Prominent Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: 'Warming and increased CO2 will be good...

Climate Depot ^ | Friday, May 21, 2010 | Marc Morano

[Delacon]

 

 'CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving 'pollutant' and 'poison' of their original meaning'

Climate Depot's Selected Highlights of Dr. Happer's May 20, 2010 Congressional Testimony: (Dr. Happer's Full Testimony here: (To read the warmists' testimony of Ralph Cicerone, Stephen Schneider, and Ben Santer, see here. )

Dr. Will Happer's Testimony Before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - May 20, 2010

My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE's work on climate change.

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. [...]

The climate-change establishment has tried to eliminate any who dare question the science establishment climate scientists and by like-thinking policy-makers – you are either with us or you are a traitor.

Orwellian: I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were at least 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. [...]

That we are (or were) living at the best of all CO2 concentrations seems to be an article of faith for the climate-change establishment. Enormous effort and imagination have gone into showing that increasing concentrations of CO2 will be catastrophic: cities will be flooded by sea-level rises that are ten or more times bigger than even IPCC predicts, there will be mass extinctions of species, billions of people will die, tipping points will render the planet a desert. Any flimsy claim of harm from global warming brings instant fame and many rewards.

Sea Level: The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration. The rising sea level can be a serious local problem for heavily-populated, low-lying areas like New Orleans, where land subsidence compounds the problem. But to think that limiting CO2 emissions will stop sea level rise is a dangerous illusion. It is also possible that the warming seas around Antarctica will cause more snowfall over the continent and will counteract the sea-level rise.

Hockey Stick: I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Both the little ice age and the medieval warm period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change.
Conclusion: I regret that the climate-change issue has become confused with serious problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment, and figuring out where future generations will get energy supplies after we have burned all the fossil fuel we can find. We should not confuse these laudable goals with hysterics about carbon footprints. For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind. We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc.

Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs. The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently.

Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.
Related Links:

Prominent Scientist Will Happer Tells Congress: Earth in 'CO2 Famine' - Feb. 25, 2009
Flashback 2009: Princeton Physicist Happer: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult' -- Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming

Flashback 2009: Princeton Professor Will Happer on the Orwellian Movement: UN IPCC 'rewrites the history of the past climate of Earth' with the Hockey Stick 'which is clearly fraudulent'

Flashback 2009: Team of Scientists' Open Letter To U.S. Senators: 'Claim of consensus is fake'

[devere]

“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.

[devere]

“I’m 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.

[Delacon]

Ping and thanks for your replies on the last thread I started when Dr. Happer addressed the EPW.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this.

[CottShop]

[[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

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

EatB,
Already sent this to all my “warmist” friends! I’m sure they’re fuming! I can almost smell the smoke from here!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the article:

***************************************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 *********************************************************

There is no evidence for the theory that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming.

*******************************************

I.E. if the Globe is warming then radiosonde measurement at the tropics should show such a fact.....

****************************************************

NO DETECTED HOT SPOT CAN BE FOUND

**************************

Will add another link soon as I find it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Obama used the word "Pollutant" in a speech the other day and of course since CO2 comes from vehicle's tailpipes....there you are.

Atty Gen "Moonbeam" Brown also is taking advantage of that approach in clever wording of a California Referendum to be voted on soon.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the JoNova website:

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Also from JoNova:

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

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good...keep up the good work.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From JoNova....see link above at #30.

****************************************************

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can

Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t 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 it’s 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” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t 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 don’t 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 carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.

AGW says: It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t. Ergo, carbon’s effect is probably minor.

---

Notes about page 8 of The Skeptics Handbook:

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: It’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t 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. It’s 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. It’s 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, it’s all “small” or “smaller”). Overall, both graphs accomplish what I wanted; namely, to show that the basic effect of carbon dioxide on it’s own dwindles to almost nothing. Sure, each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant and cannot be measured. We’re not at that point yet. Even if doubling carbon leads only to a 0.5 degree difference on a global scale, it’s 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 communicator’s 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).

Attacks on this page

There have been plenty of people who have claimed the log graph is totally, completely, utterly wrong. Desmog argued that Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t even close to saturated: “…look at Venus.” So I did, and demolished that point in this reply.  (Basically, Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in it’s 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 didn’t like the climate sensitivity that Archibald chose.  And we are supposed to care?

*UPDATE:

David Archibald writes in #104

The graph’s first outing, in 2006, was in a peer-reviewed paper, published in Energy and Environment. Thanks for republishing.

David

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

CA: jobs initiative to limit California’s AB32 greenhouse gas law will be on the November ballot

[Delacon]

And thank you Ernest.

[Nepeta]

The EPA pronouncement that carbon dioxide is equivalent to churches declaring that the earth is the center of the universe. Making the assertion does not mean that it reflects reality.

People have strange notions of what "purity" implies. Pure = good, which is of course nonsense. A pure nerve gas is nothing good.

[Nepeta]

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You might enjoy this...at JoNova:

Shattered Warmers Become Global Mourners

*****************************Intro*************************

It’s unsubtle, twice as long as it needs to be, it’s unashamedly smug,  and worth watching.

Be patient with the start. (Click on the pic to go to PJTV)

Betrayed By Climategate, …

Use link above ....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Guess that link now requires that you join PJTV...comments are useful/.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments on the article at JoNova...see link just above:

*********************************EXCERPT**************************************

val majkus:
May 9th, 2010 at 7:51 am

Thanks for the link Jo; and relevant to this topic I’m sure you’ve all heard about Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of alleged climate science fraudster, Michael Mann; here’s a link to a great article by John O’Sullivan 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

[Delacon]

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?