• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"

longview said:
Actually it would not, or at least the change would only be short term, as the Methane would break down into CO2,
The change in CO2 level resulting from the CH4 breakdown, would not be enough to even be distinguishable from the noise.
P.S. if methane is responsible for .13 C and CO2 for .61 C of the current temperature anomaly, .9C.
and an additional ~.1 C from the increase in TSI from 1855 to 2017.
These things start adding up close to the total observed and leave no room for amplified feedbacks.
Click to expand...

But yet, CO2 is not responsible for 0.61/0.9 of the warming.

There is also negative forcing. The total forcing is well higher than the 0.9. Maybe about 1.6 C, with negative forcing reducing that to the 0.9C. Assuming the these numbers, CO2 is only about 0.61/1.6 of the warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
But yet, CO2 is not responsible for 0.61/0.9 of the warming.

There is also negative forcing. The total forcing is well higher than the 0.9. Maybe about 1.6 C, with negative forcing reducing that to the 0.9C. Assuming the these numbers, CO2 is only about 0.61/1.6 of the warming.
Click to expand...
NOAA puts out their CO2-eq numbers, normalizing all the forcing agents into CO2 units
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
If we extrapolate back to 1900 the CO2-eq would be about 311 ppm,
so the total positive forcing (at least according to NOAA) would be
5.35 X ln(496/311)=2.49 Wm-2, or about .75 C.
This includes CH4,N2O, CFC12,CFC11, and 15 minor gasses.
With the .380 Wm-2 (~.114 C) of TSI increase from 1850 to 2017, would mean that the total feedbacks positive and negative,
are fairly close to zero.
I am confident that we do not know all the contributors to the observed global temperature.
It is also possible that the entire concept of AGW is nothing more than a castle in the sky!
 
longview said:
NOAA puts out their CO2-eq numbers, normalizing all the forcing agents into CO2 units
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
If we extrapolate back to 1900 the CO2-eq would be about 311 ppm,
so the total positive forcing (at least according to NOAA) would be
5.35 X ln(496/311)=2.49 Wm-2, or about .75 C.
This includes CH4,N2O, CFC12,CFC11, and 15 minor gasses.
With the .380 Wm-2 (~.114 C) of TSI increase from 1850 to 2017, would mean that the total feedbacks positive and negative,
are fairly close to zero.
I am confident that we do not know all the contributors to the observed global temperature.
It is also possible that the entire concept of AGW is nothing more than a castle in the sky!
Click to expand...

If we use the AR5 graph:

FigTS-07.jpg


The total of lines with positive forcing under "RF" are 4.01, with the 1.68 for CO2 being 41.9% of that.

Of course, there are many ways to skin this cat, and I don't believe that chart is correct.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If we use the AR5 graph:


The total of lines with positive forcing under "RF" are 4.01, with the 1.68 for CO2 being 41.9% of that.

Of course, there are many ways to skin this cat, and I don't believe that chart is correct.
Click to expand...
I agree, notice on the chart the error bar for clouds goes out to -1.2 Wm-2, if show to scale would completely unbalance the graph.
If Black carbon is as high as claimed, then there really is no room for positive feedbacks.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If we use the AR5 graph:

FigTS-07.jpg


The total of lines with positive forcing under "RF" are 4.01, with the 1.68 for CO2 being 41.9% of that.

Of course, there are many ways to skin this cat, and I don't believe that chart is correct.
Click to expand...

Are you ignoring methane? --- a POS feedback from greater CO2 (melting permafrost), and also "increasing due to the activities of mankind".
 
longview said:
I agree, notice on the chart the error bar for clouds goes out to -1.2 Wm-2, if show to scale would completely unbalance the graph.
If Black carbon is as high as claimed, then there really is no room for positive feedbacks.
Click to expand...

Also, black carbon is usually accompanied by air-borne carbon and mineral dust, which are both cooling mechanisms. This almost negates the black carbon influence.
 
I thought it would be hotter today. Obviously the next ice age virtually all scientists said for years is coming has arrived.
 
Lord of Planar said:
But yet, CO2 is not responsible for 0.61/0.9 of the warming.

There is also negative forcing. The total forcing is well higher than the 0.9. Maybe about 1.6 C, with negative forcing reducing that to the 0.9C. Assuming the these numbers, CO2 is only about 0.61/1.6 of the warming.
Click to expand...

The absurdity of the climate change zealots is laughable. Humans are 3% of co2 production. So take your high number - 1.6 equals 0.048 - less than 1/5th of 1% for ALL human activity. This stat is from the Obama EPA, not Trump's EPA:
EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources | Watts Up With That?

The USA is 16% of worldwide human co2.

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists

So... if every American all died and NO humans were in the USA whatsoever, it would not reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by even 1/100th of 1%.

The climate chance claim is THE greatly political lie told worldwide by governments seeking money and power possibly in world history. Sadly, it is proven just how much for-hire desperate-for-money and attention some so-call scientists prove themselves to be nothing by for hire lying prostitutes selling their titles.

The dependency on governments and corporations for income and grants so dominates the field of science that my daughter - internationally published for very significant protocol studies and lecturing to PhDs on environmental topics (ie environmental science gifted super geek) completely left the field of science entirely.

Government agencies and corporations hire and pay for the results they want - nothing else. Most science and research now begins with the dictated conclusion being paid for. "Scientists" are paid to find a way to support the pre-decided conclusion and then attach their PhD or organization's title as verification. Do so - or be unemployed - that is the choice.

They justify being so corrupt with the excuse what while they are lying their asses off, the income at least allows them to exist and maybe then they might have a chance later for some legitimate research. Also, to get money they need to be alarmist for headlines. No would pay for "everything's ok and nothing humans can do about it anyway."
 
As a comment... life on earth does FAR better when the earth is warmer rather than colder. Life likes heat. Hates cold.
 
ataraxia said:
I looked this guy Happer up. He is a retired physicist. He also seems to think there is no such thing as the HIV virus and that some plane contrails are part of a political plot to spray the population with poisons.

Maybe have been a Princeton physicist once. But even they are not immune to the ravages of Alzheimer’s.

Physicist William Happer, the 'Unmoored' Climate Science Denier Heading a White House Climate Probe | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

Shoot the messenger fallacy... as expected!
 
PoS said:
Shoot the messenger fallacy... as expected!
Click to expand...

If there is a scientist coming out questioning the roundness if the Earth, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be shot.

The scientific community is open minded. But it does not suffer fools gladly. They get shot pretty quickly.
 
ataraxia said:
If there is a scientist coming out questioning the roundness if the Earth, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be shot.

The scientific community is open minded. But it does not suffer fools gladly. They get shot pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

"Since we cant refute what he says, let's attack the man instead!"
 
PoS said:
"Since we cant refute what he says, let's attack the man instead!"
Click to expand...

Yeah OK, if that’s what you want to think.

Politics may get in the way of science for only a little bit. Heck the “Discovery Institute” and “scientists” like Behe are still trying to question evolutionary biology after 150 years and after all if modern biology has been built in it. Only uneducated “conservatives” trying desperately to cling to tradition, superstition, and obsolete world views continue to see such charlatans as some kind of brave champions to be defended. They get left behind in the dustbin of history.

It’s not about not being open minded. It’s just that you can’t be so open minded your brain falls out. At some point you have to realize there are kooks, charlatans, and paid shills who are dangerous and to be ignored.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah OK, if that’s what you want to think.

Politics may get in the way of science for only a little bit. Heck the “Discovery Institute” and “scientists” like Behe are still trying to question evolutionary biology after 150 years and after all if modern biology has been built in it. Only uneducated “conservatives” trying desperately to cling to tradition, superstition, and obsolete world views continue to see such charlatans as some kind of brave champions to be defended. They get left behind in the dustbin of history.

It’s not about not being open minded. It’s just that you can’t be so open minded your brain falls out. At some point you have to realize there are kooks, charlatans, and paid shills who are dangerous and to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Thats like saying the theory of evolution is wrong because Darwin wasn't a scientist. Piss poor logic.
 
PoS said:
Thats like saying the theory of evolution is wrong because Darwin wasn't a scientist. Piss poor logic.
Click to expand...

No. It’s like saying the theory of evolution is wrong because there is a scientist, Michael Behe, who thinks it’s wrong.

And then making him director of the National Science Foundation.
 
ataraxia said:
No. It’s like saying the theory of evolution is wrong because there is a scientist, Michael Behe, who thinks it’s wrong.

And then making him director of the National Science Foundation.
Click to expand...

You continuously refuse to debate someone's argument, instead attacking him as a person. That's poor logic and a textbook fallacy.

This like ignoring Einstein's work because he couldn't get along with his wife.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Thank you for mentioning the New York Times article, because it made me interested in reading the article in its entirety.

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible. - The New York Times

After reading the article I think I say that this OP is built upon a logical fallacy.

Dr. Happer and your other source is only addressing one point from the NYT article in question and are actually misrepresenting the actual Focus of the article itself. Dr. Happer seems to be selectively choosing to refute only the claim that the 6 hottest years on record all occurred after 2010 and refuting it on the basis of claiming that the changes in temperature was a degree or less compared to statistical error. The main focus of the NYT article was not about global temperatures, it was addressing the claims made about “global greening”.






Here’s the thing: Dr. Campbell, the Chief scientist behind the study about global greening, said that the increase in co2 levels is nothing to celebrate about.




Dr. Happer and your other source have committed two logical fallacies: they cherrypicked the part of the NYT article they wanted to refute and then proceeded to use that cherrypicked part of the article as a straw man for them to refute the article without addressing the actual focus of the article.
Click to expand...

That is what right wingers do, that's all they do. THey cherrypick stuff and are completely dishonest. You see this in their responses to post, you can post multiple paragraph response they ignore most of it, pick a line or two from it, then completely make up what the line means, and argue against that. THat's what dishonest hacks do
 
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"

Lord of Planar said:
You would think the libtards would champion AGW instead of fearing it.

But then, their intelligence only allows them to believe what their trusted priests tell them to believe.
Click to expand...

‘Scientists’, you mean.

‘Trusted priests’ are the people with little scientific training and/or fossil fuel funding. See Anthony Watts, or the high school student Tommy pushes as an ‘expert’.

Or, for that matter, the subject of this thread:

William Happer | DeSmogBlog
 
Sampson Simpson said:
That is what right wingers do, that's all they do. THey cherrypick stuff and are completely dishonest. You see this in their responses to post, you can post multiple paragraph response they ignore most of it, pick a line or two from it, then completely make up what the line means, and argue against that. THat's what dishonest hacks do
Click to expand...

Both sides do it.

Stop being a hypocrite.
 
Re: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"

Threegoofs said:
‘Scientists’, you mean.

‘Trusted priests’ are the people with little scientific training and/or fossil fuel funding. See Anthony Watts, or the high school student Tommy pushes as an ‘expert’.

Or, for that matter, the subject of this thread:

William Happer | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

Please read some studies, understand that "words have meaning," and look for the ways the studies rarely say what the pundits conclude from them.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Both sides do it.

Stop being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Bull****, stop being a deflector with no argument. God, that's as pathetic of a response as you can get "but, but, both sides do it". Children say things like that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom