.
Two of the most prestigious physicists in America have written a new paper explaining why greenhouse gases (GHG) produced by human activity — namely carbon dioxide — cannot cause dangerous warming on the planet. Based on their findings, Dr. Will Happer and Dr. Richard Lindzen urge Congress to repeal all Net Zero subsidies, all laws requiring GHG emission reductions, and all restrictions on fossil fuel development and infrastructure.
Our special guest this week is Dr. Will Happer, who will break down how he and Dr. Lindzen reached this conclusion — and why continuing to push Net Zero without scientific justification is a recipe for economic disaster.
On Episode #163 of The Climate Realism Show, Dr. Happer joins The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to also cover the Crazy Climate News of the Week.
📺 Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X — and drop your questions for Dr. Happer and the panel in the live chat!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The tide is turning.
If the tide goes out too fast and too far it indicates a tsunami is imminent.
If it wipes out “renewable energy” mandates and subsidies, and “net zero emissions” stupidities, GOOD!
I applaud everything that they are asking for, but temperatures will continue to rise, because the real cause of global warming is simply the cleansing of our atmosphere of SO2 aerosol pollution.
There are many thousands of big jets with really big jet engines flying every day. Do these engines act like giant vacuum cleaners removing light-absorbing particulate matter? This cleansing allows more sunlight to reach and heat the earth’s surface.
Harold Pierce:
I really don’t know, but they might have some small effect..
However, according to NASA’s Facts on line, they have an article “Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They, And Why Are They So Important?”
In their discussion of Volcanic SO2 aerosols, they state that “they reflect sunlight, cooling the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface”, and that “human-made SO2 aerosols absorb no solar radiation, but reflect it” , making their climatic effects identical
And, obviously, if there are fewer of them, more solar radiation will strike the Earth’s surface, and warming will naturally occur.
Their levels have been falling since 1980, and temperatures have been increasing, and will continue to do so, as long as atmospheric cleansing continues.
Jet fuel is fairly dirty compared to gasoline or diesel, so billions of sub-micron particles per gallon burned, and added to the upper troposphere at 30 to 45 thousand ft.
At those elevations very little mixing takes place, as indicated by smooth jet travel at those elevations.
Any water molecules immediately ice up on the particles and CO2 molecules, which scatter light and makes them visible as contrails, which slowly spread to join other veils.
Altogether, they may have a small umbrella effect, which cools the earth.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, 2) increased crop yields/acre to better feed 8 billion people, and 3) reduced world desert areas..
Increased greening produces oxygen by photosynthesis
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
The number of particles expelled probably outnumbers the number of particles sucked up.
So you are advocating SO2 as the “control knob” not CO2?
There is no simple answer.
There is no single factor that explains life, the universe, and everything (except, of course, 42).
SO2 aerosol pollution does not explain the Dust Bowl.
SO2 aerosol does not explain why some days are cloudy and others not.
SO2 contributes, but the extent is unknown and there are other factors, which you have denied in other posts.
Sparta Nova 4:
I have never said that SO2 aerosol pollution causes any warming.
It is DECREASING levels in the atmosphere that causes the warming, and decreased levels were responsible for the Dust Bowl warming.
And, yes, they can explain why some days are cloudy, and some are not.
“There is no simple answer”
I have NEVER seen any temperature change, increasing or decreasing, that could not be attributed to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere (except, of course, for seasonal changes)
Looks like a simple answer to me!
You are a true believer.
This is not science.
There has been a general rise in temp lasting several thousand years with some punctuations, starting with the beginning of ice sheet melting 20,000 years ago or thereabouts. Blaming the warming on SO2 or CO2 is like studying beach surf until you decide that just the right wind conditions must cause tsunamis.
+100
Story tip?
The manufacturers of this cereal say they have ‘…the single most effective solution to prevent global warming?” Wow, if only we knew this earlier we could have dismissed all the trillions of wasted dollars on trying to do the same! LOL
It is little things like this that the proponents of global warming slyly put into the mushy brains of the same people who eat this stuff. (Actually, I eat and like it also but I didn’t see this little piece on the back of the package until recently.)
Perhaps customers should inform the manufacturers and retailers of such perishable products that fossil fuels play an enormous role in the minimization of food waste.
So interesting and refreshing to be able to listen to a real scientist. Thanks for the link.