The “Father of Anthropogenic Global Warming,” man-caused global warming, claims a trace gas, CO2, is controlling the atmosphere by magical processes we cannot find in any physics or meteorological reference.
The American Meteorological Society insisted a gas must have more than 1% presence in the atmosphere to be considered physically present in the atmosphere until Barack Hussein Obama offered them $1 million in taxpayer funds annually to say otherwise.
Only three gases qualify under the century old rules: Nitrogen, 78%, oxygen, 16% and water vapor 1% to 4%. CO2 has 0.04% and it is 1/7th the absorber of IR energy from sunlight as water vapor molecule for molecule, which captures 99.8% of IR atmospheric heating energy from sunlight.
In our opinion Jim Hansen’s hypotheses of “Radiative Forcing” and “Feedback Loops” in global warming are ridiculous gibberish written to impress and confuse. We have a long list of paragraph by paragraph criticisms if we are challenged in a forum allowing us to publish them entirely or testify to them for the hour it would take to present them fully. The abstract follows and that is followed by a link to the full paper Dr. Hansen wrote for the Edinborough, Scotland Society that awarded him $25,000 for it!
Trending: Investigating by Contrasting Methods
“We examine the sensitivity of a climate model to a wide range of radiative forcings, including changes of solar irradiance, atmospheric CO2, O3, CFCs, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, and a “ghost” forcing introduced at arbitrary heights, latitudes, longitudes, seasons, and times of day. We show that, in general, the climate response, specifically the global mean temperature change, is sensitive to the altitude, latitude, and nature of the forcing; that is, the response to a given forcing can vary by 50% or more depending upon characteristics of the forcing other than its magnitude measured in watts per square meter. The consistency of the response among different forcings is higher, within 20% or better, for most of the globally distributed forcings suspected of influencing global mean temperature in the past century, but exceptions occur for certain changes of ozone or absorbing aerosols, for which the climate response is less well behaved. In all cases the physical basis for the variations of the response can be understood. The principal mechanisms involve alterations of lapse rate and decrease (increase) of large-scale cloud cover in layers that are preferentially heated (cooled). Although the magnitude of these effects must be model-dependent, the existence and sense of the mechanisms appear to be reasonable. Overall, we reaffirm the value of the radiative forcing concept for predicting climate response and for comparative studies of different forcings; indeed, the present results can help improve the accuracy of such analyses and define error estimates. Our results also emphasize the need for measurements having the specificity and precision needed to define poorly known forcings such as absorbing aerosols and ozone change. Available data on aerosol single scatter albedo imply that anthropogenic aerosols cause less cooling than has commonly been assumed. However, negative forcing due to the net ozone change since 1979 appears to have counterbalanced 30–50% of the positive forcing due to the increase of well-mixed greenhouse gases in the same period. As the net ozone change includes halogen-driven ozone depletion with negative radiative forcing and a tropospheric ozone increase with positive radiative forcing, it is possible that the halogen-driven ozone depletion has counterbalanced more than half of the radiative forcing due to well-mixed greenhouse gases since 1979.”
In our opinion, this is utter nonsense and gibberish. Dr. Hansen’s degree is in astrophysics and mine includes chemistry, physics and biology, but nowhere in my coursework or the literature, including the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics do I recall or can I find anything about “Forcings,” “Feedback Loops” and “ghost” factors in chemistry or physics. In my opinion this is like the “snake oil” or “phlogiston” style frauds of the past, but this one is alive and well in this day and has cost America more than $1 trillion.
The full paper was at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96JD03436/epdf, but has been removed. This only happens if the Wiley editors are notified and shown defects in a publication or if it is fraudulent. We would appreciate it if the Wiley people would tell us why the paper was removed and begin to repair the science Dr. Hansen has poisoned.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.