Good News for Humanity, Part 2

Good News for Humanity, Part 2

In a prior article, Dr. Happer established that doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would have virtually no effect on the Earth’s temperatures.

He showed a second diagram at the Madrid press conference that demonstrated the same conclusion for Methane gas.

It should be noted that no mainstream media published this curve either.

Graph for CH4 from W. Happer’s press briefing, Madrid, Spain, December 2019

As in the earlier article, the top curve is the theoretical heat loss from the Earth into the vacuum of space for the range of frequencies, assuming no atmosphere. This is Planck’s curve for heat loss from the Earth’s blackbody. 

While the curve for CO2 was in the earlier article, the curve for CH4 (Methane) is shown here.

The sawtooth curve shows the actual heat loss through the Earth’s atmosphere for each frequency, where the percentages of CH4 (methane) are 0 ppm, (in green), 1.8 ppm (in black) and 3.6 ppm (in red).

(The other features of the curve, i.e., compound notations , etc., were explained in the earlier article.)

Once again, as in the earlier article, the green, red and black curves are highlighted by the circle, and, as can be seen, a doubling of methane has virtually no effect on heat loss from the Earth and on temperatures.

Once again this is great news for mankind.

Natural gas can continue to be used to generate the least expensive electricity and can be used to heat homes at low cost.

Animals, such as sheep and cattle, can be raised without fear of climate change.

Natural gas pipelines can be built to bring cheap natural gas to more people without fear of climate change.

Mankind can look forward to abundant supplies of natural gas for at least a thousand years.

This is truly good news for mankind.

Please forward to people on your email list. The media won’t report this good news.

. . .



Please follow and like us:

7 Replies to “Good News for Humanity, Part 2”

  1. Yes, but don’t the widely used computer models use a shady “amplification” (ie more or less clouds and various secondary effects) to claim greater temperature impact from the small direct contribution from CO2, & Methane?

    It seems this “amplification” is where most of the slight of hand / computer “adjustments” are found.

    • Computer models make assumptions about many things, of which feedback amplifications are perhaps the most important. Water vapor being one.
      These have obviously been mostly wrong since the temperature projections are at least twice those of actual temperatures recorded by satellites and balloons. I’m mentioning these temperature readings in my next article.
      Many thanks for you comment.

      • Not sure of your intentions by linking an article that excoriates deniers.
        Please let me know whether you are critical of people such as me, or whether there was a reason for using the article to address Roemer’s comment.
        Many thanks.

    • Even if they accurately forecast CO2 emissions — it is not significant. CO2 is NOT a driver of temperatures — it follows temperatures.. On the other hand, the models can’t handle the most important greenhouse effect — that from H2O (humidity, clouds, rain, snow, ice, and the oceans with their 3-D currents … and all their complex feedback mechanisms). They simply make greatly simplified assumptions — fudge factors.

  2. Donn,

    Another interesting and meaningful piece. The question: is 800 ppm statistically significant when compared with the total volume of our atmosphere?


    • Not really, but, as the graphs show, CO2 and CH4 do have some effect. As noted in the article, without CO2 the Earths temperatures would be decidedly different. However, the atmosphere is saturated so adding more CO2 has less and less effect.
      Thanks for the comment.