Thursday, May 24, 2012

John O'Sullivan: "Hansen, Sagan and Venus with magellan probe" > Examining The Art Of Deception

 This is an extension of a discussion of sorts over at SkepticSocietyForum 
and though I don't have the time to do it justice,  
the article by one John O'sullivan 
is so outrageously deceptive and plain wrong... 
add to that, 
being a perfect example of what I mean by denialist "crazy-making," 
that I need to at least take a stab at examining and exposing 
the long list of errors in this piece of propaganda over learning
 {June 7, 2012}

I wholeheartedly encourage anyone 
who see's anything here they like and might be able to use, 
please take it, do with it what you can.  

We need more people to vocally object to the crazy-making 
of agenda driven deceivers such a this O'Sullivan character.

Black print represents O'Sullivan's paragraphs which I have included complete.
My replies and references will be in blue print.


Top Scientists Vent on NASA’s Sub Prime Greenhouse Gas Hoaxer
May 20, 2012
±2400 words

Climatologist James Hansen is under sustained attack accused of global warming fraud at a time when the powerful science journal, Nature admits “research is riddled with systematic errors.”

"Hansen, Sagan and Venus with Magellan Probe"
by  johnosullivan

¶1 ~ The Nature article (May 9) marks a defining critical moment as a slew of top scientists openly attack climate activist, Professor James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS). Since the 1980′s Hansen has been at the forefront of claims that human emissions of carbon dioxide are “catastrophically” warming our planet. For his ceaseless alarmism Hansen has been named and shamed by, among others, the U.S. Government’s premier extreme weather expert, Martin Hoerling (of sister U.S. Government agency, NOAA) who calls Hansen’s science “patently false” and “policy more than it is science.”
Misrepresentation in the 1st sentence:  The Nature “article” is not an article, rather it is an opinion piece.  Worse than that it is examining bias in the pharmaceutical industry, and the couple studies it mentions focus on that.  Nothing in that article discusses climate science. 

Misrepresentation in the 2nd sentence.  The science is about how human emissions of carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) are impacting our climate.  It is the media and advocates on both sides that bring “catastrophic” into the discussion. 
Although, the longer we refuse to tackle our excessive GHG injections into our limited atmosphere, the closer catastrophic consequences move, one only needs to catch up on global weather reports for verification of that claim.

A little for everyone in this Yale Environment 360 collection of eight expert opinions  ~  6/2/2011

Global costs of extreme weather events ~  Some graphs   ~   1950-2003

 Damage from Extreme Weather Increasing ~ ScientificAmerican ~  9/1/2011

~ ~ ~

Don't know much about Martin Hoerling, but I did notice he ignored important information.
There are others who have examined Martin Hoerling's claims, with a much more educated eye than I possess.  Here's a little detailed examination of the science surrounding Hoerling's claims, including parts he left out:

¶2 ~ As Nature states, “Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice.” Although the article baulked at naming and shaming Hansen, the beleaguered spokesman of climate alarmism nonetheless immediately rushed to defend himself in an OpEd in The New York Times (May 10). But Hansen was then summarily shot down the following day when a damning set of doctored graphs was released implicating him as fraudster-in-chief of the U.S. and global temperature records – all perpetrated while Hansen was pocketing millions for his sub-prime science.

Misrepresentation in the 1st sentence:  Nothing in the Nature article discusses climate science. 
So, how can this opinion piece about pharma,  be cited as proof of Hansen's fraud - {the tortured logic is staggering}

2nd sentence:  "Hansen was then summarily shot down the following day when a damning set of doctored graphs was released."

“Released?”... sure sounds impressive.  But, look at it, it's the "release" of another opinion blog story.  
The question is: what valuable information was released 
and by what authoritative body was it released?  
Turns out the source is an advocacy blog

That page is another opinion blog.  Perhaps by one Steven Goddard, but it’s a guess as there is no information offered about this blog. {can someone say red flags?}

Then consider his approach:
Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
Posted on May 13, 2012
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. 
~ ~ ~ 
Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record.
Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record.
The Northern Hemisphere used to have a broken hockey stick problem.
According to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975 . . .

Did he say in 1975?... sounds like someone more interested in playing games.
Then the blog uses some “doctored” graphs of their own. 

~ ~ ~
Have you ever taken the time to listen to Dr. Hansen explaining his scientific work?  Well, OK he isn't the best presenter, too bad he's a scientist lacking all that PR finesse.'  Still O'Sullivan is just handwaving considering that the "hockey stick" has withstood the test of time and in fact has been joined by many other studies further resolving the details.

Oh about that hockey stick, it's not a stick, it's a team worth of hockey sticks

Hockey stick replaced with a hockey team ~
Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick: Recent Global Warming Is Unprecedented In Magnitude And Speed And Cause ~ Think

¶3 ~ Another salvo against the NASA GISS boss then appeared on the world’s leading science blog, WUWT. Here Hansen and others are denounced for ignoring facts that prove the greenhouse gas theory doesn’t fit the data at a time when independent researchers are also demonstrating that natural factors better explain our ever-changing climate.

WUWT, “world’s leading”  O'Sullivan is blowing blarney here.  WUWT may get more hits than any other climate oriented blog, but that does not make it anywhere near the “world’s leading science blog.”  The conceit is laughable considering the type of political theater that goes for “science” over at Anthony’s blog.

¶4 ~ But as the wider scientific community is turning up the heat on Hansen, future generations will examine his leading role in promoting as “settled science” the now discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE). Indeed, as retired former U.S. Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Hertzberg laments, “prior to the 1970′s no mainstream science journals considered the “greenhouse effect,” let alone the theory that human emissions of CO2 had any influence on the weather.” Indeed, it can be shown that back in 1967 Hansen claimed (when he was a fringe theorist) that if there was a GHE it was likely induced by dust (aerosol particulates). [1.]


Sentence 1: What “wider scientific community”? A bunch of advocacy blogs?  
Being interesting in climate change does not make you a member of the “scientific community” 

And then to come up with a line like this:
“ discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE)...” Oh for crying out loud! 
Where are the studies that have “discredited the greenhouse gas theory? 

Too much hot air, too little citations, or explanations.
~ ~ ~

And then you bring up that explosives expert turned opinion writer Dr Martin Hertzberg?  Please, he may have trained as a meteorologist at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School, back in the early Cold War era, but his career has been as an explosives expert

"Background and Experience
Dr. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. He established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH)."
Mind you, the man had a wonderful productive career helping blow up things, but besides being ancient he's never done any actual climate science, he had no science to add to the discussion, I know this from personal correspondences with him! Instead he offers a list of discredited sound-bites, and has no answers or education to offer.
For a little more background on Dr. Hertzbergs approach to science see:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Vail Valley Voices: Dr. Martin Hertzberg disputes evidence for global warming

Sunday, October 2, 2011
Martin Hertzberg... a denialist in action
~ ~ ~ 
“prior to the 1970′s no mainstream science journals considered the “greenhouse effect,”

This simply isn’t true.  Here, for those interested in learning about it, this is worth reading:

“The Discovery of Global Warming”
     This is mounted on the Website of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. Discovery of Global Warming site created by Spencer Weart with initial support from the American Institute of Physics, the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
or this little bit by Isaac Asimov

¶5 ~ Hansen was pitching his “Dust Insulation Model” (DIM) to anyone and everyone after obtaining his PhD from the University of Iowa and starting work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Of course, scientists all agree that our sun is the overwhelming source of our planet’s heat. But what Hansen’s DIM science proclaimed was that atmospheric dust particles (or aerosols) act in conjunction with solar energy to cause additional global warming.

“The Atmosphere and Surface Temperature of Venus - A Dust Insulation Model”

This is another example of pure crazy-making. The paper discusses Venus!  Venus has an atmosphere very different from Earth’s. Like 93 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere.  So what is O'sullivan talking about?

More fictitious science?

¶6 ~ In the 1970′s such disaster science became the rage inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky, a leading advocate of Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions. Hansen, as a disciple of Velikovsky, was crying about an impending ice age on Earth while at the same time speculating that dust aerosols in the atmosphere of Venus caused a “runaway greenhouse gas effect” on the hot planet.

Why is O'Sullivan now talking about a 70s science fiction writer trying to dress himself up as a skeptic regarding the consensus understanding of how oil was created, along with other fantastical astronomical notions?  

Where does O'Sullivan get off calling Hansen a "disciple" of Velikovsky without bringing one shred of information or evidence to support his outlandish conspiracy theorizing.

If you have information to dispute the Scientific Understanding regarding GHGs and global warming -> here is where you are suppose to share it...

Why does O'Sullivan mix up that sort of utter garbage and valueless distraction into an article that is supposed to be about how the GHG Theory has been disproven.


¶7 ~ But then television science celebrity and fellow catastrophist, Carl Sagan, won fame with his claims about a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus all due to carbon dioxide. Sagan speculated that the same could happen on Earth. So Hansen saw his opportunity and grabbed Sagan’s coat tails and quietly abandoned his DIM dust theory.


Listen to that: Carl Sagan a "catastrophist," why the need for such distractions and school yard bullshit?  "Hansen saw his opportunity and grabbed Sagan's coat tails and quietly abandoned . . ."
Sound likes a cheap novel, and has just about as much substance.

Notice how O'Sullivan does not actually examine Hansen's science or claims, just a lot of name calling and hysterical language.
~ ~ ~

Regarding some of the wilder claims made around Hansen’s various quotes.

What contrarians never explore is the nuanced nature and the many caveats Hansen includes when making those claims.  Why are the details steadfastly ignored?  That is not the sign of someone interested in learning.

¶8 ~ But while Sagan baulked at wholesale acceptance of Velikovsky’s ideas Hansen embraced them despite there being no evidence of any “runaway” GHE for Venus (with it’s 98 percent CO2 atmosphere) without showing any evidence to demonstrate CO2 actually caused atmospheric warming. This was especially puzzling when considering the fact that the atmosphere of Mars, like Venus, was almost entirely CO2 – yet that planet was freezing cold. While on Earth there is virtually no atmospheric CO2 to speak of (less than 0.04 percent!).

“Hansen embraced Velikovsky’s ideas...”  What kind of nonsense is that.
Where is his evidence?  And why is all this hand waving and outrageous charges allowed to stand in for presenting actual evidence and a rational discussion.

“...without showing any evidence to demonstrate CO2 actually caused atmospheric warming...”
This is a ridiculous, totally wrong statement.  And the evidence is there, one only need the intellectual honesty to seek it out.

Heck, heat seeking air to air missiles would not function, if scientists didn’t have a detailed understanding of CO2’s emission patterns along with a quantitative understanding of CO2’s atmospheric warming profile, something that was ferreted out by US Air Force scientists.  
{here's a simple video explaining some of the outlines of what climatologists understand, 
here's another one}

Then that business about Mars' CO2 atmosphere, that's pure crazy-making.  The atmospheric pressure on Mars varies from around 0.0044 psi on Olympus Mons's peak to over 0.1675 psi in some places - so what in the world is he trying to compare or claim, when at sea level Earth’s air pressure is over 14 psi.
¶9 ~ But over time James “Boiling Oceans” Hansen honed his doomsayer act into a fine art as evidenced by his book, 'Storms of My Grandchildren'. In Chapter Ten Hansen uses his climate crystal ball to foretell, “if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”

"honed his doomsayer act"  What's the point of such ridiculous hyperbole, if not to emotionalize what should be a rational discussion of evidence?  Then he links us to a Watt's Up With That blog, where Anthony's first sentence is:   “One wonders, if Dr. Hansen realizes that no scientist has yet presented any credible evidence that the “oceans boiled” millions of years ago when atmospheric CO2 values far exceeded the 390 ppm we have now.”

How can this be described as anything other than crazy-making, when the video of Hansen, right in that blog post, clearly explains:

 1:17  On the long run. If that really happened (no slowing down of society produced GHGs being added to our atmosphere.).  Over centuries, we could actually get a runaway Greenhouse Effect
1:55   “What is the runaway Greenhouse Effect?”:   “It means that once the planet begins to get warming, and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate.  And water vapor is a very strong GHG, even more powerful than carbon-dioxide.  So you could get to a situation where there’s... it just that the oceans could begin to boil and all the water ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus...”
2:30   “Now the Earth, it could go unstable...
2:50   “... so these runaway situations can occur.  We’ve never had a runaway Greenhouse Effect. . .”

¶10 ~ But a recent paper by Hansen shows how he can flip-flop about the climate forcing properties of aerosols when it suits. Returning to his old DIM science idea Hansen now says aerosols are part of the control knob for a planet’s energy content. But contrary to what he claimed before, he now says they cause cooling, not warming. And their impact is whatever magnitude Hansen needs to prop up his runaway GHE musings.

Hansen hasn't done any flip flopping, O'Sullivan is simply fabricating his story to fit his preconceptions.  Remember the "old DIM science idea" is about dynamics on Venus, not to be confused with Earth please. 

properties of aerosols when it suits”  Again nothing more than blatant misrepresentation of the history of the accumulation of scientific knowledge regarding aerosols, but than a person would have to be interested in LEARNING to take the time to become acquainted with the evidence.  You can read up on it here.

¶11 ~ Thus in Hansen’s world aerosol forcing is the fudge factor needed to keep the funding dollars flowing in. In his world there is no actual research into aerosols going on – just modeling – all a guessing game. As such, Hansen’s models will deliver exactly the right results he needs to justify the model’s behavior – a scientific shell game – a blatant tautology and a veritable obfuscation for the public.

Again a lot of emotionalizing and smack talking going on, but no actual evidence. 

This red herring about the research money.  Come on, get real O'Sullivan, understanding our climate is important to humanity's ever more complex society and to attack the funding of such studies, reveals you prefer ignorance over substance and learning.

¶12 ~ That Whatchamacallit Greenhouse Gas Effect
But an even more worrying aspect of Hansen’s science is his astonishing claim that Earth receives an additional 33 degrees Celsius of heat due to the so-called greenhouse gas effect. Hansen and fellow GHE believers say this additional 33 degrees is due to our atmosphere creating a “blanket effect” so that Earth is “warmer than it would otherwise be.”

So this O’Sullivan is actually disputing over a century's worth of accumulating knowledge?
Does he bring any evidence to bare?
Nope.  Lot’s of words, but no evidence. 

Oh, wait a minute, now we seem to finally be getting to some nitty-gritty  . . .

¶13 ~ But independent scientists have shown that this “blanket effect” warming is bogus, being merely the product of a statistical trick – all achieved by Hansen crassly opting to model Earth as a flat disk. As such Hansen is a true “flat earther” – ironically this is the charge he and other alarmists make against skeptics all the time. Critics claim that by “simple physical analysis” it can be shown that treating Earth as a flat disk rather than as a 3-Dimensional rotating sphere Hansen hid a gross calculating “error” – the mixing of two incompatible mathematical variables – scalars and vectors (as explained below).

But, "independent scientists"?  What in the world does that mean?  
Where are their studies?  
Where is there evidence? 
What are you going on about?    
When are you going to produce Mr. O’sullivan?
I want to learn something here and you still have not offering anything of substance.

¶14 ~ But from 1975 to 1998 when a warming trend seemed in lock step with rising levels of atmospheric CO2, no one seriously scrutinized Hansen’s assertions and calculations. But since 2003 the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 was broken and global cooling began. Then, as any good scientist knows – when there’s no longer any correlation you must then begin to question claims for causation.

O’Sullivan links us to the c3headlines blog, that does some fancy math to make a myopic claim that our planet has been cooling.  It’s a shell-game that spoon feeds it’s readers a contrived result.  For a more complete picture of our planet’s recent warming we need to expose ourselves to the full spectrum of evidence.  Over at SkepticalScience.Com they present explanations along with links directly to many studies, along with an intelligent on-point discussion forum following all of their articles.  They teach rather than dictate.

Has Earth warmed as much as expected?

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Are we heading into global cooling?


¶15 ~ Thereafter, NASA’s top climatologist Hansen was under increasing scrutiny and exposed as a poor climate prophet. Among his many failed prophesies were his claims that by 2006 Earth will be at its “warmest for 100,000 years” and by 2030 melting ice caps would cause a sea level rise halfway up the side of Manhattan Island.


Oh gosh more hearsay and innuendo, an interview with Bob Reiss author of, “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future,” great, why supposed recollections, why not some real evidence?
Why all the dancing around, why not not present Hansen’s public announcements and examine those?

 Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run -- in 1981
 ~ 24 August 2010 by muoncounter
 A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
 ~ 20 September 2010 by dana1981
 Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s

29 April 2011 by dana1981
 Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981 ~ 
3 May 2012 by dana1981
Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1 ~ 24 January 2012 by dana1981

¶16 ~ Sad for Hansen (but good for humanity) is the HadCRUT evidence that shows temperatures are almost back to where they were when Hansen gave his infamous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. Better yet NASA data proves sea levels are falling – not rising as Hansen predicted. In November 2009 the Climategate scandal erupted, igniting fears of a data fraud after independent scientists were unlawfully blocked from seeing how those official – and now failed – climate models were programmed. Hansen and other Velikovsky disciples were accused of trying to cover up their failings.


Rather than a manipulated graph from “c3headlines” blog, why not go to HadCRUT
Which doesn’t support O’Sullivan’s claim.

As for sea levels, O’Sullivan is implying a snap shot equals a movie.  He also ignores information right on the page he linked to at: 

“August 23, 2011
An Update from NASA's Sea Level Sentinels:

Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global warming. 

While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

So what's up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific. 

Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States. 

Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. "By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet," says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. 

So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean. . ."  {read on here}
¶17 ~ Now in disarray, Hansen has had to contradict his prior warming claims about aerosols to state that aerosol-emitting industrial China by chance was creating exactly the right amount of particulates to counterbalance the global warming effects he predicted from CO2. To further bolster his claims Hansen resorted to fiddling yet more temperature data but was caught again – this time rigging the numbers for Iceland. But the scam is no longer being bought by the public and anger mounts as the realization sets in that trillions of tax dollars have been wasted from apparent climate criminality.

NO, no, no, this is simply crazy making.  Please recall O’Sullivan is referring to a long ago study about Venus that Hansen did.  That is about aerosols on Venus, not on Earth!  It is this kind of disingenuous manipulation of facts that makes O’Sullivan a bona fide liar.

And then the article linked to comes from WUWT, and is basically a reprint of the NASA GISS news release.  Although the comment’s once again show the caliber of the discussion over there:

Eyes Wide Open says:
Just put the man in jail and be done with it!
PaulID says:
I always knew Hansen was a bit unbalanced.
Obviously, it's science by demonization over at O'Sullivan's.  Made to salve predispositions but not to learn anything of value.  What a shame.

¶18 ~ Alarmists are now reduced to scavenging among less apocalyptic forecasts made in a Hansen paper published in a 1981 edition of ‘Science‘. [2.] But even in that paper Hansen is exposed as either incompetent or dishonest. In it he claims carbon dioxide absorbs in an atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers – which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. But the scientific reality is that carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmospheric window centered on 14.77 microns with a range from about 13 to 17 microns – not from 7 to 14 micrometers. So how did “peer review” miss that Hansen howler?


Typical of the misrepresentation in this effort to demonize Hansen (perhaps because he has the highest profile?) please note the “Science” paper: “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” is authored by  J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russel.

As for O’Sullivan claim, notice he share’s no details, we are left with his opinion.  The thing is many thousands of scientists, including a great many Defense Department scientists have collected and processed their data and have used it to enable satellite communications and heat seeking missiles and other modern marvels.

What O'Sullivan seems to find impossible to accept is that his own knowledge and brain-power has limitations. The scientific community is made up of highly intelligent competitive and critical individuals, that read and cross check each others works to a degree that O'Sullivan would never admit to, since he is peddling an idea: "nothing needs to be done, ignore the problem" rather than any interest in understanding what's going on with our global heat engine (read weather).

Here’s another good article at worth looking at, every bit as interesting as the article is the discussion afterwards.  Many different “skeptical” challenges are raised and it make for an interesting dialogue.  

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

¶19 ~ Flat Earth Physics Mixes Vectors with Scalars
But a bigger gaffe is Hansen’s claim that “Earth absorbs only 240Wm^2, averaged over the surface of the planet.” In this number fudge Hansen applied a bogus averaging technique to illuminate a flat Earth by a constant frigid twilight. As such he deliberately omits to account for the fact Earth is a rotating sphere subject to the constant heating and cooling effects of night and day.

¶20 ~ But is that a very big deal? You bet it is. That’s if you believe experts in thermodynamics (that branch of science specifically dealing with heat and energy transfer). Thermodynamics experts say it’s impossible to acquire anything meaningful by attempting to average the Sun’s irradiance. They say Hansen’s flat Earth physics can never work and there is no need to factor in any GHE to correctly calculate Earth’s energy input and output.

¶21 ~ One such independent scientist detailing the errors is Joseph E. Postma, an astrophysicist with the Canadian and Indian space agencies. [3.] Postma and his colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI)* demonstrate that the trick of making Earth a flat planet with 24 hours of weak and frigid sunlight is done to create what is called a blackbody radiation balance.

*Here I came upon a most interesting discovery.  Actually, I had come across the website before, but never paid it too much mind, besides shaking my head and moving on.  But now, considering that O'Sullivan is one of it's founders it's taken on a whole new interest.
Unfortunately, that will be another project and considering how long it's taken to get this one near being finished, we'll see.  Still, I know that Principia Scientific International will make for an interesting article indeed. 
As for the specific claims of O'Sullivan's "independent" Joseph E. Postma...  Click for a closer look how established experts in the field view Postma's arguments and evidence.

This is where scientific validity stops because advocates of Hansen’s failed science then go on to equate that blackbody radiation balance with the temperature found at the surface of the Earth, which is a scientifically ludicrous comparison. By crudely hammering down the geometry of Earth from a time-functioning rotating sphere into an immovable flat disk, Hansen acquired what is termed a “static equilibrium” for both temperature and energy balance on Earth. By doing this GHE theorists made our planet (impossibly) behave like a “superconducting” blackbody with a constant temperature.

¶22 ~ But as thermodynamics experts say, this is utterly wrong. Earth cannot be treated as a flat disk with a freezing cold Sun shining on it. Why, even common sense tells us that Earth has no average temperature. So, in this age of super-computers, why do climate scientists prefer to model with flat-earth physics?

¶23 ~ Critics believe GHE modelers did this to avoid factoring in the uncomfortable truth that radiation is not the only component in Earth’s heat equation. Quite the contrary, they say the processes of convection and conduction are huge forces at work whereby our oceans temper the extremes of hot and cold so we don’t suffer the full impact of the kind of night and day temperature extremes seen on our moon. Thanks to our “wet” planet we see not heat “trapping” but rather “temperature moderating” and Hansen has his models wrong all along.


O’Sullivan says he knows an “independent” scientist who’s convinced Hansen’s math is all wrong

O'Sullivan tosses around all sorts of impressive jargon about a highly technical topic.  Going on to, presume to judge an internationally accepted expert of the highest caliber regarding an aspect of the science none of us can comprehend without spending many years full time studying.  It’s bizarre... or should I say paranoid?

What happen to a touch of personal humility, dare I say realism?

I can hear O’Sullivan’s reaction to my above statement, he would imply that the whole freak’n climatological community is in on manipulating the data.  But, come on, please think about it, the complexity of that is beyond anyone's ability.  Could it be O'Sullivan and his community is blinded by it's own political passions?

Ready, an “independent self-proclaimed expert” cracked the code that exposed the entire “establishment climatological community” as frauds or dupes . 

O'Sullivan ignores the fact that it's Hansen’s science papers that have withstood the scrutiny, of hundreds, if not thousands, of critical scientific expert within his field.

Simply saying all the experts are frauds - because they tell a different story than what O'Sullivan and his few "independent scientists," dilettantes and cranks want to hear, seems a bit delusional with hint's of paranoia.

Unfortunately, that seems all that is left for folks like O'Sullivan a ruthless dedication to winning the "debate" no matter how manipulative or dishonest they need to get.  Has O'Sullivan no concern for the mess the wants to leave our kids?


¶24 ~ Junk Science – Bananas Added to Apples Equals Banapples
So where precisely did Hansen get it so wrong? Former NASA Apollo mission engineer Dr. Pierre R. Latour puts his finger on it: “Hansen subtracted a radiation temperature vector (it is an energy beam with direction) from a thermal temperature scalar (molecular kinetic energy intensity without direction), which are two different phenomena.” [4.]

¶25 ~ What this means in effect is that Hansen mixed the scientific equivalent of bananas with apples to make banapples. As such Hansen fatally subtracted a vector (banana) from a scalar (apple) – that you cannot do. Postma’s paper shows precisely how the “vector minus a scalar” gaffe is completely avoidable if Earth is modeled as it actually operates – as a rotating sphere (not Hansen’s flat disk) with actual energy input calculated for the variations of night and day.

¶26 ~ By modeling Earth in three-dimensions instead of Hansen’s flat disk planet Postma and his colleagues proved there was no need for Hansen to concoct an unfeasible extra 33°Celsius “greenhouse effect” to simulate Earth’s energy budget. As such, with no need for any GHE fudge factor, this in turn means that there is no scientific basis for attributing any global warming to carbon dioxide.
O’Sullivan and his pals, are spinning a web of fabrication, 

knowing that most people don’t understand enough about this topic to be able to recognize hot air from substance.  Only those willing to put in a little study time can hope to even understand what they’re talking about, let alone enough to base an informed judgement on. 

That’s why we have experts.  

What O’Sullivan is doing is as disingenuous as if I were to start critiquing how a brain surgeon goes about his task. 

If you want an introduction, here is a good place to start your search.


¶27 ~ With so many of these uncorrected Hansen “errors,” more than 50 former NASA specialists including Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 have come out to denounce such junk science. Cunningham laments, “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.” While Hansen’s former supervisor, Dr. John Theon, declared Hansen has “embarrassed NASA.”

It’s always interesting see where Marc Morano’s blog gets cited, since it’s a red flag. 
You know Marc “Swift Boat” Morano the extreme-right wing political operative - not climate scientist - the man who has no qualms about lying for his cause.

Swift Boating the Climate Scientistsby George Marshall
The coordinator of is Marc Morano, a libertarian right self publicist and former aid to the outspoken denier Senator Inhofe, who has been seeking to become a kingpin in the climate denial industry. Marc Morano is not new to this kind of dirty fighting. According to the investigative site Source Watch,  Morano, whilst working as a journalist for the right wing Cybercast News Service,  was the first source in May 2004 of the smear campaign against John Kerry that later became known the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Learn more by clicking those two links.

¶28 ~ Now that Nature has tacitly endorsed esteemed former Apollo legends and independent researchers in their quest against junk science, Hansen is likely to be further marginalized and will struggle to cling to his high office. Thus Velikovsky’s catastrophe theorists and their dubious post-normal methods will be supplanted by a new breed of scientists adhering to the traditional scientific method. Then policymakers and the general public will fully understand that our planet’s ever-changing climate is driven not by humans but by natural variability – as measured on a decadal or centennial scale.


A reminder this Nature article that O'Sullivan has spun into a "(tacit endorsement of) esteemed former Apollo legends and independent researchers in their quest against junk science..."
Was an article that was focused on Pharma research and had nothing to do with Hansen or climatological studies. It is another example of O'Sullivan's disconnect from actual events and studies.

Now would be a good moment to consider who's perspective Mother Nature is endorsing:

by JeffMasters,  June 24, 2011

by RickyRood, June 06, 2011

The Extreme Ice Survey -  5) Why Do Glaciers Matter?

by Rob Honeycutt, April 22, 2012 

"A Tour of the Cryosphere" Courtesy of NASA

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No comments: