2 of my short course at ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm:
As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. … BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth…
====================================================
First of all, Eric, let me thank you for no abuse in that long posting. The thesis about warming back radiation is well known and actually very old, like 150 years old.
The problem is, it is not clear that this back radiation would warm. Yes, radiation generally can warm, we know that, but we also know that heat does not flow from a colder body to a warmer body at least through conduction. Again, some people say yes, it does flow in both directions but the net effect is that a colder body does not warm a warmer body and the same goes for radiation. Others say no, it is against the laws of thermodynamics.
Now, I am trying to be objective. Knowing that thermodynamics started with experiments and not just with laws, and not knowing exactly that the experiments included experiments with radiation, I am asking a simple question: is it proven experimentally? Is it proven experimentally that a colder body can influence the temperature of a warmer body by means of radiation?
Then I ask people if they can provide a link to a real direct scientific verifiable experiment proving that well known assertion. And guess what: nothing comes up. Only explanations or irrelevant stuff or references to other unproven assertions.
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.
And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was
“Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric”
The only part I thought not worth considering was your bit about “has become dangerously limited”.
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year. When and if we ever stop converting geo carbon to bio carbon, it will take thousands of years to significantly reduce the level of CO2 that we have then “achieved”. Perhaps, if I live to be about 10,000 years old, then your question concerning how plants would do with only 200 ppm CO2 might interest me.
Nevertheless, let me speculate a bit about your question of what happens if CO2 ever goes to 200 ppm:
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.
Well done Eric Grimsrud!
I shall reserve comment for the time being. I requested that you respond to Greg House, and now that you have done so, I shall not deprive Greg House of the opportunity to respond to you.
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
jjfox;
No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I shall respond to you directly as I said I would over the next 24 hours or so. In the meantime, I’d refer you to Dr Grimsrud’s explanation which has considerable merit in the context of your assertions.
jjfox;
Without delving into the science itself, as I am standing down on that issue for the time being to allow for Greg House and Eric Grimsrud to converse with one another directly, I will add some simple observations in support of Dr. Grimsrud’s explanation.
As he correctly pointed out, Venus is extremely hot, and average temperatures temperatures there actually exceed the PEAK temperatures on Mercury. When we compare average temps to average temps of both planets, Mercury is a couple hundred degrees cooler than Venus despite being closer to the sun and recieving considerably higher insolation. One needs little additional evidence to conclude that the atmosphere of Venus warms the planet to a higher temperature than it otherwise would have been.
Similarly, while the albedo of the moon is a bit different than Earth’s, the difference isn’t large enough to explain the much higher temperatures found on earth. As the insolation received by the moon is nearly identical to that received by earth, we can only explain the massive difference in temperatures by concluding that earth’s atmosphere indeed warms the planet.
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there.