Came across this today. Thought it was worth a read. Not suggesting it ends any of the controversy but I think it is worth reading.


"Many people write sensible things about anthropogenic global warming, but I find Professor William Happer's statement to the US Senate on February 25, 2009, especially clear and convincing .

Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He was also the Director of Energy Research at DOE from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE's work on climate change. He says this:

"The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."


He explains the "bit player" role that CO2 plays in greenhouse warming. Even if doubled, CO2 in the atmosphere would increase global temperatures "on the order of one degree," all else equal, and that would be about as much as it could ever increase it.

He explains that not all else is equal. He explains that satellite measurements indicate that water vapor and clouds, which account for 90% of greenhouse warming, have a negative feedback with CO2 levels, thus counteracting most or all of the warming effects of CO2.

He explains that temperatures have been warmer in the past and undergo cycles, counter to the "hockey stick" graph trumpeted in the third report of the IPCC. The hockey stick

"was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change."


He explains how ice core observations show that historical temperatures and CO2 levels are indeed correlated, but that temperature increases preceded the CO2 increases - by "about 800 years", thus indicating that warming causes increased CO2 and not vice versa.

He explains how erroneous computer models are.

"It is true that climate models use increasingly capable and increasingly expensive computers. But their predictions have not been very good. For example, none of them predicted the lack of warming that we have experienced during the past ten years. All the models assume the water feedback is positive, while satellite observations suggest that the feedback is zero or negative."


On sea level rise,

"The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration."


He explains that CO2, and higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere, are actually good for us. "Crop yields will continue to increase as CO2 levels go up... moderate warming is an overall benefit to mankind because of higher agricultural yields and many other reasons."

And finally, he shoots down the supposed "scientific consensus" on global warming. For one, consensus is not the way science works. And two, there is no consensus.

His statement is truly scientific. Not because he is a credentialed scientist, but because he uses physical observations to support or falsify hypotheses. Unlike so many other statements on climate change (e.g., any statement from Al Gore or NASA's James Hansen), you can follow his reasoning and it makes sense.

Keep his testimony in your hip pocket, for the next time you are called a "denier." "

the 90% of greenhouse warming caused by clouds and water vapor keeps the necessary amount of heat in our atmosphere.

does he take any other greenhouse gases into account besides CO2? No. Does he explain why more and more glaciers are melting? No. Does he take into account that CO2 levels have gone up by more than double with more and more countries going industrial? Doubt it. Is he one person who is easily capable of interpreting data to read how he wants it? Yes. Does he understand that global warming isn't necessarily causing, but IS amplifying natural warming periods? Maybe

ziggy: yeah, and they have a negative correlation with CO2. That means that as CO2 increases any warming effect that might have occured is countered by a cooling from water vapor and clouds.


are there any other greenhouse gases increasing at the rate of CO2? probably not.

Actually he does explain why glaciers are melting.... because everything has warmed over the last 10,000 or so years. Glaciers have been melting since then.... I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I realize that there are potential problems if glacier fed rivers run dry because the glacier is gone but the point here is that spending money on reducing CO2 might not actually result in a solution.

Yeah, he does.... did you even read what he said? "The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models." Or did you just conveniently ignore that part of what he said?

Is it actually amplifying? Did you miss this part? "It is true that climate models use increasingly capable and increasingly expensive computers. But their predictions have not been very good. For example, none of them predicted the lack of warming that we have experienced during the past ten years. All the models assume the water feedback is positive, while satellite observations suggest that the feedback is zero or negative." Oh, and again if you think it is actually amplifying re-read this - "He explains that not all else is equal. He explains that satellite measurements indicate that water vapor and clouds, which account for 90% of greenhouse warming, have a negative feedback with CO2 levels, thus counteracting most or all of the warming effects of CO2."

This article should say what I need it to say.

"Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period," says John Harries, a professor at Imperial College in London and lead author of the study published today in Nature.

As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)�as well as water vapor. Satellites can measure changes in the infrared radiation spectrum, allowing scientists to detect changes in the earth's natural greenhouse effect and to deduce which greenhouse gas concentrations have changed.

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft�the NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect."

except I can take your article and use it to say what I want it to say....


"and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover."

so, they left out the effects of cloud cover.... which my article before pointed out has a negative correlation with CO2. So these significant increases to the greenhouse effect might be counter-balanced if cloud cover effect isn't eliminated.


and to qoute Obama - "I win"

actually, that means that they adjusted the results by eliminating what would be removed by cloud cover. basically, they took cloud cover into account and removed from the total everything that it would counteract

and to quote someone from the Mahabharata, "I have won"

the problem with the time period selected there is that the range is right at the beginning of a warming period and ended 2 years before the peak in 1998.

Again, the problem I have with this is that they assume that because concentrations of these gases have gone up then the temperature going up MUST be a result of that.


EXCEPT - have these concentrations gone down in the last 10 years? I doubt it. Then why are temperatures going back down and why have no computer models that claim to be able to predict climate been able to explain this?

Simply put the models are faulty and expect way too much warming from the greenhouse effect than it actually is producing. So why do we trust these people that are using models that don't accurately predict current trends?

dude, temperatures are not going back down. the summers have been hotter and the winters have been less cold. we've had many 60 degree (farenheit) days this winter alone. that shouldn't happen

average global temperatures are down from 1998 to 2008.... just because you're not being told this by the MSM doesn't mean it's not true.

Well, maybe that's because 1998 was the hottest year on record. If I'm not mistaken, at least 9 out of the 10 hottest years came within the last 15 years...maybe less

on record.... and we've been recording since when? 1900? That doesn't really prove much.

I've never suggested that the world isn't warming.... I'm just not an alarmist that thinks this is going to be the end of civilization or something stupid like that.

I'm of the opinion that it's not "warming" but that the world is going back to the temperature that is normal for the earth when it's not going in to or coming out of an ice age. And we are coming out of an ice age.


It really boggles my mind that we as humans believe that the way things are in our lifetimes is "normal" and that we have some responsibility to maintain the norm.

well, it isn't normal, and that's a problem. and by on record, I mean since we've been able to tell temperatures of any time period and since the start of history. It's hotter now than it was during the medieval warm period that preceded the "little ice age"

for me I really dont care about global warming because back in the 70's they were talking about something called global cooling and by 1998 there would be another ice age it is now eleven years later and still no ice age I just think that the earth is going through cycles and also a couple of the ways they say dinosausers died destroyed the ozone layer and what not so can you see where I am going with this

I think you need to punctuate your sentences because it is very difficult to read something when there's no way to know where the thought ends see where I'm going with this I hope so because it would be nice it you did

now that that's settled, global warming and the ozone layer are unrelated. the ozone layer controls the amount of ultraviolet radiation that enters our atmosphere and has nothing to deal with heat.

Originally posted by ziggy

---

I think you need to punctuate your sentences because it is very difficult to read something when there's no way to know where the thought ends see where I'm going with this I hope so because it would be nice it you did

now that that's settled, global warming and the ozone layer are unrelated. the ozone layer controls the amount of ultraviolet radiation that enters our atmosphere and has nothing to deal with heat.

---

I am sorry about my typing, and I thought the main thing about global warming was the hole in the ozone layer

Naw, global warming involves the "greenhouse effect" where gases such as CO2 are trapped in earth's atmosphere, and then these greenhouse gases trap heat. The holes in the ozone layer would be connected to people getting cancer rather than the heating of the planet.

But so I don't leave you empty-handed...the compound for ozone is O3. When UV radiation hits the ozone layer, O3 splits into oxygen (O2) and just plain O. A single O atom is highly reactive, and so normally it would immediately bond with that or a different O2 to make ozone again. However, certain chemicals containing CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) were being commonly and in large amounts released into the air (CFC's are in aerosols and pesticides and other things like that). When these reach the ozone layer, instead of bonding to an O2, the O atom would bond with a CFC instead, so ozone wasn't reforming like it should and the ozone layer wasn't regenerating. In areas where this happened too much, the ozone layer developed holes and as a whole, thinned. The ozone layer is mostly recovered, as awareness on the issue was spread and people stopped using CFC's for the most part

Well I think that global warming is going to cause the heat death of the earth, as mentioned in the Bible.

if you're going to mention something from the Bible at least give the book, chapter and verse so the rest of us can actually read the source of what you're talking about.

Or just explain what it says

nah, I'd rather know the verse it is coming from so I can read it for myself....