Oh where did you get that information? From one of his publications I guess.
Like I thought, he is not a climate scientist. Probably has a degree in electrical engineering or underwater basket weaving.
Why are you lying about this issue?
‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Like I thought, he is not a climate scientist. Probably has a degree in electrical engineering or underwater basket weaving.
Why are you lying about this issue?
Oh where did you get that information? From one of his publications I guess.
So who is he? What is his degree in? How many right wing think tanks does he work for? Seems like he is a fictitious character.
Why do you continue to lie about this
Yes OK jem.
Record setting cold temperatures and massive amounts of snow are proof of anthropogenic global warming.
They certainly are---Has Fruitcakes had a look at the sun lately?
Fruitcakes knows he?she is wrong but doesn't care.
Going by the things you post on this subject, for some reason maybe emotion or an irrational bias, you seem to constantly ignore how science actually works. It isn't a democracy. The laws of Nature are not determined by impressions garnered from popular votes.
Science succeeds because it produces logical rational and reasonable explanations for how the world works, making predictions and testing those predictions again with the same rigor to confirm them as correct. It matters not how many scientists believe or don't believe or don't agree with a theory before or after the scientific procedure occurs.
As it happens 80 plus years ago, two-thirds of scientists and their papers took no position or outright rejected Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation. One scientist who scorned it was Albert Einstein, yet Bohr still holds within quantum mechanics and now gets more support by scientists overall than any other proposition.
Max Planck suffered worse scorn as the founder of quantum theory, but despite all the denial and rejections, it turned out he altogether revolutionized science and became the constantly proven method for calculating how stuff from chemistry through electronics can be made to work in the Universe.
Thousands of scientists and all sorts of others rebuked General Relativity. It received an uproar of criticism from so many who sought to disprove it either to promote themselves, or for political purposes. It was openly declared by many to be a hoax. Ring any bells?
Then as now, there was reason why researchers who found their results inconsistent with Bohr's and Plank's and Einstein's Hypothesis, prevaricated. It was and usually is because they don't scientifically explain or work as well.
You cannot show the science in Hanson, Global Warming or AGW is wrong by using proposals that are themselves wrong.
Hanson stands as far as it does because, in similar fashion to Bohr, Plank, and Einstein it is basically scientifically sound and hasn't been shown to be fundamentally scientifically faulty, flawed or wrong by any science other than which itself is basically wrong.
Mercovitz's idea is fundamentally scientifically faulty, flawed and wrong, as any small degree of research will tell.
Generally speaking, as the scientific method is self-correcting, had Mercovitz or any of the other authors you refer to produced good science, they would have easily overturned Hanson by now. Just as others still could with Bohr or Plank or Einstein.
Last edited:
Thank you stu for a thoughtful post that avoids hyperbole and ad hominem attack. I agree with everything you have pointed out, however you have omitted one salient feature of the current debate. Although the Hansen Hypothesis has not yet been rejected by the climate science community at large, neither have many studies that show it can not be correct. What those who believe Hansen's hypothesis is correct have done is to dismiss observations that do not agree with the hypothesis by either ignoring them, or offering yet other unproved explanations as to why, despite observations to the contrary, Hansen's hypothesis must be correct.
Although there can be no question Hansen's hypothesis has been accepted as correct by political and public consensus, two things must occur before it can be fully accepted among the community of climate scientists and those in closely allied scientific fields. Those are 1. All of the observations not consistent with the hypothesis must be shown to be in error, and 2. At a minimum, the hypothesis must be shown to have been capable of correctly predicting, within acceptable error bounds, future temperature once future CO2 concentration becomes known. The IPCC has produced the appearance of success in this latter regard by both revising and refitting their models every six years so that they never get too far away from actual observation as to become obviously unacceptable. This was pointed out by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Naturally, to a minority of climate scientists and a larger number of scientists in general, including myself, the IPCC summary findings are not convincing.
Until observations, assumptions, and models of those climate scientists who do not accept Hansen's have been proved wrong, or until, at a minimum, Hansen's hypothesis can be shown to correctly predict future temperature* Hansen's hypothesis will be regarded by a significant portion of the science community as either speculative or incorrect.
In the meantime, I expect Hansen's hypothesis will be treated among a majority of politicians, the public, and the media as having been proven correct. It is only among we scientists where questions continue to abound. Expanding on your nice examples of past breakthroughs that were met with skepticism, I would say we are in our current understanding of climate about where we were in 1916 in our understanding of the atom -- well along but not there yet. We have Thomson's electron, we have Rutherford's proton and Bohr's model, later proved inadequate; we have Planck's theory of the quanta, not completely understood by Planck yet; we have Einstein's general theory of relativity completed a year earlier, which is icing on the cake; but we are still waiting for Erwin Schrödinger, and it will be a further 11 and 12 years wait for Heisenberg and Chadwick. Those of us who care about the science of climate must be patient and avoid jumping to too early conclusions...
_______________________
*Showing that models based on Hansen's could correctly predict future temperature would not be enough to prove Hansen's hypothesis is correct. Given the complexity of our climate system and its dual sources of energy, radiative and thermal, even the non-scientist, were they to reflect on it, would recognize how unlikely it is that one could accurately predict the affect on the Earth's low troposphere temperature from adding or subtracting 100 molecules of CO2 into or from a million molecules of air! Carbon dioxide is non-condensing, so its heats of fusion and vaporization do not enter into the picture, and it is transparent to light except for a tiny fraction of the solar and Earth's radiative spectrum. (It has only one active IR absorption mode, the asymmetric stretch) It's theoretical thermal effects on inner and outer atmosphere oppose each other. The affect on temperature of small changes in its mole fraction concentration in the range of a few hundred ppm is almost certainly undetectable compared with that of other phenomena. It's observed concentration correlation with temperature is likely due to CO2's concentration dependence on temperature plus an increasing amount added by combustion which pushes net CO2 concentration in the same direction as does temperature dependence.
We also must recognize the difficulty of directly measuring the mean temperature of the Earth's entire surface, which is mostly water. Here is a well written article by our U.S. expert in temperature measurement that highlights the difficulties encountered. http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/
And here is an excerpted paragraph where the author deals with land measurements:
"Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen."
Last edited:
Don't don't you need science confirming Hansen's hypothesis before you before you state man made co2 is causing warming?
hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
So without science does it really matter if there is a consensus whether it is fake or not.
B. Wouldn't the burden be on the those scientists supporting Hansen's hypothesis to present science supporting it? Would the sage position be skepticism until science is produced?
C. Finally we must remember the "consensus" is typically stated about man causing warming. Not man made CO2.
hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
- a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption;
So without science does it really matter if there is a consensus whether it is fake or not.
B. Wouldn't the burden be on the those scientists supporting Hansen's hypothesis to present science supporting it? Would the sage position be skepticism until science is produced?
C. Finally we must remember the "consensus" is typically stated about man causing warming. Not man made CO2.
No such thing as Hansen's hypothesis. It's called climate science. But disinformers love to ad hom the subject so to diminish it. Classic disinformer (liar's) strategy.
No such thing as science showing man made co2 is causing warming. (As of 2018)
Even your fake consensus is about man's activities not man made co2.
Even your fake consensus is about man's activities not man made co2.