Thursday, January 16, 2020

Detailing William Happer’s Fraud Against Humanity

Anonymous12/12* (Veizer?) ignored the information I shared, instead he came at me with the following,
*My reply. - Will Happer is far more qualified in this area and one of those annoying sceptics too.” 

I’ve even read claims that William Happer is ‘the authority’ that provides the scientific basis that could be used to challenge the EPA’s endangerment finding of the atmospheric pollutant CO2.  

Curiously, this Republican “authority” on climate science, has never studied the topic, nor done any research in the ‘area’ of climate sciences, nor presented any serious scientific papers on any aspect of the topic!

William Happer used to be a recognized authority in the relatively simplistic area of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.  But, that’s the end of it!  

Happer’s education and experience is totally inadequate for understanding complex global system science!    As I detail in this review.

What Happer has is that astounding Republican amorality and chutzpah, he’s good at fighting dirty and rhetorical fancy dancing, not to mention he’s politically extremely right wing and proud of it.  Oh have I mentioned William Happer receives retirement income from the coal industry?  

Shhhh, it’s a secret:

Someone with such passionate political interests can never be an unbiased reviewer of science.  But all that honesty integrity sort of thing seems out of fashion these days. 

Happer is a political advocate, a salesman for his product.  Truth and learning about this Earth is the last thing on his mind.  Yet they should have been the first things on ours.  

In the following I consider Happer’s own words and compare them to the backdrop of readily available current scientific understanding.  As usual you’ll find many links to further supporting information along with an appendix of relevant articles and videos at the end of this examination of Dr. Happer’s public claims.
William Happer’s Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World - talking points:

Happer claims: Establishment climate models give much more warming that has been observed over the past 20 years.
(click on image for better view)

For starters, Happer only looks at surface temperatures and conveniently ignores what’s happening in our oceans.  Plus his sample period is woefully inadequate and hints at Happer’s disingenuous intent. 
Still, the physical reality is that oceans dictate surface temperatures.  After all, the oceans hold over 90% of our global heat and moisture distribution engine’s heat content.

Regarding that surface warming:
Animation: How temperature has changed in each country since 1900
Visualisation by Antti Lipponen (@anttilip) of the Finnish Meteorological Institute based on GISTEMP data


Happer says: The climate sensitivity, that is, the warming from doubling CO2 is probably in the range of 0.5° to 1.5°C.
Happer is being dishonest, in truth it is more like 1.5°C and up, but don’t take my word for it:
Carbon Brief ,  June 19, 2018
Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity
Graph by Zeke Hausfather with animation by Rosamund Pearce for Carbon Brief.
Happer says: The sensitivity value makes all the difference.  Low sensitivity value means modest warming, that will be beneficial.
But, in truth all the evidence points to the sensitivity not being low!  
Warming is already significant and increasingly harmful on multiple levels.

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
Happer says: Increasing CO2 levels will make plants grow faster and be less susceptible to drought.
This bit of crazy talk underscores Happer’s ignorance when it comes to Earth’s global systems!
Botany has next to nothing to do with our climate system, especially not CO2’s atmospheric insulating properties!
How is it Democrats are incapable of countering such a dishonest and juvenile diversionary tactic?  Why can’t Democrats get that discussion back on point?  
Why aren’t Democrats confronting the intellectual dishonesty of the Republicans sitting across the aisle?  Why aren’t the grassroots pushing their representatives to step up?
Our global society’s fossil fuels burning injects on the order of 40 gigatons(++) of CO2 into our atmosphere year after year after year.
Our CO2 insulation crisis is happening way above the clouds and troposphere - where the increased CO2 molecules are slowing the escape of infrared radiation into space, impacting everything below.  Weather and oceans are all about moving that heat around.  
Repeat, it’s the upper atmospheric insulation driving all this warming, 24/7/365, with NO pause!
Again I ask, how is it that Republicans are allowed to keep making hay with such idiotic diversionary ploys?
What does it matter that increased CO2 can be great for plants?  Besides, to be “great for plants” the increased CO2 must be accompanied by other nutrients and sufficient water.
Why can’t the Democrats turn such calculated bullshit into teaching moments where they set the record straight with clear concise explanations? 
Incidentally, under the right circumstances CO2 is a poisonous component of the air and is known to injure and kill people, so yes it earns it’s pollutant classification.  

The key being, “under the right circumstances”, which brings us back to Earth System Sciences and the complexities that the likes of Happer remain belligerently dismissive of.
Happer’s self-certain Key ”Findings”

“Findings” is in scare quotes because Happer’s “findings” are theater and creative fictions intent on diverting the discuss and wasting precious irreplaceable time. 
Happer says: Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong. 
Wrong?  Actually climate models have been much more accurate than not!
Before we get to that, we should take a moment to consider disingenuous impossible expectations and the relativity of wrong:

Over the past two decades, the global warming predicted by climate models has mostly failed to materialize. 

Once again, Dr. Happer is telling a known falsehood, one that seems to me crosses the line into criminal vandalism towards critically important scientific understanding.  Why do we tolerate such stonewalling ignorant disregard for well understood science and geophysical facts?

Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming
John Abraham | July 27, 2016 |

Two incorrect but nevertheless consistent denial arguments are that the Earth isn’t warming and that climate models are inaccurate. A new study, published by Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, and others (I was also an author) answers these questions.
The study was just published in the journal Ocean Sciences; a draft of it is available here. In this study, we did a few new things. 
First, we presented a new estimate of ocean heating throughout its full depth (most studies only consider the top portion of the ocean). 
Second, we used a new technique to learn about ocean temperature changes in areas where there are very few measurements. 
Finally, we used a large group of computer models to predict warming rates, and we found excellent agreement between the predictions and the measurements.
According to the measurements, the Earth has gained 0.46 Watts per square meter between 1970 and 2005. Since, 1992 the rate is higher (0.75 Watts per square meter) and therefore shows an acceleration of the warming. …
Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections

Happer says: The real “equilibrium climate sensitivity”—the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2—is likely to be about three times smaller than what the models have assumed. 
FALSE!  Here again Happer is compelled to lie and misrepresent what independent scientists are discovering!  There ought to consequences for such deliberate deception. 
Why do Democrats acquiesce to it without a fight?

Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget
  • Patrick T. Brown & Ken Caldeira 
Nature  | volume 552, pages 45–50(2017)  |  December 7, 2017

… In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty-first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two-standard-deviation spread (−1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. …
Happer says: Observational data suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels will increase the surface temperature by about 1 C, not the much larger values that were originally assumed in mainstream models. 
Hmmm, actually since 1850 global surface temperatures have already risen by 1°C yet we are still around 150ppm away from that doubling, at about 560ppm  Though we are speeding up the tempo of increase at a terrifying pace. 
Perhaps Anonymous12/12 can let me know where Happer came up with the magic sauce that justifies his claim.  I bet he can’t.  Besides I know from experience his type rather hide than debate fair and square.  As for the facts, don’t take my word for it:
Happer says: Using these much smaller, observationally based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.
The base dishonesty of Dr. William Happer is astounding.
New study reconciles a dispute about how fast global warming will happen.

Unfortunately, mainstream climate scientists are still right, and we’re running out of time to avoid dangerous global warming.  (September 2018)


What Earth might look like in 80 years if we're lucky — and if we're not

Dave Mosher and Aylin Woodward Oct 17, 2019

But if emissions continue to increase and Earth's temperature increases by more than 3 degrees Celsius, according to the IPCC , oceans would be an average of 3 feet higher by the year 2100. Those rising seas would displace 680 million people in low-lying coastal zones, along with 65 million citizens of small island states. …
Happer says: Negative effects of more CO2 have been exaggerated. Readily available data from governmental and reliable non-governmental sources confirm that extreme weather events in recent years have not occurred more frequently or with greater intensity. 
That’s what I’ve been doing here, presenting “readily available of data.”
None of it supports Happer’s opinions!

Extreme Weather: What Role Does Global Warming Play? – the Earth101 lecture
Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events
Quantifying Changes in Extreme Weather Events in Response to Warmer Global Temperature   
Published December 23, 2014
The Science Connecting Extreme Weather to Climate Change
Published Jun 4, 2018
Happer says: Such data also refute claims of ecologically damaging ocean acidification, accelerating sea-level rises, and disappearing global sea ice and other alleged dangers. If further observations confirm a small climate sensitivity, these realities will not change.
This bullshit only works if one refuses to examine and learn from the evidence coming in from all corners of the world!  
Well it also works when no one forcefully confronts them demanding that honesty and constructive learning prevail.
Why can’t Republicans be questioned with demand they they explain why they reject important physical reality?  Even better, Democratic politicians why not ask them to their faces why they believe that repeatedly lying about physical reality is okay.  Demand a response!
Demand that they explain where they get their authority to misrepresent well understood geophysics facts.  
I myself reject their God of Avarice, and would love to debate that, but the intellectual cowards only broadcast one sided fabrications, they’ll never stand up to a constructive, honest examine the facts, the way they do in serious scientific debate. 
Republicans prefer theater to understanding inconvenient geophysical reality.  

Why do Republican refuse learning from new evidence?  It’s worth trying to get some fundamental answers to that.  Besides, if we aren’t changing minds we are losing.

“ecologically damaging ocean acidification”                            

Google Scholar Search for “ecologically damaging ocean acidification

Ocean acidification to hit levels not seen in 14 million years
July 23, 2018 | Cardiff University, UK

Based on this information, the researchers were able to put their new records of pH and CO2 levels in context of the range of future carbon emission scenarios that are recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Under a ‘business-as-usual’ future scenario where we continue to emit CO2 at the same rate as we do today, atmospheric CO2 would be near 930 parts per million in the year 2100, compared to around 400 parts per million today.
Similarly, the pH of the oceans would be less than 7.8 in 2100 compared to a pH of around 8.1 today. This is very significant as the pH scale is logarithmic, meaning a drop of just 0.1 pH units represents a 25% increase in acidity.
These levels of atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity have not been since the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum period around 14 million years ago, when global temperatures were around 3°C warmer than today as a result of the Earth’s natural geological cycle. …

“accelerating sea-level rises” 

Google Scholar Search for “accelerating sea-level rises 2019

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
January 9, 2018
Satellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of 3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. 
If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (65 cm or 25.6 inches) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/yr.

Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise

“and disappearing global sea ice”                                    

Google Scholar Search for “and disappearing global sea ice 2019

Arctic Report Card 2019: Extreme Ice Loss, Dying Species as Global Warming Worsens
By Sabrina Shankman  |  Dec 10, 2019
Disappearing sea ice is changing the whole ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean
Posted on 12 July 2019 |  Skeptical Science
Graham J. C. Underwood, Professor of Marine and Freshwater Biology, University of Essex
Happer says: Higher carbon-dioxide levels will be beneficial. 
CO2 is an essential nutrient for land-based plants. 
That’s totally beside the point.  
A warming biosphere will be increasingly harmful to land-based cultivated plants.  An energized hydrologic cycle will also be harmful to farm crops because of increased unpredictability; increased droughts and heat domes; followed by increased incidents of damaging torrential rain and wind storm events, that is if the rains comes at all.   
Happer says: The Earth’s biosphere has also experienced a relative CO2 famine for many millennia
CO2 “famine” for thousands of years?  It’s utter crazy talk! 
The records show at least 800,000 years of atmospheric CO2 fluctuating from about 185 ppm to 280 ppm.  
That was the difference between ice ages and temperate periods.  Today we have raced past 410 ppm.

Happer’s words sound like they come from a deranged mind that believes Earth should revert to a hot house planet, which is where we are taking it, but where no one will be able to survive.
the recent increase in CO2 levels has thus had a measurable, positive effect on plant life. 
Bullshit.  In controlled greenhouse situations CO2 can be fantastic, out in the real world weeds love it.  The food plants that we cultivate, not so much.  It’s a complicated mixed bag that seems to hold way more threats than potential benefits.
Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?
Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
Happer says: Future CO2 increases will boost agricultural productivity and improve drought resistance, thereby bolstering food security and contributing to a greener, lusher planet.
So far it seems that weeds are benefited more than food crops, or farmers. 
Impact of climate change on weeds in agriculture: a review
  • Kristian Peters, Laura Breitsameter & Bärbel Gerowitt 
Will rising carbon dioxide levels really boost plant growth?
by Stuart Thompson, The Conversation, April 20, 2018

Closing thoughts.
In the final analysis Dr. Happer and Republican climate science myths are deluded nonsense. 
Projecting a comic book image of our Earth, one driven by willful ignorance, corporate power-politics and self-interested avarice with a sociopathic disregard for humanity; this biosphere we depend on; and the future.  
Educationally, it’s pure garbage!  Nothing in it is serious science or objective.
I invite any Dr. Happer fan to engage in an honest open constructive fact-based debate, that can intelligently dispute my claims.  
Bullying, threats, dirty tricks can shut down the discuss, but can you come up with serious honest arguments and evidence?  
Can you teach anything constructive? Can you learn anything from new information?

So, what is the deal with Earth and climate and current events?
To understand that requires an honest curiosity and sincere desire to learn about Earth, or more specifically; her Ways and Means.  It also takes some honest homework.

Global warming driven climate change and extreme weather understanding starts with appreciating our Atmospheric Insulation.  
Geophysically what’s happening is that these greenhouse gas molecules slow down the escape of infrared heat into outer space.  The problem is, we’re injecting it ever faster, around 40 gigatons per year of the stuff these days.  
To put things into perspective in the mid 1800s atmospheric CO2 was around 285 ppm, today we’re racing past 410 ppm.  
Think about what we are talking about here.  This is the stuff that insulates our planet against frigid space.   It’s straight forward unavoidable physics that smart people with fantastic instruments can and have figured out.
In turn, this accumulating heat gets transmitted throughout our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, all of it, down to the surface and into the ocean depths.
Our global climate engine circulates the broiling heat constantly accumulating around Earth’s belly, away and towards the frigid polar regions. 
The ocean is a huge heat sink which contains over 90% of our climate engine’s heat content, it’s in constant communication with the atmosphere, exchanging energy and heat, moisture and other molecules.  It’s the ocean that dominates global surface temperatures.  
Ocean currents and oscillations move heat around our globe and feed moisture into the sky and cloud systems, that in turn gets pushed and pulled by the jet stream into global weather patterns.
The basic principles and physics can be understood by grade school kids.  Of course, the details get unimaginably complex, which is where the experts come in.
Yes those are the same scientists and experts that Republicans love to demonize and disregard.
Why, these individuals have an abiding desire to learn about how our planet operates.  I mean enough to devote years of schooling and study and endless hours of disciplined work to achieve an ever deeper and more insightful understanding of this planet we depend on for everything.  Why the hell are Republican demonizing these great minds?
Better understanding has always been the key to success, so why are Republicans so devoted to laughing it off and ignoring the down to Earth geophysics that dictate conditions upon this planet.  

More important why do Democrats keep rolling over for it?


Dr. William Happer sells his soul for Coal Industry Cash

Princeton Professor and Climate Denier William Happer Exposed for Fossil Fuel Ties

Greenpeace USA  |  Dec 8, 2015  |  1 min

Climate denier confronted about funding from fossil fuel Peabody Energy moments before Ted Cruz's 'Data or Dogma' hearing on climate change. Greenpeace Researcher, Jesse Coleman, asks if Professor Happer has been paid by the fossil fuel industry for his testimony at the hearing. Happer denies and at one point replies, "You son of a bitch, I haven't taken a dime.”


Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
Suzanne Goldenberg |  Dec 8, 2015

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal


William Happer’s Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition[8]
“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email. [114]
As part of a 2018 case where he provided supporting testimony for the side of fossil fuel companies against cities suing for damages related to climate change, Happer was required to disclose any funding he had received in the past. In these disclosures, Happer estimated the amount he received for the 2015 Minnesota testimony as “$10,000 to $15,000, though he does not recall the precise number.” [100], [101]
Happer also noted he had received $1,000 for a speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. [101] …

also see:


Research: 20 Carbon Majors Responsible for More Than 20 Percent of Ocean Acidification

By Karen Savage  | Climate Liability News | December 11, 2019

The 20 largest fossil fuel companies are responsible for more than one-fifth of the increase in ocean acidification between 1880 and 2015, according to newly released research.
Several companies facing climate liability suits in the U.S.—including Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips and Total—are among the companies most responsible, according to the data. The peer-reviewed research was released in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters on Wednesday.
“We’ve known for several decades that burning fossil fuels is by far the largest driver of ocean acidification, but we weren’t able to track how much any one fossil fuel company contributed to the problem, and in what way,” Rachel Licker, lead study author and senior climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said.
“Scientists can now quantify how much more acidic the ocean has become as a result of each fossil fuel company’s products.  …” 

Now for MORE scientific evidence and explanations

Happer’s key thoughts, along with a sampling of readily available information that explain Happer’s fundamental errors, thereby exposing the frauds this man is getting paid to perpetrate against an all too gullible and intellectually lazy public.
Dr. Happer writes:  climate sensitivity

What is Climate Sensitivity?

Earth101  |  Oct 3, 2016

Adventures Estimate Climate Sensitivity at Univ. of Utah

dessler2 | April 1, 2019 | Professor A.E.Dessler

Dr. Happer writes:  warming, that will be beneficial.

Climate Change: Is the Science "Settled"?

May 13, 2010 |  Stanford University  |  Stephen Schneider

(February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.


Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory  -  Earth System Science

GFDL brings many disciplines together to understand and predict interactions among human activities, ecosystems, biogeochemistry, and climate. We develop Earth System Models, researching biospheric processes and mechanisms, and conducting observational synthesis and analysis. We use these comprehensively interacting models of land, ocean, atmosphere, and sea ice, along with chemical, biological and ecological models. Driven by natural and human-induced forcings, they allow us to assess environmental change and ecological impacts such as ocean acidification and improve our understanding of past, present and future Earth System interactions.Earth System Science
GFDL brings many disciplines together to understand and predict interactions among human activities, ecosystems, biogeochemistry, and climate. We develop Earth System Models, researching biospheric processes and mechanisms, and conducting observational synthesis and analysis. We use these comprehensively interacting models of land, ocean, atmosphere, and sea ice, along with chemical, biological and ecological models. Driven by natural and human-induced forcings, they allow us to assess environmental change and ecological impacts such as ocean acidification and improve our understanding of past, present and future Earth System interactions. …

Dr. Happer writes:  Increasing CO2 makes plants grow faster

CO2: Friend or Foe to Agriculture?
By Vanessa Schipani  |  August 10, 2017

Carbon Dioxide’s Diminishing Return
Better Quality Food?
Longer Growing Seasons?
Unreliable Rainfall
Yet More Cons to CO2

It’s right that there are some positive sides to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but the net impact is likely negative, especially in the future.

Dr. Happer writes:  Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong.
Extreme Weather: What Role Does Global Warming Play? – the Earth101 lecture
Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events
Dr. Happer writes:  warming predicted by climate models failed to materialize. 
The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected

By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on November 1, 2018

The planet may be more sensitive to warming that previously thought, making climate goals more difficult to meet

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

By Warren Cornwall   Dec. 4, 2019 

Geophysical Research Letters 
Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections

Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally‐estimated forcings were taken into account.
Plain Language Summary
Climate models provide an important way to understand future changes in the Earth's climate. In this paper we undertake a thorough evaluation of the performance of various climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s. Specifically, we look at how well models project global warming in the years after they were published by comparing them to observed temperature changes. Model projections rely on two things to accurately match observations: accurate modeling of climate physics, and accurate assumptions around future emissions of CO2 and other factors affecting the climate. The best physics‐based model will still be inaccurate if it is driven by future changes in emissions that differ from reality. To account for this, we look at how the relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2 (and other climate drivers) differs between models and observations. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts, and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.
Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’
Zeke Hausfather | June 19, 2018 | CarbonBrief

New climate models predict a warming surge
By Paul Voosen  |  Apr. 16, 2019

For nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too.
… That’s an urgent question: If the results are to be believed, the world has even less time than was thought to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C above preindustrial levels—a threshold many see as too dangerous to cross. With atmospheric CO2 already at 408 parts per million (ppm) and rising, up from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm, even previous scenarios suggested the world could warm 2°C within the next few decades. …
Dr. Happer writes:  three times smaller than what the models have assumed
Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events
Dr. Happer writes:  doubling CO2 levels will increase surface temperature by about 1 C
The End of the Wait for Climate Sensitivity?

Benjamin Sanderson | Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 12,289–12,292.

Abstract The Earth system responds on a range of timescales to a change in radiative forcing, and full equilibration takes centuries to millennia in many models. In their recent paper, Saint-Martin et. al (2019, propose a technique for reaching a faster equilibrium temperature response to alternative CO2 concentration levels by briefly overshooting the desired concentration level to warm the deep ocean faster than a conventional step change experiment. 
Understanding how these timescales interact is essential for better representing the relationship between transient climate change and the warming which should be expected as greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize. But the technique also raises new possibilities about how Earth System Models could be developed and whether we could gain the capacity to spin-up alternative model configurations such as perturbed parameter simulations or alternative control states to explore historical forcing uncertainty.
Dr. Happer writes:  projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future
September 2018
New study reconciles a dispute about how fast global warming will happen

Unfortunately, mainstream climate scientists are still right, and we’re running out of time to avoid dangerous global warming

In 1979, top climate scientists led by Jule Charney published a report estimating that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 560 ppm, temperatures will warm by 3 ± 1.5°C.  Four decades later, ‘climate sensitivity’ estimates remain virtually unchanged, but some climate contrarians have argued that the number is at the low end of that range, around 2°C or less.
It’s an important question because if the contrarians are right, the 2°C resulting global warming would represent significantly less severe climate change consequences than if mainstream climate scientists are right and temperatures rise by 3°C.  It would also mean our remaining carbon budget for meeting the 2°C Paris target is about twice as large than if the mainstream consensus is right.  If the consensus is correct, we’re on pace to blow through the remaining Paris carbon budget by around 2030.

Another nail in the contrarian ‘low sensitivity’ coffin

Studies published in March 2014, May 2014, and December 2015 identified two critical flaws in the contrarians’ preferred so-called ‘energy balance model’ approach: it doesn’t account for the fact that Earth’s sensitivity can change over time, for example as large ice sheets continue to melt, or that the planet responds differently to different climate ‘forcings’.
Last week, the journal Earth’s Future published a study by the University of Southampton’s Philip Goodwin that took both of these factors into account.  …

Jennifer Francis: Crazy Weather and the Arctic Meltdown
New England Aquarium  |  March 8, 2018 

Jennifer Francis, Ph.D., Research Professor I, Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, speaks about the question on everyone’s minds: why is the weather so crazy? And is it related to climate change? 

In this presentation, Dr. Francis will explain new research that links increasing extreme weather events with the rapidly warming and melting Arctic during recent decades. Evidence suggests that Arctic warming is causing weather patterns to become more persistent, which can lead to extremes such as droughts, cold spells, heat waves, and some flooding events.

STATE OF THE CLIMATE: New record ocean heat
Zeke Hausfather  |  November 23, 2018

So far, 2018 has set a new record for the total amount of warmth stored in the seas – known as ocean heat content (OHC). Measured OHC was warmer than any other year since observations began in the early 1940s.
Human-emitted greenhouse gases trap extra heat in the atmosphere. While some of this warms the Earth’s surface, the vast majority – upwards of 90% – goes into the oceans. Most of this accumulates in the top 700 metres, but some is also mixed into the deep oceans. OHC estimates between 1940 and present for both the upper 700m and 700m-2000m depths of the ocean are shown in the figure below. …

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content
LuAnn Dahlman and Rebecca Lindsey  |  August 1, 2018

The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system. …

How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
By Cheryl Katz     • March 30, 2015

The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.

Dr. Happer writes:  extreme weather events in recent years have not occurred more frequently or with greater intensity. 

Global Warming and Extreme Cold: How One Leads to the Other
The Real News Network  |  Jan 10, 2018

Quantifying Changes in Extreme Weather Events in Response to Warmer Global Temperature   
Published December 23, 2014

The Science Connecting Extreme Weather to Climate Change
Published Jun 4, 2018
Dr. Happer writes:  Such data also refute claims of ecologically damaging ocean acidification

Feeling the Heat: The Biology of Ocean Warming
Dec 7, 2018  |  University of California Television (UCTV)  |  58 min

Ocean acidification to hit levels not seen in 14 million years

Ocean acidification can cause mass extinctions, fossils reveal
Damian Carrington  |  October 21, 2019

Carbon emissions make sea more acidic, which wiped out 75% of marine species 66m years ago

Marine Science, 19 June 2019 |

An Enhanced Ocean Acidification Observing Network: From People to Technology to Data Synthesis and Information Exchange
The ocean has absorbed approximately 30% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions since the industrial era began (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013). Ocean acidification (OA), or the ongoing observed increase in marine acidity, is a direct result of this uptake (Doney et al., 2009; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013). The average surface ocean pH has decreased by approximately 0.11 units from a preindustrial mean value of 8.17, this represents an increase of about 28% in hydrogen ion concentration (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013). By the end of this century, surface ocean pH is expected to decline by another 0.1–0.4 units, and carbonate ion (CO32-) concentration is expected to decline by as much as 50% over the same period compared to preindustrial conditions (Feely et al., 2004; Orr et al., 2005; Doney et al., 2009; Gattuso et al., 2015). … 
Dr. Happer writes:  Such data also refute claims of accelerating sea-level rises

Climate Change: Global Sea Level
Rebecca Lindsey  November 19, 2019

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
January 9, 2018
Satellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of 3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. 
If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (65 cm or 25.6 inches) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/yr.

Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise

October 29th, 2019  
Report: Flooded Future: Global vulnerability to sea level rise worse than previously understood

  • As a result of heat-trapping pollution from human activities, rising sea levels could within three decades push chronic floods higher than land currently home to 300 million people 
  • By 2100, areas now home to 200 million people could fall permanently below the high tide line
  • The new figures are the result of an improved global elevation dataset produced by Climate Central using machine learning, and revealing that coastal elevations are significantly lower than previously understood across wide areas
  • The threat is concentrated in coastal Asia and could have profound economic and political consequences within the lifetimes of people alive today 
  • Findings are documented in a new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature Communications

For more details, see Kulp and Strauss 2019, published in Nature Communications. It is the peer-reviewed scientific paper upon which this report is based.

Dr. Happer writes:  Such data also refute claims of disappearing global sea ice
Antarctica’s Ice Loss Has Reached 250 Billion Tons Per Year

By Meilan Solly | January 16, 2019 | SMITHSONIANMAG.COM 

The continent’s annual ice loss has sextupled since 1979, jumping from 40 billion tons to 250 billion tons in 2017

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represent the “longest-ever” assessment of Antarctica’s ice mass. As Matthew Taub reports for Atlas Obscura, a team of researchers from the University of California, Irvine, and the Netherlands’ Utrecht University drew on satellite and aerial imagery dating back to 1979 to examine 18 Antarctic regions constituting 176 basins and several surrounding islands.

Arctic ice loss is worrying, but the giant stirring in the South could be even worse

by Nerilie Abram, Matthew England And Matt King, The Conversation | JULY 12, 2019

… Like Greenland, the Antarctic ice sheet is losing ice and contributing to unabated global sea level rise. But there are worrying signs Antarctica is changing faster than expected and in places previously thought to be protected from rapid change. …
… The number of melt days will rise by at least 50 percent when global warming hits the soon-to-be-reached 1.5 limit set out in the Paris Agreement, with some predictions pointing to as much as a 150 percent increase in melt days. …

Antarctic ice loss 2002-2016  |  NASA Climate Change  |  May 19, 2017

Arctic Sea Ice Reaches 2019 Minimum Extent

NASA Goddard  |  Sep 23, 2019


A New Climate: Greenland's melting ice

Sky News  |  Dec 10, 2019

Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018
Dr. Happer writes:  CO2 is an essential nutrient for land-based plants.
Yes it is - and what the hell does that have to do with increasing atmospheric CO2 driving global warming with its accompanying climate change !?!?
 Dr. Happer writes:  CO2 famine for many millennia
Such profound ignorance can only happen when you have trapped yourself within an information vacuum!  For gosh sake, learn a little about Evolution.  Take a look at the record for the past 800 millennia.



The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had over 400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

Grantham Imperial | Apr 4, 2019

The Grantham Institute and Royal Meteorological Society host a National Meeting to discuss carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago. Life on Earth was dominated by giant mammals; humans and chimps had shared their last common ancestor. Although the sun's force was about the same, the sea levels were 15 metres higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day.
Dr. Happer writes:  increase CO2 levels had a measurable, positive effect on plant life.
Sure, but again what does this have to do with the extreme existential dangers that global warming driven climate change promise for our future.

Dr. Happer writes:  Future CO2 increases will boost agricultural productivity
Benefits to farmers of global heating outweighed by losses, says report
Value of European agriculture could fall 16% in 30 years due to drought and higher rainfall

Fiona Harvey  |  September 4, 2019

Climate Change Impact on Fruit and Vegetable Crops

BASFAgSolutions | August 27, 2018 | 57:25 min

Hosted by Fruit and Vegetable Magazine. University-based research on climate change and the impact it has on fruit and vegetable crops. The webinar will discuss:
• Climate change
• Associated impacts
• How to respond through adaptation. 

• Al Douglas, Director at the Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR), Laurentian University

Impact of climate change on agriculture
As we learned in the previous Step, agriculture is a major source of GHGs which contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change. However, the changing climate is having far reaching impacts on agricultural production, which are likely to challenge food security in the future.

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.
Second Edition now shipping. Thoroughly revised and updated but basically the same material.

On-line interactive computer models allow you to play with the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast.

Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change is running now on Coursera, a not-for-profit education company that partners with the top universities and organizations in the world to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free. The video lectures have been completely redone in a punchy 2-10 minute format, with revamped exercises using the updated online models interspersed throughout.

Open Climate 101 brings the experience of University of Chicago class PHSC13400, part of our "core" science curriculum for non-science major undergraduates based on this text, to the internet at large. However, this class seems supplanted by the updated content in the Coursera class (above), so unless lots of people request otherwise, Open Climate 101 will shut down on or about Jan 1, 2014.

Videos of lectures, both in ~45 minute classroom format (recorded Fall, 2009, University of Chicago), and in a 2-12 minute topical format intended for on-line learning (recorded Summer, 2013).


Dr. Happer is telling a known falsehood, one that seems to me crosses the line into criminal vandalism towards critically important scientific understanding.  Why do we tolerate such stonewalling ignorant disregard for well understood science and geophysical facts?

Is there criminal liability for climate change denial?

December 11, 2018 By Bill Adams

Climate change is not just about building seawalls, managing forests, and putting houses on posts.  It’s also about loss of life and property on a World War scale.  The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates climate change will cause an additional quarter of a million deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.


Climate crimes must be brought to justice

Catriona McKinnon

Climate denial has increased the risk of catastrophic global change. Should international criminal law be used against those who promote this dangerous trend? Economic and political leaders can no longer pretend it is business as usual. Whether they actively induce environmental harm or just ignore the existential threat against the survival of the human species, states and corporations must be held accountable for their actions or inaction regarding climate change.

Accelerating the extinction of humanity
Between irresponsible behaviour …
… and postericide
Vicarious criminal liability

Catriona McKinnon: Professor of Political Theory at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom, Catriona McKinnon has published numerous articles and books on climate justice, and on toleration and liberal political ideals. She is currently completing a monograph defending postericide (Endangering Humanity: An International Crime), writing an introductory book on climate justice, and researching the ethical questions raised by geoengineering.


March 31, 2019
Considering the Criminal Dimension of Climate Science Denial.

I believe vandals should be stood up to and that We The People have a right to learn about the expert understanding of critically important down to Earth matters, such as climate change understanding - without the constant cross screaming from the GOP's manufactured denial machine and it's PR bullies.  Thus, this little collection of relevant reading.

We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire. 
We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us. 


The Criminal Dimension of Climate Change

by Andrew Glikson  Mar 01, 2019


Criminologist: Trump acts like a criminal when denying climate change

While much of the world now recognizes the need for immediate action, there are still those who question the scientific consensus on climate change and deter efforts to tackle it. As might be expected, they have the attention of US President Donald Trump and his Republican administration.
The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change was held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC on July 25 2019. The Heartland Institute considers itself one of “the world’s leading free market think-tanks”, which “promotes free market solutions to social and economic problems”. It’s perhaps best known for its climate scepticism. …


Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

Juliet EilperinBrady Dennis and Chris Mooney    September 28, 2018

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century. …

{ last edit Jan 16, 8:20PM
It tends to take a couple days for me to finish with polishing these posts,
very busy days, and this is a one guy operation. }

No comments: