Our mission is to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2
 
In the news
  Posted on: Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Print  Print     Email  Email    RSS Feed  RSS Feed
Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
Source: The Wall Street Journal

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

scientistsFrom the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured-the deep ocean?


Click here for the full article
Post a comment
Name/Nickname:
(required)
Email Address: (must be a valid address)
(will not be published or shared)
Comments: (plain text only)
 
Recent Articles:
2/25/14   Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears
2/19/14   Breaking News
5/8/13   Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
9/26/12   More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb
9/10/12   Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast
8/14/12   Hansen Is Wrong
7/24/12   Illiteracy at NASA
6/29/12   NRC Sea Level Rise Scare: Losing Sight of the Science
6/22/12   Not So Hot in East China
6/18/12   NASA Must Stop Global Warming Alarmism (570 News Radio)
6/4/12   Historical Imagery of Greenland Glaciers Lessens Sea Level Rise Alarm
5/18/12   CO2 Not to Blame for Southwest Droughts?
5/14/12   Future Southwest Drought in Doubt?
5/9/12   No sea level rise catastrophe?
5/3/12   Antarctica's ice is melting from warm water below
5/2/12   Plant life changes 'underestimated'
5/1/12   Global What?
4/27/12   EPA’S Toxic Science
4/20/12   For Wheat and Rice, CO2 is Nice
4/10/12   Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
4/10/12   Former NASA Scientists and Astronauts Blast Agency for Disregarding Climate Change Evidence
3/29/12   Acclimation to Ocean Acidification: Give It Some Time
3/26/12   Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?
3/22/12   Tropical Forests Rejoice!
2/27/12   Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and High Climate Sensitivity
Search Archives:
Print  Print    Email  Email    RSS Feed  RSS Feed

** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).