The world needs more CO2

10/13/2019 11:07 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Interview with Professor William Happer of Princeton University. Mr. Happer is a renowned physicist, specialized in the field of atomic physics, adaptive optics and spectrometry. This interview from 2015 is part of the series "Conversations that Matter."

Some quotes from this interview:

04:55 - "There is very little evidence that humans are making much impact [on the climate] and as far as CO2 is concerned witch is the major focus, that's probably more good than bad."

05:24 - "I know a lot about CO2 compared to most climate scientists because we make CO2 lasers. CO2 is a very interesting molecule, in particular, the model of CO2 that contributes to global warming. CO2 is a rod and it bends up and down, up and down and it's that bending motion that causes global warming. But that is such a strong absorption that's it's saturated now so if you add more CO2 most of what you can do has already been done, there's still a little addition but not very much."
"If you have a barn and you want to paint it red, you know when you paint it once it may not be red enough if you paint it two or three times then it really looks red, after that if you add more red it doesn't make much difference. And that's sort of what CO2 is doing now, most of the easy absorption has been done and so if you add more CO2 you get a little broadening but I don't want to get too technical."

07:20 - remarks on the logarithmic scale of CO2 induced warming.

08:50 - CO2 is food for plants

10:30 - "We're in a CO2 famine, we have too little CO2."

11:00 - CO2 was measured in thousands of parts per million, not hundreds. "Plants have envolved when there was a lot of CO2 to eat, now they don't have enough."

12:20 - There is no "social cost of carbon. The social cost is negative (...) it's a net contributor to agricultural productivity."

14:30 - There is no downside to CO2. This initial argument against CO2 was that there were to be a rapid global warming. It hasn't happened. It's clear that the models have enormously exaggerated it's warming potential.

15:00 - "I mentioned the saturation of CO2 (...) They noticed early on that CO2 has this 'problem', it was disappointing that it didn't make much difference so they invented all sorts of feedback mechanisms that would amplify the effect of additional CO2. Water vapor, clouds, all sorts of things were supposed to be triggered by this CO2. They don't seem to be happening.

15:30 - Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. Water vapor and clouds.

15:50 - "The most honest modelers try to include clouds, but that's very primitive. Rough estimates. Nothing more."

17:50 - "Antarctic ice is probably growing (...) that's not supposed to happen according to the models, but it is happening."

18:40 - The Arctic is an ocean, the situation is completely different than at the South Pole. The Arctic ice is determined by ocean currents and not the air temperature.

21:00 - Climate models are group-think. They never looked at the world, they looked at other models and they say "look how good we are we're all getting the same answers, that must be right." They adjusted the parameters to get the same answers.

22:00 - "I don't think there's anything to worry about from more CO2. I think more CO2 to be good for the world. Our great-great-grandchildren will look back and say; 'Thank God we have all this CO2, what foresighted people our ancestors were.'"

22:30 - "Environalism should be looking at things that make a difference. Cleaning up real things that make a difference."


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".