Happy New Year to you all.
Below is a link to a very interesting lecture by Dr William Happer in which he completely debunks the idea that increases in the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 emissions could lead to dangerous increases in the temperature of the Earth's surface. It is an hour long and to start with he goes over a lot of basic principles. The most important section is at about 24 minutes in where he looks at a graph showing the amount of radiation which escapes to space and the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 on this. Even if you haven't got an hour to watch the whole lecture, I recommend you look at that part.
Climate Change and CO2 Not a Problem | Science Matters (rclutz.com)
William Happer is not a leading scientist in climate science. He is good at what he does in the past, which is not climate.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Happer is a scientist, a physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
ReplyDeleteGreta Thunberg is a cli-myth Scientist who has been playing truant for years and skipping her science lessons while at it.
Al Gore is also a cli-myth scientist who 18 years ago prophesied about the end of the world by yesterday. He made hundreds of millions out of his prophecy, which made many invest in carbon credits, a massive scam comparable to a \Ponzi scheme.
Thank you, Watcher, for putting Renewable Guy straight. There is no one better qualified than William Happer to speak about the greenhouse effect, as it is based on spectroscopy in which he has done a great deal of research. In fact it is quite extraordinary that his words have not been given a lot more attention. Money-led politics is what is behind the global warming agenda and it seems that this has the power to reject anything that gets in its way - that is until the evidence against it becomes irrefutable.
ReplyDelete@Derek Tipp
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_William_Happer.htm
In the link above, Dr. Happer has a list of false proclamations about climate science along with the correct science links. He has cashed in on his credentials as a scientist to put out false information about the science of climate.
Also, backed up independently by physicist David Coe.
ReplyDeleteGoogle his observations read: co2-the-miracle-molecule-22637
He is virtually saying the exact same thing.
I quote David Coe who states by his own admission that he is a physicist, having read physics at Oxford back in the sixties. his day job for the previous 20+ years was developing a range of sensors for the monitoring of gaseous emissions to atmosphere using infra-red absorption spectroscopy. He thus has not only some knowledge in this area but he is the founding director of the company Codel International Ltd, based in Bakewell, Derbyshire.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ian, for pointing to the work of David Coe which has featured at Paul Homewood's website, Not A Lot of People Know That, here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/the-ir-absorptive-characteristics-of-greenhouse-gases-addendum-david-coe/
ReplyDeleteRenewable Guy - The skeptical science website simply disagrees without providing any scientific reasons for doing so.
Renewable Guy - The skeptical science website simply disagrees without providing any scientific reasons for doing so.
ReplyDeleteThen you haven't looked at the links provided. It is all based in science.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_William_Happer.htm
There are clear explanations of the science in their own articles countering this political point that Dr. Happer is making. Should you decide to open up the other points SKS disagrees with Dr. Happer on, you will easily the points they are making to refuture his view on climate. The copy paste gets sloppy for here, but I believe you will be able to tell what SKS is saying.
Climate Myth What the Science Says
"The contemporary 'climate crusade' has much in common with the medieval crusades."
7 October 2011 (Source)
Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.
The so-called science you report is mere propaganda.
ReplyDelete1) The intensity of storms is reported as actually REDUCING and reported deaths have reduced in spite of increasing populations.
2) From core samples it has been found CO2 concentrations always follow increasing world temperatures over time, so cannot be the CAUSE of the increasing temperatures.
3) At 4 parts per million, CO2 cannot be a danger to health far less a pollutant since plant life itself depends on it.
4) Even the IPCC agrees doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will barely raise world temperature by even one degree C.
Sooooo No Climate Emergency as a result of paltry CO2 increases.
The so-called science you report is mere propaganda.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the Fossil Fuel organizations support on the internet. That is truly corrupt and at the least misinformation.
1) The intensity of storms is reported as actually REDUCING and reported deaths have reduced in spite of increasing populations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclones_and_climate_change#/media/File:Heat_content55-07.png
The link takes you to showing the oceans are warming on average. This adds energy in the atmosphere to our storms.
2) From core samples it has been found CO2 concentrations always follow increasing world temperatures over time, so cannot be the CAUSE of the increasing temperatures.
CO2 does not change its stripes because you say so, once in the atmosphere. It is a consistent property of co2 to be the stable makeup of its strong influence on our climate.
3) At 4 parts per million, CO2 cannot be a danger to health far less a pollutant since plant life itself depends on it.
The benefits of atmospheric fertilization is limited. At higher levels of co2 and higher warming following this, crops will also have to survive the increased strength of storms and stronger droughts.
4) Even the IPCC agrees doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will barely raise world temperature by even one degree C.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Climate sensitivity average is about 3*C with doubling of co2 from 280ppm co2 pre industrial revolution. From the range of possibilities from multiple studies it ranges from 2*C to 5*C. This is clearly a risk not worth taking to find out what the max would be.
Sooooo No Climate Emergency as a result of paltry CO2 increases.
Canadians in Alberta are acclimated to a cooler climate that had enormous heat waves reaching 116*F. People died in this. It is a clear link to human climate change that brought extreme temperature.
Re: "CO2 does not change its stripes because you say so, once in the atmosphere. It is a consistent property of co2 to be the stable makeup of its strong influence on our climate"
ReplyDeleteClearly you have not read either or both of the two independently and separately qualified physicists' reports on the radiative absorption of CO2 mentioned at the start of this diatribe.
Furthermore the world's slight but significant greening arising from increased CO2 seems to have survived in spite of the resultant storms arising from ocean heating which you allege would ensure their destruction.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
ReplyDeleteSome global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.
Its not only co2, but methane, and also nitric oxide. There are a whole range of ghgs we are entering into the atmosphere. These increase the radiative forcing hitting the surface of the earth.
Another interesting note is that this so called single paper is on a blog. So why hasn't this turned the science community upside down? Can you fill me in deeper on this paper's revolutionary pronouncement. 1000s of scientists agree on the co2 mechanism and now David without evidence says co2 is of no significance
There are weaknesses in David Coe's paper. One is that is not peer reviewed. Two is that there is really only one variable in the whole paper and that is N. Three, there is no evidence to back up his claim that this matches the real world. They are only calculations.
ReplyDeleteWhere the science challenges itself to match up to the real world. David's paper fails to do these things.
Empirical Evidence ?
ReplyDelete1) Beyond natural variability, our climate has not changed in my lifetime (79y). The leaves are off the trees end of November as always was.(p.s.Alarmists always conflate Climate with weather)
2) 2007 Al Gore prophesied ’ Arctic Ice Free by 2013’ - Complete rubbish.
3) Spain would be like the Sahara - imminent. – Complete rubbish.
4) Great Barrier reef blanching in warming seas, recent discoveries show the event is cyclical while similar coral in the warmer Indian ocean continue to thrive regardless.
5) I think it was Attenburgh who spun that polar bears were threatened with extinction when the truth is far from coming extinct, - they are thriving and becoming a menace
Sea Level Rise Scare?
4) Maldives forcast under water 30 years ago. Three airports now being built there How come ?
5) Same with the Phillipines some islands sinking others rising
8) Would Obama be building new seaside residence while under threat of rising sea levels ?
Why Coe and Happer and many others are not peer reviewed by 1,000’s ? Because they are independent operators in private industries or privately run universities and are CANCELLED, and not paid by governments to spout the preferred mantra. Today career politicians will pay dearly to perpetuate 1,000’s of ‘Group Thinkers’. This explains why on reaching positions of power both B.J. and K. Kwartang appear to reverse previously held views. Furthermore I think behind the movement in America there is a suspicion Rothschild, Bloomberg, Soros with their billions, and others are behind financing the Environmental and Social Governance agenda behind most of all this.
Regarding computer models as we are finding out with COVID, - paid for garbage in equals paid for garbage out.
[Regarding computer models as we are finding out with COVID, - paid for garbage in equals paid for garbage out.]
ReplyDeleteThe standards of the peer reviewed science papers are way far higher than this so called David Coe paper.
The peer reviewed papers are tying into the reality of climate. The climate sensitivity of the article I linked, that you haven't looked at, uses about 30 to 40 different peer reviewed science papers. Yours doesn't even source other papers. Really low ball stuff to satisfy your needs of contrarianism.
1) Beyond natural variability, our climate has not changed in my lifetime (79y). The leaves are off the trees end of November as always was.(p.s.Alarmists always conflate Climate with weather)
I suspect you don't know the difference between climate and weather.
2) 2007 Al Gore prophesied ’ Arctic Ice Free by 2013’ - Complete rubbish.
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. He later clarified that prediction to a later date
3) Spain would be like the Sahara - imminent. – Complete rubbish.
Warmer climate is moving northward and on the southern hemisphere the warmer climate will move southwards
4) Great Barrier reef blanching in warming seas, recent discoveries show the event is cyclical while similar coral in the warmer Indian ocean continue to thrive regardless.
Watch the movie Chasing Corral.
5) I think it was Attenburgh who spun that polar bears were threatened with extinction when the truth is far from coming extinct, - they are thriving and becoming a menace
Sea Level Rise Scare?
With warming moving northward there are areas of the arctic where the ice is no longer connected to land. This effects the polar bears hunting ground with using the ice to rest and hunt from.
you are now getting political. Science is very clear that the earth is warming.
You didn't address any of the Empirical evidence points I raised.
ReplyDeleteClearly you defer instead to paid academics who through vested interest or political motives, spout the mantra as directed to save their skins.
I prefer to pay attention to common sense in the real world. I will possibly accede that the world might indeed be getting warmer but not through Man-Made Greenhouse gasses and CO2 which is the alleged reason we have to actually...'Decarbonise'.
Meanwhile many of your wonderful computer models have not even taken into account Water Vapour/ Clouds which have huge cooling effect far, far greater than any mere trace gas like CO2.
If Climate Change were a real threat, then China, Russia, India, Japan, and many others would forsake all fossil fuels, and there are a lot more of them than there is of us stupid Westerners. Clearly through dis-belief in A.G,W. they couldn't even care less.
A man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion still.
[Clearly you defer instead to paid academics who through vested interest or political motives, spout the mantra as directed to save their skins.]
ReplyDeleteOpinion only? Or do you have sources?
You didn't address any of the Empirical evidence points I raised.
Empirical is backed by evidence and you presented none.
[I prefer to pay attention to common sense in the real world. I will possibly accede that the world might indeed be getting warmer but not through Man-Made Greenhouse gasses and CO2 which is the alleged reason we have to actually...'Decarbonise'.]
CO2 has the mechanism to react to infrared bands. This is the very energy seeking to escape earth's atmosphere. Do you realize that we have satellites and ground instruments that can co2 bandwidth in the infrared spectrum? The known co2 bandwidth returning to earth is the same as the less infrared bandwidth not escaping.
Peer review is a competitive thing amongst the scientists to check each other's work. Unlike David Co2 and William Happer, they source their papers, present their purpose of learning, present evidence and evaluate it. David Coe and William Happer have done no such thing in the field of climate. They are writing the story you want to hear and read.
To Renewableguy - William Happer's lecture, which was linked to in the original post demonstrated that the ability of CO2 to trap outgoing IR radiation was almost saturated. He is a leading expert in this field and he says that this is accepted by all mainstream spectroscopy experts. Do you not accept this and, if so, can you find any evidence to support this?
ReplyDelete@ Derek Tipp
ReplyDelete[To Renewableguy - William Happer's lecture, which was linked to in the original post demonstrated that the ability of CO2 to trap outgoing IR radiation was almost saturated. He is a leading expert in this field and he says that this is accepted by all mainstream spectroscopy experts. Do you not accept this and, if so, can you find any evidence to support this?.]
There is emperical evidence that co2 isn't saturated
People also ask
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.
Is the CO2 effect saturated? - Skeptical Science
skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm
Read what I wrote carefully, I said "almost saturated". There is still a small amount of absorption, but this is much lower and is not a cause for alarm, leading to the massive cost of decarbonisation. Skeptical science is being disingenuous in implying that the CO2 absorption of IR is still a major problem.
ReplyDelete[ Skeptical science is being disingenuous in implying that the CO2 absorption of IR is still a major problem.]
ReplyDeleteYou aren't qualified to make that judgement on your own. This is a science level discussion and not an opinion level.
William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition
ReplyDeleteWhat about David Coe' whose business is to do with atmospheric absorption and functions on a COMMERCIAL basis.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, the fact remains that the unwillingness of the BBC to tolerate any debate on the subject raises the question "What are they frightened of ?" - The truth perhaps ????
My experience is hard to deny, that is that in my view, our climate over my lifetime has remained remarkably stable. Nothing will persuade me otherwise.
The propaganda over 20 years will convince people 20 years of age who have known nothing else.
Even for those of 30 or 40 years of age there could be the possibility of debate.
But the propaganda - for that is all it is - is only a flash in the pan to me, as it has only existed for 1/4 of my life and my total experience, and I view it as a filthy piece of attempted totalitarian social engineering. How is it China, India, Russia, and many others don't believe in any of this. "By their deeds you shall know them" And they also outnumber the West, many times over.
For what it's worth $8,000b dollars is nothing in the scheme of things. A mere pittance.
ReplyDeleteYou need to see where Greenpeace gets its funding.
It’s the tip of the iceberg and evidence that he is not independent or unbiased.
ReplyDeleteGreenpeace: “ To maintain independence and integrity, Greenpeace never takes money from governments or companies. That means the Greenpeace Environmental Trust depends entirely on donations from individuals, trusts and foundations.”
The tip of the iceberg Oh really. Can you substantiate that ?
ReplyDeleteAnd can I believe Greenpeace which goes out of its' way to damage properties funded by pension funds and its shareholders are NICE people getting only funds from Respectable Funds & Foundations and have no connection whatsoever with any CCP supporters ?
Of course Mr Walker, you, a follower of theoretical academia and being whiter than white, exhibit no bias at all.
I on the other hand who simply observes the climate and tells it as it is - over time, you would say am biased ?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave: When we practice to deceive."
Mr Miller, you seem happy to sign on to conspiracy theory regarding Greenpeace but doubt Happer is influenced by who pays him?
ReplyDeleteI haven’t suggested I’m unbiased, no doubt my concerns are the result of a foundation of exposure to 40 years of concern about human impact on the world, but I can confirm I’m not paid by either side!