Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
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.”
He's not a climate scientist, he's an energy physicist. BIG difference. I wonder if he even consulted with someone who knows a lot more about this -- Jorge Sarmiento. Computer Models Suggest Global Warming Disturbs Ocean Circulation
Maybe a little different answer from that Ph.D. at Princeton. Like this:
Study says some global warming now irreversible
" Said geoscientist Jorge Sarmiento of Princeton University, "This is really a wake-up call about the seriousness of this issue." The study looked particularly at ocean levels and rainfall. The team found that, just by thermal expansion of ocean water alone, sea levels will rise by 1.3 to 3.2 feet if carbon dioxide rises from the current level of 385 parts per million to 600 and twice that if carbon dioxide peaks at 1,000. Melting of the polar icecaps could increase sea levels even more, inundating low-lying islands and much of the world's shorelines, but the effects are too uncertain to quantify, Solomon said. Reductions in rainfall also would last for centuries, according to the study, decreasing human water supplies, increasing fire frequency and devastating dry-season farming of wheat and maize."
Please give us some algorian predictions based on the rate
Done.
I just don’t see any easy way to mitigate the consequences of the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Move inland?
Oy, thats almost like saying “I just don’t see any easy way to mitigate the consequences of the impact of an asteroid. Move to another planet”? You are asking us to assume the worst and pay for its planning.
“He’s not a climate scientist, he’s an energy physicist. BIG difference.”
“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. “
Just read the article I linked you to.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Hey Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I went to Harvard too! That was the worst fieldtrip of my life, but I went there...
Not if it isn't necessary.
At what price? Or do we adapt?
We'll have to adapt as much as we can. What about the people that depend on the Andes glaciers for water supply? How will they adapt? What are we going to do -- tow icebergs from Antarctica to Santiago, and pipe the water up the mountains?
Mankind has never been better able to adapt to such changes in our history.
We're pushing agriculture about as far as it can go. Hear what's happening in California these days? State of emergency declaration, I believe. "We have a water system built for 18 million people. We now have 38 million people," the governor [Schwarzenegger] said."
I point this out not to blame the California drought (or any drought or flood) on global warming. This one is La Nina related, surely. I point it out because much of the world is dependent on high levels of production from high-yield agriculture. If that falters, how well can we adapt? Who's going to suffer?
And that supposes that the rate change will cause a 2-3 degree increase in any amount of time.
Absolute bare minimum lower-bound estimate of 1.8 C rise from 2000 to 2100. (From Pat Michaels, no less -- if you don't know who he is, look him up. Most estimates are higher.)
“The team found that, just by thermal expansion of ocean water alone, sea levels will rise by 1.3 to 3.2 feet if carbon dioxide rises from the current level of 385 parts per million to 600 and twice that if carbon dioxide peaks at 1,000.”
Just by thermal expansion alone? Just by? What if there are other mitigating factors? There are.
Sea levels will rise by 1.3 to 3.2 feet if carbon dioxide rises from the current level of 385 parts per million to 600 and twice that if carbon dioxide peaks at 1,000.”
Prove that they will rise. Find a model that will backcast this and then forecast these predictions. But you are riding the same old horse I wont hop on. You are predicting catastrophy when what will happen is a bumpy transition from one energy source to another. You’d have predicted the demise of humankind when well any bump in the road happened.
For every year that we choose not to act, the consequences and costs of inaction will be higher in future years and for future generations. There are major reasons to change our energy infrastructure other than climate -- climate change should be one of the reasons that we act with purpose. Examine the Stabilization Wedges (also from Princeton, amazingly enough)
The collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet is inevitable under BAU scenarios. Once it starts, it couldn't be stopped. Since we don't know what's going to happen with energy, emissions, and the climate response, the question is when it's going to start. Not if -- when.
“We’ll have to adapt as much as we can. What about the people that depend on the Andes glaciers for water supply? How will they adapt? What are we going to do — tow icebergs from Antarctica to Santiago, and pipe the water up the mountains? “
You assume that humanity is in stasis. The people will move around. The people will adapt. All, not necessarily, without maximum governmental intervention.
“We’re pushing agriculture about as far as it can go. Hear what’s happening in California these days? State of emergency declaration, I believe. “We have a water system built for 18 million people. We now have 38 million people,” the governor [Schwarzenegger] said.””
Wow, I learned in my biology class in highschool how there was a global famine coming down the pike. That was in the 70s. You really mix global warming in with global starvation. Sure you don’t want to throw in global cooling to hedge your bets?
“I point this out not to blame the California drought (or any drought or flood) on global warming.”
Beep beep beep.
The push for governments to 'do something right now' about human caused global warming is being orchestrated by people who are looking for a power grab, pure and simple. That's why they're trying to shut down contrary research, and work hard to denigrate any scientist who is audacious enough to question their computer models.
“I point it out because much of the world is dependent on high levels of production from high-yield agriculture.”
CO2, just what the doctor ordered.
Just read this:
Repeat: He's not a climate scientist. And he's also on the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute. Hmmm...
And I just found this:
Here is the whole transcript. Let me know what you think.
I just read through it. My short summary: I stopped arguing about global warming on FreeRepublic because I kept reading nonsense like this. It would take hours and days to address the illogic, the artistically erroneous comparisons, as well as the errors of fact. It's a remarkable and beautifully written statement. And it's appallingly bad. Congratulations to you (actually to Dr. Happer) to once again convince me of the wisdom of my decision to withdraw from active participation here. I am doing so again. Before I get frustrated and angry and disappointed and disillusioned.
Adieu.
“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.
Al Gooooore, Al Gooooore paging Al Goooore.
Your reply came through after I decided to withdraw from further discussion on the issue. So I'll reply to you, succinctly:
From the scientific perspective, and not the political one: the progressive climate changes due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration increase in the atmosphere are happening; and the future consequences, even just the realistic ones (not the really bad ones) are profoundly disturbing. No amount of what I could try to tell you here could convince you of that. And if you derive your perspectives from conservative sources, you won't ever get the full picture of what could happen.
I apologize that in a fit of pique I decided to make some comments. I shouldn't have done it. There's just too much disinformation for one person to try to address.
Hope you keep enjoying the geology pictures.
The other simple fact is that no matter what nonsensical things Todd Stern commits us to doing, it will make zero difference in climate (compared to natural variations).
So... why did you come back? Your socialist allies won the election, thanks in part to the endless climate alarmist brainwashing that you are part of. Part of what makes America great is our ability to reject European Green Utopianism and thereby strongly protect property rights and the world economy. Having performed my own modest experiments with solar power I see only a money pit. OTOH, my chain saw and gas is keeping me warm right now, and no realistic amount of money wasted on solar or wind will do that, at least here in Northern VA.
So while you helped here at the margins in the past, keeping the worst of the carbon proponents honest, your overall effect on America is a net negative, along with the rest of Maryland, and alas, Virginia. But here in Virginia there are lots of people with buyers remorse who now reject the politics of pseudo-scientific alarmism and capitulation to European Greenies. Your window will close soon enough.
>. whatever feeble little amount that man produces shrivels to total insignificance.
It totals to a fraction of an ‘insignificance’ when only a portion of man’s behavior is charged with causing the ‘problem’.
Since this is your opus, I'll continue the traditional Freeper bashing. Your return here is simply another example of cap-and-trade type indulgence selling. You figure that giving a few Freepers a science lesson (a good thing) is a worthy repentance for your sin of supporting socialism in the form of pseudo-scientific climate alarmism. In previous, more detailed posts you would point out that the probabilities of most of the alarmist scenarios are actually quite low but we need to do something just in case.
What you failed to factor in was that socialists who used you and your alarmism for their own purposes have a very high probability scenario: they point the gun at your head and then pull the trigger and your blood and brains get splattered on the wall. Of course with the vast majority of people, there is no need to resort to such graphic demonstrations of force, they capitulate or pretend to and bide their time. Quislings like yourself may feel immune from such outcomes based on your early capitulation. But history always shows otherwise.
Radical environmentalists have long held that humans are a curse on Gaia, "Mother Earth". Many have long held that human depopulation is the key to "saving" the planet. They actually hate human beings and loathe the fact that even they exist. Guilt drives them. Look at this.....decrease CO2 and you reduce plant growth, starving food sources and necessitating the depopulation of the planet.
I can see those whacko human haters doing anything they can to kill as many of us as possible.
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.