What it would take to persuade me that current climate policy makes sense
Guest post by Matt Ridley
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.
For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.
1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record. I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records. It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).
2. Despite these two contaminating factors, the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. This is what the models assume despite evidence that clouds formed from water vapour are more likely to moderate than amplify any warming.
3. Nor am I convinced that sulphate aerosols and ocean heat uptake can explain the gap between model predictions and actual observations over the last 34 years. Both are now well understood and provide insufficient excuse for such an underperformance. Negative cloud feedback, leading to total feedbacks being modest, is the more plausible explanation.
4. The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. Soot from dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power stations is now reckoned to be a far greater factor in climate change than before; it is a short-lived pollutant, easily dealt with by local rather than global action. So you would need to persuade me that this finding, by explaining some recent climate change, does not further reduce the likely sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Certainly, it “buys time”.
5. Even the Met Office admits that the failure of the models to predict the temperature standstill of the last 16 years is evidence that natural factors can match man-made ones. We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did. I would need persuading that natural factors cannot continue to match man-made ones.
6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.
7. Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.
8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive
subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.
9. Indeed I will need persuading that dashing to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies, is indeed making them worse.11 Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions than
any other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists.
10. Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large-scale
renewable energy, reduced economic growth through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. Pascal’s wager cuts both ways.
At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
Full paper with graphs and references here
Related articles
- A climate of scepticism (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Matt Ridley responds with a “sleight of hand” (scienceblogs.com)
- Matt Ridley’s actual response (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Lukewarmer’s Way
Gary Hladik says, January 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm: “Now let me emphasize the important part of the disclaimer: “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter…””
=========================================================
Gary, this can not be seen as a disclaimer because in the same sentence Wood said “the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”
“The fact”, Gary?
Second and more important, the results of Wood’s experiment demonstrate that back radiation has zero or negligible effect on the temperature of the source. This is what matters.
Gary Hladik says, January 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm: “The results are realistic, we all know how temperature rises in a car when parked in the sun in summer.”
Well, a car is closer to a greenhouse than the atmosphere is, but why not use an actual greenhouse as your example?
============================================================
Because, Gary, only very few people have ever been in a greenhouse. And to avoid a possible misunderstanding that this is about greenhouses. It is not about greenhouses, it is about back radiation having zero or negligible effect on the temperature of the source. And it is about the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC having been disproved 70 years before the IPCC was established.
Greg House says (January 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm): ‘Gary, this can not be seen as a disclaimer because in the same sentence Wood said “the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”’
It’s a disclaimer because “the cases with which we are familiar” consist of two boxes of incompletely documented construction which may or may not accurately model bigger greenhouses of varying construction and are only vaguely related to the earth’s atmosphere.
“Second and more important, the results of Wood’s experiment demonstrate that back radiation has zero or negligible effect on the temperature of the source.”
…under Wood’s imcompletely documented experimental conditions and for the two very special cases he investigated. Extrapolating these results to the earth’s atmosphere, which Wood did not attempt to model, is pure speculation.
A better way to test the concept of so-called “back radiation” (SCBR), though not necessarily the best way, would be to perform Dr. Roy Spencer’s thought experiment for real, as I’ve suggested in several WUWT comment threads:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
I’m still baffled that SCBR skeptics haven’t performed such an experiment and revolutionized radiation physics. 🙂
Greg House says (January 29, 2013 at 5:44 pm): “Of course, Gary, non-responding can be interpreted in a certain way, if certain responding can lead to certain problems for responders, this is obvious.”
The survey reported responses by name?
The survey threatened to rat out politically incorrect responders to their employers?
Those who did respond and answered “incorrectly” suffered adverse consequences?
The response rate of the survey was significantly different from other web surveys on non-controversial subjects?
Gary Hladik says, January 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm: “Greg House says (January 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm): ‘Gary, this can not be seen as a disclaimer because in the same sentence Wood said “the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”’
—————-
It’s a disclaimer because “the cases with which we are familiar” consist of two boxes of incompletely documented construction which may or may not accurately model bigger greenhouses of varying construction and are only vaguely related to the earth’s atmosphere.”
==================================================================
It is not a disclaimer per definition, maybe you need to look this word up in dictionary.
Second, as I said in my previous comment, it is not about greenhouses and therefore there is no need to model bigger or whatever greenhouses. It is about about certain mechanism, namely alleged effect of back radiation on the temperature of the source.
Now, if this effect is zero or negligible, as the Wood’s experiment demonstrates, then it is irrelevant what substance produces back radiation. It can be glass or a gas or whatever. It does not matter, Gary, because this back radiation effect does not effect the temperature of the source.
Greg House says (January 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm): “It is not about greenhouses,”
Um, Wood’s experiment is absolutely about greenhouses, more specifically about his models of greenhouses. He speculated about extrapolating his results to the atmosphere, but never followed up AFAIK. BTW, the Pratt & Nahle experiments are also about model greenhouses, not the atmosphere, because the atmosphere doesn’t have walls or a glass, salt, acrylic, or polyethylene roof.
” it is about back radiation having zero or negligible effect on the temperature of the source.”
Great. I’ve suggested a much better experiment to disprove so-called “back radiation”, but so far no takers. WUWT?
Gail Combs says:
January 29, 2013 at 4:53 am
and
Vince Causey says
January 29, 2013 at 7:52 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I think that the programne that I was referring to was called ‘The wonders of Life’. No doubt it is still on BBC iplayer.
Brian Cox is a professor of particle physics specialising in high energy physics. Here is his wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist). This would appear to be well within his field of expertise.
Whilst I would really have liked to question him to explore the views that he expressed, I have little doubt that he was not referring to temperature, and the use of the expressions ordered and disordered was deliberate.
I am quite sure that he was suggesting that whilst energy is conserved, everytime that it is used and recycled, it loses some inherent quality such that it gradually becomes less and less useful, ie., it has a lesser ability to perform useful work.
I have little doubt that he was suggesting that whilst the amount of Joules remained constant, there was some quality within the energy itself that is lost such that its ability to do work becomes less and less. I am fairly convinced that he was inferring that this is inherent in the law of entropy and why everything tends to disorder.
Anthony, your blog has come a far way from just questioning the accuracy (atrocious, as you rightly pointed out) of the historical temperature records. Now people are actually discussing the validity of the “Radiative Greenhouse Effect”. Seems a little bit like that old consensus about stomach ulcers being caused by stress and spicy foods and needing surgery and diet modification to remediate.
Maybe the “slayers” are quacks, OR maybe they are correct ? Like the doctors that found the real cause of ~90% of the ulcers ?
But these kind of comments;
“jae, alecm and greg house are all spouting sl@yer drivel which is an even bigger load of claptrap than the alarmist bs itself (which at one time I would have deemed impossible). I for one am tired of seeing it.”
Don’t add much, if anything to our understanding.
Cheers, Kevin.
Pat Frank says:
January 29, 2013 at 4:30 pm
“ Atm CO2 will absorb 15 micron radiation. It just will not release that energy as re-radiation, below the tropopause.”
“Your two closed-lid experiments don’t capture the physical reality of the process”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Pat,
you would have to be the first person I have read claiming that CO2 was not radiating 15um radiation within the troposphere. I am beginning to see your misunderstanding. There is nothing special about the energy CO2 receives by intercepting IR. It is no different than energy CO2 molecules in the atmosphere acquire from such sources as conduction or latent heat. Heat CO2 to 30C by incident IR or conductive contact with 30C surface, it doesn’t matter. The radiation from that CO2 will be the same. CO2 radiates energy it has acquired from all three sources both below and above tropopause. Few would dispute that 15um radiation emitted from the atmosphere can be measured at ground level. Despite your claim, CO2 is radiating at all levels within the troposphere.
“Your two closed-lid experiments don’t capture the physical reality of the process”
Firstly one of the two experiments was not closed-lid. Secondly I note you did not try to give an answer to either experiment. Thirdly if a physical experiment cannot be used to capture the physical reality of a process then the process described is not physically possible. This is probably why there are no physical experiments proving AGW.
CO2 radiates acquired energy better than N2 or O2. CO2 does not care how it acquired the energy it radiates. To CO2, intercepted IR is no different to energy acquired via conductive contact with the surface or other atmospheric gases. CO2 does not treat IR from the surface as “magic AGW energy” that it must not radiate below the tropopause.
1. CO2 is a radiative gas.
2. Radiative gases are the only method for energy loss at altitude in our atmosphere.
3. Energy loss at higher altitude than energy gain is critical for continued convective circulation below the tropopause.
4. If convective circulation stalls, our atmosphere heats.
5. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere.
6. Radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0ppm.
No response to this from the Huffer (or others) with respect to this query I posted above:
“Here’s another thing to ponder: the dry lapse rate depends upon only on the heat capacity of the molecules and the gravitational effect (lapse rate = g/Cp). If backradiation somehow helps “keep the heat in the air,” or “slows down the rate of cooling,” then we should have a different lapse rate equation for those gases that interact with IR, no? But we do not. Please explain.”
Or this one: “And the mismatch between the constantly increasing OCO, but constant or decreasing temperatures over the last 16 years sure isn’t helping with empirical evidence.”
And there are many other questions that challenge the concept of a GHE which remain unanswered with actual facts and data.
Can SOMEONE please point to empirical data that support the GHE?
@KevinK: A consequence of not blocking or censoring comments is that you have to put up with some fairly inane ones. I personally think that is a cost worth paying on order to have an honest forum where an honest discussion can take place.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
Jim Steele wrote;
“If you have ever done any backpacking you you will vividly experience the difference between
cloudy nights and clear nights. Camping in the desert reveals a similar greenhouse effect.”
No need to go backpacking to see this effect, it happens here in the rural areas as well. I suggest what you are seeing is simply that fact that heat travels more slowly through some materials (water vapor) than through others (dry gases like O2, N, Co2, etc.). This causes things to cool off more slowly when it is cloudy at night.
As a corollary you might want to consider why people use gloves to pick up metal hand tools in very hot/cold weather ? The metal has a faster “speed of heat” than the human hand and when you pick it up it quickly transfers more heat energy to your hand than an insulated tool would, Ouch that smarts.
No “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” necessary to explain that.
Cheers, Kevin.
Greg House says (January 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm): “It is not a disclaimer per definition, maybe you need to look this word up in dictionary.”
Oh, sorry. Does “caveat” work better for you? “A rose, by any other name” still says Wood didn’t claim to examine greenhouses in detail, or the atmosphere at all. Rather than proclaim a result well beyond what Wood himself was willing to support, why not do the definitive experiment that Wood would not?
BTW, if I belonged to the “no data is my data” school of logic, I’d read volumes into the fact that AFAIK Wood never followed up on his backyard science experiment. But I don’t so I won’t. 🙂
Ian H, yes I agree. I only meant to point out the “inane” comments when I see them. Anthony has a fine blog, and his policies are fair and unbiased.
I do try not to post “drivel” since I hate to waste my time or anyone else’s.
Thanks, Kevin.
jae;
Can SOMEONE please point to empirical data that support the GHE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The earth and the moon get nearly the exact same amount of energy from the sun. On average the earth considerably warmer than the moon. The earth has an atmosphere, the moon doesn’t.
Mercury gets considerably more energy from the sun than does Venus, yet Venus has an average temperature far higher than that of Mercury. Venus has an atmosphere, Mercury doesn’t.
Stefan and Boltzmann developed a formula that accurately predicts the surface temperature of any body in thermal equilibrium based on the energy input. This is known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics and has been verified by experimentation on a daily basis by engineers who use it to accurately design everything from the mundane such as hot water heaters to the incredibly complex such as nuclear reactors to the critical such as the cooling system for spacecraft. Using SB Law and the energy flux received directly from the sun, the surface temperature of earth is about 33 degrees higher than the SB Law would predict. As seen from space however, the apparent temperature of earth is precisely a match to the SB Law calculation, indicating that the presence of an atmosphere makes the surface of the earth warmer than it otherwise would be but the average temperature from earth surface to TOA does in fact match the SB Law calculation.
It is possible to measure downwelling LW radiation from the sky toward the surface at night. Since there is no sunshine at night, the only logical conclusion is that the source of the downwelling LW is somewhere in the atmosphere. I have provided three links in a comment above to articles on WUWT which go into detail on these issues. The first of these contains direct measurement of downwelling LW in environments with both high and low levels of water vapour, showing the profound effect of water vapour as greenhouse gas.
What Matt Ridley is or isn’t persuaded of is, unsurprisingly, completely irrelevant. He can remain as unpersuaded as he likes. His 10 points are riddled with lies and distortions so one suspects he will not be letting reality trouble his chosen world view any time soon.
KevinK;
I suggest what you are seeing is simply that fact that heat travels more slowly through some materials (water vapor) than through others (dry gases like O2, N, Co2, etc.). This causes things to cool off more slowly when it is cloudy at night.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The surface cools due to multiple processes including convection and radiance, with the radiance part being according to SB Law. Radiance is in fact the release of energy from a surface in the form of photons which travel at the speed of light. They do not change speed due to the presence of clouds or no clouds. In fact the SB Law formula is:
P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
where P is in w/m2 and T is in degrees Kelvin. I draw your attention to the fact that there is no term in the equation for the presence of, at any temperature, another body. In other words, a body at 300 degrees K radiates at 459.3 w/m2 if it is next to dry ice and if it is next to the sun itself the exact same number. If the temperature of the body is going up or down is entirely dependent upon the body receiving more energy than it radiates (temp goes up) or less (temp goes down) but at an instant in time when it is at THAT temperature, it radiates at 459.3 w/m2. In the case of a cloudy night, the surface of the earth at, for sake of argument, 300 K (23 C) will cool at a rate of 459.3 w/m2. On a very clear night with low humidity (such as a desert) the temperature will drop rapidly. The exact same earth surface though in a high humidity or cloudy night sky or both will cool more slowly. Not however because the surface is cooling more slowly, it is still cooling at 459.3 w/m2. Nor because the “heat” travels more slowly. The photons travel at the speed of light no matter what. The reason for the slower cooling is the downward LW from the clouds, water vapour and other ghg effects of the atmosphere. These can be measured, and the explanation I’ve just provided can be confirmed by consulting any university level text book on radiative physics. Confirming SB Law via experimentation is a standard part of engineering and physics curriculum at universities world wide.
300 K (23 C)
type on my part, should be 300K (27 C)
Gary Hladik says, January 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm: ““A rose, by any other name” still says Wood didn’t claim to examine greenhouses in detail, or the atmosphere at all.”
===========================================================
Right, Gary, he did not examine greenhouses in detail, or the atmosphere at all. What he did examine was the alleged effect of trapped radiation on the source. The result was zero or close to zero.
My guess is that back in the 19th century some scientists knew about glass being opaque to IR radiation and thought that glass walls and roofs of greenhouses kept them warmer inside by trapping IR radiation. Then, after certain radiative properties of some gases were discovered, that idea about trapped radiation was extended to the atmosphere, just like that,and the problem was that those scientists did not bother to check it.
But Wood did, by a very easy experiment. Again, he checked whether trapped radiation worked as it was thought or not. The result was: it did not. The whole old thing about “greenhouse effect” was a fiction, a mistake, a wrong guess.
Unfortunately, now we have a problem, because this fiction has been used in a certain well known way.
DZ Berry;
His 10 points are riddled with lies and distortions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Name one.
My guess is that back in the 19th century some scientists knew about glass being opaque to IR radiation and thought that glass walls and roofs of greenhouses kept them warmer inside by trapping IR radiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Increase of temperatures due to suppression of convection has been known to engineers and scientists as far back as ancient Rome.
David vun Kannon says:
“Any rise in temperature will raise the amount of water held in the atmosphere. ”
and
“So, a rise in temperature due to any source, including more CO2, will be amplified by the increase in water vapor. ”
So how come we have USCRN stations that show an increase in temperature from 24.6°C to 36.4°C, yet RH drops from 72% to 26%?
So warmer air has the ability to hold more water, but doesn’t mean it will hold more water.
davidmhoffer says:
January 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm
“Increase of temperatures due to suppression of convection has been known to engineers and scientists as far back as ancient Rome.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
Ever wondered what would happen to convective circulation below the tropopause if the atmosphere could not radiate IR to space? 😉
davidmhoffer says, January 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm “My guess is that back in the 19th century some scientists knew about glass being opaque to IR radiation and thought that glass walls and roofs of greenhouses kept them warmer inside by trapping IR radiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Increase of temperatures due to suppression of convection has been known to engineers and scientists as far back as ancient Rome.”
======================================================
Yeah, that is why until a couple of years ago internet was full of explanations referring exactly to that “trapped radiation” in greenhouses and not to suppressed convection. Such explanations still can be found. This is one from 2001 (Wikipedia, “Greenhouse effect”):
“The term greenhouse effect originally came from gardening. A greenhouse is built of glass roofs and windows to keep plants warm. Sunlight passes through the glass and warms up the plants and objects inside the greenhouse. The heat is radiated back as infrared in longer wavelengths. The longer wavelength outgoing infrared cannot penetrate glass as well as the shorter wavelength incoming radiation. In a sense, a greenhouse let more of the solar energy coming in than going out. The temperature inside the greenhouse builds up over time. The greenhouse effect refers to the heat trapping characteristics of a greenhouse.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_effect&oldid=254426) Enjoy.