Dear KMAG: 20190827 Open Topic

“…Unfortunately even so-called sceptics accept this theory without questions and want you to believe that guys who question it are science illiterate….”
Then you have only been following the ‘Controlled Opposition”
Dr Happer “served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change” until he got tossed out by Al Gore for refusing to agree to the CAGW Bull Feces.
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said… “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993….
…..
I had the honor of sitting in on one of his Guest Physics lecture @ UNC thanks to an invite by Darrylb. (Links below)

Dr. Will Happer’s Testimony Before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming – May 20, 2010
Key Excerpts: The CO2 absorption band is nearly “saturated” at current CO2 levels……
The climate-change establishment has tried to eliminate any who dare question the science establishment climate scientists and by like-thinking policy-makers – you are either with us or you are a traitor.
Orwellian: I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants….

…..
Then there is Dr Evans in Australia and his new Notch-Delay Solar Theory
It was presented for critique at Jo Nova’s site. Links listed HERE
Dr Evans is no light weight:

Dr David Evans earned six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University. He was instrumental in building the carbon accounting system Australia uses to estimate carbon changes in its biosphere, for the Australian Greenhouse Office. His wife’s blog at joannenova.com.au is one of the biggest skeptic websites in the world…. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing
Evans found that the basis for the carbon dioxide theory of global warming, which dates back to 1896, is in error because it omits one of the two main climate feedbacks, the rerouting feedback — increasing carbon dioxide traps heat in the upper troposphere, which warms the upper layer of water vapor that emits to space, so the trapped heat is mainly radiated to space by water vapor instead, rather than traveling down and warming the surface as in the climate models. The surface warming due to increasing carbon dioxide is a fifth to a tenth of that predicted by the IPCC, and less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 is due to increasing carbon dioxide. He also discovered a delay between changes in the Sun’s total output and global temperatures, of one solar cycle, and on that basis predicts global cooling from 2017 after the fall in solar output in 2004.
http://sciencespeak.com/about.html

REFERENCES for those who want to get into the ‘weeds’
My Comments about the Dr Happer lecture posted to Tony Heller’s site:

At the ‘reception’ before the lecture we were told it was for physics grad students so I was a bit surprised I could follow the entire lecture without getting lost. It takes a very good speaker to be able to engage people at two different levels of understanding.
There were a lot of equations of course but the take away was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the current CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it and this was the point of the lecture. Why was the theory wrong?
Dr. Will Happer did agree with what Dr Brown and Peter Malcombe said about the time to radiate being about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

Slides from UNC:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx
correspondence:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Contains audio and slides of lecture to physics grad students plus a video of the John Locke Foundation lecture for non-physicists:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Video: (toned down for non physics grad students) [video src="http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/williamhapper090814.mp4" /]