Professor Happer discusses CO2 and Bad Press
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just not a strong one. Professor Happer discusses why the impact of CO2 is small on the earth surface temperature. The effect of CO2 saturates as the amount of CO2 increases even to the 2X amount, such that the change in temperature is small. It is not likely to see the impact of 2x CO2 above 1 to 1.5 C. Exaggeration expands this impact greatly using feedback to achieve the artificial runaway warming. This is not good science.
False popular media want to compare the future earth to Venus which has an atmosphere of all CO2, which has atmospheric pressure 100x that of earth. It also is much closer to the sun and therefore sees more of the sun’s energy. It should be noted that Mars atmosphere is also largely composed of CO2 (95%) but Mars is cold because of its relative distance from the Sun.
Having small amounts of warming is good for the earth and nature.
The political efforts to make the warming from CO2 increases dangerous are intended for obvious reasons to drive energy policies, and it is not scientific or good science.
Professor Happer discusses CO2 the Benefits
Professor Happer presents CO2 as the gas of life, for it is necessary for plant life and therefore all life. In plants take CO2 and sunlight into sugar, as basic element of food energy. With the higher levels of CO2 now the earth has greened. Historically CO2 was at higher levels. Rubisco is a complicated enzyme found in most plants but is destroyed in the presence of a large amount of O2. Therefore, plants have evolved from low to high O2 levels in a manner that you will find interesting.
CO2 levels in our lungs are much higher than in the atmosphere. The levels of CO2 that represent a health risk to humans is also much higher than found currently in nature. Submarines face the challenge of reducing CO2. Plants are fed at higher levels of CO2 in greenhouses because of the higher productivity.
In higher CO2 levels plants also use less water and can be more productive at higher temperatures as well. This fact contrasts with some media claims.
Professor Happer describes his life as a scientist.
Born in India he made his way as a young lad to America, dodging German submarines on the way. He was inspired to become a physicist. After a degree at Princeton he went to Columbia. His work with the sodium laser to bring forth the adaptive optics system to correct for real-time atmospheric wave front turbulence in the 1980s, gave him credibility in the defense efforts, and he then became Director of Energy Research. His review of many projects funded by the government put him in a position to review the climate research of that day, in the 1992 – 93 period. His experiences lead him to question certain climate physics of that era. Leaving that he went back to Princeton to continue his research interests.
Working on a CO2 laser gave him great opportunity to understand the physics of CO2 and the quantum mechanics of this gas. Realizing how questionable the alarmist claims for CO2 were becoming, he then turned towards commenting on this climate theory, which continues to this day.
This is a rare opportunity to hear the experiences of a scientist not driven by politics or money and how this shaped his current views.
Professor Happer discusses How a CO2 Laser Works
CO2 lasers are used in a variety of application from cutting fabric in a textile factory, to plastic surgery, to engraving and more. It is a cheap and versatile high-power tool. The physics are fascinating. Lean in and enjoy the description of how energized electrons, in interactions with CO2 and a mixture of trace gases like N2, H2, Xenon and Helium, can be used in creating such an important practical tool.
“False popular media want to compare the future earth to Venus which has an atmosphere of all CO2, which has atmospheric pressure 100x that of earth.”
And most of the reason for that high presure is Venus’ internal energy:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
Hot things will create a lot of gas to be trapped by gravity. The hotter, the more pressure. Simple Gay-Lussac Law.
Too bad MSM Greenhouse gas junk scientists and skeptic N&Z followers can’t see common sense.
Peace, Zoe
“…most of the reason…is Venus internal energy”
Hahahahahaha, Zoe you’re a card…
Gay-Lussac ? More chuckles, since when is a planetary atmosphere a fixed volume ??”.
My bad, I misspelt “card”, needs a “t”
I guess you don’t see it.
I’m talking about the bottom meter of the atmosphere. The hotter it gets (due to geothermal plus solar) the more meters above that bottom meter can be supported.
The bottom meter has a fixed volume.
Remove the atmosphere, and geothermal plus solar will “evaporate” a new one out of the oceans. Sea level will decline by ~3 meters.
Take care, Zoe
“The bottom meter has a fixed volume.”
Is there no aspect of science that you actually understand?
A cubic meter will always be a cubic meter, whether it’s on the surface of the Earth, Venus or the Sun. However, if you heat the gas in that cubic meter it will expand unless there is a physical barrier preventing it.
Geothermal is about 5 orders of magnitude smaller than solar. It’s so far below rounding error that it simply doesn’t matter.
“A cubic meter will always be a cubic meter”
Indeed. Hence Gay-Lussac referenced.
“if you heat the gas in that cubic meter it will expand unless there is a physical barrier preventing it.”
The mass of gas above that cubic meter is a physical barrier. Do you not consider gas physical?
The hotter it is, the more gas can be above that cubic meter.
“Geothermal is about 5 orders of magnitude smaller than solar. It’s so far below rounding error that it simply doesn’t matter.”
The geothermal HEAT FLUX is indeed an irrelevant measure:
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
What is relevant is geothermal ENERGY.
One of these days Zoe will learn to apply the first rule of holes.
No, the weight of the atmosphere above the cubic meter is not a barrier to the gas in the cubic meter expanding. If it were, then hot air balloons couldn’t work.
Flux is energy, energy is flux. There is no difference.
“Flux is energy, energy is flux. There is no difference.”
Flux is energy transfer.
Energy is not flux.
A difference between energy levels will cause a flux.
The temperature in a spot is determined by energy in a spot, not a difference of energies between spots. Learn science.
“If it were, then hot air balloons couldn’t work.”
Hot air balloons wouldn’t work if the gas in thr balloon was same as the same tempetature as the ambient environment.
The fact that the air inside the balloon gets hotter than the ambient environment is what allows it to overcome the gases above it (the “lid”) and be lifted into the air.
Learn science.
You finally got something right, flux is energy in motion. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s not some magical fourth state of matter that you make it out to be.
Hot air ballons work because heat causes the air inside to expand. Something that you keep claiming is impossible.
“I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong. Whining doesn’t count.”
I’ll ask the same question of a lukewarmer like yourself as I would a full blown warmist.
Where is your evidence that atmospheric CO2 can cause surface warming?
I don’t need to prove you wrong. You have to show evidence that you are right.
Btw, is Willis a relative of yours?
The proof is that CO2 can abosrb IR radiation.
That is sufficient.
“Learn science.”
MarkW doesn’t need to learn science. A unicorn told him so.
In many ways, the cult of the sky dragon is as bad as the cult of global warming.
I’m still waiting for you to prove me wrong. Whining doesn’t count.
Mark, you fool, you are in the sky dragon cult!
You meant the sky dragon SLAYER club.
Sky Dragon = GHE CO2 Warming
How can you be this clueless?
“My bad, I misspelt “card”, needs a “t”
“Cart”? I don’t get it…
Try a T on the front.
It was on another thread – Tarot cards, or cards made from taro root ….. or something like that.
Heat only creates pressure in a closed container.
An atmosphere is not a closed container.
Pretty basic stuff, but apparently more than you can handle.
“Heat only creates pressure in a closed container.”
So in an open container there is no pressure?
There is no mass of gas above a heated surface?
What a strange reality you propose.
Why is there even a thing called “atmospheric pressure”? What causes it? If not heat, gravity, and availability of gases. Or do you think the atmosphere is not an effect, but a cause? lol
Don’t you realize that a cubic meter of gas on the surface has 1000s of meters of gas above it that it must lift. If that mass of gas is not a lid on a container, then I don’t know what is.
That mass is already being lifted, prior to the gas being heated. Once heated, the gas expands.
This can be shown by placing air in any flexible container and heating it. You will see that it expands, despite the non-scientific claims of Zoe.
“That mass is already being lifted, prior to the gas being heated.”
LMAO!
How?
“You will see that it expands, despite the non-scientific claims of Zoe.”
Strawman.
You don’t know anything about static analysis I see.
Is there anything that you aren’t ignorant in?
Anyone else notice how Zoe totally ignores any argument that she can’t refute.
Come on Zoe, tell me how a balloon that’s heated won’t expand.
Pointing out that your claims are non-scientific is not a strawman argument. It isn’t even close to being one.
We can now add formal logic to the ever growing list of things Zoe knows absolutely nothing about.
Mark, I appreciate all the effort you put in making yourself look so disingenuous, but you don’t need to degrade yourself in this matter.
Thanks and good luck.
You can always tell when Zoe knows she has lost an argument. She pretends that she is just too smart to be bothered and then wanders off with her head held high.
Mark,
Love your stamina. You don’t seem to ever tire of chatting with the Zoebot.
As far as I can tell, the zoebot is programmed to search the web for alt-reality crackpot theories about literally any topic and pretend to believe them. If it can’t find a crackpot theory about something, it has to ignore that point.
I’m not exactly sure why the zoebot is deployed against WUWT, but my pet theory is that it’s an artificial stupidity (AS) experiment. It’s quite an impressive computer science project, mimicking real Dunning-Kruger effect with uncanny accuracy.
The designers, being pious greentards, figure that it’s a fun idea to derail and disrupt discussion on skeptic blog sites while running their experiments. A big plus for them is that the zoebot may con some sincere skeptics into believing its nonsense, thus potentially discrediting those sites.
Well that’s just my hypothesis. Too bad the zoebot’s not going to reveal the truth. But it’s an interesting thought, could the zoebot even be aware that it’s an AS experiment if the designers didn’t choose to include that in its algorithm? Aren’t its responses predetermined? It can’t have free will can it?
(Peace Zoe! 😇)
Rich Davies.
Why did you type so much but did not actually say anything pertinent to the subject?
Is that your contribution? One big ad hom?
leitmotif complaining about ad homs, now that’s funny.
When have you ever done anything other than insult those who don’t worship as you do?
Mark,
You’re just repeating the same arguments. Look at my rebutals to them all, that you missed.
You already agree thermal energy is needed to expand an atmosphere. What is there more to comment on?
@David Raftery
My comment for those who want it distilled down is this:
What a shame that a posting about Dr. Happer is derailed by so much crap coming from a disingenuous “entity” whose apparent goal is to spam the thread and prevent thoughtful discussion.
Whether a real person or not, every “contribution” by Zoe Phin is farcically contrarian and generally off-topic.
A small point Zoe:
You say: “The hotter, the more pressure. Simple Gay-Lussac Law.“
As an observation usually true but it is not true that an increase in temperature CAUSES an increase in pressure. The pressure is determined by gravity which controls the volume which results in an increase in temperature should energy be added.
That’s a fair point. I assumed a given gravity was present.
It’s true that greenhouse gas warms the world. It’s just that the ghg is NOT CO2.
The only greenhouse gas that has a significant effect on climate (climate includes temperature) is water vapor. It helped make the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. Humanity has been causing the water vapor to slowly increase for millennia as a result of increasing irrigation. Irrigation and other water vapor sources have increased along with human population and began to increase much more rapidly around 1960.
Water vapor has been accurately measured worldwide only since Jan 1988 when it began being measured as total precipitable water (TPW) by NASA/RSS satellite. One of the reasons the Global Circulation Models are wrong is that they calculate the WV from the temperature instead of using the actual WV measurements which are greater.
Blaming CO2 for warming is shallow penetration of science/physics. Analysis using data from Quantum Mechanics calculations by Hitran reveals that water vapor increase has caused about 10 times more ground level warming than CO2 increase. The cooling effect of more CO2 in the stratosphere apparently cancels the small contribution to warming of more CO2 at ground level with the result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Average global WV has been increasing about 1.5% per decade which is MORE THAN POSSIBLE from feedback from average global temperature increase. Most (about 96%) of the WV increase is a result of irrigation increase. All of the human contribution to climate change is a result of increased water vapor. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
The only runaway anything this planet has ever had….was runaway ice age
….anything that keeps it warmer we should do more of
RGB said if it can happen why hasn’t it happened before?
What a great attitude that Professor Happer has! In this regard, he reminds me of James Lovelock, who turned 101 in July.
His 5th binary birthday.
1 10 11 100 101
Maybe 110?
Funny way to look at it. I’m looking forward to my fourth (100) birthday is 4+ decades.
There are no greenhouse gases or greenhouse effect, if the doctor Happer
believes in greenhouse gases, then it would be logical to think that CO2 is responsible for global warming.
There is no thermometer to measure the temperature caused by infrared retention by gases. thermometers measure the kinetic energy of all molecules in the atmosphere due to their movements.
THE TEMPERATURE PRODUCES IT
THE OWN MOLECULES OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
–There are no greenhouse gases or greenhouse effect, if the doctor Happer
believes in greenhouse gases, then it would be logical to think that CO2 is responsible for global warming.–
That is logical. But Dr Happer does think CO2 has some warming effect and everyone is aware that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.
Also what every one knows is that Earth is currently in an Ice Age.
“There is no thermometer to measure the temperature caused by infrared retention by gases. thermometers measure the kinetic energy of all molecules in the atmosphere due to their movements.”
Dr Happer says no one has measured that CO2 gases warming the air, rather CO2 and other greenhouse blocks some of IR light leaving the surface, thereby allowing the surface to remain warmer. But CO2 unlike other greenhouse gas, doesn’t block much of the infrared and is therefore is regarded as weaker greenhouse gas.
And yes the air temperature the kinetic energy of air molecules- their velocity and their mass. CO2 does not increase air velocity or mass- it does not warm air, but it does block some IR radiant energy transfer. {though I would add there are many “things” other than greenhouse gases which prevent IR radiant energy transfer].
“THE TEMPERATURE PRODUCES IT
THE OWN MOLECULES OF THE ATMOSPHERE.”
No idea what this means.
Except that CO2 does not block energy transfer.
Its part of the atmosphere which is regulated by the molecular density.
CO2 will warm the air (O2/N2) thru collisions. However, H2O does the same thing and there is a lot more of it than CO2.
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land is 10 C. The ocean’s created H2O gas warms (O2/N2) thru collision a lot more than land’s ground surface warms (O2/N2), perhaps if there were oceans of CO2, it would significantly warm the (O2/N2).
Also there clouds of H20 warming (O2/N2) thru collision, and perhaps it there was clouds of CO2 that could another way to warm the atmosphere of mostly N2.
+1
Collisions are completely ignored in the radiative theory of greenhouse gases mediated warming. Specifically that collisions shift the absorption spectra of atoms and letting them absorb wavelength they usually not do. Particularly a mix of O2 and N2 can absorb significant amounts of longwave radiation.
This way a way greater deal of incoming radiation warms the earth than looking at each molecule on its own.
Too bad Dr. Happer decided to leave his post as a director on the National Security Council less than a year ago regarding the global warming and climate change hysteria. Although in reality, he was also there in his capacity to advice on National Security, including things like an electromagnetic pulse amongst other things relating to physics. But he is also concerned with the level of Climate Alarmism that is going on, which also represents a threat to National Security. The Green New Deal represents a permanent existential threat to civilization whereas the China virus is going to cause a few years of probable recession and a lot of debt. And a lot of disinformation as we already see.
President Trump should have trusted his gut instincts that this climate meme is a complete hoax and scam, but manny of his inner circle think that fighting the election on climate change issues wouldn’t fly. So DJT was talked out of publicly discussing climate change much. That should change, because the majority of people know deep down that this climate change hoax is a lie, and is something that should be front and centre in the election campaign. Change the channel from the China virus to the climate scam, and I would bet the Republican polls would shoot through the roof. And bring back Dr. Happer for the scientific advice. There is nothing no one can do do him now, except throw nasty words at him, which will also prove that these supposed scientists like Mann and Cook don’t even practise real science. They are the scientific frauds that are burning down civilization. I hope someone in the White House is listening to this channel.
“..President Trump should have trusted his gut instincts that this climate meme is a complete hoax and scam, but manny [sic] of his inner circle think that fighting the election on climate change issues wouldn’t fly. So DJT was talked out of publicly discussing climate change much. That should change, because the majority of people know deep down that this climate change hoax is a lie,..”
Earthling2: If the above is true, I totally agree. The Donald was given bad advice from his staff if they have him believing that pushing back against the climate alarmist narrative is not a good idea. If the American people have any suspicions at all that the climate meme may be false or faulty, I would think that they’d be very receptive to the science that shoots it down. If you do not want something to be true, you will be willing to listen to evidence that it is not. Why DJT’s staff doesn’t understand that is beyond me.
The only hope right now is that the Republicans will retain control of at least one chamber of Congress (probably the Senate) which can stand in the way of a Biden presidency and his push to legislatively address a largely non-problem. However, as long as as the Republicans are painted as the problem standing in the way of action against the climate alarmist narrative, they will remain somewhat at a political disadvantage. They only way to change that is to go on offense.
Dr Happer should have been a member of a panel of scientists (and perhaps put in charge of it) that would be responsible for a campaign to discredit and push back against the faulty “science” of this scare-mongering meme and those that are pushing it. It would have been a joy to see. Unfortunately, as things are now, the alarmists are still pretty much in the driver’s seat, and they are going to protect it with everything they’ve got.
NFL football season is coming: You don’t win football games when you are never on offense.
Considering his wife and daughter are likely all in on the climate nonsense, it’s difficult for him to talk about it too much.
Seems to me that it there are different ways for heat to escape. Take for example a house. You can insulates the attic with heavy insulation but heat can still escape through the glass or the walls. Unless co2 and the water vapor can plug all the holes uniformly the models overestimate heating. The atmosphere is a complex system and is always changing, for every change that provides a way for heat to leave, heat will leave. I don’t think the models have taken the full story into account. I think the models do have a some value in improving our understanding but we have to understand that they cannot be considered a reflection of reality unless observations prove them correct. So far observations show the models are running hot and we have not seen solid reasons why this is so. One theory was that the missing heat was in the oceans but I don’t believe this theory has been proven.
It is really time for climate scientists to take a step back and re evaluate their assumptions. To me it is about understanding, and finding truth. I don’t care who is right in the debate, what I and everyone should care about is finding the scientific truth.
Happer is a dinosaur who never ‘got’ that CO2 can’t cause global warming because its 15 micron -80C radiation isn’t heat. Water vapor at ground level AKA ground fog does indeed slow surface cooling at night, but way up at cloud level where it’s frigid it’s has no effect on surface temperatures, but rather contains heat already removed from the surface, which after being cooled by the atmospheric lapse rate will eventually send precipitation back down, cooling the surface even more than the Sun did. So if CO2 can’t do it, there is no way for the atmosphere to heat the surface with its own heat. The atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse it’s a giant chimney that only cools the surface. Even the lapse rate is caused by the atmosphere’s pressure profile and heat capacity, and all surface heat rolls through it toward space leaving it unchanged. As long as the Sun keeps rising every morning, the heating/cooling system works great, and CO2 has nothing to do with.
An understanding of the implications of Planck’s Radiation Law leads to the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 can’t melt an ice cube and can’t cause any global warming, NADA, ZILCHO. It’s not about atmospheric CO2 concentrations because cold isn’t heat, period. The Sun heats the Earth’s surface to a temperature range of -50C to +50C, and the cooling processes can’t be touched by CO2.
Happer went his whole career never figuring out that 15 micron radiation can’t heat Earth’s surface higher than, duh, -80C. Instead he got hung up on 15 micron radiation depending on the logarithm of atmospheric concentration. Sorry, the logarithm of 1 is ZERO. He and every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there need to shrug off their CO2 fixation.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
That is so common sense indeed, T L.
“Water vapor …. [in the atmo] contains heat already removed from the surface”
This can’t be emphasized enough. There is no net SURFACE warming by gases. Gases thermally take what they’re given and give nothing EXTRA back, and that’s the end of the story. Fin.
Now that’s a strawman argument.
Nobody has ever claimed that gasses create heat. What they have said is that by slowing down the rate at which heat can move through a gas, they increase the heat density and hence the temperature.
Heat is a resonance phenomena.
You can’t force more resonance by one’s resonance being somehow reduced from propagating elsewhere.
Matter doesn’t move more vigorously because you’ve confined it somehow.
Velocity of molecules don’t increase because velocity elsewhere is lower [or same].
This conservation of heat flow causing temperature increase nonsense exists only in fantasy land, not experimental physics.
According to Zoe, since atoms can only vibrate at one frequency, therefore everything can only have one temperature.
You seem to believe that a molecule can only absorb energy exactly at it’s peak frequency.
You also seem to believe that matter radiates energy only at the frequency determined by it’s temperature.
Both beliefs are completely untrue.
“The atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse it’s a giant chimney that only cools the surface. ”
Weird. But one think of it as a tall {and very big} greenhouse. And tall and big greenhouse has more thermal mass, and so take more time to warm up and more time to cool down {at night].
But what important that one has this large greenhouse which mostly has the surface being water. So build a really big greenhouse and 70% of the surface area was a big lake- that getting closer to the Earth’s greenhouse.
A very tall greenhouse — without a roof? How does that work exactly?
Oh, not that I mentioned it, but to answer riddle, have tall enough so air density is too low so that heat isn’t transferred by convection. So, that would be at top of troposphere.
Broke: CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas
Woke: CO2 will cause mild warming and will green the planet
Bespoke: There is actually no such thing as a greenhouse gas
The answer to bad science has never been more bad science.
The ability of greenhouse gasses to absorb energy has been measured in the laboratory.
What hasn’t been measured is an increase in temperature of the source of CO2’s radiation.
While the definition of a “greenhouse gas” can’t be disputed, since it’s just a definition ( = “absorbs IR”) , the surface warming effect can be disputed. In fact it’s already been repeatedly debunked by experiments from the very beginnings of thermodynamics.
“What hasn’t been measured is an increase in temperature of the source of CO2’s radiation.”
So the earth never changes temperature?
And if recall, ONLY in the laboratory. Arrhenius’ experiments were carried out in an airtight environment.
Correct, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
“Woke: CO2 will cause mild warming and will green the planet”
That’s what most of us believe here, that there is is very mild warming from CO2/Methane, (perhaps a doubling of CO2 causes maybe 1 degree C and that is generous) and of course the elephant in the room that is a GHG, is water vapor. Maybe we argue whether there are positive or negative feedbacks, perhaps acting simultaneously in both directions at different locations, maybe at once and it may even be a net negative feedback in the final analysis. In any case, not many of us here believe that it is a serious problem, and in fact is actually beneficial, both the mild warming and the plant food.
If you think you know more than Dr. Will Happer, then you have arrived at the wrong site and are giving this a site a black eye by being what Wikipedia refers to as labeling WUWT a ‘Denier’ site. We actually try and have an intelligent discussion here, and a lot of people have a lot of different ideas for how all it all works, which is all very interesting. But I will defer to Dr. Will Happer and the hundreds of other really smart people here who do know 100X more than I will ever know. To say there is actually “no such thing as a greenhouse gas” is incorrect and I take offence at being called ‘woke’ because that connotation is for Marxists burning down our institutions through misinformation, if not actual fire bombs. Stick to your photography of cats.
The cult of the sky dragon will not tolerate people who don’t worship as they do.
Now THIS was a good post.
“The effect of CO2 saturates as the amount of CO2 increases even to the 2X amount”. This sentence is mysterious. There is of course a linear saturation because the effect is logarithmic but is he saying that it also implies a logarithmic saturation that would cause lower and lower warming for subsequent doublings?
For me, the take home message was this:
“The political efforts to make the warming from CO2 increases dangerous are intended for obvious reasons to drive energy policies”.
This is the heart of the matter. AGW is not a climate science debate. The real issue here is a continuation of the 1960s ant fossil fuel activism where the real issue is climate action with climate change serving only as the reason why now that we have run out of things like smog and acid rain.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/23/anti-fossil-fuel-activism-disguised-as-climate-science/
I would say the heart of matter, is that we living in Ice Age.
And in last several hundred thousands of year of it, has been the coldest.
Rather what is causing warming, what seems more important is what causing the cooling.
Dr. Happer was a guest at this conference where not only CO2 but the scientific method was discussed.
Panel 2 CONCLUSION: For a Better Understanding of How Our Universe Functions
Question & Answer Session
https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/03/29/conference-mankinds-existence-now-depends-on-the-establishment-of-a-new-paradigm/
It is very interesting to hear Dr. Happer’s views on accidents in science. He refers to many, CO2, the CO2 laser, Guidestar, Galileo, fission, Fermi, and the low hanging fruit of Dark Matter. He says fusion will likely be solved by accident.
Dr. Happer refers to the use of high CO2 in actual greenhouse agriculture. People buy it and pump it in, and nature with our fuel use provide it free! The greenhouse people consider it a good investment for crop production.
Now ex-BankOfEngland Governor Mark Carney and EU Commissioner van der Leyen are really the woke financiers who want a CO2 tax, with all industrial companies profiled by CO2. Now they do not consider themselves Marxists, even when they propose a world digital currency, i.e. world government. It should be clear that Marx was a product of the British Empire, and this global digital finance lurch should be properly called imperial.
And by the way Dr. Happer is an admirer of Svensmark and Shaviv, and was very thorough here
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
on GHG’s .
“financiers who want a CO2 tax,” That is because “financiers” will find a way to profit from it, not because they are worried about “global warming”, “global cooling”, “climate change”, “climate disruptions” or what ever Alarmist will call it tomorrow.
So Carney goes to the UN as “climate” advisor, ready for the Great Reset planned for the next Davos World Economic Forum. Not only profit, but totally subvert democratic governments.
Come to think of it the secession attempt going on in the US right now is subversion.
The last attempt in 1861 was fully supported by London. London/WallStreet are determined to push this agenda. Reason – they are utterly and irredeemably bankrupt.
“It should be noted that Mars atmosphere is also largely composed of CO2 (95%) but Mars is cold because of its relative distance from the Sun.”
Mars has 59 times the CO2 per unit area, and gets 43% of the incident solar flux as does Earth. One would think that the huge concentration of CO2 would more than make up for the relatively small reduction in incoming solar energy.
One would be wrong.
The difference is Mars lacks an ocean.
If Mars was at Earth distance from the Sun, it’s land surface would be quite hot- when ever the sun was somewhere near zenith. But most land area AND most of the time, the Sun would not high in the sky.
Mars would be both hot and cold. But the good news is the air is too thin to be hot or cold.
Or currently Mars air is much warmer around knee level, but at knee level the air quite thin. Anyways with 1 AU sunlight, it could increase that height to perhaps over your head, but should also make thinner air at the surface.
And of course going increase global average temperature, but seem one would still polar caps made of frozen CO2.
Add ocean and it could get interesting.
What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before it was turned into fossil fuel via vegetation?
Will the level of CO2 return to that original level when all the fossil fuels are burnt?
It is hard to burn limestone. A huge reservoir of CO2.
On this site on September 3, 2018, Andy May posted the Summary of the Great Climate Debate between Dr. William Happer and Dr. David Karoly, hosted at bestschools.org
Andy May concluded the Summary by stating accurately that Dr. William Happer had won both the debate with Dr. Karoly and the further debate with Dr. Karoly’s replacement, Glen Tamblyn, stretching from 2016 to 2018.
With due allowance for Mr. May’s conservatism on climate change, it is difficult to conclude that he was wrong in his assessment.
I recommend that readers refresh their memories with this debate which pose and answer five questions covering the central issues of the climate debate.
Dr. Happer is indeed a great physicist.
Venus has lost its water so does not have a Hydro Cycle to act in opposition to incoming radiation as happens on earth.
This is explained in John T Houghton’s book “ The Physics of Atmospheres “ where on earth water vapour HALTS the GHE when it becomes saturated with respect to liquid or ice.**
Houghton was one of the original lead authors for the IPCC ; but seems that his findings have somehow been forgotten.
( There is an interesting graph on page 16 of my copy showing just this and illustrating the effect for the three planets Venus, Earth and Mars. Sorry can’t reproduce here)
Venus lost its water due to it mass providing insufficient gravitational force to prevent the water escaping to space.
** A great deal may be explained by looking at the water vapour pressure V temperature graph where the pressure markedly increases at around 25C.
For instance it explains why the oceans never go much above 35C in spite of tens of thousands of years of solar radiation. I just wish the IPCC et al would take note of this)
It’s not so much that Venus “lost” it’s water, it’s more that Venus never cooled down enough for water to start precipitating out of it’s atmosphere.
Yes. There no evidence Venus was ever cool.
One might make the argument that in terms last few billion years, Venus could around the hottest it’s been.
But an argument than Venus was say 200 K cooler than the present, requires evidence.
Since Earth get hit with dinosaur killing every 100 million years on average and bigger space rock every 1/2 billion years, fair to suppose Venus get hit with space rocks less than Earth, but probably gets hit with dinosaur killer size rock every 1/2 to a billion years. And such impact could add somewhere around 50 K to Venus temperature.
So one could make argument that Venus in last couple billions was probably warmer than it is right now {though not warmer for many thousands of years]. Though could been hotter, like 100 K warmer.
Imagine what carbon dioxide was like in WWII subs, sitting out attacks.
Imagine the body odor.
Wrong thread Tom. That should be on the John Cook cosplay thread.