The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is good for the Earth

The New Criterion Contributors

Bruce M. EvereƩ is a specialist on global Richard S. Lindzen is a dynamical meteorolo- energy and petroleum issues and teaches gist. He held the Alfred P. Sloan Professor- graduate students as an Adjunct Associate ship of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT since Professor of Interna onal Business at the , re ring in July of . He has provid- Fletcher School at Tu s University. ed congressional tes mony on the subject William Happer is Professor Emeritus in the of global warming several mes. Department of Physics at Princeton Uni- Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace versity. He served as Director of Energy Re- and served for seven years as a Director of search under President George H. W. Bush. Greenpeace Interna onal. In he pub- He has provided congressional tes mony on lished Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: the subject of global warming several mes. The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist Craig Idso is the founder, former president, (Bea y Street), which outlines his vision for and currently chairman of the Center for the a sustainable future. Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scien st He is a lead author of the reports of the at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Nongovernmental Interna onal Panel on He previously served as a Senior Scien st Climate Change (). for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Roger Kimball is Editor & Publisher of The New Space Flight Center. He has provided con- Criterion and Publisher of Encounter Books. gressional tes mony several mes on the His latest book is The Fortunes of Pema- subject of global warming. nence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augus ne’s Press).

The material in this pamphlet is drawn from “The Climate Surprise: Why CO Is Good for the Earth,” a conference organized jointly by the CO Coali on and The New Criterion. The conference took place on March , and was held in New York City.

The CO Coali on would like to thank Mr. Roger Kimball and Mr. Benjamin Riley of The New Criterion for their work in organizing and hos ng the conference.

Reprint July 2016 The CO2 Coali on 1621 North Kent Street, Suite 603 Arlington, VA 22209 www.co2coali on.org

Earlier versions of these essays were presented at a conference on Marcy 29, 2016 in New York City. The confer- ence was organized by the CO2 Coali on and The New Criterion, which fi rst published these essays in a pamphlet to accompany its June 2016 issue. The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is good for the Earth

Introduction: The politics of weather by Roger Kimball, 1 The climate surprise by William Happer, 5

Benefi ts of atmospheric CO2 by Craig Idso, 9 Recent global temperature trends by Roy W. Spencer, 13 Global warming: The science in three nutshells by Richard S. Lindzen, 17 The truth about ocean “acidifi cation” by Patrick Moore, 23 Rethinking climate economics by Bruce M. Everett, 29

Introduc on: The poli cs of weather by Roger Kimball E pur si muove — Galileo

re you weary of the weather wars? Are get us into trouble. Rather, the mischief is caused you alarmed by the extensive beachhead by things that we “do know that ain’t so.” Athat “progressive” culture warriors, clad For example, we all “know” that carbon in the (borrowed) raiment of science and fi red dioxide is “bad for the environment.” (In fact, it is by a moral fury worthy of an early-twen eth- a prerequisite for life.) We “know” that the level century temperance campaigner, have secured of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching in the public debate? You will be grateful, then, historically unprecedented and dangerous lev- for Mark Twain’s novel The American els. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been Claimant, which begins with an advisory about living through a CO famine.) We “know” that “The Weather in This Book.” “No weather will “global warming”—or, since there has been no be found in this book,” Twain explains. “This is warming for about eighteen years, that “climate an a empt to pull a book through without change”—has caused a sudden rise in the seas. weather.” What a relief! For it is impossible to (In fact, the seas have been rising for the last turn anywhere in our enlightened, environmen- , years, since the end of the last Ice Age.) tally conscious world without being beset by lec- We “know” that, when it comes to the subject tures about one’s “carbon footprint” and horror of climate change, the “science is se led,” that tales about “global warming,” “rising seas,” and “ percent of scien sts” agree that global warm- imminent ecological catastrophe. ing is anthropogenic, which is Greek for “caused It was with this in mind that The New Crite- by greedy corporate interests and the combus- rion partnered this spring with the CO Coali- on of fossil fuels.” on, a Washington-based think tank dedicated It’s really quite extraordinary how much we to comba ng misinforma on about the eff ects do know that ain’t so. of CO and fossil fuels, on a conference to ponder When I was growing up in the rural fast- The Climate Surprise: Why CO Is Good for the ness of the moderately great state of Maine, Earth.1 We might have added “and for you, your adults were always talking about the weather. loved ones, and the economy,” but we did not Their conversa ons were edged by an admirable wish to appear gratuitously provoca ve. stoicism. “If you don’t like the weather,” they Let me return to Mark Twain. It is not, he once o en said, “just wait.” It’s too bad that Al Gore observed, so much the things we don’t know that didn’t spend more me in Maine. He might have learned an awesome secret, one that I will now The Climate Surprise: Why CO Is Good for the Earth convened on March impart to you: the weather changes. Sure, there , in New York. Par cipants are listed in the table of contents. are long-term trends. But as the following essays Essays in this special pamphlet are based on presenta ons made at the conference, with the addi on of an essay by Roy Spencer. demonstrate, those are not nearly so alarming

1 as the climate hysterics claim. In fact, they are before the Inquisi on (not for the fi rst me) for not alarming at all. broadcas ng the heterodox opinion that the It was about two decades ago that the earth revolves around the sun. Ninety-seven Harvard philosopher Harvey Mansfi eld made percent—maybe more—of those in charge of the observation that environmentalism is things in the seventeenth century knew that “school prayer for liberals.” I remember er- Galileo had it all wrong. The earth was the ing when I fi rst read that. It was an observa on center of the universe and the sun traveled that had a dual advantage. It was both true— around it. Everyone knew that. Galileo was threat- environmentalism really did seem like a reli- ened with torture and prison; he recanted. The gion for certain le ists—and it was also amus- authori es se led on house arrest for the rest of ing. How deliciously wicked to put a bunch of his life. Tradi on tells us that on his way out of white, elite, college-educated folks under the court he mu ered mu nously “E pur si muove,” same rhetorical light as the Bible-thumpers they “And yet it moves.” abominated. Ha, I thought to myself, ha! When I men oned to friends that The New Well, I am not laughing now. In the interven- Criterion was helping to organize a conference ing years, the eco-nuts went from being a luna c about climate change, a common response was, fringe to being luna cs at the center of power. “Isn’t that outside your usual area of interest?” Item: early in March, Lore a Lynch, A or- Not really. The New Criterion is not a scien fi c ney General of the United States, acknowledged journal, and the truth is that I know hardly any that the Jus ce Department had discussed taking more about the actual science of climate change civil legal ac on against the fossil fuel industry than Al Gore—i.e., very li le indeed. But the for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions.” contemporary obsession with climate change Item: on March , Investors’ Business Daily involves several avenues of human concern, reported that the a orneys general in sixteen some of them at the very center of our con- states—now it’s twenty—had formed a coali on cerns at The New Criterion. to inves gate and prosecute companies that don’t Yes, the debate over climate change does agree with them about climate change. In other involve hard science, which is to say that it in- words, those dissen ng from the orthodox posi- volves the historical record about what actually on about climate science would be punished. has happened and careful modeling about what Item: on April , Bloomberg News reported that is likely to happen later on, given what we know the Compe ve Enterprise Ins tute, a conserva- about the physics and biology of the eco-sphere. ve think tank, was subpoenaed by the a orney Most of the following essays deal in acces- general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to disgorge a sible detail with this aspect of the subject. Let decade’s worth of documents regarding its work me men on by way of preface one fact that is on climate change, a massively burdensome and o en lost—or, rather, that is deliberately ob- expensive demand illustra ng the mournful ad- scured—by many non-scien fi c par es weigh- age that when it comes to the law “the process ing in on the debate. It is this: the science about is the punishment.” mankind’s infl uence on climate change is far Galileo would know just how those climate from se led. Steven Koonin, who was under- dissenters feel. In , he was hauled up secretary for science in the Energy Department

2 during President Obama’s fi rst term, summed Climate alarmism can also be a pretext for up this truth with pithy fi nality in a much-read the redistribu on of wealth on a global scale. ar cle for The Wall Street Journal. The conten- You can never be green enough, Comrade, and on that the “science is se led” with respect climate change off ers a potent pretext for the to climate change, he wrote, is “misguided,” consolida on of governmental power: it is, as i.e., it is wrong. “It has not only distorted our one wag put, the “killer app” for extending public and policy debates on issues related to governmental control. energy, greenhouse-gas emissions, and the Like the House of the Lord, governmental environment. But it also has inhibited the sci- control is a domicile of many mansions, from en fi c and policy discussions that we need to intrusive, prosperity-sapping regula on to the have about our climate future.” silencing, in mida on, dismissal, and even the But of course science is only part of the is- legal prosecu on of cri cs. Indeed, in its trans- sue. You cannot read far into the literature on forma on of cri cs into here cs we see once climate change before you realize that science again the religious or cult-like aspect of radical is o en dragged in as window dressing for the environmentalism. One argues with a cri c. One real issues, which are poli cal, on the one hand, must silence or destroy a here c. Galileo would and economic, on the other. have understood exactly how this new Inquisi- The two hands, it is worth poin ng out, be- on would proceed. And this brings me to one long to the same body and are working to feed of the most frightening aspects of the gospel the same maw. of climate change: its subordina on of inde- Considered as a poli cal movement, envi- pendent scien fi c inquiry to par san poli cal ronmentalism may, as Harvey Mansfi eld said, impera ves. Scien fi c inquiry depends upon the betray a religious or cult-like aspect. But for freedom to pursue the truth wherever it leads, every true believer in the religion of Gaia, there regardless of poli cal ideology or vested inter- is a squadron of cynical opportunists eager to est. Recently, climate hysterics and their poli cal exploit the new paganism of earth-worship for and academic enablers have begun describing decidedly secular ends. We’ve heard a lot about those who disagree with them about the sci- the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky ence of climate change as “climate deniers.” The these past seven plus years. A fundamental echo of “holocaust deniers” is deliberate and rule of thumb for a paid-up Alinskyite radical pernicious. A “holocaust denier” is someone is that “the issue is never the real issue.” In who denies an historical enormity. But a so- the present context, that means that “climate called “climate denier” is merely someone who change” is largely a pretext. For some, it is a disputes an ideological construct masquerading pretext for personal enrichment. Consider, as a scien fi c truth. The irony, of course, is that to take but one egregious example, Al Gore, this farce should proceed in an era in which who peddles the philosophy of Chicken Li le, science and technology have remade the world on the one hand, and has managed to rake in for the benefi t of mankind. hundreds of millions of dollars by exploi ng Climate-change hysteria takes issue with various government-subsidized “green energy” those benefi ts, which is why it has also been ini a ves, on the other. a pretext for the systema c a ack on specifi c

3 industries and technologies—the coal industry, for the self-appointed nomenklatura persist for example, or fracking. The goal of the undisturbed. It was to challenge this noxious a ack is, as Obama’s top science advisor John and poli cally mo vated assault on truth, free Holdren put it in a book he co-authored with speech, and prosperity that The New Criterion the climate alarmist Paul Ehrlich, “A massive and the CO Coali on joined hands. E pur si campaign . . . to restore a high-quality environ- muove, indeed. ment in North America and to de-develop the Ba ling this pernicious ideology is a mul - United States.” faceted task. But since the evangelists for cli- A “massive campaign . . . to de-develop the mate alarmism like to wrap themselves in the United States”: ponder that. Mr. Holdren la- mantle of science, it is appropriate that we mented that the idea of de-development was begin to unse le the puta vely se led con- subject to “considerable misunderstanding and sensus about climate change with a few el- resistance.” I for one am happy about the re- ementary scien fi c lessons, illustrated in the sistance. Indeed, I wish it were s ff er. But as following essays. for misunderstanding what “de-development” The Climate Surprise: Why CO Is Good for means, I have to take issue. We know exactly the Earth convened on March , in New what it means. It is the same thing that Lud- York. Par cipants are listed in the table of con- dites and an -capitalists have always meant: tents. Essays in this special pamphlet are based the impoverishment and immisera on of the on presenta ons made at the conference, with mass of mankind just so long as the perquisites the addi on of an essay by Roy Spencer.

4 The climate surprise by William Happer

he brief reports assembled here sum- energy sector to minimize real environmen- marize talks at the conference The Climate tal harm. But it notes that CO released by TSurprise: Why CO Is Good for the Earth. combus on of fossil fuels is actually a ben- The Conference, jointly organized by The New efit to the world, not a pollutant. Energy Criterion and the CO Coali on, took place at sources like fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydro- the Princeton Club in New York on March , power, wind power, or solar power should . The CO Coali on is a new and indepen- be selected on the basis of cost, convenience, dent non-profi t organiza on established in dependability, and ability to minimize real, as to educate thought leaders, policy makers, and opposed to imaginary, environmental harm. the public about the vital contribu on made With proper equipment to remove genu- by carbon dioxide to our lives and our economy. ine pollutants, like fl y ash, oxides of sulfur and Coali on members include climate scien sts, nitrogen, vola le organic compounds, and so physicists, engineers, and economists of inter- on, the stack emissions of fossil fuel power na onal stature. More informa on about the plants are similar to those of human breath, coali on’s goals and membership can be found as shown in Figure .. Humans and other at its website, cocoali on.org. The mission of the Coali on is to present scien fi c evidence showing that the trace atmospheric gas car- bon dioxide or CO is a nutrient that is essen al to plant life. CO is not a pollutant. Increasing CO levels will enable plants and agricultural crops to grow more effi ciently and to be more drought resistant. Moreover, observa ons show that warming from doubling the amount of CO in the atmosphere is going to be about degree Celsius, much less than predicted by most computer models, and benefi cial to the world. Figure 1.1: The main components of the exhaust gas of a modern power The CO Coalition is in favor plant are similar to the components in human breath. Humans and other living things must emit large amounts of CO2 to survive. They have a very of cost-effective regulation of the large “carbon footprint,” which is a benefi cial part of the cycle of life.

5 Figure 1.2: The ra o, RCO2, of past atmospheric CO2 concentra ons to those (about 300 ppm) of the past few million years. This par cular proxy record comes from analyzing the frac on of the rare stable isotope 13C to the dominant isotope 12C in carbonate sediments and paleosols. Other proxies give qualita vely similar results. Only once the geological past, around 300 million years ago, were CO2 concentra ons as low as those today. From: R. A. Berner and C. Kothavala, Geo- carb:III, “A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over the Phanerozoic me,” American Journal of Science, 301, 182 (2001).

living things must emit large amounts of member Professor Richard Lindzen, gives a CO to survive. They have a very large “carbon sobering analysis of three “narra ves” on cli- footprint,” which is a benefi cial part of the mate: that of the suppor ve scien sts, that of cycle of life. the so-called skep cs, and that of the poli - The fi rst report, by the Coali on member Dr. cians, environmental ac vists, and the media. Craig Idso, shows that green plants grow faster Along with the other par cipants, Profes- and need less water as a result of increasing sor Lindzen is a strong supporter of the second levels of CO in the atmosphere. Few people narra ve, that climate change realize that current CO levels are far lower than the op mum levels for photosynthesis, and that is not an especially serious problem . . . plants have been coping with a “CO famine” there are many reasons why the climate for many tens of millions of years, as illustrated changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the in Figure .. orbital varia ons of the earth, as well The second report, “Global warming: the as myriad other inputs. None of these science in three nutshells,” by the Coali on is fully understood, and there is no

6 Figure 1.3: A comparison of the surface warming predicted by climate models with observed warming. Trends in global mean surface temperature. a: 1993–2012. b: 1998–2012.

evidence that CO emissions are the releases addi onal heat of condensa on in the dominant factor. lower atmosphere. And yet measured rates of temperature rise in the troposphere are less For many though ul scien sts, the most than on the surface. Dr. Spencer was unable to persuasive evidence that climate change due to a end the conference but fortunately was able more CO is not an especially serious problem to provide the wri en report on measurements is that the warming over the past few decades included here. has been much less than that predicted by most The fourth report, by the Coali on mem- climate models, as illustrated in Figure .. ber Dr. Patrick Moore, “The truth about ocean The third report, by Dr. Roy Spencer, is a ‘acidifi ca on,’ ” assesses one of the many review of temperature measurements, the nar- scare stories about increasing levels of CO: row red bars shown in Figure ., which came that the ocean will turn to acid and dissolve from networks of surface sta ons. It is also pos- the poor living creatures who live there. Dr. sible to use satellites and balloons to measure Moore shows why this is nonsense. The slow the temperature of the lower atmosphere by decrease in ocean pH over the next century satellites. Climate models invariably predict will be smaller than day-to-day fl uctua ons in more warming of the lower atmosphere than the most biologically produc ve parts of the of the surface. This is because a warming sur- ocean, and much smaller than varia ons of pH face should evaporate more water vapor, which with depth or la tude.

7 The last report, by the Coali on member do no harm.” One would hope that the lessons Professor Bruce Evere , “Rethinking climate learned from experiments with “green” en- economics,” is a precau onary tale of Ger- ergy policies in Germany, the United Kingdom, many’s experience with “renewable energy.” Spain, and elsewhere will help us avoid similar This brings to mind the ancient advice: “fi rst mistakes in the United States of America.

8 Benefi ts of atmospheric CO2 by Craig Idso

e on Earth benefi t from the rise of from the air, the bigger and be er they grow, a atmospheric CO. But we seldom fact that has been conclusively demonstrated in Whear this important fact and its cri - thousands of laboratory and fi eld experiments. cal implica ons. Studying the biological impacts Figure . illustrates this truly amazing of rising atmospheric CO has occupied my benefi t. As the atmosphere’s CO concentra- professional life for nearly three decades now. on increases to six mes above that of its Time and again, governments, non- current value, this extra “food,” if you will, induces governmental organiza ons, interna onal agen- a growth enhancement in most plants that cies, societal think tanks, and even respectable reaches upwards of percent. scien fi c organiza ons undertake to spend In Figure . we see the growth-enhancing mul ple millions of dollars wri ng and pro- eff ects of atmospheric CO enrichment on pea mo ng large reports about climate change. plants. All plants in the fi gure were grown un- Yet in nearly all of these endeavors they have der iden cal condi ons except atmospheric failed by not properly evalua ng, or even CO content. Grown under three diff erent acknowledging, the manifold real and mea- atmospheric CO concentra ons, the eff ects surable benefi ts of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO content. As a result, the posi ve impacts of atmospheric CO enrichment remain largely ignored. There are three main benefi ts of atmospheric CO enrichment: more CO increases plant produc vity, enhances plant water use effi ciency, and helps plants to withstand and be er endure various environmental and resource limita ons and stresses. Regarding plant produc vity, carbon dioxide is the primary raw material u - lized by plants during the process of pho- Figure 2.1: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere enhances plant growth. tosynthesis to build and construct their Source: adapted from Idso, K.E. 1992. Plant responses to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide: a compila on and analysis of the ssues. It is the “food” that sustains es- results of a decade of interna onal research into the direct biological sen ally all plants on the face of the Earth. eff ects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Climatological Publica ons Scien fi c Paper No. 23, Offi ce of Climatology, Arizona State Univer- And the more CO they “eat” or take in sity, Tempe, Ariz.

9 percent for crops, percent for C cereals, percent for C cereals, percent for fruits and melons, percent for legumes, percent for roots and tubers, and percent for vegetables, on average. Although much less studied than terrestrial plants, many aqua c plants are also known to be responsive to atmospheric CO enrichment, including unicellular phytoplankton and bo om- rooted macrophytes of both freshwater and saltwater species. Hence, there is probably no category of photosynthesizing plant that does not respond posi vely to atmospheric CO enrichment and that is not likely to benefi t from the ongoing rise in the air’s CO content. Figure 2.2: The only diff erence in growing condi ons for these plants is the parts per million of atmospheric CO2 as noted It should come as no surprise, therefore, beneath each specimen. that the father of modern research in this area—Dr. Sylvan H. Wi wer—has stated that of CO fer liza on are readily apparent in the “it should be considered good fortune that we leaf, stem, and root biomass. The plant on the are living in a world of gradually increasing le is clearly defi cient on all counts. levels of atmospheric CO,” and that “the rising My employer, the Center for the Study of level of atmospheric CO is a universally free Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, has stud- premium, gaining in magnitude with me, on ied the eff ects of atmospheric CO on plants for which we can all reckon for the future.” decades. On its website, www.coscience.org is So what does the growth-enhancing ben- a Plant Growth database, where the results of efi t of atmospheric CO enrichment portend thousands of laboratory and fi eld CO enrich- for the biosphere? One obvious consequence ment studies are archived. is greater crop produc vity. Many researchers Based on the numerous experiments listed have acknowledged the yield-enhancing ben- there, we have determined that a parts per efi ts of the historical and s ll-ongoing rise in the million (ppm) increase in the air’s CO content air’s CO content on past, present, and future will typically raise the produc vity of most her- crop yields, yet scien sts are only scratching baceous plants by about one third. This s mula- the surface of the poten al benefi ts such yield on is generally manifested by an increase in enhancements can bring. the number of branches and llers, more and Consider rice, at . percent of global food thicker leaves, more extensive root systems, produc on. Based upon data presented in our plus more fl owers and fruit. CO Science Plant Growth Database, the average A study I conducted several years ago growth response of rice to a ppm increase found that a ppm increase in atmospheric in the air’s CO concentra on is posi ve CO enrichment leads to yield increases of . percent. However, data obtained from

10 Thus, at higher atmospheric CO concentra ons it has been ob- served that plants need less water to produce the same—or an even greater—amount of biomass. With smaller stomatal open- ings, plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO are gener- ally less suscep ble to drought. As such, they will be able to grow and reproduce where it has previous- ly been too dry for them to exist. Consequently, Earth’s terrestrial vegeta on should become more Figure 2.3: The wide-open Low CO2 stomatal pore allows more H2O to escape from the plant compared to the High CO2 pore, if other factors are robust as the air’s CO concentra- held constant. This causes more water-loss plant stress in arid regions. on rises, and should begin to win back lands previously lost to deser - De Costa et al. (), who studied the growth fi ca on. Simultaneously, the greater vegeta ve responses of sixteen diff erent rice genotypes, cover of the land produced by this phenomenon revealed CO-induced produc vity increases should reduce the adverse eff ects of wind and ranging all the way from nega ve percent rain soil erosion. to posi ve percent. Therefore, if farmers With respect to the third major benefi t of iden fi ed which genotypes provided the larg- atmospheric CO enrichment—the ameliora- est yield increases per unit of CO rise, and on of environmental stresses and resource then grew those genotypes, global food supply limita ons—atmospheric CO has been shown would con nue to expand rapidly. to help reduce the detrimental eff ects of high The second major benefi t of atmospheric soil salinity, high air temperature, low light in- CO enrichment is increased plant water use tensity, and low levels of soil fer lity. Elevated effi ciency—the amount of biomass produced levels of CO also reduce the severity stresses by a plant per unit of water lost via transpira- of low temperature, of oxida on, and of her- on. Figure . represents two typical stomatal bivory. What is more, the percentage growth pore confi gura ons. Plants exposed to elevat- enhancement produced by an increase in the ed levels of atmospheric CO generally do not air’s CO content is o en greater under stress- open their leaf stomatal pores as wide as they ful and resource-limited condi ons than under do at lower CO concentra ons. The result is op mal growing condi ons. a reduc on in most plants’ rates of water loss Retuning to water resources to illustrate by transpira on. The amount of carbon they this third benefi t, the percent growth enhance- gain per unit of water lost therefore typically ment due to atmospheric CO enrichment in- rises for a doubling of CO on the order of creases when water availability is less than to percent. ideal, as shown in Figure .. For example, a

11 Therefore, most types of vegeta on, with the help of the extra CO, will likely be able to tolerate much warmer living condi ons than they do currently, even if temperatures were to rise as high as is unrealis cally predicted by the most pessimis c climate models. Based on a mul tude of real-world observa ons, the future is now. Evi- dence from all across the globe indi- cates that the terrestrial biosphere is already experiencing a great planetary Figure 2.4: Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 support greater plant greening, likely in large measure due to growth in dry condi ons. This is a cause of the global greening of arid regions as documented by space photographs. the approximate percent increase in atmospheric CO since the beginning of the Industrial Revolu on. plant growing in adequate water condi ons Perhaps most surprising about these ob- will experience about a percent increase in servations is the fact that this great green- produc vity for a ppm increase in CO. But ing of the Earth has occurred despite many that same plant growing in a water-stressed assaults of both man and nature on Earth’s environment would experience a much greater vegetation over this time period, including percent increase in produc vity for a fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, ppm increase in CO. That benefi t becomes war, and climatic changes in temperature and even larger as the CO concentra on rises. precipitation. Further, research shows that a doubling of In considering each of the CO enrich- the air’s CO concentra on typically boosts the ment benefi ts discussed above, instead of op mum temperature for plant photosynthesis being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise by several degrees cen grade, and it raises the in atmospheric CO should be welcomed with temperature at which plants experience heat- open arms. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant— induced death by about the same amount. it is the very elixir of life.

12 Recent global temperature trends by Roy W. Spencer

ur measurements of global average Three Temperature Measurement Methods temperature are fundamental to The only truly global measurement strategy Oestablishing whether global warming is with Earth-orbi ng satellites. Satellite instru- is occurring, how strong it is, and whether its ments measure the intensity of microwave ra- magnitude agrees with global warming theory dia on emi ed by oxygen in the atmosphere, as embodied in computer climate model pre- and that intensity is directly propor onal to dic ons. Since those model predic ons are the temperature. The satellite instruments are basis for energy policy, it is important that they con nuously calibrated with views of the cos- be tested with actual observa ons. mic background radia on (near absolute zero But scien fi c measurements always have in temperature) and on-board precision pla num errors. And the main reason why global tem- resistance thermometers that have themselves perature measurements are so controversial— been calibrated in a laboratory. While using radia- and some mes even contradictory—is that on to measure temperature might seem rather none of our temperature monitoring systems indirect, this is how the nurse now takes your were designed to measure the small signal of body temperature—by the intensity of infrared global warming, which is expected to be on the radia on, usually measured in your ear. order of . degrees cen grade per decade. The second and most familiar method of That is only . degrees cen grade per year. monitoring global temperatures is with ground- In contrast, most of us are used to experi- based thermometers. Many years ago these in- encing tens of degrees of temperature varia on, struments were liquid-in-glass (either alcohol or from day to night, and from season to season. mercury), which required a person to es mate Our backyard thermometers can be off by one the temperature visually and record the data or two degrees and it really doesn’t ma er to us manually. These have been largely replaced with when we are used to tens of degrees of varia- electronic thermometers, called thermistors, on. But for global warming, one to two degrees which measure electrical resistance, which is is the en re warming that has been alleged to then converted to a temperature—like radia- have occurred over the last century. on, an indirect measure. Most thermometer Despite the uncertain es in the measure- measurements are made on land, and tend to ments, the importance of the global warming be located where people have replaced natural issue to energy policy, agricultural produc v- vegeta on with buildings and pavement, lead- ity, ecosystem health, and so on necessitates ing to a spurious long-term warming signal (the that we use whatever data we have in order to “urban heat island” eff ect) that is diffi cult to determine whether climate really is changing. correct for. There are large land areas of the

13 world with very few thermometer measure- rela vely new Argo buoys that fl oat around ments, while Europe and the United States have the world autonomously and dive down taking dense coverage by thermometer measurements, ver cal temperature profi les in the deep ocean. albeit with varying quality. Thermistors are also Finally, weather balloons (also called radio- used on ships, moored ocean buoys, and the sondes) are launched from a rela vely small number of sta ons around the world, and provide thermistor-based ver cal profi les of temperature measurements up through the atmosphere. These measurements can be directly compared to the satellite microwave measurements, since both measure fairly deep layers of the atmosphere. None of our temperature measurements, whether satellites, surface-based thermom- eters, or weather balloons, is perfect. All must be adjusted for known sources of error over me in order to measure the very small signal of global warming, not the least of which is due to newer instrumenta on being diff erent in design than, say, that of thirty years ago.

What do the measurements tell us? Generally speaking, whether we use satel- lites, thermometers, or weather balloons, the measurements suggest that warming in recent decades has been weaker than expected by the climate models. This is summarized in Figure ., the top panel of which shows satellite and weather balloon measurements of the lower atmosphere versus the corresponding forecasts of climate models, while the lower panel shows surface thermometer measurements versus climate model forecasts. As seen in Figure ., observa ons of global average temperature since suggest that climate models are warming about twice as fast as the real world, in both the lower atmosphere Figure 3.1: Observa ons of global average temperature since (top panel) and at the surface (bo om panel). 1979 suggest that climate models are warming about twice as fast as the real world, in both the lower atmosphere (top Why do we measure the deep-atmospheric panel) and at the surface (bo om panel). temperatures, even though no one lives at those

14 al tudes? There are a couple of reasons. First, natural sunshade, a small change in how the as the sun warms the surface of the Earth, the model handles clouds can lead to a large change lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is also in global warming predic ons from the models. warmed as the atmosphere overturns, pro- ducing clouds and precipita on. The surface Is recent warming natural or man-made? and deep-atmosphere are thus coupled It is commonly assumed that “climate together, and as the surface warms, so should change” means “human-caused climate change.” the troposphere. This gives us an important Yet we know from historical records that human- check on whether surface warming really ity has experienced prolonged periods of abnor- is occurring. mally warm or cool temperatures. For example, Second, the amount of warming in the as seen in Figure ., the Roman Warm Period, troposphere compared to the surface tells us the Medieval Warm period, and the Li le Ice Age something about feedbacks in the climate sys- all show up in temperature proxy es mates of tem, and thus about climate sensi vity. The Northern Hemispheric temperature es mates. climate models suggest that the troposphere Proxy average temperature reconstruc on should be warming more quickly than the sur- for the Northern Hemisphere over the last , face. Instead, the observa ons suggest that years reveals that most centuries experienced troposphere is warming more slowly than the natural episodes of warming or cooling. surface. We don’t yet know why this is the case, This evidence demands the ques on: if most but it might well be related to errors in the centuries in the last two millennia experienced climate models that need to be corrected. either warming or cooling, how do we know As can be seen in Figure ., the discrepancy between mod- els and observa ons seems to be growing with me. Unfortu- nately, there is no way to know if this discrepancy will con nue. A few scien sts even dispute whether a discrepancy exists, poin ng to uncertain es in the observa ons. I tend to believe the observa ons are largely cor- rect, and that the discrepancy is real. The tendency of the climate models to warm too much is due to highly uncertain tunings that have been made in those models, especially in Figure 3.2: Proxy average temperature reconstruc on for the Northern Hemi- how clouds respond to warm- sphere over the last 2,000 years reveals that most centuries experienced natural ing. Since clouds are the Earth’s episodes of warming or cooling.

15 that the warming of the last years is all we now are experiencing only human-caused human-caused? changes, seems specula ve at best. The answer is that we don’t. The truth is, no one really knows. Climate While the theory suppor ng some warming science unavoidably deals with large uncer- from our carbon dioxide emissions is reasonably tain es. Even if we had perfect temperature sound, the magnitude of that warming is very measurements over the last , years, there uncertain. This dis nc on between the mere would s ll be disagreements over the cause existence of some warming versus its magnitude of the observed temperature varia ons, which is usually lost in the global warming debate, remain largely unknown. where people are o en believers in either no What we do know, though, is that the cli- human eff ect or a catastrophic human eff ect. mate models con nue to predict rapid warming The temperature es mates in Figure . for our future. As those predic ons either suc- suggest that humans rou nely had to deal with ceed or fail as more measurements are made fairly large temperature changes, some of which in the coming years, we will very gradually gain lasted for centuries. The idea that those natu- more confi dence in our understanding of the ral climate changes no longer exist, and that eff ects of humans on climate.

16 Global warming: The science in three nut shells by Richard S. Lindzen

peculiar aspect of the global warming is- The first narrative is that commonly sue is the popular a empt to characterize associated with the scien fi c part of the United Athe underlying science as transparently Na on’s Interna onal Panel on Climate Change, trivial—presumably to make the layman feel stu- or (Working Group ). Its main posi on is pid if he should ques on the alarm surrounding that recent (since the s) climate change is this issue. primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, To quote Secretary of State John Kerry on coal, and natural gas—leading to the release of the science of climate: CO into the atmosphere, which the believes might eventually dangerously heat the planet. I know some mes I can remember from Although warming per se is assumed to be bad, when I was in high school and college, li le a en on is given as to what cons tutes the some aspects of science or physics can danger. For over thirty years, however, the issue be tough. But this is not tough. This is of poten ally rising sea levels has provided the simple. Kids at the earliest age can un- primary graphic illustra on of danger, though derstand this. li le evidence is on off er. Alas, climate brings together some of the The second narra ve holds that warming hardest problems in physics despite Secretary is not an especially serious problem. It holds Kerry’s peculiar (though common) view. that there are many reasons why the climate Obviously, I will not be able to review fully the changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital physics in any detail (though some a en on to varia ons of the earth, as well as myriad other this will be given at the conclusion of this piece). inputs. None of these is fully understood, and Rather, I will describe the three narra ves that there is no evidence that CO emissions are the cover the bulk of the public discourse. I use the dominant factor. Furthermore, the fact that com- word “narra ve” advisedly, and will eventually puter model projec ons of climate, where CO explain why we are dealing with story lines rather is made to dominate, have consistently overes - than with serious discourses. It goes without say- mated observed warming strongly suggests that ing that narra ves can have a powerful infl uence. the alleged climate response to CO is greatly The three narra ves are perpetrated by the exaggerated. suppor ve scien sts, the so-called skep cs, and In summary, the skep cs fi nd that climate the politicians, environmental activists, and is a remarkably complex system that cannot be media. The third narra ve is also favored by reduced to a CO knob, something you turn up scien sts who are not involved with the physics or down like your house thermostat, to control of climate but who explicitly profi t from alarm. global temperature.

17 Despite these diff erences, the fi rst two nar- not saying “If we don’t do these things, ra ves actually share quite a few posi ons: fi rst we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket, that the climate is always changing and second we’re going to fry, in a few years.” that CO is a greenhouse gas without which life Ralph Cicerone: Well, there are people on earth is not possible. They also agree that who are saying those things, John. adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming. Moreover, the narra ves agree that Humphrys: But not you. atmospheric levels of CO have been increasing since the end of the Li le Ice Age in the nine- Ralph Cicerone: No. I don’t think it’s use- teenth century and that over this period (the past ful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, and two centuries) the global mean temperature has we don’t have that kind of evidence. increased slightly and erra cally by about . Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s suc- degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius—but cessor as head of ’s Goddard Ins tute of only since the s have man’s greenhouse Space Studies, whose website, realclimate. emissions been suffi cient to play a role. Finally, org, is a major advocate of the global warming both narra ves agree that given the complexity claim, does not agree with claims of extremes: of climate, no confi dent predic on about future global mean temperature or its impact can be General statements about extremes made. The acknowledged in its own are almost nowhere to be found in report that “The long-term predic on of future the literature but seem to abound in climate states is not possible.” the popular media. . . . It’s this popular The most important commonality, however, percep on that global warming means is that neither of the fi rst two narra ves asserts all extremes have to increase all the that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catas- me, even though if anyone thinks trophe. This important point has o en been about that for ten seconds they real- made by scien sts closely associated with the ize that’s nonsense. fi rst narra ve. The third narra ve is substan ally di- The situa on may have been best summa- vorced from either of the fi rst two narra ves. rized by Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall The take of Senators McCain and Lieberman Centre at the University of East Anglia (a center (The Boston Globe, February , ) illustrates of concern for global warming): “To state that a common approach to pretending that there is a climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cas- connec on between the fi rst and third narra ves: cade of value-laden assump ons which do not emerge from empirical or theore cal science.” The recent report by the Intergovernmen- Here is an exchange from John Humphry’s tal Panel on Climate Change concluded interview of Ralph Cicerone (President of there is a greater than percent chance the Na onal Academy of Sciences) in July . that greenhouse gases released by hu- man ac vi es like burning oil in cars and John Humphrys: You don’t sound, if I can coal in power plants are causing most of use this word, apocalyp c. I mean, you’re the observed global warming. This report

18 puts the fi nal nail in denial’s coffi n about First and foremost, we should not allow a the problem of global warming. ny minority of shoddy scien sts and sci- ence and extreme ideologues to compete Of course, the WG wisely avoided with scien fi c fact. making the claim that percent of a small change in temperature cons tuted a “problem.” This is not opinion. This is about facts. This This, they le to the poli cians. is about science. The science is unequivocal. More commonly, no attempt is made And those who refuse to believe it are simply to relate the “scare” scenario to the fi rst nar- burying their heads in the sand. Now, Presi- ra ve. Here is President Obama’s constant dent Obama and I believe very deeply that refrain: we do not have me for a mee ng anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. Climate change is contribu ng to extreme weather, wildfi res, and drought, and rising As usual, poli cal fi gures improperly associ- temperatures can lead to more smog and ate science as a source of unques onable author- more allergens in the air we breathe, mean- ity rather than as a successful mode of inquiry. ing more kids are exposed to the triggers that In addi on, they cynically assert that science is can cause asthma a acks. the source of their authority. Some mes, the ignorance of the poli cian becomes painfully evi- Pope Francis, President Hollande, and vir- dent, as when the former Speaker of the House tually all state leaders have chimed in with Nancy Pelosi famously intoned: “Natural gas is similar “learned” proclama ons. a good, cheap alterna ve to fossil fuels.” Then- To be sure, the advocates of the third nar- senator Hillary Clinton, at a Senate Hearing, more ra ve a empt to cloak their bizarre views with modestly acknowledged her ignorance of climate claims of “science.” The following quotes from science, but, nonetheless, confi dently asserted Secretary Kerry are characteris c: that “CO can’t be good for kids with asthma.” At least some poli cal fi gures don’t bother When I think about the array of global cli- referring to “the science.” People like Chris ana mate—of global threats—think about this: Figueres, the execu ve secretary of the U.N. terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the prolif- Framework Conven on on Climate Change, era on of weapons of mass destruc on, make clear the purely poli cal mo va on. all challenges that know no borders, the reality is that climate change ranks right up This is the fi rst me in the history of man- there with every single one of them. And kind that we are se ng ourselves the task it is a challenge that I address in nearly of inten onally, within a defi ned period of every single country that I visit as Secretary me, to change the economic development of State, because President Obama and I model that has been reigning for at least believe it is urgent that we do so. years, since the Industrial Revolu on. . . . it’s compelling us to act. And let there Despite such occasional outbursts of honesty, be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the the third narra ve is generally defended as be- science is absolutely certain. . . . ing due to those in the fi rst narra ve, with the

19 usual mantras of “ percent,” “everyone knows,” ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe etc. With increases in funding by over an order them.” However, one hesitates to include the of magnitude, there is li le incen ve for those media and Hollywood as “intellectual.” in the fi rst narra ve to complain, and this third The second (and far more subtle) point narra ve clearly dominates the public discourse. wherein the fi rst two narra ves deviate from Indeed, those associated with the fi rst narra ve reality is in their focus on a zero dimensional have ample incen ve to keep the third narra ve picture of climate (i.e., greenhouse warming of in play. While it is clear that the third narra ve the global mean temperature). This leads to a consists in a story line divorced from actual view of climate sensi vity that bears li le re- science, it is less clear why this is the case for the semblance to past climate change. A standard fi rst two narra ves, both of which are nominally part of these narra ves is that the greenhouse closer to the actual science. eff ect has been known since the work of John First, both of these narra ves assume that Tyndall in the nineteenth century, with addi- we are dealing with a problem. In point of fact, as onal references to Svante Arrhenius and Guy others at this mee ng have pointed out, increas- Stewart Callendar. The clear implica on is that ing levels of CO per se are benefi cial to all plant the zero-dimensional approach had always been life on earth, and realis cally modest levels of accepted as the fundamental approach to warming are benefi cial as well. That most people climate, and, more importantly, to climate prefer the sunbelt to the Northwest Territories is change. This is, however, far from true. While perfectly obvious. So too is the fact that warm- we don’t wish to minimize the role of the green- ing will substan ally extend growing seasons. house eff ect, it has long been recognized that Indeed, polling results consistently show that other processes are likely to have played a more most people assign minimal priority to “fi ght- important role in the Earth’s climate history. ing” global warming, but the concern permeates Moreover, the rela ve stability of the tropical “elite” opinion. As Orwell sagely noted, “Some temperature points to a strong nega ve radia- ve feedback that stabilizes climate with respect to radia ve perturba ons. Figure . is the cover page of an impor- tant volume from .The portrait is of John von Neumann. As the head of the Ins tute for Advanced Study in Princeton, he formed the fi rst group to undertake the numerical pre- dic on of weather. The contributors to this volume included Charney, Phillips, Lorenz, Smagorinsky, Starr, Bjerknes, Mintz, Kaplan, Eliassen, among others (with an introduc on by J. Robert Oppenheimer). Only one ar cle dealt with radia ve transfer, and it did not focus on Figure 4.1: Cover page of a 1955 conference dealing with cli- mate dynamics and involving virtually all the leading fi gures in the greenhouse eff ect, though increasing CO meteorology. The portrait on the le is of John von Neumann. was briefl y men oned. The contributors were

20 the leading fi gures in atmospheric physics from rather than ∆P determines fl ow, which is pa- the mid-s un l at least the early s, and tently absurd (see Figure .). In the present they clearly did not emphasize greenhouse discourse, this absurdity is subsumed under the warming. need to explain “polar amplifi ca on.” The main reason for this was probably the The above illustrates the insidious pow- recogni on that major climate changes were er of a narra ve to corrupt ra onal assess- characterized by large changes in the temper- ment. Misunderstanding the nature of past ature diff erence between the tropics and the climate change, has, for example, led paleo- poles, with very li le change at the equator. The climatologists to exaggerate grossly climate sen- following are rough values for this diff erence at si vity. As we have seen, past climate change diff erent periods in earth history: Today:∆T≈K; was primarily characterized by changes in the Major glacial periods: ∆T≈K; Eocene (fi y equator-to-pole temperature diff erence, ac- million years ago): ∆T≈K. companied by only small changes in equato- Such changes imply changes in heat fl ow rial temperature. Although the changes in between low and high la tudes. (It is probably equator-to-pole temperature diff erence need worth no ng that during the ’s and ’s when not be ed causally to changes in greenhouse global cooling was the focus of climate alarm, the forcing, they do lead to changes in the mean popular climate model was the Budyko-Sellers temperature, and a ribu ng these changes model that emphasized the role of equator-to- in mean temperature to greenhouse forcing pole heat transport in enabling the possibility of an can lead to greatly exaggerated es mates of ice-covered earth.) Given the rather small changes sensi vity to greenhouse forcing. Indeed, for in tropical temperatures, the changes in global climate change in the absence of greenhouse mean temperature were regarded as simply the forcing, this can lead to the absurd conclusion residues of the changes in ∆T. that sensi vity is infi nite. The following admi edly naïve analogy illus- In brief, even those of us associated with trates the problem with much current thinking the second narra ve (including me) have about climate. Few of us would ques on Figure focused on the greenhouse picture despite . for determining P, pressure (subject to forc- the fact that this is probably not the major ing, F, ac ng on a piston). By focusing on P as factor in climate change. That is to say, we the determinant of everything else, however, have accepted the basic premise of the fi rst we are implicitly assuming that mean pressure narra ve. Mea culpa.

Figure 4.2 (le ): Illustra on of the force on a piston deter- mining the pressure in a cylinder.

Figure 4.3 (right: Illustra on of the pressure diff erence across a pipe determining the fl ow through the pipe.

21 Capturing the narra ve is a crucial element one should obviously deposit one’s money with in a poli cal ba le. So far, the alarmists have his Crédit Coopera f. The poster on the right is succeeded. Indeed, the ma er of global warming protes ng the plan to pave over a part of a park has become a mindless part of the discussion of and playing fi eld in the Belleville neighborhood almost anything. The following two posters that of Paris. What is the objec on? Obviously, the I have seen recently in my Paris neighborhood, paving will contribute to climate change in viola- illustrated in Figures . and ., show this. on of the agreement at the U.N. Cimate The poster on the right begins with the state- Change Conference. ment that the climate is deteriora ng, and that Clearly, the return of sanity to this dis- everyone knows this, and that the me has come course will require great eff ort, but, for the to stop talking and to begin doing something. sake of our societal wellbeing, it is an essen- And what do they propose that one do? Why, al eff ort.

Figures 4.4 & 4.5: The poster on the le begins with the statement that the climate is deteriora ng, and that everyone knows this, and that the me has come to stop talking and to begin doing something. And what do they propose that one do? Why, one should obviously deposit one’s money with their Crédit Coopera f. The poster on the right is protes ng the plan to pave over a part of a park and playing eld in the Belleville neighborhood of Paris. What is the objec on? Obviously, the paving will contribute to climate change in viola on of the agreement at the 2015 U.N. Cimate Change Conference.

22 The truth about ocean “acidifi ca on” by Patrick Moore

his paper will focus on what has been dubbed to plan a protest voyage against U.S. hydrogen “global warming’s evil twin”: the specter of bomb tes ng in Alaska. We proved that a some- T“ocean acidifi ca on” and the ex nc on of what rag-tag looking group could sail an old marine calcifying species (including the most impor- fi shing boat across the North Pacifi c Ocean and tant species of phytoplankton), which, if true, would help change the course of history. We created threaten the en re life-cycle of the world’s seas. a focal point for the media to report on public First a li le background on how I managed the opposi on to the tests. trick of transforming from a radical Greenpeace When that H-bomb exploded in November ac vist into a sensible humanitarian environmen- , it was the last hydrogen bomb the United talist and a commi ed skep c of catastrophic States ever detonated. Even though there were human-caused climate change. I was born and four more tests planned in the series, President raised in a ny fl oa ng village in Winter Harbour Nixon canceled them due to the public opposi- on the northwest p of Vancouver Island. There on we had helped to create. That was the birth was no road to my village and I went to a one- of Greenpeace. room schoolhouse by boat every day un l I was Flushed with victory, we were made brothers fourteen. Then I was sent to boarding school in of the Namgis Na on in their Big House at Alert Vancouver, where I excelled in science. Later I Bay near my northern Vancouver Island home on did my undergraduate studies at the University our return from Alaska. For Greenpeace, this began of Bri sh Columbia, gravita ng to the life sciences the tradi on of the Warriors of the Rainbow, a er —biology, biochemistry, gene cs, and forestry: a Cree Indian legend that predicted the coming the environment and the industry my family has together of all races and creeds to save the Earth been in for more than one hundred years. Then, from destruc on. We named our ship the Rainbow before the word was known to the general public, Warrior, and I spent the next fi een years in the I discovered the science of ecology, the science top commi ee of Greenpeace, on the front lines of how all living things are interrelated, and how of the environmental movement around the world we are related to them. At the height of the Cold as we evolved from that church basement into the War, the Vietnam War, with the threat of all-out world’s largest environmental ac vist organiza on. nuclear war and the newly emerging conscious- Next we took on French atmospheric nuclear ness of the environment, I was transformed into tes ng in the South Pacifi c. They proved a bit more a radical environmental ac vist. diffi cult than the U.S. nuclear tests. It took years While doing my Ph.D. in ecology in , to drive these tests underground at Mururoa Atoll I joined a group of ac vists who had begun to in French Polynesia. In , under direct orders meet in the basement of the Unitarian Church from President Mi errand, French commandos

23 bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland argued the fact that chlorine is the most important Harbour, killing our photographer. element for public health and medicine. Adding Going back to , I drove a small infl atable chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance boat into the fi rst encounter with the Soviet fac- in the history of public health, and the majority tory whaling fl eet in the North Pacifi c. We con- of our synthe c medicines are based on chlorine fronted the whalers, pu ng ourselves in front of chemistry. This fell on deaf ears, and for me this their harpoons in our li le rubber boats, to protect was the fi nal straw. I had to leave. the fl eeing whales. This got us on television news When I le Greenpeace, I vowed to develop around the world, bringing the Save the Whales an environmental policy that was based on science movement into people’s living rooms for the fi rst and logic, rather than sensa onalism, misinforma- me. A er four years of voyages, factory whaling on, an -humanism, and fear. was fi nally banned in the North Pacifi c in , The supposed smoking gun of catastrophic and by in all the world’s oceans. climate change is the Keeling curve of CO con- Why did I leave Greenpeace a er fi een years centra on in the Earth’s atmosphere since . in the leadership? When Greenpeace began, we We presume CO was at ppm at the begin- had a strong humanitarian orienta on, to save ning of the Industrial Revolu on, before human civiliza on from destruc on by all-out nuclear ac vity could have caused a signifi cant impact. I war. Over the years the “peace” in Greenpeace believe that most of the rise from to today’s was gradually lost, and my organiza on, along ppm was caused by human CO emissions, with much of the environmental movement, mainly from burning fossil fuels, with the possibility dri ed into a belief that humans are the enemies that some of it is due to outgassing from warming of the earth. I promote humanitarian environ- of the oceans. mentalism, because we are part of nature, not It is widely known that the biomass of Earth’s separate from it. This means including the social vegeta on is increasing rapidly due to the addi- and economic priori es with the environmental onal CO humans have put back into the atmo- ones. The fi rst principle of ecology is that we sphere, increasing food crop and tree growth as are all part of the same ecosystem—as Barbara well as all wild vegeta on, on a global basis. This Ward put it, “One human family on spaceship is largely ignored or illogically explained away Earth”—and to preach otherwise teaches that by the believers of “dangerous human-caused the world would be be er off without us. There climate change.” is very good reason to see humans as essen al Even NASA tells us that “Carbon Dioxide to the survival of life on this planet. Controls Earth’s Temperature,” in child-like denial In the mid-s, I found myself the only di- of the many other factors involved in climate rector of Greenpeace Interna onal with a formal change. This is parallel with ’s conten on educa on in science. My fellow directors proposed that there might be life on Mars. Decades a er it a campaign to “ban chlorine worldwide,” naming it was demonstrated that there was no life on Mars, “The Devil’s Element.” I pointed out that chlorine NASA con nues to use it as a hook to raise public is one of the elements in the Periodic Table, one of funding for more expedi ons to the Red Planet. the building blocks of the universe, and the elev- The promulga on of fear of Climate Change now enth most common element in the Earth’s crust. I serves the same purpose.

24 It is clear to anyone who analyzes the graph the alkaline scale. It is incorrect to state that the of CO and temperature over the past mil- oceans are acidic or that they will ever become lion years that they are not strongly correlated, acidic under any conceivable scenario. The term if at all. Even factors that have zero correla on “acidifi ca on” implies that oceans will actually with each other some mes move in the same become acidic. It is perhaps just short of propa- direc on. During the evolu on of modern life, ganda to use the language in this manner, as it is CO and temperature have been out of sync most well known that the terms “acid” and “acidic” have of the me. strong nega ve connota ons for most people. It In an explosion of journal ar cles, me- should also be noted that nearly all “fresh water,” dia reports, and glossy publica ons from environ- including the water we drink and fi sh live in, is mental groups on ocean acidifi ca on began to slightly acidic. appear. A paper published in the journal Nature More than million years ago, at the be- said human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO) ginning of the Cambrian Period, many marine “may result in larger pH changes [in the oceans] species of invertebrates evolved the ability to over the next several centuries than during the control calcifi ca on, a form of biomineraliza- geological record of the past million years.” on, and build armor-pla ng to protect their so The best es mate of CO in the atmosphere bodies. Shellfi sh such as clams and snails, corals, million years ago was – ppm, com- coccolithophores (phytoplankton), and foramin- pared to today’s ppm. Yet shellfi sh and corals ifera (zooplankton) began to combine carbon diox- thrived at that me. One can only brand this kind ide with calcium and thus to remove carbon from of exaggera on as sensa onalism—certainly not the life cycle as the shells sank into sediments— science. By , the Natural Resources Defense million billion tons of carbonaceous sediment Council () was saying that “by mid-century, which became chalk, limestone, and marble . . . coral reefs will cease to grow and even begin (see Figure .). to dissolve,” and ocean acidifi ca on will “impact Coral reefs are widely distributed across the commercial fi sheries worldwide, threatening a tropics with the highest biodiversity centered in food source for hundreds of millions of people as well as a mul -billion dol- lar industry.” Therefore, not only are calcifying species threatened, but the en re web of life in the seas is too. Let’s examine this hypothesis and test its assump ons against real-world observa ons and scien fi c knowledge. The term “ocean acidifi ca on” is, in itself, very misleading. The scale of pH runs from to where is neu- tral, below is acidic, and above is Figure 5.1: Representa ves of marine calcifying species. Clockwise from le : basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s coccolithophores (phytoplankton), bivalves and gastropods, foraminifera oceans varies from . to ., well into (zooplankton) and corals.

25 Indonesia and the Philippines. Deep-water corals genotype can express itself diff erently due to an are also found in the colder seas of the northern ability to respond in diff erent ways to varia ons in and southern oceans. environmental factors. Examples of this in humans There are fi ve key reasons why the “ocean are the ability to acclima ze to diff erent tempera- acidifi ca on” narra ve is a fabrica on with no ture regimes and diff erent al tudes. There is no basis in reality. change in the genotype, but there are changes in First, it is widely accepted that the concentra- physiology. on of CO was much higher in the Earth’s at- The second and more fascina ng factor is mosphere when modern-day life forms evolved transgenera onal plas city, which is the ability of during the Cambrian Period, which began parents to pass their adapta ons to their off spring. million years ago. Early shellfi sh such as clams Experiments with marine species of fi sh demon- arose more than million years ago, when at- strate that ini al exposure to considerably lower-pH mospheric CO was to mes higher than seawater reduced fi sh survival by percent () it is today. Clearly, the lower pH of the oceans at and percent () rela ve to ambient condi- that me did not cause the ex nc on of corals or ons. Yet they found that “off spring from parents shellfi sh, or they would not be here today. collected later in the season became increasingly Second, there is a tendency to assume that CO-tolerant un l, only two months later, off spring it takes thousands or millions of years for species survival was equally high at all CO levels.” to adapt to changes in the environment. This is Third, the salt content of seawater provides it not the case. Most of the invertebrates that have with a powerful buff ering capacity, the ability to developed the ability to produce calcium carbonate resist change in pH when an acidic or basic com- armor are capable of rela vely rapid adapta on to pound is added to the water. For example, one changes in their environment due to two dis nct micromole of hydrochloric acid added to one kilo factors. Firstly, they reproduce at least annually of dis lled water at pH . (neutral) causes the and some mes more frequently. This means their pH to drop to nearly .. If the same amount of progeny are tested on an annual basis for suitability hydrochloric acid is added to seawater at pH , the to a changing environment. Secondly, these spe- resul ng pH is ., a change of only . of a cies produce thousands to millions of off spring pH unit. Thus, seawater has approximately every me they reproduce. This greatly increases mes the buff ering capacity of freshwater. the chance that gene c muta ons that are be er The proponents of ocean acidifi ca on say that suited to the changes in environmental condi ons the ocean’s pH was . pH units higher in will occur in some off spring. before industrializa on. No one measured pH Third, two dis nct physiological mechanisms in and there is no “average” pH for the exist whereby adapta on to environmental change oceans as pH varies greatly with both place and can occur much more rapidly than by change in the me. Their number is typically the result of a com- genotype through gene c muta on. puter model. The fi rst of these is called phenotypic plas c- A -decade measure of pH in the South China ity, which is the ability of one genotype to pro- Sea, inferred from isotopes of Boron, shows that duce more than one phenotype when exposed to pH has fl uctuated greatly, more than twice as much diff erent environments. In other words, a specifi c as the alarmists claim will destroy most marine

26 Figure 5.2: World map depic ng the pH of the oceans, including the large area of lower pH seawater off the west coast of South America. To be correct, the scale of ocean pH on the right should read “More Basic” and “Less Basic.” From Scien fi c American, March 2006.

life, and that there has been no detectable trend alarmism touted by publicly funded scien sts, from into the twen eth century. CO is fer lizing the oceans just like it is green- There is every reason to believe that computer ing the earth (see Figure 5.2). models are exaggera ng the “sensi vity” of ocean Fourth, all organisms are able to control the pH to CO levels in the same way as the models chemistry of their internal organs and biochemical purpor ng to predict global temperature from func ons. The term “homeostasis” means that increasing levels of CO have done. an organism can maintain a desirable state of The most “acidic” (that is, least alkaline) chemistry, temperature, etc., within itself under area of the world’s oceans produces 20 per- a wide range of external condi ons. This is espe- cent of all the world’s wild fi sh catch. In the cially necessary in a marine environment because Humboldt Current off Peru 5 million tons of the salinity of the ocean is too high to allow the anchovies are brought aboard in a good year. metabolic processes that take place in an organ- The pH of this cold, upwelling water, rich in ism. The general term for an important part of CO, is 7.7, lower than the probably infl ated homeostasis is “osmoregula on.” predic on for 2100. The source of this high And fi h, if the present -year warming produc vity are the ny coccolithophores, trend con nues and the oceans warm, they will phytoplankton that lap up the dissolved CO tend to release CO into the atmosphere because and turn it into food for zooplankton that feed warm seawater at degrees Celsius can dissolve the fi sh and whales and everything else in the only about half as much CO as cold seawater at sea. It turns out that seawater high in CO degrees Celsius. This would be balanced against with a lower pH is the perfect environment for the tendency of increased atmospheric CO to phytoplankton and corals, and, contrary to the result in more absorp on of CO by the oceans.

27 It does not appear as though anyone has done variability in ocean pH may render marine biota the calcula on of the net eff ect of these two more resistant to ocean acidifi ca on than hith- compe ng factors under varying circumstances. erto believed.” Perhaps funding could be found for this impor- And fi nally, Craig Idso of the COScience tant research! website provides a surprising insight. Beginning The media does not report a balanced per- with , results from a wide range of studies, spec ve on climate and CO issues. In fact, the the results are narrowed down to those up to only comprehensive meta-analysis of ocean . reduc on in pH units, what the alarmists “acidifi ca on” concludes that “Ac ve biological predict for (see Figure .). processes and small-scale temporal and spa al A review of these many studies, all of which use direct observa- on of measured param- eters, indicates that the overall predicted eff ect of increased CO on marine species would be posi ve rather than negative for calcification, metabolism, growth, fer lity, and survival (what else is there to worry about?). This further rein- forces the fact that CO is es- sen al for life, that CO is at an historically low concen- tra on during this Pleisto- cene Ice Age, and that more CO rather than less would Figure 5.3: All peer-reviewed experimental results for pH decrease of 0.0 to 0.3 from be generally benefi cial to all present value. (Predic on of range of actual expected pH change in gray). Five param- life on Earth. Please join me eters are included: calcifi ca on, metabolism, growth, fer lity and survival. Note that the overall trend is posi ve for all studies up to 0.30 units of pH reduc on. to celebrate CO.

28 Rethinking climate economics by Bruce M. Everett

limate policy is primarily a scien fi c have been making high sensi vity predic ons issue, but economics has an important for a long me, but actual experience to date Crole to play, too. To climate ac vists, shows a sensi vity below the bo om of the economic analysis means cataloguing the range. In other words, the models have inevitable disasters of an increasingly unliv- consistently overpredicted temperature. able planet. The best available science, how- Nonetheless, much of the economic analysis ever, suggests that carbon dioxide in fact currently available is not only based on the contributes to human well-being. range but on the high end of the range. Us- If economics is to make a useful contribu on ing an extreme case as a star ng point supports to the climate discussion, economic analysis the narra ve of climate ac vists, but severely should be aligned with science by following two distorts the analysis. principles: fi rst, establish the appropriate base Macroeconomic forecasts are naturally case for analysis and, second, refl ect honestly subject to a wide range of uncertainty, but it and accurately the costs of carbon reduc on. is important to center the analysis on the most The key parameter in the scien fi c dis- reasonable and likely set of assump ons. For cussion is climate sensi vity, defi ned as the example, we do not do our economic planning temperature increase that would result from on the basis of worldwide depression or nuclear doubling the atmospheric concentra on of war. Assuming catastrophe eff ec vely eliminates CO. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the discipline of cost-benefi t analysis. If we are all basic physics indicates that the sensi vity of going to fry and drown from man-made climate CO by itself would be about degree Celsius. change, we don’t have to worry about the costs In its Fi h Assessment Report from , of reducing carbon or the impacts of climate however, the UN Intergovernmental Panel policies on peoples’ lives. Yet economic policy on Climate Change () es mated equilib- is about costs and trade-off s. rium climate sensi vity in the range of . to Consider the case of Germany. Among cli- . degrees Celsius. The hypothesis of high mate ac vists, Germany and Chancellor Angela climate sensi vity was established several Merkl are nothing short of rock stars. In , decades ago by climate models that incorpo- the noted author and columnist Thomas Fried- rate feedback eff ects that amplify warming, man wrote in The New York Times that Germany o en with higher humidity assumed to occur would be Europe’s fi rst “green solar-powered at higher temperatures. superpower.” Na onal Geographic magazine, The essence of science, however, is the test- always a reliable supporter of climate ac v- ing of hypotheses against data. Climate models ism, seconded Friedman’s claim, telling its

29 readers that Germany could be a model the kilowa -hours from less than a third of the for how to generate electric power. What capacity. Wind and solar generators, however, exactly have the Germans done to earn these provide only percent of the power from accolades? percent of the capacity, and then only when The le -hand side of Figure . shows the nature makes it available. installed electric power genera on capacity in The nuclear plants operate at percent Germany in . Wind and solar energy account of their capacity and the coal plants at about for about percent of installed capacity, and percent, while the wind turbines operate at these two big green slices of the pie are the basis only percent of their capacity and the solar for Germany’s honored status among climate arrays at only percent. In a sense, Germany ac vists. But capacity is just a list of available is receiving interna onal praise for building ma- machinery and doesn’t tell us very much. What chines that stand idle most of the me. This is really counts is the actual genera on of kilowa - rather like buying a Prius and leaving it in your hours, and that looks very diff erent, as shown driveway for your neighbors to admire while on the right side of Figure .. you drive around in your . Note that the coal and nuclear plants, which So how does the United States compare can produce power whenever it’s needed, are with the German green miracle? As shown in working over me, genera ng percent of Figure ., solar and wind contribute percent of power genera on in Germany, but a measly percent in the United States. No wonder the Germans are feeling so smug. It’s interesting to note, however, that, while the United States has less wind and solar, we also have propor- onately less coal in our power genera on mix and a greater contribu- on from nuclear, hydro- electric, and par cularly natural gas. In total, al- though Germany gener- ates nearly four mes as much power from wind Figure 6.1: German Electric Power Genera on Capacity and Genera on. Forty-fi ve percent and solar as the United of Germany’s power genera on capacity is wind and solar, but these units generate only 22 percent of the electricity. While the wind and solar units are idle most of the me, the coal States does, Germany and nuclear units produce most of the power. emits only about per-

30 for natural gas, and .¢ per kWh for electricity. German consum- ers, however, pay $ per gallon for gaso- line, $ per thousand cubic feet of natural gas, and ¢ per kWh for electricity, roughly double what New York consumers pay. These prices do not include the tax burden required to support the extensive subsidy system for re- newables. In fairness, some of the high prices Figure 6.2: Electric Power Genera on, Germany versus the United States. Germany pro- duces 22 percent of its electricity from wind and solar compared to only 6 percent in the are not the fault of the United States. The United States, however, has a smaller share of coal and a much larger German government. contribu on from clean nuclear and natural gas. Germany, for example, lacks the huge natu- cent less CO per kWh than the US does (. kg ral gas resources we have in the States. for Germany versus . for the United States). Much, however, is the result of deliberate Rather than swooning over the marvels of policy choices. Germany’s wind and solar program, economists There are . million households in New should look at power genera on with a cri cal York State with an average household income and analy cal eye. of about $, per year. A er taxes, take- In par cular, what does all this green power home pay averages about $,. As shown in actually means for German consumers? Let’s Figure ., a typical New York family uses about look at the energy prices consumers pay. gallons of gasoline per year at a cost of As shown in Figure ., New York State resi- $,, sixty thousand cubic feet of natural gas den al customers currently pay $ per gallon for at a cost of $, and , kWh of electricity at gasoline, $ per thousand cubic feet () for a cost of $,. The total residen al energy bill natural gas, and ¢ per kWh for electricity. We is thus $, per year, roughly . percent of should note that these prices are on the high take-home pay. We should note that the average side for Americans, since New York is at the far New York family consumes and pays for again end of the supply chain for many energy sources as much energy embodied in the manufactured and imposes rela vely high taxes on residen al goods and services it buys. What would happen energy. Prices in Texas, for example, are lower if New York consumers had to pay German prices at $. per gallon for gasoline, $. per for energy?

31 Figure 6.3: Consumer Energy Prices in Germany and the United States what their monthly electricity or natural gas bills are, but work- ing people do care. German government officials and cli- mate ac vists receive praise for imposing high prices on the German public, but what do German consumers actually get Figure 6.4: Consumer Energy Expenditures for New York Households in return for paying such high energy prices? In a recent European Union survey, over percent of Ger- mans responded that climate change is either a “fairly seri- ous” or a “very serious” problem. German government surveys indi- cate that percent of Germans support their government’s cur- Figure 6.5: New York Household Energy Expenditures at German Prices rent nuclear/renewables policy. Germans apparently are willing to tolerate the current situa on because they believe they are at the forefront of the global fi ght against climate change. Climate ac vists o en point to Germany’s low “carbon foot- print,” the average amount of CO emi ed per person each year. The typical American emits about As shown in Figure ., the answer is that metric tonnes of CO annually—including both their energy costs would more than double direct and indirect energy use, while the aver- to $,, or almost percent of take-home age German emits only ten tonnes per year. A pay. The burden would be even greater if we percent diff erence appears on the surface included indirect energy costs, which are also to be substan al, but is it meaningful? much higher in Germany. The says that avoiding the dreaded two Wealthy people, par cularly those who fl y degree Celsius temperature increase would re- around the world on private jets demanding quire a to percent reduc on in global that other people use less energy, are not af- CO emissions by from the emissions fected much by energy costs. Rich climate ac v- level. Although there is no scien fi c basis for ists like Leonardo DiCaprio probably don’t care this number, such a reduc on would mean that

32 every country in the world would have to cut on atmospheric carbon concentra ons. Prevail- its per capita emissions to less than two metric ing climate policies are “all pain, no gain.” As tonnes per year, about the emissions of the economists, we should demand honesty about average Indian today. the costs of carbon reduc on. The current German green energy program An analy cal approach to climate economics is u erly inadequate to meet this target, which suggests not catastrophe, but a world in which would require German consumers to reduce the benefi ts of CO dominate the calcula on. their carbon emissions by another percent. Looking analy cally at the problem will allow us Another recent poll indicated that percent to abandon our single-minded and destruc ve of Germans, although suppor ve of their gov- obsession with carbon dioxide reduc on and ernment’s energy policy, believe the costs are allow us to focus on the truly important issues already too high. The energy cost required to faced by people around the world. reduce consump on by another percent For example, we need to address actual would be astronomical. Germany is already pollu on, like sulfur, lead, nitrogen oxides, and trying to cope with their higher energy costs par culates, which are serious health hazards, and their nuclear plant shutdowns by building par cularly in emerging market countries. new coal plants, an economically sensible but We also need to feed the two-and-a-half rather ironic decision for a green superpower. billion people who will be added to the global The point here is not to disparage the popula on by the year . Germans, but simply to take a hard look at And we need to allow the people of the the consequences of climate policies for real world to choose the forms of energy they think people. Even modest carbon reduc ons would are best suited to bringing them out of poverty be economically painful for the middle class and improving their living standard. and fatal for the poor. People who believe that In , the great economist and Nobel Lau- buying an electric vehicle, pu ng solar cells reate Friedrich Hayek said, “The curious task of on their roof, or using compact fl uorescent economics is to demonstrate to men how li le light bulbs make them steely-eyed climate they really know about what they imagine they warriors just haven’t done the math. These can design.” In other words, economists should ac ons are costly, yet have a negligible impact be conscien ous cri cs, not blind followers.

33

The CO2 Coalition is proud to be part of The New Criterion’s conference “The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 is Good for the Earth”

The CO2 Coali on seeks to engage thought leaders, policy makers, and the public in an informed and dispassionate discussion about the important contribu on made by carbon dioxide to the U.S. and global economy.

1621 North Kent Street, Suite 603 • Arlington, Virginia 22209 • 571-970-3180 www.co2coali on.org • info@co2coali on.org