NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso
Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso
The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.”
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
David,
Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong. He asked after their evidence, as any good skeptic ought. Lots of people have suggested Steven has been asking skeptics to prove a negative, but I don’t see that. The report didn’t say ‘The effects are uncertain’. The report said, ‘Effects are small.‘. That’s a positive claim that requires substantiation.
Look, I’m not interested in starting the Steven Mosher Fan club, even though I’m sure it must seem that way to readers sometimes. It just bugs me that people get on his case because he refuses to be a hypocrite, is what it boils down to. People go on to assume he’s a lefty because he’s rigorous. I thought he was libertarian actually, don’t know and I don’t really care. But yeah, I object to people beating up on Mosher as an effigy straw man for positions he doesn’t even appear to support.
If you want to judge Steven’s motives (which I don’t), and figure out what side he’s on (which is irrelevant anyway), you need to explain why a Team player would bust Peter Gleick in the matter of the Heartland wirefraud, and read and explain his participation in the Crutape Letters. Who cares, right, what’s all that got to do with anything? Right! It doesn’t, unless you’re considering irrelevant questions in the first place. Let’s listen to what the guy actually says instead of making tribal assumptions, that’s all.
Robert Brown;
Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit! A closed volume of water, like any other form of matter, can be heated from any surface because it does not get a bye from the first law of thermodynamics!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you sir!
id8: There is a quote site: http://www.brainyquote.com/
“And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.” (Nicholas Klein)
Robert Brown says: April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
… It is … unlikely that we have yet succeeded in building a good predictive model of the climate, and nearly certain that we have built a large number of poor (that is non-predictive) models of the climate, models that are not in good agreement with observational reality …
Robert Brown, thanks very much for that post !! Always nice to get some solid facts, informed opinions and the common sense that clearly shows the difference between the two.
But I like my opinion too …”they both make it up” /sarc
[which is only /sarc because, at it’s base, both sides conclude way to much certainty on their broad viewpoints given their very weak data and inappropriate statistics use]
Mark Bofill says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
David,
Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong. He asked after their evidence, as any good skeptic ought.
=========================================================
True, but the hypocrisy was twofold. One, he often admonishes skeptics for not doing their homework. Here he did not do his homework. The NIPCC report is very long, with hundred of references to historical peer reviewed science on the real world affects of CO2 on the biosphere and biology of this planet. It takes on many of the purported harms of CO2, and shows where, why those suggestions are likely wrong, not using models, but real world studies. A real world study showing the lack of nitrogen depletion due to enhanced CO2 is not a statistic. It is a study of the affects showing the projected harm did not happen. (Except in the sense of the predicted depletion failing to happen) The study is chalk full of those kinds of statistics. Mosher failed to address ANY of the hundreds of scientific observed measured and documented facts in a very long report.
His second hypocrisy was to call the PHD scientist who made up the report “clowns” By this twofold and shallow dismissal of a well presented and detailed study, a study of clowns without statistics, Mosher was doing far more then sincerely asking what is the basis of their assertion that their is not likely to be catastrophic consequences of additional CO2 in the biosphere. he answer to hat question is detailed throughout the entire report. n general however it is vey simple. The earth has not warmed as predicted. The predicted disaster have failed to materialize. The benefits have and are materializing. The studies indicate this is likely to continue with additional CO2.
You say he is a luke-warmist. Also true. However, when a luke-warmist supports the precautionary principle, their luke-warmness is rendered meaningless, because the political global government solutions are then engendered and supported. In this well researched paper on the benefits of CO2, Mosher attempts to trash them with insulting disdain. I have seen Mosher repeatedly support the precautionary principle. The CAGW use of the precautionary principle is, IMV, a gross distortion of that principle; and also deeply harmful to the life and health of the people of this planet. It is dangerous to the economy, the environment, and likely to lead to war, as poverty is always likely to lead to war.
Regarding his political view, he has been careful, but let slip his government centrist leaning a few times. If you wish I will look for those instances. I have never heard him say anything remotely libertarian, but I could be wrong.
I also wish the CAGW debate could be strictly scientific, but, alas, it is highly political. Mosher portends to be only interested in the science, but his actions here betray his assertion. because he does not defend obvious wrong, like Peter Glick, does not mean he is unbiased. It just means he does not want to be biased. Confirmation bias is very tricky, and none, including myself are 100% immune to it. Moser is not “evil”, but he is not consistent either. Also his hubris and lecturing, without condescending to a rational discussion, can be grating on the nerves.
Mark Bofill says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
David,
“Again, I could have this all wrong, but that’s not my impression of Steven. He didn’t say they were wrong.”
++++++
He did not use correct English language, yet instead he called them names, clowns, thereby attempting to disqualify them from being capable of cogent (unclown-like) conclusions. What gets me is that Mosher often has a brilliant command of language, which I often see as attempting to obfuscate away from truth and knowledge.
Mark, sorry for the typos. I hope they are simple, so that the meaning is still conveyed. I wish Steven Mosher would condescend to discuss. It is something you appear to be capable of, but a quality I perceive as mostly lacking in his hit and run condescending approach.
It’s all good. 🙂 I’ve pretty much worn out any desire to talk about Steve Mosher anyway.
Joel O’Bryan says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:04 am
“The Liberals are always on the hunt for new ways to extract money from businesses and industry for their causes.
Thankfully today we have the internet.”
Yeah the internet has hit them where it hurts – this may put a free internet at risk if there isn’t a big change at the polls soon. These diabolical guys have been whittling away at education for decades, interfering in curricula – even the food rules are being bent to sell global warming – a good education was identified as a threat to this ideology some time ago. Schools and universities are nearly all corrupted with political correctness.
As much as I hesitate to “feed the troll” by responding at all, it is important that we be consistent – the answer to bad science is not worse science. RMB’s rant about “heating water through the surface” has been posted many times on this site and repeatedly debunked. There are many valid arguments against the current CO2-centric climate models. That is not one of them and anyone who has ever left a kiddy pool outside on a sunny day knows it.
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
———————————-
“To RMB and Konrad,”
Oh no you don’t 😉 I have already stated on this thread “RMB” is incorrect…”
“The second is more sophisticated — it doesn’t really argue that surface heating does not occur, it attempts to argue that without exception (independent of, say, the relative humidity or dew point near the surface) the heat is instantly lost as latent heat via surface evaporation.”
I most clearly did not argue “without exception”. I did mention wind speed and water temperature. My point is that empirical experiment shows that liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool does not respond to incident LWIR in the same manner as other materials.
“There is an absolutely inescapable correlation between the average amount of downwelling radiation in all bands and sea surface temperatures.”
All bands? The experiment I showed was clearly only dealing with incident LWIR. I am well aware of the manner in which UV/SW/SWIR heat water.
“Furthermore, one can do direct spectrography on ocean surface waters (looking down from overhead), and observe that the ocean radiates in the LWIR. Kirchoff’s Law suggests that they must absorb in the LWIR as they radiate in the LWIR.”
Water definitely both absorbs and emits LWIR. Nowhere do I claim otherwise.
“Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit!”
Nowhere do I claim that water cannot be heated from the surface. I am clearly claiming that for water that is free to evaporatively cool, incident LWIR is ineffective at this.
“It is also quite reasonable to think long and hard about the mix of heat transfer mechanisms at the surface because they are so horrendously nonlinear and local microstate dependent that they are very likely not to be tractible via any sort of naive linearization.”
This I can completely agree with. Although I would state it differently – The oceans are not a blackbody, standard S-B equations won’t work.
“Once again I have to state — in agreement with several others above — assertions of this sort do not do the science, or the scientific reputation of this blog or the skeptical argument — any favors. They are so obviously wrong that they smack of desperation or obfuscation. They make it so easy for people to at least try to dismiss the entire rational skeptical argument by pointing out that some of those arguments are purely crank stuff, nonscience. This dismissal is a logical fallacy, to be sure, but although it is a logical fallacy it is a statistical truth, and most of us readily understand that.”
If by “rational sceptical argument” you are referring to the “Lukewarmer” position, then there is a problem. Faced with the question –
“given 1 bar atmospheric pressure, is the NET effect of our radiative atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
– CAGW believers, AGW believers and Lukewarmers all answer “warming”. The “basic physics” of the “settled science” clearly states that the “surface in the absence of an atmosphere” would be at ~-18C. However, we know how hot an evaporation constrained solar pond can get, ~80C. That’s how hot our oceans would get in the absence of atmospheric cooling. Even if we pretend that DWLWIR was capable of raising ocean temps 33C and remove that, the figure for the oceans in absence of atmosphere is still 65C higher than the -18C claimed. This means that the NET effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling. And for the atmosphere to cool the oceans, it must have some way to cool itself. That would be radiative gases.
(yes, I am well aware that the oceans would actually boil into space without an atmosphere. There is no “out” there.)
“models that are not in good agreement with observational reality for reasons that we do not even begin to understand but that are very likely related to both omitted physics, incorrectly linearized physics, and a serious, serious problem with model resolution and emergent phenomena.”
While I agree with this, the single mistake of treating the oceans as a near blackbody when they are instead a SW selective coating over 71% of the planet’s surface is so big that investigation of other complexities is unnecessary.
These folks speak as if they wer talking about something really, really KNOWN – but when you ask them to make their prediction for the near future, watch them dance around the question. “…unless we act dramatically and quickly” sounds awfully certain.
It’s pretty simple and straightforward. They make extraordinary claims, with great certainty – both scientists and politicos. Thus, the ball is in their court,so we should simply ask them to put up or shut up. With their certainty, surely the science is SO nailed down that they should be able to TELL us WHEN and AT WHAT LEVEL the disaster begins.
So, we should simply be asking them these questions:
1. At what level of CO2 do we begin to actually experience the disaster?
2. In what year will this happen?
First of all, they will refuse to answer, indicating that their certainty is based on nothing but assertion.
Secondly, they will change the subject and tell us that WE need to answer why this won’t happen. OR they will say that if we wait that long it will already be too late.
I mean, certainty is certainty. In engineering or physics when you say some structure is going to fail when the stress exceeds a certain point, THAT is certainty. The formulas have been known and used many times in the past, so there is a lot of KNOWNS happening and there is a very low level of uncertainty. The same goes for transformers or other electrical devices – we know that a certain (no pun intended) amount of voltage (within a known range) will fry certain devices.
Greg says: “….Konrad” if memory serves correctly. Don’t think the write up ever got properly finished though.
So I did remember correctly and it appears he has still NOT written this up . (Has he even done the physical experiment? All I see here is the usual “thought experiment” and verbal hand-waving exercises. ) .
Konrad, if you’d actually done it, let’s have it. Description of apparatus, method, table of results.
This must be quite a simple desktop experiment. Has no one EVER even tried this and written it up in 30 years and billions of dollar of expenditure ????
My god, how did that get held back? Is K’s name blacklisted ?
My gut feeling on this is that a water molecule within microns of the surface of water, that is near equilibrium with its surroundings, and absorbs an IR photon will be energetic enough to evaporate unless there is a high vaporu pressure just above the water surface.
This proviso means extremely still conditions and probably a temperature inversion to prevent convection cells emerging.
That’s idealised and in reality I don’t see it happening enough to matter.
Possible exception is oils or surface contaminants, oil from sea weed or pollution or the mysterious liquid crystal effects of the water surface.
“You be the judge!”
Oh no, no, no, we cannot have people thinking for themselves, we have government experts to tell us what to think, they would be unemployed! Why do you hate science?
Steven Mosher says: “I read the NIPCC.”
I don’t think you did.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Front-Matter.pdf
The report says we can’t really predict with any reliability what future temperatures will be within the relevant range, which is true.
The report says the IPCC estimates of what will happen under warmer temperatures appears to be wrong, based on the evidence given in the report — also true.
There’s no contradiction in pointing out both facts.
So as they say, worry first about your own big red nose before criticizing your neighbor’s big floppy feet.
Greg Goodman says:
April 22, 2014 at 10:12 am
———————————-
Yes Greg, my name is blacklisted. However, in Anthony’s defence I do have the habit of winding Dr. Brown and Willis up. All posts that even mention the evil one must be checked by a moderator 😉
Here’s the thing Greg, If I say I have run the experiment, I have. The diagrams provided are the refined version for others to build. Unlike climastrologists I want others to replicate my work.
The early version of the incident LWIR onto water free to evaporatively cool experiment was published at Talkshop back in 2011. –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
– That version simply reflected out going IR from warm water samples back onto the surface of one sample not the other. Later tests have involved steady LWIR sources.
One of the great disappointments with the whole sceptic blogsphere is how few people actually check anything empirically. This website’s foundation was in the empirical checks of surface stations. Anthony our host has taken the time to empirically check Al Gores CO2 in a bottle experiment and prove it false. Dr. Spencer at his site took the time to build a radiative GHE experiment. But what do most other sceptics do? Cut and past, click and link, and type, type, type.
Well I say “Type is cheap”. There is an ancient saying – “Tell me I’ll forget. Show me I’ll understand. Let me do it and I will know.”
Rather than give you tables or figures, I would far rather you verified the physics for yourself. The more people that know, the better. You will need to buy a non contact IR thermometer. Mine cost about $100, but there are cheaper versions that would be quite adequate.
Set up a small desk fan to create a very light breeze (1m/s) across a table surface. (you may need a sheet of card to build a baffle so air flow is an even layer across the table surface)
Place a matt black 100 x 100 x 2mm thick sheet of aluminium on the table surface
Place a very thin tray the same size with 2mm of water in it (tray sides 2.5mm deep or less) next to it.
Use the IR thermometer to measure the surface temp of each.
Hold a steam iron set at 200C 50mm above the black plate for 2min, then re-measure temp.
Do the same for the shallow tray of water.
You should note a ~15C rise in the black plate but little or no change in the water temp (if you have poor airflow between the iron and the water surface, gas stagnation and conduction will warm the water surface, but not 15C)
As I have indicated to Dr. Brown up-thread, cold water or low wind speed would allow LWIR to effect ocean cooling rates. The problem is that Climastrologists claim DWLWIR is raising ocean temperature by 33C. DWLWIR clearly doesn’t have the power to do this when water can evaporatively cool.
Hopefully in the next week I will have two new experiments up for discussion at Talkshop – “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmanic Vinegar” and “How black were my oceans?”. These cover the issues I was raising in my last comment to Dr. Brown. The near blackbody calcs of the climastrologists indicate the sun alone does not have the power to heat our oceans above -18C. These two experiments demonstrate the difference between near blackbody and a SW selective material and why our sun alone is warming our oceans, and why the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans must be cooling.
REPLY: You aren’t blacklisted as you claim, your comments still get published, but they are on moderation hold…since as you admit you tend to get a bit over the top at times -Anthony
“REPLY: You aren’t blacklisted as you claim, your comments still get published, but they are on moderation hold…since as you admit you tend to get a bit over the top at times -Anthony”
I appreciate that I am not actually “blacklisted”, and do accept the reasons for moderation.
I was however pointing out that Greg is not the first to appear go into moderation for just typing my name 😉
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
+++++++++++++
Your post at 7:42 am is one of the finest posts. Nothing I can say would make your post better.
Mario
Robert Brown says:
April 21, 2014 at 7:42 am
“…As for the NIPCC, I have little to say. The political polarization of science sucks. Presenting climate arguments by tallying “peer reviewed publications” that agree with one perspective or the other sucks. Truth isn’t determined by a “vote” in the form of peer reviewed publication tallies, and the fundamental arguments for or against future catastrophe are not improved by such a count on either side.”
========================================================
I certainly disagree with any suggestion that this is what the NIPCC did in their report. They never made a “statistical” count of reports that agreed, or disagreed with them. (Despite that fact that Mr. Mosher appears to need some form of such statistics to consider it valid) They made rational deductions based on hundreds of real world studies and observations supporting the net benefit of CO2, and supporting the assertion that the projected harms are at least, highly exaggerated relative to the observations, if not entirely contrary to the observations in many cases. I think your characterization here is unintentionally insulting to the authors, as well as incorrect.
Konrad says,
“As I have indicated to Dr. Brown up-thread, cold water or low wind speed would allow LWIR to effect ocean cooling rates. The problem is that Climastrologists claim DWLWIR is raising ocean temperature by 33C. DWLWIR clearly doesn’t have the power to do this when water can evaporatively cool.
———————————————————————————
Dr Brown, I have trouble criticizing this. The ability of water to receive most DWLWIR energy at the very top surface, and use most of that energy in evaporation, using, or moving further energy up via convection, and via the solar absorption spectrum of WV above the surface, even before cloud formation, limiting the surface penetration of incoming insolation, must mean that the warming affect of DWLWIR is less on the ocean surface then on a the ground surface.
How much on average over the entire earth, dunno,but the idea appears sound..