So all that commie crap was just a ruse to set us up. Now I don't know what to think about his libertarian claim. I always thought it was kind of odd that a communist libertarian would not support the Hansen Hypothesis. It's almost like he doesn't want to get along with anybody. Makes you wonder who is real friends (if he has any) are. Well, I guess I'm going to need a new climate guru. Know anybody with some good charts?
Author of MIT climate study says Trump got it wrong
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
Are you fuking srs, the guy's on your side and you attack him because it's not for the right reason? I'm also a scientist and healthy skepticism is more than welcome. The 3rd IPCC report was criticized heavily as the researchers weren't very forthcoming especially in providing the models for peer review and confirmation. Anyone would raise an eyebrow when you're going to legislate trillions of dollars away from reliable energy into intermittent energy. Any scientist worth their salt would be skeptical of computer simulations as well.
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html
Sure that was a decade ago when al gore was showing his documentary, and we now may have mountains of evidence, but what are the major results of global warming? Rising sea levels, drought on equatorial lands, extinction of a few species, some ice caps melting? At most it becomes an immigration crisis and maybe a food shortages for 3rd world countries. It'd be more than likely beneficial to countries near the poles as land becomes increasingly arable and habitable.
Piezoe, I was pretty skeptical the 1st few years, I'm especially skeptical when non-scientists take science as gospel and try to make it political. I, however don't have the hubris, knowledge, or expertise to challenge a majority of other scientists whose job is to study climate change. My interests also lie elsewhere, yet just like you, I feel moving away from hydrocarbons has a major impact to localized pollutants and localized green house effects, so I concede that curbing oil/gas/coal numbers is for the best.
For the clearest, most visible impact of global warming, I'd recommend reading up on ocean acidification & the carbon cycle as this is probably the most noticeable confirmation of CO2 level increase. In of itself could be disastrous to the fishing industry.
The real hypocrisy here is we could drop CO2 levels to nil w/in the time frame climatologists suggest is needed, but few on the left support nuclear, so they'd rather invest in less efficient, less reliable, more costly, overall more co2 producing alternatives. Not to mention the land needed w/alternative (area of indiana) to even get close to what we could w/nuclear (area of central park) to power America. Sure a few died in Chernobyl but millions have died from breathing carcinogenic combustion byproducts.
This is why I never enter these climate threads, I simply cannot offer anything of value on the subject - having not studied it. Although I must admit to enjoying a good troll on futurecurrents. He's as rabid as they come.
Exactly, this is precisely how science works
Scientists with their elite degrees sit around looking at all the data, research the shit out of it so they can blame man (including themselves) for it.
You cracked it!
I use the term Hansen Hypothesis , as it is the correct way to refer to what is at the bottom of what the media, and even Hansen, are now calling "climate change".
An Hypothesis is an educated guess. In the late 1970s Hansen and others formulated an hypothesis that rising CO2 in the atmosphere might conceivably cause the air temperature to rise by the greenhouse gas mechanism. As a necessary but insufficient condition to prove the hypothesis correct, temperature would nave to be correlated with CO2 concentration. That correlation is quite evident for the specific recent period of the late 19th century to the present time. This was noted in the 1980s in public fora. A young politician who was a science fan, Albert Gore, also took note, and we were off to the races.
Hansen hypothesized that man could be causing the atmospheric temperature to rise through his activities that release CO2 to the atmosphere. This is the Hansen Hypothesis and if it is correct, then the temperature of the atmosphere could be reduced by decreasing the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere.
Very well stated. You'd probably like to take a look at the survey on attitudes re "global warming" among physicists and meteorologists published in the Bulletin of the Meteorology Society (I think I have the name more or less correct) I think the latest survey was in 2014. I posted the survey results on ET. It seemed to be pretty well done, as they broke the results down according to whether one was a physicist or a meteorologist, whether one was actually involved in climate research or not, and whether one was actively publishing in that area. IMO the survey shows we are a long way from a consensus.
I think Salby's work is among the most interesting. And rather brilliant with regard to his phase shift study. It seems to be telling us that everyone has the independent and dependent variables reversed. Some of the data makes much more sense when you approach it with Temperature as the independent variable. And that is supported by the more recent phase shift studies of the time shift between temperature change and CO2 concentration change. But it is clear that things are not simple because there are at least two time periods present, a short one and a much longer one. The short cycle rides on top of the longer one. It seems most of the phase studies have been done on the short period cycle, but what about the long period cycle.
My biggest question with regard to Salby's work has to do with diffusion of CO2 in ice which he claims affects the ice core studies and that if you don't correct for it, causes the CO2 concentration estimates to be significantly too low or too high and to underestimate variation with time. I wonder where he got his diffusion coefficients for diffusion of CO2 in ice. He hasn't published a lot of his later work. He claims he is hampered by his computer and data being seized by university authorities at McQuarrie in Australia -- they left him stranded in Paris when they fired him! -- ha ha ha, if I'm going to be stranded someplace, Paris is not a bad choice, but please not a night on the floor of Charles de Gaulle. It may be that he is a difficult personality. But there is no question about his training or competence. (He got into trouble with the NSF because of unauthorized shifting of research funds from one budget category to another, something that would normally be dealt with by a slap on the wrist. So I'm highly suspicious politics were involved. I'd like to meet him and chat. My own Ph.D. work was in Diffusion. So I've been able to follow much of his work.
The other guy who's work is extremely interesting to me is that Hungarian Fellow, Miscolczi. It is incredibly innovative. He uses a simple energy balance model. Are his assumptions correct? I don't know. I tried to read his paper and was able to follow enough to get the main ideas, but I don't know enough of that area to be able to properly criticize it. It's an entirely different way of looking at the problem. I have to take it to my Physicist friend at the University and bribe him with a beer to read it . Miscolczi says flat out in his paper that the results show there can not be positive feedback. That the feedback must be negative. That's a conclusion I reached a long time ago based on nothing but brain work. And Lindzen, bless his right wing heart, has been running around saying that for years. Another problem is that in all the models, perhaps the most recent have corrected this, the half life for CO2 used is way too long. We know that now due to all the labeled CO2 in the atmosphere from the 1950s atmospheric bomb tests. Those tests afforded an opportunity for accurate estimates of the half life. Something everyone missed until recently.
There is one thing I am absolutely certain of, and that is that as soon as a scientist gets emotionally wrapped up in their conclusions and allows their ego to take over, such as Hansen has, objectivity goes out the window. The media and politics are no places to do science.
Thanks for the link by the way. The article points out what I consider to be the fatal flaw in all the mainstream models. Assumption of positive feedback. It is virtually certain, unless we have somehow slipped past a tipping point unnoticed, and in which case we are likely doomed, the feedback is negative.
Last edited:
thanks, that should clean out some of the science deniers.
By the way, have you tried yet a peanut butter and banana sandwich? Wasn't that one of Elvis's favorites? Or, was it peanut butter, fried bananas and Kraft marshmallow glop. (It seems like I must be leaving out one of the main ingredients, Help, anyone?) Maybe the whole thing has to be dipped in egg and deep fried to be authentic.
Last edited: