More comment shortly, but first I wanted to post this video from Stefan Molyneux’s interview with Dr. William Happer. There are two aspects of the Global Warming debate that are discussed and are, I believe, essential for anyone desiring an intelligent understanding of this important issue.
Update, January 30, 2917
Ok, we’re back. The two important takeaways, in my opinion, are the forcing capacity of carbon dioxide and the supposed positive feed-backs associated with it in the climate change models.
Even the climate alarmists admit that carbon dioxide, by itself, is a weak green house gas. Water vapor and methane are vastly more important and more potent in their ability to ‘force’ warming, or trap heat in the atmosphere. As mentioned in the video, according to climate models, doubling carbon dioxide, will at most, cause a 1 degree (Celsius) rise in the global temperature by 2100. And this would hold true only barring any negative feed-backs which are, by far, the more common and expected type of feed-back. As a matter of fact it is only a postulated ‘positive-feedback loop’ (i) that the alarmists are banking on to make carbon dioxide a potentially dangerous green house gas. By itself, even alarmists would (should) admit, carbon dioxide poses no real threat.
Moreover, as Dr. Happer explains, the forcing capacity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already mostly saturated. That is, most of it’s ability to trap (more) heat has been largely exhausted. As a chemist I’ve seen this phenomena in many systems. In pharmacological dose-response curves or in substrate saturated enzyme systems, merely increasing the concentration of a component will have no discernible affect on the response or the rate of a reaction, when the system is saturated. They always end in an asymptotic relationship with a limit, approaching but never reaching the limit. In other words, and importantly, there is no infinite linear response for CO2 to ‘force’ warming as it’s concentration in the atmosphere increases.
Take a look at this video from PagerU, even by their own estimates and models, the alarmist admit that even with trillions of dollars of lost global wealth creation required by the Paris accords, only a fraction of a degree of warming mitigation can be achieved by 2100. The most optimistic estimate is for 0.3 degrees, equivalent to a 4 year delay of global warming, 83 years from now! They want “their” trillions now in exchange for absolutely nothing now or in the future. Wow what a deal…….
It’s amazing what some people will believe with out ever really thinking about it.