By Gregory Wrightstone
The science of climate change often is presented in complicated language that speaks of computer models and the theoretical inputs and outputs thereof and concludes that the globe is on the verge of “boiling.” Well, leave it to three physicists — steeped in calculus and such arcane matters as the behavior of molecules and the nuclear charge of atoms — to simplify the analysis and arrive at a much less alarming determination.
“Straightforward calculations … show that eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084 degrees Celsius,” states a brief paper authored by Drs. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, York University, Toronto. On the Fahrenheit scale, the value of averted warming is 0.015 degrees.
In short, the amount of warming averted by eliminating CO2 emissions in the United States would be too small to measure. The paper bolsters the position of those who argue that a changing climate is the product of natural forces, that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions can have only a minuscule effect on global temperature, and that CO2 is a valuable plant food and not a pollutant.
Rather than using theoretical assumptions about various factors that are fed into computers, the paper’s calculation relies almost exclusively on “observable data” that are widely accepted and publicly available, says Dr. Happer.
“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said the scientist, who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.
The data needed for the math are the number of years until 2050, the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere, which scientists regularly measure, and the current concentration of atmospheric CO2, which is approximately 427 parts per million as of June 2024.
The only assumed datapoint is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 increases. The paper uses a value almost the same as one commonly used “before global-warming alarmism became fashionable.” Even if the value is quadrupled to a number favored by the politically driven Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the amount of warming averted still is only 0.034 degrees Celsius.
So, what if the entire world eliminated carbon dioxide emissions from the activities of mankind? Since U.S. emissions account for 12% of global output, the answer lies in the math to determine the remaining 88%. The paper’s calculation is that the amount of warming averted would be 0.07 degrees Celsius. Using the higher IPCC sensitivity value, the number quadruples to 0.28 degrees Celsius. Both are still inconsequential and certainly not worth destroying the world economy.
Noting that others using different approaches have come to conclusions similar to the paper’s, Dr. Happer said he and his coauthors wanted to show that the controversial subject of climate change need not be complicated.
“More members of the public should understand that they are being victimized by false information disseminated by those whose interests have more to do with money and power than with environmental concerns,” he said. “Answers found in relatively simple mathematics strongly suggest this to be the case.”
Whatever the motivations, spending trillions of dollars to replace fossil fuels with expensive and unreliable wind and solar sources is foolish, futile and dangerous.
This commentary was first published at RealClearMarkets on August 14, 2024.
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Warming by atmospheric CO2, if it even exists, is immeasurable.
This is why no-one can produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
The peanut gallery poster from Australia is back for his usual silly comment, which says:
Drs. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, York University, Toronto have no idea what they are talking about
BeNasty thinks they are all wrong and he is right. Almost 100% of scientists since 1896 have been wrong, says the dingbat from Australia. He believes CO2 does nothing and El Ninos cause all climate change. A useful idiot for leftists, by spewing junk science at this website, that a leftist NGO would pay him for, if he wanted to make some money.
Will Happer et al. say it is immeasurable…
It is noted that yet again, you have supported my argument that empirical measurements of warming by atmospheric CO2 do not exist…
… by NOT PRODUCING ANY !!
Thank you very much. 🙂
Show us some warming in the UAH data that is not associated with the 3 major El Ninos…
… we can wait… we have been waiting for such a long, long time… 🙂
Maybe those scientists do believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet they also believe “eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084 degrees Celsius”.
Almost 100% of scientists since 1896. You continue to use this narrative. Consensus is just as much non science as is Man Made Global Warm…ahh we really meant climate change all along. RG, I can fix the whole CO2 doomsday scenario in 1 years time. Just give me control of the peer review process, which is currently controlled by the best government grants money can buy. I would on day one take the politics out of peer review. Your CO2 science would fall flat on its face. Voila! Problem Solved.
The latest post from Roy Spencer is titled “New Comments Policy Here” (direct link).
From that post :
NB : This response is targeted at “bnice2000” just as much as it is at “Richard Green”, though they are by no means the only “guilty parties” here (at WUWT).
Note also that it could have been applied to me many times in the past, and undoubtedly will be applicable to me in the future … we all “get angry” from time to time, it’s an unfortunate part of human nature.
The main differences are in the frequency and degree / intensity of such posts, as well as seeing what each poster’s “default settings” are.
Very good points Mark but still, me thinks a little differently. The “Climate” discussion is centered around politics and not science. The bad actors engage in political propaganda so it’s sometimes necessary to meet them where they are. The net effect of their propaganda campaign has created a religious experience for the masses. People are mesmerized and terrified by the stories of doom and are blindly following what the climate religion bad actors are sermonizing. IMO, the spell of this false pagan religion needs to be broken by hard truth and insults to the character and malfeasance of these modern day false prophets.
While I sympathise with the sentiment, I respectfully disagree with the “and insults” addition.
While limiting “our” side to “the hard truth” — in the form of references to and extracts from scientific papers, articles and assessment reports — may seem to be a losing tactic in the short-term, I persist in (naively ?) believing that the notion of “going high even when they go low” has a long-term strategic impact on “our” credibility.
Resorting to insults can only negatively reflect on “our” position.
Replace insults with humorous ridicule and one gets a better result.
Where was I rude to RG in the post above ?
You weren’t … in this comments section … yet …
Part of the quote from Roy Spencer’s blog again, with a change in emphasis :
Look in your posting history at the last 10 (or 20, if you have the time and you have them readily accessible in your browser’s “Bookmarks …” menu entry) times you have had an exchange with RG.
What percentage of those “discussions” ended up as a mutual insult-throwing competition ?
.
The frustrating thing for me, as a third-party observer, is that both you and RG will often start off with posts that include valid points and/or demonstrate genuine curiosity.
You are also both subject to the “drive-by down-voting” phenomenon that sometimes occurs here. Though it occurs more often for RG … who can only aspire to the level achieved by Nick Stokes, but is in the MUN and TFN region of the “medals table” … you may want to analyse which of your posts attract the most “down-arrow clickers”, and see what they have in common.
As I wrote in my OP, we all “get angry” when belittled or called names.
Maybe it is “wishful thinking” on my part to call on people to at least consider reducing the percentage of posts resorting to the “Name Calling (and/or Abuse)” level of the debate pyramid, but I will probably continue to call out “the most egregious” (to me) examples as I come across them.
Mutual insult-throwing competition = flame war.
Well said. Please stay away from the belittling talk, the ALL CAPS screeds and childish insults. It may make you feel good, but it only hurts a commenter’s credibility.
Folks, here we have the finest example yet of Mr. Greene’s “I know what I know and counter-information is not to be considered” approach to gaining knowledge. Mr. Greene fancies himself the true warrior, he has a clue (nothing more than appeal to authority, as pointed out endlessly, to no effect) while Lindzen + Happer don’t. Beclown yourself Mr. Greene, and keep using lots of glitter.
You need to read the paper referred to. Its not saying there is no warming from CO2 increases, just that the amount of it is too small to measure. Short form: no (material) effect.
As for the 100% of scientists since 1896 who have supposedly agreed, what exactly is it that they have all agreed on?
Still waiting for the long predicted Lower Troposphere “hot spot” to show up after a few decades of waiting is a bad sign and that made up baloney Positive Feedback Loop to escape the confines of endless modeling scenarios that bores rational people to tears.
Where in hell are they Warmist/alarmists!
They are turning the US into a Communist country.
The Democrat Presidential contender has proposed Soviet-style wage and price controls on top of giving everybody guaranteed income.. All the Leftists and Marxists within and outside of government think it is a grand program!
Yup, it’s still missing, but Santer has done well off the back of his nonsense.
Unfortunately facts about the relationship between ATM CO2 and temperature are irrelevant in politics. Perception rules, and the perception is CO2 is the climate control knob. That perception will change, eventually, but it won’t be during a Democrat Administration.
“Perception rules, and the perception is CO2 is the climate control knob.”
In the UK, we have our own climate control knob … Ed Miliband ( Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero )
I think you should’ve left out the words “climate control”
No, leave them in: after all, that’s what he’s being a knob about.
Defiantly a KNOB!
“relationship between ATM CO2 and temperature”
Is very clear by comparing the rate of change of CO2 to the atmospheric temperature data.
The rate of change of CO2 FOLLOWS the atmospheric temperature.
Temperature is the atmospheric CO2 control knob.
It’s always amusing to watch Warmunists try to explain away that graph!
All that graph shows is that it takes about a year for short term atmospheric CO2 to adjust to changing sea surface temperatures on a global average basis. Instead, look at geological time scales which show about 800 years delay…
But today humans emit enough CO2 that that there is about 5% excess annually over “natural” CO2 emissions, of which the oceans are only absorbing about 50% of the excess, or 2 1/2% shortfall. As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate of absorption will increase. and the ocean already holds 40x as much CO2 equivalent as carbonates as the atmosphere and is buffered such that it can hold a lot more.
But to accept some IPCC numbers, a doubling of CO2 seems likely to cause 3C warming…(let’s not get into why that number is possibly twice too high). Present 2 1/2 ppm increase per year (Mauna Loa readings) it will take 150 years to double CO2 without even allowing for increased ocean absorption at higher CO2 atmospheric partial pressure….
But during the next 150 years, the finding costs will render petroleum uncompetitive with synthetic or bio-hydrocarbon liquids which presently are about 4x as expensive as gasoline or diesel fuel to produce….Maybe even EV batteries for electric golf cart type runabouts if they can be made to yield about 4x as many travel kilometers per vehicle without becoming too unsafe to store in your garage.
So no crisis, much less change for humanity than, say, walking to horseback, rowboat to sailing ship, sailing ship to steam ship…etc…and will develop all on its own.
“The rate of change of CO2 FOLLOWS the atmospheric temperature.”
Of course it does !!!!
Because
That graph shows the mechanics of the natural Carbon cycle during the seasons.
And not the influence of a slow/steady increase in the total Carbon in it.
The Earth’s CC is dominated by the yearly natural flux of carbon from sources to sinks.
And that process is dominated by the NH which has by far the greatest landmass area and by far the greatest annual temp variation.
What your graph is showing is the CC integrated over the entire planet as cooler ocean waters are a greater sink and cooler land is a greater source.
Temperature does indeed lead the variation in annual atmospheric co2 content because that is what drives the process of uptake and emission. In short, the NH seasons.
What that graph cannot show is the lead co2 has of temperature due to the 2-3ppm that we add to the biosphere each year.
You have the effect of 420+ppm vs 2.5ppm.
It is lost as just 2% of that response.
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/carbon-dioxide-levels-are-rising-it-really-simple
NB: The red line (NH) can be seen to be the dominant response and that which a lagging response is illuminating.
“The above graph shows the change in carbon dioxide levels measured for the northern hemisphere (red), southern hemisphere (green) and as a global average (black). The ‘sawtooth’ lines show carbon dioxide absorbed and released by plants, but the steady increase is mostly attributed to human emissions. Because the northern hemisphere contains much more land than the southern hemisphere – which is mostly covered by ocean – the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases overall during the northern winter [2].
The annual variation depends on location. In tropical areas, plants are active all year round with little variation between summer and winter. However, in these regions other factors determine the balance between photosynthesis and respiration, such as the availability of nutrients and water, which is vital for photosynthesis. Moving towards the poles, larger temperature variations mean that plant activity, and therefore carbon dioxide levels, change more than they do at the equator. And with increasing temperatures due to global warming, more shrubs are also able to grow in the Arctic, which extends the sawtooth even more.”
A problem with that statement is that is is during the Summer, when the Arctic shrubs are actively growing, that the seasonal draw-down of CO2 occurs. I suspect that it is Winter-time respiration from the roots of Boreal evergreens, and rising Winter temperature that allows Winter bacterial decomposition to be more active, that drives the greater CO2 amplitude of the far-north.
Well that was a load of gibberish to say absolutely nothing.
“You have the effect of 420+ppm vs 2.5ppm.”
Thanks for agreeing that human CO2 is basically “not very important”..
.. and is hidden in the noise of an expanding carbon cycle driven by natural temperature increases..
“but the steady increase is mostly attributed to human emissions”
There is absolutely no evidence to support that piece of mantra anti-science.
As I showed above, the rate of increase is controlled by ocean atmospheric temperatures.
I am going to push back a little. Anyone claiming they can reliably calculate their way out of the climate/temperature conundrum is not being truthful. To assume the sensitivity of the climate to Co2 is an x amount is by default stating an unprovable hypothesis. It is imo a mistake and it rather falls into the same trap as those who claim the sensitivity is high. The truth about this is that it is uncertain. But, i agree that it is way more likely that the sensitivity is low and if i would put money on it i would go w Happer et al. But to state an Al Gore ‘ a child can figure it out’ from let’s say ‘our’ side is foolish. I am therefor disappointed.
Several studies have reported empirical measurements suggesting a lower climate sensitivity to CO₂.
Lewis, N. & Curry, J. A. (2018). “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.”
1.5°C to 1.8°C per CO₂ doubling. The authors used observational data from the instrumental period, focusing on recent estimates of radiative forcing and ocean heat uptake.
Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y.-S. (2011). “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications.”
0.7°C to 1.5°C. The study used satellite data to analyze climate feedback processes, especially the role of clouds.
Christy, J. R., Spencer, R. W., & Braswell, W. D. (2018). “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.”
While not directly focused on climate sensitivity, Christy’s work critiques the accuracy of climate models in predicting tropical temperature trends. This has implications for estimates of climate sensitivity, with the authors suggesting models might overestimate warming.
Spencer, R. W., & Braswell, W. D. (2010). “On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing.”
Spencer argues that climate models may misinterpret feedback, leading to overestimating climate sensitivity. His work suggests a lower sensitivity, under 2°C.
(Yes, I used ChatGP to do the dirty work)
My post was not meant to say Happer et al are wrong but simply to state that the calculations leading to the ESTIMATES are based on underlying assumptions which do not present a fixed point, given the variables in climate science. I do agree that those calculated estimates are highly likely to be more correct than the standard models suggest.
That’s all. Maybe i just don’t get on with true believers..of any kind. And i really get irked by preachy scientists who often cant help themselves.
They may be preachy- got your point- but they are more qualified than the fear mongering scientists- so yes, good idea to consider them “more correct”.
Your post wasn’t taken that way, Bally, in fact, I upvoted you
Copy that, Redge..
I copied that but then somebody downvoted it again.oh well, c’est la vie..🙂
A troll hiding under a bridge, afraid to come out into the bright light and be recognized for what it is.
“Several studies have reported empirical measurements suggesting a lower climate sensitivity to CO₂.”
Generally, ignored?
The paper does use ECS values that are not directly measurable, therefore proving anything correct or incorrect is impossible. However, assuming various values and using accepted calculations to find boundaries is legitimate in comparing them to what the IPCC claims. The largest gain from this is showing that models and the IPCC are bogus purveyors of claptrap.
The validity of Happer et al is not in the assumption of a sensitivity value but in their evaluation of a range of possible values for it to put bounds on the expected effect of doubling CO2 or likely temperature changes.
Maybe the best way forward in climate science is to have an open site where all research is published with authors credited as “Anonymous”.
Then maybe we would get the Dragnet effect – “Just the facts, ma’am”.
And no drive-by comments or up votes / down votes.
Rebuttals have to be submitted as articles, using the Willis rule of –
“quote the exact words of my article that you are responding to”
I frequent SciTechDaily where I do a lot of commenting, especially on climate articles. One of the things that annoys me about the massaged press releases is that assertions without support — such as Antarctic shelf ice buttressing the glaciers — are commonly expressed without citation. Many of the AGW memes are little better than urban legends, and the scientists who should know better, accept them without examination.
Climate sensitivity is another of those expressions that lacks validity.
Climate is, per modern usage, a 30 year average of weather.
Global warming sensitivity is more accurate, but again, not precise.
The real environmental sensitivity is the specific heat Cp of CO2, which is miniscule, but has a non-zero effect of increasing the temperature with increasing density. The amount is miniscule and diminishes with altitude.
“Both are still inconsequential and certainly not worth destroying the world economy.”
Depends on what your actual motives are !!
In 2015 the UNs Christiana Figueres said … “it’s not about the climate”
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
So if that is your goal, then it IS worth destroying the world economy asap.
The Figueres quote is one of the money quotes, another money quote is from
Maurice Strong:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Source
If you follow the link, Strong goes on to say, “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this”
One of the regulars here- forgot who- has built up a long list of such quotes. I sent the full list to all the greens here in Wokeachusetts. How many replies did I get? Zero. Net zero. 🙂
I think Steve is one of those with the long list.
Never forget Sun Tsu’s first art of war:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
That is exactly what is happening as Western governments pursue self-harming Green Energy policies to reduce or eliminate their CO2 emissions and other Greenhouse gasses.
There is no better way to damage the economies of the Western world than by rendering their energy supplies unreliable and expensive.
So, Green thinking can only be regarded as a very successful branch of the continuation of the “Cold War” intended to undermine the viability of the economies of the Western world.
and
The late Professor David MacKay:
“the dependence on Weather-Dependent “Renewable Energy” to power a developed economy is an Appalling Delusion”.
There’s so much delusion and I think it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have these delusions that they’re willing to not think carefully about the numbers, the realities, and the laws of physics and the realities of engineering… humanity really does need to pay attention to arithmetic, and the laws of physics.”
Arithmetic? Laws of physics? Engineering? These are all lost on Western politicians, to our incalculable cost.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/minimal-future-warming-from-co2-ch4-n2o/
I wouldnt take Happer et al’s calculations as Gospel, as some commenters seem to do. They are not priests on a truth mission and actually shouldnt behave that way. The only faith i have in their science is that they seem to be fair in their underlying assumptions and methods, unlike the alarmists. By pushing their ‘message’ as ‘truth’ makes them vulnerable to attacks and more easily dismissable by those on the other side. Im getting a tad fed up w the binary approach, even on this forum..
I suspect Will actually overestimates any warming by CO2, which is probably very close to ZERO.
He bases his calculations mainly on radiative theories…
… without due consideration of the other forms of energy transfer in the atmosphere.
Balloon data seems to show that the gas laws control the final energy transfer in the atmosphere.
Well, indeed. And my point is still that they are still estimates and that’s fine. Marcus Ott et al reject the whole GHE and they too use calculations for their estimates. I am not qualified enough to judge and i think nobody is, simply because of the system everybody is dealing with. RG calls them ‘nutters’. I recall that was a technical term way back then and obviously still is. I think people who are genuin scientist trying to get their data in line from hypothesis to theory should be respected.
In any serious case i support diversity of thought. Ironically not allowed by those flying the ‘diversity’ flag.
The thumbs down indicate im onto something..Does everybody have to agree with everything in this forum? And i actually agree w Happer et al so what’s the story here? ABSOLUTE FAITH?
I just gave you an upvote.
You raise valid points. Keep it up.
You may profess to agree but, you cloud your statements with religious connotations.
Nobody is claiming Happer, Lindzen, and van Wijngaarden or any number of other respectable scientists are the advance guard for the second coming. If you agree with part of their statements by logical means, leave it at that.
The obvious truth is nobody knows for sure.
The aforementioned scientists show how they come to their conclusions with empirical data, rather than algorithms hidden from public analysis, gives them a positive reaction from thinking people, not religious fervor.
I like the quote:
“In God we trust; all others bring data.”
W. Edwards Deming
Fair enough..
Maybe you just have an ‘admirer.’ Be patient; they will go away. They always do.
It would be easier to create and release a virus that targeted fat aging westerners. I wonder why they didn’t think…. ‘ere, ‘ang on
That made me chuckle.
They screwed up by not targeting just westerners. I understand they’re working on it.
Sun Tsu also said that “The essence of war is deception.” The Left has that down pat.
For those involved in games of let’s pretend truth and reality only get in the way of having a good time. The problem is the morons who started this climate change alarm game do not want to know the difference between what is real and what is imagined because the truth will see an end to their prosperity overnight.
These mercenaries must be exposed. Start with the weakest (like Jim Dale) and expose them on prime time TV since it’ll take as long as a commercial break and then steadily work through the others. PM Starmer.should also tell us what proof he has that carbon dioxide is the villain. A certain Michael Mann could also be expected to explain exactly how carbon dioxide warming works and show that it happens.
Al Gore’s schoolboy [sic] lab test doesn’t work and so the least we should expect is a test from alarmists that does work and on live prime time TV because after all is said and done reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the most important thing any of us can do so we are told at great expense to our pockets and our security.
Whatever the motivations…
BBC presenter Chris Packham has been criticised after urging people who bank with Barclays to stick their heads in a bucket of petrol and set themselves on fire…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/16/bbc-presenter-chris-packham-barclays-bank-customers-fire/
Kind and tolerant; as ever.
We were talking of knobs earlier on. This guy is probably ahead of Milliband in this field.
The mask is a lot looser
Packham should be encouraged to take his own advice.
Story Tip
”Britain’s biggest law firm has sought more than £1m from climate protesters to cover the cost of court orders banning them from protesting, an investigation has found.
The multibillion-pound City law firm DLA Piper has been trying to recover costs from activists for work done on behalf of National Highways Limited (NHL) and HS2Ltd – both public bodies – obtaining injunctions banning protests on their sites.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/16/climate-activists-court-costs-protest-bans-uk-biggest-law-firm-dla-piper
Ouch.
That should have been an immediate action.
I know that if I take out a stop sign with my truck, I’ll have to pay for restoration. The same should apply to the protestors and those that bankroll them.
Wrightstone is biased
His conclusions are based on the lowest reasonable estimate of the effect of CO2 x2 (with no feedbacks). Lindzen and Happer do not have the magic answer on the very log term effects of CO2 emissions — their guess is one of many.
Wrightstone also presents the fallacy of looking at a subset of the world and claiming the US does not matter. That poor logic could be applied to almost every one of the 195 nations, except perhaps China and India. If CO2 emissions were really a problem EVERY nation would matter.
Rather than falsely implying he knows the long term effects of CO2 emissions, which he thinks merely requires selecting the most popular skeptic scientists. Wrightstone should honestly admit no one knows the long term effect of CO2 emissions.
No one even knows the percentage of post-1975 warming caused by CO2. The evidence suggests CO2 amplified a natural warming trend.
What we do know that Wrightstone does not discuss
(1) The past 48 years of global warming was a pleasant climate change
AND
(2) The fantasy goal of Nut Zero is VERY expensive in spite of never including enough battery capacity to provide electricity for just one windless winter night.
And 175 of 195 nations are not interested in Nut Zero, so global CO2 emissions will rise even if the 20 Nut Zero nations were a “success” (none of them will actually meet their goals).
If 175 of 195 nations think Nut Zero is a dumb idea, you have to wonder why the other nations think they are smarter?
My belief is Nut Zero is a Trojan Horse for leftist fascism. This is about political power. Climate is irrelevant. If the climate was really believe to be important, then the biggest Nut Zero problem would be the 175 nations that do not care about CO2 emissions. But that issue gets no attention.
Rather than falsely implying he knows that CO causes warming, as any AGW-apologist would…
… RG should present some actual empirical scientific evidence… or concede that there is none.
There are no signs of any CO2 caused warming in the last 45 years covering the UAH satellite data.
If there was, he would be able to show us where it is.
—-
“The evidence suggests CO2 amplified a natural warming trend.“
What evidence??? You have never presented any.
To say that evidence suggests anything doesn’t sound like science to me.
Science is collecting evidence to support a theory. What do you think science is?
Enough evidence has been collected in the past 127 years to support the theory of the greenhouse effect and the belief that manmade CO2 emissions increase that effect.
That’s why nearly 100% of scientists have a consensus on the greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions.
There is a debate over how much manmade CO2 emissions affect the climate in 100 to 200 years. We only have about 48 years of significant manmade CO2 emissions as data. With a limite ability to differentiate greenhouse warming by CO2 from other causes of warming.
And then we have clueless climate clowns like BeNasty, who act like trained parrots, and instinctively demand all the evidence of AGW in one WUWT comment.
And then character attack you if you don’t provide such evidence. As if the internet and 100,000 scientific studies on AGW do not exists. Evidence he would dismiss anyway, even if the WUWT comment was 1,000 words.
That’s just what you do when you are an El Nino Nutter like BeNasty. The El Nino Nutters have a global consensus of four people. Three locked up in institutions. And one who posts his nonsense here.
No! Science is a process called the Scientific Method whereby observations lead to multiple working hypotheses. Leaving out any step in the formal process is not science. The analysis should be objective, which factors against looking for evidence to “support a theory.” You have again demonstrated that you know not of what you speak.
And science shouldn’t be polluted with politics, especially class warfare.
“With a limite ability to differentiate greenhouse warming by CO2 from other causes of warming.”
That’s the problem- but, too many on the other side continue to preach that CO2 is the primary cause when they can’t prove it- and they push policies that are not sustainable.
You have, yet again, just ranted… like a monkey throwing poop.
Without producing a single bit of anything to do with actual science.
It is quite funny to watch you debasing yourself to such a degree.
“. . . like a monkey throwing poop.”
It’s an image that you can’t remove easily. Thanks!
“Science is collecting evidence to support a theory.”
You have just described “climate science™“.
How unsurprising that you think that is what “science” is..
Science is looking at ALL evidence, doesn’t matter if it “supports” your theory or not.
“Consensus” is NOT part of science… so you should stop your petty repetition of faked things that are not scientifically relevant.
We are still waiting for your measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
We are still waiting for you to show us the human caused warming in the UAH data.
One collects data to support a hypothesis. When the hypothesis matures due to the value of the collected data it becomes a theory.
Theories mature via testing and that includes null hypothesis testing, aka attempting to prove the theory wrong.
If you question Happer et al and point to the uncertainty principle could you please be so kind and administer this to your own beliefs. You have been consistently absolutist.
Im sorry but you cannot have your cake…and eat it too.
But hey, im just another ‘nutter’ who doesnt know jack shit, right?
Sorry, that was meant for RG
There is no logical reason to assume Happer is right and every other climate scientist is wrong.
The only correct answer for the effect of CO2 emissions in 100 to 200 years is “no one knows”
There is a strong consensus that the effect wil be sime amount of warming. mainly at night.
Happer and Lindzen claim the effect will be small. They would never be taken seriously if they claimed CO2 does nothing.
BeNasty does that. He believes AGW is impossible. That’s why no one with sense takes him seriously. If you believe CO2 does nothing, then you are a Climate Nutter too.
Why don’t you just ignore him if you don’t like his comments?
Just keep in mind, Happer and Lindzen and Koonin, and the like, are seasoned scientists- far more than Mann and many others who are juveniles by comparison.
“Happer and Lindzen claim the effect will be small.”
Yes, basically immeasurable, even when based on radiative processes only.
That is why I know you will never be able to produce empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
If you can’t measure it,
if you can’t observe it,
if it only exists in radiative theory, in an atmosphere with other over-riding energy transfer mechanisms.
How do you know it actually exists at all.? Blind religious faith ???
If you concentrate on Co2 and consider both its properties in context of its environment/conditions and other molecules one can legit make a case for it either not having an effect at all (because other factors drown it out) or some small effect. Hell, i can even make a case for a bigger effect if i wanted to. If you accept that the right answer is in essense unknowable as i think you do, you must logically infer that you also cannot state a certainty with any convinction, let alone accuse others of not accepting The Truth.
I continue to be quite baffled about the series of non sequiturs you maintain and i feel that you probably like to combat, slash and burn willy nilly. A Don Quichote state of mind perhaps? It also supplies some entertainment in watching someone spin and catch himself in his own web i guess. Especially when that process is then denied.
Wrightstone should honestly admit no one knows the long term effect of CO2 emissions
Aside from greening there aren’t any.
Your quote from RG seems to me to be a refutation by him of his oft said “100% of scientists since…”
He said up thread:”Almost 100% of scientists since 1896 have been wrong, says the dingbat from Australia.”
If “no one knows the long term effect” then 100% of the scientists since 1896 have been wrong.
Good catch.
The scientists use evidence to support the theory of the greenhouse effect and that manmade CO2 will increases that effect.
There is no consensus on the long term effect of manmade CO2 emissions.
There is always the possibility that a scientific consensus is wrong. Most of them are eventually proven wrong. Not all of tem.
The greenhouse effect consensus is based on evidence and has withstood t a 127 year test of time.
Your lack of logic is heading toward Nutter territory. You seem to be implying that if scientists can not predict the exact long term effect of CO2 emissions, then they know nothing about the subject.
“The scientists use evidence”
So, since you have presented absolutely zero evidence, you are not even remotely a “scientist”.
It appears you know very little about the subject and what you do know is mostly incorrect.
Still waiting for some empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Seems you are in tacit agreement that any effect cannot be measured…
… or you would be able to produce those measurements.
You can make a theory about the GHE by experiment w inputs and outputs in a controlled environment with zero line of departure and a steady state. That theory is downgraded to a hypothesis when related to the atmosphere and especially temperature. You cannot equate your way out of it and call it certain, let alone settled. I take this as a factual first principle truth. Everybody is guessing, some are more educated and qualified to do it better but the fact remains a priori. I encourage anyone in proving me wrong. I dont think you can unless you solely rely on consensus. And that doesn’t count.
“The greenhouse effect consensus is based on evidence”
No, you have consistently proven there is no evidence..
It is based on theory, often erroneous and simplistic.
Hypothesis, not theory.
Theories are testable by definition.
“…. the biggest Nut Zero problem would be the 175 nations that do not care about CO2 emissions. But that issue gets no attention.”
Very true. The green missionaries aren’t brave enough to go to those nations to fight for their cause.
Much respect for Wrightstone, the CO2 Coalition, Lindzen, Happer, and van Wijngaarden.
But there is a problem with the reasoning being used to counter the claims of the “climate” movement.
The problem is that the response of the circulating atmosphere to the minor incremental IR absorbing power as CO2 concentration rises is that “warming” cannot be isolated as distinct from “acceleration” and “expansion.” This is because energy conversion is inherent to the general circulation: [Internal energy + Potential energy] <–> [Kinetic energy.]
Lorenz described this concept. ERA5 computes it as an explicit parameter. I made this time-lapse video of plots for illustrating the point. Math and physics matter – not just the radiative absorption and emission, but the dynamics.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
In a reply I will paste the full text of the description at this Youtube video.
Here is the full description.
***************
Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”
Climate hysteria is always demonstrated by using peak daily temperatures.
Perhaps a better measure would be an integral number for the area under the daily temperature curve.
Does anyone know if such a measure is used?
No. Only averages are used.
From the article: “This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said the scientist, who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.”
Dr. Happer also vastly improved Earth-based Telescopes using lasers to characterize the atmosphere above the telescope and then compensating for the distortions the atmosphere adds to observations.
Dr. Happer knows a lot about atmospheric physics.
He knows a hell of a lot more about atmospheric physics than the whole CliSciFi gang, including Mann et al. His calculations include tens of thousands of radiation bands.
Climate science is extremely complex. From thermodynamics to orbital Dynamics, to ocean currents, to radiative heat transfer, to atmospheric currents, to statistics, to glaciation…, to name but a tiny fraction of the involved processes, no one is fully conversant in all of the known disciplines influencing climate, much more so, the unknown ones.
We’re dealing here, though, in a much smaller but critical subset – the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on measured air temperatures. The remaining factors will certainly complicate the information in question, but cannot invalidate what is described. As one who is fully conversant in none of the climate disciplines, I’ll believe scientists of historically demonstrated competence and honesty – Lindzen, Happer, and van Wijngaarden. Thank you gentlemen.
The nail has been firmly and resoundingly hit upon its head. Thank you Lindsey, Happer and van Wijngaarden for saying what needs to be said. And shame on all those thieves, liars and autocrats who keep fanning the flames of fear for their own selfish purposes, while peddling pathetic false stories of doom and chaos.
My favorite “Lindsey” is Vonn. 😎
Would it be more understandable to present to the public the ratio of CO2 to atmosphere? At a CO2 level of 427 parts per million that ratio would be one part of CO2 for each 2342 parts of atmosphere. It would appear that the heat retention effect of that CO2 ratio would be about as effective as your average window screen.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume in dry pure air at STP. This is only 0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air.
One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kilograms.
For a sunny day with a temperature of 21 deg. C and a RH of 70% the
concentration of water vapor is 17,1780 ppm by volume. This is 14.7 grams
of water per cubic meter of air. In this warm air the amount of CO2 is 0.78 grams. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.20 kilograms. For these weather conditions water is about 98.7 of the greenhouse effect.
The claim by the IPCC since 1988 that CO2 is the cause of “global warning”
is a fabrication and a lie, the objective of which is to further the UN’s program of distribution of donor funds from the rich countries (i.e., the big polluters) to poor counties to help them cope with global warming and climate change.
We should tell the public that the amount of CO2 in air can heat up such a large mass of air by only a very small amount. We also should tell the people that water is the main greenhouse gas and CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas. We should tell the people to ignore the IPCC.
A lie started in 1976 by an official of the UN environmental group who pointed out during the global cooling scare that “it is not known if CO2 is the cause, but it is something that can be quantified and taxed” (or words to that effect).
Excellent!
“Assumed data-point”? In science there are no assumed data-points. The relationship between CO2 atmospheric concentration and atmospheric heat content cannot be calculated from First Principles. To imply otherwise is to mislead.
MR Moon
Very nice.