This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one.
Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm
Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex upāsorry, rewriteāa summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come.
But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.
The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.
Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.Ā (See WUWT report about Stern who gets asked some tough questions by Australia’s ABC)
…
In climate science, the real debate has never been between “deniers” and the rest, but between “lukewarmers,” who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming. Scientists like Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Richard Lindzen of MITĀ have moved steadily toward lukewarm views in recent years.
Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, “for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers,” such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.
Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such changeāwhich essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm. Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.
…
I liked this part the best:
Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.
Full article here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840.html
===============================================================
Indeed, so many environmental scares have gone the way of the dodo, and yet here we are again, watching some people freak out about another one, and with wholesale planetary warming not cooperating as predicted, they are starting to see climate bogey-men in every weather event. It seems the fear of weather from the dark ages has returned to the mindset of some irrational thinkers.
This one little fact though is a deal breaker for alarm:
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.
Hang on to that thought, James DelingpoleĀ writes:
Previous reports – notably the hugely influential 2006 Stern Review – have put the costs to the global economy caused by ‘climate change’ at between 5 and 20 percent of world GDP.
But the latest estimates, to be published by Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, say that a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by the end of the century will cost the world economy between just 0.2 and 2 percent of its GDP.
If the lower estimate is correct, then all it would take is an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (currently it’s around 3 percent) for the economic costs of climate change to be wiped out within a month.
Ouch. Game over for climate alarm.
I’ll accept -2% to +2%
So. Can we all get our money back now please?
Global warming going to cost us 0.2-2.0 % GDP? For this to have any meaning at all what are the gains? Food production, less heating, less storms etc etc? I think there is a great chance that we will benefit from global warming. What I doubt is that we actually get this global warming.
This couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people than the IPCC. They have terrorized more people on planet earth then all the other terrorists groups combined.
You would think the “Greens” would like the planet to be more green. Are they that stupid?
The prove predict-standard of science is replaced by castles made of sand.
[castles made of sand.- slips into the sea -eventually’ Jimi Hendrix]
Please add the UK scare about BSE and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in the 1990s
Influential scientists predicted millions of young people dying prematurely. The total has turned out to be about 200.
0.2 to 2.0 percent of GDP? That is so small an amount that it just has to be ignored in order to keep the pressure up on the steam engine of funding. And funding is just about all that counts in the AGW game. That and political power.
Peter Whale says:
You would think the āGreensā would like the planet to be more green. Are they that stupid?
Not stupid at all. But nor are they environmentalists. ‘Greens’ are self-serving politicians funded by credulous lemmings trying to ‘Save the Planet’. They are just another group of politicians.
It would be a mighty step in the right direction if indeed it is ‘game over’ for climate alarm. There was was a huge wave of it to ride for many people who saw advantage in the scaremongering. How many of them have won positions and /or wealth as a result? How easy will it be for them to go ‘quietly’? The scientists involved could manage it. After all their papers have generally been far more cautious than their campaigns and the claims of those exploiting them. But the rest?
Read it and weep, peeps; this is what it was all about.
==================
Latimer Adler.
I did have the BSE/vCJD scare in the list of failed apocalypses in my original draft, but it was left on the cutting room floor (total deaths 178). As was peak oil. I could have added Ebola, swine flu, SARS and other diseases. Even AIDS, though terrible, never reached the levels predicted, especially outside Africa. There is usually a grain of truth to these scares, but it’s always been safe to bet against the exaggerated claims.
Before we get too excited ,note Richard Tol’s comment on Bishop Hill.This is only the Draft WG II Summary for Policy Makers.Excuse my cynicism, but the 0.2-2% can be revised or excised.Remember that in the June draft of the Summary for Policy Makers for WG I, the acknowledgement that GCMs had failed to predict the last 10-15 years warming was later deleted.
This is a great line from Matt’s WSJ article:- ” in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold”
It is a nice counterpoint to the multiple-oncologist alarming diagnosis analogy.
This is good news, a plot of the IPCC predictions shows that over 10 years the costs become zero and after that profitable. Think about that, more agriculture, more forests, decreasing deserts and less heating costs. Ha,ha,ha!!
Hilarious – if we want to feed the world, we have to release more CO2. If the net effect of the total global warming to date + CO2 emissions is a 14% greening of the Earth, bring it on.
See the Stern interview here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-27/back-tracking-on-carbon-pricing-will-damage/5350724
(This is exactly what you would expect from a banker who wants to become a billionaire on the back of the man-made global warming scam.)
no pragmatism here:
28 March: BBC: Matt McGrath: Is Japan playing hunger games with climate change?
As environment correspondent Matt McGrath reports, a changing climate is one of a number of issues pushing Japan towards a food crisis.
In the historic Ueno Park in the middle of Tokyo, seemingly normal people are earnestly staring at trees…
But bear hugs from drunken businessmen are a minor threat to the cherries compared to a warming world, according to research.
“There are already reports that the cherry trees are not doing as well as they usually do because the climate is changing,” said long time Tokyo resident Martin Frid, who works on food safety issues for the Consumer’s Union of Japan…
Because of their cultural significance, the appearance of the blossoms has been recorded in some parts of Japan for over a thousand years.
These records have enabled scientists to work out the impact of global warming on the trees: In recent years they’ve been blossoming about four days earlier than the long term average.
Experts fear that under some warming scenarios, it could be a fortnight earlier by the end of this century…
Martin Frid takes inspiration from the next generation that the challenges of providing enough to eat in a warming world can be met.
“Kids in Japan don’t grow up wanting a car anymore, car ownership among young people is going down, partly because of the environment and the climate,” he says.
“The car industry is having a lot of problems, because young people don’t see it as a trendy thing to do.”…
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26756005
The climate industry is only interested in its own self-perpetuation and anything which helps keep the financial troughs full to overflowing.
This, in turn, means the conclusions of their ‘research’ are beginning to morph from being outright scary to being inconclusive and “definitely requiring much more research”.
As the real facts are relatively benign, they have to be manipulated. The Distinguished Professor and the land based temperature data prior to the satellite era bear witness to that.
However, there is another problem: left wing politicians require a cause to justify their existence and saving the world from so called climate change/global warming was an ideal one. The fact that this cause had no substance was irrelevant, because it could be used to show they care, while their political opponents took a much more pragmatic view and therefore could be shown “to not care about the environment and the world we will give to our grandchildren”.
Bottom line: The IPCC report’s conclusions will be directed towards the needs of left wing politicians and not to those of the real world.
You’re welcome, skeptics, from us New Yorkers. NYC’s Wall Street Journal joins The Investment Business Daily in calling the hockey stick team’s bluff. Our Fox News channel on the Avenue of the Americas is also on the case, my Upper West Side prickly neighbors be damned.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
What really winds me up about the ‘lukewarmers’ – is that many were happy to accept the alarmist stance (or the precautionary principle) despite the clear and apparent lack of direct evidence. That is not really a valid scientific standpoint. Indeed, perhaps the ‘lukewarmer’ climate scientists were the ‘worst’ of the bunch – because they were essentially fence-sitters? When, really, they should have been the ones shouting the loudest (from ‘inside’) for better evidence, Manns’ workings, etc, etc, and standing up for proper debate – or in other words, being ‘deniers’ ?
The fact that some are moving in that direction, whilst demostrating that at least some(!) out there are still thinking scientifically (i.e. skeptically) – is encouraging – but perhaps not necessarily for the right reasons? The AGW ship has sailed, and is sinking, with a bunch of fools upon it – I confess that I view many lukewarmers as ‘rats’ who are swimming desparately away from said ship in the hope they can salvage some respect? About the only good of it will be if we eventually get the truth about the seedier side of the last couple of decades of CS bullsh!t?
Matt Ridley – excellent article, very balanced and measured. My favourite line came at the end:
[I]t appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold
Excellent – a brilliant one liner to encapsulate the debate between mitigation and adaptation.
It’s hilarious that anyone thinks they can estimate the world’s GDP to within 2% in 100 years. The worlds GDP can’t be estimated to within 2% NOW.
To the list of past alarms, add a sprinkle –
*Global cancer epidemic from man-made chemicals. (Read Edith Efron “The Apocalyptics” for a beautiful, logic rich book of 600 pages with no industry references, only papers etc by the Establishment and its officials.)
*Lung cancer and smoking – in the strict sense that the problem was overstated at first, and from the poor science sense that the cause of the observed cancers has yet to be found. Correlation & causation.
*Pb Lead poisoning affecting the IQ of children, this one so neatly stitched up by authorities who have yet to finally show the claimed effect. Ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9069038
*Cadmium ingestion by humans leads to permanent mental disorder with high stress.
*Electromagnetism from cell phones causing cancer in the skull & elsewhere.
*Excessive male ejaculation causes zinc loss & dietary deficiency.
*Trails from aircraft affect weather below.
*Light radiation from TV screens harms children.
These are off the top of my head because I find them so boring and contrived that they are of little interest. If my summaries have become out dated, let me know & I’ll correct, particularly for lead.
The first one, Man-made chemicals/Efron, is instructive for those interested in the IPCC because there are close analogues. The play out of the end game of the cancer scare was marked by changes of advice by lead Establishment figures like Bruce Ames. Those who are thinking of changing their climate change emphasis, like Richard Tol has done for some small aspects, might gain courage by knowing how the cancer scare was stopped abruptly by ‘defections’. Is there a better word than ‘defection’? Those with the courage to change were rewarded afterwards by being shown correct and were not labelled ‘losers’ with a ‘fail’ label to live with in their remaining years.
Ocean “acidification” is a new front in the Great Anti-CO2 Campaign, we will be told that mass extinction may have begun, looks like people will need to brush on their chemistry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26746039
Eric Worrall,
Re the 14% greening, it’s well worth looking up Ranga Myneni’s slides from a presentation on this topic, and especially the table for the different ecosystem types, which it would be interesting to reproduce for comment. On the seventh page of the presentation:
http://probing.vegetation.be/sites/default/files/pdf/dag1/1100-Ranga%20Myneni-myneni-probing-vegetation-talk-2.pdf.
As far as I can tell he has not published this in the peer-reviewed literature so far for the globe as a whole. I am not sure why not.
A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life.
============
“The Greenhouse Effect also happens to the Earth; the Sun warms the ground and the atmosphere prevents some of the heat from escaping into space at night. The Moon, by contrast, has no atmosphere; its temperature soars to 123 degrees Celsius (253 degrees Fahrenheit) when the Sun shines and drops to -233 degrees Celsius (-387 degrees Fahrenheit) almost immediately when darkness falls.”
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_12318971_green-house-effect-theory.html#ixzz2xF0ducIB
The Moon does not fall from 123 C to -233 C almost immediately. Unless many hours and days is considered almost immediately.
The Moon surface does get as cold as -233 C [40 K] but in polar regions- in dark craters which not had sunlight for millions of years. During about 2 weeks of night lunar surface gets to about -180 C [95 K].
So It does get far colder temperature than compared to Earth even if compare the arctic region during it’s 6 months of night.
But idea that the Moon very dramatically and swiftly cools is false.
And reason Earth does not get as cold is because Earth has atmosphere.
Or per 1 square meter there is 10 tonnes of atmosphere above it.
So similarly if you in 10 meter deep lake which has water which is 20 C, during the night it will remain around 20 C.
Unlike slow transitional of lunar day into night [Moon day is about 29 earth days in duration]
one look at time when Earth blocks the sunlight reaching the Moon to see how quickly heat leaves the Moon:
“As the Moon passes into Earthās shadow on June 15th, its dayside will be plunged into darkness, resulting in a rapid cooling of its surface. However, not all parts of the Moonās surface will cool equally; rocks and boulders for example, because of their smaller surface area relative to their mass, will cool more slowly than fine-grained dust and sand.
…
āThis is an unprecedented opportunity to learn more about the uppermost few millimeters of the Moon,ā says David Paige, principal investigator for Diviner. āUnlike on Earth, which takes 24 hours to rotate through one full day, the typical day-night cycle on the Moon lasts around 29 Earth days, so lunar dusk and dawn usually extend over a number of days.
…
The data show an average decrease in surface temperature during the eclipse of around 100K, with some locations remaining warmer than others.”
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/blog/?m=201106
So Moon is mostly covered with dust. And if there were bare rocks they take longer to cool- slightly similar to the length time 10 tonnes atmosphere over each square meter takes time to cool.
So in couple hours from darkness from Eclipse the fluffy dusty surface lowers by 100 C.
But it starting hotter than found on surface on Earth. If one had such a hot surface
on earth it also cools quickly- until reach the air temperature.
Heat a frying up to 120 C and it will cool to 60 C faster than 120 C frying pan put in shade on the Moon- because on Earth it addition to radiating heat it would also warm the air around it- you have air convection heat lost.
The hot frying pan will transfer heat to the air, and once frying pan is cooled the warm air keeps the frying from cooling to lower temperatures.
And you do get fairly warm surfaces from sunlight on Earth, and before the sun sets on Earth that surface may cool by 30 to 40 C. So such a surface may get as hot as 70 C and be around say 30 to 40 C near sunset.
So sand on beach will be warmest in a sunny day in the hours around noon, and cool significantly by late afternoon, And on the Moon this transition from “late afternoon” to sunset takes days.
@Ed_B
My favourite line came at the end:
[I]t appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold
Actually, it’s a lot worse. What was proposed was rather like a head amputation to cure a runny nose…
As a farmer, I’m far more worried about the world supply of Phosphorus than I am about climate change. Very few suppliers, cannot be synthesised and yet our highly productive farming systems are utterly dependant on its availability. Do any bright sparks on this blog know an answer?
Thanks for a great article Matt. It brings to mind the scientific consensus surrounding fat in our diet, that it was absolutely certain to kill us. Now it seems the low fat alternatives are going to kill us.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/23/everything-you-know-about-unhealthy-foods-is-wrong
No wonder we are sceptical.
Bingo: “every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population ābomb,ā pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.”
Globaloneywarming. No worries, another end of the world scenario from the rebranded Marxists/Communists will be forthcoming. All to save little Gaia.
The key to understanding global warming is to first understand the mentality of the warmist. Once you nail that, it all crystalizes in a grand epiphany.
Farmer Gez, the alarmism about phosphorus seems to come from Jeremy Grantham, whose mouthpiece is Bob Ward, (nuff said). I expect there will be improved ways to recover it from pee and bone ash etc.
Farmer Gez says: March 28, 2014 at 4:05 am
Does this help? :
http://www.potashcorp.com/overview/nutrients#nutrients-phosphate
Did you listen to BBC radio4 recently by any chance?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/the-next-great-famineor-age-of-abundance/#comment-108759
I’ll go with net positive economic return on global warming of 1 to 2 degrees per century. Hey, it’s not science, but neither are the forecasts of negative returns.
Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population ābomb,ā pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued.
Murphy’s law suggests that the most profound “environmental” damage could be occurring unnoticed all around us I cannot help wondering whether the steadily dropping birthrate worldwide with the growing availability of contraceptives and pornography won’t turn out to be exactly this sort of thing — it is, after all, a gross interference with a natural cycle in order to maximize profit. Evolution has fine-tuned human reproduction to work efficiently in that “state of nature” that environmentalism is always trying to protect. Using the power of modern industrialized civilization to maximize the number of consequence-free orgasms is a completely different proposition…
Matt Ridley: Re the 14% greening. On page 7 of that linked report there is a column that ADDs to 14%, but that does not give the total increase over all the earth, just the sum of the increase in 12 different cover types. Surely a global average would use the area-weighted average of those values, not the sum? It looks like there might be a 1% increase.
BBC News is getting into frighten mode again. It has 3 items about ‘climate change’ on its home page with one specially prepared for Japanese cherry blossom blooming date. It’s happened before though and some have in the past blamed the Urban Heat Island effect.
We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
H/t Steven Goddard
I think there’s a very good chance Matt has hit the nail on the head here, and this is how the whole edifice ends: those with the least emotional attachment to Alarmism gently slide away from the scare stories and climatology gradually recovers its legitimacy, while the politically motivated and emotionally overwrought plough on into ever decreasing circles.
So climate science is claiming to be more accurate in predicting GDP than the federal reserve bank of the united states?
The fed’s prediction six months out are barely that accurate, forget years out.
If they can call the economy that cleanly, they should stop talking about taxes and self fund with options trading.
Lord Stern has become a climate crackpot for very good reason. Follow the carbon money.
[Abengoa SA (Spain) is engaged in concentrated solar power, 2nd generation biofuels, biomass and wave energy.]
Since the Stern Review was released in 2006 he suddenly shifted to producing publications on climate change in a big wary. See the date shift since 2006.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/profile.aspx?KeyValue=n.stern%40lse.ac.uk
Oooops! It should read
“….publications on climate change in a big WAY. See the date shift since 2006.”
The positive impact on crop production of increased CO2 is many times higher than the 2.0% of GDP touted here.
2c warming over this century will be net beneficial. No one can attack my assertion as none of us can see into the future.
Greening biosphere in recent decades.
Wild and lethal weather in 1935, when co2 was below the safe 350ppm level.
Extreme weather of 1936, when co2 was below the safe 350ppm level.
Lower winter mortality in cold climes.
Less violent storms due to warming in higher latitudes (that’s what I’m told) reducing temp difference.
Longer growing seasons (just ask the people in Medieval England).
Hang the witch! Or is that burn? Both actually, depending in which country in Europe. The Little Ice Age in Europe was a wonderful time of bountiful crops, fat children, low disease levels and happiness all round.
Book
Climatic Variability in Sixteenth-Century Europe and Its Social Dimension
Pfister, Christian; BrĆ”zdil, Rudolf; Glaser, RĆ¼diger (Eds.)
Book – 1999, VI, 351 p.
…Moreover, the impact of climate change on grain prices and wine production is assessed. Finally, it is convincingly argued that witches at that time were burnt as scapegoats for climatic change.
http://tinyurl.com/lrjczsb
It won’t stay at 0.2 to 2% It will be adjusted upward to 2 to 5% That way it will be consistent with the earlier claims and still scary.
The McDonalds banner advertisement is somehow fouling up the formatting of WUWT in IE11.
I cannot make it go away and it makes it impossible to read the blog.
There’s something wrong and WordPress should be informed.
If they think they can get away with their crystal ball projections about GDP one hundred years from now then let’s hear from ANY of them why it would not be fair to hindcast what would have happened to GDP by now had we shackled coal and other fossil fuels to “green” energy policies 150 years years ago?
I contend that the only fair baseline to begin such a comparison is to examine what would have happened had there been ZERO coal, crude and gas – look at what our and world economy would be right now if those simply did not exist in the ground at all. There would be no electricity, no steel, no forests left standing, we’d still be whipping horses/oxen/mules/people to death to grow food and delivery it, water would be coming only from untreated open wells/springs, ETC…. What would have been the growth of GDP over the last 150 years without ANY fossil fuels? (And I’ll be kind to them and even allow them to reatin human slavery in place of some missing farming machine functions that cannot be performed by other animals. )
Fossil fuel has been the goose laying the golden ‘cheap energy’ eggs all along. Even an economist who wants us to consider only a difference of a glass 100% full versus one 98% full is WRONG when they refuse to consider the history that increased the SIZE of that glass to be 1000 times bigger than what any economist could have possibly imagined 150 years ago.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.
But, hang on – I didn’t think GDP was the issue. I thought that it was the survival of life on Earth. If it’s only a couple of GDP points, then hell – that’s less than what happened in the GFC back in 2008. Now, I don’t believe that we all died in a hell-fire of the vanities back then.
Once upon a time, 2.5C was going to kill us all.
Yes we all know that “money talks.” I do however believe it would sit better with many people, on all sides of the argument if, when taking and writing about the (now seemingly very small) maximum negative IMPACT ON GLOBAL GDP , i.e. a money measurement, of a little warming, we should add that it is at least as important to assess any such negative impact in terms of its effect on the most vulnerable members of the human race. I suggest this is simply a question of presentation and appearance. The factual/observational evidence is again so strongly on the ANTI-alarmist side in terms of “climate refugees,” ” disappearing islands,” “spreading incidence of disease,” “extreme droughts and floods,” “species extinction” and all the other supposed impacts on the most vulnerable people and creatures.
It is increasingly clear to me that the most important questions related to climate remain largely unasked and unanswered.
What is the optimal temperature range of the earth?
What is the optimal carbon content?
Without addressing these two (and likely many more) how can any of these predictions and assertions have any merit whatsoever?
In other words, to make catastrophic predictions, demand action, feel passionately about (pick your term) change and demand funding, should one not first determine what the best option is and be able to coherently explain why?
mikeuk
‘Ocean āacidificationā is a new front’
————————————————-
yes noticed they pushing acid oceans now the warming won’t sell.
weatheraction put up a reply to the bbc report.
“The CO2 content of the oceans is 50 times that of the atmosphere so even if all the CO2 plunged into the ocean (impossible) the CO2 content of the seas could only go up 2% which given all the ‘buffering solution’ complexity of the ocean could only have an infintesimal effect on the ‘ph’ (acidity/alkalinity).
Sea Life did not die out, it boomed, in Juarssic and Devonian times in Geological history when CO2 levels were 5x and 10x present in air and sea!
The ocean is alkaline. “Acidification” is a mis-nomer bogey and there would be none even if all the atmosperic CO2 went into the sea – all we could have is potentially a trivial reduction in alkalinity (or in their insane jargon the sea would be ‘less caustic’ (oops sound like a good thing to do!).
Coral does not like fresh water – which is non-alkaline – which is why Coral does not grow near river outflows in Australia”
/end quote.
If IPCC is saying that, then the actual situation is that global warming would bring net benefits to the world, to the tune of 5-20% of GDP. Too bad global warming is not happening, as those are substantial benefits.
I wish there was something I could do to help bring it about. Drive a bigger car more frequently, perhaps? Crank up the thermostat on my house in the winter? Install central air conditioning? Demand disposable shopping bags a the supermarket?. I know these might be just token, feel-good type things to do, but I’m willing to try anything to do my part to save the planet.
A good book on the exaggeration of environmental threats back in the day is Aaron Wildavsky’s <But Is It True?: A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues, at:
http://www.amazon.com/But-True-Citizens-Environmental-Health/dp/0674089235/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396014351&sr=1-1&keywords=But+Is+It+True%3F
So can I get my cheap lightbulbs back please?
Should have said “when talking and writing….”
So there Mr. Economist … Was the negative “growth” rate of Spain’s GDP over the last 6 years caused by “climate change” – or was it caused by their “green” energy policy to “combat” it?
https://www.google.com/search?q=spain+gdp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=spain+gdp+per+capita&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDgz8HjxKHfq6-gVludpaWY3aylX5OfnJiSWZ-nn5xCZAuLslMTsyJL0pNBwpZpacUxOfl52bmAYUKUovikxMLMksS48vzi3JS4pMS87I32Xe-1NZsX91e1z_980E-v4ivnH8AIzC19mwAAAA
The article “Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm” seems to be gone.
bruce says: March 28, 2014 at 6:48 am So can I get my cheap lightbulbs back please?
Most of the mfg machinery has already been sold as scrap or to the Chinese who are now enjoying cheap coal powered electricity. But hey, at least we’re less likely likely to be held hostage by tungsten producing countries like Peru!
Here’s an idea for a cartoon that is better than the WSJ’s. I suggest that the WSJ use it next time it runs a contrarian op-ed:
A quack doctor’s office. Mr. Globe is standing by while a wacky, weird-beard Far Side doc squints at an oral thermometer under a magnifying glass that is (unbeknownst to him) focusing the rays from a head-mounted lamp onto the thermometerās bulb, saying, “You have a fever.” On the shelf (or Mr. Globeās head) is an ice pack with a price tag of $1 trillion.
rogerknights says: March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am
Or, him inserting a ginormous hypodermic syringe labeled “Green Energy Policy”, (with red liquid inside of course), and him saying, “This is going to hurt you a lot more than it’s going to hurt me.”
Farmer Gez said @ March 28, 2014 at 4:05 am
Only 40% of the P in super is used by the crop on average; the remainder is “locked-up” by the chemistry of the soil. You can “unlock” the P by stimulating the soil biota (earthworms, bacteria, actinomycetes etc). It’s called organic farming. Stimulating the soil biota is simple: feed it protein (fish emulsion, animal manures, composts etc).
Greens everywhere hate me for pointing out that organic farming mostly seems to consist in mining superphosphate deposits made by the organic farmers’ predecessors.
So insignificant side effects?
Can I have my share of the taxes wasted on this shameless fear mongering , abuse of authority and treason by my civil servants?
Shall we tally up the costs?
Waste of public treasure? The deliberate impeding of development in our poorer countries?
How to cost, the deaths from fuel poverty, starvation and economic strangulation?
Once again we see the damage of allowing fools and bandits access to other peoples money.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Climate Change Is Not The Problem Fuel Poverty Is. Higher Fuel Prices = More Poor People = More Children Dying and when you add in starvation we need more CO2 to feed the world which burning fossil fuel provides. CO2 Emissions to date from Fossil Fuel has resulted in a 14% greening of the Earth! Down with the Climate Change Alarmists . Lets all be happy and Celebrate!!!
An excellent and timely article.
It is interesting to read the comments in the WSJ, which are overwhelmingly supportive with the notable exception of a pompous fool called Barrie Harrop. In one of his many interjections he states that “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the planet’s main thermostat”.
The problem is that there are so many people like him who have raised CO2 to the status of a deity.
They really should have said
Think about this – what if it hots up by 3C? 4C? Will it be the end of the world? We can only look at the past as a guide.
I have been told that the signs of climate change are everywhere and we must act now. Can anyone put a cost on this?
“It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.”
Does anyone know what the uncertainty of the GDP measure is? Certainly the whole thing is a rough estimate as nobody could possibly account for everything on the planet down to the penny.
It’s much worse than that. It’s like cutting of your head to clear a zit.
What would be the outcome if we went the other way. Let’s say the temps FELL 2 deg C over the next several decades. Is there a plan in place if we keep dropping to the point of crop failures due to colder climates?
SCheesman:
Re the 14% greening. On Myneni’s page 7, beneath the table are these words:
” – 31% of the global vegetated area greened
ā¢ This greening translates to a 14% increase in gross productivity
ā¢ The greening is seen in all vegetation types”
Donohue comes to an estimate of 11% and has a different distribution of where the greening is mostly happening. I am not sure what accounts for the difference between them, but they both agree dry grassland and open shrubland show the most greening.
Jimbo and Dodgy Geezer
I have also used the analogy of putting a tourniquet round your neck to stop a nosebleed.
Take some radiation physics, add a slice of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, add increasing emissions of CO2, stir in a green agenda and what do you have: thermal Armageddon. As you read into the primary literature one gets a picture of a patchwork quilt of a science where all are agreed its a quilt but where the holes are bigger than the patches. ‘Just look at the (tiny) imbalance between radiation in and radiation out’ the demi-scientists howl. ‘The heat must be going somewhere’. The answer is : the biosphere stupid. The biosphere doesn’t just mop up CO2 it absorbs energy like a thick green sponge surrounding the planet. Sure, the planet warmed up for a spell, now it’s making hay getting greener and richer with every passing season. Some of that energy gets released quickly as the circle of life and the seasons turn but a large proportion goes into the planet ‘s fat store. Climate change isn’t just about radiation physics, nor about the 2nd Law. It’s about a dynamic living world with the emphasis on living. Conservation and looking after our environment must be our primary concern but CAGW and all of those who leeched on it was a scare. And how we all love a scare.
Talking about a “population bomb”, just take a closer look at Pakistan : 180 million people this year, ten times as many as in the year 1900, cramped on the same territory. And alongwith that came some problems, as you may have heard of.
While it’s nice to bask in a little climate realism, keep in mind that alarmist propaganda is still inundating the MSM. There’s still a long fight in front of us.
Not Game Over at All. The game is to continue on less visible playing fields where the parameters of virtual simulations are far more conducive to deliberate manipulation of consciousness than reality has turned out to be. This is what happens when the originally scheduled transformation in political and social institutions, like K-12 education, got derailed in the 90s.
I made this point in the comment that finally got through in the Tol discussion below. The means of creating the desired Holos Consciousness in enough students and adults lies now with the media and education and particularly letting gaming and online simulations be the new “assessments” of student achievement.
These are very duplicitous people addicted to the taxpayer and tax-free foundation dollars. They really are merely shifting playing fields.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.
Matt Ridley might want to read the Stern Report again. 2% of GDP for a 2.5 C increase is pretty much what was reported by Stern, the 2007 WGII, and probably for the current WGII. The higher projections are for a greater temperature rise.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-20-3.html
Have they ever really explained why a 2 degree shift will destroy all life as we know it, when the temperature changes 30 degrees from night to day and 40 degrees from winter to summer every year?
– – – – – – – – –
Matt Ridley,
I generally liked your article.
Could you kindly clarify something? You imply Lindzen used the inane unscientific term ‘lukewarmer’ to describe his climate science position or used it generally. I have never heard Lindzen use such a ridiculous unprofessional expression.
If you think Lindzen talks like that, please tell us where he has done so.
Again, I would appreciate a clarification on what you imply about Lindzen vs ‘lukewarmer’.
NOTE: Curry, over the years, on her blog may have casually ventured into using such inane words as ‘lukewarmist’. But, I think that is not her fundamental framework on climate science nor accurate as an implication.
John
If the 2% survives the cutting-room floor it will be a major walk-back.
2% of GDP to fight CAGW and win.
1% of GDP to ignore CAGW and lose.
The luke warmers are within striking distance.
“In short, the warming we experienced over the past 35 yearsāabout 0.4C (or 0.7F) if you average the measurements made by satellites and those made by ground stationsāis likely to continue at about the same rate: a little over a degree a century.”
wrong…..
Chicken Little isn’t dead, it just has a slight cold. It’s going to take the cold spreading to more people before it’s seen as a problem.
Worth considering the reduction in GDP that wind energy has cost us. In New Zealand we have built for a sum of 6 billion dollars 4% extra electrical capacity, but in order to allow this investment to have any economic sanity over a ten year period electricity price have move ahead of inflation by 50%. A regulation precluded the construction of gas fired generation under the Helen Clarke regime, the damage is now done the money is burnt.
Looking at the impact and you see a hollowing out of industry in every sector of the country. My instinct is the loss of 100,000 jobs is the result so far from this green madness.
To say that the world may loose anything from 0.2% (as per above) to 20% (Stern upper range) GDP per year due to global warming you would need to quantify what you regard as a loss due to AGW.
0.2% for instance will never be noticed. And can you really say that a drier, wetter, colder etc season in a region is due to AGW or natural variability.
On the other hand 20% reduction per annum will bring the total world economy to 10% of what it is today in a decade. A totally meaningless suggestion.
GDP relates to the total value of goods produced.
What is a loss to one will be a gain to another and as such there will be no negative effect to total GDP unless we have a mass die off of our species or people stop spending which then must mean they are saving (loss/gain), but can we say that a spending stop is due to AGW?
However we can argue that the Stern report in itself, and the many others like it, is/are a drag on GDP, whatever the cost to produce them is, the world gets nothing for it.
The ultimate motivator against global warming/CO2 will be that a homeowner will have to cut the grass more frequently due to an increase in CO2.
Shaka, when the walls fell….
But think of the vicious feedback loop: more mowing = more gasoline burned in lawnmowers = more CO2 = more grass = more mowing, etc.
/sarc
Matt Ridley’s risk assessment skills didn’t work so well when he chaired Northern Rock into failure and nationalization though, did they?
Yes, yes… Ridley simply underestimated the larger, complex forces at play… luckily forced global climate change is so much simpler than banking.
Pat reports, “āThere are already reports that the cherry trees are not doing as well as they usually do because the climate is changing,ā said long time Tokyo resident Martin Frid, who works on food safety issues for the Consumerās Union of Japanā¦
Because of their cultural significance, the appearance of the blossoms has been recorded in some parts of Japan for over a thousand years.
These records have enabled scientists to work out the impact of global warming on the trees: In recent years theyāve been blossoming about four days earlier than the long term average.”
What is often not told is because cherry blossoms have so much cultural signficiane, rural cherry preserves were established to protect them from creeping urbanization. Piimrack wrote spring. ” over next 50 years, flowering times in urban, suburban, and rural sites at each of these cities gradually began to diverge, with urban areas flowering earlier than nearby rural and suburban areas. By the 1980s, the warmer temperatures in the city had shifted the flowering of cherry trees 8 days earlier in central Tokyo in comparison with nearby rural areas, and 4ā5 days earlier in central Kyoto and Osaka than nearby rural areas.”
“The impact of climate change on cherry trees and other species in Japan” Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1943ā1949
You know issues such as chasing people off their land so foreigners can grow trees for carbon credits.
……………..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=1&
You can really gauge the effect on the economy from chasing a bunch of people in a third world nation off their land, because they really had nothing but their land. However if we keep up things such as the above the dangers to our fellow humans could easily be much greater then an mild warming could ever be. Especially since I havent seen any negatives proven in any meaningful way….
My post was supposed to read “you CAN”T*** really gauge”…..
One can believe that manmade climate change is real, yet relatively harmless until the cows come home. Yet, it still remains a belief or conjecture. It is unscientific to state it as a fact.
The science that the “sensitivity” to a doubling of co2 is just over 1 degree C isn’t science, it’s a guess. Even Hanson admitted there’s a reflective component keeping heat out. Letting the alarmists paint the lines on the playing field is spotting them a touchdown from the start.
A related article from NewsMax, worth the read and distribution. Discusses the reasoned conversions of Moore, Vehranholt, and Lovelock from die hard AGW supporters to skeptics.
More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths
Monday, 17 Mar 2014 08:29 AM
By Larry Bell
http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-warming-moore/2014/03/17/id/559929#ixzz2xI3Q2Bph
Perhaps the fear of the industrialized world ,being forced to pay reparations for the past 100 years of damage ,is the motivation for the toning down.
How much reparations should the 3rd world demand?
100 years x a few $ trillion per year?
@RogerKnights 6:48 AM
Excellent call on the Wildavsky book Roger! Now I know I’m not the only one who has it.
Wow ! The number of articles posted on WUWT today supporting skeptic / realist positions which have been held for many years but decried by warmists is amazing ! Kudos to everyone who has battled for science over politics ! The hard work is bearing fruit !
On the subject of unfounded scares, add swine flu and bird flu to the list.
Every time there is a scare, someone benefits. Someone makes lots of money out of us. Like the Tony Blair crony who became seriously wealthy as a result of his successful, not-competitive tender for vaccines, which have never been used.
He has an enviable life-style now, travelling the world with his sports car racing team.
Thank you Dr. Matt Ridley!
CAS
Alberta
“Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare” What??? But the IPCC has been telling me for years that warmer than normal weather is leading to a world catastrophe! I haven’t been able to enjoy the great weather here in Southern California for years because I thought it was a sign of impending global doom! Who at the IPCC can I sue?
Thanks all for the articles and ideas on phosphorus. P ends up being bonded to iron in our high Ph soils and we do lose some due to this but most is exported with production. Acidifying agents will help but the cost of organic manures on large acreages is prohibitive and in a dry Mediterranean climate we struggle to get enough rain for high biological activity.
On the news earlier this week, they said that the cherry blossoms in Washington DC are late this year. Here is a live cam:
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/dc/cherryblossoms/
Here is a page with a photo of the trees under similar cloudy conditions:
http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/North_America/United_States_of_America/Washington_DC/General_Tips-Washington_DC-Jefferson_Memorial_Tidal_Basin-BR-1.html
Hahahahaha.
Warmer Is Better.
Been saying so since 1996, which is when I first became aware that some folks were claiming warmer would be worser. Fiddlesticks!
The whole harum scarum dire report was/is based on cognitive dissonance. That warmer is better is obvious, indeed self-evident to any thoughtful person. The alarmists had to convince millions of people to deny their own common sense world experience. Hence the CAGW dire report was doomed from the getgo.
Warmer Is Better. I should trademark the phrase and sell t-shirts.
What’s the type of color blindness that can’t distinguish between Green and Red? That’s what we have in the radical environmental movement — a bunch of Reds masquerading as Greens.
Did I say radical environmental movement? Maybe I should say mainstream environmental movement. While nearly everyone claims to care about the environment and many good people proudly where the environmentalist label, how many of them believe in free markets, free enterprise, individual choice and property rights (you know, that “freedom” thing)? How many of them will gladly impose their values using the force of the state?
MojoMojo says:
March 28, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Perhaps the fear of the industrialized world ,being forced to pay reparations for the past 100 years of damage ,is the motivation for the toning down.
How much reparations should the 3rd world demand?
100 years x a few $ trillion per year?
=====================
In what currency would it be paid ?
Political stability, technology, food supply, or just cash.
@The Pompous Git and Farmer Gez
>>As a farmer, Iām far more worried about the world supply of Phosphorus than I am about climate change.
Only 40% of the P in super is used by the crop on average; the remainder is ālocked-upā by the chemistry of the soil. You can āunlockā the P by stimulating the soil biota (earthworms, bacteria, actinomycetes etc). Itās called organic farming. Stimulating the soil biota is simple: feed it protein (fish emulsion, animal manures, composts etc).
++++++++
This can be unlocked by simply putting sugar water on the soil. Bacteria that can liberate the Phosphorus are starved of energy. They eat, liberate, then die leaving the Phosphorus available to plants. This technique is used by many thousands of Indian farmers who no longer buy fertilizer. The technique was discovered by Prof A K Prasad at ARTI in Pune India. The sugar application level is about 25 kg per acre. You can read about it on their website. It is very easy idea to test.
“It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century.”
Thats already the case now with Carbon Taxes, ETS/Cap n Trade, diverted monies from real Environmental problems, Eco-Entrupenurial scams such as tax payer financed whirly gig turdbines, ethanol, solar feed in tariffs, grants for research into ‘Carbon storage’ etc, Research grants for ‘science’ (and I do use the term loosely) into ‘Climate Change’ (but only from the homocentric fetish perspective), IPCC and Governmental scientific body financing, e.g CSIRO, EPA ….. ad infinitum.
It’s an Industry, a parasitical one perhaps, but an Industry nevertheless.
Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics and commented:
Fear is the essential ingredient of communist enslavement. Where there is fear in the people, there is a government of scoundrels trying to put unbreakable chains on the free.
Would you post the link? TIA.
Didn’t Animal Farm go back to being called Manor Farm in the end?
Not perfect, but at least better than slaving away at windmills, having to praise the pigs every other day and wondering whether things were ever better or worse in the past without access to information.
I visit the Aurora Australis webcam everyday. They are at 67 S with surrounded by serious ice.
Thank you, Matt Ridley. Your article deserves links from my climate and weather pages.
A lot of good common sense!
Cherpa1 says:
March 28, 2014 at 7:03 pm
I visit the Aurora Australis webcam everyday. They are at 67 S with surrounded by serious ice.
==============
And you are holding back the link, because …………
The Pompous Git says:
March 28, 2014 at 7:41 am
Gidday PG. I don’t hate you at all, and I’ve been an organic farmer since the late 70s , before organic certification even existed.
Nobody in the know believes that “organic” farmers don’t apply fertiliser.
Organic certification requires testing, at least every three years, to prove that no depletion of necessary elements is occurring.
But you knew that š
So let me get this straight…. The CAGW charlatans want to waste $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years (UN estimates) to keep global warming below 2C by 2100, when business as usual will only generate around 1.35C of GW by 2100 based on empirical evidence, and not completely invalidated climate model projections….
I have a better idea… Why doesn’t the world spend roughly $25 trillion building LFTRs, and generate 100% of its energy from thorium and produce near ZERO CO2 emissions by 2100…
Thorium energy would be roughly 1/3rd the cost of conventional fossil fuel energy and these savings alone would finance depreciation/replacement expenses of building a LFTR infrastructure… Mo’ bedda..
The geo-political and socio-economic ramifications alone of switching our energy production from fossil fuels to thorium would more than pay for the transition..
The Thorium Age officially starts from next year, when China throws the switch on their first test LFTR…
Meanwhile there is a new exaggeration for the White House according to Daily Caller: Flatulence from cows!
“As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations”.
“This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990”.
“The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the countryās greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions ā which is a very potent greenhouse gas.”
Methane emissions have largely been reduced because of the incentive for companies to capture it and sell it for monetary gain. Oil and gas companies, for example, have been looking for ways to increasingly capture methane leaked from drilling operations which they can then sell.
āThe industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and recent studies show emissions are far lower than EPA projected just a few years ago,ā said Howard Feldman, head of scientific and regulatory affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. āAdditional regulations are not necessary and could have a chilling effect on the American energy renaissance, our economy, and our national security.ā
āMethane is natural gas that operators can bring to the market,ā he added. āThere is a built-in incentive to capture these emissions.ā
Environmentalists have been pushing the Obama administration to crack down on methane emissions for some time, arguing that they drive global warming and pollute the air and water. Activists have argued that the methane leakage rate from natural gas operations is 50 percent higher than the EPA estimates.
āPresident Obamaās plan to reduce climate-disrupting methane pollution is an important step in reining in an out of control industry exempt from too many public health protections,ā Deborah Nardone, campaign director of the Sierra Clubās Keeping Dirty Fuels in the Ground campaign. āHowever, even with the most rigorous methane controls and monitoring in place, we will still fall short of what is needed to fight climate disruption if we do not reduce our reliance on these dirty fossil fuels.ā
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xKEioF4R
This of course will ultimately lead to controlling fracking and other essential energy sources in keeping with the overall plan. If the impending Supreme Court on controlling power plant CO2 emissions goes in the Administration’s favor, the Administration will be emboldened to go even further.
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johannesburg said @ March 28, 2014 at 5:34 pm
@The Pompous Git and Farmer Gez
Indeed and I will be testing it. Sounds even cheaper than 10-20 litres/Ha of fish emulsion (application rate per hectare). Many thanks š
Meant to say application rate for pasture in that last comment.
These records have enabled scientists to work out the impact of global warming on the trees: In recent years theyāve been blossoming about four days earlier than the long term average.
Inconvenient question: Anyone have a standard deviation on that?
farmerbraun said @ March 28, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Farmerbraun, I wrote “Greens” who by and large know about as much about farming as they do climatology. Greens told me when I was working in the industry that farmers were our enemy and it was evil of me to spend so much time hob-nobbing with them. The Git had difficulty understanding their attitude given that farmers generate our food, fibre, and landscape. But you probably already knew that š
This is where we can pinpoint the key error in the radiative greenhouse conjecture promulgated by the IPCC, NASA et al …
In the energy budgets (such as NASA’s here) they combine “Sunlight absorbed + IR back radiation” with components of 47.9% and 100% respectively. In other words, they are assuming that there is not only a warming effect from back radiation, but it is also just over twice the warming effect of the Sun. Hence, somehow the atmosphere supposedly multiplies the effect of the Sun by more than a factor of three.
Now, they actually need to work with this combined amount of radiation (147.9% of incident solar radiation at top of atmosphere, or more than double the 70.3% that is not reflected) because that’s the only way they can get a realistic surface temperature when they use the total radiation figure in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
However, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based on the assumption that the target (in this case the internal surface) acts as a true black or grey body which is not transparent to radiation and can only have its temperature raised if the radiative flux is sufficient and the source is hotter than itself, because otherwise entropy would decrease.
Sadly about two-thirds of this combined radiation comes from a much colder atmosphere, and so doesn’t count in the process of raising surface temperatures.
And even more sadly, the real surface that we are talking about, and which affects our temperature records, is a thin layer of less than 1 centimetre in depth which, for about 70% of Earth’s surface, is water. That 1cm thin layer of water is almost completely transparent, unlike a black or grey body, so most of the solar radiation (the only radiation that can warm) is passing straight through that thin layer. The weak back radiation doesn’t make it past the first molecule it strikes, from which it is immediately re-emitted.
What it is really being warmed (to a much lower mean temperature) is the ocean thermocline which (as you can see here) extends quite a few metres beneath that one centimetre thin surface layer, and has a mean temperature roughly 8 to 10 degrees cooler.
So if you get a gut feeling there’s something wrong in the NASA calculations, let me assure you that you are right.
Andres Valencia said @ March 28, 2014 at 7:19 pm
I’ll drink to that! And especial thanks for The Rational Optimist, one of the most important books in my collection.
The Pompous Git says:
March 28, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Aah. I see your point.
Indeed I have never voted for the “Greens” and I generally avoid all association with them and their like.
I suspect that the “Greens” have a similar dislike of my activities.
Certainly my views on CAGW/DACC and the like cause them some discomfort.
Didn’t we all ready spend 0.2% to 2% of GDP on global warming?
Didn’t Michael Mann and CRU get that much?
/snarc
Matt Ridley is too sane for his own good… LOL
Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population ābomb,ā pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.
Yes, the Ozone “Hole” narrative seems like it was a practice run for the CAGW narrative. Both were blamed on trace atmospheric constituents, a kernel of truth about anthropogenic influences was blown up to try to explain primarily natural occurrences, there’s lots of fear-mongering, and grants and noble prizes are awarded. They even have the same story-lines and cheerleaders, i.e.:
Time ā Feb 17, 1992
“What does it mean to redefine oneās relationship to the sky? What will it do to our childrenās outlook on life we have to teach them to be afraid to look up?”
āSenator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The world now knows that danger is shining through the sky. The evidence is overwhelming that the earthās stratospheric ozone layerāour shield against the sunās hazardous ultraviolet raysāis being eaten away by man-made chemicals far faster than any scientist had predicted. No longer is the threat just to our future; the threat is here and now. Ground zero is not just the South Pole anymore; ozone zone holes could soon open over heavily populated regions in the northern hemisphere as well as the southern. This unprecedented assault on the planetās life-support system could have horrendous long-term effects on human health, animal life, the plants that support the food chain and just about every other strand that makes up the delicate web of nature. And it is too late to prevent the damage, which will worsen for years to come. The best the world can hope for is to stabilize ozone loss soon after the turn of the century.
If any doubters remain, their ranks dwindled last week. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with scientists from several institutions, announced startling findings from atmospheric studies done by a modified spy-plane and an orbiting satellite. As the two craft crossed the northern skies last month, they discovered record-high concentrations of chlorine monoxide (CIO), a chemical by-product of the chlorofluoro-carbons (CFCs) known to be the chief agents of ozone destruction.
Although the results were preliminary, they were so disturbing that NASA went public a month earlier than planned, well before the investigation could be completed.Previous studies had already shown that ozone levels have declined 4% to 8% over the northern hemisphere in the past decade. But the latest data imply that the ozone layer over some regions, including the northernmost parts of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Russia, could be temporarily depleted in the late winter and early spring by as much as 40%. That would be almost as bad as the 50% ozone loss recorded over Antarctica. If a huge northern ozone hole does not in fact open up in 1992, it could easily do so a year or two later. Says Michael Kurylo, NASAās manager of upper-atmosphere research: āEverybody should be alarmed about this. Itās far worse than we thought.ā http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/GEI/w3a.pdf
I think we might be able to take out the CAGW and Ozone “Hole” narratives together, which would definitely help put a damper on the whole scare up a grant model…
Here is a back-of-bar-coaster calculation of how a businessman would evaluate the most cost efficient manner to solve the CAGW crisis, providing there even IS a CAGW problem…
Assuming the current world GDP is $80 trillion and grows at 2%/yr over the next 80 years, by around 2100, the world GDP would be around $400 trillion. If the negative effects of CAGW were hypothetically 2% of GDP, that would equal $8 trillion/yr.
The Present Value of $8 trillion based on a 5% cost of capital would be about $180 billion/year.. Given that the cheapest and most efficient form of energy that produces ZERO CO2 emissions is nuclear power and assuming a cost/nuke plant of $3 billion, if the world built 60 nuclear plants/yr, we could completely avoid the $8 trillion/yr hypothetical cost of CAGW in the year 2100.
Since the powers that be aren’t doing this, one must assume the politicians have other agendas they’re pursuing aside from economic/environmental threat abatement…
Gee… I wonder what those agendas could be….
(Sarc/off)…
27 March: PR Web: MEDIA ADVISORY: International Gathering of Scientists Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming to Take Place in Las Vegas from July 7 to July 9
Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) will feature world-famous scientists and writers, precede FreedomFest 2014.
Is the theory of man-made global warming still credible? Why do surveys show a majority of Americans and scientists do not believe global warming is man-made and a major problem?
Hundreds of the worldās most prominent āskepticsā of the claim that human activity is causing a climate crisis will converge in Las Vegas on July 7ā9 to review the latest research and celebrate what they see as recent events that vindicate their opposition to what some claim is a āscientific consensus.ā
The Heartland Institute ā which The Economist magazine in 2012 called āthe worldās most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate changeā ā is joining scores of other think tanks and advocacy groups to host the 9th International Conference on Climate Change at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegasā¦
āThe scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science,ā said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, āand we just couldnāt refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but āsettled.āāā¦
For more information about The Heartland Institute and the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely(at)heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11708533.htm
@roger and Pompous:
ARTI – Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Their official website is http://www.arti-india.org/
I did not find the sugar-water P-liberation story immediately but it is easy to contact them and ask Dr Karve about it.
For those interested in biogas they have invented an Ashden Award-winning very much faster and smaller digester that is starch and sugar-based, not cellulose and it is a real breakthrough technology. The key is to change the digesting organisms. The complete explanation is available on CD for $3. The direct page is http://www.arti-india.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:latest-achievement-arti-wins-the-ashden-award-2006-for-its-design-of-the-compact-biogas-system&catid=17:archive&Itemid=71
Just The Facts says: March 29, 2014 at 12:44 am
I recently caught an episode of STNG produced in 1988:
I was disappointed to discover this alarmism was embedded in this TV show.
The 1986 movie RoboCop had ridiculous spoof ads for protection products from the sun.
I have developed a new fondness for Gilligan Island episodes; no climate change references, though there was an Gilligan made island sinking episode.
Now stop the CO2 Taxes, the roll-out o UN Agenda 21 and the freaking NYT, the biggest AGW shit recycling factory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=3541E5FFB61F41DB64634101B66D4686&gwt=regi&assetType=nyt_now
there will be only one winner in this global warming debate is the earth it will tell us what the climate is now and in the future nobody alive today will be ably to control the earth,s Enviroment and so it be
And don’t forget the to tell the lying moron currently occupying the White House:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xHqYITaT
Maybe he should stop playing with his own shit.
The “costs” of manmade warming or climate change are, of course, completely imaginary, whereas the costs of the CAGW/CACC memeplex have been enormous both financially and socially. Those costs will be reverberating for decades.
The IPCC is backpedaling desperately in an effort to stay in the climate game, but they remain professional liars.
By this time the fear-mongering elites have made their millions from the fraud and can retire defeated.
Republican led investigation panel: Take note. There was some serious exaggeration going on and it has cost us PLENTY of coinage as well as unspeakable damage to lands now scarred with wind turbines! And we been SAYIN IT AND SAYIN IT!!! I want my tax money back!!! Now!!! And I wanna see heads rolling off to jail!! Start with Ivory Tower public employees and top it off with Obamination!
garymount says: March 29, 2014 at 1:58 am
I was disappointed to discover this alarmism was embedded in this TV show.
The 1986 movie RoboCop had ridiculous spoof ads for protection products from the sun.
I have developed a new fondness for Gilligan Island episodes; no climate change references, though there was an Gilligan made island sinking episode.
Yes, the whole thing would be comical, if it were not so sad…
I recently got into it with Phil. over the existence of natural dynamical explanations for Ozone “Holes”, in comments on this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/09/mysterious-new-man-made-gases-pose-threat-to-ozone-layer/
and he lost…
and this?Geo engineering proposes a negative solar radiative
forcing, in a global average of 3,7W/m2, in Holand a study of the impact of the trails from the planes, showed a negative forcing peaking at 50W/m2
Equation (5) shows that the radiative forcing is taken as the difference between the global irradiance
observations from January 16th 2012, G(obs, 2012), and the smoothed observations of January 16th 2005, G(obs,
2005). These results are plotted in Figure 9 and suggest that the forcing was both negative (cooling) and
positive (warming) during parts of the day. Positive values go up to ~+20 W/m2
and negative ones reach
~-50 W/m2
at the most. Interestingly enough, the forcing is appears to be positive at low solar angles and
negative around midday. http://www.knmi.nl/bibliotheek/stageverslagen/traineereport_Gerritsen.pdf
Stratospheric sulfate aerosols as proposed by Paul Crutzen,[9] with the purpose to modify the Earth’s albedo with reflective or absorptive materials spread over portions of its surface. This would typically be achieved using hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide, delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[9][18][19][20] [21] (Alternative approaches using photophoretic particles have been proposed.[22]) Ozone depletion is a risk of such techniques,[23] but only if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in, polar stratospheric clouds before the levels of CFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because CFCs can settle on larger sulfate particles, increasing their ozone destroying potential.[24] This proposal, not unlike the others, carries with it considerable risks, including increased drought[25] or acid rain.[26]
Broadly speaking, this technique is seen as a credible climate engineering scheme, although not one without major risks, and challenges for its implementation. This technique can give >3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[4] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management
=============================================================
It sounds like they can no longer ignore that people have noticed reality is not cooperating with them. (Meaning that people remember what they claimed would happen in their lifetime has not. Changing from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” was not enough.) So their excuse for needing to control has not panned out.
They are trying to tone down the predictions (projections, if you prefer) while still insisting thy need to keep their hands on the control knob.
It appears that Japan is following the German approach to keeping the lights on- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579464942892719528
āJapanās Answer to Fukushima: Coal
Many Nuclear Plants Are Too Expensive to Retrofit While Carbon Dioxide Emissions Continue to Climbā
Per M. Iwata at the WSJ, 3/28/14 article on page B6.
It looks like Japan will remain in the number 2 spot for āCoal imports in 2012 millions of tonsā for a while:
China- 289
Japan- 184
India ā 160
S. Korea- 125
Taiwan- 64
Lord Stern is either incompetant or a liar. See this.
What is more he is being protected by the “system”. In his reply to this letter The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards stated “a members views and opinions are outside my remit”
The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards,
House of Lords, London,
SW1A 0PW.
Dear Mr. Kernaghan.
As you can see I sent the accompanying letter to Lord Stern on 25th April, 2012. Despite the fact it was sent by recorded delivery, Lord Stern did not have the courtesy to reply. Having given Lord Stern ample opportunity to reply to my enquiry, I now believe it is appropriate to make a formal complaint about Lord Stern.
I have taken a particular interest in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Stern Report, which largely concerns crop productivity, as I am a Plant Physiologist by training (M.A. PhD, Cantab) and can therefore write with authority in this area.
My first concern is why Lord Stern used data from an obscure publication (Wheeler et al 1996) and indeed, manipulated it to produce a conclusion that was not supported by the original authors? They clearly state in their abstract āMean seed dry weight was increased by > 72 % at elevated CO2, because grain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2ā. Furthermore whilst Lord Stern went to the trouble to delete data, which did not support his narrative, from the graph (see my original letter), he further emphasised the apparent decline by adding a ādoglegā line, which did not appear in the original graph.
Moreover one has to question why Lord Stern did not chose to present evidence from multiple publications, all available at the time, that clearly demonstrate that under the scenarios of increased CO2 and temperature used in his report: āProjections of future warming depend on projections of global emissions (discussed in chapter 7). If annual emissions were to remain at todayās levels, greenhouse gas levels would reach close to 550 ppm CO2e by 2050. Using the lower and upper 90% confidence bounds based on the IPCC TAR range and recent research from the Hadley Centre, this would commit the world to a warming of around 2 ā 5Ā°C.ā (Stern review Page 12 and Table 1.1) plant and agricultural productivity are increased, rather than decreased as Lord Stern states: āIn tropical regions, even small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yield. In higher latitudes, crop yields may increase initially for moderate increases in temperature but then fall. Higher temperatures will lead to substantial declines in cereal production around the world, particularly if the carbon fertilisation effect is smaller than previously thought, as some recent studies suggest.ā (Stern review Page 67).
Even a cursory search of the relevant literature, available at the time, shows that Lord Sternās conclusions are seriously flawed. Perhaps the most authoritative paper of the time is that of Ainsworth and Long (2005) which collated data from 120 primary, peer-reviewed articles describing responses to plants under a variety of high [CO2] (475ā600 ppm) scenarios, precisely those envisaged in his report. They state that: āStimulation of photosynthesis at elevated [CO2] is theoretically predicted to be greater at higher temperatures (Drake et al., 1997). When the FACE data were divided between experiments conducted below 25Ā°C and those conducted above 25Ā°C, this prediction was supported. At lower temperatures (< 25Ā°C) Asat was increased by 19%, and at temperatures above 25Ā°C Asat was increased by 30% when plants were grown under elevated [CO2] . Precisely what Wheeler et al (1996) found. Significantly they quote Drake et al (1997) which demonstrates that the theoretical underpinning of increased plant productivity, in response to elevated CO2 and temperatures, was well-known at the time Lord Stern wrote his report, further undermining Lord Sternās partisan conclusions.
Finally I note that the other graph that Lord Stern has chosen to use in Figure 3.4 (Page 69), from Vara Prasad et al (2001), uses Peanut (hardly a major crop) as an example of a tropical crop where āeven small amounts of warming will lead to declines in yieldā. However Lord Stern studiously omits to say that the authors only exposed the plants to high temperatures, rather than in combination with high [CO2], as is required by Lord Sternās own future high temperature, high [CO2] scenarios.
Accordingly it is clear that Lord Stern has some serious questions to answer:
1) Why did he exclude mainstream papers from his review that clearly show that plant productivity will increase under the future [CO2] and temperature scenarios he predicts?
2) Why did he deliberately remove data from the Wheeler et al (1996) paper, which clearly stated āgrain numbers per ear did not decline with an increase in temperature at elevated CO2ā, to suggest precisely the opposite?
3) Why did he further manipulate the already altered graph, using a superimposed line, to emphasise a decline in productivity when, in fact, no such decline existed under his stated scenario?
4) Why did he further compound the misinformation presented in the Wheeler paper with that of Vara Prasad et al (2001) which does not duplicate the conditions of his chosen high [CO2], high temperature scenario?
I do not accept that the misinformation in this part of Lord Sternās review is the result of lack of expertise. Lord Stern is one of the Worldās foremost economists and well versed in the collation, interpretation and presentation of complex data. The fact of the matter is that Lord Stern actively and deliberately chose and manipulated data to support a particular conclusion. Any reasonable person would conclude that these omissions of fact and manipulation were specifically designed to mislead Parliament. The fact that so much Government policy is directly informed by Lord Sternās report is particularly disturbing.
Accordingly I request that you communicate my concerns to Lord Stern and I await his and your considered reply.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. D. Keiller.
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
Drake BG, GonzĆ lez-Meler MA, Long SP. (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609ā639.
Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P and Morison JIL (1996) Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat (Triticum Aestivum) Crops in Response to CO2 and Temperature. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 127, 37-48.
Vara Prasad, P.V., P.Q. Craufurd, V.G. Kakani, Wheeler TR and Boote KJ. (2001): 'Influence of high temperature on fruit-set and pollen germination in peanuts', Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28: 233.
Reblogged this on Lloyd's of Rochester – an Eclectic blog and commented:
In the interests of intelligent balance in the “climate change” discussion we present the following for your consideration.
Here’s a guess: portions of “his” report were written for him by Big Green. He needs to be interrogated about whom he consulted with and how much collaboration (i.e., ghostwriting) was involved.
My mistake, it was Robocop 2 , 1990 : “RoboCop 2 contains many of his familiar touches, including satirical television commercials (such as for an ultra powerful sunblock to deal with Earth’s depleted ozone layer) and ironically upbeat news broadcasts.”
Time to drag out the old phlogiston theory – We’re all gonna burn, I tell ya!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
The phlogiston theory is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated a fire-like element called phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies, is released during combustion. The name comes from the Ancient Greek ĻĪ»ĪæĪ³Ī¹ĻĻĻĪ½ phlogistĆ³n (burning up), from ĻĪ»ĻĪ¾ phlĆ³x (flame). It was first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher. The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.
The funny thing about climate alarmism, it boils down to either the believer is extremely gullible or they profit.
Now the former outnumber the latter and in this is the major weakness, as even the most gullible start to think when it is time to pony up the cash.
Now as electricity prices skyrocket across North America, as gasoline and diesel prices rise against falling demand,food inflation marches upward and wages stagnate, even the clueless are getting their attention focussed.
As with all mass hysterias some will profit, some will preen and claim divine wisdom and then the masses will react.
Buy Popcorn, when the mob starts to pay attention the end can be very swift.
Poverty; A wonderful way to focus ones attention.
I personally believe this “gift” should be granted to all promoters of CAGW.