Leading Climate Skeptic shoots himself in foot – again
Is it not great that the courageous Professor Will Happer should once again declare roundly that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant? Is it not great again that he should emphasize the role, indeed the huge benefits, to plants and agriculture from more atmospheric Carbon Dioxide? 
What he says is basic Biology. Everybody knows that green plants feed on Carbon Dioxide and produce Oxygen as a by-product for us humans to breathe.
Why then does he once again shoot himself in the foot by declaring: –
“Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.”
Hold on! Is that logical? Does CO2 generate heat? So we all know that the so-called Greenhouse Gases absorb infrared radiation. Mind you every substance absorbs infrared; soil, rocks, lakes and oceans, so absorption is nothing unique. So the Greenhouse Gases may indeed absorb radiation, which means they are heated and then emit that same radiation at a lower intensity.
It is agreed on all sides that Oxygen and Nitrogen together constitute 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere and are transparent to radiation, whether from the more intense incoming radiation from the Sun or the less intense radiation from the Earth. So it is true that 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the gases are unique in absorbing CO2. Radiation has to encounter mass to produce heat. So the radiation is the active factor, the Greenhouse Gases themselves are passive.
What is the empirical evidence? What is the experience of every Tom, Dick or Harry? If on a clear sunny day a black cloud passes between you and the Sun, what is the immediate experience? The immediate experience is cooling. The intensity of the radiation is diminished by the fact that the clouds have absorbed (not reflected – do let us be consistent) the radiation. The word that is often used in scientific circles is ‘scattered’, but I prefer ‘diminished’ since it is a word that is more easily understood by a layman.
So from this one piece of direct evidence we can see that the Greenhouse Gases do not warm anything whatsoever and never have done. The intense radiation from the Sun warms the surfaces of the earth and oceans, which in turn warm the atmosphere – that is the nitrogen and oxygen – from the bottom up by conduction and the heat is carried away upwards by convection. So that as far as outgoing radiation from the earth is concerned, Water Vapour and Carbon Dioxide are very much bit players.
The Warmists would have it that the Greenhouse Gases trap heat. If they wish to believe that, let them. A ‘trapped’ heat is an entirely impotent heat – it is trapped, it is sealed off, doing nothing. However if it is emitting then the heat is no longer trapped. So a molecule at altitude absorbs some radiation, what happens then? If it gets hotter it immediately begins to ascend. All the gases of the atmosphere without exception carry the heat away, upwards to Outer Space.
We know that this is a rule, just by looking at the flame of a candle. However you hold the candle the flame always points upwards. Likewise, a hot vent in the ocean floor the waters always travel upwards. So there is no way that a warmed molecule at altitude could possibly warm the surface of the Earth.
The Warmists also know this for a fact. How then do they try to get round this dilemma? They have invented an entirely spurious and totally unscientific idea of ‘Back Radiation’. Why is it spurious? Because it pre-supposes that a less intense radiation can overcome a more intense radiation. The intensity depends upon temperature of the emitting gases. Since the gases at the surface are always hotter than the gases at altitude, it is completely impossible for Back Radiation to make the surfaces hotter than they would otherwise be.
Professor Happer goes on: – “For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.”
But I ask you, What temperature? Of what is this temperature that has been unchanged for nearly twenty years? There is no such temperature and there never has been, only a construct of the Warmists. Does CNN tell us the Global Temperature every day? Does the BBC? Of course not, because there is no such entity. If there were such a temperature do you not think that this matter of utmost importance and interest to mankind would not be broadcast everyday?
The reason why this does not happen is simple. There is a mass of ever changing temperatures just at surface level alone. But if we are to include the crust of the Earth, if we are to include the Atmosphere, which is reckoned to be some 60 miles high to the TOA, top of the atmosphere, the whole business becomes infinitely more complicated. The models are idiotic, but I am afraid that it is equally idiotic to say that temperatures have not been changing for nearly 20 years. That is making a hostage to fortune. So I will repeat that temperatures on this blessed Plane of ours are changing 3,600 times in every hour.
While the Skeptics insist on genuflecting before a Global Temperature that does not exist in reality, but is a ‘creation’ of the Warmists, then they will continue to be outflanked by these same Warmists. Of course the Skeptics must win in the end, just as Copernicus and Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno have been vindicated in time. Reality will not be denied.
Trackback from your site.