Hypotheses require no official sanction. The word itself belongs to the English vocabulary. It means a proposition or set of propositions proposed as an explanation for an observation or phenomenon. See any dictionary for the definition. If you don't like the word, you could just as well say Hansen's proposition. The English vocabulary is the largest of any modern language. You have ample opportunity to choose another word with the same meaning that pleases you more.So where is the link showing the "Hansen Hypothesis" is a thing. Google turns up nothing. I just proved you wrong by showing that Arrhenius was the first to state the obvious phenomena in 1896. There is no "Hansen Hypothesis" and Arrhenius would certainly not reject his own hypothesis since CO2 is still very much an important greenhouse gas.
Just what is your major malfunction? Are you just trolling?
Hypotheses require no official sanction. The word itself belongs to the English vocabulary. It means a proposition or set of propositions proposed as an explanation for an observation or phenomenon. See any dictionary for the definition. If you don't like the word, you could just as well say Hansen's proposition. The English vocabulary is the largest of any modern language. You have ample opportunity to choose another word with the same meaning that pleases you more.
Hypotheses require no official sanction. The word itself belongs to the English vocabulary. It means a proposition or set of propositions proposed as an explanation for an observation or phenomenon. See any dictionary for the definition. If you don't like the word, you could just as well say Hansen's proposition. The English vocabulary is the largest of any modern language. You have ample opportunity to choose another word with the same meaning that pleases you more.
please state this exact definition of this bedrock climate principle.
please link to 5 scientific papers establishing the existence of said principle or proving it?
(not papers referring to a consensus (real or imagined) ...
but papers which showing man made co2 is causing warming on earth. )
I predict you will not produce any... because there few perhaps 0.
In short, man made global warming has as much evidence supporting it as unicorns.
a. there is no proof we are warming outside historical patterns.
b. there is no proof that man made co2 causes warming in our atmosphere.
and perhaps we never will have evidence because...
the historical records shows co2 trails warming and cooling.
first of all I noticed you did not really respond...
but... I will address the problems with your links..
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
in the comments... the author your al gore site... responds like you do... with pure speculation...
here is the exchange...
" Thanks for the thoughtful presentation of evidence in favor of AGW.
I'm concerned with the logic of how you put your argument together on this page, however. Your first point is that CO2 is increasing. The second is that CO2 trapsheat. OK so far.
The third point is that the earth is warming. You lose me there. The reason we know that humans are causing the earth to warm is that the earth is warming? I just don't see how that logically follows.
I'd really like to see a clear argument for the AGW hypothesis that separates evidence of warming from evidence for the cause of that warming. That's what I was hoping to find here, but did not.
Response: The cause of global warming is outlined above in point 2: the enhanced greenhouse effect from increasing CO2. Point 3 (warming is happening) is the logical consequence of Points 1 (we're raising CO2) and 2 (CO2 traps heat). To accept the first two points, that human CO2 emissions are causing heat to be trapped, is to accept that humans are causing the planet to accumulate heat. With more heat in our climate, temperatures will rise."
breaking this down...
1. land temps... that the models looked at have not been warming.
now your type has changed the argument to ocean heating.
a. oceans temps have been rising since the last ice age.
there are underwater volcanoes.... there is no reason to link ocean warming to man made CO2.
b. Salby just showed you human net emissions are inconsequential compared to thermally induced warming... that is naturally caused warming.
c. you can accept the first 2 points without concluding that man made co2 is the causes...
see salby above.
in short your best shot... and it was pretty good... is based on leaps of faith.
part 2.
here is the suspect quote... but note they produce no science showing it... on that page.
not sure where the science is... are you?
see this quote... no science just quote.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Part 3.
That economist article is even worse... no science at all just quotes assuring us a doubling of co2 will cause a degree in warming.
problem... is that real time event show those speculations to be garbage...
its why your skeptical science now has to look at oceans temps....
Temperatures did not go up... so they now look to the oceans to find some extra heat.
(they need to look at the underwater volcanoes)