This amazing human, Dr. Happer, is so gentle and full of wisdom. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for allowing us to listen to these insightful comments in share with interview. God bless you and your work in continuum to spread truth that lessen the fears that entangle humanity.
William Happer and many other notables are quoted and it sets forth an excellent, well supported argument de-bunking the Climate fear message being touted as truth when in fact it is just propoganda that is masquerading as science.
Professor is a genius. We have a generation plus to re-educate the whole world and with the money still flowing into the climate crisis it’s almost an all out war that’ll be needed to change the hysteria. Thank you for bringing facts from someone who knows how everything works. Great interview. Loved every minute of it.
I wish learned people such as Prof. Happer wouldn't use the "CO2 follows temperature" argument because in this case it really isn't valid. The changes in CO2 levels he refers to took hundreds of years after a temperature rise and the current warming is more in lockstep with rising CO2 levels. The warmists will claim causation when it's really just coincidence. They can't explain why the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than today with CO2 levels much lower at 280 parts per million. There was also the Little Ice Age also at 280 ppm. In my opinion this is all about graft with the government behind it. By declaring CO2 a pollutant they get the ability to tax fossil fuels and claim to be noble while they're plundering the consumer.
So. he does a great job in saying the fact that the historical record reveals that CO2 follows surface ocean temperatures.
Others, expert on the sun and the solar system, tell us how the energy from the sun goes up and down and the planet warms and cools as a result. The cooling that has already started is caused by the very low magnetic field of the sum and the increased distance of most of the planets from the sun because they are almost all on the same side of the sun all together making the orbits more elliptical and less circular.
I don't disagree with you. Prof. Happer is right except for the fact that is not what is happening now and the warmists are using that as proof the CO2 causes warming. It isn't and I think it's more a case of coincidence, not causation as I stated. As I mentioned in a different post data collected and stored at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory show the sun is far more dominant than the IPCC gives credit but, yes, it's clear the sun's output has fallen off and the planet is now in a cooling cycle despite the media pronouncements of hottest year ever. We're experiencing extreme cold in Canada and the Midwest in winter as warm air from the lower latitudes moves in over the top of a weak polar vortex forcing cold air south. The heat is escaping to space. There are also several active planetary systems, e.g. PDO, AMOC, Polar Vortex, ENSO, etc. some of which the IPCC's climate models do not take into account. If you haven't read Javier Vinós books written in partnership with some of the climatologists on Judith Curry's they're worth the time and effort. I'm reading through his "Solving the Climate - The Sun's Surprising Role" for a third time as there's a lot there to digest.
I believe I correctly heard and understood him to say that if CO2 increased by 100% it would approx. change the radiative flux to space by < 1% and that would follow with a fractional change in temperature in degrees.
So, your statement above "CO2 follows temperature" seems to not agree with that.
I heard CO2 drives radiative flux which drives temperature. . . or did I miss something here?
Yes, you did miss the part where water dissolves CO2, and cold water can dissolve more CO2, so when water warms it releases CO2. This is why temperature fluctuations cause CO2 fluctuations. If you listen to the recording again you will find the part where Dr. Happer discusses this. You could also look it up, because it is widely known.
You could also test it yourself using a sealed room, some dry ice, and a hot tub. You will find that as the warm tub cools, the CO2 in the sealed room's air will decrease, because the cooling water absorbs more of the CO2. If you then heat the water back up, the amount of CO2 in the air of the room will then increase, because warm water holds less CO2 in solution.
Well, I did not listen to his whole spiel, and so it appears I missed what you were referring to but, in fact, I think I am also referring to a different process he described earlier in the video.
I understand that CO2 goes into solution more readily as cooled water absorbs it and then degasses as the water warms to increase CO2 ppm in the air. Got that.
However, probably missing your first point, I recalled the process he described for the very small level of temperature increase caused indirectly by a mani-fold increase in CO2. I was talking one process and you, another.
Correct. What Dr. Happer said is that if the CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 100%, in other words doubled, it would increase flux less than 1%, and that would increase temperature a fraction of that amount.
the CO2 follows the surface temperature of the oceans quite slowly.
The invention of the feedback being driven is fake science and used to pretend that the models were correct - they are wrong and are wrong by more every new prediction.
If there isn't mention of chemtrails and HAARP type technology, this is all pomp and theatre.
THAT is the only thing that could cause an actual significant change in our climate.
Obviously the current climate alarmism is a giant political grift, it always has been. However, this article gets something wrong right from the beginning. It states that the climate alarmism started in the early 90's which is patently false. It started a very many years before that, as early as the mid 50's.
Then how did climate vary prior to invention of HAARP and Chemtrails?
In fact, HAARP and Chemtrails can't much affect climate, either. HAARP may be able to affect weather - but that's not climate. Chemtrails aren't able to affect climate, although they can make it rain, and where cloud seeding causes a lot of metals to fall out and they make soil toxic
What a lovely, intelligent and thoughtful elder gentleman. What he said at the end nearly made me cry. The young ones need to feel like what they do is important, that the world is a better place with them in it and they do have Something to live for. What a beautiful soul professor Happer xo
Water dissolves CO2. Warmer water dissolves less CO2. When temperatures rise, water gets warmer and releases CO2 that had been dissolved in it. That's the reality. Concentrations of CO2 that are detectably larger take a little time to accrue, but they inevitably follow rises in water temperature. It didn't take hundreds of years for that change to be noticeable, but it does take concentrations to be significantly higher before we can detect them in the fossil record after the fact, which is why you say it took hundreds of years.
That doesn't make them irrelevant, or invalid. That will also change as our ability to measure past atmospheric CO2 levels improve, as our scientific abilities improve.
I wish people wouldn't claim that scientific principles or the data they reveal were irrelevant or invalid. If Alarmists will try to claim this or that and we know they will, then simply predicting that they will claim falsely such things can put them in a double bind, that they can't resolve, because they need to make the false claim to put forth their false theory, which then establishes that they are making the false claim as predicted, or they must fail to make their false claim, in which case they aren't promoting their false theory.
That is exactly what will enable people that tell the truth to prevail.
Precious. Thank you for sharing.
Excellent talk on climate change in general as grifting. Keep in mind, with this scan, YOU are the carbon they want to reduce.
Would be great if you could get someone knowledgeable to speak about geoengineering as that is where a great many of our current issues are based.
Thank you for this wonderful presentation.
God Bless William Happer!
A brilliant interview and genuine information! Thank you Professor Happer.
This amazing human, Dr. Happer, is so gentle and full of wisdom. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for allowing us to listen to these insightful comments in share with interview. God bless you and your work in continuum to spread truth that lessen the fears that entangle humanity.
Watch "Climate, The Movie" on YouTube at the link below to see more on this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM
William Happer and many other notables are quoted and it sets forth an excellent, well supported argument de-bunking the Climate fear message being touted as truth when in fact it is just propoganda that is masquerading as science.
Global issues require global solutions.
This is a collectivist mentality.
The climate change alarmism directly empowers global, collectivist government.
Professor is a genius. We have a generation plus to re-educate the whole world and with the money still flowing into the climate crisis it’s almost an all out war that’ll be needed to change the hysteria. Thank you for bringing facts from someone who knows how everything works. Great interview. Loved every minute of it.
I wish learned people such as Prof. Happer wouldn't use the "CO2 follows temperature" argument because in this case it really isn't valid. The changes in CO2 levels he refers to took hundreds of years after a temperature rise and the current warming is more in lockstep with rising CO2 levels. The warmists will claim causation when it's really just coincidence. They can't explain why the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than today with CO2 levels much lower at 280 parts per million. There was also the Little Ice Age also at 280 ppm. In my opinion this is all about graft with the government behind it. By declaring CO2 a pollutant they get the ability to tax fossil fuels and claim to be noble while they're plundering the consumer.
CO2 is being blamed at the major cause of warming
It is NOT
Happer has all the evidence that it is not
So. he does a great job in saying the fact that the historical record reveals that CO2 follows surface ocean temperatures.
Others, expert on the sun and the solar system, tell us how the energy from the sun goes up and down and the planet warms and cools as a result. The cooling that has already started is caused by the very low magnetic field of the sum and the increased distance of most of the planets from the sun because they are almost all on the same side of the sun all together making the orbits more elliptical and less circular.
There are also many other known cycles.
I don't disagree with you. Prof. Happer is right except for the fact that is not what is happening now and the warmists are using that as proof the CO2 causes warming. It isn't and I think it's more a case of coincidence, not causation as I stated. As I mentioned in a different post data collected and stored at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory show the sun is far more dominant than the IPCC gives credit but, yes, it's clear the sun's output has fallen off and the planet is now in a cooling cycle despite the media pronouncements of hottest year ever. We're experiencing extreme cold in Canada and the Midwest in winter as warm air from the lower latitudes moves in over the top of a weak polar vortex forcing cold air south. The heat is escaping to space. There are also several active planetary systems, e.g. PDO, AMOC, Polar Vortex, ENSO, etc. some of which the IPCC's climate models do not take into account. If you haven't read Javier Vinós books written in partnership with some of the climatologists on Judith Curry's they're worth the time and effort. I'm reading through his "Solving the Climate - The Sun's Surprising Role" for a third time as there's a lot there to digest.
Great to read some sense, for once, when it comes to the climate!
I believe I correctly heard and understood him to say that if CO2 increased by 100% it would approx. change the radiative flux to space by < 1% and that would follow with a fractional change in temperature in degrees.
So, your statement above "CO2 follows temperature" seems to not agree with that.
I heard CO2 drives radiative flux which drives temperature. . . or did I miss something here?
Yes, you did miss the part where water dissolves CO2, and cold water can dissolve more CO2, so when water warms it releases CO2. This is why temperature fluctuations cause CO2 fluctuations. If you listen to the recording again you will find the part where Dr. Happer discusses this. You could also look it up, because it is widely known.
You could also test it yourself using a sealed room, some dry ice, and a hot tub. You will find that as the warm tub cools, the CO2 in the sealed room's air will decrease, because the cooling water absorbs more of the CO2. If you then heat the water back up, the amount of CO2 in the air of the room will then increase, because warm water holds less CO2 in solution.
Well, I did not listen to his whole spiel, and so it appears I missed what you were referring to but, in fact, I think I am also referring to a different process he described earlier in the video.
I understand that CO2 goes into solution more readily as cooled water absorbs it and then degasses as the water warms to increase CO2 ppm in the air. Got that.
However, probably missing your first point, I recalled the process he described for the very small level of temperature increase caused indirectly by a mani-fold increase in CO2. I was talking one process and you, another.
Correct. What Dr. Happer said is that if the CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 100%, in other words doubled, it would increase flux less than 1%, and that would increase temperature a fraction of that amount.
the CO2 follows the surface temperature of the oceans quite slowly.
The invention of the feedback being driven is fake science and used to pretend that the models were correct - they are wrong and are wrong by more every new prediction.
If there isn't mention of chemtrails and HAARP type technology, this is all pomp and theatre.
THAT is the only thing that could cause an actual significant change in our climate.
Obviously the current climate alarmism is a giant political grift, it always has been. However, this article gets something wrong right from the beginning. It states that the climate alarmism started in the early 90's which is patently false. It started a very many years before that, as early as the mid 50's.
Then how did climate vary prior to invention of HAARP and Chemtrails?
In fact, HAARP and Chemtrails can't much affect climate, either. HAARP may be able to affect weather - but that's not climate. Chemtrails aren't able to affect climate, although they can make it rain, and where cloud seeding causes a lot of metals to fall out and they make soil toxic
What a lovely, intelligent and thoughtful elder gentleman. What he said at the end nearly made me cry. The young ones need to feel like what they do is important, that the world is a better place with them in it and they do have Something to live for. What a beautiful soul professor Happer xo
Wonderful, we need more like Happer.
The guy from Estonia was asking excellent questions.
Water dissolves CO2. Warmer water dissolves less CO2. When temperatures rise, water gets warmer and releases CO2 that had been dissolved in it. That's the reality. Concentrations of CO2 that are detectably larger take a little time to accrue, but they inevitably follow rises in water temperature. It didn't take hundreds of years for that change to be noticeable, but it does take concentrations to be significantly higher before we can detect them in the fossil record after the fact, which is why you say it took hundreds of years.
That doesn't make them irrelevant, or invalid. That will also change as our ability to measure past atmospheric CO2 levels improve, as our scientific abilities improve.
I wish people wouldn't claim that scientific principles or the data they reveal were irrelevant or invalid. If Alarmists will try to claim this or that and we know they will, then simply predicting that they will claim falsely such things can put them in a double bind, that they can't resolve, because they need to make the false claim to put forth their false theory, which then establishes that they are making the false claim as predicted, or they must fail to make their false claim, in which case they aren't promoting their false theory.
That is exactly what will enable people that tell the truth to prevail.