Posted on 05/22/2010 8:32:15 AM PDT by Delacon
“Al Gore took a course in climate science in 1967”
As a sophomore at Harvard Gore got a “D” in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature), and then got a “C+” in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.
“Im sure the IRS will begin auditing him on Monday in retaliation for this statement.”
An endowed chair in physics at Princeton is pretty good insulation from the cares of the world.
Thank you for your testimony Professor Happer.
Ping and thanks for your replies on the last thread I started when Dr. Happer addressed the EPW.
Thanks for posting this.
[[Climate Depot’s Selected Highlights of Dr. Happer’s May 20, 2010 Congressional Testimony]]
Sadly, this info will never make it to the general public except in a few select forums like FR- TRhe truth about GW and CO2 must not be made public lest Feingold and others of his ilk lose their bid to extort trillions of dollars from the unsuspecting with their assinine ‘cap and tax’ scam
EatB,
Already sent this to all my “warmist” friends! I’m sure they’re fuming! I can almost smell the smoke from here!
***************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Key Excerpts: The CO2 absorption band is nearly saturated at current CO2 levels.
Adding more CO2 is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. The extra hat makes you a little bit warmer but to really get warm, you need to add a jacket. The IPCC thinks that this jacket is water vapor and clouds. [...]
************************************************************************
Related threads:
If We Double CO2 Levels, What Does It Look Like?
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today
Preindustrial People Had Little Effect on Atmospheric Carbon Levels
Where is the evidence that CO2, at anywhere near the levels we have today, leads to global warming?
Want to include link to the 25 page PDF at the David Evans website *********************************************************
*******************************************
I.E. if the Globe is warming then radiosonde measurement at the tropics should show such a fact.....
****************************************************
Will add another link soon as I find it.
Atty Gen "Moonbeam" Brown also is taking advantage of that approach in clever wording of a California Referendum to be voted on soon.
4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
**************************************************
Threads:
Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can.
Climate change study shows Earth is still absorbing carbon dioxide
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
AND AN IMPORTANT THREAD:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Good...keep up the good work.
****************************************************
4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can
Heres why its possible that doubling CO2 wont make much difference.
The carbon thats already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light, and its close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it cant do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.
The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but its already reached its peak performance.
Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just unemployed molecules.
This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.
AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve, and use it already.
Skeptics say: The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). Lab-warming doesnt necessarily translate to planet-warming: Test tubes dont have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The clouds and humidity factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models dont know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbons alleged effect. EGad.
AGW says: Its not 100% saturated.
Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 thats already up there.
And the effect is already so small, it cannot be measured.
Conclusion: If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We dont. Ergo, carbons effect is probably minor.
When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: Its true that carbon has some warming effect, but its also true that extra carbon doesnt have the same effect. When alarmists point out that the natural greenhouse effect causes X degrees of warming, they usually fail to mention that the first 100pm does almost all of this, and no additional 100ppm will ever do as much. Its a lie by omission.
The graph in the first printed edition of The Skeptics Handbook is shown below, and comes from David Archibald, who was the first to arrange the results in this powerful format. Its a good graph, and he deserves credit for being the one to capture the increasing ineffectiveness of carbon very well. This was calculated (like the top graph) using Modtran, which is a model provided by Spectral Sciences and the US Air Force, and used by researchers around the world.
Archibald based his figures on a climate sensitivity calculated by Craig Idso and published in peer reviewed literature (Idso 1998). The graph itself was not published in peer reviewed paper*. The top graph above comes from Patrick Michaels, and was also constructed on Modtran. It started with a climate sensitivity estimate from Richard Lindzen in his recent ERBE paper (Lindzen and Choi 2009). Useful discussions on the observational backing for a low climate sensitivity are at Friends of Science and Niche Modelling.
The two log curves here are not that different (which is one of the things about a log curve: Once you get past the initial slide, its all small or smaller). Overall, both graphs accomplish what I wanted; namely, to show that the basic effect of carbon dioxide on its own dwindles to almost nothing. Sure, each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and theres a point where its irrelevant and cannot be measured. Were not at that point yet. Even if doubling carbon leads only to a 0.5 degree difference on a global scale, its arguably still measurable (well, at least theoretically).
My point with this page was not that we could use Modtran to calculate whether there is a crisis due to carbon. I was not so much interested in the exact numbers as in the shape of the curve. From a science communicators point of view, this is basic science: Additional carbon has less effect. But, can anyone find a school climate education program with this chemistry?
The exponential hockey-stick curves of the IPCC et al emphasize just how much difference extra carbon supposedly makes. Few people realize that the exponential rising curves come from feedback factors (which are the fatal flaw of the science behind the scare campaign).
There have been plenty of people who have claimed the log graph is totally, completely, utterly wrong. Desmog argued that Earths atmosphere wasnt even close to saturated: look at Venus. So I did, and demolished that point in this reply. (Basically, Venuss atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earths. No wonder its hot. It wouldnt matter what gas was in its atmosphere).
Other people come out with irrelevant things, like the Idso paper is old (so is the theory of gravity). They launch ad hominem attacks on Archibald, and claim the graph is not peer reviewed. Their most inflated argument is that the creator of Modtran says Archibald misused it. But in the cold light of day, it only means that the guy who developed the web interface for the Modtran model didnt like the climate sensitivity that Archibald chose. And we are supposed to care?
*UPDATE:
David Archibald writes in #104
The graphs first outing, in 2006, was in a peer-reviewed paper, published in Energy and Environment. Thanks for republishing.
David
And thank you Ernest.
Obama and Moonbeam are both uneducated fools as far as technical matters go. Unfortunately, a lot of people are just as lost when it comes to science/technology.
Shattered Warmers Become Global Mourners
*****************************Intro*************************
Its unsubtle, twice as long as it needs to be, its unashamedly smug, and worth watching.
Be patient with the start. (Click on the pic to go to PJTV)
Guess that link now requires that you join PJTV...comments are useful/.
*********************************EXCERPT**************************************
val majkus:
May 9th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Thanks for the link Jo; and relevant to this topic Im sure youve all heard about Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinellis investigation of alleged climate science fraudster, Michael Mann; heres a link to a great article by John OSullivan How to Expose Post-Normal Junk Climate Science in Five Steps in which John (a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain) examines the legal aspects of the case http://co2insanity.com/2010/05/07/how-to-expose-post-normal-junk-climate-science-in-five-steps/
and leave a comment
I totally agree with you about the popular misconception of impurity = bad thing but its not the same as the EPA calling co2 a pollutant. We can explain to people that impure is not always, in fact almost never is, a bad thing. Good or bad, we know and agree on the definition of the word impurity. But when the EPA calls co2 a pollutant, they (and by extension the whole government) can change the very meaning of words. The EPA seeks to change the meaning of the word pollutant by saying co2 is “potentially” harmful to the environment. My DEFINITION of a pollutant is that it has DEFINITELY been proven to be a harm to the environment. What’s next? I am “potentially” a threat to civil society because I am conservative?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.