Guest opinion by E. Calvin Beisner
You’d think so, if you observed the reactions by the climate-change establishment to President Donald Trump’s appointment, back in September, of Will Happer as Senior Director for Emerging Technologies on the National Security Council, and the prospect of Trump’s forming a Presidential Committee on Climate Security, headed by Happer, under the National Security Council, to bring the evidence for and against dangerous manmade global warming to the table for review.
First example: EcoWatch “reported,”
“The White House is assembling a climate change panel to be headed by a known climate denier who once took money from a coal company to testify at a hearing and who has compared criticism of carbon dioxide to Hitler’s demonization of the Jews.”
Whoa! Somebody call Scotland Yard! This Happer fellow must be really, really evil!
Not only that, he must be pretty stupid, too—or at least poorly educated for the task assigned. EcoWatch describes Happer as “a Princeton physicist who has never trained as a climate scientist.”
Trump might as well have named a witch doctor Surgeon General, or Al Capone Attorney General.
Second example: E&E News reporter Scott Waldman, in an article (pay-walled) indiscriminately republished in Science, began his hit piece with this objective, detached, classically reportorial sentence that nobody in his right mind could confuse with poison-the-well lead:
President Donald Trump’s administration found a way to formally question climate science after almost 2 years of false starts.
William Happer, a prominent opponent of climate science in the Trump administration, is heading a new White House effort to downplay the national security risks posed by climate change. It resembles the “red team” approach promoted by scandal-plagued former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Get it? Happer and the committee Trump wants him to head will “formally question climate science.” Not one particular set of opinions held by some climate scientists, mind you, but climate science itself. Obviously this Happer fellow is a Neanderthal who wouldn’t know a test tube from a planetarium.
And the aim of the committee? “To downplay the national security risks posed by climate change.” Not, mind you, to reassess those risks, taking into account evidence ignored by the U.S. Global Change Research Program or the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or pointing out the ways in which those and similar bodies trumpet catastrophic futures that could materialize only if the least-likely, worst-case scenarios of CO2’s atmospheric warming potential came true.
And that “red team” approach? It obviously must be evil, because Scott Pruitt was “scandal plagued.” I guess if Pruitt had endorsed Girl Scout cookies, they, too, must be hung on the gallows. Ignore the fact that red team/blue team is a concept developed by our military decades ago to put scenarios to the test—and what climate alarmists depend on are scenarios that also should be tested.
Third example: The Center for Climate and Security swung into action with an open letter and a news release opposing both the formation of the committee and Happer’s appointment to lead it:
In an extraordinary letter published yesterday by the Center for Climate and Security (CCS) and the American Security Project (ASP), a group of 58 senior retired military and national security leaders denounced the National Security Council (NSC) plan to set up an “adversarial” group to undermine the science that informs defense and intelligence threat assessments on climate change. The plan is being driven by vocal climate denier William Happer, who has expertise in neither climate science nor national security.
You got that? The committee is an “adversarial” group, and adversaries can’t be permitted. Its purpose is to “undermine the science,” not subject it to rigorous empirical testing, since after all that would be to subject it to—ooops, the scientific method. “Your honor, I object! That was meant to mislead the jury!” “Objection sustained. That statement will be stricken from the record, and the jury will ignore it.”
Okay, where were we now? Oh, yes, we were tacitly implying that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was right when he said comparing predictions with real-world observations was the “key to science,” and that those who feared that the proposed committee might do that were—oh, what shall we call them? Science deniers? Yeah, that might do.
Moving on. The villain heading that committee, Happer, is a “vocal climate denier … who has expertise in neither climate science nor national security.” Got it. Happer denies climate. Just as some people deny that men have walked on the moon. Except that I can’t figure out what it means to “deny climate.” One denies the truth of a proposition. Climate isn’t a proposition. It makes no claim to truth or falsehood. It’s just out there, like a toad, or a gerbil. You might deny that it’s there, but you can’t deny anything it says, because it doesn’t say anything. Neither does climate. And, I guarantee you, Happer would dress differently for a summer day in Miami than for a winter day in Nome.
I guess “climate denier” is some kind of code for someone who dares to question “scientific consensus”—you know, like that idiot Galileo, who bucked consensus to insist that Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa, or those idiots Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who won the Nobel Prize for overturning the scientific consensus that ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid.
Because … because … “scientific consensus” EQUALS “science.” Just ignore that second word. It really doesn’t contribute anything.
But this guy isn’t just a “climate denier,” he “has expertise in neither climate science nor national security.”
Now that clinches it. Only an idiot could pick a know-nothing like this to head a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security” within the “National Security Council.”
Please, please don’t ask how much training some of the 58 people who signed the open letter have in climate science, like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Ray Mabus—
Well, phooey. I was going to pick a few who aren’t climate scientists, and, guess what? I could only find two who might have had real training in climate science—Rear Admiral David Titley (Ret.) and Rear Admiral Jonathan White (Ret.)—both of them oceanographers. (And the oceans really do have a lot to do with climate, y’know. After all, it was likely the Pacific Decadal Oscillation’s shift from negative to positive in the mid-1970s that set off the global warming of the next two decades. But don’t noise that around.
The consensus crowd thinks it was rising atmospheric CO2 concentration that set it off, although why the world cooled during the prior two decades and failed to warm significantly during the two most recent decades even while CO2 concentration was rising just as it was during the 1970s through 1990s is difficult for them to explain.)
“Aaoogah! Aaoogah! All hands to battle stations! Enemy off the port—no, I mean, starboard—bow!”
So just who is this Happer guy, and why in the world did Trump get suckered into thinking he should head a Committee on Climate Security?
He’s “Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, … a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.” He got his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton in 1964 and taught and did research at Columbia and Princeton, then was Director of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under the Bush-1 and Clinton-only administrations, then returned to Princeton as “Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Chair of the University Research Board from 1995 to 2005” and from 2003 “held the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Chair of Physics until his retirement in 2014.”
Yeah, yeah, but what does Happer know about climate?
Well, I’ll let physicist Howard Hayden explain, quoting from his recent newsletter The Energy Advocate (pay-walled):
The American Physical Society (APS) has sixteen divisions, such as astrophysics, nuclear physics, chemical physics, fluid dynamics, and laser science. Happer’s field of expertise is Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, AMO, for which the APS Division of Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (DAMOP) is the most appropriate. Its members deal with experimental and theoretical aspects [of] atomic and molecular energy levels, “forbidden transitions,” collisional dynamics, excited-state populations, interactions with electro–magnetic radiation (a.k.a., spectroscopy), and so forth.
Let us be perfectly clear about this. The only aspect of science that links CO2 to putative global warming (a.k.a., climate change) is AMO: Atomic, Molecular and Optical physics. …
In other words, what passes for “no formal training in climate science” is Happer’s long career in AMO, the field that is not part of any traditional course in climatology, and the only one that has any relationship to the greenhouse effect.
I.e., without the kind of expertise Happer has, there could be no understanding, no theory, of how CO2 might warm the planet. Or, to put it differently, Happer has precisely the kind of expertise, in AMO (not to be confused with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, another important driver of climate ups and downs, but don’t mention that or you’ll be named a climate denier), that is indispensable to the kind of “climate science” the alarmist “consensus” requires.
Oh, but what does he know about national security?
Gee, I suppose he might have learned a little about it while from “1987 to 1990 he served as Chairman of the Steering Committee of JASON, a group of scientists and engineers who advise agencies of the Federal Government on matters of defense, intelligence, energy policy and other technical problems …” and from “2002 to 2006 he chaired of the National Research Council’s Standing Committee on Improvised Explosive Devices that supported the Joint Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization of the Department of Defense.”
Is Will Happer well qualified to head that panel? You decide.
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Well he isn’t a climate scientist, he did send an email making those claims about demonization and he has taken money from fossil fuel firms…
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
As always, griff can’t defend the science so he attacks the scientist instead.
Thank you for admitting that climate science is indefensible.
What are Al Gore’s scientific degrees, qualifications, and achievements?
More importantly, what are griff’s?
Why are Griff’s qualifications or lack thereof of any importance , let alone “more importantly” ?
If he think DeSmegBlog, which was the key channel of communication for Peter Gleick’s fraudulent papers, is a reliable source of info , he is living inside a bubble in his own head.
So they object to comparison to Nazi persecution of the Jews, but have not problem opening up their description of someone by assimilating him with a holocaust denier. Hypocrisy straight out of the gate.
A “criticism of carbon dioxide” ( which would be pretty hard since you cannot “criticise” a gas ) must be as bad a denying climate exists.
Walter Sobchak
To be fair, I don’t have any but can still make noise. Hopefully most of it sensible.
Greg, they are important because griff is always making a big deal about other people’s alleged lack of qualifications.
griff’s claim is that lack of qualifications means one is not permitted to speak on this subject. If true, griff’s lack of qualifications should disqualify him as well. Goose, Gander and all that.
Since Dr. Happer is a real expert in both “Atomic, Molecular and Optical physics” *and* also an expert in energy use issues, that would certainly qualify him to comment on climate theory as much as any oceanographer, ecologist, earth scientist, etc? Now, since “climate science” is really an interdisciplinary thing, you could plausibly “credentialize” all related fields to seem relevant to the issue, at least to some extent. At the same time however, as the author of the article indicates, since the greenhouse hypothesis is fundamentally an infrared “Optical Physics” hypothesis, *that* make Dr. Happer more qualified than most!
The point I rapidly come to here is that the fakey “green” promoters have no shame about telling even the most obvious lies — if only it seems to discredit or marginalize those that disagree with them! Just lately for instance, we’ve had the pathetic denial of the fact that Dr. Patrick Moore co-founded Greenpeace.
*Now* an expert in photonic energy transfer, Dr. Happer, is somehow not qualified with regard to the Greenhouse Effect!
Greenie alarmists, your nose is growing. Better call on the Blue Fairy to come help you, before your extended probosci get you all stuck in a doorway, or something!
MarkW
griff has resorted to drive by trolling. I understand he tendered his resignation to Anthony bitching about no one respecting his opinions on WUWT, or some such nonsense.
So now he hasn’t the decency to respect his ‘resignation’ and believes that taking occasional pot shots, which he presumably imagines are are any more informed than those he was slagged off for in the past, is a credible solution to his inadequacies, vis-a vis, constructive debate.
Grow a pair griff. Either engage and debate, or don’t bother.
griff has become what is known as a seagull troll.
Squawk, poop, fly away.
[Snip. Let’s keep the personal attacks out of the comments. -mod]
“Well he isn’t a climate scientist”…compared to “real” climate scientists…he’s way over qualified
” his specialty at Princeton University was modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991-1993, Happer was the Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy”
“Well he isn’t a climate scientist”.
He is an expert in exactly the field of physics upon which the whole GHG-AGW scare is founded. But Griff has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and never made it far enough into the article to get the facts.
“Climatology” is a bogus discipline, made up to give fake pseudo-scientific sounding credentials to activists would not be capable of getting a science degree.
Michael Mann is a “physicist who has never trained as a climate scientist” so he’s disqualified too.
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
Grif, if you bothered to read the submission, you would have seen that his expertise is in the field of science that is the most relevant in the theories climate warming. Of course, that also requires reading comprehension.
It also requires actually reading the article.
I think he reads them..
…he just can’t comprehend what he reads
Yeah, from his posts, it’s seems to me that he does read them, he just has a whole lot of trouble comprehending what he reads. This is evident every time he posts a link that doesn’t say what he claims it says. The links are usually relevant to the topic but they don’t back up whatever point he thinks he’s making.
I doubt he reads beyond the first two or three lines before finding something he knows nothing about to comment on.
But , heck if we was not here what else would we have to discuss ?
I’m sure all the attention he gets gives him the impression he is really “making some waves”. LOL.
Now that Griff receives email notices of posts, he can jump in early and try derailing the thread with his uninformed snap-judgement. He’s our resident version of AOC.
AOuCh
Dr. Michael Mann is a physicist. He generated his hockey stick based on tree ring proxies. Dr. Mann’s training does not relate to any science that deals directly with how tree rings form. If you’re going to treat him as an eminent scientist, you are a hypocrite if you don’t do the same for Dr. Happer.
The above also applies to Dr. James Hansen who invoked control system engineering with his application of feedback analysis. He clearly does not qualify as a systems engineer but he is lauded as a great scientist.
Dr. Happer is easily as qualified as any other eminent climate scientist.
Hansen is a control systems engineer?? !!
Then no doubt Hansen has noticed that at the end of each period of glaciation, there are relatively short periods of RUN-AWAY-GLOBAL WARMING. And it’s impossible to miss the fact that these warming periods ALL END (at about the same temperature) when oceanic warming brings atmospheric CO2 levels to a saturation point where it’s positive feedback effects run out of gas.
At that point, returning some more CO2 back into the atmosphere from whence it came (called CO2 emissions by Science Deniers) has almost no further effect on global temperatures in these interglacial periods.
Anyone who relies upon desmogblog for anything is as gullible as they come and shouldn’t be let out on their own
All that aside…What exactly is wrong with a Red Team/Blue Team exercise regarding the state of Climate Science?
And does it really matter who marshals the debate??
The big problem is that it might discover the enormous amount of scientific fraud that is necessary to prove that warming is “real”.
Or worse yet the agenda behind the fraudulent science?
Harper was paid for sworn testimony related to climate change. If he lied, he would be guilty of perjury.
Who is on the side of logic and reason? Who is on the side of the general public and the environment?
It is not a good thing that we are spending 1.5 trillion dollars/year on green stuff that does not work. The money we have spent on green stuff has accomplished what? It seems like a complete waste of money, if cost benefit analysis were have been done.
The problem is the observations do not support CAGW, there is no solution to CAGW, and there are nefarious legal attacks on energy companies.
Absolutely. Expert witnesses are usually paid for their services. link
The fact that expert witnesses are paid, in no way diminishes their credibility. The fact that the alarmists would raise this issue demonstrates that they or ignorant or duplicitous, or both.
I don’t know, commieB. According to the climate fanatics, anyone who takes money is a shill for the ideologies of whoever gave it to them. Government is hardly free of ideology.
This accusation of course only applies to people who bring obstinate facts that undermine the climate catastrophe “message”. I mean, that has to be obvious from the start. If it were otherwise, guys like Mann and Hansen and Greenpeace would have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. There is oil money all over the renewables and climate research sectors, thick as grease on deep-fried pork.
“The money we have spent on green stuff has accomplished what? …’.
==================================================
The cost of Energiewende 2010 -> 2018 is “unknown” but “enormous” for virtually no effect on the purported aim viz. to reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions:
Children seeking monetary settlements from suing fossil-fossil fuel companies would be “taking money from fossil fuel firms”. How hypocritical is that, griff?
And did it occur to you that a professional physicist, outstanding in his field, might have deeper insight into the PHYSICS used by climate scientists than climate scientists themselves might have?
One more question: Did you even read the article that answered the “he isn’t a climate scientist” complaint in detail? Yet you still make the very, exact same complaint whose absurdity the article fully pointed out.
Ignore the obvious much? Block out what has already been answered much? Pretend to be blind much?
griff writes a comment.
I respond, “But you are not an English-language scholar.”
griff, that’s funny You are again citing that dreadful desmogblog and its litany of scurrilous gossip and back-biting. No one, but no one, is going to believe any disparaging calumny stored at that social viper’s place.
If the smug block is you best reference to fiction Griff, you are really grasping at straws.
and I did notice he isn’t wearing a bow tie in the picture. Must be a real sloppy dresser which leads to sloppy thinking. You know. Dress for success.
Griff, name one ‘climate scientist’ who has expertise in all of these disciplines-
From https://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/31/so-just-who-does-climate-science/:
I believe it was Phil Jones, a much-lauded ‘climate scientist’, who confessed he couldn’t even use Excel to calculate a trend.
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer😂😂😂😂🤣🤣
griff March 15, 2019 at 10:11 am
“he has taken money from fossil fuel firms…”
griff why did you not include the rest of the information? He was paid a stipend to testify in court.
This common practice, because you are disrupting the witness’s life and causing loss of income hardship.
The fossil fuel firms like everyone else, you included have the right call witness’s and compel their testimony.
Did you not know this?
michael
“… taken money from fossil fuel firms …” You mean like he stole it?
The AGW hypothesis is based on planet surface warming caused by the bi-directional exchange of infrared radiation (back radiation) between the warmer planet surface and ghgs (specifically made worse by anthropogenic CO2) in the cooler atmosphere. In other words, the planet radiates to the atmosphere and some of that radiation is returned thus raising the planet surface temperature.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is mainly concerned with entropy. From wiki (I know ;)):
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.”
But it also strongly implies the that energy, via the heat process, only flows spontaneously from a warmer to a cooler body and not the other way round. (Clausius)
The trick used by “false science” is to say that the ‘net’ energy flow is from the warmer planet surface to cooler atmosphere which also asserts that ghgs in the atmosphere absorb radiation from the planet surface and re-radiate some of that energy back to the planet surface which slows down the cooling from the planet surface. However there is no mention in the 2nd LOT for the spontaneous flow of energy from a cooler to a warmer body in an irreversible process.
This bi-directional “heat” absorption hypothesis between bodies of different temperatures has never been observed and only exists in climate models and the bank balances of those who stand to prosper from junk science.
If a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere absorbs a photon from the planet surface in the 15 μm band, what are the chances that the CO2 molecule can emit a photon towards the planet surface before it collides with hundreds of millions of other atmospheric molecules?
The AGW hypothesis has little to do with climate science and should be relegated to the realms of cargo cult science.
An objects “temperature” is determined by the sum of all the energy flowing into it, minus all the energy flowing out of it.
All objects radiate energy. Warmer objects radiate more, cooler objects radiate less. But all objects that are above absolute zero radiate.
When the atmosphere warms, it radiates more. Some of that extra radiation is radiated towards, and absorbed by the ground.
In order for the ground to return to radiative balance, it has to warm so that it can radiate the excess radiation back to the atmosphere.
No violation of the 2nd law here.
I think you are confusing radiation which all bodies emit with heat transfer, i.e. the spontaneous transfer of internal energy from a warmer body to a cooler body by the heat process. I also suspect you think the planet behaves like a black body.
There is no spontaneous process for a cooler body to transfer internal energy to a warmer body. Please cite evidence if you think this is not true.
“When the atmosphere warms, it radiates more. Some of that extra radiation is radiated towards, and absorbed by the ground.”
I notice you did not try to contradict my question, “If a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere absorbs a photon from the planet surface in the 15 μm band, what are the chances that the CO2 molecule can emit a photon towards the planet surface before it collides with hundreds of millions of other atmospheric molecules?”
Do you think conduction does not figure greatly with regard to how the atmosphere gains heat? Do you think radiation by ghgs in the atmosphere is what controls energy transfers in the atmosphere? Or maybe it could be by conduction and convection?
Do you not think that where water vapour is scarce, or non-existent, in the upper atmosphere that CO2 plays a role in radiating energy to space (cooling process)?
You suspect wrong in both cases.
Your use of the ambigous term “heat transfer” indicates that you do not have a good grasp of any of the concepts here.
There is no such thing as “heat transfer” as you describe it above. Energy moves by two mechanisms, conductance or radiance.
Conduction is when two bodies touch. In this case, net energy does transfer from hot to cold. Once again, energy is actually flowing in both directions, it’s just that more energy moves from hot to cold.
I was specifically referencing radiation.
So MW, are you aware that convection and LH transfer by buoayancy do the heavy lifting to the radiative zone far above the dense soup where Downwelling radiation is claimed to cause ground heating. When my IR gun shows 40-50C on grass in full sun and rapid drops in shadow. DWR notwithstanding. Brett
“Your use of the ambigous term “heat transfer” indicates that you do not have a good grasp of any of the concepts here.”
Really?
“There is no such thing as “heat transfer” as you describe it above. Energy moves by two mechanisms, conductance or radiance.”
Which is what I said but the atmosphere is heated mainly by conduction aided by convection and very little by radiation.
“Once again, energy is actually flowing in both directions, it’s just that more energy moves from hot to cold.”
Heat , i.e. the transfer of internal energy from a warmer body to a cooler body flows spontaneously in one direction only. The law of entropy. If you persist in the false hypothesis of bi-directional “heat exchange” then there must be not one but two energy exchanges. This breaks the 2nd Law.
You still haven’t addressed my question: “If a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere absorbs a photon from the planet surface in the 15 μm band, what are the chances that the CO2 molecule can emit a photon towards the planet surface before it collides with hundreds of millions of other atmospheric molecules?”
In fact you did not address any of my questions.
You’ll have to step up to the plate, pal, if you want to be taken seriously.
Another issue is that if we assume that the rate at which the sun warms the earth is a constant (ignoring clouds for now). Then the rate at which the transfer of energy via conduction two the atmosphere will depend on the temperature difference between the earth and the atmosphere. If CO2 warms the atmosphere, then a warmer atmosphere will slow down the amount of energy being transferred by conductance. Once again resulting in warmer earth.
“If CO2 warms the atmosphere, then a warmer atmosphere will slow down the amount of energy being transferred by conductance. Once again resulting in warmer earth.”
How naff is this piece of junk science? “a warmer atmosphere will slow down the amount of energy being transferred by conductance”. And it’s conduction not conductance.
How is it you have never heard of water vapour?
Michael Mann isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a mathematician, same with Gavin Schmidt. Hansen isn’t a climate scientist, he’s an astrophysicist. I think you’ll find most of them aren’t, because until very recently, there was no designation “climate scientist”.
Atmospheric physics would certainly qualify, and that seems to be right up Happer’s alley.
Phil Jones, and anyone who did climate research at CRU for a certain time period took a helluva lot more money from fossil fuels companies than the consulting fee paid to Happer.
So your smear, Griff, applies much more to Jones, Briffa, Wigley, and others than it ever could to Happer.
Next!
“Okay, where were we now? Oh, yes, we were tacitly implying that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was right when he said comparing predictions with real-world observations was the “key to science,” and that those who feared that the proposed committee might do that were—oh, what shall we call them? Science deniers? Yeah, that might do.”
As some may know, I often refer to Richard Feynman when the “key to science” is mentioned.
Here it is again.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
I continue to push this as I and many others believe that is the most basic thing which shows that the science for AGW is not science at all
Cheers
Roger
Desmogblog? You gotta be kidding.
http://www.leftexposed.org/2016/08/desmogblog/
preferred source for eejits, liars, fools & Trolls?
PR men & convicted felons.
JD.
None of the leading “scientists” in the alarmist camp have training in climate “science” either.
At a minimum, climate scientists should have extensive training in atmospheric science and geology, rather than statistical sophistry, mendacious math and ad hoc Fortran.
icisil,
By that criteria, most of your climate heroes are unqualified.
No one better qualified for the long overdue task.
Well done.
You could also expand on this “catastrophic futures that could materialize only if the least-likely, worst-case scenarios of CO2’s atmospheric warming potential came true” by saying catastrophic futures that could materialize only if the least-likely, worst-case scenarios of CO2’s atmospheric warming potential are true using the implausible worst-case emission scenario, RCP8.5 to estimate future emissions. See Larry Kummer’s recent post on this emissions scenario: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/03/15/rcp85-climate-science-corruption/
And even if both the worst case emissions scenario AND the worst case envisioned scenario actually did come about because of that, we are adaptable! We can and will adjust! I don’t know the total economic effect, I don’t know if there will be casualties, but I am 100% confident, willing to bet my life, and my grandchildren’s future, that it will be a damn sight less than trying to bring a screeching halt to our use of fossil fuels! Not just Drill, Baby, Drill, but Burn, Baby Burn! Sure, keep the scrubbers on the stacks of existing and install them on the stacks of the new, I like a clean environment just as much as the next guy (I can’t believe I’m paraphrasing DJT, but if it’s right I don’t care who said it first), but still, the best thing we can do is maximize the percentage of the population that has access to safe reliable energy! Yes, that can and most likely will involve nuclear, but until we get those built, Burn, Baby, Burn!
“catastrophic futures that could materialize only if the least-likely, worst-case scenarios of CO2’s atmospheric warming potential came true”
Even in the very unlikely event that RCP 8.5 happens it would have almost no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 as our emissions do not control it. (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/). Battling climate change by controlling CO2 emissions is tilting with windmills using a wet noodle for a lance.
We’ve all ‘taken money from fossil fuel companies’, thank the Lord. Or we’d be dea
We’d be Drug Enforcement Administration?
(that’s my humorous way of saying you hit send one letter too soon, I believe you meant to “we’d be dead“)
I get money every three months from BP, Conocophillips, and Phillips66. Dividends.
Either I am evil incarnate, or I invest in what my research indicate are solid investments, and provide needed goods and services.
For the Grifs in the world, I guess I should point out that this income does not bias my views. If I thought oil was bad, I would simply invest elsewhere. I have never bought a tobacco company, even though some, like Altria, pay solid dividends (5.6%, currently).
So a physicist with expertise in an area directly relating to the mechanics of CO2 related effects is unqualified? Perhaps only because Happer does not buy into the panic-mongering?
But did he ever stay at a Holiday Inn Express? Perhaps Griff knows.
I don’t know about Happer, but I think Griff did.
The commercials were entertaining but, just like Griff, the expertise gained was fiction.
(Maybe he checked into a “Hollandaise Inn Express” by mistake?)
How bad can the ad hominem attacks get? Wikipedia trumpets that Happer has no formal training in climate science – ie- in what is NOT an academic discipline! As Judith Curry of CFAN explains:
New York Times hit with backlash for labeling Princeton physicist a ‘climate denialist’
By contrast the CV of the esteemed Michael E. Mann clearly touts his exceptional training in “climate science” aka a 1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)
Shouldn’t Michael E. Mann thus have the same clarification at Wikipedia?!
Except that Wickedpedia climate stuff is run by one person so |i never go there.
You’re probably thinking of Wm Connolley, the notorious Green Party activist. But he’s not the only culprit. The Wikipedia climate articles are controlled by a small cabal of climate industry propagandists, including Connolley, not just “by one person.”
Oops, I somehow omitted the intended link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160405234018/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
David L Hagen March 15, 2019 at 10:30 am
So Michael Mann got his PH.D in Geology and Geophysics. 1998 hmm,, did he ever hold a job in the field?
Or did he just get a make work job as a glorified library assistant at the CRU?
someone should have given him a real job…
michael
A long list of accomplishments…
William Happer – Dean of the Faculty
https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/william-happer
You can be sure that if Dr. Happer were an enthusiastic promoter of climate science alarmism and was pontificating as often as Al Gore does on the subject, he would magically have been featured as a world-renowned expert on climate change by now. That would have been the 97% concensus opinion of him.
An exact, consensus-based science, should not be questioned. Or, God forbid, unsettled. Ever. May the Grand Inquisitor oversee the proceedings.
Brings back memories of my misspent youth:
my favorite band =D
A ‘Princeton physicist’ carries much more acumen than ‘trained as a climate scientist’.
You left out ‘reknown’ (Princeton physicist).
In my Uni days, those who couldn’t get past the midterm exams in Engineering found themselves moved to either Environmental Science or Business. Lots of the Business guys became successful businessmen. Most of the ES guys got gov’t jobs administering landfills and composting operations. Hard to say who made the biggest contribution to humanity.
monitoring landfills is important stuff.
Wouldn’t want them to go on a rampage.
“I guess if Pruitt had endorsed Girl Scout cookies, they, too, must be hung on the gallows. ”
Trust me, those Girl Scout cookies are evil. Especially the coconut-chocolate ones. They keep calling my name from the pantry cabinet at all hours.
The Thin Mints are the most evil.
What is the carbon footprint of Girl Scout cookies?
Depends on how deep the footprint is. Depth of the footprint is determined by the weight being supported by the foot and the softness of the ground.
Which will depend on how many of them you have eaten!
It depends on if they are made with real Girl Scouts! > ; }
What were the direct and personal concerns for Einstein not to return to Europe on his final trip to the U.S.?
I hope Freeman Dyson is picked as a panelist.
I wonder if climate scientists are feeling the same foreboding that Trofim Lysenko and his geneticist buddies felt when Nikita Khrushchev formed an investigation of his Scientology.
What do some flag officers do when they retire from the military… take easy money jobs no real work trading on the prestige of their rank. That my friends is an old well established MO. The sharp ones get picked up by defense contractors. The real dullards end up doing this stuff.
It’s a joke wrapped in a farce covered with BS
That’s why we need a scientific review
Ad hominem aside, it should be pointed out that the Alarmists are funded by the Climate Change Industry, to the tune of at least 1,000 times whatever meager “funding” skeptics/climate realists receive. The climate industry receives the bulk of its funding from government, but also through wealthy benefactors with a political axe to grind. The sheer gall and hypocrisy of the Climatists literally knows no bounds.
The answer to the opening question is “no”, he appointed Mother Teresa!
Rather a curious criticism by a clique who were fine with a railway engineer as head of the IPCC, I should think.
And who regularly took/take grants from oil companies.
Firstly Pachauri was not a ‘railway engineer’ that was the undergraduate school he attended where he trained in mechanical engineering, and then worked on the indian railways. He later attended university and earned his PhD in the US ( in Industrial Engineering and Economics, nothing to do with railways).
Secondly he was pushed as head of IPCC by George W Bush at the instigation of ExxonMobil because they wanted to get rid of the former head, Robert Watson, is that the clique you mean?
Who is Happer going to have to put on the panel in the name of “diversity of viewpoints?” I think Trump is better off trusting his gut than with panels of “experts.”
True.
“Diversity and Inclusion” in today’s PC context does not mean that.
It actually means more along the lines of “If you don’t agree with our viewpoint, then you will be excluded.”
In the realm of Political Climate Science, it means that if you don’t endorse the “scientific” excuse to give authority to the funders’ political agenda, you will be defunded and/or vilified.
THE GRIFF”S OF THE WORLD — WAKE UP!!
Who’s promoting the Green New Deal? A moron.
Why? For a political end.
ZERO understanding of the science behind the world ending in 12 years.
ZERO understanding of the economics behind her plans for anything.
(A younger and female Al Gore?)
PS Though Gore did know how to make personal “Green” better than she does.
But she’s learning.
It’s the all-too-familiar game plan of the left, relying on social-media and, these days, even main stream media: If parties are adverse to their cause, Defame them. Funded by the Billionaire usual suspects.
https://youtu.be/sI7bMvi0-qQ
Unfortunately, the Republicans are too weak to stand up to wave after wave of socialist propaganda. How refreshing to see somebody in the whitehouse who has the guts.
Prof. Happer is the perfect choice to lead this project. He is a man of towering intellect, deep understanding of the subject, and considerable leadership experience in both public and private endeavors. Most importantly, he is also a man of unquestionable integrity.
You’d be very hard pressed to find someone else nearly as well-qualified as Prof. Happer.
Biographical info: (updated from this)
Believe it or not, that’s the short version of his bio; here’s a longer one:
http://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/william-happer
Here’s a physics colloquium which Prof. Happer taught at UNC, Sept. 8, 2014, about the physics which governs global warming, and its implications:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebYAbhr7J38
He also co-authored (with two other top scientists) this very educational amicus brief, in the 2018 *Calif v. BP* climate lawsuit:
Happer / Koonin / Lindzen amicus brief.
Prof. Happer is also an extraordinarily generous man, with both his time and his treasure, and he is a crusader for scientific integrity. Many men his age would relax and play golf, but Prof. Happer never stops serving.
The reason climate activists hate him, and the reason he gets death threats, is that they are afraid of him: his intellect, his knowledge, and most of all, his unshakable integrity and courage. He is the rare man who cannot be fooled, and cannot be bullied. Climate activists need to silence him because free and open debate is dangerous to their cause.
The vicious lies and dirty tricks targetting him are proof of the deep corrultion of the Climate Movement. Consider, for example, the Greenpeace “sting,” in which they hoped to “expose” Prof. Happer. Instead, it proved Prof. Happer’s integrity and generosity, and Greenpeace’s dishonesty.
In that case, Greenpeace activists approached Prof. Happer, lied about their identities, and offered to hire him to write a report about the beneficial effects of CO2 emissions. He agreed to do so, but he refused to take their money. Instead, he asked that his fee be donated to charity!
The report which (he thought) he was being asked to write was what I would call a “whitepaper” or monograph. There was never any suggestion that the information in it would be anything other than completely scientifically accurate. If there had been, then Prof. Happer would not have entertained the idea of writing it.
The Greenpeace activists lied, and Dr. Happer never did, yet climate activists nevertheless want you to believe that somehow impugns Dr. Happer’s integrity, which is obviously absurd.
Prof. Happer also represented the “climate realist” (a/k/a lukewarmist or skeptic) side of TheBestSchools’ 1½-year-long, in-depth, on-line debate on global warming. They asked him to do so because he is widely acknowledged to be a leading expert in the field:
Karoly/Tamblyn–Happer Dialogue on Global Warming. (It is very educational.)
And, by the way, Prof. Happer asked TheBestSchools to donate all his fees to charity.
Re: William Happer’s qualifications to comment on climate change: As an atomic spectroscopist, he knows that very high-energy collisions between ground state sodium (Na) atoms and inert gas molecules like argon (Ar) can occasionally knock the outer (valence) electron of Na into an outer orbital. This electronically excited Na* atom can then drop back down to the ground state by emission of a photon (a particle of light); the drop from a 3p orbital to the ground state 3s orbital corresponds to emission of yellow light (because of electron spin, the yellow line is a doublet, at 5890 and 5896 Angstroms; see details at http://www.ifsc.usp.br/~lavfis/images/BDApostilas/ApEspectrRedeDif/Sodio.pdf ). OTOH, the excited sodium atom Na* can be quenched during non-radiative collisions with Ar molecules. The energy of the Na* atom does not disappear, but ends up as increased translational energy of the departing atoms.
The mechanism of the greenhouse effect is analogous. At 288 K, collisions between air (mainly N2, O2 and Ar) and CO2 molecules knock about 3.6% of the CO2 molecules into the v=1 first vibrationally excited state in the bond-bending mode. The solid and liquid surfaces of the Earth emit infrared (IR) photons in a Planck black-body spectrum. As the surfaces warm up during the daytime, the black-body radiation increases in intensity (the total outgoing flux is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, with emissivity 0.98 ). At 667 cm^-1, ground state (v=0) CO2 molecules will absorb some of the IR photons and be boosted to the v=1 first excited state, creating an excess. These excited state molecules can re-emit 667 cm^-1 photons, in which case there is no net absorption. However, these excess excited state CO2 molecules can also be quenched during non-radiative collisions with the air (mainly N2, O2 and Ar) molecules; this time, the excitation energy ends up in extra translational and rotational energy of the departing N2, O2 and CO2 molecules, and translational of Ar. After a few more molecular collisions, the energy ends up evenly distributed among the air molecules, and the air will have warmed up.
Because the heat capacity at constant pressure of linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2 is the same, at 7k/2 per molecule, where k is the Boltzmann constant (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ) and because at 400 ppmv CO2 the air molecules outnumber CO2 by 1,000,000:400 = 2,500:1, almost all of the absorbed energy ends up increasing the translational and rotational energies of N2 , O2 and Ar which cannot and do not re-emit any significant amount of IR (dipole emission requires a changing electric dipole moment, and N2 and O2 are non-polar molecules with no changing electric dipole moment during vibration). So the troposphere warms up.
Since net outgoing IR energy is absorbed by the troposphere, there would be an energy flow imbalance. The same incoming Solar visible radiation during the daytime would then warm up the solid and liquid surface until the increased Stefan-Boltzmann black-body emission (minus net absorption by the troposphere) to outer space once again balances the net incoming Solar energy flux (after considering reflection to outer space and absorption in the stratosphere by ozone). This is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect which William Happer would understand as a direct analog of his deep knowledge of atomic spectroscopy.
I’ve simplified the argument, of course. During the nighttime (and especially during Polar winters), there is no incoming Solar radiation, so the Earth’s solid and liquid surface would cool by loss of IR photons directly to outer space, especially in the frequency “windows” where there is little absorption by CO2 or water vapour molecules in the troposphere. The considerable heat content (enthalpy) stored in the troposphere during the daytime can moderate the rate of heat loss, via back-radiation: as vibrationally excited CO2 molecules emit IR photons, half of them directed back at the Earth, the number of v=1 excited state molecules is replenished via collisions of ground state v=0 molecules with fast-moving N2, O2 and Ar molecules, which cool down. This replenishment is not total, however (LeChatelier’s Principle says that if a stress is applied to a system at equilibrium, the equilibrium shifts in such a direction as to PARTIALLY relieve that stress). So the troposphere and hard deck surface of the Earth both cool down at nighttime.
In the Polar regions, back-radiation from excited state CO2 molecules may not be intense enough to maintain a warmer surface temperature, and you can get temperature inversions in the first few hundred metres from the surface. In this case, there can be net heat flow via back-radiation from a warmer troposphere to a colder surface which does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Under normal circumstances, however, when there is a continually decreasing temperature with increasing altitude, back-radiation from the troposphere to the surface does exist (as detected by spectrometers looking upward from the surface), but cannot be used to explain the greenhouse effect. For example, if the Earth’s surface emits X W/m^2 upward which is totally absorbed within metres at 667 cm^-1 by CO2 which at the same temperature emits X W/m^2 in the forward direction, and X W/m^2 in the backward direction, conservation of energy appears to be violated (how can X W/m^2 end up powering a total emission of 2X W/m^2?). The answer is that the X W/m^2 of back-radiation just balances ANOTHER X W/m^2 emitted by the hard deck surface, since the two close emitters are at the same temperature, in thermal equilibrium (or very close to it). The X W/m^2 escaping outward from the first opaque layer of the troposphere is powered by the net X W/m^2 emitted by the hard deck (solid & liquid) surface of the Earth. Energy balance diagrams showing back-radiation warming the Earth are simply wrong.
The MODTRAN spectra available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing show that they are almost identical for 300 and 600 ppmv CO2. The slight difference in area (net absorption) of the blue and green curves occurs at 618 and 721 cm^-1, which are the band origins for absorptions from the v=1 first excited state, and not from the v=0 ground state. (For the energy level diagram, see Diagram 3 in the section “Spectral transitions” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com .) Because v=1 state molecules are only 3.6% of v=0 molecules at 288 K (and only 1.3% at 220 K), lines in the band wings of these overtone absorptions are far from being saturated, so doubling CO2 will have a measurable effect in the enhanced greenhouse effect.
By contrast, the 667 cm^-1 absorption from the v=0 to the v=1 bond-bending state is so strong that almost all the lines in the band are saturated to altitudes of 20 to 40 km in the stratosphere. In this case, complete absorption is followed by complete emission (Kirchhoff’s Law that a good absorber is a good emitter), and as temperatures decrease with increasing altitudes in the troposphere, the emission goes down. However, because the temperature actually increases from 20 to 50 km due to absorption of incoming Solar UV and visible radiation by ozone in the stratosphere, the emission of the 667 cm^-1 band actually increases when CO2 is doubled, so for energy balance the Earth’s hard deck surface need not be as high (i.e. doubling CO2 means global cooling, not warming, when only the main 667 cm^-1 band is considered). To see the effect when MODTRAN calculations are carried to 70 km altitude, and not truncated at 20 km, see the section “The hard bit” at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com .
Finally, the MODTRAN calculated spectra necessarily involve net absorption in a cloud-free 10 km of the troposphere. When the 62% of the Earth’s surface that is covered by clouds is considered, the climate sensitivity is decreased from 1 degree to about 0.7 degrees before feedbacks, and the 50% positive feedback due to increased water vapour absorption is mostly cancelled by any reasonable estimate of the expected slight increase in cloud cover. These considerations would be obvious to someone with Will Happer’s background.
The mechanism of the greenhouse effect is analogous. At 288 K, collisions between air (mainly N2, O2 and Ar) and CO2 molecules knock about 3.6% of the CO2 molecules into the v=1 first vibrationally excited state in the bond-bending mode.
No, most of that energy goes into the translational mode not the vibrational.
Because the heat capacity at constant pressure of linear molecules like N2, O2 and CO2 is the same, at 7k/2 per molecule,
No, at ~15ºC the molar heat capacity (Cv) of N2 and O2 is ~2.5*R whereas for CO2 it is ~3.40*R.
For example, if the Earth’s surface emits X W/m^2 upward which is totally absorbed within metres at 667 cm^-1 by CO2 which at the same temperature emits X W/m^2 in the forward direction, and X W/m^2 in the backward direction, conservation of energy appears to be violated (how can X W/m^2 end up powering a total emission of 2X W/m^2?).
Answer is it doesn’t. If a X ground state CO2 molecules each absorb a photon (667 cm^-1) and are not collisionally quenched they will each emit a photon in a random direction so for a sufficiently large X you will have X/2 photons emitted upwards and X/2 emitted downwards.
Hi Phil!
1. Yes, you’re right: most collisions involve energy going into translational and rotational energies of molecules like N2, O2 and CO2. However, you missed my point: because the v=0 to v=1 energy gap for CO2 bond-bending vibration is so relatively low (667 cm^-1) for molecular vibrations, there is at 288 K or 220 K a small percentage (4 to 1%) of molecules in the v=1 state at thermal equilibrium, given by the Boltzmann ratio exp(-hcw/kT) where w = 667 cm^-1 is the wavenumber. So I was admitting that there are already some v=1 excited state molecules even before absorption of infrared (IR) photons emitted by the solid and liquid surfaces of the Earth. Net absorption from a warming Earth increases this small percentage, but by LeChatelier’s Principle this increase is damped by inelastic collisions with N2, O2 and Ar, with most of the energy ending up as translational and rotational energies of the departing molecules, as you say.
2. Yes, Cv for N2 and O2 is 2.5R = 5R/2 per mole, but Cp = Cv+R = 7R/2 (or 7k/2 per molecule). The difference of R between Cv and Cp is due to the work needed to expand an ideal gas from zero volume to the final volume V at constant lab pressure P. Your quoted value of 3.40R for CO2 agrees with 7R/2.
However, I looked up the measured values of Cp and Cv for CO2 which are 37.27 J/mol.K and 28.95 J/mol.K, whereas 7R/2 = 29.1 J/mol.K. Presumably the slightly higher value of Cp for CO2 is due to the fact that a small percentage of the molecules can be boosted to the v=1 excited vibrational level on thermal collisions, so there is a small non-zero component of Cp due to the possibility of energy stored in vibrations. 7R/2 per mole considers only translations, rotations and PV/T per mole per K.
At any rate, the small (0.04%) percentage of CO2 in the air means that most of the IR photon energy absorbed by CO2 molecules still ends up as heat content (enthalpy) of N2, O2 and Ar . The ratio of heat content in N2 and O2 relative to CO2 would be reduced from 2500:1 to 1950:1 (I have ignored Cp for Ar, which is only 5R/2 per mole since energy cannot be stored in rotation).
3. You are again right when you say that for sufficiently large number of molecules, X W/m^2 absorbed by CO2 is re-emitted, X/2 in the upward direction and X/2 in the downward direction (as “back-radiation”). But my point is that the X/2 back-radiation cancels X/2 of the original X W/m^2 emitted from the hard deck surface of the Earth. The net result is that X/2 emitted by the Earth ends up re-emitted in the upward direction. The back-radiation has not warmed the Earth.
For example, at 288 K and emissivity 0.98, the hard deck emits 382 W/m^2 upward by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If this is totally absorbed and then re-emitted in the upward direction by an opaque black body layer close to the Earth’s surface, this is equal to X/2, so X/2 = 382 W/m^2 is re-emitted upward, maintaining a steady state outward flux consistent with the Law of Conservation of Energy. CO2 at 667 cm^-1 totally absorbs and re-emits within metres of the hard deck surface, so the temperature of re-emission is very close to 288 K, as seen by a spectrometer on the ground looking upward. However, over a path length of 10 km in the troposphere, the temperature of the re-emitting opaque layer decreases to 220 K, so the re-emission is decreased to (220/288)^4 = 0.34 or 34% at 667 cm^-1. The net absorbed energy is mostly transferred via inelastic collisions to non-emitting N2, O2 and Ar molecules whose translational and rotational energies are increased (so the troposphere warms up). Hope this clarifies the situation.
Hi Phil!
1. Yes, you’re right: most collisions involve energy going into translational and rotational energies of molecules like N2, O2 and CO2. However, you missed my point: because the v=0 to v=1 energy gap for CO2 bond-bending vibration is so relatively low (667 cm^-1) for molecular vibrations, there is at 288 K or 220 K a small percentage (4 to 1%) of molecules in the v=1 state at thermal equilibrium, given by the Boltzmann ratio exp(-hcw/kT) where w = 667 cm^-1 is the wavenumber.
You can’t use Boltzmann to determine how much energy is in the vibrational modes, only what proportion of the molecules possess that much energy, most of it will be translational and rotational.
2. Yes, Cv for N2 and O2 is 2.5R = 5R/2 per mole, but Cp = Cv+R = 7R/2 (or 7k/2 per molecule). The difference of R between Cv and Cp is due to the work needed to expand an ideal gas from zero volume to the final volume V at constant lab pressure P. Your quoted value of 3.40R for CO2 agrees with 7R/2.
I know what the difference between Cv and Cp is, both the numbers I quoted were Cv. At room temperature CO2 is about 7R/2 compared with N2 being 5R/2.
However, I looked up the measured values of Cp and Cv for CO2 which are 37.27 J/mol.K and 28.95 J/mol.K, whereas 7R/2 = 29.1 J/mol.K. Presumably the slightly higher value of Cp for CO2 is due to the fact that a small percentage of the molecules can be boosted to the v=1 excited vibrational level on thermal collisions, so there is a small non-zero component of Cp due to the possibility of energy stored in vibrations. 7R/2 per mole considers only translations, rotations and PV/T per mole per K.
Also a triatomic like CO2 has one more rotational mode than a diatomic so you’d expect 6R/2.
3. You are again right when you say that for sufficiently large number of molecules, X W/m^2 absorbed by CO2 is re-emitted, X/2 in the upward direction and X/2 in the downward direction (as “back-radiation”). But my point is that the X/2 back-radiation cancels X/2 of the original X W/m^2 emitted from the hard deck surface of the Earth. The net result is that X/2 emitted by the Earth ends up re-emitted in the upward direction. The back-radiation has not warmed the Earth.
No it doesn’t cancel, the X/2 going downwards is absorbed by the surface and the amount emitted upwards increases so you need to do a series expansion. When you do that you’ll see that at equilibrium the surface is emitting more than X.
To Phil, re your post of March 19, 9:04 am:
1. We agree on this point.
2. Although CO2 is triatomic, it is linear in the v=0 vibrational ground state, and therefore has only 2 rotational degrees of freedom, not 3. So Cp for translation, rotational, and PV/T would be 3R/2 + R + R = 7R/2 per mole per K. So Cv = 5R/2, not 6R/2.
The fact that at 298 K the actual value of Cp for CO2 is 37.27 J/K.mol = 4.48 R/mol.K = approx. 9R/2 is due to the possibility of heat being stored in vibration, even if the ratio of v=1 to v=0 molecules is only 4% at 298 K. This explains why Cp is not constant, varying from 33.89 J/K.mol at -75 Celsius to 36.33 J/K.mol at 0 Celsius to 38.01 J/K.mol at 100 Celsius to 43.81 J/K.mol at 400 Celsius, etc. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page). At higher and higher temperatures, CO2 molecules can start to significantly populate higher and higher vibrational energy levels, increasing the number of degrees of freedom and therefore the value of heat capacity.
Because Cp is not constant, enthalpy (heat content) at a given absolute temperature T cannot simply be calculated by multiplying Cp by T, but must be integrated as Cp changes over T. But at a given temperature (e.g. 288 K), the value of Cp for CO2 is slightly greater than the 7R/2 for N2 and O2, so for every small temperature change (e.g. of 1 degree), slightly more extra heat content is stored per mole of CO2 than for N2 and O2.
Einstein’s explanation for the heat capacity of a metallic solid was key in the development of quantum theory. At high temperatures, this heat capacity per mol approaches the constant value long-known by the Law of Dulong-Petit (which was used to historically calculate atomic masses from measured heat capacities). But at low temperatures, heat capacity approaches zero due to the quantized energies of atomic vibrations in the solid, as the atoms remain trapped in the v=0 vibrational ground state (small additions of energy cannot boost them to the v=1 upper state). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_solid .
Einstein’s model used only one frequency for atomic vibration. Peter Debye developed a better model, using a distribution of frequencies; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model .
It seems obvious to me that the quantized vibrational energies of the CO2 molecule explain the values of Cp higher than 7R/2 per mol per K. The vibrational energy levels of the N2 and O2 molecules are much more widely spread in energy than in CO2, so negligible numbers of these molecules are in higher vibrational states at temperatures from 288 to 220 K, so their values of Cp are accurately modelled by 7R/2 per mol per K.
3. At thermal equilibrium, two identical black body surfaces will exchange energy via photons (radiation) at the same rate. Since CO2 absorbs IR emitted by the Earth’s surface, but negligible amounts from the incoming Solar (visible) radiation, the downward X/2 IR flux is powered by X/2 of IR emitted upward, and neither surface warms up. Since normally the lapse rate is -6.8 K/km, depending on the thickness of the first opaque absorbing layer, the back-radiation will be slightly smaller in W/m^2 than the corresponding upward radiation, so net heating by the back-radiation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold).
It may take you and others who have repeated the wrong literature arguments about back-radiation (see the Trenberth energy balance diagram) some time to accept this.
Mr. Taguchi, brilliant comment. I’d like to be in touch. Please email me: Calvin@CornwallAlliance.org.
I’m beginning to think “Griff” is actually the spawn of David Suzuki.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20111117060004/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=2c07121b-85c2-4799-9aaf-0c2688bf5ca1
Are you denigrating the expertise of Dr. David Suzuki, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada?
Do you question his expert explanation of the greenhouse effect?
“…sunlight passes through carbon-containing air, whereas infrared heat rays tend to be reflected by the carbon.
We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in. This is the basis for predicting ‘greenhouse’ effects of atmospheric compounds like carbon dioxide and methane.”
David Suzuki, London [Ontario] Free Press, May 12, 1990
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/pastedgraphic-1.pdf
“EcoWatch describes Happer as “a Princeton physicist who has never trained as a climate scientist.””
Happer is way more qualified than Al Gore, AOC, or all the kids in the world combined, and yet the latter people are the wise and enlightened ones who we should listen. If the alarmists cared about qualifications, they wouldn’t take the latter seriously.
Just shows that it’s just partisan politics rather than any real discussion. Happer is bad simply because he disagrees with the alarmists. If some caveman came and told everyone that climate change is going to kill us all, these people would say that we should totally listen to him.
A physicist who is not trained as a climate scientist is much, much, to be prefered over a climate scientist who is not trained as a physicist.
I’d like to send Dr Happer a message of support. Anybody know his contact details?
Unfortunately this is utter bollocks. That car is hot because the energy coming in can’t get out but NOT because of some radiative barrier. Instead it is the roof blocking the convective heat transport and loss. The same mechanism makes your tent boiling hot in the sun, and even a simple sheet of plastic over crops will raise the temperature beneath by 10 to 15 degrees. Apart from that there is no free carbon in the ‘carbon containing’ air, it is bound in molecules and any carbon in the glass is bound in sodiumcarbonate and then only in some kinds of glass. The whole explanation you quote is crackpot.
This was intended as a reply to Dave Burton’s comment above.