Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Will Happer

Comments matching the search Will Happer:

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

AB19 at 21:32 PM on 29 November, 2023

I quote from the article introduction:

"It’s a familiar story – the physicist who draws attention for declaring that climate scientists have got climate science all wrong. He (it’s always a ‘he’) was born before color television was invented, usually retired, perhaps having won a Nobel Prize, but with zero climate science research or expertise. William Happer."

I don't know if the writer of the article is a scientist or not but it starts with some rather unscientific viewpoints, namely by suggesting that male, retired physicists are not qualified to comment on climate matters. What does it matter what sex they are or how old they are? In relation to physicists, I don't know about the others in the list given, but William Happer would, I would have thought, certainly qualify to comment on the global warming debate given that if you have watched any of his presentations on this topic, you'll know that his field of research was the absorption of infra-red radiation by CO2 molecular stretches and bends - very apt in the climate debate I would have thought, given that it is precisely CO2 that is being posited as the culprit in current global warming trends. He also openly admits that he was once a climate alarmist until his work led him to believe he was wrong.
I am not a climate scientist- my background is chemistry- but there are certain apparent facts that appear to be ignored in the current debate, namely that we know the earth warmed before about 1000 years ago in the medieval warming period and again about 2000 years ago in the Roman period. These warmings cannot have been due to human activity given that there were no combustion engines or factories around and world population was vastly lower than today. I believe it's also true that in the last ice age the level of atmospheric CO2 was at least 10 times current levels - which according to IPCC thinking ought to have produced a blisteringly hot climate - yet there was an ice age. Whilst not denying that CO2 is x greenhouse gas, these facts do tend to cast doubt on just how potent a greenhouse gas CO2 really is. I believe Dr Roy Spencer, who is a meteorologist not a physicist and also not retired ( though he is male) has similar views to the listed physicists.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

Just Dean at 07:27 AM on 20 November, 2023

Almost all Nobel Laureates and National Academy of Sciences members have different different views than the handful of outliers that get a lot of outsized attention.

In 2015 and 2016, 76 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change with an urgent warning about the consequences of climate change.

I have scoured the internet looking for NAS members who appear to be climate change skeptics, contrarians or deniers. I have found 7 living members, two of which are Nobel Laureates, Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin. The other five are Claude Alegre, John Dewey, William Happer, Richard Linzen and Steven Koonin. As of 2022 there were 2493 NAS members. These seven are all over 70 and represent 0.3%. If I'm off by a factor of 3, they will still represent less than 1%.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

wbru49 at 06:51 AM on 27 September, 2023

Are there thoughts about this July 19, 2023 letter from William Happer
Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University and Richard Lindzen
Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

CO2 effect is saturated

Gootmud at 13:00 PM on 24 March, 2023

We all intuit that the more blankets you put on the bed, the warmer you'll be, so the article's argument has an intuitive appeal. It has an embedded assumption, though, that the heat transfer up the atmosphere will stay constant.

The physics is more complicated. In the dense lower atmosphere, convection matters more and will change as temperature changes. An excited CO2 molecule will lose its energy by bumping into an N2 or O2 molecule before it can radiate it away. Around the tropopause there's a laser effect, in which CO2 radiation stimulates other CO2 molecules to emit their own radiation, so more CO2 means more radiation transfer. A somewhat arduous calculation of the physics by van Wijngaarten and Happer can be found at arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf. They estimate doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 PPM would raise temperatures by 1.4C, in line with other published estimates.

In other words, the article's original statement is a strawman. Even a notorious climate denier like Will Happer agrees that there is a greenhouse effect, and more CO2 causes some warming. So what exactly is being debunked?

Moreover it's not clear what the SS authors believe to be the case instead. If 1.4C isn't the right number, what is--5.0C? Do you maintain there is no saturation effect at all, that the greenhouse response is linear, and we would see the same 5.0C going from 0 to 400 PPM, or 2000 to 2400? That would seem to be implied by the article's physical argument.

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 19:58 PM on 1 November, 2022

The commenter currently shown @667 and naming themself 'Spooker' claims to have been awarded a PhD in Physics and asks whether it should have occurred to others that perhaps 'Spooker' "already know(s) the basic science behind the GHE."

It is not unknown for those who are very well versed in Physics to be for some reason incapable of grasping the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect and deny it exists. William Happer was such a one (I think recently he has been used as a co-author in work that does present the existence of AGW but of a much diminished form, a la the likes of Dickie Lindzen), although he does have the excuse of being very old and, as the adage goes, 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'.

What I would ask this commenter presently calling themself Spooker, and ask in a sciency-physics sort of way, if all the IR emitted by the planet surface is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere above within metres of the surface (which for the central specrtum of the CO2 emissions spectrum at ~666cm^-1 is true) and thus cannot impact the planetary energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, where does all the other IR come from? For instance, what is the source of all the downwelling IR that can be seen by instruments on the surface.

The graphic demonstrating such measurement below was sourced from here.

Science: What it is, how it works, and why it matters

MA Rodger at 08:40 AM on 2 September, 2022

There was mention @10 of previous SkS words on van Wijngaarden and Happer. This 'mention' may refer to the treatment one of their un-published papers got in this thread from a year ago.

The top 3 listed 'publications' are the only ones that have these two authors van Wijngaarden and Happer, their first cooperation writing since they were doing physics back thirty years ago.

These 3 listed 'publications' seem rather odd to me. It is as though some other un-attributed authors have contributed to the work but who then had no input into the final version. I say that as many of the numbers presented are not entirely wrong) but the way the papers are written sets them out to give the wrong conclusion. And there are rather too many inconsistencies suggesting too many cooks.

Thus, for example, the third in the list tells us it is a "a summary of a more detailed paper on radiative forcing by greenhouse gases that the authors plan to publish in the near future." And while there are two different titles given for this "more detailed paper" of which there is no sign, they are presumably referring to the top two in the list, all three being pretty similar in their coverage but strangely different in how they say it (and none of which get published). And strangely this 'third' paper 'summary' gives an odd message in its abstract that doesn't really match that given the full account. I call the message in the abstract 'odd' as it tells us not to be scared by methane because it is adding a forcing only one-tenth the CO2 forcing (which agrees with the NOAA AGGI numbers of the last decade) and that together they are adding a climate forcing of +0.05Wm^-2/y (which is 50% higher than the NOAA AGGI numbers of the last decade) but this will apparently only increase global temperatures by +0.012ºC/y (this about half the warming rate of the last decade).

Within the full text, this message is lost with the message being that CO2 is far more powerful a GHG than methane but that the biggest power of a GHG is when it is at low concentration which is why small increases of methane have such a big effect molecule-for-molecule that the higher concentrations of CO2, this being entirely true. But so what?

Untangling the totality of all this strangeness would be quite a task but given the papers are evident garbage, such a debunking task isn't really merited.

Science: What it is, how it works, and why it matters

Bob Loblaw at 00:08 AM on 2 September, 2022

Cowpuncher:

Both Happer and van Wijingaarden are physicists with no real background in climate science.

From van Wijingaarden's profile page at York University, his research area is:

Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics

High-precision laser spectroscopy; Laser cooling and atom trapping; Ultracold atoms, Bose-Einstein condensation, and quantum information; Optical lattices; Environmental pollutant monitoring and climate change.

I highlighted the "climate change" part. It is not really his area of expertise. His publication list shows several recent climate-related titles. Looking at the titles, some are simple data analysis papers. Looking at some of the "journals", I notice that two of the papers with Happer are listed as "Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics arXiv". As far as I can tell, this is not an actual journal - just a place for people to post "papers". The PDFs are hosted on van Wijingaarden's York U web site, and give no indication that they have actually been published anywhere. They did not show up when I searched on arxiv.org.

Another paper is listed as "accepted Open Atmospheric Journal (2016)". Also links to a PDF on his own web page. I can find a journal called "Open Atmospheric Science Journal", but that paper does not appear in a search for "Wijingaarden" on their web page. Downloading the PDF from the YorkU site shows that the full title of the journal really is "Open Atmospheric Science Journal", and it lists Bentham Open as the publisher. Bentham Science Publishers has a page on Wikipedia, which notes:

Bentham Open, its open access division, has received criticism for questionable peer-review practices as well as invitation spam; it was listed as a "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher" in Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers, before the list went defunct.

Some of the "publications" give no journal name at all.

To put it bluntly - that list of "publications" is padded to the extreme. You may wish to believe that these "papers" represent some radically-innovative evidence that the field of climate science is keep the truth hidden. It is much more likely that they are crap, and the only way that the authors can "publish" them is to place them in locations where literally any old crap is accepted.

Science: What it is, how it works, and why it matters

TVC15 at 18:40 PM on 1 September, 2022

@8 Cowpuncher

Happer has a long list of touted climate myths.

Climate Misinformation by Source: William Happer

Science: What it is, how it works, and why it matters

scaddenp at 13:52 PM on 1 September, 2022

Cowpuncher - dont know van Wijingaarden, but in Happer case, yep, it is really hard to get your politically-motivated junk published. Getting basic errors through peer-review is a tough process. If you have somehow missed Happer's problems - then try here skepticalscience.com/Evidence-Squared-10-Debunking-William-Happer-carbon-cycle-myth.html and here skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_arg.htm

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #21 2022

One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 30 May, 2022

"Homo bolidus" was indeed presented by you in your comment on the 2012 SkS post by dana1981 "Lindzen, Happer and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun".

Revisiting that item highlights how difficult it is for public opinion to be 'improved to reduce harm done' by attempts to get people to have increased awareness and improved understanding the evidence based fuller story related to harm done on any issue. So much of the harmful misunderstanding in 2012 is alive and kicking harder today.

The legacy dominance of utilitarian beliefs that 'harm done can be dismissed or justified by claims that some people benefit from the harmful unsustainable activity and associated developed harmful misunderstandings' is hard to correct. People motivated by competitive pursuit of higher status can be very reluctant to learn that their current status or desired ways of obtaining more benefit are harmful obtained and unsustainable. Giving up potential for more benefit and making amends for harm done can be contrary to their liking. And they will readily believe and support purveyors of harmful misleading messages. They can even be seen to become more irrationally determined to believe that 'increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and the required corrections' is a political ideology that is harmfully trying to 'cancel their type of people'.

It is tragic that a harmfully misled minority can have so much influence due to 'Defending and demanding Freedom to believe what they want and do as they please'.

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

BaerbelW at 18:10 PM on 27 February, 2022

@Santalives #19

We had received an email about the paper you mentioned and sent back the below as an initial reply. It contains some quick hints of what to check when encountering a paper to quickly judge it's credibility (or lack thereof):

Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt.

Science Publishing Group, which publishes the "journal", is on Beall's list which is a collection of potentially predatory journals

The "journal" doesn't have/show an impact factor

less than 200 papers have thus far been published in it

judging by the time line - Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021 - not much (if any) proper peer review happened

non of the authors seems to have a background in climate science, two of them are retired from companies

questionable authors like William Happer and Herman Harde are listed in the references

In addition, the authors appear to have made a common (or perhaps even deliberate?) error in evaluating the total greenhouse effect (which we know is much larger than the observed changes) instead of the change to the greenhouse effect (which is what matters in discussions of climate change).

Hope this helps to put this publication into perspective!

SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?

Eclectic at 08:51 AM on 21 February, 2022

Getting back On Topic . . .

Evan , your Lead Article is excellent and perceptive. Yes, there are so many sociological hindrances & constraints ~ far more formidable to overcome, than the technological ones. Yet we progress. But it is like wading through honey. The pious wish of carbon neutrality by 2050 , is only half-achievable (short of a miracle) . . . but is at least a worthy target to be steering towards. In this regard, the world is still due for many cuts and bruises for the remainder of this century.

The forces of stupidity are still strong ~ coming both from the intellectual troglodytes and the elites. ( I had the pleasure of reading a recent public speech by the eminent emeritus Dr William Happer, on climate. Oh me, oh my. As Professor Carlo Cipolla has pointed out, it is the intelligent but irrationally stupid people who do the most damage in this world. )

Speaking of which ~ leads me back to the observation of the trolls who frequently crop up in the threads of SkS. Evan, I hope you will forgive me for engaging with them. The trolls are a fine example of one of the sociological "push backs" you mention.

At the same time, the trolls provide entertainment & amusement in the comments columns. Remarkable, how they seem to enjoy embarrassing themselves in public. IMO it is their unacknowledged anger issues motivating them. And they are like a child who rushes to the top of a tiny hillock, plants his "flag" and proclaims loudly: "I'm the king of the castle and you're the dirty rascals!"

Should a troll be ignored on his hillock? No, of course not. We should patiently point out his errors/stupidities, and point out that his childish "flag" is in reality just a square of dirty toilet paper. And the exercise does serve to re-illuminate some climate information.

Plus, trolls are interesting to observe, in themselves! At first , the reader thinks: could this just be an ill-informed person who is seeking knowledge? But almost immediately, the aroma of troll emerges ~ however skilfully & subtly he tries to conceal it. Interesting to observe the different levels of skill there ~ the troll is like a classic actor wearing a "persona" mask. Interesting, to observe how the mask slips a bit, from time to time. Or the troll churns through goalposts/arguments ~ so interesting, to see how the troll is a chameleon trying to change colors frequently : or wear different colors at the same time !

But eventually the troll gets tired and goes away (sometimes, after several pages). Or disappears when the Moderator hammer comes down (on the most obnoxiously repetitious trolls . . . in their various sockpuppet forms). Yet the trolls do provide amusement.

( Nigelj , my above comments will perhaps interest you more than they interest Evan. )

SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?

Eclectic at 15:19 PM on 17 February, 2022

(continued from @15 ~ and please excuse the typo double negative at one point. The intended meaning is nevertheless quite clear.)

Santalives @11 , I agree with you that the media show a great deal of puff pieces and exaggerated alarmism. But that is not the actual climate science. The science clearly shows that there are big problems approaching us: kind of like a slow-moving freight train. But going into denial and closing one's eyes, is not the intelligent way of dealing with the situation.

Santalives , you seem rather unfamiliar with the blogsite WattsUpWithThat. I visit it daily ~ and I can assure you that there is extremely little debate on published peer reviewed climate science. Extracts from reputable journals are scoffed at and ranted at (inbetween the extremist political rants, and the repetitive rants about the "non-existent" Greenhouse Effect). But I live in hope that someday, some year, WUWT will uncover some killer evidence that the mainstream climate scientists are wrong.

There are a few - very few - intelligent & well-informed posters on WUWT. Istvan and Tillman come to mind ~ but they all have an Achilles Heel. They do not have the insight to recognise the emotional poison that is spreading all the way up from their heel, and is distorting (via motivated reasoning) their rational processes. A great pity. But please note I am not here referring to the small number of rational genuine scientist - Nick Stokes is a prominent example - who all-too-rarely pop in to the WUWT comments columns . . . where their scientific accuracy & common sense produce infuriated responses from the denialists.

Sadly, even a recent paper by Happer & Wijngaarden , is quite misunderstood / misrepresented by the WUWT-ites. It simply does not overthrow the scientific consensus.

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 14:18 PM on 13 September, 2021

Speaking of saturation and "error of interpretation of the resulting data" :-

Coolmaster, you may be the very person I could ask for an interpretation of the recent paper by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020).

I confess to being very nearly a physics naif (and a naif who habitually thinks in terms of two-and-a-half significant figures as afforded by my trusty slide-rule). So, in reading the WH2020 paper, I skipped through the numerous formulae, and sought the Take Home message. ~Which, verbiage aside, seemed to be minimally different from the mainstream climate science on GHG "saturation".

Yes, assorted "AGW-deniers" immediately seized upon the WH2020 paper as a conclusive debunking of a half-century of climate physics & observations. But there are always fringe-dwellers who seize upon anything within a million miles of the idea that no AGW is occurring (or alternatively ~ that the AGW will doom the world irreversibly by the year 2030).

Coolmaster, I will be grateful for your opinion, if you have time to look at the WH2020 paper. ( I do realize that both van Wijngaarden and Happer are afflicted by severe emotional/political bias producing major motivated reasoning problems in their climate assessments ~ but all that aside, is there something of useful scientific value in their paper? )

CO2 effect is saturated

Eclectic at 07:50 AM on 28 October, 2020

Aoeu @587 , permit me to add my 2 cents as well.

The WUWT article is a "nothingburger" - and worse.

The WUWT editor has given a completely fallacious headline. (Typical for WUWT) The article is based on a paper - unpublished - by two scientists, one of whom is the eminent Dr Happer. It is claimed that Happer's paper has been knocked back by three major journals . . . and reading the paper soon shows why a scientific journal would not bother to publish this paper.

You will see from the above comments by MA Rodger and Tom Dayton, that the Happer paper comes out with a CO2-doubling Climate Sensitivity of 2.2 degreesC . . . a finding which is wildly misrepresented by the WUWT editor. This 2.2C sensitivity is slightly below the 3.0 figure which is a fairer "average" of sensitivity assessments (based on paleo and modern empirical evidence). So really nothing new there.

The paper has two weaknesses. It makes no allowance for cloud effects (the paper is a "clear sky" model). And as a minor point, it uses constant relative humidity in its modeling. Apart from that, I have no particular criticism to make . . . other than the humorous one where a typographical error shows "temperature region" where "temperate region" was meant ;-)

Clearly the Happer paper is not worth publishing.

Sadly, the blog WUWT is trumpeting this paper to the skies (excuse pun). WattsUpWithThat and its denialist clientele are always desperate to make much of anything at all which comes even within a million miles of casting some doubt on mainstream climate science.

Aoeu, have a look at the WUWT comments column below the article. There are all sorts of frothing-at-the-mouth comments . . . that this new paper overthrows all previous climate science / disproves the Greenhouse effect / exposes the incompetence & corrupt criminality of all the thousands of climate scientists worldwide. Etcetera. All the usual WattsUpWithThat nonsense and crackpot lunacy. But among all the madness, you will find a few pearls of wisdom by the genuine scientist Nick Stokes (who is thoroughly hated by the usual WUWT clientele).

We can expect the Happer paper will be a Nine Day Wonder in many parts of the bloggy Deniosphere . . . until they abandon it for the Next New Thing (by Lord Christopher Monckton or whoever). It is all very entertaining . . . but it ain't science.

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 03:16 AM on 28 October, 2020

aoeu @587,
The paper you link-to is apparently co-authored by the physicist and climate change denier William Happer so if it did conclude with the message presented on the article you link-to on the rogue planetoid Wattsupia, there would be no real surprise. Happer has been the author of quite a bit of arrant ninsense on te subject of climatology.

The Wattsupian take on the paper runs:-

"In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect."

However, this account of the paper is total nonsense (so par for the course for Wattsupia). The paper actually concludes by saying it finds 2xCO2 without feedbacks would increase global temperature by +1.4ºC and with feedback (constant relative humidity) under clear-sky conditions by +2.2ºC, this finding close to other studies.

YouTube's Climate Denial Problem

Eclectic at 13:02 PM on 11 April, 2020

Nigelj , please pardon me if I have given you the impression my comments (above) were a sort of "lecture" introducing novel information to naive students. I know that you and all regular commenters here at SkS are very much aware of the common propaganda tricks used by Denialists. Rather, I was aiming to compose my thoughts into semi-formal order.

Yes, the GWPF ["sounds important"] is a sort of Heartland propaganda organization, but more of a one-man-band deriving from a wealthy Englishman (but of course gathering up a team of less-wealthy cronies ~ and some freelance denialist journos plus some "faded scientists" receiving stipend payments). When its prime funder Lord Lawson (age 88) dies, who will provide all the financing of GWPF ? Will it then fall apart gradually? In comparison, Heartland is somewhat more secure, as it has a multi-decade history of hustling from multiple American sources.

# More on your denialist climatescience.org.nz [also "sounds important & sciencey"] : I am sorry to hear that the website no longer has Comments columns. Was hoping to experience the flavor of Kiwi Denialists ~ and whether they brought a "regional" tang of madness to the standard international smorgasbord.

BTW , I did read one further article ~ the one by 80-year-old Professor Happer (co-written with his son). A very lengthy article, a huge cauldron of soup, swimming with formulae and graphs plus many irrelevancies ["plant food" . . . despotic world socialism threat, etc . . . the usual suspects . . . almost the full Gish Gallop]. SkS regulars would immediately see all the holes & errors & false logic. But a naive reader might well think : Wow this is all very impressive, here's a famous scientist who obviously knows his stuff, all this science & mathematics, and he's really intensely skeptical about all that Global Warming palaver.

Happer's "tour de force" commentary will re-confirm and re-convince the dyed-in-the-wool Denialists in New Zealand ~ but as they are the only ones likely to frequent the climatescience.org.nz website . . . then probably little harm is done to the general population.

# Nigelj , I don't intend to read the public comments attached to NZ newspapers etc. Worldwide, IMO, such publications attract vast numbers of bots & paid trolls, who flood the comments sections. No, I reckon the real essence of Denialist insane thinking is best found on Denialist websites : where they believe they are talking to "their own".

There is no consensus

MA Rodger at 05:05 AM on 16 March, 2020

I see the Heartland Institute has a new format for its misinformation campaign - At-A-Glance Summaries which back up a few bullet points with a page or two of paragraph-long summaries. High on the list of these lie-cards is one entitled "Consensus".

This "Consensus" lie-card mainly cites (or more correctly misrepresents) a 2016 survey of American Meteorological Society members.

The first bold-as-brass assertion runs:-

"A majority of scientists (including skeptics) believe the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role, but a strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it."

There is no indication of the evidence they have to support this "strong majority." Heartland's initial mention of this survey does rattle on about how many responding AMS members said they were "worried" by AGW and to what extent. Yet the survey never mentions the word "worried" once (or anything like it). Perhaps the proper take-away from the AMS survey is the finding from the responses that only "about one in twenty (3 to 5%) don’t think there will be any harm from climate change in the next 50 years." (Note that when the AMS members were also asked in the survey if they considered themselves "expert in climate science" only 37% were able to answer 'yes'.)

Heartland also say of this same survey:-

"Fully 40% of AMS members believe climate change impacts have been primarily beneficial or equally mixed between beneficial and harmful. Only 50% expect the impacts to be entirely or primarily harmful over the next 50 years. That is nowhere near a consensus." [My bold]

The sole basis for this statement made by Heartland actually concerns not 'global' AGW but 'local' AGW - "the impact(s) of local climate change in your area." It is also a mash-up of two seperate questions, one concerning "the past 50 years" and one "the next 50 years." And each question is only asked of those who responded 'yes' to two preceding questions of the form "To the best of your knowledge, has/will the local climate in your area change over the past/next 50 years?" with 'yes' response of 74% for the past and 78% for the future. These 74%/78% then answered as follows:-

The impacts will be exclusively beneficial - past 0%, next 0%

The impacts will be primarily beneficial - past 4%, next 2%

The impacts will be approximately equally mixed between beneficial and harmful - past 36%, next 29%

The impacts will be primarily harmful - past 36%, next 47%

The impacts will be exclusively harmful - past 2%, next 3%

Don't know - past 21%, next 19%

So the lie-card's "fully 40%" concerns the past 50 year's local climate change and is only the view of ([4%+36%] x 74% =) 29.6%. The word "fully" is a straight lie.

A final assertion runs as follows:-

"Scientists with NASA, NOAA, MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Penn, along with scientists who have served as official state climatologist for their states, are climate realists making the case against an impending climate crisis. These include many of the science giants of the past half-century, including Freeman Dyson, S. Fred Singer, and Will Happer."

So with the exception of a trio of very ancient scientists (one of whom died the month before these At-A-Glance cards were launched), these AGW consensus-busting scientists who are "making the case against an impending climate crisis" appear to be all nameless phantoms of Heartland's imagination.

There is no consensus

PatrickSS at 06:51 AM on 20 December, 2019

Estoma I will check out the Iris Effect

Rodger, did you read the summary of the raw data that I pointed you to? Here's the link again:

https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses

What do you think of the responses to Q12?

Isn't it very odd that Bart V and colleagues didn't mention Q12 in their paper?

And do you realize that the "91%" quoted on this page includes Lindzen, Happer, Dyson, Curry and Ridley?

Thx for all your responses. I'm going to the "It's the sun" page.

There is no consensus

PatrickSS at 05:58 AM on 18 December, 2019

Thx so much for your replies.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that climate science has become political – on both sides IMO.

Actually I don’t feel that any of you have really engaged with my main argument: does this page give a fair summary of scientists’ views? E.g. does sticking up the percentage “91%” give a fair summary of Vergehhen’s data? (Obviously not.)

Science is IMO very subject to fashions. When authors, reviewers and the people who award grants all have the same point of view it can all go wrong. E.g. a few years ago almost everyone believed that fat in the diet was a kind of poison – which we now know is nonsense.

What I notice is that most scientists who are contrarians are either old and retired, or else somehow supporting themselves on private means or as consultants. That doesn’t seem like a good situation. It could mean that only crazy old men and women believe this nonsense, or it could mean that young climate scientists would damage their careers if they expressed contrarian views. MA Roger @857, I've listened to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and William Happer on youtube and none of them seem crazy, they seem to be good scientists. Judith Curry said that she couldn’t get her work published. I’ve just checked what she said – in fact she did publish one reviewer’s comment:

“Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”

Hmm. That’s definitely a very dangerous argument. In fact it's very worrying indeed.

Scaddemp, most lukewarmers that I've listened to (including Judith C and Matt Ridley) definitely want to protect the environment, and they propose the expansion of research into new energy systems, but they worry about taking it to an extreme.

But . . . . although the process looks bad, there could be a real problem here. I find it incredibly hard to know. Unfoortunately we all have this thing called confirmation bias, and that makes everything tricky.

It's cooling

MA Rodger at 03:09 AM on 14 October, 2019

richieb1234 @306,

The GISP2 ice core temperature record is Greenland temperature not global temperature. High Northern latitudes will have cooled more than global averages since the Holocene Climate Optimum (5,000 years ago). As a result, a reconstructed Greenland temperature would show today's Greenland temperatures still below those of the Holocene Climate Optimum.

The GISP2 data is often recycled by denialists (the graph below is from your link) suggesting the final data point represents today when it is actually 95 years before 1950 = 1855. CarbonBrief have a recent factcheck of the GISP2 data's misuse by denialists, along with a Greenland temperature reconstruction from multiple ice cores and brought up-to-date with modern instrument data, the today's temperatures being Berkeley Earth 20-year averages to 2013.

GIPS2 temperature

Your link also features the infamous IPCC FAR Fig 7.1c saying "it has become so 'inconvenient' they haven't mentioned it since & some scientists have tried to eliminate it." Again FAR Fig 7.1c has been much misused by denialists. Yet it was always a “schematic diagram of global temperature variations” with the “dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.” If anybody reads the text of IPCC FAR, it would also indicate plainly just how schematic Fig 7.1c was. Additionally, if Fig 7.1c were meant to be an accurate global temperature record, the 0.15 deg C temperature increase shown for 1900-50 would be a bit of a clue.

IPCC FAR Fig 7.1c

CO2 effect is saturated

GwsB at 01:14 AM on 28 September, 2019

The model in 542 is wrong I have to admit. It is wrong for two reasons:

1) My impression was that vibrational energy and the kinetic energy mv2/2 were systems with little interaction. That is not the case. Michael Sweet in post 553 and Bob Loblaw in post 554 correct me here. Here is another reference (which gives a proportion of 10**9 instead of 10**5)
https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

So in the new model the photon at a wavelength of 15 μm travels an average of 25 m before being absorbed by a CO2 molecule which goes into a vibrational state, and which then collides (whatever that means (distance between the centers of the molecules less than the minimum of the two radii?)) with a Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule and falls back into the zero vibrational state (why?) and transfers the vibrational energy into kinetic energy over the two molecules. So CO2 transforms the energy of photons of certain wavelengths into kinetic energy of the atmosphere close (around 25 m) to the position where the photon was emitted.

2) According to Fig 1 in Zhong & Haigh (2013) of the 239 W/m2 outgoing longwave radiation only 22 W/m2 comes directly from the earth. This is from Trenberth & Fasullo (2012). In Tremberth, Fasullo & Kiehl (2009) it is still 40 W/m2.

Looking down from outer space for each photon leaving the earth system at TOA (which is 100 km above the surface according to Google. Is that correct?) one should be able to specify its wavelength and the level above the earth surface where it originated. Around 9% originate at the surface. It would seem that 90% originates close to the surface, say less than 1 or 2 km, except for the wavelengths around 15 mm, which originate at 10 km. (In figure 4 in Zhong and Haigh (2013) the red line follows the Boltzmann-curve for 290K rather than 260K, see figure 3, the temperature at 5 km).

The saturation of CO2 for certain wavelengths shown in the black blue and green graphs in Figure 6(c) in Zhong & Haigh (2013) suggest a transmission which decreases like the inverse of the concentration of CO2 as it approaches the limit value. That agrees with the model in post 542 but I do not see how the new model will give this result.

I think concentration (ppm) is the variable of interest, not density (parts per m3). The twenty layers of my original model each contain the same amount of matter. Their height may vary. The effective CO2 concentration at 10 or 20 km is the same as at sea level. See for instance Aoki et al. (2003) Carbon dioxide variations in the stratosphere over Japan, Scandinavia and Antarctica. Tellus (2003) 55B, 178--186. CO2 is 50% heavier than oxygen or nitrogen, so one would expect it to settle down at the bottom. If it did it would form a layer of pure CO2 more than three meters high. A hundred years ago that was only a bit more than two meters!

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

michael sweet at 10:10 AM on 15 March, 2018

ATC,

Most scientists follow the path you outline and agree with the consensus. Trump is unable to find a scientific advisor becasue no-one will support his climate program.

It is not a surprise that 1 or 2% of scientists have preconcieved notions that prevent them from accepting the consensus. No-one would care what Happer thinks about most anything if he was not a denier. The same for Curry, Vahrenvolt, Carter and Spencer. They get their name in the newspaper regularly, get to write OP-Eds for the Wall Street Journal and get paid to testify to congress simply because they are deniers. Many are tempted just by the fame not to mention the money.

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

Atc at 09:59 AM on 15 March, 2018

Magellan @90 and Tom Curtis

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.

What bothered me the most isn’t that they are from other fields or did minimal research; that could be a plus for having a different perspective. What bothered me the most is that nobody actually doing the research was able to convince nobel laureates on this topic of global warming. These guys are not idiots. It seems that with some good convincing presentations you should be able to get them all to fall in line. If you are not able to explain or convince another scientist and a Nobel laureate, it raises very very serious concerns that climate scientists don’t really have any substantive evidence. Why would any trained scientist remain unconvinced if you present him with the data and a good argument?

For instance, if he questions how you can even get an average temperature, the correct response should be. Here is how the scientists did it. Here are the considerations. How we took the averages. Here are the questions and discussions. Here are the criticisms of this method. Here is what we finally settled on. This is the correlation and this is the causation. Remember he is a physicist. He is used to just doing an experiment to verify his theories. Climate scientists don’t have that luxury. They have to use some other method. They are in the same league as Darwin. And you know how evolution debate went. Almost parallel climate science. A consensus of Darwinian evolution. Finally giving way to accepting a minority view. My own understanding of evolution is now. Yes. There is evolution (not the current definition, undefined for me). No. It is not Darwinian. It is not random. Likewise, a concensus of catastrophic man-made global warming. Giving way to a minority view. My own understanding of global warming is: Yes. There is global warming (as partially due to natural variabilit). No. It is not catastrophic. It is only partially man-made. Probably not significant. Pollution is probably more of a pressing problem.

I am not a scientist. I have come to my own conclusions by watching the various discussions on the internet. My belief is that from a starting point of zero knowledge on any scientific topic and using the scientific method you should be able to get to the truth logically. I also believe that if a scientist is unable to convince me logically by means of the scientific method, I remain unconvinced. No need of any consensus.

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

nigelj at 07:39 AM on 15 February, 2018

Speaking of heads of organisations we have the following:

"Trump’s Science Advisor, Age 31, Has a Political Science Degree
Because Trump has not nominated someone to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Michael Kratsios is the de facto leader."

www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-rsquo-s-science-advisor-age-31-has-a-political-science-degree/

Can anyonee believe the cynical, destructive, ideologically driven anti science agenda here? Political science is not a hard physical science, or even much of a science at all.

"Kratsios graduated from Princeton in 2008 with a political science degree and a focus on Hellenic studies. He previously served as chief of staff to Peter Thiel, the controversial Silicon Valley billionaire and Trump ally."

"The vacancy might reflect Trump's skepticism on climate change. If the president believes that the Senate would balk at a nominee who questions widely accepted views on climate change, he might prefer to leave the post open, said William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University who is considered a leading candidate for the job. Happer says the Earth is experiencing a "CO2 famine."

"There is no problem from CO2," Happer said last month in an interview with E&E News (Climatewire, Jan. 25)."

You couldn't make this stuff up. If it was an idea for a fiction book or movie, it would be rejected as too implausible. But no, it's actually happening.

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

Eclectic at 09:44 AM on 8 January, 2018

Rkrolph @1 , the article by journalist/propagandist Brandon Morse is a complete misrepresentation of the true situation.

As you will note from Nigelj's link above to the Nature paper [ published Jan 4th 2018 : authors Bereiter, Shackleton, Baggenstos, Kawamura, and Severinghaus — the same Severinghaus so grossly misrepresented by Brandon Morse ] that the the paper's Abstract says nothing to support Morse's allegations.

Morse's article is full of nonsense — it is merely an example of the same old denier-style propaganda attempt to clutch at and "spin" (by misrepresenting) any slight straw that happens to come floating past.

Was there any basis, even the slightest basis, to Morse's claim that Severinghaus had stated /suggested /claimed his co-authors' study raised doubt about modern evidence of AGW-caused ocean warming? We will probably never know. Morse claims a link to a post (by Severinghaus) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography — a post which Morse implies gives weight to his article. But the link is dead, and seemingly the post has been deleted. Conspiracy Theorists will point to censorship of the Ghastly Truth. A sane explanation is that Severinghaus likely made a post which was poorly worded & open to misinterpretation by the mischievous (e.g. by Morse) . . . and Severinghaus decided (or was advised) to delete that post. All that we can know for the moment, is that the wording of the Bereiter et al. 2018 paper provides zero support for Morse's allegations.

Other than that, Mr Brandon Morse comes up empty.

More nonsense from the Morse article :-

"we are cooling" (unquote). [He fails to mention that the evidence says the opposite.]

... and his mention of support from a Dr Happer [a thoroughly discredited climate science denier]

... "A study in 2015*, for instance, predicted that the Earth is about to undergo a major climate shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures" (unquote)

* the paper is: McCarthy et al. 2105 — and here Morse makes another supreme "tarradiddle", for the McCarthy paper in no way supports Morse's claim.

Morse appears to be one of those anti-science propagandists who sprinkles his article with referenced scientific papers — scientific papers which he implies support his statements. And he does so in the knowledge that few if any of his readers will bother to follow the links to check the truth of the matter. And so Morse gets away with his "tarradiddles" . . . which go on to circle through the deniosphere.

In short, Rkrolph, basic science does not support Morse's whole schema of climate denialism.

Morse is using the propagandist technique of suggesting that since there could be a hint of doubt about the health one of the Elephant's toenails . . then it follows that the whole Elephant is fatally diseased.

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

rkrolph at 04:21 AM on 8 January, 2018

There was an article a couple days from someone named Brandon Morse. Sorry I don't have a link. The title was "New Study Shows Alarmist Climate Data Based Off Faulty Science...Sorry Bill Nye"

It discussed a study by Geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, that claimed a new way to measure ocean heat content measuring gases trapped in ice cores. They claim that the study shows oceans have warmed much less than previously thought, which puts all the alarmist climate models in doubt. It also quotes a scientist named William Happer, who criticizes the alarmist climate models accuracy. The article seems full of denier type talk, as it makes continuous jabs at Al Gore and Bill Nye as being non-scientists, but doesn't bother to provide any real climate scientists take on the study.

But I am just wondering if anyone has any information on the validity of the study itself.

Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth

chriskoz at 21:28 PM on 7 May, 2017

Tom@8,

It's interesting that the "Munich analogy" can be taken at face value as a rational analogy and I agree to your point.

However Hepper, when asked why this analogy is apriopriate, did not give any indication that Paris agreement was an inadequate response to the "Hitlerian" level of risk. Had he qualified his analogy that way, it would indeed be a valid analogy and not a fallacy. He was given a very clear and ample opportunity to precisely qualify his words. His only qualification was that Paris Agreement was a "garbage" that will result in nothing but "enormous cost". He did not say a single word nor did he even suggest the risk element that both Paris and Munich conferfences tried to mitigate. Ergo, the would be apropriate aspect of his analogy ws not on his mind. Absense of evidence in this case, is IMO the evidence Happer did not use his analogy in the literal sense you're trying to ascribe. On the other hand, the words he used in his qualification - "garbage", "enormous cost" - that added more emotion than precision to his argument, suggests his intentions were emotive rather than epistemic from the very start.

BTW, there are many diferent, more recent analogies available to express that something is futile. E.g. SALT fiascos, why going back to pre-WW2 event? Because it carries larger emotional load. But, ultimately, Happer's failure to rationaly qualify his analogy is a key for us to conclude that he:

- did not understand the face value of his words

- used an inapropriate analogy to express his words

- by looking for an emotive rather than intellectual analogy, he ultimately fell victim of Godwin's law.

Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth

Tom Curtis at 14:27 PM on 7 May, 2017

chriskoz @5, personally I am not convinced of the soundness of reduction ad Hitlerum. To me it is as often used as rhetorical avoidance of argument as are false (and offensive) comparisons to Hitler. An example of that which you might be inclined to agree with are claims that calling the irrational objectors to climate science "deniers" are an attempt to are the invoking a comparison between AGW deniers and holocaust deniers, and that therefore supporters of climate science thereby show they are without coherent argumentative response, as per reductio ad Hitlerum.

Better to unpack the analogy.

The Munich agreement was an ineffective response to a very real threat. By making that analogy, Happer commits himself to the view that global warming is in fact a very real threat. A threat comparable to that posed by Hitler.

I would take issue with Harper's overwhelming confidence in an economic theory which is not supported by a consensus, ie, that the Paris agreement will cause enormous harm. I would contrast that dogmatic agreement with a carefully selected subset of economists with his refusal to accept the genuine consensus on climate science.

I would also take issue with his claim that the effects of the Paris agreement are trivial. In fact, if actually implimented the Paris agreement will reduce expected warming by around 20%. But it will not reduce that warming to below 2^oC, let alone the 1.5^oC above the preindustrial average that a significant number of relevant experts consider necessary to avoid substantive harm from AGW.

But that the Paris agreement is an inadequate response to an (at least) Hitlerian level of risk? Yes, that at least is true.

And coming full circle, I will note that Happer's analogy paints climate change deniers as, not the equivalent of holocaust deniers, but of those traitors in the UK and the US who thought Hitler was a great man, and that we should take his side rather than oppose him.

Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth

chriskoz at 08:26 AM on 6 May, 2017

Tom@1,

I find more appalling Happer's Godwin argument video where, he starts the discussion by comparing Paris Argeement to be "like Munich Agreement".

So Happer jumped to the Reductio ad Hitlerum - an ultimate emotive fallacy right from the start, and totally unprovoked. Reductio ad Hitlerum is a technique used at the end of emotional discussions by trolls or angry disputers who run out of rational arguments. So any rational discussion ended before it started because a rational person will not want to compare their argument to the worst attrocities in history because it's like descending into mud to restlle with pigs.

It's absolutely shoking that a person with scientific credibility (PhD in atomic physics) and experience (e.g. in optics and spectroscopy) would descend into such primitive, emotive fallacy, a 100% contradiction of epistemic reasoning. Can such "scientist" be capable of evidence based reasoning? I think he is not.

At this point I have to recall that some commenters herein, have expressed a hope, that the new president could make a positive impact on AGW mitigation despite his ignorance of the problem, if he surrounds himself with right advisors who help him with right decisions. A hope, that I very much doubted from the start, because people tend to surround themselves with the peers they like and represents similar level of intelligence and moral development. That rule applies especially to the case of T-man: pigs like to roam in mud with other pigs, they are very unlike to e.g. go to the university to listen to the lectures they don't understand. By that exact measure, T-man found himself a "scientific" advisor he likesw to hang out with and who shares his emotive stupidity. I don't need to add that Happer among scientists is the same as T-man among world leaders: a total failure.

Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?

Nick Palmer at 00:31 AM on 2 March, 2017

I thought I'd see how many of the usual suspects were in it. Interestingly, I didn't find Christy or Peiser in there...

ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich
ANDERSON, Charles R
BALL, Tim
BARTLETT, David
BASTARDI, Joseph
BELL, Larry S
BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, Sonja A
BRIGGS William M.
D'ALEO, Joseph S.
DOUGLASS JR.
DYSON, Freeman
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.
EVANS, David M. W.
HAPPER, William
HUMLUM, Ole
IDSO, Craig
LEGATES, David R.
LINDZEN, Richard
MANUEL, Oliver K.
MISKOLCZI, Ferenc Mark
MOCKTON, Christopher
MOORE, Patrick
MORNER, Nils-Axel
MOTL, Lubos
SCHMITT, Harrison H.
SINGER, Fred S.
SOON, Willie
SPENCER, Roy W.
WHITEHEAD, David

A striking resemblance between testimony for Peabody Coal and for Ted Cruz

Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 23 January, 2016

gregcharles @3, there are (at least) two graphs of satellite data used in the hearing. The first, introduced by Happer, shows the average of RSS and UAH TMT data against the average of four ballon datasets. It is shown above in the OP.

The second, shown by Ted Cruz himself is of RSS TLT data from March 1997 to Novemer 2015, and is shown below:

It should be noted that Admiral Titley's point about the start point is valid, but limited. That is because the strong La Nina's in 2008 and again in 2001/12 contribute as much to the low trend as does 97/98 El Nino. Ergo, in 2016 when RSS finally shows the current EL Nino (which it currently does not due to a well known lag), the trend will still be below what would be expected if there were no short term variations.

I might add that watching the video was distinctly unpleasant. It leads me to the belief that the purpose of a congressional hearing is to give the chair of that hearing the chance to see just how many lies he can fit into a three minute speach. Virtually everytime Cruz stated something was the position of climate scientists, he got it egregiously wrong.

Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)

Dave123 at 10:51 AM on 6 June, 2013

@17 - Eli- Sort of reminds me of one Will Happer. Yes? Except of course, Happer hasn't published on climate science....just opined.

And the saturated gassy argument is sooooo old. As Spencer Weart notes- that argument was had between Arrhenius and Angstrom.

Schmitt and Happer manufacture doubt

jdixon1980 at 03:16 AM on 17 May, 2013

DS, re: solar activity, your response to Schmitt and Happer points to the obviously directly relevant fact that solar activity hasn't increased significantly since 1950, while global temperature has.

I have also read that the sun has an extremely slow trend of increasing intensity, e.g., from the Wikipedia entry on the geologic temperature record:

"Some evidence does exist however that the period of 2,000 to 3,000 million years ago was very generally colder and more glaciated than the last 500 million years. This is thought to be the result of solar radiation approximately 20% lower than today.[citation needed]"

and

"According to standard solar theories, the sun will gradually have increased in brightness as a natural part of its evolution after having started with an intensity approximately 70% of its modern value."

My question is this - what do we know about the solar irradiance at the last time the atmosphere was at 400 ppm, which a brief web search tells me was during the Pliocene epoch, about 3.2-5 million years ago? If TSI was significantly lower then, wouldn't that tend to suggest that the climate forcing from 400 ppm now will be even stronger than it was the last time, also tending to undermine the denier argument that we shouldn't worry about 400 ppm (and counting) because it has happened before?

I must admit that when I started to type this comment, I was confident that the answer to this question was that TSI was much lower a few million years ago, and I was going to suggest that you add that point as another argument against Schmitt and Happer. But after searching for a bit, it might be that I was just misremembering having read that there is a clear long-term solar warming trend on the time scale of millions of years, when it is actually billions. Can you or someone here clear me up on this point?

The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue

Dave123 at 02:19 AM on 17 September, 2012

I've come in on this very late looking for fracking data... but I couldn't help notice Camburn, the ND Farmer who also claims to know Will Happer at Yale, doesn't understand that plants get their organic matter by photosynthesis using CO2 from the air not the soil. Digesting ag waste returns all the minerals to the soil, and there's more than enough organic matter to keep the soil loamy rather than sandy.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

alexharv074 at 23:21 PM on 5 July, 2012

Dana,

- you seem to suggest that Lindzen because Lindzen conceded some 'stupid mistakes' in LC09 that this is somehow a concession that it contained 'major flaws'. Saying 'stupid mistakes' is hardly the same as 'major flaws'.

- you assert that 'Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board.' This is completely wrong. The two reviewers selected by Lindzen were Ming-dah Chou and Will Happer, but these are not among the four reviewers you refer to. (And of course the two reviewers Lindzen selected recommended publication, which is a relevant but omitted detail.)

- you write, 'As a result, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal'. This is, again, wrong. PNAS did not reject the paper; they asked Lindzen and Choi to revise and resubmit. The authors, however, believed that dealing with reviewers #1 & #2 was a waste of time, and decided to submit elsewhere.

In general, you have mentioned all the negative comments made by the reviewers and ignored all the positive comments. There is no discussion of the fact that Lindzen and Choi, for instance, have demonstrated that the methods of Forster and Gregory, Dessler 2010 and others, using the simple regression, are almost certainly flawed. What is good about your post, however, is the important reminder that there is still no peer-reviewed response to LC11.

Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money

Peter Lang at 09:23 AM on 1 June, 2012

dana1981 - my apologies; my second link should have pointed readers to:
the two comments on 4 May. Below is an expanded version.

Benefit to cost ratio of the Australian CO2 pricing scheme to 2050

In an interesting exchange between Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and reply by William D. Nordhaus on “The New York Review of Books” here Professor William Nordhaus (hereafter WN) said:

“The final part of the response of CHL comes back to the economics of climate change and public policy. They make two major points: that the difference between acting now and doing nothing for fifty years is “insignificant economically or climatologically,” and that the policy questions are dominated by major uncertainties.

Is the difference between acting now and waiting fifty years indeed “insignificant economically”? Given the importance attached to this question, I recalculated this figure using the latest published model. When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, and the spreadsheet is available on the Web for those who would like to check the calculations themselves. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.”

Particularly note this bit:

When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, …. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.

I am surprised that WN says the $3.5 trillion is a significant number, given that it is cumulative to 2050 and is for the whole world. I am also surprised that WN says skeptics “should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” I consider the Australian situation and calculate the costs to achieve the Australian share of the $3.5 trillion reduction in climate damages would be around nine times greater than Australia’s share of the estimated $3.5 trillion saving. Here is how I did my calculations.

I converted the estimated $3.5 trillion world damages avoided to the Australian proportion on the basis of Australia’s share of world GDP, i.e. 1.17%. So Australia’s share of damages avoided is 1.17% x $3.5 trillion = $41 billion. That is the cumulative damages avoided by Australia to 2050. It assumes an optimal CO2 price, the whole world implements the CO2 price in unison, and an economically efficient system is implemented across the whole world. It also assumes Australia’s share of world GDP remains constant.

The Australian Treasury estimated the loss of GDP that our legislated CO2 tax and ETS will cause. [ However, it seems they may have underestimated because they, apparently, have not estimated the compliance cost]. The cumulative loss of GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion (undiscounted) (Chart 5:13), or $390 billion discounted at 4.34%, which I believe is the discount rate that is the default in RICE (2012) and gives the value of $3.5 trillion quoted by WN.

If my calculations are correct, the benefit, to Australia, of the optimum CO2 tax rate (if the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing scheme in unison) would be $41 billion and the cost (reduced GDP) would be $390 billion. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is 0.11. [benefit/cost should be greater than 1 for the policy to be justified] .

Therefore, I do not understand WN’s statement that “[sceptics] should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” My calculations suggest we would spend nine times greater sums, not smaller sums, to achieve the benefits estimated by WN.

Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science

shoyemore at 04:29 AM on 8 May, 2012

Incidentally, Professors Lindzen and Happer, plus Roger Cohen (formerly of Exxon) have responded in the letters section of the May 9th New York Review of Books to Yale Professor William Nordhaus' critique of the op-ed "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" by the group known as the Wall Street Journal 16

Their response to Nordhaus is basically a scatter gun (or Gish gallop, if you prefer!) with not much science. The most scientific parts are general attacks on climate models for not including all sources of variability, and for including aerosols as a "fudge factor" only. Perhaps a future post could cover this?

Professor Nordhaus' reply is shorter, clearer and more effective, IMHO.

In the Climate Casino

SkS covered Nordhaus' original article here:

Nordhaus sets the Record Straight

Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues

Same Ordinary Fool at 14:00 PM on 4 April, 2012

Here's another way of looking at some of the golden oldies in Happer's blogpost editorial...explicitly in terms of SkS's Skeptic Arguments.

The Fixed Numbers numbering system in the Argument drop down box, is used because it is permanent. The other lists are in order of popularity, so their numbering will change over time. Fixed Numbers

"Par" is the number of Happer's paragraph, followed by its first two words.
Next comes a brief summary of Happer's statement.
Followed by the Fixed Number, and the shortie description of the Skeptic Argument.

Par 2 What is...
For 10 years...........Fx7-1998

Par 3 The lack...
Statistical significance..........Fx82-1995

Par 4 CO2 is...
CO2 not a pollutant..........Fx42-pollutant
Higher CO2 levels..........Fx45-pastco2
Plants grow better..........Fx120-plant
Exaggerated effects..........Fx12-impacts
Fossil fuel countries..........Fx177-expensive

Par 5 The direct...
Low sensitivity..........Fx30-sensitivity
Positive feedback..........Fx-143-clouds

Par 6 There has...
Early warming..........Fx1-sun
Natural causes..........Fx35-pre1940

Par 7 Frustrated by...
Extreme weather..........Fx41-extreme

Par 9 Large fluctuations...
US cold weather..........Fx15-cold

Par 13 It is...
Computer models..........Fx5-model

On its editorial pages, on the global warming issue, the Wall Street Journal plays a strange kind of favoritism towards the fossil fuel, and fossil fuel dependent, industries. While deceiving another constituency: all those who read the WSJ for long term investment advice.

In this instance an atomic physicist writing as an authority on climate science declares that global temperatures have not increased much in the last 10 years. Yet we see from Foster and Rahmsdorf's graph in Fx7-1998 that, after removing the ENSO signal and the effects of solar and volcanic activity, that the global temperatures are actually still increasing relentlessly at the same rate as they have been since 1979.

Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues

MA Rodger at 01:39 AM on 3 April, 2012

Happer does present some truth in his WSJ Op Ed. He says "It is easy to be confused about climate." If your name is William Happer that really does hit the nail on the head.

Happer's solo efforts at explaining climate science The Truth About Greenhouse Gases (linked in post's first paragraph) was published for a third time as the GWPF Briefing Paper No3. This gave me the delightful opportunity to 'whack them moles,' taking not one but two posts over at DeSmogBlog to do the subject justice.

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

les at 02:35 AM on 30 January, 2012

8 - This Willam Happer?

David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

J. Bob at 01:55 AM on 30 January, 2012

Interesting video, with Dr. William Happer, Princeton physics professor, on his view of global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html?mod=opinion_video_newsreel

Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties

MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 4 November, 2011

I'm not sure why daisym @21 puts Prof William Happer at the top of the list of must-have scientists who disagree with AGW.
There is a quality aspect to such lists (indeed they can be easily subject to discrediting) so why kick-off with Happer.
Happer is a man I have a serious misgivings about. He is the man who, while discussing the Truth About Greenhouse Gases in a GWPF Policy Document (so not a place for ill-considered comments) describes the PETM, a time of mass extictions & stresses on species that resulted in, for instance, bats evolving: desctibed all this as "life thrived abundantly.
He also asserts that "our ancestors" survived the Younger Dyras Event "just fine". Perhaps the same argument about ancestors would also work for the Black Death or World War 2.
I would suggest that when listing scientists as evidence of legitimate scepticism, Happer is a name that would be best not seen at all, certainly never at the very top of the checklist.

Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties

daisym at 17:35 PM on 2 November, 2011

Thanks for your feedback.

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

This link will provide names of scientists who disagree that the science is settled. There's no point to include the Oregon Petition or Sen. Inhofe's list of 700. Others have already managed to discredit ALL 30,000 names on the Oregon Petition, and Inhofe's 700, as well. Make sure any such list includes the names of Professors William Happer, Harold Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Ian Plimer, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Sr.

Also see:

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/gruberFF335Oral.pdf (Oceanic Sources and Sinks for Atmospheric CO2 -- Gruber et al). Apparently, outgassing of CO2 is occurring in some areas, with uptake occurring in other areas. Do the oceans outgas only manmade CO2?

I find it curious that no one commented on a question I raised: If natural forces are powerful enough to cool and offset warming attributed to manmade CO2, why aren’t they also powerful enough to cause the warming attributed to manmade CO2 to seem greater than it really is? It’s the $64,000 question.

Understanding climate denial

yocta at 11:45 AM on 30 September, 2011

The link to the address is here:

Climate Change, William Happer testimony to Senate Energy Committee on February 25, 2009 | Reprint

Understanding climate denial

yocta at 11:42 AM on 30 September, 2011

@Eric (skeptic) 112.

Don't get me wrong, on the interwebs I encounter people who say things like

"Have you ever saw that movie "The Day After Tomorrow", well, guess what? It wasnt a joke movie like 2012, It is happening right now."

These comments I let slide to some respect as they are emotionally charged comments with respect to the issue. It is the comments such as:

It is cold in everyone's back garden. AGW nutters can manipulate the numbers all they want, that is still a fact.

These comments of accusation I flag and feel motivated to address. With regards to your comment on Happer's Senate testimony. I just had a quick scan and it appears he is advokating some pretty extreme views:

I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind

Understanding climate denial

skywatcher at 09:01 AM on 30 September, 2011

#85 eric - What I mean is that Spencer, Lindzen et al, were they to consider the full body of evidence, would quickly find that very low climate sensitivities are exceedingly difficult on Earth. That they choose not to consider palaeoclimate (and they can hardly be unaware of it), or to quantitatively criticise it, means they are not taking a truly critical approach. I don't think they avoid palaeoclimate by accident. You can't conveniently ignore strong evidence to the contrary of your opinion in the hope it will just go away.

I agree with you on Happer - he's much further down the road of denial. When I read his recent piece, I wondered if I had found something impossible - somebody farther down that road than Monckton! And a physicist too - some of his statements were astonishing from a scientist. Happer is a powerful example of how belief can get in the way of rationality.

Understanding climate denial

Eric (skeptic) at 23:15 PM on 29 September, 2011

#69 skywatcher, you say "even the most respectable 'skeptics', such as Spencer, Pielke or Lindzen must deliberately ignore or disregard part of the body of evidence in order to maintain their positions"

You would need to show examples of "deliberate". Here is a concrete example. Happer's testimony http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public-works-committee/ in which he uncritically and unskeptically parrots numerous fallacies about climate, physics, history, etc. Happer has sufficient education and intelligence to research those areas. He has had plenty of time to do so. But he has not, so he is not a skeptic. It is a deliberate refusal and denial.

Understanding climate denial

Pete Dunkelberg at 14:32 PM on 29 September, 2011

I see to many comments getting overly literal about what deniers deny. They deny the reality of something, and there are various strategies to do that.

First, learn some denier methods here:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php

Next, for environmental denial in general, learn the A-BC's of it:

A. It isn't happening
B. It's not our fault
C. It will be good for us anyway.

With climate denial much of the ABC's are about CO2. For Pete's sake don't start arguing about whether deniers literally deny that CO2 is this or that, especially if you are going to agree in your next post that deniers are not consistent. The do they don't, they don't they do. They want to put up a front of reasonableness, so when they must address the question directly they admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. "But...." they do not follow through scientifically. It is sort of but not really like those warmists say it is. So it's really the sun or cosmic rays or clouds, rotate the answer next week.

Now I want to give you a real live example: Happer
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf

Happer is not just some internet Galileo. He is an actual physicist with no excuse for saying or believing any of what he published in a small circulation religious magazine, skipping peer review. *Note that he constructs an entire alternate reality*. Does Happer believe half of what he says? I don't think so. That is, I think he would just about have to believe all or none. It must take some strong psychological force to maintain the wall that blocks reality, and keeps him from noticing that he is repeating well known balony. It may be driven by anger. Even so, I don't think he could notice that half of his points are directly wrong and keep believing the other half.

Does this extreme case provide insight into lesser deniers?

Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review

KR at 09:17 AM on 21 June, 2011

NewYorkJ - I believe that Will Happer was outright rejected by the PNAS editors (as was Chou, Lindzen's co-author on the 2001 "iris" paper); Lindzen suspects that one was Minnis; another might have been Ramanathan. The other two apparently came from the editors original suggestion list.

Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review

NewYorkJ at 08:01 AM on 21 June, 2011

So it seems all 4 reviewers rejected L&C (Jan. 19, 2011 message), and 2 of those reviewers were recommended by Lindzen, one which included Will Happer (of all people)? Did anyone visiting the WUWT zoo point that out?

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

David Horton at 06:59 AM on 28 May, 2011

Eric the Red "I seriously doubt anyone would believe that Greenland was "green" during the Viking colonization". I think you will find that is exactly what they do believe - Greenland was called Greenland because it was green I think is the phrase. That is they literally believe that three was no ice cap and all the ice has "reformed" during the last 500 years or so. And when they say "England was exporting wine from grapes" (can't find the quote) they literally believe that England had turned into a sort of northern Italy perhaps, where vineyards blossomed on every hill and happy peasants in light summer clothing, brows sweaty, toiled to get the grapes in and begin stamping on them in vats.

Because most of the contributors to SkS are rational human beings we tend to underestimate the extent to which Happer and his friend (among a number of others here and elsewhere) are not. They do hold ideas which bear no relation to reality and base their response to global warming on them.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Rob Honeycutt at 02:09 AM on 28 May, 2011

Mike @ 100... "Really, you might as well give up on this, unless you like banging your head against a wall."

I believe the point to an article like this from Chris Colose and anyone else who publishes a response to Happer's article (or posts comments like these to articles) is to not give up. I would never assume that anything we say here, Chris says, or even the other faculty at Princeton say will have any impact whatsoever on Happer's choices. As I stated before, this is ideological for him... he doesn't care what we think about the science.

But I will continue to bang my head against these kinds of walls. I encourage people like Chris to continue to do so as well. And hopefully others will also continue to point out when people like Happer attempt to confuse the public. To say nothing is to be complicit with Happer's statements.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Dave123 at 07:41 AM on 27 May, 2011

Dr. Jay Cadbury, Ph.D. @96

The forcing effect of CO2 is different from the radiative effect. If Happer wants to play, the same rules apply to him as everyone else. Do the math. The radiative calculations are out there. Tell us why they're wrong.

Qualifications don't matter if people don't put the skills they learned to use.

Since you know him Jay, does this guy EVER get in an equal-to-equal discussion with anyone on this, or is he episystemically closed? I know some senior profs get that way.

But I look at it this way: Earning a Ph.D. did not grant me the privilege of opining and it being respected because I had a Ph.D. It was a lifetime sentence to proving what I said was true. The Ph.D. part means people expect me ( and you and everyone else with a Ph.D.) to be able to do it. Getting tenure or a named chair at a University only raises that expectation. Happer has the ability to do the math, to challenge whatever he wants and instead he's quoting the classics in polemical way.

Happer in my view is letting down the academic tradition by his fact-free opining.

One last point: when you say- 'leads him to claim the possibility of extreme weather will be weaker than anticipated"...are you attempting to move the goal posts here? That is not the least of Happer's positions.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:47 AM on 27 May, 2011

I think Happer is pretty qualified to speak on climate science considering he has studied the greenhouse effect intimately and the radiative chemistry of the physics aspect. I don't know if he is qualified to speak about weather patterns, sea level or other possible effects of climate change but since he is claiming that the forcing of co2 is weak, that leads him to claim that the possibility of extreme weather will be weaker than anticipated.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Kevin C at 23:34 PM on 26 May, 2011

The quote in question, was written by the IPCC, and used in their own technical paper to describe their work. It's their summation of their models and their theories.

The IPCC said. "even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”

Yes. Absolutely. The same is true of all science. Including gravity.

And yet, every time we build a bridge, in fact every time I walk across a bridge instead of just stepping out into thin air, I make some assumption that gravity is in some sense more than conditional.

Yet somehow, climate change science is different than any other science. Any other science in the known Universe can be challenged, just not Climate Science.

No, climate science can be challenged, like any other science. For an example which some of us have been discussing for a few days, see this draft paper by James Hansen, the hockey stick guy himself, in which he challenges some significant chunks of climate science. Specifically, he's arguing that one of the inputs to current climate models is wrong, and in parallel the responses of existing models to changes are wrong too.

So climate science can be challenged. As can gravity. But the challenge must meet certain conditions to be regarded as credible.

What conditions? Principally, the challenge must be consistent with existing observations. A new theory which says that if you drop an apple it will float upwards is not a credible challenge because it contradicts existing observations. A theory that says gravity behaves differently close to the surface of a black hole may be credible, if it doesn't significantly change the way apples fall on earth.

Hansen's challenge is credible, because he shows how it fits with existing observations. Happer's is not, because it does not fit with existing observations.

(That's a gross oversimplification. But I'm trying to keep it simple.)

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Climate4All at 21:49 PM on 26 May, 2011

"Falsifiability Rule : Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model, since it is always possible that a different explanation might account for the same observations. In this sense, even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”. Hence, with scientific methodology it is never possible to prove conclusively that a hypothesis is true, it is only possible to prove that it is false."

Thats straight from the I.P.C.C.

Thats the IPCC claim. Its like playing cats and dogs. Catch me if you can.

If the IPCC is saying their models are not reliable, and the only way to prove them wrong is proving their claims is false, that pretty much sums it all for CAGW believers.

Correct?

If a different method, other than the ones the IPCC uses, it's considered trash.

Of course, it has to be.
/sarc

If any information , fact, or evidence provides a clear disagreement with IPCC methods,then their claims become false.

While MSM continues doing what Chris Colose claims Happer is doing, we can continue on the merry-go-round of disinformation.

But whose disinforming?

Time will tell.

End of class gentlemen, I prefer the next time you don't know something, go look it up, because taking information for granted, is a terrible way to believe.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Icarus at 21:27 PM on 26 May, 2011

What I find remarkable is that even the smartest and most academic people who dispute global warming can *only* do so by being thoroughly dishonest. Happer does it, Muller does it, Lindzen does it, Christy does it, Carter does it... the list goes on.

That tells me that there really isn't any plausible argument against the consensus view of the 97% of climate scientists who think anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous, because if there was any science behind the deniers' arguments, they wouldn't need to rely on long-debunked lies and myths and misprepresentations and political attacks.

I think we really need to find a way of taking these people to a court of law where the penalty for knowingly lying to the court is a prison sentence. They will be less inclined to be dishonest when they have a very personal and serious stake in telling the truth.

Case in point: John Christy, who frequently appears on video rubbishing climate science and dismissing anthropogenic warming, but when in court had to agree that "most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

The judge in that case said:

"There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen's testimony. Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC's assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet's surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10."

"Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation's effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate."

"Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, 'scientifically crude at best,' although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case."

-------

Get these people in court where the threat of imprisonment will concentrate their minds and keep them honest.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

les at 20:31 PM on 26 May, 2011

65 - Climate4All
Happer gave much the same 'evidence' to congress... actually the chairwoman though it was pretty funny; never the less that has impact somewhat above the normal level of 'opinion'.

You will find SkS does provide counter claims.

Finally, I have absolutely no idea what "theories on falsifiability law" means. However the IPCC has no theories. It's a panel which takes data, theories, responses etc. in and generates consensus reports.

Still, I would really like to understand what " I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury." actually means.
Could you, maybe, rephrase that in proper English and elaborate a little?

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Climate4All at 19:55 PM on 26 May, 2011

"much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document."

When a handful of men have the opportunity to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published, well, people will find a way to get their message out.

But seeing as how Happer's post is an opinion piece and not a scientific thesis, don't you think your judging a bit too harshly?

He is entitled to his opinion, much the same way you are.

But 'they' use straw man tactics. But not you.

'They' don't get papers published. But you do.

'They' make accusations that are misleading. But you don't.

You seem to be quick to judge a man over an opinion piece,
rather than settle it with counter claims.

Instead you criticize by saying, "uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing", "throws in a few classical straw man attacks", "can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners", "Happer's reasoning is well out of line"

But, I suppose if the IPCC bases their theories on falsifiability law, you can be afforded the same luxury.

Good Day !

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

kdkd at 15:40 PM on 26 May, 2011

Happer certainly fits the profile of a professor who'se "gone emeritus". He seems to be in his 70s, talking about a field outside of the area of his professional expertise (optics - seemingly on small scale stuff of the type that's useful in medical imaging.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

nealjking at 07:06 AM on 26 May, 2011

I don't know Happer, but a good friend of mine is a colleague of his, at another university.

Happer is well-enough versed in climate science to know how the enhanced greenhouse effect works, as he gave a talk in which he discussed it; correctly giving the detailed explanation instead of the high-school level summary that is usually given.

Therefore, it is all the more shameful that he pretends to think that the reason that climate scientists think AGW is happening just because things are warming up. He knows better; he's pretending to be stupid to please his audience.

This is what is known as "lacking intellectual integrity." It's a pity that education and professorial status don't protect you from this; it also takes a kind of moral backbone.

If he really does need a review of why climate scientists think what they think, he should check out Stuart Weart's site on the American Institute of Physics website, The Discovery of Global Warming:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Or maybe he should just think about his grandchildren, if he has any; and take seriously the concept that they will have to live in the ACTUAL world of the future - not just the one that he tells stories about. Maybe that will encourage him to apply his technical talents to understanding, and not obfuscating.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Rob Honeycutt at 06:22 AM on 26 May, 2011

Jay @ 22... "okay that's not what I asked for. But I do in fact understand distribution curves."

Then you surely understand the implications of shifting the distribution curve one way or another. You will still find larger extreme events in the past even when shifting the curve one direction. That is not an indication that a shift is not occurring. As Albatross pointed out at 24, the shift is happening.

I know this is not a scientific way of looking at it, but just think back for a moment. When do you EVER remember people talking about 1000 year extreme weather events? I've been around long a while I can not remember this. I remember 100 events. Today we are witnessing many 1000 year events in consecutive years. As anecdotal as that is, it suggests to me that there is something very serious starting to happen. Published research backs that position up. And the science suggests this is going to get worse.

To pull back on topic, it's this that I find unconscionable that people with the educational background to know better - people such as Dr Happer - are leveling such a litany of demonstrably inaccurate statements at the climate science community. It boggles the mind.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Bob Lacatena at 05:52 AM on 26 May, 2011

15, Cadbury,

The list continues:

More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones.

I haven't myself seen these studies, but even if they exist, the implication here is clearly that if it hasn't happened already, it will never happen. This is a lie by implication.

The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.

No one scientific has raised this question, only deniers. The question is "how bad", not "good or bad." This lie falls somewhere in the gray area between a direct lie, a lie by implication, and a lie by omission.

The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2.

This is a bold faced lie. First, it's not an "argument," it's a scientific position shared by the vast majority of practicing climate scientists. Beyond this, the argument has to do with radiative physics, contemporary observations, deductions through paleohistory, and more. The argument was never "CO₂ rose, and so did temperature, so the former caused the latter."

That one was probably the most egregious lie in his article.

There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change

This is another lie by omission. Any climate change which endured for a half a millenium or more did see changes in CO₂ levels, which were a result of the warming. Periods like the Medieval Climate Anomaly did not last long enough to produce CO₂ feedbacks. But more to the point, the planet has never before had an intelligent species capable of digging up and burning the carbon that nature spent hundreds of millions of years burying. It should be no surprise that this has never happened before, or that because there can be other causes for climate change, this cannot be one of them.

Since the end of the little ice age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.

This is a lie by implication, i.e. that because temps have increased, and human quality of life has increased, then the two are related and any warming of any magnitude is good. But who was it that said "correlation is not causation?" Oh, yes, it was Happer, just a few paragraphs back. And before that he said "in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing." This time he should listen to himself.

Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere.

Another lie by ommission. It's not unusual, and life and the planet may well survive, but such climate change in the past has spelled the end for many species, and will be just as dangerous to ours.

The statement about benefiting the biosphere has already been addressed, and is a direct, egregious, and complete falsehood.

Okay, this is getting boring, because pretty much every other sentence in his article is a falsehood of one sort or another. I'll stop here, rather than clutter the entire comment thread with more of his drivel.

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

les at 05:46 AM on 26 May, 2011

I don't have my copy of MoD to hand... but my above post made me wonder...

reskes and Conway have unearthed a treasure trove of primary documents covering decades of this sort of activity that leaves one enormously impressed at the scope of their efforts. But this is not just a history of a time before we all became far too sophisticated to fall for such foolishness. It is worth noting that the heirs of this tradition, such as William Happer, a Princeton University professor of physics and current chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, continue to operate in the same way.

bingo!

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

NewYorkJ at 05:25 AM on 26 May, 2011

Happer's been at it awhile.

Exxon Funded Think-Tank Chair Will Happer to Testify in Congress on Climate

CO2 Famine

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 26 May, 2011

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.,

Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself.

So why does he cite untruths that are common knowledge to everyone, and have been debunked dozens of times, and are easy to categorically and indisputably disprove? The level of Happer's piece is appallingly simplistic. I don't know the man, and I'm unfamiliar with his work, but if his physics is as childish as that diatribe, I'd never let anyone I know attend Princeton, or trust anything that comes out of that institution.

Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement.

No, it's an important issue which requires action, and someone who is too ignorant or biased to act in the best interests of the country and humanity has no right to such a position.

Furthermore, it is quite ignorant to dismiss history as is done on this website.

That's quite a strong accusation, but it's unclear what you're talking about.

The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not.

What complete foolishness. Obviously rising sea levels, increased droughts, drops in food production, and other calamities which have not yet become pronounced, but which are an inevitable consequence of global warming will be a very serious and indisputable way that elevated CO₂ levels can cause harm to humanity. Your attempt to portray the situation otherwise does not speak well for your understanding of the issues.

Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breath, unless it exceeds 8,000 ppm, which is pointed out in Happer's article.

What complete foolishness. Nobody has said that CO₂ is poisonous to breathe. Arguing that point reflects rather poorly on your understanding of the issues.

Really, why am I not surprised that you and Happer are friends, and your comment here looks almost as if it were written by Happer himself (based on the level of knowledge and thought contained in both)?

Even Princeton Makes Mistakes

witsendnj at 04:13 AM on 26 May, 2011

Here is the text of a letter I sent last June, to which I have yet to receive a reply:

From: "Wit's End"
To: austin@princeton.edu, happer@princeton.edu, smt@princeton.edu

Dear President Tilghman, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Happer,

I am writing in reference to this [http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-scientists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again] undated letter to which Drs. Austin and Happer are purportedly signatories.

As a proud Princeton parent, I am dismayed that anyone affiliated with this institution would trample on its prestige, reputation, and academic integrity by being party to this fraudulent folly. I can only hope that the names of Drs. Austin and Happer were attached to this screed without their knowledge.

Their entire premise of asking the EPA to hold hearings on the CO2 endangerment finding is based on this crucial lie:

"In our view, particularly with temperatures now falling, the argument for CO2 regulation rests solely on the “validity” of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the EPA."

Global average temperatures are NOT falling, they are demonstrably, irrefutably rising, as stated by NASA - reputable, reliable corroboration for which any undergraduate could find in the most trivial search attempt. For Drs. Austin and Happer to state otherwise is pure drivel. It is either unforgivably inept at best, or mendacious at worst.

I am looking forward to a public statement by them repudiating this dangerous, deliberately misleading political propaganda; or to an announcement that their employment with Princeton has been terminated on grounds of moral turpitude.

Of what value will my child's Princeton education be when she inherits a world dominated by climate catastrophe thanks to her elders, those charged with her education, disseminating and perpetrating lies that benefit no one other than energy corporations?

How incisive was it for the speaker at Class Day, Charlie Gibson, to basically admit that "our" generation has abdicated any responsibility for the existential threats we have created - insurmountable debt, increasing income inequality, squandering energy and polluting the Earth's air, land and water? The hapless graduates and future generations are left to contend with rising seas and global warming likely to render many regions uninhabitable.

And I might add, from observing the many students I have met, their Princeton education has left them woefully uninformed about the most important challenge facing humanity ever, and thus less prepared than a third-world peasant on a subsistence diet to survive in a rapidly and radically changing world.

The university's approach to educating students about the perils of climate change has been wholly inadequate. If history is not to judge your enterprise as nothing more than a sham to prop up the status quo, there must be a fundamental effort to disseminate the facts throughout the curriculum, and professors who lie about the facts must be, at the least, called out and disciplined.

Sincerely,

Gail Zawacki
Princeton Parent 2010

Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial

Bud at 01:20 AM on 17 May, 2011

“How are important climatic systems (e.g. the role of clouds, water vapor, etc.) simulated in computer models that are used to predict climate change.”

Answer. "Most models predict that water vapor and clouds will greatly amplify the warming due to CO2 alone. There is little observational support for these predictions. Furthermore, the models do not explain relative large climate changes in past when there was negligible combustion of fossil fuels."

Statement of William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
U.S. House of Representatives
May 20, 2010

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 05:18 AM on 19 April, 2011

@Chris

Extremely interesting and informative post.

Evans: "Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?"

"This would be a good question, if it were remotely true. In reality, "official science" pays very close attention to satellite temperatures. For example, they're discussed in great detail in the IPCC report and highlighted every single month by NOAA."

I am confused here because I have read some scientists who say that the surface and satellite data does not match.

"The satellite data shows little long term warming. Ground station data shows a lot of warming. The ground-station data has serious systematic problems with the urban heat island effect and station dropout over the years. I put much more faith in the satellite data. “Satellite data” normally means the temperature of the lower troposphere, not the surface temperature. Have a look at the attachment."-Dr. Happer

I will post his attachment shortly, as I am waiting for it to finish downloading.

Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians

CBDunkerson at 15:38 PM on 1 April, 2011

MidwestHES wrote: "The exact same thing that is happening with the debate on AGCD happened with the debate on the Ozone hole, starting in the early 1970's...The same groups and people that are denying this denied that as well."

My favorite example of this is Will Happer's constant complaint that 'Al Gore fired me for disagreeing with him on global warming'.... but if you go back to news articles at the time his claim was, 'Al Gore fired me for disagreeing with him on ozone depletion'.

It's not just the same people using the same sort of misinformation campaigns... it's even the same events (if it ever happened at all) retroactively re-written for a new topic.

Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:10 AM on 24 March, 2011

@Rob

I asked Dr. Happer about the surface station versus satellite record and will post the response once I have it.

CO2 has been higher in the past

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:07 AM on 24 March, 2011

Well this is a topic where 32 years of data just doesn't do it for me.

@Rob

Let me give you another example of a comment realclimate won't touch.

I have often asked them why Al Gore fired Dr. Happer and they will not comment on it.

The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'

The Skeptical Chymist at 10:56 AM on 21 November, 2010

David Keith from the University of Calgary recently described his attempt to get Dyson to define a specific criticism against climate science on Dot Earth recently.

"I had an interesting experience talking to Dyson and Will Happer at a meeting last year......
Dyson’s comments on climate were disappointingly shallow. I said, “Are you concerned about the exaggeration of climate impacts or do you have serious concerns about the science?”

“Both”, he replied. But when I pressed him on the science the only thing he said was that CO2 radiative forcing was logarithmic and complained that nobody knows this or talks about it. It was disappointing to hear such a shallow commentary from such a great man. Everyone who needs to knows that CO2 forcing is (roughly) logarithmic. This science is more than half a century old; it is in any textbook; the I.P.C.C. even as an “official” log forcing function that is widely used in simple policy analysis models. This science of building good high-resolution radiative transfer codes was nailed by Gilbert Plass and others at the air force geophysics lab in the 1950’s.

If one is going to attack the climate science this is a very odd place to start."

Sorry about the long quote but I think it is quite instructive. Dyson, great physicist that he may be, simply doesn't know much about the climate change science.

How climate skeptics mislead

snapple at 01:56 AM on 14 June, 2010

On February 25, 2009, a Princeton physicist named William Happer testified in the Senate. I first read his testimony on the Virginia Mining Association. It said on page 3 at the bottom that the footnotes were "added" by the SPPI. It's not clear to the reader if these are Dr. Happer's footnotes that have been added or if the SPPI made them up later for the paper. Most of the footnotes took the reader to articles by Lord Monckton, who mischaracterizes the research of the scientists he "cites, " so I figured the SPPI must have done this because Happer is a scientist and would not base his testimony on what a non-scientist says.

I later found Dr. Happer's testimony on the official Senate site. He didn't have any footnotes after his testimony to document his views. If I were testifying in the Senate, I would include footnotes.

I thought Dr. Happer would be mad that someone added footnotes to his official testimony, but on his own site Dr. Happer directs the reader to the SPPI version of his testimony with the added footnotes and to a blog Marc Morano did for Senator Inhofe.

I think this is very misleading "scientific" testimony and wrote about it.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-did-drhapper-let-science-and-public.html

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results