backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 332 comment(s) - last by welshlaw.. on Jan 20 at 1:34 AM

Dr. William Happer  (Source: Princeton University)
Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 2:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
This is beyond idiotic. Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field, who wants to blame the loss of his job on the anthropomorphic 'beast' that is climate change. He was fired for testifying to congress about a field of science in which he has no experience or credentials. For a government employee, that's understandably a pretty gross offense. Happer is at the far end of the crackpot stick, claiming that UV doesn't cause cancer, when the biggest clinical trials in medical history show that it does.




RE: Happer != Expert
By Oregonian2 on 12/23/2008 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
I just wish some of this global warming would come to the pacific northwest. In the thirty years that I've lived in this area, I've not seen anywhere near the snow that I've seen here in the last week than any (other) five year period combined. It's also been snowing in Las Vegas -- they might like some global warming too.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By whiskerwill on 12/23/2008 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
Climate is just weather averaged over time. Global warming does not mean "colder winters". That CO2 is still up there, trapping heat, remember? In theory, at least.

Even more embarrassing, we didn't have a hot summer, we had an extremely mild one.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
Well, what time do you average over, then? Obviously, it isn't just a question of one year's average temperature (that's exactly one sample in climate terms). What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes. Nobody can say anything conclusive about warming or changes in variability even in the last ten years of climate history, so it's always silly to pin short-term temperatures on either warming or cooling trends.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 3:42:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes."

Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming.

Which of these periods is the correct one to use?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet masher's data is good, but at least one of the graphs you posted is not accurate. The second one looks like the data published by NASA before they discovered the Y2k bug that showed 1998 to be the warmest year on record when it really was 1934. In fact, the corrected data had the majority of the top ten warmest years on record before WWII. I'm sure masher can elaborate.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Masher's point is still relevant even if the times are off. Which period do we use and why? You seem to think you are an expert so enlighten us.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Ammohunt on 12/29/2008 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
The earth has been warming since the last Ice Age...I for one am glad of it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
Satellite Time Series Data on Tropospheric Temperature Readings, straight from the source:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...

Plug them into your favorite graphing or data analysis program yourself. No statistically significant warming since 1995, and a slight cooling trend since the end of 2000.

The Medieval Warm Period was unquestionably warmer than today-- which explains why, as glaciers roll back in Greenland and Scandinava, we find the remmants of Medieval farms and mines beneath them.

As warm as the MWP was, it was nothing compared to warming events such as the Bolling Interstadial, some 15K years ago or the Atlantic Postglacial Period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
He said it better than I did below....


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 7:05:18 PM , Rating: 5
the old adage '73 percent of stats are made up. including this one.' couldnt be more apt. global warming is as much about stat and counter stat as about good science these days. the truth is that as a race, we still know crap all about this planet, let alone it's quirks and cycles over millenia.

i dare say by the time we have proven absolutely conclusively the matter one way or the other, the planet will either gone up in smoke, or we will have the technology to correct it all anyway! lol


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Dharl on 12/24/2008 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Climate science really isn't about misrepresenting statistics.


You're absolutely right! It's about money . Climate Change aka. Global Warming/Cooling has been nothing more than the "bailout" of the scientific community for decades. I remember when I was younger being told the next Ice Age was coming. Flash forward 15 years and you start hearing the exact opposite. How the world's sea levels are going to rise.

Now it's even worse with the Climate Change crap, heck they had to change the name not for science but for PR.

First off let's use some common sense. You have governments, colleges, and others willing to give out millions upon millions in grants to the study of Global Warming. There are plenty of greedy scientists, on both sides of the issue, willing to hold out their hands to that kind of cash for their research. Oh, and if it helps them live out an elabortate lifestyle then so be it...

Second, any scientist, or an individual with common sense, who tries to discredit Global Warming is going to have one heck of an uphill battle on their hands. For every one "Cherry Picked" source that can be provided, there are ten opposing Global Warming related views out there. They aren't "Cherry Picked" their called the minority or less vocal.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
If I recall, before masher2 started his blog for DailyTech and sold out in the name of psuedoscience, he was a little snooty, but now he has shown his true colors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ttowntom on 12/24/2008 8:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NOAA and the IPCC won't touch that data
If you look on their website, you'll see that NOAA scientists use the SSMI data in much of their research.


RE: Happer != Expert
By rbuszka on 12/31/2008 2:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Could I not as easily say that scientists who suggest man-made global warming as the cause for recent rises in global temperatures are more concerned about their own recognition than about "good science"?


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 6:07:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nice cherry picking there.one shows statistically significant warming (that's the one you ignored), and the other shows statistically insignificant warming
Nice attempt to spread FUD, but the dataset he linked was the RSS satellite data, not the UAH/Christy dataset referring to in your Youtube post.

And by the way, your video is old. As of now, none of the satellite datasets show ANY statistical warming over the last 12 years or so.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then surely you are aware that the UAH and RSS data suffer from similar uncertainties
A land dataset like NASA's GISS suffers from much larger uncertainties. Urban heat island, temperature stations that get closed, moved, put next to heat sources, measured at different times of day, a hundred other things. Even something so simple as a different kind of paint on the Stevenson Screen around the thermometer can make difference of a couple degrees. And to top it all off, places like NASA's GISS apply their secret sauce of hundreds of thousands of "corrections" that make older years cooler, and recent years warmer.

But the most inconvenient fact of all is that even the land temperature sets show cooling now. They only show it going back a few years instead of ten or more, but they still show it. But don't worry. As soon as James Hansen (the global warming fanatic who runs NASA's GISS) has a little more time to "correct" his data, he'll be showing warming again.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
Great, Tropospheric Temperature Readings. Unfortunately however, we live on the ground, and those are the numbers which are important to our lives. Also, if we are cooling since 2000, how are all the top 10 of Earth's warmest years since 1997??

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999

(Since 1880)
(Source: National Climatic Data Center)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 6:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
My great great great great great great great great grandfather's high altitude jet plane has proven that your numbers a lie.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 9:32:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh get off of your cross.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 1
Little difficult to "lie" with raw and accurate data. The top ten globally warmest years since 1880 is just that, no debate about them.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:25:03 PM , Rating: 5
The NCDC data is far from "raw and accurate". It's a massaged dataset that contains hundreds of thousands of various corrections, adjustments, and fudge factors. It also is measured by stations that 50 or 100 years ago, were in open fields. Today, they're next to parking lots, a/c heat exhausts, even barbecue grills. Here's one example.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_t...

The Surface Stations project has looked at hundreds of these stations. Almost half of them have serious problems like this.

BTW when one looks at those few temperature stations that are still in rural areas, they show little or no warming trend.


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
Two questions come to mind: What were the 10 coldest years on record, and is the last 128 years of climate records truly representative of the Earth's entire billion year history of climate?

IMHO, the title "EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS" is a tad bit myopic in its scope.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gary Right On on 12/27/2008 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot to mention that these are the Earth's Top Ten Warmest years that you know about.

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 3
No they're not the 10 warmest years on Earth. Good temperature records go back less than 150 years. That's right when we came out of the little ice age, so its not surprising to see temps going up.

Besides we know from ice cores and other records that temperatures were a lot hotter at various times in the past. When computer models can tell us exactly why those times were hotter, maybe we can trust them to explain whats happening today.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
so, let's do Jurrasic Park and revive the dinosaurs... Maybe they can tell us something...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:18:11 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't forget to mention anything. Right at the bottom I posted the source and time range, since 1880.

Oddly enough, 2008 is going to take the #10 spot on that list. Where are those people saying "the past century of global warming was wiped out in the past 2 years alone" now??


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I should add that your statement about the so-called Medieval warm period is also incorrect. This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature. See, e.g., http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 1
And two more graphs to show the same thing, as if one isn't enough:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Y...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Y...

Nah, we aren't warmer now...... LOL


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the NOAA's website is a more accurate source than some "global warming art" site. LOL!


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/23/2008 8:25:09 PM , Rating: 1
Look at all that ice going down, oops we forgot to include Anartica. Oh well it just one small tiny piece of ice, it won't matter. Plus, it wouldn't get me more funding to show the total going up. If NOAA is publishing graphs that leave out Anartica then it is intentionally skewing data Which frankly, means I need to look at all their data with a skeptical eye. Note: one graph only goes to 2000 and therefore is irrelevant to the last 9 years conversation. If you take the high point as your starting point then the graphs do show cooling in the last 9 years. This is correct but if you take one year later it is a warming trend. All depends on the dataset you choose.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to read. The first ice graph does go past 2000, it is just not marked on the scale of 10 year increments since we have not yet reached 2010. Doh! Also, the second graph shows all the way to 2007 specifically. Antarctica was left off because it shows no statistical trend either way.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:52:10 PM , Rating: 4
Learn to read. I said one graph. Not graph one. Showing no statistical trend either way is significant. Leaving out Antartic is still intentionally leaving out relevant data. Or as you would say cherry picking the results that correlate to the conclusion you desire to show. Rightly is was mentioned that picking one graph thats shows no change was wrong when another shows rising temps. Failing to leave out the largest ice mass on the planet is also wrong. Even if it shows no change.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with trying to prove GW by saying "Look! The ice is melting!" is that polar ice STARTED melting when the (last) ice age ended. Just because it hasn't stopped in the last 100 years proves nothing at all.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 5
> "And NOAA's data says the exact same thing:"

Did you even look at the graphs to which you linked? The NOAA charts bear out my claim. For instance:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

Clearly shows little to no trend in the troposphere (where AGW predicts the most warming should appear) since 1995 and a slight cooling trend since 1998. Even the surface record shows a cooling trend there, albeit of shorter duration.

You may be referring to this graph:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

However, you've likely failed to notice the data there ends in 2006, and the blue trend line is a decadal average anyway. If you look at the discrete measurements themselves, you'll see the same signal.

Of course, the signal over the entire scale of ~150 years is still warming. But starting the scale at 1860 can be quite misleading. Looking back to the 13th century, the picture becomes considerably different -- and a good bit less frightening:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2102/39126595uk...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Claim for what? Both temperatures for the troposphere show a clear positive trend to anyone who passed 5th grade math.

And yes, the data ends in 2006. So what? The trend is still there, and 2007 and 2008 do not bring the graph down. The 5-10 year average is what shows the trend. Discrete data points are worthless. But if you really want to include them, both 2007 and 2008 are still in the top 10 warmest years on record.

Also, did you fail to notice your saving graph only goes through 1977??


RE: Happer != Expert
By omnicronx on 12/23/2008 7:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig61...

Look at 1000-1200, there definitively some big spikes there.

quote:
This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature.
Lets stop right there, Europe is not the world. Literature proves nothing, unless you have sources from all around the world, which most definitively does not exist. North America was not even discovered until the end of the Middle ages.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
We have reconstructed temperature data from all over the world. That is how we have temperature data going back millions of years.


RE: Happer != Expert
By pomaikai on 12/24/2008 2:53:29 AM , Rating: 3
reconstructed based off of calculations using a theory that could be incorrect? I am waiting for the "oh crap" moment where they realize they forgot one important piece that causes them to throw everything out the window and start all over.

I am not disputing any data that has been collected, but I dont believe for one second that they can accuratley predict what the weather was 150,000 years ago with any accuracy other than "it was cold" or "it was hot". All we can do is take pieces of what we learned and try to fill in the blanks. Thats like filling in a crossword puzzle without all the clues, sure you could make words fit and finish the puzzle, but whos to say it is the correct words without all the clues.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 3:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
We are discussing the so-called medieval warm period -- a broad, long-term trend in average european temperatures in the middle ages, not the weather on Sunday, March 27th, 1334 AD. Nobody stated or implied that we knew the precise weather (although, FWIW we do have some knowledge of that because monks tended to record such things). I'm not sure what you're claiming, but there isn't really any connection between the first and second paragraph of your post.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't matter. Proxies have much less resolution than direct observation of course. Reconstruction by proxy is not that good considering data-point smearing and the simple averaging process of proxies.


RE: Happer != Expert
By sviola on 12/24/2008 6:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong. Norses were in America in the 10th Century. They colonized Greenland for 500 years (and it still belongs to Denmark). And Leif Ericson settled a colony in Newfoundland in the year 1001.


RE: Happer != Expert
By texasredbud on 12/24/2008 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
So the MWP is cooler than the climate today, but it was still a period of significant warming. Do we know why the climate warmed up during that period? If one looks back over time, there have been significant fluctuations in climate that were 'natural' (not caused by human creation of CO2). How do we possible know that the current warm period is not a natural variation? It would appear that the MWP was natural, so why not this warm period?


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:56:10 PM , Rating: 3
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
"In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years." "It appears" is hardly a conclusive statement. And hardly "thoroughly bebunked" his statement. Not to mention it is from the IPCC not NOAA. I keep seeing graphs of shrinking glaciers as proof of global warming. Yet, evidence of a smaller glaciers in the past is irrelevant. Which is it? Are shrinking glaciers a sign of global temps or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
There's more than empirical evidence that the MWP was warmer than today. Quite a few research papers indicate such. Here's one example:

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3...

Here's another that indicates not only was the MWP warmer than today, but that the Roman Warm Period (before the Dark Ages) was even warmer still:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284...


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 3
your chart is horribly skewed.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globa...

"The past 9 years have been the warmest on record since 1880"
-pretty sure the 10 warmest years in descending order are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
IBD recently quoted these numbers as well.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=31458...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 10:38:43 AM , Rating: 1
My chart is based off raw data, and is quite correct. You however quote the temperatures for just Greenland (which is NOT the world), and quote an editorial (not a scientific source, which also lists no references for it's data), which does not even list correct data itself.

My data is straight from legit sources, where is your made up data from?? Someone who doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate??


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
your are correct that the chart is of Greenland and not Global. My point was more that the time period used in the chart is a more accurate depiction of long term trends than using only data from 1880-present. Can you show me a chart of global climate trends over the same time period found in the chart i posted? I've actually found that to be harder to locate than you would think.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I can show you long term charts. In fact I can go back even further to show that we are at or near a temperature high point, and at or nearing an ice low point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8...

But the last 2000 years shows it perhaps the best
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:10:50 AM , Rating: 3
Wow I din't know thermometers were 2000 years old. (Wasn't it 1724 or something)

Proxies are no substitute for direct observation. Considering the error bands on observable data, and all the issues of land use changing, proxy reconstructions are much much worse.
All you have proven is that you can google. Tell me in your school did they teach you that a value such as delta 1.26C +/- 3C was pointless or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
Marduke, quoting Wikipedia for accuracy is like kissing your sister for a hardon. Especially on any politically correct topic like global warming. Newspapers have run stories about the hordes of fruitcake enviros that infest Wikipedia and how they slant every story.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:20:06 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, so what do you have to say about the NOAA graphs that show the identical information?? I have posted several of them here.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Andy35W on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 4
what??? did you even look at the chart you posted? you see that spike between months 228-240? That would be the year 1998. please show me how you can draw ANY sort of upward sloping trend line from 1998 to present. (and please refrain from getting in to semantics about that period being 10 years instead of 9.)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:53:28 PM , Rating: 1
First, you call him dumb because he comments that the chart shows exactly what he says it does. The comments are about 1998 to present so you post a comment about 1880 to 1997? And you call him dumb? Your wiki chart shows exactly what he said. To be frank picking from 1998 to present to base a trend on is misleading because you are starting at a spike. Quit the name calling and instead reply from 1999 to present is cleary a rising trend. Or point out that yes that is true the TREND is decreasing but that the average of those ten years is still higher then the average of any ten years since 1880. Ten years is not going to make or break global warming. The trend is rising temps over the last century+. The question is it man caused or natural variation.
Can someone please explain to me how in your first chart el nino/nina changes the global temps? Global temp is supposed to be an average heat i.e. energy. How does a wind moving the energy from one location to another change the amount of energy in the system. Unless, I am mistaken the energy is neither created nor destroyed.


RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming."

Well said. Thats probably the most simple concise example that I have seen... In other words, dont panic... The Earth is gonna do what its gonna do. We evolved to teh point we are, because we are smart and able to adapt to a changing environment.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:48:01 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong how? The point is that the Earth goes through these phases, warmer is not going to kill us. You think the earth was warmer 15000 years ago? It was in an Ice age. Its been in and out of them again and again for the past several million years...


RE: Happer != Expert
By TETRONG on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rcc on 12/24/2008 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
lol, what happened? You find out you are getting a lump of coal tomorrow?

It's fine to disagree with someone, encouraged even. But the personal attacks are just juvenile.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming does not mean "colder winters".


It does for high latitudes. A.K.A. much of the Northern Hemisphere. Global warming screws up the ocean currents which bring warm equatorial waters to high latitude areas, meaning those areas are no longer warmed, and they get.... you ready for this.... colder!!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
Last I checked temperature is far from the only controlling factor involved in currents, so this seems a bit silly to say with such certainty, this is of course unless you think "global warming" affects planet rotation and moon gravitational forces.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the warmer temps melt the ice, which dumps fresh water into the ocean, which screws up the currents. It will get colder, the ice will return, and we'll be in for another VERY cold period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
So if it gets warmer, you can blame global warming. And if it gets colder, you can blame global warming also.

Cool, we can't possibly be proven wrong!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By jimbojimbo on 12/24/2008 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you know? People are more powerful than the sun!! We completely control our environment and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. Yep, nothing.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Regs on 12/29/2008 3:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
My flatulence has flared up every 11 years causing a 1.3 W/m2 variance in solar output.

In all due respect to the discussion at hand, everything we have referenced come from poorly developed models. There is still much to discover of what actually causes climate change.

It's human instinct to demonize and manifest an evil to something we do not fully comprehend. In this case it's our neighbors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that short-term variability (particularly increases in variability) isn't inconsistent with the predicted changes. Nobody but CNN and FOX actually use these seasonal weather events as evidence in support of or opposition to the scientific viewpoint. Find me a paper that says 'Winter 2008 is cold --> global warming', or even 'july 2008 was hot --> global warming.' None of the scientists do that, only the politicians and journalists.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phattyboombatty on 12/23/2008 4:50:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
None of the scientists do that, only the politicians and journalists.

BS! Scientists are the worst at making sensationalist claims to score a headline. You are naive if you think scientists are somehow above playing politics.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between "science politics" and plain old vanilla politics. For the most part, the scientists publishing these provocative headlines may want increased support of their theory from other scientists, or to bring attention to their work. But unlike in politics, in science one only has to respond with a point-by-point rebuttal of an overreaching paper. That will shut them up pretty well, and sadly there isn't a congressional version of this... the closest thing to it is the cycle of attack-defense ads we see in elections. I would support an effort to require a brief description by each member of congress for each vote, to demonstrate that they understand and argue effectively for the issues they support. That way, they could at least be called out on the basis of their claims.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phattyboombatty on 12/23/2008 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 3
I would be shocked if congressmen even fully read a single bill they voted for or against during their terms. Most are simply told how to vote by lobbyists or their political party, or in other cases they engage in vote-trading schemes where they agree to vote for another congressman's bill if that congressman votes for his bill. Still other congressmen vote for bills because they have successfully added pork for their home district to the bill.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 4:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
You still didn't explain how temperature is the major factor in tides when it isn't.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:24:04 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say anything about the tides. Those are controlled by gravity, specifically the sun and moon.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 5:22:05 PM , Rating: 1
Saline and fresh water have different densities. When you dump a bunch of fresh water into the North Atlantic for example, you can diminish the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents that keeps much of the east coast and Europe warm.

This was a much bigger worry a few years ago, and it's not really an immediate worry for right now, but it will most likely be one mechanism that helps the transition from our current warm period to the oncoming cold period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 5:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saline and fresh water have different densities. When you dump a bunch of fresh water into the North Atlantic for example, you can diminish the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents that keeps much of the east coast and Europe warm.


I understand how it works, I want to know how it somehow has more to do with currents than the other 3 forces working on them.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, how they proved that it affects the currents and to what degree.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
We have present day data, and historical data, and models which all agree as to what happens when you dump lots of less dense fresh water into denser saline water. The sensitivity has been heavily discussed and debated over the years, the the same affect still happens regardless.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 10:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
When the Gulf Stream moves warm surface water from the equator north through the Atlantic, the water cools, gets saltier due to evaporation and becomes very dense. By the time it approaches the coast of Newfoundland, or further northeast in the Norwegian Sea, it becomes dense enough to sink. This process is called overturning. The dense water then slowly travels through the deep water southward into the Southern Hemisphere, with the return flow to the north occurring at the surface.

But when freshwater gets mixed with the salty water in the North Atlantic, it makes the water less dense and slows the overturning process and the ocean circulation.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ttowntom on 12/24/2008 8:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it will most likely be one mechanism that helps the transition from our current warm period to the oncoming cold period
This is a great way to try to square the current cooling trend with global warming, but it just doesn't add up. If ocean currents change and prevent warm tropic water from coming north, then the tropics should be heating up much much faster (all the global warming heat is being concentrated there). But that's not happening.

Its not something we even need to debate anyway because as you admit, all the data says that ocean currents aren't shutting down at all.


RE: Happer != Expert
By rcc on 12/24/2008 5:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
There are scientists that believe that, and I don't necessarily disagree. But you can't state as fact that that is what happens.


RE: Happer != Expert
By arazok on 12/23/2008 3:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
So when the ice caps melt as a result of global warming, this is because the N/S hemispheres are getting…colder?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
Backwards. The ice melts because it's warm, then the N/S hemispheres get colder. We are at the top of a warm period, and it will soon get MUCH colder.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's simple. It's part of a cyclic change the Earth goes through. It has been getting warmer for a while. We are at or very near the peak of a warm cycle. It will then turn and go the other way, getting colder -- And that is for a global scale. Along the way there will be large local and short term variations in either direction (these are predicted to happen). As the climate changes, there will be erratic weather behavior.

And just a reminder for some of you out there, weather and climate are NOT the same thing, so get this arctic blast out of your ass.


RE: Happer != Expert
By arazok on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's totally wrong, try reading what I wrote. The high latitudes are not yet cooling, everything is still warming globally. Eventually everything will get colder, but the high latitudes will do it first and help trigger the reaction.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:07:51 PM , Rating: 5
Why are still quoting that website? Global warming art? Is that run by the IPCC? NOAA? Fox news? You're cracking me up here.


RE: Happer != Expert
RE: Happer != Expert
By bednarjm on 12/24/2008 7:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOL dude. that PS was funny. i need to take advantage of that too.


RE: Happer != Expert
By omnicronx on 12/23/2008 7:30:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Global warming screws up the ocean currents which bring warm equatorial waters to high latitude areas, meaning those areas are no longer warmed, and they get.... you ready for this.... colder!!
Unfounded! In theory you are right, if there was only one current to deal with, but its well known that large bodies of water such as the ocean have surface and bottom currents. The desalination caused by melting ice is not enough to change these underwater currents thus the end result is just the surface current changing directions (this happens because low density (cold/more salt) water will always move on top higher density water (warm/less salt). The entire Northern hemisphere would have to melt in order for significant temperature changes to occur.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 10:46:35 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
this happens because low density (cold/more salt) water will always move on top higher density water (warm/less salt)


Completely wrong. Saline water is more dense than freshwater, not less. Basically, that means that melting ice forces the warm salty equatorial waters deeper, so they cannot warm high latitudes. You should have learned that back in elementary school.

But you are right, there are both surface and deep currents that are both very important to keeping high latitudes warm. But freshwater screws up the cycle of interaction between them, stalling out the system in place.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Wixykid on 12/24/2008 10:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
I love those podcasts put out by the Princeton Review "LSAT Logic in everyday life". They love to debunk these sorts of articles.
So let's begin:
"Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process": One question here is the definition of Natural. Like it or not, we are part of the earth's ecosystem. That is irrefutable. We take resources from our surrounding environment, and put back into the environment. Help me out here - what is UN natural about that. The thrust here is that Happer believes that this would have happened anyway with or without us. Indeed, looking at world wide temperature variability data over time, we realize that the earthly environment that the human race grew up in has been relatively quiet - almost gentle. What we do not know and cannot tell is (except for landmark events) what were the causes of these past spikes. We all know about the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 - but what caused the CO2?

"There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past": This is a statement that cannot be proven. Sure, there is no evidence that this is so, but there is also no evidence that it is NOT so. Just a thought - it seems that quality of life is closely related to how well a species is adapted to it's environment. So what happens if the environment changes faster than the species can adapt?

"I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said.": I have a real problem with this one. I find it hard to believe that Al Gore would have originated this statement. The way the paragraph is written, it implies that he did, but it is not consistent with his personality. It would have been better if Dr. Happer had given a name to the statement.

I would have to concede that true scientific method has not been applied here - I am not sure that it is possible on the scale necessary. I DO know that for the first time in recorded history, our race has information on a marco change in the environment that could be in advance of the actual "Qualitative" changes - AND have the ability to act on it. It would be irresponsible not to act on this data - especially if the world as a whole will benefit from the effort. Recent News and data from around the world is indicating a superstorm of difficulties for our children and grandchildren. All peoples of ALL nations are going to have to work together to avoid another dark ages (think of all the good work that will be lost if that occurs). For what it's worth, it seems to me that if nothing else, the global warming issue is a good rallying point. I simply can't see any negatives to it.

W


RE: Happer != Expert
By Moklar on 12/25/2008 12:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was just waiting for someone like you to give such an example to contradict global warming.

It really shows you have no clue about what the global warming phenomenon is - notice it says "GLOBAL" it doesn't necessarily have nothing do with your regional weather, it's the average GLOBAL temperature going up.

(waits for this fact to be rated down).


RE: Happer != Expert
By Major HooHaa on 12/30/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
My view is that, if you look at the world, it is made up of interlocking and interdependent habitats and eco-systems. I also think that Humans have altered in a major way, practically every single habitat and eco-system on the planet.

Add to that pollution and a massive reduction of the planets bio-diversity... How can all this not have an effect?

I often wonder about what the fossil record for this time period will look like. There would be this layer of tarmac and concrete, with many species and habits in existence below it. But hardly any natural habitat or species above it. If we then died out and a species evolved to take our place, would they think that a giant asteroid made of concrete and tarmac hit the planet which killed off most of the life on the planet?


RE: Happer != Expert
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/23/2008 2:57:05 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately climatology and AGW research is full of smart people speaking beyond there area of expertise. This is true of both critics like Happer and supports like Hansen of GISS.

I think a lot of the changes suggested by governments and scientists in response to global warming are ultimately good choices whether global warming proves true or not, and I think the public realizes this.

Fossil fuels, while in abundant supply currently, will run out eventually. Additionally most emissions reducing technologies also reduce other chemical emissions such as sulfur and nitrides, which are proven to cause unpleasant environmental effects. And developing alternative energy technologies such as solar and nuclear power is critical to future space exploration.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 1
Alas, yes, the politicization of it has created a lot of stump-speakers. Unfortunately, scientists have to come out and play policy expert, because there are too many misleading policy makers with deep pockets they'd like to line with some combination of ballots and campaign cash.

I agree, there are countless reasons to make a lot of the proposed changes. The recent finding that coal and petroleum reserves are systematically overestimated is particularly disturbing ( http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/world-c... ), and I hope we find alternatives before we use up what should be our "back-up" resource.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
The assumption you have is that scientists have no ambitions or motivations themselves outside the realm of science. I have worked in accedamia at LANL and I find it is rarely the case. Most scientists I have worked with are childish, arrogant, and most have had political or monetary motivations to advance science. Not generalizing too much I hope. Just stating my experience. I also need to mention some of the physicists I met could hardly find their way to a bathroom!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
Los Alamos is hardly a representative sample. LANL is a great place to work if you're very smart but incapable of getting along with other people. It also makes you a great match for nuclear weapons research, which extends this self-centered attitude to foreign policy.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sandia, or CalTech, or MIT is any different.
I guess the nerds at LANL are of a different breed then the rest of the nerds around the world! Considering that we had some of the brightest folks from all over the country and all over the world I would think LANL is a very good sample. And unless you worked there you don't know. (Little secret, LANL is not just about nuclear phsyics.)

BYW, where do you work? Disney Land?

The point that you are missing, or dodging is that people that work in the fields of science are motivated by the same goals, and agendas as everyone else. No one I ever met worked their ass off just to advance science. Aren't you getting paid? Don't you get something for publishing that paper? Maybe recongition? Money? More Grants? Better Job? Aren't those things a return on your efforts?

You act like scientists are some objective gods who let the science speak for itself, when history and simply opening your eyes say otherwise. Scientists are some of the most prideful, arrogant, and pigheaded people you will ever meet. What other body of professionals to a man thinks that he is the smartest person who walks this earth? Univerity science faculty are much much worse, as they are typically more arrogant and in my experience tended to be the most politically motivated.

Considering how snobby and arrogant you are you are probably a grad student or post doc right now for some equally snobby prof. Either that or a new prof yourself.


RE: Happer != Expert
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 5
All good things, yes, and most reasonable people are willing to accept this concept.

Why then, are we continuing to polarize this issue with FUD and rationalizing it with lame cliche's like 'the end justifies the means'?

If the general public has become so mentally lame that they cannot be given the evidence and allowed to decide for themselves, then we've far larger problems on our hands than an AGW doomsday scenario.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ZachDontScare on 12/23/2008 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unfortunately climatology and AGW research is full of smart people speaking beyond there area of expertise. This is true of both critics like Happer and supports like Hansen of GISS.
...
Fossil fuels, while in abundant supply currently, will run out eventually.

What you say about speaking in areas beyond one's expertise also applies to energy economics. Fossil fuels will never 'run out' - thats impossible. They'll just get more expensive to access to the point that an alternative will replace them because the alternative is cheaper. There will ALWAYS be oil remaining in the ground, it'll just be harder to get at. The idea that we'll just 'run out' of oil some day is simplisticly naive. It just doesnt work that way.


RE: Happer != Expert
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 5
You're right, Princeton physicists aren't qualifed to talk about the physics of atmospheric heat absorption. But industrial engineers like Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC, are.

Makes perfect sense to me. :-|


RE: Happer != Expert
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
>>industrial engineers like Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC are.

I agree that would be a poor idea. I hope that the UN official take their climatological opinions from dedicated climate researchers primarily, and cite these researchers properly.

>>Princeton physicists aren't qualifed to talk about the physics of atmospheric heat absorption.

To say that Happer's sweeping comments are directed at his opinions on the physics of heat absorption by atmospheric gases is specious at best. While he may have opinions on this topic, he's addressing general global warming phenomena, which is by nature inherently a climatological phenomena best observerable in broad statistical trends, studies of sun activity and its effects, historic climate studies, and studies on atmosphere dynamics by dedicated experts. Climatologists may occasionally need to call in physicists of various disciplines or chemists to help explain specific phenomena, but overall the best person to study climatology is a dedicated climate researcher, who is schooled in and performs most of their research in the subject.

Happer is an atomic physicist, not a climatologist. He seems a talented atomic physicist, but that does not make him a talented climatologist or lend credence to his climatological opinions.

It'd be kind of like a very smart aerospace engineer giving advice to Microsoft in how he thinks they should fix their API problems. In MOST cases he's pretty unlikely to have insight that the programmers don't.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Happer is an atomic physicist, not a climatologist. He seems a talented atomic physicist, but that does not make him a talented climatologist or lend credence to his climatological opinions.
Exactly right!!!! So we should unilaterally ignore anyone that is not in the climatology field directly. Like you stated,
quote:
climatological phenomena best observerable in broad statistical trends, studies of sun activity and its effects, historic climate studies, and studies on atmosphere dynamics by dedicated experts.


And since you're not an expert in the climatology field, your comments and opinions don't mean squat either. I propose that your next article simply be a posting of url's to the experts in the field, the actual climatologists. We'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Flubber88 on 12/23/2008 6:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
According to the IPCC, there are also less than 100 qualified climatologists in the world today (that number will increase, of course, as the money, prestige, and fast-track promotion opportunities will draw more scientists in like flies to....honey).
But that's all by the by. I don't need a degree in climatology to tell when a graph is meaningless crap due to cherry-picked starting/ending points or to point out that since AGW computer models can't even "predict the past" when applied to historical data, they are useless.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
Physics is physics. The only issue would be not being up to date on current research. Just becuase he is an atomic phsysicist doesn't mean he forgot his gas laws!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
We called Industrial Engineers Imaginary Engineers at my school. That is where all the dropouts went from the other areas.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
Our engineering washouts went to Civil Engineering and Business School....


RE: Happer != Expert
By Goty on 12/23/2008 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 5
A "mediocre scientist" who is currently a member of one of the most prestigious physics departments in the world.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 3
Since Feynman, people have gotten this idea that good physicists can solve all of our problems. The truth is that, while very smart, they can't always be a Jack of all trades (and I say this as a physicist myself). Feynman famously led the inquiry that identified o-rings as the cause of the space shuttle disaster, using his intuition about thermal expansion and contraction of all materials.

But a) Feynman was a very special and brilliant physicist, and b) climate science is much more complicated than thermal expansion of an o-ring. It takes a long time to make a dent in the literature, and while physicists are well-equipped to make sense of the individual processes, it still takes enormous effort to piece together the whole picture (few people, even among climate scientists, manage to do this -- and most are former physicists who have devoted decades to studying the problem). He may be knowledgeable in his own field, but there's no evidence that he's done more than read a few climate paper abstracts in Nature.


RE: Happer != Expert
By kattanna on 12/23/2008 3:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it still takes enormous effort to piece together the whole picture


and im sure no one has the "whole picture" even now.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:00:54 PM , Rating: 1
True, and sadly I actually reckon that Masher2 has more of the picture than Happer in this case. Anyplace you look, somebody will be crying foul because their job was given to somebody better-equipped to do it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Goty on 12/23/2008 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I'm not contesting the OP's claim about a physicist not being uniquely qualified to make such statements, I'm just pointing out that Happer obviously isn't a "mediocre scientist" is he's employed by Princeton.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 3:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
That isnt what he said. He questioned whether the alarmists in the Clinton administration were correct in their assumptions a depletion in ozone would cause such a grave situation. His question regarding UVB wasnt denying it had ill effects, only that it wasnt as bad as the alarmists would have you believe. Funny that the same logic and emotion are being applied to global warming as ozone depletion back in the early 90's. Little real science, lots of emotion, and a religious indoctrination and enforcement that rivals medieval europe.


RE: Happer != Expert
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds more like an epidemiological trial than a clinical trial. I don't think there's an IRB ever concieved that would sign off on such a trial ;)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
Absolutely, my mistake (wish we had edit buttons!)

My point was that the link between UV and skin cancer is as bulletproof as the link between drinking vodka and being drunk, although you're right -- clinical trials these were not (at least I hope not!) ;)


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:10:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(Carl Sagan)
Thats the crucial point about the UVB studies you mentioned. There are plenty that do indicate increased ground UVB, and the theory/models certainly suggest that it is increased when the hole is wide open. A few, as you point out, have not found any evidence of anything, and are probably just the result of poor experiment or too little data.

There were certainly a lot of over-the-top stories at the time. That always happens with scientific findings. But imagine what might have happened if we hadn't taken action to reduce CFCs. There's a reason that schoolkids in australia have to wear hats outdoors. Glad it didn't have a greater impact before we noticed the problem and fixed it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 4:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't they show that holes in the o-zone were cyclic, natural and had not been caused by man?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
quote:
Scientists have been increasingly able to attribute the observed ozone depletion to the increase of anthropogenic halogen compounds from CFCs by the use of complex chemistry transport models and their validation against observational data (e.g. SLIMCAT, CLaMS). These models work by combining satellite measurements of chemical concentrations and meteorological fields with chemical reaction rate constants obtained in lab experiments. They are able to identify not only the key chemical reactions but also the transport processes which bring CFC photolysis products into contact with ozone.


There is a strong seasonal cycle (that's presumably what you're referring to), but a more important catalytic response that is inter-annual. This response has reversed since the inception of the Montreal protocol.
quote:
Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later.


RE: Happer != Expert
By juserbogus on 12/23/2008 6:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Didn't they show that holes in the o-zone were cyclic, natural and had not been caused by man?

double talk or you are misinformed. while the "holes" themselves were cyclic, the size and scope were because of man made CFCs. There is also good evidence that would allow you to conclude that the case was the CFCs as well.

actually, this is a good example of a huge environmental problem that we were able to reverse.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a reason that schoolkids in australia have to wear hats outdoors.
Yes because it has nothing to do with overexposure to the sun.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Or the hole in the ozone over the country....


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or the hole in the ozone over the country....
That follows Australia around like a dog on a leash.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
... which is good to avoid because of... oh yeah! UVB! From the hole in the ozone above their heads! Which was created by catalysis from CFC emissions!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Flubber88 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for this, I thought that was the case but haven't looked into it as heavily as you seem to have. I always wondered about the ozone hole panic attack, didn't really make sense. I remember when they tried to explain it in school, it made no sense then either.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 9:01:49 PM , Rating: 1
It's amazing that you would write so much without sourcing any of your absurd claims. Even wikipedia knows that what you've stated here is plainly false, and cites numerous careful studies to prove it. Please, do not listen to this drivel. If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


That's the scientific spirit!!!! Nothing proves facts like dogma!


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


That's the scientific spirit!!!! Nothing proves facts like dogma!


RE: Happer != Expert
By juserbogus on 12/24/2008 12:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
utterly discredited ozone hole nonsense
you are gravely misinformed.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 3
Sagan also has a nice quote on the early astronomers extrapolations of conditions on Venus. They looked through their telescopes, saw heavy cloud cover as must have existed on primeval Earth, and concluded conditions must be similar.

Data: Can't see a damn thing.
Conclusion: Must be dinosaurs there!

A similar phenomena has predominated in AGW research. We lack good data on nearly every aspect of long-term climate feedbacks, but we have plenty of people pretending our extremely sparse data is definitive and absolute.

CO2 is unquestionably a greenhouse gas, but the all-important question is climate sensitivity...and almost no one is doing actual experimental research on that question. GCMs (climate models) have been calibrated with a sensitivity based not on any value calculated from a priori or experimental verification, but based on the amount the earth has warmed over a given period. That contains the implicit assumption that the majority of said warming is GHG-based, simply because we can't think of a better alternative.

A considerable amount of research in the past few years, however, indicates that sensitivity has been considerably overstated. The modeling camp refuses to believe this for obvious reasons-- their models tell them otherwise. We've gotten to the point where the models are being used not to confirm or predict, but rather being used in place of experimental data itself. That's a problem for science no matter how you slice it, regardless of the truth or not about anthropogenic global warming.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:56:28 PM , Rating: 4
Au contraire, monsieur, research on experimental constraints of climate sensitivity are one of the best-funded areas of climate research. This ranges from lab experiments on "out of normal range" physical processes to work better parameterizations into GCMs, to paleoclimate studies of corals, benthic forams, etc... to place constraints on SST sensitivity.


RE: Happer != Expert
By BPB on 12/24/2008 11:02:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A few, as you point out, have not found any evidence of anything, and are probably just the result of poor experiment or too little data.
Do you realize what you are saying here? They are wrong because you don't agree with them. You sir, are what I would call a True Believer.


RE: Happer != Expert
By meepstone on 12/23/2008 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, im sure he waited 15 years to complain about the loss of his job. real good arguement loser.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't. The story is 15 years old. About the only other news on the subject is this terrible, old, archived piece:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/...

From 1993 . Hot off the press, fellas.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He didn't. The story is 15 years old.
Wow, that's soooooo old. Didn't people shank their own meat back then?


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your understanding of science. Did you miss this part of the article?

quote:
Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday..


15 years old versus one day. Wow, you were close.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
I think jenga is going to cry.

Ever notice the global warming crowd says:

-1- he's a scientist if he talks up global warming

-2- he's a tangential peripheral crank if he does not

-3- if you argue with then they say "please cite a peer reviewed paper supporting your point" ......but point #2 obviates doing that.

These global warmers are like the meth users in denial. They will lie to your face even when its obvious they are lying.

Nothing I hate more than liars and thus the global warmers are highly disliked.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
I'm terrified that people like you know the secret of reproduction.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phxfreddy on 12/26/2008 12:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
Mmm...you mean little old me:

-1- engineer in RF design / masters degree in EE DSP ?

-2- IQ = 160

-3- triathelete?

...yah terrible because you liberals do not stand a chance to get a chick when I am around. Well even if I am not around since libs are such femmy wimps.


RE: Happer != Expert
By SoCalBoomer on 12/25/2008 4:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is beyond idiotic. Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field, who wants to blame the loss of his job on the anthropomorphic 'beast' that is climate change.


Then it's a good thing we have YOU to put us straight, now isn't it? I mean, with your impeccable credentials, your lengthy CV, your extensive list of publications. . .

Oh wait, you have none of those things - instead, you're proficient in ad hominem. You disagree with him so you slander him.

Way to go. Like that. Good job! Way to use that "crackpot stick" my friend. . .


RE: Happer != Expert
By FPP on 12/25/2008 10:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is another example of the Global warming Mafia blaccklisting sicentists who disagree with them. In Oregon, the Governor eliminted the position of the State meteorologist because he disagreed with him on this.

Take a good look folks at the face of the left.


RE: Happer != Expert
By JimCouch on 12/29/2008 2:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think if your globes are warming you must have wet your pants!... I think the earth will take care of herself and will be warming and cooling long after we humans are gone.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 6:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
I am quite curious on how ones measures the merits of a "climate scientist"

Just what credentialing process is required to possess authoritaive opinion on this subject? At what instant in time does one pass through a door that makes ones beliefs and opinions more worthy than that of anyone elses?

As we have come to learn, this dismal "science" is not about observation, hypothesis, experiment, and confirmation. Its rather about hypothesis, funding, and endless gala conferences at world class tropical resorts (alway at some hapless taxpayer's expense). Essentially this cult is no different from any other religion except perhaps that the degree of excess is somewhat more muted with the world's long established religions.


RE: Happer != Expert
By welshlaw on 1/20/2009 1:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
Please, the scientists who support the AGW theory are mostly political hacks. It is a bad theory based on extrapolations of extrapolated data. Any scientist willing to testify in a court of law that the AGW theory is fact, would leave the witness stand after cross examination with a new orifice.


Wonderful
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:45:05 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder what fantastic crisis they will think of next to terrify people into policy changes?




RE: Wonderful
By jbourne77 on 12/23/2008 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 5
Equal opportunity housing?


RE: Wonderful
By derwin on 12/23/2008 5:08:39 PM , Rating: 4
lol, that made my day


RE: Wonderful
By maverick85wd on 12/24/2008 4:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
right after they take my guns maybe


RE: Wonderful
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 3:09:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well right not Global warming seems to be working. Until that crisis has subsided they dont need to think of a new one.


RE: Wonderful
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 3:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Global climate warming has taken a back seat to the economy. I guess it's hard to milk that turnip when it's dry.


RE: Wonderful
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God!
Boy I am tired of hearing about AGW.


RE: Wonderful
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 3:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's the agenda of liberal fascists; come up with one crisis after another to justify more "government solutions." Just look at the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on disease in Africa, the war on climate change, etc, etc. Government programs never fix any of these things; they only squander our tax dollars.


RE: Wonderful
By teflonbilly on 12/23/2008 4:42:15 PM , Rating: 4
That's not a liberal fascist agenda, that a governmental agenda. best way to keep people under control is to keep them fearing something other than their own government. Or fear their government so much they cant do anything about it. Almost every country uses this tactic to some extent.


RE: Wonderful
By eye smite on 12/23/2008 8:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with it being a gov't agenda, and I've been saying since they started the buzz phrase global warming that it was BS. lol


RE: Wonderful
By cmdrdredd on 12/23/2008 8:17:25 PM , Rating: 5
Except in this country we have Gun Rights so we can actually fight back against tyrannical government. That is the point of the 2nd amendment which in today's society is forgotten.


RE: Wonderful
By teflonbilly on 12/25/2008 12:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Its not a matter of fighting back. Its a matter of seeing the enemy. if your government leads down the wrong path but you follow because it seems right, eventually you end up so far from where you want to be, that you can't see the way back.

Ok that sounds all esoteric, but really all I mean is that you can be lead into a path or wrong by your government and not realize you need to fight back until its too late. Propaganda, and misinformation are key tools in all governments. Even benign ones (if there is such a thing.)

As for global warming itself. I think we need to stop focusing our attention on that and focus ont eh negative impacts of pollution on ourselves. People get sick and die from pollution. Be it car exhaust, factory belches, or any number of other forms. Are we having an impact on our climate? Nobody knows that for sure. Nobody.
Is our pollution affecting our quality of life? Yes. At the very least we can't enjoy a clear night sky in a major city like we used to. Some cities have air quality warnings posted on a regular basis to protect the elderly or infirm.I am very lucky. I live in Vancouver BC Canada. Air quality is great. We get our power from hydro electric, and we have great clean mountain drinking water. But not all the world is so lucky.

Sorry for the ramble. I get on a line of thought and my mind won't stop!


RE: Wonderful
By bigjaicher on 12/23/2008 5:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it's people like you that keep me from thinking that this country is completely insane. Especially the war on disease in Africa. I mean, why do we even care? Some people say it's an investment in the well-being of the people around the world. Really, does it make a return to us, the taxpayers? Why should I be forcibly impresssed into giving money into a cause that won't affect me in any way? It's a good cause, but I feel that if you want to give money to these charitable causes, you should be able to do it on your own terms. The same for the rest of those progams.

I hate how we try to expand our government, when all it really is doing is providing jobs to rich, incompetent people whose mommies and daddies bribed the dean of some college to let them get in and graduate, when there are some people who are actually competent that are worse off. The government's primary job is to stop people from killing each other and punish those who do. Anything else takes a backseat to the job that the government is currently failing at.