Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"More CO2 would actually help the planet , says Professor William Happer of Princeton University. CO2 can actually be beneficial to an ecosystem rather than a burden"
Is there a correlation between CO2 and temperature?
Happer: “Yes. (However), temperature always changes first, and CO2 follows.”
Host: (2:39 into the video): “Has there been any global increase in temperature since 1998?”
Happer’s clear and simple answer: “No.”
Happer (3:48 in): A thousand parts per million (ppm) of CO2 would actually help the planet.
How? Because agricultural productivity would go up.Several thousand ppm in greenhouses
Happer: “if you look around the world, many greenhouse operators put several thousand parts per million into their greenhouses.
Host: “Would there be any negative effects on humans from breathing a trhousand parts per million?
Happer: “No, absolutely not.” Our primate ancestors were here roughly 70 to 80 million years ago when CO2 levels were 3,000 parts per million. That’s when we evolved. “So it was ten times what it is now.”
Happer: “We also let our sailors in submarines live in atmospheres that are several thousand parts per million.”
Glacier Bay glaciers disappeared long before any increase in CO2
Happer (6:20 in): “The glaciers in Alaska’s Glacier Bay are all gone. They disappeared in the 1800s.”
Happer: “In fact, that was one of the most famous trips of John Muir. Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, was visiting Glacier Bay in 1879, and he pointed out all the glaciers were gone. That was long before there was any increase of CO2.”
One can ask the same question of the GAST data sets that are presented by GISS, (NASA), NOAA,
and HADLEY, which are the three things being looked at. The BEST analysis is by far the worst, but all of them are just awful for doing actual research.
In regards to Heller, he makes it possible to duplicate his presentations, something that is a delight these days.
You can actually look at the actual data now days, and boy does there exist a huge gap between what was recorded, and what is presented as fact by the official agencies.
They have actually adjusted so much the natural cycles which are real and actually exist, don't show up in their official climate "records". That they didn't realize this just shows how bad things have become.
This can be shown by a simple example, which would take about 10 minutes to put together. But since facts are the last thing that will make a difference, there is little point.
"More CO2 would actually help the planet , says Professor William Happer of Princeton University. CO2 can actually be beneficial to an ecosystem rather than a burden"
Sorry but the eminent professor is wrong. There are still many glaciers in Glacier Bay National Park, so that statement was used to make a charged point which did no one much good. Some of the park's glaciers have disappeared. Many are still present, including several large tidewater glaciers. Most of the park is at or near sea level. Glaciers forming near sea level are carefully balanced and sensitive to minor changes in temperature...one or two degrees. They don't tend to be very good indicators of long term change due to their sensitivity. Non-tidewater icefields in the park and elsewhere are thinning in place; stagnating and losing mass. OK, less dramatic than a huge calving wall of ice, but probably more important.
Here's what really happened according to the glaciologists who have studied the park for the past 100 years (its the most studied glacial landscape on the planet BTW, go look it up). Most of the park's tidewater glaciers have RECEDED since the end of the LIA (Little Ice Age) and some no longer touch salt water. The retreat was rapid and dramatic, but the area was also uniquely accessible by ship which is why it ended up getting so much attention. The LIA created a lot of glacial mass that spread to areas where the ice was vulnerable to slight warming. Some of the park's glaciers continue to advance and calve but that isn't necessarily a sign that they are going to persist or that they are "healthy". Individual glaciers behave in individual ways. What applies to McBride Glacier does not necessarily apply to Marjorie Glacier. It isn't as simple as "global warming" at all.
"Climate change" as its used in hot button debate is infuriating. Climate has always changed and always will. The earth has gone through warm trends and cold trends and will continue to do so. Who in their right mind thinks climate could ever be static? Man's activities have affected the global climate; no doubt about that, but those activities didn't create climate change all by itself. Ridiculous.
What I wish more people would spend their energy on is realizing what the RESULT of the current trend will probably be and what we should plan on doing in order to survive it. And, to avoid adding insult to injury. Why continue to damage the planet and put at risk all the incredible life we share it with? If we can find a cleaner sustainable source of energy why not use it? If there are ways to reduce pollutants and toxins why not do so? I don't want to live in a cesspool or watch other life die, why would anyone?
Last edited by Parnassia; 07-15-2017 at 05:19 PM..
You make it sound like the science is finally coming around or something. This is simply more censorship from the Trump administration, flying in the face of the overwhelming consensus on human-caused global warming. This is part of Trumps anti-environmental, anti-climate science, pro-fossil fuel agenda:
Climate has always changed and always will. The earth has gone through warm trends and cold trends and will continue to do so. Who in their right mind thinks climate could ever be static?
So true, Allison!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisonHB
Man's activities have affected the global climate; no doubt about that, but those activities didn't create climate change all by itself. Ridiculous.
I hear this a lot and I used to believe it, too. I feel it's a good, sensible middle ground b/w deniers and main stream climate science. Unfortunately, Earth & physics don't care what I find sensible. It turns out that humans are indeed theprimary driver of current global warming & climate change:
Under natural conditions (if the industrial revolution never happened), Earth wouldn't be heating up, glaciers wouldn't be melting at alarming rates, and the oceans wouldn't be rising & acidifying. The CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) simply wouldn't be in the atmosphere to cause those changes. We'd still be at 280ppm of CO2 instead of the 408 ppm we're at now.
As ridiculous as it sounds, humans are altering the biosphere. We've also hunted species to extinction, poisoned our air & waterways, denoted nuclear bombs, committed mass genocide, and punched a hole in the ozone layer. We're quite clever & industrious...capable of making big changes to our (only) home!
It is a known fact that Earth's climate changes naturally. The problem is the AGW hoax and its use by gubbermunts to foist underhanded policies onto the population that erode our quality of life all in the name to make a quick buck and look like they are environmental heroes
Hi--back again after a week away--only scanned a few pages here. Pardon me if this is redundant:
Re: value of "average temp"--Eg/ suppose your head & shoulders are in a 350deg oven and your lower legs & feet are embedded in ice in a freezer chest. Your average body temp may be 98.6. Are you feeling normal?
Re: value of averages vis-a-vis "out-liers": suppose you're a Gold Glove shortstop with a weak bat. You glove keeps you in the line-up but in your first 3 seasons you hit only 3,4 & 5 HRs respectively. You take steroids in the 4th year and hit 50 HRs, then quit them and go back to hitting 4, 3 & 2 HRs then next 3 yrs. Can we expect you to hit 4 or 10.2 HRs in your next year? Has that 10.2 got any real meaning?
Re: co2 vs h2o as GHG-- co2 absorption spectrum has peaks at ~450u & 850u (?as I remember)- very little Radiation at the one wavelength trying to escape atm, so only the 450 counts much, and even that isn't much.
h2o, OTOH, absorbs radiation of most wavelengths and is many more times abundant than co2, so no comparison as a factor in slowing Earth's loss of heat to space. BUT: more h2o means more clouds--> less sunlight striking the ground--> lower temps. Over-all effect= ???
co2 doesn't "generate heat," it only slows down loss of heat to outer space. Theoretically, days aren't warmer, but nights are.
Extinction of absorption: suppose you're under water looking at a bright light down there. If we start dumping dirt into the water, the light will gradually appear dimmer and dimmer until it gets entirely blotted out to your eye. Adding more dirt after that won't make the light any dimmer.
Now suppose we're talking about co2 absorbing heat @450u--> around atm[co2] 450ppm (a numerical coincidence) co2 will cease to be a factor in warming the atm any further. We're not far from that now, so, not worry, NYC isn't about to become the new Miami Beach.
Did I miss it or did someone who wasn't paying attention in hi school physics class mention co2 and Venus' 800deg temps?--it ani't the co2, it's the Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT. Venus has an atm P 90x higher than ours, so temps should be 90x higher. (Not to mention much closer to the Sun whose radiation diminishes by the inverse square law with distance.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
