Monday, 22 July 2013

James Hansen's deviation from science and subsequent protection from exposure

I wish a journalist qualified in physics would take this up, but as six years on it's only been torn apart a couple of times online I thought I'd have a go while waiting the million years or so for someone better qualified than me to expose it in an actual newspaper.

Now this little graph ought to destroy James Hansen's reputation and entire career, but while it remains on the system like a little canine present under the chair, it is like a ticking grenade just waiting to explode. The reason I would prefer someone qualified to come to my aid is I am only able to draw on the rough memory of Newton's laws from school to explain this breach of everything science represents, but can guarantee that is sufficient to show what he has done, and far more importantly (as any individual, however highly qualified, is free to publish nonsense) the fact not one of his peers (who would all quote the exact rule and reason for its falsehood in moments) has done so.

In order for this graph to work, it appears to require the diversion from various givens in physics, notably uniform evaporation and melting. If you watch a puddle after the rain the sun evaporates it steadily. If you watch the snow and ice after the sun comes out it melts steadily, admittedly with a few twists and turns such as the initial delay when overcoming the latent heat required to begin the melting process (or whatever, I only have O level sciences) but then melts steadily, and there is no force I am aware of which can change this.

Hansen has presented a further reason, how the pause in warming can be explained by yet another newly created law of physics, the deep ocean storage theory, which unlike the sudden melting has been accepted by the majority of his peers (even though, like me, they haven't a clue how it works, mainly as it doesn't), which could then be extended to say that when the (unmeasurable) depths release the heat it could be sudden, which would cover his graph perfectly.

This is where I am left behind, as although this clearly breaks every one of Newton's laws somehow, I can't apply them, so if anyone qualified to do it can intervene then this piece can be completed properly. But it's still nonsense even if I can't explain exactly how.