February 15, 2016, was the beginning of a debate on man-made climate change between two well-known experts in the field, Princeton Professor of Physics Dr. William Happer and University of Melbourne Atmospheric Sciences Professor Dr. David Karoly, hosted by James Barham and his team at TheBestSchools.org. Both have been heavily involved in atmospheric research since the 1980s. Happer believes that burning fossil fuels will have a minimal effect on climate but a large benefit to plant life and humanity. Karoly believes the opposite.
How certain is the conclusion by some scientists that burning fossil fuels will lead to a climate disaster? Only debates can ferret out their certainty or lack of it. Burning fossil fuels may cause some harm, but if we stop burning them, we will face certain harm. Which is worse? Debates educate the public, they are necessary. This is an in-depth look at both sides of the debate.
Reviews:
Dr. Javier Vinós: “extraordinarily well written”, “This is an important book, because … society has been robbed of its right to a wide scientific debate on this important subject, [while] paying for only one side of the research.
James Barham, the moderator of the debate: “I have looked your book over carefully. First, I think it is a great idea! It is certainly more user-friendly than the original debate was, as posted on TBS [TheBestSchools.org]. Second, I found neither anything to quarrel with substantively, nor even any typographical mistakes … congratulations on a job extremely well done!”
David Siegel, best-selling author of Creating Killer Web Sites: “Andy May takes the reader on a journey into the minds of two men who stand on opposite sides of a scientific chasm. I challenge you to read it and decide for yourself which one has the moral authority and the facts on his side. As usual, Andy deconstructs many of the key concepts to make them accessible. … I highly recommend reading everything Andy May writes.”
Dr. Martin Capages Jr.: “In this well written book, you can read what the experts have to say with some clarity, consider their positions on this complex matter, and reach your own conclusions.”
Andy May is a writer living in The Woodlands, Texas, his personal blog is Andy May Petrophysicist – Climate Change and Photography. The book is available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
So it’s a book about a debate six years ago?
Well these sorts of intellectual and literary milestones can have important history lessons for us all. For example it would appear President Putin has taken onboard Mr Karoly’s arguments and is giving Europe a short sharp lesson in decarbonisation and saving the planet. From theoretical underpinnings do such practical final solutions emerge although it does seem some are promptly revisiting Mr Happer’s arguments as a result.
I think Putin has other arguments on his mind but it has caused more people to become aware of the green scam. I wish there was a better way to wake people up.
Mark, There are very few climate change debates available with participants of this stature. This one and the famous IQ2US debate in 2007 are the only ones I know of. Both are discussed in the book.
While the Karoly/Happer debate is where the questions came from and I discuss their answers, I also provide more up-to-date arguments, often from AR6, and references cited in AR6, as background sections in the book. Karoly and Happer’s arguments are still used today. One of the key things I learned while researching the book is that not much has changed in the last 30 years, the same arguments and uncertainty are still with us. After 30 years and billions of dollars we are still in essentially the same place.
After 30 years and billions of dollars we are still in essentially the same place.
_________________________________
How many billions of dollars is that?
The Government Accounting Office [GAO] ran this story a while back:
Climate Change:
Analysis of Reported Federal Funding
Wherein you will find this chart:
And further down:
Since 1993, OMB has reported over $154 billion in funding for federal climate change activities…
That article is four years old, so you can probably tack at least another
25 billion onto that number.
That report begins with a rather important qualifying statement, namely: “In the 6 agencies we reviewed, we found that 94% of their reported climate change funding went to programs that touch on, but aren’t dedicated to climate change, such as nuclear energy research.”
If we are going to rightly criticize climate alarmists for cherry picking phrases and data that superficially appear to support their side of the argument, then one would hope that we would be honest enough not to do exactly the same thing.
Add on the costs of renewable energy, damage to Western economies, and a hundred other issues arising out of the defacto one sided debate since.
Not true! Great advances have been made recently, people just do not realize. For instance…
a) In AR5 the IPCC has finally corrected its definition of the GHE. “Back radiation” was rightfully dropped..
AR4: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect
AR5: These substances emit infra-red radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission
b) Happer rightfully points out that allowing for the overlap CO2/VW 2xCO2 forcing is only 3W/m2, instead of 3.7. But this is just the start, as there are more overlaps (escpecially with clouds) to be considered, next to surface emissivity. If done correctly, 2xCO2 forcing drops to exactly 2W/m2.
c) The same overlap issue applies to VW feedback. A 1.8W/m2 WV feedback is correct excluding overlaps, but with them it is a totally different dimension of ~0.65W/m2. Actually VW feedback then is dominated by negative lapse rate feedback.
d) Covid brought plenty of new data on how contrails impact cirrus cloud cover (CC). Undeniably they account for a massive share in CC, which is a huge issue. This has been denied so far, and had to be denied, since otherwise contrails would perfectly explain the post 1970 warming trend..
Minnis et al 2004:
For a 1% change in absolute cirrus coverage with τ = 0.33, the GCM yielded surface temperature changes (DTs ) of 0.438 and 0.588C over the globe and Northern Hemisphere, respectively
From a) we know the “settled science” has only just learned how the GHE works (LOL), from b) and c) we know CO2 is basically irrelecant, and from d) we know warming is actually due to contrails. News I would call this..
There’s an even bigger reason. The downward radiation is met with an even larger increase in upward radiation. The 3.7 or 3.0 W/m2 of downwelling IR is overpowered by increased upward radiation and we end up with increased cooling.
The only warming from doubling CO2 is from pressure broadening and that is canceled by this cooling.
Most people don’t understand what saturation means. All of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the atmosphere. The energy radiated upward is coming from CO2 molecules at lower elevations, not the surface..
This means as CO2 is increased so is the upward radiation. Since upward radiation comes from lower elevations than downward radiation, it means more molecules are involved. Thus, more energy is radiated upward. That’s a cooling effect.
Please mind a) and forget about “downwelling radiation”, or “back radiation”, as it is irrelevant.
I would add the APS workshop, chaired by Koonin, and the resulting transcript.
True, it was not a formal debate, but it was clarifying and public.
Andy May,
While your comments are spot on, there is also a stark scientific implication when you state “After 30 years and billions of dollars we are still in essentially the same place.”
As recently posted by Dr. Roy Spencer at WUWT, the rate of global warming based on satellite-based temperature data (reduced by UAH and a LS linear fit of such) is the same now as it was 30 years ago: +0.13 C/decade (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/ ).
What that means to me is that, despite the progressively larger annual increases in human emissions of CO2 that occurred over those 30 years, there has been ZERO change in the rate of global warming due to these mankind-originated emissions. This resonates most profoundly with your conclusion regarding the waste of billions $USD and us being “essentially in the same place”.
And, of course, thank you for this latest book!
Watching Deniers desperately flock around Spencer’s UAH charts as some proof that AGW is so much bunk is a constant source of amusement.
Spencer’s subterranean credibility and conflicts of interests aside, his charts are of the lower troposphere, NOT surface temperatures. Again, Spencer’s. Charts. Are. Not. Surface. Temperatures.
Here’s what surface temperatures look like:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
LAT is often used interchangeably with “surface temperature”, but you probably don’t know that.
What . . . you really think that “surface temperature” measurements such at that obtained by the land-based USHCN or the global system of ARGO floats covering the oceans report temperature on only the, say, 10 millimeters above land surface or, likewise on only the, say, 10 millimeters below ocean surface?
And when it rains, does rainfall cool Earth’s surface or not? . . . and how is this accounted for/adjusted for in the temperature datasets?
BTW, you really do need to re-read (but more importantly understand) that nowhere in my post above did I use the phrase “surface temperature” . . . it is you that inserted the phrase in your miserable strawman argument.
That you choose to cite climate.nasa.gov as a source also speaks volumes . . .
That the best your comment can put forth is this unsubstantiated claim simply highlights the obvious attempt at misinformation through conflation with the Spencer reference
So why is it the UAH and ocean temperatures correlate so well?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Science denial is common among the climate cult.
Richard, Great graph, thanks.
It appears that, as per my comments earlier, the ocean surface temperature is considerably warmer than the lower troposphere data from UAH.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979
Does this represent “correlating so well” by your definition?
markl ==> The physical world — the basic physics — have not ever changed that much, even over centuries. the debate is about their understanding of the underlying science.
This is the problem. Skeptics haven’t understood the real meaning of saturation. They caved to the excuses put forth by climate alarmists. Saturation really does end the debate once the full meaning is understood.
In reality, once the absorption of all the surface generated CO2 happens in the atmospheric boundary layer, there is no more warming. Dr. Heinz Hug found this to be true two decades ago. Even the IPCC admits it.
The IPCC claim that even with saturation the effects high in the atmosphere increase the warming is false. It is, in fact, impossible as I described above.
That’s absolutely false. There is no remotely credible research proving this “saturation” of CO2 won’t continue to increase global surface temperatures.
Perhaps this plain-English explanation from the Royal Society will clear up the confusion.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/
Barry, The Royal Society statement is correct as written, but very misleading. CO2 is not the only forcing acting on surface temperatures and you might have noticed their statement very carefully avoided mentioning magnitude.
In the following University of Chicago Internet app, try the following CO2 ppm concentrations, 0, 1, 10, 100, 400, 800 and tell me what you think.
MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere (uchicago.edu)
Is the title of the book The Great Climate Change Debate ? The article doesn’t make it clear.
One click on the Amazon link will answer the question.
Thanks. But it would have been nice for the article to tell us.
Climate change alarmism is a very complex scam.
High level scientific debates aren’t enough.
Debates are required about all topics by all levels of the community.
Have a argument with your friends or workmates about the smallest of CAGW components – electric cars, uselessness of windmills, or electricity prices.
Climate Change Alarmism is like weeds. You have to keep attacking it. Don’t let it take hold.
This ^
Unfortunately climate propaganda is heavily taught to children 🙁
I have taken a lead role as a sceptic in several debates over the years.
For many people attending its an eye opener to hear some hard, sceptic facts. More than that, often you find that people who have not spoken out before about some of the green lunacy feel much more empowered to do so after the debate. Every little helps.
Some words of advice to those attempting to take a sceptic role in such a debate:
4. Highlight the 30-40 years of failed predictions
Very apt. Thanks.
=======
ThinkingScientist and Monte Carlo, Thanks for the good advice, well said.
Thank you for reminding us of the Happer-Karoly discussion. Very valuable.
On the “pet theory” angle, I would caution you against repeating your view that “the derivation of [Christopher Monckton’s ‘irreducibly simple’] model is impeccable.” It isn’t, and such statements impair your credibility in the eyes of those who know something about linear systems.
No pet theories are required. The warming effect is saturated. There is no longer any a). Hence, b) cannot happen.
The IPCC claim of increasing downwelling IR with increased CO2 is true, but there is also increased upwelling IR. It more than compensates for that downwelling IR.
In arguments with CAGW true believers I have found the most effective tactic to use is the historical record. Point out that the Northern Hemisphere was much warmer during the Medieval or Roman Warm Periods, and warmer still during the Holocene. Explain to them that the Arctic was seasonally ice-free during the Holocene, as shown by raised beaches and photosynthetic algae in sediments. Show them the photo of the famous White Larch in the Canadian High Arctic. Ask them why the present warming is dangerous if nothing untoward happened in the past.
That’s another Denier trope that’s been debunked years ago, but still desperately repeated over and over. Research proves it to be dead wrong, like, well all Denier tropes.
“No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=xs_FoltchG1ElxmYWupGedRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OFAuvUf3smNPgQh_x6w3tkX-JXRoLf0zBLgBVwxe-KovvXwPjnWRJnrJy2Y5m5vHRWt9UXT1S7dk9V9bEvrUWs3UEoiDE0Ti7EI2Lpl9dOwD3P_d5YEPO1wr_SvN10GUXV3nJWBX52zMbeHMyZHGMGljR04OPdeiH4NxCMrcLqMLu90J_Y5AxP-r6xROVMWS92CtKGcKpSbK8j8hCPWhcbd2XpVD24TKS6Hrw-vAhDzA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.latimes.com&fbclid=IwAR3TbHxpG2HqdyPMdjbfsHJouuzaqggVErArsJ14c7XJVbHpFq01WVhfv-Q
And…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
And…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x#:~:text=Proxy%20reconstructions%20from%20marine%20sediment,warmth1%2C2%2C3.
My 1st debate questions for the opposite side of the topic relates to the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered what is now Canada in up to 13,000 feet of ice, and that covered the northern part of what is now the United States of America in a mile of ice. It disappeared some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. Question 1) Did mankind have anything to do with its demise? 2) Was it a bad thing that it disappeared (keeping in mind that folks in Quebec and Chicago would have a hard time barbecuing in the back yard under at least a mile of ice).
It gets tough to maintain the rage when one of the most important indicators of global weather has to have the actual monthly temperature values for the 30-year base period, to calculate the anomaly, adjusted downward:
http://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/NINO34_baseperiods.png
Seven of the 12 months for the 2021 update went down. We know the data back in 1850s was sparse. In the satellite era since 1980, the actual NINO34 temperature has experienced a declining trend of 1.8C per millennium.
It appears the globe is close to the net evaporation increasing again and that will reduce ocean temperatures. At this stage, September is the most noticeable month because the NH land masses have lost 2W/sq.m in insolation for that month since 1500. On the other hand, May is up 2W/sq.m over the same period.
These good temperature records certainly exhibit the consequence of the changing orbit above all else.
Great plot Rick, thanks.
Wow, an alarmist actually joined in a debate? I thought they all hid behind “settled” science.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’ll have to check it out.
Karoly agreed to debate Happer and then backed out halfway through the debate and had to be replaced by Glenn Tamblyn of skepticalscience.com. The “consensus” hates to debate, it sheds bright sunlight on their awful arguments.
This might be a debate from a while back, but some principles and measurements and observations do not change much over time when properly done.
It strikes me as significant that Karoly used to be a media go-to, enthusiastically rattling off dubious findings with the preacher’s gleam in the eyes. (For listeners, some of Karoly’s claims were eye watering). Happer was rather less known here in Australia outside top science circles.
Karoly is less public now, but is perhaps beavering away to sell the mantra behind the scenes. I find it concerning that he seems able to dismiss significant material like Happer produces, rather than accept advances in learning with gratitude and then change the story accordingly.
Geoff S
Geoff, I found Karoly to be a very good scientist, I read all his papers while researching the book. Some of them are cited in the book. Karoly also knows physics and math quite well. So, I found it interesting that he left the debate after reading Happer’s major statement, which is a devastating critique of the whole Manabe and Weatherald (1975) idea of CO2 controlled warming that the IPCC has used for the past 30+ years. Happer’s critique is very technical, I tried to simplify it and make it as understandable as possible in Chapter 16, but others will have to tell me how well I did with that. But once understood you see that the IPCC arguments are based on absolutely nothing. M&W get the effect of circulation wrong and completely miss the boat on water vapor feedback and clouds.
“But once understood you see that the IPCC arguments are based on absolutely nothing. M&W get the effect of circulation wrong and completely miss the boat on water vapor feedback and clouds.”
I think I’m going to like this book. 🙂
While comprehensive technical discussions are needed, we must convince ordinary people with a limited grasp of math and science. I believe pictures and especially funny cartoons can show the foolishness of climate alarmism but also the benefit of adapting to weather conditions.
The most spectacular failure of Climate Models is the unphysical aspect of heating the deep oceans from the surface with radiative heat transfer in a matter of decades. That is nonsense. It is impossible to warm any deep water by heating the surface. The heat input simply accelerates evaporation and the cool deep water that enters the circulation at high latitudes gets drawn up.
Sorry Andy,
I have little time for the type of attribution-to-mankind type of papers that Karoly was involved with a few short years ago. Even on the Net we can find “(Karoly) is also recognised as a world leader in the detection and attribution of climate change, particularly at regional scales. Recently, he has been studying the impacts of climate change on weather extremes and their impacts on human and natural systems.” It does not matter how good your computational mats are if you base them on a false, unproven premise. We especially differ about local heatwaves. I have shown pretty certainly that Australia’s six capitals, with 70% or so of the population, have seen no serious heatwave consequences over time, using very simple analysis. Karoly uses rather complex definitions, incorporates remote areas with questionable historic data and concludes differently, finding them a hazard–be, with fearful extremes that have not shown up so far. My story is realism, his is theoretical mental wanderings, more like political lobbying than hard science. Geoff S
In short, Karoly sets out to find data which supports his pre-supposition of an effect. This is in flagrant contradiction with the genuine Scientific Method, which looks to falsify a hypothesis.
“Only debates can ferret out their certainty or lack of it.”
Nah, debates can’t get to the truth because it’s not a science debate- it’s a policy debate- big difference. It’s all about trade-offs and they are not being discussed by the “climate consensus community” and the MSM. Only the skeptics discuss the trade-offs. The others just assume it’s a disaster which proves that they are neither good scientists nor good policy advisors.
When you mix science and politics all you get is politics. sigh…
From the article: “James Barham, the moderator of the debate: “I have looked your book over carefully. First, I think it is a great idea! It is certainly more user-friendly than the original debate was, as posted on TBS [TheBestSchools.org]. Second, I found neither anything to quarrel with substantively, nor even any typographical mistakes … congratulations on a job extremely well done!””
That sounds like high praise to me.
I just bought your book.
Thanks Tom!
Where’s the “debate,” exactly?
Those advocating for the scientific reality of AGW and responsible energy/environmental policy have over 150 years of increasingly granular and accurate research from the world’s leading scientific organizations supporting their stance.
Those attempting (with increasing futility) to Deny the scientific reality of AGW have, quite literally, not a shred of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research in support. The best that the shills, frauds, and liars pushing the Denier narrative can do at this point amounts to so much hand-waving and desperate cherry-picking.
Your Grammaw wears combat boots.
=============
I think the cherry picking is from your side of the aisle. Like calling every nor’easter evidence of “climate change”.
Is this in comparison to the credible, independent, and peer-reviewed evidence you have offered?
What “science reality”? AGW is based on pseudo-science. CO2 absorption is completely saturated. This ends the warming potential of CO2 emissions.
Both have been heavily involved in atmospheric research since the 1980s.
Studying the atmosphere is nice, as is ancient Sanskrit poetry. But if it’s climate you’re interested in then only oceanography has primary relevance. Everything else is peripheral at best.
“But if it’s climate you’re interested in then only oceanography has primary relevance.”
That’s a nice, simplistic statement . . . one of somewhat less importance than reading ancient Sanskrit poetry.
Can you please explain how the Earth’s oceans—as opposed to, say, Milankovitch cycles—control the occurrence of Earth’s glacial/interglacial periods, not to mention Ice Ages?
After all, the topic is climate, not weather.
There would be no glaciation without water that comes from the oceans.
The current ice age commenced when Antarctica was formed. The current deep glaciations began after the Panama Isthmus emerged.
The one important atmospheric contribution is the formation of convective instability and associated persistent cloud. That sets the upper limit on open ocean temperature to 30C and controls the energy uptake of the globe.
On the other hand sea ice alone controls the lower temperature limit of ocean water and regulates the heat loss.
The oceans distribute the heat globally and warm most of the land masses through latent heat transfer. Only low latitude land masses like the Sahara and central Australia do not take significant latent heat from the oceans. Average global temperature would be around 200K if there were no oceans.
RickWill posted: “On the other hand sea ice alone controls the lower temperature limit of ocean water and regulates the heat loss.” (my underlining emphasis added)
Gee . . . really? Who knew?
I can only gently suggest that you read up on Willis Eschenbach’s theory of emergent phenomena (primarily the formation of clouds from tropical zone ocean surface evaporation) as an reasonable explanation of feedback thermoregulation of Earth’s global climate within fairly narrow limits.
There is not much ice floating on tropical oceans.
BTW, I asked you for your explanation of how Earth’s oceans control the occurrences of glacial/interglacial intervals, but your response of “There would be no glaciation without water that comes from the oceans” is a non-sequitur.
Look it up.
Also, the Panama Isthmus between North America and South America formed only about 3 million years ago. In contrast, prior to the “Quarternary” Ice Age that we are currently in, Earth had four previous Ice Ages:
— the “Huronion” that lasted about 300 million years
— the “Cryogenian” that lasted about 90 million years
— the “Andean-Saharan” that lasted about 40 million years
— the “Karoo glaciation” that lasted about 100 million years.
And just so you know:
“There have been five or six major ice ages in the history of Earth over the past 3 billion years . . .Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate conditions, referred to as glacial periods and interglacial periods, respectively.”— source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
Again, look it up.
WE has not grasped how convective instability regulates the ocean surface. Here is an explanation.
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
This explains the process of the 30C limit not just that it exists.
And I did state that the oceans are limited to 30C to restrict heat input. The sea ice forms at -1.8C and reduces heat loss at the cold end.
And I gave you exactly that. Earth will not experience glacial episodes without oceans – end of story. Oceans and the water they contain are the key ingredient in Earth’s climate. You need only look at the moon to confirm that fact; no oceans, no glacial episodes.
You posted: “Oceans and the water they contain are the key ingredient in Earth’s climate. You need only look at the moon to confirm that fact; no oceans, no glacial episodes.”
No, completely wrong. The “key ingredient” to Earth’s climate, as is documented in many elementary textbooks, is the fact that Earth has a relatively dense atmosphere. Without this atmosphere (comprised almost entirely of just gaseous nitrogen and gaseous oxygen), the oceans would partially evaporate to space and then freeze over.
You need only look at the Moon to confirm that fact; no atmosphere, no oceans, no glacial episodes . . . despite the fact that water ice currently exists on the Moon today.
For additional confirmation, you also might want to look at Jupiter’s moon Europa and Saturn’s moon Enceladus, both of which have scientifically been determined to have a crusts of water ice that are floating over saltwater oceans, and both having negligible atmospheres.
You posted: “WE has not grasped how convective instability regulates the ocean surface.”
Yet another statement good for a laugh. You apparently have not read any of Willis Eschenbach’s articles on thermoregulation of Earth’s climate via emergent phenomena. Or maybe you just didn’t understand them if you read them.
I suggest you start with his article at this link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/07/emergent-climate-phenomena/
wherein he refers to convection four times in the context of discussing fluid instabilities.
It’s interesting to see you continue to evangelize the work of an individual with no formal academic or professional background in climate science, nor any published peer-reviewed research in the field. (If memory serves, Eschenbach’s educational background consists of an undergrad in Psychology and a certificate in massage therapy. I’m happy to update that list with sufficient evidence supporting an amendment.)
Why are you directing people to Eschenbach’s materials? To date, his primary contributions to the dialog have apparently been generating highly dubious charts underpinned by sophomoric narrative while refusing to provide the materials required to replicate his charts/findings/conclusions. This is not the conduct of a trustworthy researcher regardless of the field.
Should Eschenbach find success in publishing his work in a peer-reviewed journal and make ALL his materials available for purposes of independent verification, I’ll be the first to consider his work as legitimate science. Until then, I see no justification for referral.
Barry Anthony,
I am completely done with your attempts at deflection off topic, your non-answer “answers”, and your sophomoric, ad hominem attacks on persons having more reputation than you.
I have bent over backward to give you guidance and to suggest where you can become informed about climate matters by simple Web research . . . all to no avail.
So, bye-bye and have a good life. You and I have no reason for further discourse.
Andy ==> Bought a copy — Happer is a genius, one of my heroes, and a really great guy on a personal basis.
Agreed Kip, if you look up “gentleman and scholar” you should simply see his picture. He’s still a very busy man, but wonderful to work with.
Discussing climate science by two researchers, who are essentially on the same spectrum in terms of believing in the 19th Century “Greenhouse” theory, is not really a debate! Wil Happer is a “closet warmist”, since he only argues about the magnitude of the CO2-caused climate change while fully accepting the fundamental premises of the radiative “greenhouse” theory.
The problem is that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) currently known as the “greenhouse effect” is not a radiative phenomenon at all, but an adiabatic (pressure-caused) phenomenon. Atmospheric IR radiation is simply a byproduct of ATE. i.e. a consequence of atmospheric temperatures that are set by solar heating (a diabatic process) and the pressure-induced enhancement of absorbed solar energy (an adiabatic process). The “greenhouse” theory has totally ignored the adiabatic driver of climate. That’s because this pressure-controlled driver is not easily detectable when studying a single system such as Earth’s climate. One must cast Earth in the context of a physical continuum of climate states represented by planets & moons throughout the Solar System in order to clearly see the adiabatic forcing of climate. This is what our research has done (Nikolov & Zeller 2017). For more details, please watch these video presentations:
“Demystifying the Atmospheric Thermal Effect”
“The Role of Albedo in Climate“
If Earth was a water planet with an optical clear film over the oceans, it would average 20C surface temperature. The “greenhouse effect” or your WTE is just nonsense.
You really don’t know any physics, do you?? 🙂
Does anyone else find it weird that climate models use adjusted data for tuning purposes. The adjustments have an R2 close to 1 when regressed again CO2. I don’t think modelers even understand the issue. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they used satellite data.
I’ve shared before that a major missing piece of the climate change is in thermodynamics, chemistry and quantum mechanics; apparently the rigorous science evidence is missing. Indeed, the issue of the atmosphere belongs to the field of gases, where molecular information is needed to account for heat exchanges. Because of this I would read first the side of the physicist; I professionally don’t see a climatologist assessing issues at that lower level of understanding.