Skip to content

NIPCC Respond To IPCC Alarmism

April 2, 2014
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

 

 

The NIPCC have published their response to the latest IPCC report. They summarise the main issues below:

 

image

 

And they conclude:

 

How CO2 enrichment has affected global food production and biospheric productivity is a matter of fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s pessimistic forecast of declining food production, NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost global agricultural production and help meet the food needs of the planet’s growing population.”

They find “the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend to overcome any negative effects associated with changed weather conditions.”

Journalists, policymakers, and the interested public should demand to know why IPCC either hides or is silent about these truths.

 

 

 

The full report can be seen here.

6 Comments
  1. Mark Rubin permalink
    April 2, 2014 2:25 pm

    Some notable exceptions in my opinion. What part of the CO2 increase past 100 years is caused by use of fossil fuel for energy and what part is natural. This is important because the natural portion of the total increase demonstrates the natural cycle of CO2 increase/decrease caused and resulting from the driver of earth temperature. Earth warms, CO2 goes up, earth cools, CO2 drops. Industrialization increase to CO2 is a minor portion of the ongoing increase.

    Also, the global models do not rely on CO2 alone to achieve the warming. They all rely on a presumed feedback and amplification from water vapor (WV), and its really the WV increase/feedback that the models use to project warming.

    This is important for several reasons. Earth radiates heat to space across a broad long wave spectrum to cool itself from incoming solar heat at shorter waves lengths. The portion of the long wave spectrum that CO2 occupies is rather narrow and in most of its spectral positions is over lapped by WV anyway. There3 is only a small window in which CO2 alone can block heat radiation and this portion of the spectrum is nearly saturated. There is a lot more.

    As measured from space, is only the escaping wave lengths of energy at the spectra of CO2 that is not overlapped by WV, it is this energy only, that should it be measured from space to be dropping/decreasing, this is the only extra heat that could ever be captured by CO2 increase, and it is insignificant compared to the remaining long wave heat that continues to radiate into space to cool earth at wave lengths that can never be blocked by CO2.

    An interesting side note, across the broad long wave length spectrum the earth radiates heat and the portion the CO2 spectra occupies, without WV over-lap, this spectra happens to be towards the longer wave length end of the total broad spectrum. This is an interesting fact because wave length is the same thing as frequency, shot wave length is high frequency, long wave length is low frequency, they are measure of waves and really are just different means of expressing the same property of a wave. So, CO2 spectra is at the longer wave length, or at the lower frequency position of the total earth radiation spectrum. Photons escaping earth, or the radiation, that have lower frequency, such as those blocked by CO2 carry less energy than photons not blocked by CO2 that are escaping from earth at higher frequencies and higher energy levels. Frequency and energy are directly related, high frequency photons contain more energy than low frequency photons. CO2 happens to be capturing/blocking photons or relatively less energy in comparison to the total and less energetic photons means less heat, energy and heat being the same physical property just different names.

    Going further, the heat capture of CO2 if plotted graphically would demonstrate its logarithmic property. in past 100 years, CO2 molecules in the air have gone from about 320 parts per million (ppm), the other 999,680 parts being mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and has risen to a level today of about 390ppm. Not all of that 70ppm increase is from fossil fuels use, a major portion is natural (as measured by carbon radioactive isotopes.) Now, the issue of logarithmic can be better understood, about 80% of the heat CO2 can ever capture is done going from 0ppm to 40ppm. Only 20% of the heat CO2 can ever capture remains as it increases from 41ppm to the present 390ppm. That is, CO2 heat trapping properties are well beyond the logarithmic curve where each additional increase has any meaningful impact to heat capture. It is at a point along the curve well beyond incremental diminishing heat capture per unit increase.

    And the climate models recognize this and this is why all of the models, each, even the coolest projections, predicted a much warmer result by now than is actually being measured, all use a presumed CO2 to WV positive feedback amplification. The models actually rely on increased WV more than CO2 to achieve warming.

    But there is a major flaw in this assumed WV feedback. WV is very closely correlated to temperature, as we know, warmer assists evaporation, cooler reduces evaporation, evaporation of course turning liquid water into air bourn WV. But average WV, along with earth temps past 17 years has leveled off and begun to decline. Falling WV will promote cooling, along with the other natural drivers in the climate system not even discussed that appear now to be allowing the earth to cool. So the models use of WV feedback is doomed to failure if WV is decreasing.

    • Brian H permalink
      May 24, 2015 5:58 am

      Also not Gray’s recent paper suggesting cumulus clouds dump cold dry air at altitude, in contradiction to the GCM models assumed moist air, reducing the ECS by a factor of 10, to about 0.3. AGW is thus impossible.

      • Brian H permalink
        May 24, 2015 5:59 am

        typo: Also note Gray’s …

    • AndyG55 permalink
      May 24, 2015 7:53 am

      Also note that if a CO2 atom absorbs energy, it will bump into maybe 1000 – 10000 other atoms in the tiny fraction of a second before it re-radiates.
      Any energy transferred to those other atoms will become part of the convective system immediately.

      There is NO blanket or any other warming effect from CO2.

  2. April 2, 2014 3:56 pm

    “Journalists, policymakers, and the interested public should demand to know why IPCC either hides or is silent about these truths.”

    Do turkeys publicise Christmas & Thanksgiving days?

  3. April 2, 2014 4:32 pm

    Thanks, Paul. I will be linking to this new NIPCC report now.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: