Warm Up Your Below-Rudimenatary "Flood/Killfile" Filter, swill - Physicist William Happer: "There Is NO Climate Emergency" - Part 6

[AlleyCat]

Part 5

C'mon... let's hear it... bu bu bu but AllllleeeeeyyyyCaaaaatttt.... Happer's
not a cliiiimmmmatttte scientist!

Go ahead... piss, moan, cry and whine... just remember, your credentials are
Kindergarten-level compared to this guys. Oh... yeah... you can piss and moan
about them not having "climatology" degrees, but a PHYSICS degree encompasses
pretty much ALL, INCLUDING climate, so piss off.

=====

So, let me explain the basics of why that works:

https://i0.wp.com/www.independent.org/images/article_images/2021/2021_03_11
_happer_19_1400x787.jpg?ssl=1

Take a low-power magnifying glass and you will see the leaf is full of little
holes or "stomata." The little holes are to let carbon dioxide diffuse from the
air into the moist interior of the leaf, where the leaf, using the special
enzyme called rubisco, (one of the most ancient enzymes in the world and the
most abundant protein), combines CO2 with a water molecule, H2O, to make sugar.

The energy to run this little chemical factory within the leaf is provided by
sunlight. The problem with this is the need for holes in the leaf. Not only do
CO2 molecules diffuse in from the air, but H2O molecules diffuse out through
the same hole and dry out the leaf. For every CO2 molecule that diffuses into
the leaf there can be a hundred water molecules that diffuse out.

So, the plant has an engineering dilemma: it has to have holes in its leaf to
get the CO2 that it needs to live. But those same holes desiccate it; they dry
it out, and the plant needs water to live. But plants are not stupid. All over
the world, they are growing leaves with fewer or smaller holes in them in
response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. If there is more CO2
in the air outside, leaves do not need as many holes, and they do not leak as
much water either. That is why you are seeing the greening of the earth. It is
from the plants themselves taking advantage of CO2 coming back to more
historically normal levels.

There is a second important issue.

The enzyme I mentioned, rubisco, is very ancient. It was probably invented, on
the evolutionary scale, three and a half billion years ago. At that time, there
was little oxygen in the air. So, rubisco was designed in a way that lets it be
poisoned by oxygen. Plants today have a hard time when there is not enough CO2
in the air. When rubisco is charged with chemical energy to make sugar, but it
cannot find a CO2 molecule, it grabs an oxygen molecule, O2, instead. It uses
the oxygen to create hydrogen peroxide and other nasty oxidizing molecules.

One reason for the antioxidants in your tea is to mitigate this problem. This
mistaken use of an O2 molecule rather than a CO2 molecule is called
photorespiration. Suppression of photorespiration is one reason plants grow
better with more CO2. There is a special type of plant called C4 plant, which
includes American corn and sugar cane, that has partially solved this problem.
But as the CO2 levels increase, the old-fashioned C3 plants, without all the
biochemical machinery to cope with photorespiration, out-compete C4 plants.

When you raise all these hard, scientific issues with the climate alarmists,
the response is "how can you say that? 97 percent of scientists agree that
there's a terrible emergency here that we have to cope with."

Here there are several things you should say:

First of all, in science truth is not voted on. It is not like voting on a law.
It is determined by how well your theory agrees with the observations and
experiments. I just showed you that the theories of warming are grossly wrong.
They are not even close and yet we are making our policy decisions based on
computer models that do not work. It does not matter how many people say there
is an emergency. If it does not agree with experiments and observations, the
supposed scientific basis for the emergency is wrong. The claim of a climate
emergency is definitely wrong.

Secondly, even when scientists agree, what they agree on can be wrong. People
think of scientists as incorruptible, priestly people. They are not that at
all. They have the same faults as everybody else, and they are frequently
wrong.

https://i0.wp.com/www.independent.org/images/article_images/2021/2021_03_11
_happer_20_1400x787.jpg?ssl=1

A good example of that was the theory of "continental drift."

When I was a student in the 1950s, nobody with any self-respect in geology
admitted to believing in continental drift, although it had been proposed by
Alfred Wegner, a German scientist in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was based on
very good, hard evidence.

An example shown above is the fact that Africa, South America, India and
Antarctica all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. It is as though the jigsaw
has been taken apart so that is pretty suggestive. Secondly, if you look at the
fossils in these continents from 300 million years ago, 400 million years ago,
they go smoothly from South America to Africa or from Africa to India or even
into Antarctica. You find fossils of the same organisms even though there are
thousands of kilometres of sea separating them today. That again suggests that
these land masses were connected. Nevertheless, in spite of this quite
persuasive evidence, Wegner was scorned and mocked all his life. He died
falling into a crevasse in Greenland, exploring and looking for fossils. A sad
ending.

The clincher actually came when the USA finally declassified the World War II
North Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly data which we had been sitting on for 10 years.
The data showed mirror-image conveyor belts of newly-formed oceanic crust,
starting at the mid-Atlantic ridge and going out left and right toward America,
and toward Europe. So, there was absolutely no question that the seafloor was
spreading. That is the one bit of evidence that Wegner did not have, but he had
lots of other evidence that should have persuaded people.

This is just one example. I could tell you about many other scientific
consensuses that made no sense. This one is interesting because it had no
political background. It was pure science, but it does illustrate the
fallibility of scientists, and the group-think that goes on in science. If you
wanted to advance as a young geologist you could write a paper scorning Wegner
in 1950 and get promoted right away, even though your paper was completely
wrong. And, once you get tenure, you are there for good.

So, the takeaway message is that policies that slow CO2 emissions are based on
flawed computer models which exaggerate warming by factors of two or three,
probably more. That is message number one. So, why do we give up our freedoms,
why do we give up our automobiles, why do we give up a beefsteak because of
this model that does not work?

Takeaway message number two is that if you really look into it, more CO2
actually benefits the world. So, why are we demonizing this beneficial molecule
that is making plants grow better, that is giving us slightly less harsh
winters, a slightly longer growing season? Why is that a pollutant? It is not a
pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2
emissions. Nothing needs to be done.

=====

August... So Hot!

Record Cold Denver

Historic Snow pack Leads To Full Utah Reservoirs

B.C. Glaciers 28-49% Thicker Than Models Estimated

Record Cold Myanmar

Pakistan's Frigid 2023

Australia's Snow Warnings

U.S. Burn Acreage Fourth-Lowest on Record (Since 1926)

UT And CO Still Have Snow


Barrier Reef Holding On To Record Coral Gains

German Mountains See 4-Inches of Summer Snow

Cold Julys From Fiji To The UK

Historically Cold Italy

U.S. Ski Industry Reports Record-Breaking 65.4 Million Skier Visits Last Season

Cold Ireland

Cool U.S.

"Unusual" Temperature Drop Recorded Across Pacific Islands

Record-Cold Sweeps Europe As "Intense Snow" Continues To Pound Italy And Spain

Almanac Predicts Cold, Snowy Winter For U.S.

New August Low For Rapa Island

Europe's Colder-Than-Average (And Snowy) July

UK's Historically Cold Summer Drags On

Greenland Ice Sheet Uptick

Sierra Snow pack 1000% of Normal

Svalbard Polar Bears Enjoy Above Average Ice