Will Happer – Climate ‘Denier?’

 

The press reported that President Donald J. Trump plans to establish by executive order a Presidential Committee on Climate Security to reexamine the commonly accepted claim that climate change poses a threat to our national security. The head of this committee will be William Happer, a retired physics professor at Columbia and Princeton and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Critics of Happer cite a recent report from the Department of Defense on the risk of rising sea levels to debunk the President’s proposal. Pity that these misguided souls fail to note that the words “carbon dioxide” do not appear once in the DOD Report, which examines a variety of other reasons why land erosion and sea-level rises can compromise naval activities. The data on this front are mixed. In fact, a recent report on the stability of atoll islands, on which the U.S. operates several military bases, found that out of the 709 islands in 30 atolls, “518 (73.1%) were stable, 110 (15.5%) increased in size, and 81 (11.4%) decreased in area. Thus, a total of 88.6% of all islands examined were either stable or increased in size.”

Nonetheless, Trump’s plan was greeted with a chorus of disbelief by a climate establishment that regards Happer as a retrograde appointment who, as Vox angrily proclaims, “has bizarre, backward views about climate science,” and was denounced by The New York Times as a “climate denialist.” The chief substantive complaint about Happer is that he thinks that on balance the increased levels of carbon dioxide over the last 80 to 100 years has positive value for humanity—a position that is widely rejected by establishment scientists. There is a great deal of evidence that cuts in his direction, most notably the increased green covering of the earth’s surface over the past 30 years, which arises for the simple reason that plant growth is far more sensitive to increases in CO2 than temperature changes. Thus, we gain the benefit of disproportionate greening in agriculture, forestry, and the rest with only modest temperature increases.

In Vox, as in The New York Times, Happer is widely condemned for saying that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” His point was not, of course, to defend the Holocaust, but to highlight the obnoxious attacks directed to those people who like myself share his point of view. Sadly, he has a point. The word “denier” is used in connection with global warming in exactly the same sense that it is used in connection with the Holocaust. No one, however confident in his or her own views, should attach so odious a label to their opponent over a serious scientific disagreement.

My own skepticism about global warming goes back at least a decade and is captured in my 2010 article, Carbon Dioxide: Our Newest Pollutant, which I stand by to this day. I became friends with Happer in 2016 when I critiqued on scientific and legal grounds then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s ill-advised attack against Exxon-Mobil for concealing information about the incipient risks of global warming. Happer’s own views are well set out in a key publication,“A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate.” It would do well for the critics to answer his arguments rather than engage in name-calling that reflects only badly on themselves. Unlike his nasty critics, Happer is a learned and judicious man.

In recent work, I have indicated some of the evidence that goes against consensus views on the subject. As I noted in my critique of the Green New Deal, none of the recent attacks on Happer reference the global cooling in the last two years of about 0.56° C—the most rapid two-year decline in the last hundred years. Events like this are not supposed to happen as CO2 levels increase. That number is especially telling because the near-hysterical report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) concluded that it was necessary by 2030 to reduce the targeted level of temperature increase to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. Without any real explanation, that report lowered the acceptable temperature increase by 0.5° C from the previous target of 2.0° C. To put this number in perspective, the world would be only 0.137° C cooler by 2100 if the United States cut all carbon emissions. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278° C by the turn of the next century.

In this context, it is important to remember three points. First, there have been enormous shifts in climate over both the long and short terms, well before human emissions of CO2 rose above negligible levels. Second, other drivers also explain these major changes, some of which are global and others local. Globally, Richard Lindzen, a distinguished MIT climate scientist who worked closely with Happer, has found that water vapor and aerosols affect climate. And Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, argues that “changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots, and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.” The local category includes such factors as draining aqueducts and unsound forest management. Cost-effective measures, unrelated to controlling CO2 emissions, are readily available to control these phenomena.

The establishment’s misunderstanding of both the science and economics of global warming quickly leads to serious policy blunders. In order to explain why Happer is such a dangerous appointment, The New York Times offers an elaborate graphic titled “To Cut Emissions Faster, U.S. Can Apply These Policies.” The graphic is based on a model by the firm Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC. The entire presentation is a powerful testament of the sorry state of the dominant views on climate science.

The initial difficulty with that graphic lies in its estimate of the future decline in CO2 emissions. From 2000 to 2018, U.S. emissions declined from about 6.7 gigatons (one billion metric tons) to about 5.5 gigatons, a decrease of about 18 percent. This occurred during a period when the US population increased from 282.16 million in 2000 to about 328.3 million as of July 1, 2018, an increase of 16.3 percent. The net decline in emissions per person is around 42 percent. The model projects that the total level of CO2 emissions will remain roughly flat for the next 32 years, as if all technology innovation has been exhausted. But if one keeps the same rate of improvement for the next 32 years, it amounts to a further decline of 32 percent to a level of about 3.8 gigatons, which, with an estimated population of 438 million people by 2050, works out to a decline of emissions per person of over 50 percent.

The model then lists a series of seven changes in climate policy that it believes are needed to cut that 5.5 gigaton total down to about 3.1 gigatons. The first six of these are estimated to reduce emissions to 3.5 gigatons. These are, in order, the imposition of a carbon tax on the model of British Columbia, which has already ceased to be revenue neutral despite its advocates’ promises. The tax was abandoned in Australia as “political poison” in 2014, two years after it was enacted. The next proposal requires utilities to produce all their energy from zero-carbon sources, which would require a massive retrofitting of American industry amounting to trillions of dollars in new expenditures in order to create an intrinsically unstable system. The third measure is the use of electric cars, which also require heavy subsidies to work. In principle, these cars should be welcome if they require no subsidies, as non-electric vehicles do indeed involve emissions, of which CO2 is not the most dangerous. The next three proposals involve setting various CO2 emission standards for heavy industry, without noting that the most important administrative measures should be directed to other pollutants, including the dirty coal that is burnt if the use of relatively clean natural gas succumbs to regulatory pressures.

None of these proposals are needed if the projected decline in CO2 from current technologies keeps pace with the developments of the last 18 years. Worse still, at no point does The New York Times’ model try to estimate the horrendous costs that come from the simultaneous implementation of policies that in all likelihood turn out to be counterproductive or unnecessary. Nor does The Times indicate what it thinks will be the decrease in temperature levels from the faithful implementation of these policies, especially if it turns out that, with the widespread breakdown of the Paris Accords, the rest of the world continues to increase its output of CO2 as the United States engages in fruitless action to reduce its CO2 emissions. Sadly, with the current state of intolerance in climate science, the U.S. needs Will Happer now more than ever.

© 2019 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University

Published in Environment, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    It’s little things like this that make me so happy that Donald Trump is president.  In the past when the Bush’s or one of the RINO Republicans running for office never challenged Dem assumptions, I scoffed it off as political shrewdness.  Screw political shrewdness.  It gets us no where.  Every Republican running for the presidency has minced words on abortion and the global warming hoax.  No one has been more pro-life than Donald Trump.  

    This may shock the NeverTrumpers, but Donald Trump is the most moral president since Ronald Reagan.

    • #1
  2. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Whether there are reasons to accept the World Wide Climate Crisis situation or not, ** there needs to be a serious consideration of how  many naval, intelligence and other military bases and involvements are in peril from weather-related catastrophe…

    For instance: What does it do to our security as a nation were Silicon Valley, Moffett Field and other military entities inside the San Francisco Bay area wiped out due to the catastrophic Big One some geologists state is in this region’s near future, as soon as the year 2049 or even earlier??

    Miami Florida and other places on the Floridian coast are known to be in danger of rising waters.

    ** I personally am  totally opposed to what the New Left recites as one of its major mantras – that human activities will bring death to the planet within 12 years. But the fact that some of the most intelligent minds in the nation continue to promote military installations, and needed infra structure such as what  Silicon Valley provides, without any examination of regional weather challenges seems foolhardy at best and absolutely Neanderthal at worst.

    • #2
  3. Nick H Coolidge
    Nick H
    @NickH

    Richard Epstein: To put this number in perspective, the world would be only 0.137° C cooler by 2100 if the United States cut all carbon emissions. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278° C by the turn of the next century.

    It should be noted that these projections rely on the same models that climate alarmists use to predict the temperature increase over the next century. They are subject to the same flaws as the initial projections, since there is no way to truly test the model’s predictive accuracy. 

    Richard Epstein: And Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, argues that “changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots, and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.”

    The idea that the climate scientists haven’t considered the effect of solar activity on climate is quite frankly ridiculous. I disagree with the idea that current models can predict the global temperature a century in advance and that the best way to mitigate the effects of any actual climate change is to hand more power over to the government, especially if it will negatively impact economic growth (which is the best way to combat climate change), but when it comes to solar activity and the orbital position of Earth, that has been taken into account already and doesn’t fully explain the current climate activity that we can measure. There are responsible (non-alarmist) climate scientists out there, and they don’t agree with Soon.

    • #3
  4. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Richard – You too must be a downright eeeeevil “Climate Denialist” heretic!

    How dare you utter such  heretical facts like:

    • “From 2000 to 2018, U.S. emissions declined from about 6.7 gigatons (one billion metric tons) to about 5.5 gigatons, a decrease of about 18 percent. This occurred during a period when the US population increased from 282.16 million in 2000 to about 328.3 million as of July 1, 2018, an increase of 16.3 percent. The net decline in emissions per person is around 42 percent. The model projects that the total level of CO2 emissions will remain roughly flat for the next 32 years, as if all technology innovation has been exhausted.”

    •” As I noted in my critique of the Green New Deal, none of the recent attacks on Happer reference the global cooling in the last two years of about 0.56° C—the most rapid two-year decline in the last hundred years. Events like this are not supposed to happen as CO2 levels increase.”

    OMG! Our righteous friends in the ‘science” community  who have dedicated their lives to saving us from this looming CO2 catastrophe may want to burn you at the stake if you are not careful.  But you know other heretics like economists Chris Hamilton predict that within 10 years the number of people in the high consuming Age 0-65 cohort of those evil First  and Second World nations that consume 90% of the world’s goods will actually begin to decline.  So based upon those “decline in emissions” stats you threw at us we may actually be consuming  less CO2 in the near future. Rejoice Brethren! We may be saved! 

    • #4
  5. SecondBite Member
    SecondBite
    @SecondBite

    Has anybody anywhere written anything on the thermodynamic idiocy of electric cars?  Electric cars only make sense if the electricity is produced without fossil fuel, or if there is some other savings, such as the weight reduction you could get by ditching the batteries and electrifying the roads (aint gonna happen).  It seems to me that if the electricity used to run the cars is produced with fossil fuel, the inefficiencies of converting the fuel to electricity and then storing the electricity in a battery for use by the car pretty much ensure that more fuel will be burned and more carbon dioxide will be released.  Maybe the current usage of electric cars is within the magnitude of the growth of non-fossil fuel based electricity production, but that certainly would not be the case if gasoline powered cars and nuclear power generation were eliminated.

    • #5
  6. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is four lies for the price of … well, of civilization. 

    All this winning is great, but the next turn of the wheel could wipe it all out. Think what we could have accomplished with a GOP conservative House.

    SecondBite (View Comment):

    Has anybody anywhere written anything on the thermodynamic idiocy of electric cars? Electric cars only make sense if the electricity is produced without fossil fuel, or if there is some other savings, such as the weight reduction you could get by ditching the batteries and electrifying the roads (aint gonna happen). It seems to me that if the electricity used to run the cars is produced with fossil fuel, the inefficiencies of converting the fuel to electricity and then storing the electricity in a battery for use by the car pretty much ensure that more fuel will be burned and more carbon dioxide will be released. Maybe the current usage of electric cars is within the magnitude of the growth of non-fossil fuel based electricity production, but that certainly would not be the case if gasoline powered cars and nuclear power generation were eliminated.

    Practical matters don’t matter, to the left. It’s all fantasy in the service of graft. Every progressive program exhibits one common feature – they all transfer wealth, power, and status from those who produce to those who persuade. In physics, we follow the energy and the entropy. In politics, follow the money, status, and power.

    • #6
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I would have no problem with a substantive analysis of Prof. Happer’s views, but, as usual, we get ad hominem attacks from the likes of Vox and the NYT that one could predict even before they are written.  One wonders how many of Happer’s media critics have taught physics at Columbia and Princeton.

    • #7
  8. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    SecondBite (View Comment):

    Has anybody anywhere written anything on the thermodynamic idiocy of electric cars? Electric cars only make sense if the electricity is produced without fossil fuel, or if there is some other savings, such as the weight reduction you could get by ditching the batteries and electrifying the roads (aint gonna happen). It seems to me that if the electricity used to run the cars is produced with fossil fuel, the inefficiencies of converting the fuel to electricity and then storing the electricity in a battery for use by the car pretty much ensure that more fuel will be burned and more carbon dioxide will be released. Maybe the current usage of electric cars is within the magnitude of the growth of non-fossil fuel based electricity production, SNIP

    In defense of the Prius I drive, here are some things to understand:

    ttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius/How_it_works

    Some fairly interesting info on why this car costs us $ 5.50 per round trip to town, vs the old $ 12 a trip when the Ford Econoline took us there, including:

    1 More efficient use of the internal combustion engine (ICE), reducing gasoline consumption.
    The Toyota 1NZ-FXE engine uses the more efficient Atkinson cycle instead of the more common
    Otto cycle;
    2 Two electric motor/generators, providing 50 kW (67 hp) @ 1,200 to 1,540 rpm and 400 N·m
    (295 ft·lbf) torque from 0 to 1,200 rpm, which significantly contribute to performance & economy;
    3 50 kW IGBT inverter controlled by a 32 bit microprocessor, which efficiently converts power
    between the batteries and the motor/generators.
    4 Lower Drag coefficient of drag at 0.26 (0.29 for 2000 model), reducing air resistance
    especially at higher speeds;
    5 Lower rolling-resistance tires on the 2000 model, reducing road friction;
    6 Regenerative braking, a process for recovering kinetic energy when braking or traveling
    down a slope and storing it as electrical energy in the traction battery for later use while
    reducing wear and tear on the brake pads;
    7 Sealed 168 cell nickel metal hydride (NiMH) rechargeable battery providing 201.6 volts;
    8 Continuously variable transmission — the Prius does not use a typical CVT; Toyota calls it
    the Power Split Device. The electric motors and gas engine are connected to a planetary gear
    set which is always engaged, and there is no shifting.
    9 Flexible resin gas tank, reducing the amount of hydrocarbon emissions in the form of escaped
    gasoline vapor;
    10 Vacuum flask coolant storage system that stores hot engine coolant, then reuses it to reduce warm-up time.
    11 Weight reduction — for example the hatch and hood are made of aluminum instead of steel.

    #### When we bought the 2009 Prius, our credit was still sub basement and we didn’t have many choices. Next car we get will be one of the larger, more SUV styled vehicles, like the one that Ford makes.

    • #8
  9. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Dr. Happer is knows CO2 physics better than anyone.  I am sure he’ll pull together a brilliant red team and do some actual science.

    Did you know all the doom and gloom predictions are based on a CO2 emissions projection called RCP8.5?  This “baseline” or “business-as-usual” scenario assumes all kinds of crazy stuff:  human population hits 12 million (9 is more reasonable) and that we regress to 1980’s technology (buh-bye internet, LED lighting, super-critical boilers, carbon-fiber,…).  It is just one of the many lines behind the hoax.

    Speaking of hoaxes, can someone please convince me that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is plausible?  Of the many lies, this is the first one and it has me stumped.  I don’t see how it can work with a circulating atmosphere and a stratosphere that is warmer than the troposphere.

    • #9
  10. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    DonG (View Comment):
    Speaking of hoaxes, can someone please convince me that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is plausible? Of the many lies, this is the first one and it has me stumped. I don’t see how it can work with a circulating atmosphere and a stratosphere that is warmer than the troposphere.

    I think you’ve put your finger on the most basic of many hoax-cum-fallacies in the GW con. Everybody gets whats his name Arrhenius. Al-Gore and that guy who plays a geek with a bowtie actually faked a video demonstrating the greenhouse effect, that’s how widely known it is. But to translate results from a test tube (assuming somebody competent really can demonstrate the effect somewhere) into a near-chaotic system like an atmosphere is silly.

    • #10
  11. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    DonG (View Comment):

    Dr. Happer is knows CO2 physics better than anyone. I am sure he’ll pull together a brilliant red team and do some actual science.

    Did you know all the doom and gloom predictions are based on a CO2 emissions projection called RCP8.5? This “baseline” or “business-as-usual” scenario assumes all kinds of crazy stuff: human population hits 12 million (9 is more reasonable) and that we regress to 1980’s technology (buh-bye internet, LED lighting, super-critical boilers, carbon-fiber,…). It is just one of the many lines behind the hoax.

    Speaking of hoaxes, can someone please convince me that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is plausible? Of the many lies, this is the first one and it has me stumped. I don’t see how it can work with a circulating atmosphere and a stratosphere that is warmer than the troposphere.

    I know. That greenhouse gas hypothesis has its flaws. Also I have asked repeatedly for people who claim they totally believe it to explain it to me.

    They have lots of energy to claim that I am a tree-hating, earth despising Trump-ite. But no energy whatsoever to offer up any explanation about the greenhouse notions.

    • #11
  12. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Oh and just in case anyone here is worried the Dems will put together their proposals for a Greener Climate Change bit of legislation, this comes from the “you can’t make this stuff up” file for Feb 26th 2019:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/26/democrat-house-oversight-subcommittee-schedules-hearing-on-climate-change-democrats-dont-show-up/?fbclid=IwAR0KmHC59nsoCLkqb2mrr7BjUYGoYgOO4OiGrmc5CxtBEjr-K3ww4wWApZs
    A panel was set to deliver testimonials and statements to advance the priorities of the Democrat congressional team selling the Green New Deal; except, well, the majority Democrats ran into a problem…. they didn’t bother to  show up for the hearing.

    According to the position of Democrats and the GND supporters, the world is ending in less than twelve years. Yet, no-one shows up for their Climate Change hearing?

    • #12
  13. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):
    According to the position of Democrats and the GND supporters, the world is ending in less than twelve years. Yet, no-one shows up for their Climate Change hearing?

    Because they don’t really believe it either. They just think they do, and enjoy thinking they do.  It is a convenient, easy religion, involving mostly hand-wringing and turning their nose up at non-believers. Once they arrived at “The science is settled”, they don’t even really have to give it a thought anymore; why would they want to turn up at a meeting to discuss it?

    One thing about this religion that sets it apart from all others:

    In most religions the expiation of one’s sins requires repentance, sometimes a pennance, sometimes restitution to someone, etc.  Each person must walk that lonesome valley himself; it is between him and God.  The best he can do for his brother or neighbor is pray; he can’t lay up treasures in Heaven for them.

    But in the AGW religion, you can!!  The “sin” here is pollution, or carbon footprint, or something else material – and it’s cumulative! So if I remain a sinner, and in my unbelief I’m ambivalent about recycling, and if I can afford the gas for my sportscar, and if I capriciously take the plastic not paper when offered at Wegman’s, all is not lost – you can make up for it!

    It’s wonderful. You can actually erase the affect of my sin – and save that much more of the planet in spite of me! Just reduce your carbon footprint even more, go without all the things you think we should all go without, more!

    This is the planet we’re – ehem, you’re – worried about.  If you really believe it’s in danger – really believe it – you shouldn’t own a car that gets marginally better mileage, you should own a bicycle. And one you fashioned yourself, out of recycled soda cans or something – bicycle factories belch sin. You guys are the creative ones, I’m sure if you put your heads together you could cut the total carbon emmisions in half by making up for us, the foolish unwashed troglodytes on the Right. And nothing as materialistic as “creature comforts” are important when the fate of the planet hangs in the balance – I mean, look at Algore!

    There aren’t many religions with this amazing feature.  So c’mon Lefties, you can do it; you can save the world! Just go without . . . everything.  It’s really important. (Ask Algore.)

    Oh, and we’ll pray for you.  

    • #13
  14. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    There aren’t many religions with this amazing feature. So c’mon Lefties, you can do it; you can save the world! Just go without . . . everything. It’s really important. (Ask Algore.)

     

    If the really thought we had 12 years to become carbon neutral, we’d have to immediately bomb all the coal powered energy plants in India/China/Russia and other countries with nuclear weapons.  But they don’t say that, so they are lying.

    • #14
  15. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    I know. That greenhouse gas hypothesis has its flaws. Also I have asked repeatedly for people who claim they totally believe it to explain it to me.

    They have lots of energy to claim that I am a tree-hating, earth despising Trump-ite. But no energy whatsoever to offer up any explanation about the greenhouse notions.

    James Hansen describes it as rightward shift in the adiabatic line caused by CO2 emissions at lower temperatures.  But, that ignores the tropopause. 

    • #15
  16. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    About 6% of human emissions of CO2 come from turning limestone into cement.  The GND will require us to stop making cement *and* rebuild all buildings and make a zillion new train stations and miles of tracks.  I guess we’ll have to rebuild our society with clay.  GND=cold, dark, & hungry.

    • #16
  17. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    DonG (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    I know. That greenhouse gas hypothesis has its flaws. Also I have asked repeatedly for people who claim they totally believe it to explain it to me.

    They have lots of energy to claim that I am a tree-hating, earth despising Trump-ite. But no energy whatsoever to offer up any explanation about the greenhouse notions.

    James Hansen describes it as rightward shift in the adiabatic line caused by CO2 emissions at lower temperatures. But, that ignores the tropopause.

    I think it ignores a whole lot more than the tropopause.

    • #17
  18. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Nick H (View Comment):

    Richard Epstein: To put this number in perspective, the world would be only 0.137° C cooler by 2100 if the United States cut all carbon emissions. Even if assuming every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278° C SNIP

    It should be noted that these projections rely on the same models that climate alarmists use to predict the temperature increase over the next century. They are subject to the same flaws as the initial projections, since there is no way to truly test the model’s predictive accuracy.

    SNIP

    Snip I disagree with the idea that current models can predict the global temperature a century in advance … the best way to mitigate effects of any actual climate change is to hand more power over to the government, especially if it will negatively impact economic growth (which is the best way to combat climate change), but when it comes to solar activity and the orbital position of Earth, that has been taken into account already and doesn’t fully explain the current climate activity that we can measure. There are responsible (non-alarmist) climate scientists out there, and they don’t agree with Soon.

    I ‘d be most interested in watching videos or reading the works of the scientists you mention in yr last statement. I’d watched a presentation by some early-on Global Climate Change scientists before I left Marin in ’05. They pointed out that “dire changes” predicted by the fear mongering Al Gore adherents were not all that fearful.

    That according to their predictions, the area of Northern California I was moving to would be blessed with much more abundant rainfall by at least 2015. This may well have been the case, if not for the factors that 1PacificRedwood has so good about demonstrating through his youtubes as being so heavily in play. And apparently there has not been much those factors can do to stop the atmospheric rivers now abundantly descending on California as I type this, even though it does seem the weather war forces have dried to dampen the moisture down.

    Sun activity and volcanic activity really cannot be predicted a hundred years in advance. Over the next few yrs, the sun will be doing a solar minimum, while the volcanic activity is steadily coming to the fore.

    From a NASA site about the solar minimum, that will be most effective 2019-2020:

    For instance, says Pesnell, “during solar minimum we can see the development of long-lived coronal holes.”

    Coronal holes are vast regions in the sun’s atmosphere where sun’s magnetic field opens and allows streams of solar particles to escape  as the fast solar wind.

    Pesnell says  Streams of solar wind flowing from coronal holes cause space weather effects near Earth as they hit Earth’s magnetic field. These effects include temporary disturbances of  Earth’s magnetosphere, called geomagnetic storms, auroras, and disruptions to communications and navigation systems.

    • #18
  19. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    Some of us who are old enough to remember Rachel Carson and The Population Bomb have noticed that all of these existential “moral equivalent of war” crises seem to have the same solution: replace the free market with central planning.

    • #19
  20. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Another terrific, solid post. Thank you.

    • #20
  21. GeezerBob Coolidge
    GeezerBob
    @GeezerBob

    A tempting alternative to electric cars seems to be on the horizon; hydrogen power. The basic idea would couple massive solar energy with the extraction of elemental hydrogen. This is particularly tempting as the electric vehicles have pretty well demonstrated that they are not up to the task of replacing fossil fuel powered vehicles. Yet, has anyone really analyzed this proposal. Just how many acres -hectares if you just must be metric- would be required to support one hydrogen car? It would be interesting to consider.

    • #21
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bernie Sanders and AOC are socialism deniers. 

    • #22
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Bernie Sanders and AOC are socialism deniers.

    Oh, that’s very good. 

    • #23
  24. SecondBite Member
    SecondBite
    @SecondBite

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):
    In defense of the Prius I drive, here are some things to understand:

    I think hybrids make a certain amount of sense; I was thinking of all electric vehicles, which have their advantages, but not as climate saviors.  I know that the left is just about power, that they don’t really believe this stuff, but we still have to keep calling them out.  Eventually, the non-lefties will sit up and take notice.  Truth is no fun in the short run, but always wins in the long run.

    • #24
  25. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    GeezerBob (View Comment):

    A tempting alternative to electric cars seems to be on the horizon; hydrogen power. The basic idea would couple massive solar energy with the extraction of elemental hydrogen. This is particularly tempting as the electric vehicles have pretty well demonstrated that they are not up to the task of replacing fossil fuel powered vehicles. Yet, has anyone really analyzed this proposal. Just how many acres -hectares if you just must be metric- would be required to support one hydrogen car? It would be interesting to consider.

    I looked into this a while back but I can’t remember exactly. Don’t hydrogen cars have water vapor as a by product?  If so, won’t that change the humidity levels across the world?  So won’t that change earth’s climate even more so?  

    • #25
  26. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Manny (View Comment):
    I looked into this a while back but I can’t remember exactly. Don’t hydrogen cars have water vapor as a by product? If so, won’t that change the humidity levels across the world? So won’t that change earth’s climate even more so?

    The burning of hydrocarbons also produces water vapor as a byproduct. Lots of it.

    • #26
  27. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I looked into this a while back but I can’t remember exactly. Don’t hydrogen cars have water vapor as a by product? If so, won’t that change the humidity levels across the world? So won’t that change earth’s climate even more so?

    The burning of hydrocarbons also produces water vapor as a byproduct. Lots of it.

    Right so it’s a big time climate changer. Yeah it may save energy (maybe) but the constant addition of humidity is way more altering than CO2. 

    • #27
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Manny (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    I looked into this a while back but I can’t remember exactly. Don’t hydrogen cars have water vapor as a by product? If so, won’t that change the humidity levels across the world? So won’t that change earth’s climate even more so?

    The burning of hydrocarbons also produces water vapor as a byproduct. Lots of it.

    Right so it’s a big time climate changer. Yeah it may save energy (maybe) but the constant addition of humidity is way more altering than CO2.

    I’d have to see the math on that.  

    • #28
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Comparing water vapor and CO2 is pretty much an apples and oranges thing.

    To begin with, CO2 represents about 420 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric gas, whereas water vapor (which varies dramatically by region) is on the order of 20,000 ppm.

    But perhaps most importantly, the “life-cycle” aspects of water and carbon are vastly different. Water vapor ranges from less than one percent to as much as four percent of atmospheric gas, depending on region and temperature, and varies rapidly. In contrast, the sequestration process for carbon dioxide is much more gradual, and large, rapid shifts in the carbon content are unlikely. (There are various hypothetical doomsday scenarios involving sudden releases of enormous methane reserves from the ocean bottom, but these are, thus far, the stuff of science fiction.)

    I think it’s unlikely that water vapor produced by burning hydrogen would significantly affect the global climate. But then, I think CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are also unlikely to significantly affect the global climate — and that what effect they’re likely to have is mostly positive.


    There are some fairly complicated challenges to using hydrogen as a primary fuel. It’s extraordinarily combustible, gaseous at normal temperatures and pressures, and difficult to store safely. Using it in vehicles would require an entirely new fuel infrastructure. Given the inefficiencies and risks involved in creating, storing, shipping, and consuming hydrogen, versus simply using the electricity to charge batteries in the first place, I have a hard time seeing it preferable to battery-driven electric cars.

    • #29
  30. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    GeezerBob (View Comment):

    A tempting alternative to electric cars seems to be on the horizon; hydrogen power. The basic idea would couple massive solar energy with the extraction of elemental hydrogen. This is particularly tempting as the electric vehicles have pretty well demonstrated that they are not up to the task of replacing fossil fuel powered vehicles. Yet, has anyone really analyzed this proposal. Just how many acres -hectares if you just must be metric- would be required to support one hydrogen car? It would be interesting to consider.

    •  

    But Hindenburg….    Actually, the effort to build refueling infrastructure is too high.  The choices are gasoline or electricity.   In the long run, we plug ourselves into the Matrix and never leave our pods.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.