Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
Doomed satellite was to measure 'greenhouse gases'
'Global warming' data called 'ancient astrology'
Global warming on Free Republic
Posted on 02/28/2009 7:17:29 AM PST by Delacon
No, Dr. Will Happer is not a celebrity. He is merely a physicist of considerable renown who happens to agree with many of the world’s other leading scientists that the current panic over climate change is a lot of “hysterics about carbon footprints.” Dr. Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University, testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25. He told them:
Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million - ppm) — that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1,000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.
“Earth was just fine in those times,” Prof. Happer noted. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”
Global-warming alarmists are pushing for incredibly wasteful and expensive “carbon sequestration” and carbon “cap and trade” schemes that will have virtually no impact on global CO2 levels or global temperatures. But rising CO2 levels shouldn’t be worrying us anyway.
“I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the committee. He cited the well-known evidence from other researchers that increasing CO2 levels will greatly benefit crop yields, meaning more food for the world’s people and animals. Dr. Sherwood Idso and other scientists have published extensively on the numerous benefits to be derived from increasing CO2 levels: more robust forest and vegetation growth, greater plant resistance to stress, greater drought resistance, reclaiming of deserts and barren lands.
“What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about?” Dr. Happer asked rhetorically. “In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated,” he answered. “At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player,” he explained. “But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."
Professor Happer is a former director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy. He has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. Prof. Happer has joined the more than 650 distinguished scientists from around the globe who have provided statements challenging the alleged “scientific consensus” frequently sited in support of human-caused, or anthropogenic global warming. Those statements are available in a 231-page report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
These scientists represent more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report for policymakers. But the AGW “scientific consensus” fraud becomes even more ludicrous when the results of the Global Warming Petition Project are factored in, since more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the document urging “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
bookmark for later read - thanks for posting
The 'problem' with that, Dr. Happer, at least according to Algore, and the Church of Environmentalism, is that the areas that would benefit from the increased CO2 to sustain more life, are exactly those areas where the Population Police have been trying to reduce the numbers of births for years. Can't have all those 'brown people' you know, using up all the earth's resources.
That would be impossible, because she has no shame, only ideology.
Satellite imagery proves there is more forested land on earth today than there was when the first weather satellite, TIROS-1, was launched in 1959.
Accordingly, if we are producing more CO2 today than we did fifty years ago -- it's going to a good purpose. In fact, you might say that coal-burning power plants and sheep farts are doing their part in "saving the rain forest"...
LOL! The esteemed Dr. Happer was trying to do just that to the Senate! His point was that we have had many extreme climate changes on the Earth over millions of years; some more extreme than others. His point was that there were times, which were amenable to life, which had higher CO2 counts than we have now, so obviously, life, and the Earth survived them. He also made the point that warmer temperatures are not necessarily a BAD thing, because it makes for better growing conditions to help sustain human life on the planet.
True, but without the CO2 the atmosphere would be stone cold and little water vapor would exist. The earth's oceans would be frozen with only slush during the daytime near the equator. The CO2, albeit small, gives us a base GH effect that lets water vapor do the rest.
That basically jives with the article. Without CO2 we are screwed. With "too much" CO2, we might have some problems, but those pale in comparison and can be easily mitigated.
“Senate Committee : “Don’t confuse us with the facts””
Senate Committee : “Don’t rain on our power grab”
Fixed it.
:-)
heretic bookmark.
Here’s a great (and simple!) site with some information.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
After taking into account the “effectiveness” of the various gases to hold in heat, man-made CO2 provides about 0.117% of the total effective greenhouse effect. (Other chemicals, methane etc. that we produce bring the total man made contribution to something like 0.28%).
This guy has too much common sense...He must be silenced
Here’s an excerpt from that site:
But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:
Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (ignoring water vapor).
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2.”
Site continues with charts, graphs, etc. showing the 0.117% effective contribution for manmade CO2.
THAT was the key phrase. Most extinctions happen when climate changes rapidly -- and that's the danger being anticipated now. Ecosystems can adapt when climate changes over millenia -- but not decades.
warmer temperatures are not necessarily a BAD thing,
Sure, human civilization might be able to adapt to 2-3 C of warming -- if it happened over 300-400 years. Over 100 years; Melting Andean Glaciers Could Leave 30 Million High and Dry
"With water supplies, agriculture, and power generation at risk, the World Bank and the funding agency Global Environment Facility are working together to develop adaptation strategies for local communities."
I recommend reading the full article; quite sobering. And this represents only a regional sampling. China is already quietly freaking out about the loss of water supply from Tibetan glaciers.
“I kinda wish someone would explain the downsides of extreme rates of change to the esteemed Dr. Happer”.
Well since Dr. Happer is an atomic physicist at Princeton, I think we can assume that not much gets by the dear doctor. Now its a fact that the rate of change is the highest its ever been(2.28ppm/yr) but please explain how that is more important than the actal concentrations having been as high if not higher than 1000 ppm and way higher than they are now with life on mother earth chugging along just fine. Please give us some algorian predictions based on the rate.
Ok, I see where you are going with this. Its a relative question. Yes change is inevitable, and slow change is usually better than quick change. But do we impose restictions on carbon emissions that could have an even more devestating effect on mankind? At what price? Or do we adapt? Mankind has never been better able to adapt to such changes in our history. And that supposes that the rate change will cause a 2-3 degree increase in any amount of time.
One last thing. The global warming alarmist crowd doesn’t want to slow the rate of change. They don’t even want to bring the rate of change to zero. They want us to reduce the actual amount we emmit yearly to 6% less than what it was in 1990. Thats the target based on Kyoto and I feel succeeding at achieving this in the 10 to 25 year time frame that most want to adhere to will be far more devastating than any global warming that might happen over 100 years. Thats a rate of change I for one am not willing to accept.
1. The problem: Global warming is marketed as a planet killer to ramp up hysteria so that voters are emotionally invested in whatever "solution" is given.
2. The cause: Human activity generated CO2 is blamed for global warming.
3. The solution: CO2 must be curtailed. Politicians and politically connected "scientists" determine that the best way to curtail CO2 is a cap and trade scheme.
4. Hysterical, scientifically innocent voters demand laws be enacted and politicians comply to the wishes of the voters.
5. The reality: Politicians are rewarded with massive cap and trade revenue and more power and control over business and our personal lives. This process works almost every time and can be seen at the heart of every societal "crisis" we've faced. P.T. Barnum was right.
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
Doomed satellite was to measure 'greenhouse gases'
'Global warming' data called 'ancient astrology'
Global warming on Free Republic
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I just don't see any easy way to mitigate the consequences of the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Move inland?
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.