William Happer
Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University
This speech was given at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 19, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Support Hillsdale College: https://secured.hillsdale.edu/hillsda…
Visit our website: http://hillsdale.edu
Listen to Hillsdale Dialogues Podcast: http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses
Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.
By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.
Excellent, if only all the climate lovies would watch it 🙂
That’s the problem. I bet 98% of Americans, Europeans and Australians never heard of him. He’s hardly ever mentioned in the MSM.
“He’s hardly ever mentioned in the MSM.”
Neither is Richard Lindzen. Together, the two of them have forgotten more about the climate than the CAGW crowd will ever know.
And, another real climate scientist almost unknown to “the masses” is Pat Michaels who was interviewed by philosopher and defender of fossil fuels Alex Epstein last week at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y29aLG_Tc entitled, “Climate Scientocracy”.
If mentioned it always comes with the epithet of “climate denier”.
They also claim he does not have a degree in “Climate Science”.
Of course much of Dr Lindzen’s focus has been on the effect of clouds on climate.
There is no worthwhile advanced degree in “climate science” – that is no more useful than a degree in “general science”, because the performance of the earth’s climate is vastly too complex, multi-variate, and multi-disciplinary to ever belong to any single degree conferred by any university.
wait… WHAT?!?
I spent 8 years getting a PhD in Climate Science. I am a credentialed expert and I will inform the lesser mortals that Climate Calamity is upon us… real soon now!
I am one of the few with the knowledge that:
.
.
Ponder that you, you peasants! I have spoken.
.
.
(From WUWT)
Hump day hilarity: Big Kahuna Warmy – Watts Up With That?
😜 … 😲 … 🤣
When Dr Happer and I were in school, there was no degree in Climate Science. My degree is in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and that’s about as close as anyone could get back then.
Here’s a ‘mainstream’ response to one of his earlier lectures. seems to sum him up…
Climate Change (archive.org)
Happer, expert in radiative physics, summarily dismissed by a non-entity for deviation from the straight and narrow dogma on climate. What else is new.
griff,
I followed your link to Dr. JJW’s evidence-free review. Did he actually provide any evidence? Can you provide it?
PS – The site for the group that your climate authority supposedly “organized” no longer exists…
not convincing at all
And the associate professor (mainstream?) offers no evidence of the contrary in his rebuttal. He only regurgitates modeled output opinions and the anti-science “consensus” based meme. That was a waste of pixels.
Griff,
That presentation you think has value is nothing but evidence-free, Appeal to Authority fallacies trying to debunk Happer’s evidence based conclusions. CO2 is not a problem. There is nothing in our use of fossil fuels where we need to spend any time or resources on trying to restrain those emissions.
Only in the mind of a liberal, does screaming “You’re wrong”, count as a refutation.
Griff’s no liberal; he’s full on marxist like all greenies
I don’t think that Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky ever wrote about climate change, or considered themselves to be “Green”.The epithet “Marxist” hurled at “greenies” is simply that, a meaningless and ignorant response.
That garbage sums you up Griff. It amazes everyone here how ready you are you put your ignorance on display.
Griff, your link is a link to nonsense. JJW presents not an iota of data, references or argument to refute what Dr. Happer presents. JJW’s claim that increased CO2 and slightly warmer average temperatures will be harmful to agriculture is absolutely bogus; utter tripe. It is clear you must be stupid, because ignorance cannot excuse your lack of understanding of the data, the physics, and the failure of the climate models alarmists totally rely on, especially as you have been pointed to these established points many times here at WUWT. Go away and stay away, troll.
I am 100% sure you never read Dr. West counter presentation because he ends with this vapid irrational statement:
Yes, it is an excellent summary. I particularly liked his explanation of the atmospheric absorption spectrum and the miniscule effect a doubling or tripling of CO2 would have at around 26:00minutes.
The audience seemed to be generally very supportive but I just wish more young people could hear him.
Thanks to WUWT for letting us all sit in on one of his great lectures.
“The audience seemed to be generally very supportive “
Hillsdale College is the best known conservative and christian-value educational place in the USA; perhaps. Expect Hillsdale events to attract an audience of realists, rather than wokeists (? sp.).
I would have gone, except I live 1,200 miles away from Phoenix.
John, Hillsdale College is in southern Michigan. It was just this leadership seminar that was held in Phoenix.
I would certainly have gone too but unfortunately I live in New Zealand! Maybe one day he might come here…
Anyway, that’s why it’s great to have WUWT at our fingertips.
Yes, your spelling of ‘wokeists’ is wrong…the correct spelling is actually ‘idiots’.
Trump lost me when he got rid of Happer (an excellent choice for climate stuff), and Bannon and lost the election by allowing remote voting fraud probably thanks to his daughter Ivanka\s advice. He also seemed to put incredibly stupid people in charge of the CIA, FBI, UN ect that turned on him and kept The quack doctor Fauci in place This man should never be re elected De Santis is a prospect with Candice Owens VP.
Trump was too honest. People enjoy the 3 letter acronym departments lying to them…weapons of mass destruction, Benghazi started by an internet video..Trump Russia colluuuusion;)
“Trump was too honest.”
Now that’s a sentence you don’t read every day.
Like saying Hitler was too compassionate.
So you think Trump compares to Hitler?
I guess it is useless to try to reason with you.
For the same reason you don’t read “water is wet” every day.
Trump didn’t get rid of Happer. Trump’s advisors, including his daughter, convinced him that taking on AGW before the election was a mistake. Trump intended on resurrecting the issue in his second term. Happer left because he said he said he would only work at OSTP, away from home and commuting every week, for a specific amount of time.
Facts confuse Simon.
What facts specifically do you mean?
That’s true, Simon gets confused, not by facts, but by leftwing propaganda.
Roy was addressing Eliza, however.
I even use the same “red” CO2 meter Happer holds when I give climate talks. Works great.
Thank you for this post. What Dr Happer implies is that it is superstition.
It would be hard to disagree.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/03/confirmationbias/
Amazing! Greta the great granddaughter of Arrhenius?
As Dr. Happer served in Trump’s NSC he must have seen the efforts of the FED, WallStreet, and especially BlackRock to go for a huge green bubble boondoggle to ‘save finance’.
One problem is likely Trump still calling WallStreet full of geniuses, and the belief in the Stock Exchange. BlackRock was given the US economy to play with, and it backs the green boondoggle.
The financial system is utterly and irredeemably rotten, and that is driving insane confrontation on a global scale. No party ever mentions Glass-Steagall now, to put this catastrophe under reorganization. A lot of scientists avoid fighting that battle, arguing over CO2 ppms…. Of course the green boondoggle makes unlimited funds flow and the scene at the trough is unseemly.
There is rampant insanity from the hapless voter terrorized by climate, to the top elites who know full well their system is tottering, and would rather lead in hell than serve in heaven.
“No party ever mentions Glass-Steagall now, to put this catastrophe under reorganization.”
It’s not entirely clear from your comment, but hopefully you are not implying that the “green boondoggle” is the result of financial deregulation. In reality, progressives are the fountain head of financial regulation (e.g., the Fed in 1913), and it is their visible willingness to wield regulatory power that drives financial players like Black Rock to favor progressive causes.
The everything-bubble about to implode is because GS was repealed by Clinton. Better separate the speculative departments from normal commercial banking functions, before a hyperinflationary-collapse hits. FDR’s 1934 Banking Act showed clearly why the 1929 crash , but more important why the banks and President than refused to jump-start the economy. This time around, 2008 was only an entree to a real disaster. The insane attempt to inflate away with a green boondoggle masquerading as a New Deal, is pure parody.
I do not understand the fascination with Glass-Steagall. It is absurd to think that a law written in 1930 or so, and which helped exacerbate the financial turmoil of the Great depression, utterly outdated considering the changes to banking and finance since the 1930s, will somehow stabilize world finance and banking. Glass-Steagall put commercial banking in such a tight spot that by the 1990s it was bankrupting them — that is why it had to be repealed, and bank regulation rethought.
If your point is that banking is presently under-regulated, then all I can say is “you must be joking.”
It is no joke about is about to hit. Still I would not wish it on anyone saying I told you so.
Greenspan was the Great Repealer, the believer in animal spirits (quote) of the markets. Clinton under impeachment caved in.
The idea is simple – separate high risk stuff from normal banking – in other words carry on wild trading WITH NO BAILOUT POSSIBILITY.
The crazies think right now FDIC will cover their cocaine-inspired schemes, but Mark Carney et al know that is impossible, so they are going hog wild for the green boondoggle. The very effort to attempt a $15 Quadrillion bailout cannot work, neither the green boondoggle. End-game, or a new way forward.
And by the way the reason the US economy was bankrupt was Nixon dumping the Bretton Woods gold reserve in 1971 – another of FDR’s wise innovations. So along with Glass-Steagal a New Bretton Woods this time with Russia and China onboard is critical. Exactly what Keynesians an Hayekians have nightmares about.
Will Biden bring this up at the G7 or with Putin? His handlers, which now include Blinken and Sullivan will surely erase that script. Anyway that is the role of CO2 – make sure no one speaks of physical economics – that is not working.
“The idea is simple – separate high risk stuff from normal banking – in other words carry on wild trading WITH NO BAILOUT POSSIBILITY.”
Yes, I think it was a big mistake to introduce rampant speculation into the banking business. Banks should loan money and that’s all they should do.
There will always be those who are convinced that bankers secretly run the world.
Transcript is available here:
https://rclutz.com/2021/05/10/climate-change-thinking-for-open-or-locked-down-minds/
Thank you!
Thank you, thank you, Ron!
Bookmarking right now.
I bookmarked it, too. Everyone should read it including those who are deciding climate change policy.
Thanks, Ron. It’s people like you, who go out of their way to educate the rest of us, that makes WUWT what it is.
And thanks to Dr. Happer, too. Every elected official should be required to hear Dr. Happer’s positive take on the CO2 situation.
Thanks Tom and others. Such appreciation makes it worthwhile to get info out that would otherwise be ignored or dissed.
Solid, as usual.
Thank you.
Yes, this was a good talk by Professor Happer but for me it also brought back a lot of childhood memories.
My parents used to drag me to Hillsdale, MI, where Hillsdale College is located, for a weekly auction that is held at the local fairgrounds on Saturdays. It was a gathering of common folks, mostly farmers, a lot of Amish and workers from the area (where the states of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana meet). People meet to sell and buy food, goods, equipment, animals, etc. The people that live in the rural area are working folks and I suppose that is one reasons for a conservative influence on the faith based liberal-arts Hillsdale College.
I would like to point out that the geography in the Hillsdale area is a direct result of climate change, specifically the hills resulted from glacial debris. The elevation of the area is such that it forms the headwaters of rivers that head to Lake Michigan toward the west (St Joseph River) and Lake Erie toward the east (Maumee River).
“ the geography in the Hillsdale area is a direct result of climate change, “
. . . and unspectacular (re: Yellowstone, Rainier, Grand Canyon) until one views the region with the knowledge of the ice cover from that environment. Impressive it then is!
Aside from the scientific facts, including data and analysis that destroys the warmists, I also like the references by Dr. Happer to previous consensus beliefs that got destroyed by science, and his radical notion that scientists are people, with all the human flaws that all people suffer from, and are not gods.
I totally agree. However I think there is a way to much better understanding, simply by sorting out the epic blunders in the GHE theory. Observation shows clouds are net warming Earth.
https://www.greenhousedefect.com/the-cloud-mess-part-2-something-spooky
And a little re-analysis reveals satellite data give us a wrong idea on the cloud radiative effect..
https://www.greenhousedefect.com/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-1
And eventually, on the emission side, the GHE rather looks like this..
Clouds are not created equal in their effect on average temperature of earth’s atmosphere, or even on a local temperature/microclimate basis.
High clouds tend to cool, and low clouds tend to warm. \\
High clouds are composed of ice crystals that do not function as a greenhouse gas because crystals are not a gas, they tend to act more like dust or aerosols. Also, high clouds tend to reflect solar energy.
Low clouds consist of water vapor, which IS a gas, and which is also a very powerful greenhouse gas, and being low most of the warming by solar irradiance has already occurred by the time the solar radiation reaches down to the altitude of low clouds.
Of course in nature, you can have a highly variable mix of low and high clouds and intermediate clouds too.
Clouds, as Dr. Happer stated, tend to act as a moderating influence on climate temperature, both cold and hot, as they tend to resist positive feedback from greenhouse gases. This is what has kept earth’s climate stable for most of the last 600 million years.
This is why the modelers have never successfully modeled the effect of clouds on climate – they are simply far too vastly complex for even the most powerful super computers and models to replicate on a global scale.
Also cloud functions in climate control greatly depend on latitude. Energy enters mostly in the tropics, and exits the system, on balance, in the high latitudes. The same type of low cloud decks, a stratus layer, in the tropicslimits SW entry to oceans and land surfaces. But a stratus deck in the polar regions slows radiation back to space. This is an Iris Effect envisioned and hypothesized by Richard Lindzen. The polar regions are the climate’s radiators to space, and clouds and high albedo ice cover act as shutters to limit radiative losses to space thus acting in a negative feedback regulator fashion.
This is a separate effect from the Convective cooling emergent process of SST above 26 ºC that Willis Eschenbach has written extensively about, and backed up with data from various satellites and sensor network databases.
Yes and Dr. Happer admits even his model does not work. Clouds are a real subject for far more research.
And most here know, clouds are cosmic ray driven. Svensmark and Kirkby proved that. In other words god ol’ earthly weather is galactic. Now that is thinking outside the box, sorry off the ball.
You do not understand..
Sorry, but you are wrong. The comments below demonstrate that, and the change in albedo due to more clouds certainly cools.
They only things they demonstrate are a) their believes and b) their unwillingness to read.
State more clearly what you are trying to say, why they are wrong. Summarize your links.
Sorry, but people are going to study this stuff for years to come. If you want know anything about climate science, you’ll have to swallow the red pill and read..
Prof Happer is generally knowledgeable on the subject of climate change and served as science advisor to Donald Trump. The presentation in question should be titled “Climate Science for Dummies.” We – WUWT followers already know all of this and this does not help address the real issues that Steven Koonin covers in detail in his new book “Unsettled” viz. misreprentation of the real data, politicization and cherry picking of the messaging (esp. by a) biased policymakers in government to push political agenda, b) biased mainstream media, c) what I can only call unfortunate climate props like Greta who are manipulated, and d) the vast – enormous group of scientists, consultants, and others who are on what I refer to as “climate change payrolls.” On what we know on the science, what we do not know, what we can draw “scientific conclusions” suitable for policymaking. I have read Koonin’s new book and he has – I believe for the first time – presented for all of us (laymen and those with scientific background and training) in a careful coherently laid out analysis and presentation, hopefully a blue print (or at least a start) for non scientists to understand how we came to and why are at the point we are at and ask the right questions in policy making. It is a political and policy debate and not a science debate … we already know the issues – what we know and do not know, and limitations of the science and data – and we will continue to make progress but never be fully able to solve them completely because of the nature and complexity of the data and the science itself.
The climate debate will never be settled by knowledgeable scientists, who are not in control of the debate and certainly not in control of public policy.
Public policy is set by the government. In a democratic society, the lay people direct the government, and not the other way around. So in our American society, it is the laypeople who will either be educated by people like Dr. Happer, and those of us who are capable of explaining the relatively simple principle involved to lay people, or the lay people will just throw up their hands, say “I give up”, and will simply react to the policies not the science.
One Dr. Happer who is able to educate a couple hundred people at a time, perhaps amplified by the internet media world, is worth ten thousand scientists who know the truth but cannot communicate effectively with lay people.
Very few scientists – whether “ours” or “theirs”, is capable of effectively communicating with lay people.
“When Dr. Will Happer speaks, people listen”
Except for griff.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Dr. Happer has an uncanny ability to help me understand thing that I know.
I kind of felt that way, too. 🙂
If you want the “take home” message, watch the video from 24:00 to 37:00—in particular from 28:49 to 29:17.
William Happer talks with authority, as well he should. In comparison, the AGW/CAGW alarmists have nothing of such scientific rigor for their crusade.
Trump lost me when he got rid of Happer and Bannon anf lost the election by allowing remote voting fraud probably thanks to his daughter Ivanka advice he also seemed to put incredibly stupid people in charge of the CIA and kept Fauci in place This man should never be re elected De Santis is a prospect with Candice Owens VP
Sorry, eliza, but your response post to me is totally off-topic. Bye.
sorry agree posted in wrong place
I am still for TRUMP!, he has learned much from his first go around.
However, as long as whoever the next non-Democrat president is has a complete slate of appointees for EVERY appointive position in the Executive branch nominated AND approved by the Senate (assuming Republican majority) within 2 days of Inauguration. All approved on ONE vote of the Senate with NO committee reviews. Then fill ALL vacant judgeships the same way within a week.
Then pass a “reconciliation” bill (only 50 + 1 vote required in the Senate) ending ALL “entitlements”, non-constitutional departments and programs. Replace any entitlement funding with block grant funding to the states based on state population only (not the number of recipients which are inflated in “Blue” states) to be reduced by 25% each subsequent year starting with a total of funds equal to what is currently sent to all the states LESS all the overhead costs of the federal bureaucracy. Eliminate vast numbers of staff for the NSA, IRS, CIA, FBI, DEA, DOJ, etcetera, with the law specifying the newly appointed directors can chose WHO to “law off” without judicial right of review and with a requirement that NO federal government employees will have union representation.
Eliminate the income tax, both corporate and individual, and implement the “Fair Tax” so that there will be NO means for leftists to access and leak individual’s financial information, as we have seen repeatedly, which leaks always benefit the Democrat agenda.
And investigate political actions of the previous administrations. ex. Investigate how Muller’s team members somehow ALL wiped their cell phones clean MULTIPLE times without coordinating their actions, i.e. conspiracy to obstruct justice.
And finally, specify that all crimes committed by federal employees shall be tried in Madison County Idaho or Beaver County Ok. or Unitah Count UT, or Campbell County WY. All counties with a very high % of Republican residents, but not as extreme as the % of Democrats in DC, the current jury selection pool.
History tells us that Harry Reid changed the Senate voting requirements for confirming judges and presidential appointments from 60 to 50 + 1 to be able to stack the DC circuit bench with extreme activist Obama appointees. This bench has outsized power over federal abuse cases. He didn’t do that for no reason.
Repeated rant, I know. I can dream, can’t I?
“The CO2 effects are strongly, strongly saturated already.”
– William Happer, PhD. Princeton Emeritus Professor of Physics
All you need to know that climate change is a scam and a drive to destroy the Western Democracratic nation’s Middle Class.
https://rclutz.com/2021/05/10/climate-change-thinking-for-open-or-locked-down-minds/
The money quote from Dr. Happer is here:
“The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference.
Doubling would replace the black curve by the red curve. On the basis of this, we are supposed to give up our liberties. We are supposed to give up the gasoline engines of our automobiles. We are supposed to accept dictatorial power by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, because of the difference between the red and the black curve. Do not let anyone convince you that that is a good bargain. It is a terrible bargain. The doubling actually does make a little difference. It decreases the radiation to space by about three watts per square meters. In comparison, the total radiation to space is about 300 watts per square meter.
So, it is a one percent effect—it is actually a little less than that, because that is with no clouds. Clouds make everything even less threatening.”
As Dr. Happer says, there is no Climate Emergency.
Now all we have to do is pound this through the thick heads of our leaders and the dupes who support their attempts to control Earth’s climate by reducing CO2.
Yes, I know, that’s easier said than done. But not impossible.
And, very timely, in a WUWT article just yesterday (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/10/memory-holes-are-greatly-improved/ ), we have this:
“In 2008, in a breathtaking feat of rhetorical misappropriation, Al Gore declared: ‘Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said … injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And in that same sense we live in a new reality in which increased CO2 emissions anywhere represent a threat to civilization everywhere.’ “
Hey, Al Gore, if you’re still out there and able to respond: please meet Prof. William Happer . . . you have some things to learn for him.
They are rhetorical flourishes typical of politicians. When you analyse their words and juxtapose them on reality, you realise they mean nothing
Algore flunked out of Divinity school. What did he learn of justice?
Something that interests me is this claim by Will Happer that the warming effect of CO2 is ‘saturated’ – so adding more CO2 will not result in an appreciably warmer world.
I read other posts on this site that discuss ECS (from people who seem to know what they’re talking about, to this ignoramus at least), and it is commonly suggested that ECS _might_ be somewhere in the range 1.0->2.0 C/doubling.
Can both of these claims be correct? It sounds like Happer is suggesting that a doubling of CO2 will not increase temperature much at all.
Is he out on a limb?
The failure to observe the CMIP3/5/6-predicted mid-tropospheric hot spot (a 6-8 km height layer warming faster than the surface in the tropics), after 40 years of satellite and radiosonde measurements and looking for it, is clear evidence that the climate models are junk science. That the mainstream climateers continue to ignore this blatant failure of the models shows this is climate change alarmism is a scam.
The climate models cannot be relied on for anything, but garnering paychecks for those modellers as long as they deliver an alarmist message for political paymasters. The UN and the dishonest Liberals across all the Western democracies are simply using the climate scam as a Trojan Horse for a way to induce fear in the Western middle class to give-up our liberties and economic prosperity to our “betters.”
Joel O’Bryan, thank you for a most-excellent comment!
I wish that I could give you a +42.
BTW, in my opinion, the reason the climate models have failed miserably in their predictions for a mid-tropospheric “hot spot” (that simply does not exist) is that they all have a very basic error: they fail to model that greenhouse gases will overwhelmingly and rapidly “thermalize” any absorbed LWIR energy via molecule-molecule collisions with the rest of the atmosphere (predominately nitrogen and oxygen molecules that together comprise some 99% of the atmosphere’s mass). The gas collisions occur four to six orders-of-magnitudes faster, on average, than the GHGs can re-radiate absorbed LWIR energy to other greenhouse gases or directly to space. This transformation of LWIR photon energy coming off Earth’s surface into molecular kinetic energy (translational and vibrational degrees-of-freedom) across all atmospheric gases explains why the greenhouse gas molecules (H2O, CO2 and CH4) on average do not have temperatures (actually, Maxwell-Boltzmann energy distributions) significantly higher than the non-greenhouse gas molecules N2 and O2. This “thermalization” is relatively complete within the lowest 5 km of Earth’s atmosphere, well below the ~10 km altitude of the predicted-but-missing mid-tropospheric “hot spot”.
Chris,
IMHO, no . . . William Happer is spot on. His CO2-is-near-total-saturation-at-420-ppm assertion gives us an excellent explanation for why Earth did not experience “runaway” greenhouse warming, and thus the extinction of all life, when Earth previously experienced CO2 levels 8 to 15 times higher than today’s level. (see Happer’s chart being presented at around the 34:00 point into the above article’s linked video).
The folks (mostly computer modeling “scientists”) predicting current/future ECS do not consider:
a) that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect might already be saturated,
b) that there is no strong—let alone conclusive—scientific evidence that increasing global lower atmospheric temperatures are driven by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, whether anthropomorphic or natural, and
c) the full role/sensivity that changing atmospheric humidity, changing atmospheric circulation patterns, and variable cloud coverage have in driving “climate change” . . . as also mentioned by Prof. Happen in his referenced talk.
My opinion about current models calculations/predictions of current and future ECS is best summarized by the acronym GIGO.
“IMHO, no . . . William Happer is spot on. His CO2-is-near-total-saturation-at-420-ppm assertion gives us an excellent explanation for why Earth did not experience “runaway” greenhouse warming, and thus the extinction of all life, when Earth previously experienced CO2 levels 8 to 15 times higher than today’s level.”
The Alarmists base a lot of their historic temperature claims on the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere at a given time.
If Dr. Happer is correct, and it appears to me that he is, then all those past temperature claims related to CO2 will have to be revised.
Temperatures were much higher than now, in ancient history, at certain times, with CO2 levels higher too at times, but if there is a limit to how much CO2 can add to the Earth’s temperatures, as Dr. Happer states, and we are close to that limit now, at 420ppm, then temperatures in the past, above what we are currently experiencing today could not have been caused by CO2.
All those beautiful Alarmist climate change CO2 theories blown to hell !
They can both be true. The problem is with the various feedbacks, few of which are well understood.
Your assumptions about the direction and size of the various feedbacks, known and unknown, will make a huge difference when trying to calculate ECS.
Chris asked:
No – there would need to be a “Greenhouse Effect” to have any sensitivity to CO2. There are radiative gasses but there is no “Greenhouse Effect”. Atmospheric water cools the surface through powerful negative feedback. Sea ice limits cooling the planet through powerful negative feedback.
Since ECS is logarithmic by definition, its effect is diminishing. Meaning most of it has already happened.
Positive feedbacks would have caused huge spikes in temperature due to historically high CO2 concentrations. These did not happen.
Branding CO2 as a pollutant is crazy when it is plant food and we would all be dead without plants.
John Christy’s graph of model output vs observations shows that climate models are wrong. (Not to mention papers by Pat Frank, Ross McKittrick, etc)
IR absorption is not linear. You get the biggest bang for your bucks as you go from zero to some CO2 and the same for water vapour. We are now at the other end of the scale where doubling concentration hardly matters. This is in agreement with warming the planet substantially in early history, kicking off the evolution of life while today, current warming could easily be attributed to natural variability such as cloud formation, ocean oscillations or even solar effects not to mention periods of temperature pause and even cooling.
Will Happer knows all these things and mentioned them in the video. Climate scientists are in denial about them. The trouble with a rigid belief system is that you need strictly controlled groupthink to stop people thinking outside the box. You can call it a consensus.
There must be a great many experienced scientists out there who are past the point where they would jeopardise their pensions or their careers if they stood up and told it like it is, just like Will Happer. What do they have to lose? I guess they would upset their universities and former colleagues, big time. But when you weigh up the other side of the scales, stopping charlatans from inflicting what is rapidly becoming a scam should give them peace of mind that they have acted with honour. I call on other scientists with knowledge and hopefully integrity to speak out like Dr Happer.
If these supposed positive feedbacks existed, there would have been runaway warming whenever the temperature increased, for any reason whatsoever. That has never happened, which is a complete and utter refutation of the idea of positive feedbacks of any kind.
“There must be a great many experienced scientists out there who are past the point where they would jeopardise their pensions or their careers if they stood up and told it like it is, just like Will Happer.”
Maybe that’s starting to happen a little bit.
The Truth will out.
Great physics, yet a niggling point – Dr. Penrose reminds us that it is the low-entropy solar source that is key, not just energy. The biosphere and atmosphere take in low-entropy visible spectrum quanta, and radiate back high entropy infrared low energy quanta, a lot more quanta, more entropy. The reason for this is gravity.
So, CO2, green, stable, and a higher quality of life.
Takes a true professional to admit they were dead wrong. High praise for that.
Two criticisms.:
I don’t know how much of what Dr Harpper says on this aspect of CO2 is correct but his presentation is 2 dimensional while the world is 3 dimensional. I have yet to find the third dimension addressed.
He says that atmospheric CO2 is nearly saturated. Perhaps so. The claim means that the atmosphere already absorbs nearly all the IR that exists at CO2 absorption/emission frequencies. Therefore, more CO2 can not absorb more radiation because there isn’t any more radiation of that frequency for CO2 to absorb. Any dispute with what I’ve written so far? Let us call that 100% absorption concentration M, meaning that at M parts per million absorption should be 100%.
At what depth of atmosphere at M concentration will absorption be 100%? If the concentration were 100,000 parts per million CO2 (compare to today’s 410 parts per million), there would still be about 900,000 gas molecules that do not absorb these IR frequencies. If one considers a slice of the atmosphere only 1 molecule in depth, how likely is that 1 in 10 interaction? There must be an adequate depth (1 meter? 100 meters? 1 kilometer?) of atmosphere to capture 100% of the IR molecules. It seems to me that as the concentration of CO2 increases, that necessary depth of atmosphere (or the travel distance of the free IR photon) would decrease.
CO2 not only absorbs but also emits what it has absorbed. If it did not, the IR would never make it to space. I’ve seen various times in print but most seem to say not many microseconds pass between absorption and re-emission. Once a CO2 molecule emits its absorbed photon, it is probably ready to absorb another (or is there some reason to believe otherwise?).
Thus, considering the 3 dimensional nature of the atmosphere, as CO2 concentration increases, the depth of atmospheric layer that absorbs 100% of CO2 frequency IR photons would be repeated, one on top of another, on the way to space. Thus 100% of IR photons absorbed by the first layer, then re-emitted, would again be 100% absorbed by the next layer, and again by the next layer, increasing the time, longer and longer with each additional layer, that the energy spends in the atmosphere. Wouldn’t that increase the temperature more and more as CO2 concentration increases?
Also, within that layer, whatever its depth, the probably of another absorption should also increase as the CO2 concentration increases, or perhaps that is just another way of saying the depth of the layer decreases?
First, if you insist that CO2 does not absorb IR, or that the absorption of IR has no effect upon temperature, you cannot answer this question, Also, I realize that emission is in all directions, not only up, but the problem is easier to think about in a simplified form. After having a clear idea, one can then consider how other aspects of reality effect your model.
Imagine a beam of light being transmitted through a tank of water. You start adding a light absorbing species such as black ink. As the light is absorbed the transmission is reduced and at some point all the light is absorbed. Adding more ink after that makes no difference.
As you suggested, path length is an important parameter. We are really talking about IR spectroscopy and the Beer-Lambert Law.
Zero relevance to my question. In the atmosphere the IR is absorbed, THEN RE-EMITTED. That is how it eventually makes it way to space, out of the earth system.Without that, it would indeed vaporize everything. So, does increased CO2 increase the time within the atmosphere through multiple absorption, emission incidents? If not, how not? That part is not covered in Happer’s talk. Without the full picture it is not possible to say what “saturation” means vis a vis the condition of the atmosphere.
Excellent talk. I was so honored that such a brilliant scientist invited me to join the CO2 Coalition! His knowledge should get more media attention!
Jim, Do you understand what I ask, up above a bit?
Further to my earlier comment, absorption of IR by GHG molecules is the easy bit, governed by the Beer-Lambert law, so it is proportional to the path length times the concentration of the absorbing species. What happens after that is more complicated because of the probability of molecular coiiisions, photon emissions in random directions, convection, positive or negative feedbacks and so on. Some of the retained energy finds its way to space and some warms the earth.
Once saturation has taken place, you don’t have to worry about all that stuff because the extra energy absorbed is very small. It should be noted that the IR transmitted is proportional to the negative logarithm of the absorbance.
To listen to climate scientists, gives the impression that GHG effects have no limits, no boundaries and simply go on for ever. Add in positive feedbacks and you start to get more than you put in.
When climate scientists hear about saturation, they immediately claim “wings, band broadening, doppler effects” all tiny increases in band width. Then they dismiss the whole subject. That speaks volumes.
You stack up some filters until no light gets through them. That is easy enough to understand. There are at least two considerations from there.
What happens if the intensity of the light source is increased? Does some light now come through so that another filter level is necessary for “saturation”?
More to the point, light is one expression of energy. Energy supposedly doesn’t die. In general, its expression after interaction with matter becomes random: heat! If it didn’t go somewhere, the filters would eventually melt, break down and allow transmission, explode, or do something else transformative. The filters can’t just keep absorbing more light energy for ever. The answer has to be that the heat energy is conducted away (if possible) and/or it radiates away at a different (lower) frequency: IR radiation.
I am not claiming that more CO2 will lead to catastrophic heating of the atmosphere. I am saying that the “saturation” idea is incomplete; it has to involve some amount (vertical depth) of the atmosphere (or something else I can’t guess at), not just the concentration of CO2 in a given volume of the atmosphere. If it explains something by itself, that something is not obvious. “Saturation” does not cover what happens when IR is emitted from CO2 that is not at the very outer edge of the atmosphere. The absorbed radiation has to be re-emitted in order to leave the planet. What if it is re-emitted at 10 feet of altitude?
IR is observed to radiate away from the earth. The general belief is that equilibrium will always be reached under any particular constant conditions. Adding more CO2 is not holding a constant condition. Unless somehow the re-emitted IR can not be re-captured by CO2 in its path, at least some of it will be absorbed again, increasing the time the energy remains in the atmosphere, which, it seems, should further increase the atmospheric temperature. This should be true under any concentration of CO2 but more prevalent under greater concentrations.
How does one get access to the chart on the slide with Max Planck and Karl S.
Is it possible to get a trace at 300ppm?
I think this is likely the most powerful chart to communicate future risk I have seen in a long time.
If you mean the graphic showing only a tiny change from a doubling of CO2, it has appeared in multiple articles over the past several months, most likely also in WUWT. I suggest searches for Will Happer with the particulars of information that interest you,
Thanks Andy,
Have been looking and will continue to do so.
A very valuable presentation. One question I have regards the hugely important information that doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from 400ppm to 800ppm has practically no impact on the amount of heat radiated from the earth (as shown in his chart). This sounds counter-intuitive and clearly I do not understand the physics here. Could anyone provide me with an explanation of why this is so please?
I have checked references for Karl Schwartzschilde and can find no confirmation of the key absorption graph , which if true , would blow the man made global warming theory out of the water !