From a press release, apparently the writer has no clue that the NASA GISS data is a derivative of the NOAA data, and thus the claim of “NASA and NOAA each independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures…” is untrue. They then go on to talk about “how much agreement there is”. Only government climate science could be this ridiculous. – Anthony
NASA, NOAA to announce 2012 global temperature, climate conditions JAN. 15
WASHINGTON — U.S. government climate experts will announce new data on global temperature and precipitation conditions in 2012 during a news teleconference at 2 p.m. EST Tuesday, Jan. 15. NASA and NOAA scientists will discuss the new results and the year’s most significant weather and climate events.
NASA and NOAA each independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures and changes based on historical observations over the land surface and oceans. Agreement between the two analyses, together with those produced by other countries, increases confidence in their accuracy. These analyses provide government, business and community leaders with critical data and information to make informed decisions.
The NASA and NOAA 2012 global temperature analyses will be issued in a news release one hour before the start of the teleconference.
Panelists for the teleconference include:
— James E. Hansen, director, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
— Thomas R. Karl, director, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C.
The briefing will be streamed live at:
For more information about NASA programs, visit:
-end-
Christopher Flaherty
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
NASA Headquarters
202 358 5239
Correction:
WASHINGTON — U.S. government climate activists will announce new data on global temperature and precipitation conditions in 2012 during a news teleconference at 2 p.m. EST Tuesday, Jan. 15. NASA and NOAA junk scientists will discuss their fabricated results and the year’s most significant weather and climate lies.
Maybe some friendly congress type can turn off the upcoming cold weather during the presentation?
(Ref: Hansen, Congress, 1988, aircon turned off – sorry, will go away now). 🙂
Climate events? Oh, right, they must mean like “Hurricane” Sandy. It’s the new, improved definition of climate.
‘will be issued in a news release one hour before the start of the teleconference.’
Why so close to the event , could it be that way people don’t get the time to have a good look at it so they can spot the BS it contains , BS which of course will never make the headlines once the ‘message of doom ‘ in the meeting has been spread far and wide.
Karl and Hansen are in the panel? It’s like hiring the fox to guard the hen house!
Mmm, I wonder what ‘other’ climate event is going on at the same time. Sounds like this a bit of an egofest (look at me, look at me, I have alarmist syndrome) designed to attract the attention of the paymasters ‘BigGov,’
At some point, these two people will have to pay for what they have done.
They are just postponing that day by adjusting the records once again.
It’s funny how the liberals become the conservatives, and the conservatives become the liberals in this climate debate. It seems the two sides are not that very different.
Liberals should be the ones who don’t accept a contrived consensus and who search for the truth even if it disagrees with their beliefs. They’re the ones who so often scorn the ‘old white men’ who presumably run the world. Yet their key leaders on this debate are old white men who purposely lie to them.
And when people disagree with these alarmists, they do everything they can to shun and bully the dissenter into silence, thus acting the same way as those who they’ve fought against on so many other social issues. For example, in the past couple years they’ve been especially sensitive to an ostensible increase in childhood bullying, yet they themselves happily become the bullies they hate, just to preserve their own set of beliefs. And then they pass this culture of bullying and intolerance onto their children.
Good take from Stan!
“The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming “studies”, which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.” -Stanislav Mishin, Pravda
Meanwhile we’re freezing to death out here.
“NASA and NOAA scientists will discuss the new results and the year’s most significant weather and climate events.”
It’s not hard to guess which significant weather events they will focus on, but I’m rather intrigued as to what the significant climate events could be. Anyone care to hazard a guess ?
Well, I was gonna put up a smart arse comment about how Hansen’s poor ol’ scenarios are looking. So I looked up the graph I made last year.
http://i41.tinypic.com/169i49d.jpg
Just to double check, looked at the update at Columbia
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.gif
OK, pretty close, but the last Station Data (red) point was a little higher on the Columbia plot. Alright, minor adjustments.
Then I checked the latest GiSTEMP data here for stations only.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
Anyone want to compare and contrast the annual average for the last decade or so (the J-D column) for the latest station data vs what Columbia was plotting up just last year?
Do you suppose I’m missing something?
(I know Lucia had a recent post on GISTEMP data, but my ISP is blocked for some reason over there.)
Most excellent as always, Elmer!
[Can’t see your breath, tho… ☺]
Skunkpew:
Liberals think that all that stands between the middle-class and slavery to capitalistic over-lords, is a benefical government. They believe that the government taxes, to pool money and spend it in ways more beneficial to society, than you would be able to do on your own. Liberals believe free-markets are unfair, and result in income inequality. Free-markets need to be heavily regulated, and incentivized, to result in re-distributing the assests of successful products and services, to those that are less able to compete.
Conservatives believe that the role of government is to protect us from foreign aggression. Other than that, most government programs are full of patranage and political paybacks to groups that support political campaigns, in return for feeding at the public trough. Conservatives believe that free-markets are the driving force in efficency and progress, and that products and services that are not cost-effective should not be subsidized by public funds. They also believe, when there is more government intrusion into markets, they become more distorted, and hence less efficient.
Conservatives are not fond of spending money on a “government aristocracy” that does not have to meet a bottom line, to customers, and stock-holders.
So, you can see how their views on the role of govenment, in protecting us from the scourge of climate change, is in line with their view of society in general.
Time was when such peddlers of snake oil would be tarred and feathered and/or run out’a town on a rail.
But that was pre-post-sentient time.
It makes you start to think about CO2 differently. Like just on the chance that it really might be as good a climate security blanket as it is made out to be maybe we should do whatever, pay whatever, to purge it out of the late Holocene atmosphere.
That might be the only insurance we can buy relative to the eventual ice age (which is due about now), ~90kyrs of which just might be the trick to purge our gene pool of those who can come to exactly the wrong conclusions.
Not that I am all that keen to pay to have the genetic trash hauled away, but I do have to pay to get all my other anthropogenic trash hauled away. Then we could say “it was just nature”.
Just sayin…..
Temperature here (southern NB) has been above freezing for the past couple of days and nights. Friday morning (overnight) it is supposed to drop to minus 25°C / -13°F. Not looking forward!
IanM
Stratospheric Warming Event currently occurring. In a few days, only hours, the temperatures up in the Stratosphere above the pole have shot up from “the lowest ever recorded” to the “highest ever recorded.”
In this case warmth does not bode well for Alarmists, for such Stratospheric Warming Events often occur just before amazing arctic outbreaks. Rather than the wolves of winter being hemmed in up at the pole by a nice, round, “zonal” jet stream that circles the pole in a tidy manner, the jet stream develops fabulous southward loops, sometimes splitting the tidy round vortex around the pole into a dumbbell shape, and then into two separate vortexes that wander south, bringing the wolves of winter to climes far from the pole.
I agree with the commenter above that it would be a sort of poetic justice if one such arctic vortex hovered right above Hansen. After all, he allowed the hallowed halls of Congress to overheat, by having the windows left open (which defeated the purpose of air conditioning) back when he first proclaimed The Planet Has A Fever back in the 1980’s. Now let the tables be turned, but not by political flunkies, but rather by the Planet.
Of course, with all the arctic air pouring south, it won’t be so cold up at the North Pole. Only thirty below zero rather than fifty below. However, if people are freezing in Washington DC, they won’t care a witch’s titmouse that it is “only” thirty below at the North Pole.
Maybe they could have a chat to Ophra and use the event to come clean like lance.
“It’s funny how the liberals become the conservatives, and the conservatives become the liberals in this climate debate.”
As a longstanding atheist, it’s fascinating to me to see how many atheists are firmly on the AGW side; yet the arguments used by warmists for AGW are very similar in many ways to the arguments used by theists against atheism. Having learnt to counter these in one situation doesn’t appear to help when the same tired old nonsense is brought out in a different debate.
This is the equivalent of the Green clad folk undertaking defibrillation in response to flat lining temperatures.
What am I say saying – ‘equivalent’ – this is Green clad folk doing defibrillation!
The only thing that’s worse than we thought is the stupidity of folks who keep saying it’s worse than we thought.
Tom Karl is one heavily compromised man, a WUWT commenter posted a link to a 1989 Statistics paper co-authored by Tom Karl, stating they could find no significant warming in the temperature data base, but soon afterwards, Karl was claiming unprecedented warming from the same data.
To me thats evidence.
I have the papers name here somewhere will dig.
What… do we have to watch a rerun of Dumb and Dumber?
to bad its not the three stooges….
How can there be a climate event in any particular year? Volcano?
Some examples of climate events:
7,000 – 3,000 BC Holocene climatic optimum
250 BC – 400 AD Roman Warm Period
900 – 1300 Medieval warm period
Meanwhile, in Oz, our ‘balanced reporting’ ABC are interviewing the likes of Rajendra Pachauri regarding the forthcoming adventure story, AR5. It was interesting that the ‘reporter’ asked for his opinions ‘as a climate scientist’ and RP said nothing to correct her misconception of his qualifications (I was expecting at least a “choo, choo, puff, puff, I am a railway engineer”).
The same ABC is speaking to our government funded CSIRO about the ‘record’ temps in Sydney without any reference to the likes of WUWT’s recent article “Global Warming?……. It was warmer in Sydney in 1790”.
‘Our ABC’ continues to show its bias for cAGW.
Mikey must be busy
cn
Tom Karl did science once.
Geophysical Research Letters Vol.16 NO.1 Pages 49-52; January 1989
Are Atmospheric Greenhouse effects apparent in the climate record of the contiguous USA ?
(1895-1987)
Hat tip to Neil Jordan at 11:59 WUWT NOAA SOTC for December 2012 2013/01/08.
Seems Thomas Karl was actually using data back then.
Caleb says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Stratospheric Warming Event currently occurring. In a few days, only hours, the temperatures up in the Stratosphere above the pole have shot up from “the lowest ever recorded” to the “highest ever recorded.”
Good pick up but I would be skeptical about asigning yet another short term weather temperature record to AGW, were I you. It is just as well that the sea ice extent and volume situation in the Arctic is absolutely normal.
OTOH, when you get three or four record hot temps for every record cold temp then you might want to start wondering why.
John Trigge (in Oz) says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:46 pm
Meanwhile, in Oz, our ‘balanced reporting’ ABC are interviewing the likes of Rajendra Pachauri regarding the forthcoming adventure story, AR5. It was interesting that the ‘reporter’ asked for his opinions ‘as a climate scientist’ and RP said nothing to correct her misconception of his qualifications (I was expecting at least a “choo, choo, puff, puff, I am a railway engineer”).
The same ABC is speaking to our government funded CSIRO about the ‘record’ temps in Sydney without any reference to the likes of WUWT’s recent article “Global Warming?……. It was warmer in Sydney in 1790″.
‘Our ABC’ continues to show its bias for cAGW.
Hi Aussie John Trigge!
It must be a coincidence because I was just feeling a mite skeptical about an article in today’s ‘The Australian’ newspaper with the headline, ‘Sea Rise Not Linked to Warming’. Somewhere or other in the article it appears to claim that sea level rise rates are static over some period or other. Fairly black and white stuff. Now here is the bit about why it is good to be skeptical about this sort of arrant rubbish: the author of the scientific article has been interviewed subsequently. He is quite specific: the study does link sea level rises to anthropogenic activity. He does state that sea level rise rates are increasing.
Now, it is fine to question the science behind the scientific report. Everyone should take, as a starting point, a skeptical stance. But lying about what was in a scientific article? That is a whole nuther thing entirely.
For those interested, ‘The Australian’ has a rich tradition of mis-reporting and mis-representing AGW science. It even managed to inform its readers that the behaviour of glaciers is ‘illogical’. You can see why it pays to be skeptical when reading anything in The Australian about AGW.
Climate Ace says:
January 14, 2013 at 10:17 pm
Climate Ace showing his trollish ignorance again.
I wonder if anyone will ask them why every global climate model failed to project the lack of global warming over the last 2 decades and the UK Met Office quietly dropping their old projections on Christmas Eve in favour of ones which show no warming? How can global warming be responsible for an increase in more extreme weather events, when there has been no global warming? Nor any increase in extreme weather events either?
Bill H says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm
What… do we have to watch a rerun of Dumb and Dumber?
to bad its not the three stooges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Al Gore just took the money and ran, I guess he is Mo.
UK Met Office needs to upgrade to some seaweed, a piece of string and a thin stick and they will get a more accurate result than our UK Tax Payers Indulgence of Millions of Pounds Sterling for a new, faster computer that so far has proved the Met Office standard Garbage in – Garbage out rule.
Related to the event: An open letter under the auspices of the Soviet-front Bulletin of Atomic “Scientists”. The usual Doomsday-clock crap, signed by all the usual Gaian wackos.
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/open-letter-to-president-obama-the-time-the-doomsday-clock-five-minutes-to-midn
From a press release, apparently the writer has no clue that the NASA GISS data is a derivative of the NOAA data, and thus the claim of “NASA and NOAA each independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures…” is untrue.
———–
Well does that mean they use the same raw data and process it differently. If so that would validate the analysis techniques but not exclude non-compensatable problems in the raw data itself.
“Hansen and Karl to put on a “worse than we thought” event…”
Two highly paid (six figure salaries each) government managers advocating for additional funding for their respective enterprises…bet they’re going to say something truly original and not in keeping with the global warming industry/establishment…yup…[yawn]
If things started out as bad as claimed, and the only thing we ever find is that it’s worse than we thought, why aren’t we all dead yet?
Another example of the absolute BS that is being published. Its a whole publishing industry now: “climate Biology”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401711003839
****
Caleb says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Rather than the wolves of winter being hemmed in up at the pole by a nice, round, “zonal” jet stream that circles the pole in a tidy manner, the jet stream develops fabulous southward loops, sometimes splitting the tidy round vortex around the pole into a dumbbell shape, and then into two separate vortexes that wander south, bringing the wolves of winter to climes far from the pole.
****
Jan/Feb 1994 the polar vortex moved south to the eastern Great Lakes & produced record low temps there & southward. The power grid in the east US was at the breaking point. We don’t want a repeat…
Regarding my comment above at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/hansen-and-karl-to-put-on-a-worse-than-we-thought-event/#comment-1198343
Looks like GISS has once again altered their data and the Station data now show only the “normal GISS upward adjustment”. When I posted the link two days ago, most recent temperatures were as much as 0.1 degree higher than shown on the Columbia graph. Now they are only about 0.03-0.05 higher (I’ll refrain from referring to the clever embezzler who only pilfers enough to not set off alarm bells.)
Still, the Columbia graph shows only 4 station points at 0,75 deg or above while the new data show ten points at 0.75 or above.
Looks like the land/ocean values are a tad higher too.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Give Hansen a few more years and he’ll get up to Scenario B yet.