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.

Nah


realclimate  ROTFLMAO


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

Much easier for everyone

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.

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



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.

Quote:


Given any lectures published any papers recently Muso?  Ever?

What's not real science about the Idso Factos?

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.

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


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.  

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

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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?

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


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.

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

Bullshit in=Bullshit out.