The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
London, 17 August – The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes an outstanding briefing paper by the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University (USA).
In his paper The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, Professor Happer criticises the misguided scare-mongering about CO2 emissions as well as the habitual exaggeration of the likely impact and risks posed by global warming. He particularly laments the co-option of climate science by governments.
Happer discusses what he calls the “contemporary moral epidemic” of climate alarmism: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet and advocates a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.
“CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet,” Happer writes.
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases is available here
“without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds,
the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life”.
I think the jury is still out on whether clouds cause warming or cooling. I believe there is some evidence that clouds cause cooling, not warming.
stephen richards says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming.
The more I see this statement the more annoyed I get. Don’t spout the mantra, gives us the proof. Show us the equations. Show us the empirical measurements then show us that your proof equates directly to the observed measurements.
Steven:
I’ve a nice little paper on my blog with the equations, etc., just like you ask. These are from combustion engineering, not climate science (mine are that is). You will see that the “forcing” as espoused by the climate alarmists are, UP TO A POINT, identical to what is seen in many other disciplines. If you doubt that these are real, you must explain how we (engineers) are supposed to estimate heat losses.
Cheers.
JE
For those not absolutely sure of the effect of CO2 on global warming, I recommend reading John Eggert’s paper.
“”””” John Eggert says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:43 am
I’ve been banging that drum for years too. The methods of estimating radiant heat transfer used in the fields of engineering lead to a decrease in impact of CO2 that is greater than the logarithmic decay currently used in the models. That is, at some point, the effect of doubling CO2 concentration will be less than the previous effect of doubling. “””””
The trouble is John, that we have “reliable” consistently observed CO2 data, that goes from about 315 ppm in 1957/8 (Geophysical Year) to about 390 ppm today. That by my calculation is less than 1/4 of one doubling of CO2; and I submit to you, that the associated earth Temperature rise data for the same period of time, clearly cannot distinguish between a logarithmic relationship and a linear relationsship; or for that matter, any other mathematical function you want to name. Remeber that going from one CO2 molecule in 22.4 litres of STP atmosphere to two CO2 molecules, comprise one doubling. I doubt that causes the same warming as going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
There’s no experimental verification of any logarithmic relationship; and the usual Beer-Lambert Law explanation for a theoretical logarithmic relationship simply doesn’t hold water. The atmosphere does not obey the Beer-Lambert Law; absorbed LWIR energy doesn’t stay captured; but is re-emitted and carries on; much like the Sourcerer’s Apprentice couldn’t stop the broom from carrying water by chopping it up..
I was under the impression that in the troposphere heat was initially lost by convection not radiation. Radiation may overtake this above the tropopause.
John Eggert;
All irrelevant, in the end. If the interlocked energy systems on the planet squelch and suppress the CO2 effect and signal, then it is false to say that increasing CO2 causes planetary warming. There are many such documented and potential negative feedback forces and loops, none of which are given more than cursory representation in GCMs to date.
As is evident by their divergence from observation.
Mark and two Cats says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm
jheath said:
August 18, 2011 at 8:36 am
> I find the hypocrisy of all this highly annoying. We have CO2
> alarmism, originating in the USA…
Did the alarmism not originate with the UN?
===========
I rather think Maurice Strong and a mate or two? started the whole Un climate idea rolling.
earth day follow on or something?
“”””” John Eggert says:
August 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
“Ken Harvey says:
“CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet.”
The more skeptical among us are yet to be convinced of that”
Technically, CO2 does indeed cause some warming of the >> atmosphere << (not the surface) and thus decreases the rate at which the surface radiates heat to space. The amount of heating of the atmosphere is determined by how much IR radiation from the surface is intercepted by the CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere must warm up enough to radiate out to space the amount of heat it absorbs from the surface radiation.
This is a well known phenomenon. It can be observed (and very accurately estimated) in any number of instances, including climate. If you feel that this is not occurring, that is fine, but what then explains the heat absorbance in all those other instances (like a heat exchanger, a thermal sink on a microprocessor, a blast furnace, a radiant heater, etc.)? Because the direct relation of heat loss to CO2 concentration is known and quantifiable. The only other variable that changes is: there is less oxygen and nitrogen as there is more CO2. So either increasing CO2 increases the amount of energy absorbed by an intervening atmosphere, or decreasing oxygen, nitrogen, or both increases the amount of energy absorbed by an intervening atmosphere. The fact that this does not occur if one substitutes helium for CO2 would suggest that it is CO2. """""
"""""
The fact that this does not occur if one substitutes helium for CO2 would suggest that it is CO2. """""
So just when did they perform this experiment of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and replacing it with Helium ? I didn't know we even had enough helium, to substitute it for the CO2 in the atmosphere.
In any case Professor Happer is one of the good guys; and a truly nice fellow to boot. He was most gracious in his replies to several e-mails I sent him, enquiring about certain atmospheric phenomena..
ozspeaksup said:
August 19, 2011 at 5:58 am
Mark and two Cats says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm
jheath said:
August 18, 2011 at 8:36 am
>>> I find the hypocrisy of all this highly annoying. We have CO2
>>> alarmism, originating in the USA…
>> Did the alarmism not originate with the UN?
===========
> I rather think Maurice Strong and a mate or two? started the whole Un climate
> idea rolling. earth day follow on or something?
Ah – a Canadian. That explains everything!
Statements to the effect that CO2 “warms the Earth” are inaccurate or if you prefer are bunk.
More accurately you could say that the presence of GHGs slows the radiation back into space but does NOT stop it. A significant portion radiates all the way thorough the atmosphere into space from the surface, perhaps 20% the balance is absorbed in the atmosphere momentarily. It is slowed by the by the number of times it takes the radiation to travel through the atmosphere on average, into space which might be as many as five or six re-radiations occurring in a few seconds.
The incoming amount of radiation must equal the amount of radiation re-radiated to space, else the Earth warms rapidly but the radiation can “bounce” several times as it is absorbed and some portion re-radiated back toward Earth, while other is radiated to space, and soem reabsorbed elsewherein theatmosphere. . But despite the “bouncing ” it is gone back into space very quickly in a few re-radiations that occur very rapidly within fractions of a second.
The latest NASA satellite data confirms the equality. of input equals outgo. Other modern data from Ocean buoys confirm there is no rising repository of heat hiding in the Oceans,as Warmist have posited, to explain the “missing heat” which in reality went back into Space.
Professor Happer,
Well said. Very well said.
Thank you for speaking out for the integrity of science and for an observation based future for mankind.
John
stephen richards says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming.”
“The more I see this statement the more annoyed I get. Don’t spout the mantra, gives us the proof. Show us the equations. Show us the empirical measurements then show us that your proof equates directly to the observed measurements. aaaaaaaaarg !!! If not SHUT UP.”
Even poor old Arrhenius understood that the warming or cooling is found in the feedbacks. Though additional CO2 in the atmosphere has the potential to cause warming, the actual impact of the CO2 cannot be determined until there is a substantial science of the feedbacks, phenomena such as changes in cloud formation.