SOME THOUGHTS ON CLIMATE

I was surprised, pleasantly surprised, UCLA allowed the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department to have Professor William Happer speak skeptically about Climate Change at a Physical Chemistry Seminar, until I learned two Conservative Chenistry professors had to do it under the radar. Nevertheless, in a room that could hold under 100 there were at least 50 standing with many in the hall outside. I’m told there has never been such an overflow attendance for any previous seminar in the past.

William “Will” Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science as part of the George HW Bush administration. Happer invented the Sodium Guide Star that most telescopes now have.

Dr. Happer was invited because of his accomplishments in atomic physics which would be acceptable to the other very Liberal professors in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. What wasn’t known to them was that Happer was allowed to pick the subject of his talk and he chose Climate Change.

Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change until the end of time. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.

Happer admitted he, himself, had grossly over predicted the effect of increased levels of CO2. He said the hysteria over climate change is caused by computer models not observation. He pointed out the model predictions don’t come close to the observations. They predicted an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last decade but the temperature has only increased 0.05 degrees. He put up a slide that showed what the computer models predicted and what has actually been observed. The models show dramatically higher levels than have been observed. (see slide #1)

The Professor believes carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to climate change. In fact, the earth has had a CO2 famine for millions of years. CO2 was 1000 to 2000 parts per million during prehistoric times. We have a little more than 400 parts per million now. We could double that amount and little would happen. Happer pointed out the classroom we were in would have at least 2000 parts per million. The CO2 we exhale is 40,000 PPM. Each of us exhales two pounds of CO2 daily. The only effect increased CO2 has is more greening of the planet. (see slide #2)

Happer explained that water vapor is what greenhouse gases mostly consist of and he explained how the molecules of the various greenhouse gases react. That part was a bit over my head but it wasn’t for the students in the room. He went on to explain how atmospheric circulation transports heat from the equator to the poles.

We’ve heard a lot about the acidification of the ocean caused by increased CO2, however, as Happer explained (as well as Willie Soon at the IMPROV debate) if CO2 was the cause of acidification warming would be happening on the surface, but it isn’t. The warming and acidification occurs deep in the ocean. The claim is that if acidity increases 1pH it’s a disaster but Happer pointed out that the ocean surface varies 2 to 4 pH every day. (see slide #3 and #4)

Happer then addressed rising seas. He showed several slides that show sea levels rising no faster than in the past. (see slides #5)

During Q&A a student thanked the Professor saying he gave a compelling argument with data to back it up. He then asked why so many scientists disagree. Happer gave several examples of a consensus of scientists who disagreed with scientists who were later proven right. (see slide #6)

One student said Happer neglected to include the effects of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Happer said the data didn’t reflect any increase. Another student didn’t think Happer’s presentation was scientifically rigorous. He said Happer was ignoring mountains of data that contradicted him. I wondered what mountain of data the student was talking about. Since the claim is that increased CO2 is causing warming and there hasn’t been any significant warming in 20 years what data contradicts that? Many students, however, appreciated the presentation and believed it was scientifically valid, one mentioning he appreciated the data from satellites in the presentation.

A man who identified himself as a science teacher said he would be out in the hall to discuss the fallacies of Professor’s position. I went into the hall and listened for a while. All they said was that Happer was offering opinion that disregarded data but offered no examples.

Several months ago when American Freedom Alliance brought Dr. Willie Soon to Los Angeles to speak, Dr. Soon, Dr. James Enstrom and I spent the day at UCLA trying to get any of the Professors in the fields that study climate to speak to him and none would. (see DR. WILLIE SOON AT THE IMPROV 10/2/2017; see REMEMBER THE DEBATE? NEITHER DO I. 2/12/2017)

Apparently, since Dr, Happer’s seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department, as well as several other departments, are up in arms. They want to know how this happened. Who is responsible for allowing a skeptic to speak? They can’t have students questioning the Climate Change narrative. I’ve always believed when you are told not to listen to opposing opinions that’s exactly when you should. The truth can stand scrutiny.

It’s difficult not to be skeptical of the claims made by climate Alarmists when they are unwilling to even enter into a discussion with a colleague who might question their conclusions.

Advertisements

About madderthanhell

Retired casting director. Mother of two daughters. Grandmother of twin boys and two step grandsons. Lived in California all my life. Co-organizer of two Tea Parties. Past member of Republican Central Committee.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to SOME THOUGHTS ON CLIMATE

  1. Showleh Vandermaas says:

    Great information. Thank you for sharing.

  2. nickreality65 says:

    Part one:

    In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
     Galileo Galilei
    No doubt many of you are tired of seeing this post and yet I persist. Just explain per traditional scientific etiquette and dialogue why my methods and conclusions are wrong and I will have to stop until corrections are made. Simple and in your hands.

    If it had not been for “deniers” challenging the “consensus” doctors and surgeons would still be going from patient to patient with infectious hands and clothing.
    Here’s an excellent example of fake news.

    “97% of scientists (implying ALL!!! scientists) believe in man-caused climate change.”

    What the LYING MSM meant to say is 97% of all CLIMATE scientists (similar to aroma-therapists and horse whisperers) actively researching and publishing in that field (At this point insert getting paid.) consider the evidence compelling – all 82 of them – cherry picked out of the 10,500 surveys that were sent out. (Doran and Zimmerman)

    Demonizing, marginalizing, silencing and censoring the skeptics and critics (Union of Concerned “Scientists” & Disqus & FB & USA Today & MSN & WUWT) is the real anti-science. Science without doubt, science without uncertainty, becomes religion.

    Believing that 0.04% of the atmospheric gases magically influences weather and dominates the climate takes a real sci fi flight of fantasy (or article of faith).

    The upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory is comic book science, Saturday morning cartoon science, cinematic shape-shifting, mutant superhero science defying six of the three most fundamental laws of thermodynamics and physics.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.html

    Believing in the upwelling/downwelling”/back” radiation GHG/GHE theory is like believing in the X-men, but without the kewl movies. Not surprising since they share a common fan base.

    6,500!!!! (plus 4,700!! since 6/9) views collected on the following three papers and NOBODY has disputed my methods or conclusions. (Well, I got a lecture on water vapor which sort of misses the CO2 point.)

    Step right up, be the first, take ‘em apart.

    Bring science, I did.

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong

    • Thank You so much for replying to this. Your explaination of the 97% consensus rubbish is great. Yes, HAPPER mentioned Galileo as well. I’ve become friends with many of the most well known skeptics. A young man, Frank, who comments on my blog quite often telling me I’m being mislead by them but they are more rational and open minded than the hysterical Alarmists. Thanks for your input.

  3. nickreality65 says:

    Part the twoth:

    The ONLY^3 reason RGHE theory even exists is to explain how the average surface (1.5 m above ground) temperature of 288 K/15 C (K-T balance 289 K/16 C) minus 255 K/-18C , the average surface (now ground) temperature w/o an atmosphere (Which is just completely BOGUS!) equals 33 C warmer w/ than w/o atmosphere.

    That Δ33 C notion is absolute rubbish and when it flies into the nearest dumpster it hauls RGHE “theory” in right behind it.

    The sooner that is realized and accepted the sooner all of us will have to find something better to do with our time and the taxpayers’ money. Maybe that’s what keeps RGHE staggering down the road.

    The genesis of RGHE theory is the incorrect notion that the atmosphere warms the surface (and that is NOT the ground). Explaining the mechanism behind this erroneous notion demands some truly contorted physics, thermo and heat transfer, i.e. energy out of nowhere, cold to hot w/o work, perpetual motion.

    Is space cold or hot? There are no molecules in space so our common definitions of hot/cold/heat/energy don’t apply.

    The temperatures of objects in space, e.g. the Earth, Moon, space station, Mars, Venus, etc. are determined by the radiation flowing past them. In the case of the Earth, the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 has a Stefan Boltzmann black body equilibrium temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. That’s hot. Sort of.

    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

    But an object’s albedo reflects away some of that energy and reduces that temperature.

    The Earth’s albedo reflects away about 30% of the Sun’s 1,368 W/m^2 energy leaving 70% or 958 W/m^2 to “warm” the surface (1.5 m above ground) and at an S-B BB equilibrium temperature of 361 K, 33 C cooler (394-361) than the earth with no atmosphere or albedo.

    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s