Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts - Softcover

Craig D. Idso; Sherwood B. Idso; S. Fred Singer; Robert M. Carter

9781934791431: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Softcover

ISBN 10: 1934791431 ISBN 13: 9781934791431

Publisher: The Heartland Institute, 2014

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (CCR-IIb) is produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It is the second of three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series.

The first volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-IIa) was published in September 2013. It examined the theory, models, and evidence regarding the science of climate change and concluded the human impact on global climate is small and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice-covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

The current volume focuses on scientific research on the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels on the biological world. It finds no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.

The research summarized in CCR-IIb refutes apocalyptic forecasts of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A careful reading of the chapters reveals thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles do not support and often contradict IPCC's alarmist narrative. Whether the subject is the likely effects of warming on crops, trees, weeds, birds, butterflies, or polar bears, it seems IPCC invariably picks the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hues. IPCC sees "death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods," to borrow a phrase from Working Group II, everywhere it looks.

Oftentimes, IPCC's pessimistic forecasts fly in the face of scientific observations. The global ecosystem is not suffering from the rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels IPCC has called unprecedented, despite all the models and hypotheses IPCC's authors marshal to make that case. Real-world data show conclusively that most plants flourish when exposed to higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 and that the planet's terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great post-Industrial Revolution greening that is causing deserts to retreat and forests to expand, enlarging habitat for wildlife. Essentially the same story can be told of global warming s impact on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.

Why are these research findings and this perspective missing from IPCC's reports? NIPCC has been publishing volumes containing this research for five years -- long enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC's reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. Either IPCC's authors purposely ignore this research because it runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the general public. Because the stakes are high, this is a grave disservice.

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. 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. The positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend to overcome any negative effects associated with changed weather conditions.

"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.

About the Author:

Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology.

Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University. He earned a Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Robert M. Carter is a stratigrapher and marine geologist with degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and University of Cambridge (England). He is the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (2013). Carter's professional service includes terms as head of the Geology Department, James Cook University, chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council, chairman of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, and director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program. He is currently an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs (Melbourne).

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the U.S. He established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. He is coauthor, with Dennis T. Avery, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (2007, second ed. 2008) and many other books. Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94), and is founder and chairman of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.

Review:

Biological Impacts is thorough, complete, and evenhanded. Thanks to Dr. Idso, whose decades of meticulous study have made him the most informed scientist on earth when it comes to carbon dioxide and the biosphere, the NIPCC Biological Impacts report is a triumph of substance over scaremongering.

If you want to hear the party line, go to the IPCC; but if you want the whole truth, go with the NIPCC Biological Impacts report.

--Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute

The dedicated team at NIPCC show that, even if we take the claims of the IPCC's impacts working group seriously, they still come to nothing. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, there is little risk of famine due to our emissions or due to global warming. Life in the oceans is likely to adapt reasonably well, as so many studies have shown, and fewer humans will die overall as a bonus.

For those of you who enjoy well-written, well-researched arguments, and especially if you are looking for scientific references and the nuance of this debate, there is much to learn. The NIPCC reports are an invaluable reference for me. Careful scientific language is so much more informative than the full-gloss IPCC doublespeak about theories which are consistent with uncertainties but not with observations.

--Joanne Nova, Author, he Skeptics Handbook

It is clear to me that the NIPCC report was written by very competent scientists who relied heavily on the published literature. ... In my opinion, publication of the new report of the NIPCC is a very good thing for climate science, in that it provides a valuable counter-balance to the extremities of alarm raised by the IPCC, and thus allows the climate science community to consider both the IPCC and NIPCC interpretations in seeking the best possible appraisal of the situation based on the data available. As the years pass, and the future unfolds, we will ultimately find out who was closer to the truth. --Dr. Donald Rapp, (retired) Senior Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems Division, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1979-2000

"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.