Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels.  There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2.  Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.  Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention.  However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other.  To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect.  Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters.  And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!  There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose.  Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.  Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system.  If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world.  The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton.  This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei.  The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful.  It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content.  In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

pt 1

pt 2

Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models.  What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm.  In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do.  Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.  Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises.  And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet.  In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2.  Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather.  Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined.  Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere.  In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us?  Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions.  They are real.  Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution.  They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before.  In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle.  This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.  This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present.  Are we right?  Only time will tell.  But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course.  All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

Supporting references.  This brief was written in 1998.  References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

A few sites to find reality checks for above articles:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html

http://www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/global-warming/gw-overview/
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/12
http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/

Nah


realclimate  ROTFLMAO


just feel free to post text instead against the point you are trying to refute.

Much easier for everyone

Yeah I guess Real Climate is written by mere Climatologists rather than Idso, C (Geography Major) and Idso, S (Soil Scientist)

What would climatologists know about climatology?

Feel free to tell us what point you're making instead of cutting and pasting entire articles by unqualified people.

Sorry, I had my Idso's mixed up. They are all board members of the The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC).

So we have:

Craig Idso, Chairman
Sherwood B. Idso, President, (the father of Keith and Craig)
Keith E. Idso, Vice President
Julene M. Idso, Operations Manager.

Keep it in the family, I say. Not that there's anything wrong with that.  ;)

By the way, Keith Idso isn't qualified either.

So the fact they are a family impacts on their credentials and IQ does it?  

Oh dear I guess you are right...  how many imbeciles are in your family?

muso wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

Yeah I guess Real Climate is written by mere Climatologists rather than Idso, C (Geography Major) and Idso, S (Soil Scientist) What would climatologists know about climatology?

Climatologists are statisticians. The subject of climatology is averages.

Anything concrete in any climate debate is 'just the weather'. Remeber  'just weather'? Derision all round. So a geographer and a soil scientist can at least say they are dealing with concrete, testable, reproducibl science. Climatologists comparing statistical models based on statistical assumptions can't say that. SO they have been offering us statistical doomsday scenarios.

Soil scientist?  ROTFLMAO


Quote:

Sherwood B. Idso assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on 4 October 2001. Prior to that time he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [1] in Phoenix, Arizona, where he worked since June 1967. He was also closely associated with Arizona State University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology. His Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. As a result of his early work in the field of remote sensing, Dr. Idso was honored with an Arthur S. Flemming Award, given in recognition of "his innovative research into fundamental aspects of agricultural-climatological interrelationships affecting food production and the identification of achievable research goals whose attainment could significantly aid in assessment and improvement of world food supplies." This citation continues to express the spirit that animates his current research into the biospheric consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO₂ content.

How disingenuous of you Muso.

Quote:

Craig D. Idso is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is the brother of Keith E. Idso and son of Sherwood B. Idso. Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars[1]. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2. concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges[1]. From 2001-2002, Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO. Craig D. Idso advocates that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not related to air temperatures and that increasing atmosphere carbon dioxide concentrations will instead benefit plant growth.[2]

Given any lectures published any papers recently Muso?  Ever?

Now that is one heck of a lot of "Idso Factos" ;D ;D ;D

Never mind Grendel, if you can't find any real science, just make it up, that seems to be pretty acceptable in denialist circles.

What's not real science about the Idso Factos?

You're an idiot Mozz...

The feckless Muso leading the blind ignorant Mozza

Well the report you posted was from 12 years ago, and as he seems to be a proponent of it is not happening, but if it did, it would just mean we get better weather, school of thought, which has been pretty comprehensively discarded as ridiculously naive by legitimate climate scientists, in the intervening decade and a bit since this report was done.

If they have been working on this theory for the last 12 years, then they should have some impressive data to show by now, and submitted it for peer review and publication in respected scientific journals.

No?

Well maybe it got put on the back burner while they were spruiking their old discounted views on continuous loop, it will gather support from denialists who just do not care what is proposed, no matter if it agrees or contradicts other denialists views, they just lump all contrary views together and adopt the lot.

You keep proving me right Mozz...

there is no proof or experiment proving that man made CO2 emissions are driving climate change or that such change will lead to cataclysmic results...  as you lot claim...  and you've been claiming that for 30 years now...

oh dear...  there are none so blind eh.

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

muso wrote on Apr 28th, 2010 at 4:00pm: Yeah I guess Real Climate is written by mere Climatologists rather than Idso, C (Geography Major) and Idso, S (Soil Scientist) What would climatologists know about climatology? Climatologists are statisticians. The subject of climatology is averages.

Nowadays you can get a degree in Applied Climatology, Oceanography or Atmospheric Physics to name a few disciplines.

Climatologists cover a reasonably wide field of disciplines, including the Earth / Sun/ Moon system geometry, thermodynamics, atmospheric circulation, meteorology, adiabatic processes, the study of hydrological cycles,  the global energy balance, Atmospheric Physics, related measurement techniques, glaciology and paleoclimatology.  - and that's not an exhaustive list by any means.

Applied Climatology usually refers to subjects such as aviation climatology or Agricultural Climatology.

If the authors of a paper don't regularly publish in reputable Climatology journals, then they are very much on the fringe.

Statistics is included in just about any scientific discipline, but it's not a major part of the science of climatology. We use statistics mainly as a tool.  

As a reminder, please don't post anything that just flames or insults another contributor. It will be deleted. (I'll check my own posts too)

The last thing we need here is flame wars.

Grendel wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:27pm:

So the fact they are a family impacts on their credentials and IQ does it?

Not per se, but it certainly should set your "nutter" alarm a-ringin'. But I guess if Grendel came installed with a nutter alarm, he wouldn't have quoted that, ummm ... quality research ... from the OISM's barnyard office.

Yes I suppose the Strauss family were nutters too...  honestly.  ::)

Your idea of nutter is someone who disagrees with you.  ::)

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:

Yes I suppose the Strauss family were nutters too...  honestly.  ::)

No. Not at all. They made good jeans :)



- or do you mean the purveyors  of 19th Century pop music?  The Ostrich family from Vienna?

Yes, I can just see you listening to André Rieu.

Not a fan of his at all actually.

How little we know eh?

It is hard to believe that the obvious logical absurdity of a research institute being run like a nepotistic fiefdom is beyond your ken Grendel.

Feel free to enlighten us with your superior knowledge Mozza...  I mean you must be much better qualified to hold such an opinion right?

So Grendel, are you saying that you think legitimate research would be well served by running research institutes along the lines of a "nepotistic fiefdom"?

Now of course I accept that it does not necessary exclude, by it's structure, the possibility of being able to pursue meaningful, legitimate research, but I would contend that it significantly reduces that probability.

The fact that the study you referred to by the Idsos was 12 years old, which did seem to be aimed at supporting denialist ideas, and the intervening period seems to have been spent in the promotion of the idea of denialism, rather than the actual further research one would have expected, if they wanted to validate their studies original findings.

So instead of testing and expanding upon their original idea, they choose to flog it around denialist blogs for over a decade, as a better use of their family research institutes resources.

Now the fact that the initial report, "The Greening Of Planet Earth, Its Progression From Hypothesis To Theory", , delivered in January 1998, was commissioned as a project for them to complete by Western Fuels Association, who is also suspected as being the primary funder of their institute, although that can neither be confirmed or denied,because they refuse to identify any sources of funding they receive, does raise suspicions about their independence.

But hey, you judge for yourself, I will stick with traditional sources like Nature, or RealClimate.org. for my trusted information.

I guess what needs to be done is to reply in detail to the Idso article. I'll do that some other tie perhaps, but just for starters, the central allegation is erroneous.

There is in fact a physical basis - a causal effect. What we've been talking about on the other thread is the physical basis behind the underlying causation.

Let's get this right. The assertion regarding the correlation between rising temperature and rising CO2 is not being presented as proof by anybody. That is a strawman. Perhaps at the public level by the likes of Al Gore, it might be. That is because an explanation of the physical causation would go over the heads of most people.

At the academic level, confirmation comes from the rising global temperature trend, but that's only one line of confirmation. We can examine the actual mechanism by monitoring the emitted long wave radiation from the Earth over time. That's a confirmation that stems purely and simply from the greenhouse effect.

Let's try to keep the discussion civil. I think we'll all understand better where each person is coming from if we stop the personal attacks.

It's more difficult to address the points made, but that's what we should be doing, even though some of the points use very emotive language.  

Yes Mozz, well you stick to the biased propaganda sites...  i read them too and I know when they are being biased...  something you apparently don't.

Point 2...  you aren't as well qualified as they are to comment on the subject.

Point 3... they dissent your pov, being better qualified than you.

Point 4... this topic is called what?

:D ;D ::)

I have a diabolically, cunning plan.

---

Grendel wrote on May 3^rd, 2010 at 6:17pm:

Yes Mozz, well you stick to the biased propaganda sites...  i read them too and I know when they are being biased...  something you apparently don't. Point 2...  you aren't as well qualified as they are to comment on the subject. Point 3... they dissent your pov, being better qualified than you. Point 4... this topic is called what? :D ;D ::)

Grendel,

You don't have to be particularly well qualified to comment, but you do need to know the basics at least.

The Greenhouse Effect is primarily concerned with the effect of greenhouse gases on longwave radiation from the Earth, and has nothing to do with incident sunlight.

A person who doesn't comprehend the above fact would not be well placed when it comes to recognising bias on the issue.

I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at your bullshit meter. It's broken.  

muso wrote on May 4^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at your bullshit meter. It's broken.

;D ;D ;D ;D

I think it may not actually be a meter, more like a two way valve system.

Bullshit in=Bullshit out.