Many readers here marvel at the scope of adjustments that NASA GISS performs on weather station data.
Along those lines, Michelle at Read N Say points out something interesting in Jim Hansen’s NASA page.
Below is an excerpt from her post:
This is his background copied from the official NASA GISS web page:
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.
One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.
I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.
He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.
The above in italics is from Michelle’s post.
In Hansen’s defense, perhaps what he meant was something along the lines of trying to extract useful information from a noisy signal.
On the other hand, with a plethora of issues with GISS data, including adjustments to pristine data, failing to catch obviously corrupted data, significant errors in splicing and reporting pointed out by bloggers, and pronouncements from the man himself that such people are “jesters” and that vandals in England should be defended and energy company executives should be put on trial, one wonders if Hansen really wasn’t just speaking his mind.
Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
UPDATE 1/26 Lucia at The Blackboard wrote to Jim Hansen to get his take on it. Surprisingly, he emailed back.
Lucia,
This sentence refers to satellite measurements. You could look at the report “Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks”, which is available from my office — but you could also find several papers that I wrote in the early 1990s if you go to www.giss.nasa.gov, then Publications, Authors, my name.
Jim Hansen
But now a new question arises. Why doesn’t then GISS embrace satellite measurements?
I observed during my career that many successful “leaders” were in fact sociopaths. They had no qualms or guilt whether they destroyed people who got in their way or altered facts and rewrote history to justify their personal agendas.
If they are extremely good at their art, they can continue accumulate and wield power for very long periods of time, even well after a majority of people have caught on. In fact, they usually have to do something extremely stupid or fall victim to an extraordinarily bad event during their watch before anyone within the power structure will dare to call them out. However, once others are of the opinion that their power has diminished and they are no longer threatening, there is a massive piling-on effect as a large number of individuals seek personal retribution for past abuses.
It is quite an amazing process to watch, particularly when you are not stuck in the middle.
“”” Mike Jonas (17:53:50) :
>>my deletions<<
George E. Smith (12:31:54) : “the air temperature increases were only about 60% of the water temperature increases”
Is it unreasonable to suppose that in the short term, air temperatures are affected by all sorts of factors, because of the way that stuff is sloshing around all over the planet, but that in the long term air temperatures are driven by ocean temperatures? Note that oceans are a far larger heat body than the atmosphere, so are the place to look (after radiation from/into space) to confirm the Earth’s heat budget. Certainly air temperatures changing less than ocean temperatures would be consistent with that idea, but possibly be inconsistent with the idea that temperature changes start in the atmosphere (greenhouse theory). """
Mike I think you completely missed the point.
1/ The end result of the network of "temperature stations", those things Anthony has been showing us; is to monitor and report on the AIR TEMPERATURE, at some fixed height (60 inches or whatever) above the surface; not to monitor the SURFACE temperatures.
2/ For much of the last 150 years, this process was carried out for the 73% of the surface that is oceans by measuring THE WATER TEMPERATURE; and it started by tossing a bucket over the side, to collect a sample of water from some completely uncrontrolled depth, and measuring its temperature with a thermometer on deck with the wind blowing and water evaporating from the bucket. Apparently around 1929, this practice was somewhat replaced by picking up the water from the cooling system intake, once again taking water from some depth that varies from ship to ship, and the thremometer was moved generally to the engine room, which typically is a quite hot place on a ship.
3/ The water temperature thus measured, was taken as a proxy for the near surface AIR TEMPERATURE; it was taken as gospel that most of the time they were the same. I’m not concerned with whether air or ocean temperatures govern climate changes; the point is what GISStemp purports to monitor is the lower tropospheric temperature; not the ocean water temperature.
4/ for the period those buoy results were gathered, there was some warming, but the data shows that the MEASURED air warming, was about 60% of the MEASURED water warming; for those years, and those buoy locations; so the reported mean global lower tropospheric temperatrure had an upward error bias, because they measured the water and not the air over the ocean.
5/ The important result for posterity, was that the measured water temperature and the measured air temperature, at the same time and location ARE NOT CORRELATED.
6/ That means that the TRUE historic valiues for all those oceanic temperature measurements, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE from the recorded WATER temperatures.
Ergo, the entire global temperature record prior to about 1979/1980 is bogus/garbage/rubish/useless nonsense.
That is the point; not whether the oceans are the drivers of climate or the atmosphere; but that if you want to measure the temperature of something; stick the thermometer in the thing you want to measure the temperature of; do not stick it somewhere else; and infer some relationship between that and what you are really trying to measure.
Isn’t that exactly the problem that Anthony has beens howing us with these esoteric installations that purport to feed raw information into Hansen’s AlGorythm; that he uses to create his mayhem.
George
David Corcoran (09:17:23) :
Simon Evans,
No-one has demonstrated that the satellite data is adjusted in such a way to show a smooth trend up or down. But the blink comparator in the article above is damning of GISSs adjustments to the historical record.
Are you aware of the extent of USHCN adjustments, the data provider upon which GISS analysis is based? Are you aware that, in its refinement of USHCN, GISS reduces the USHCN warming trend? And that GISS applies a greater negative correction for urban warming than USHCN? Given that, why are you damning GISS rather than USHCN?
Even if these adjustments were all GISS’s rather than USHCN’s, why would that be ‘damning’? If they had only applied corrections for urban warming with the result of reducing the warming trend analysis, would that be damning? I don’t think you would be saying so! As it is, corrections are also applied to remove time of observation bias, station history bias, bias in instrumentation changes. The net result of all adjustments has been ‘positive’ in the US, with a miniscule effect upon the global record (time of observation bias, for example, is not corrected globally). The analysis sets out to remove biases, not to introduce them.
It reminds me of the “throbbing” memo, that fake National Guard memo that Dan Rather produced just before the 2004 US presidential election. I saw that the use of Microsoft Word style kerning in 1972, the conclusion of deliberate fraud was obvious. I used to work in printing.
How does it remind you of any such thing? GISS is open in describing what is done and the effects of such adjustment – see links in my last post here.
GISS tracks higher than Hadley or RSS last I checked, and is typically the highest of the four. And RSS tracks much more closely with UAH than with GISS.
Did you look at my link? Here it is again: http://preview.tinyurl.com/dzp3n6. Your statement is not supported by the evidence. As you can see, UAH is the most divergent trend over the period.
HadCRUT is still lower than GISS, but I’ll have to analyze Hadley’s record against GISS before saying more.
If you do so, please consider the whole temperature record (and, of course, take account of their different baselines). You will see that HadCRUT shows slightly more warming than GISS since 1880. They diverge one way or another at various times, which is unsurprising since they don’t have quite the same coverage (and GISS, for further example, employs satellite measurements in deriving its sea surface temperatures). GISS will report a higher anomaly figure, but that is because their baselines are different (HADCRUT3 Jan 1961 – Dec 1990 (30 years) GISTEMP Jan 1951 – Dec 1980 (30 years)). If your baseline is a decade later in a warming period then your anomaly readings will inevitably be lower.
The evidence that GISS is not biased warm against HadCRUT is thus there to be seen. Here are the trend lines, from WFT again, offset to an 1880 base:
http://tinyurl.com/c9v52t
In the face of such evidence to the contrary, how can you assert fraud?
Whilst I’ve been writing this, I see that Smokey has posted a link to a cherry-picked 11-year trend (that’s an interesting choice of timescale, don’t you think?). Here is another cherry-picked 11-year linear trend comparison which shows exactly the opposite – GISS is a ‘cooler’ trend than all the others, including UAH! –
http://tinyurl.com/a9kzjc
Whenever someone’s cherry-picking I’d advise some scepticism, an attitude that many here seem to claim as a description for themselves without showing much evidence of applying it.
Hansen’s work at GISS is tax-payer funded and everything should be available to the public. Notes, emails, raw data, adjustments to data, source code for the models, etc., etc., that doesn’t have any national security implications.
Anybody up for a Freedom of Information Act request?
Hansen is writing Gores hymn sheet, the point that all are missing is our new President going to become a member of the choir? I think that no matter which end of the thermometer you read from we are going to be in for some very frosty times.
——————————————————————————–
Perform your original search, how much more rain will global warming bring, in Science Search
Originally published in Science Express on 31 May 2007
Science 13 July 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5835, pp. 233 – 235
DOI: 10.1126/science.1140746
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Frank J. Wentz,* Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn, Carl Mears
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.
Remote Sensing Systems, 438 First Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, USA.
I see that in the paper itself; it does say that the 1-3% precipitation predicted by the models applies to evap too.
My apologies to GCM; which I guess still gets &% more water from 1% more evaporation (or 3% depending on which bias you want to choose); That would have to imply that it takes from 2 /13 to seven times longer for the change to take place.
But still the models can’t model evaporation better than a factor of 2 1/3 to 7 from reality. That’s really great physics. They apparently don’t model clouds very well either.
When they can get both of those things right, I’ll start paying attention to them; well of course by then; the things they will be predicting will likely be quite different as well, and may also agree with reality; namely that nothing much of any consequence is happening.
George
PS. I read one paper from England (modelling) where they doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (on their Playstation of course), and clouds evaporated, which would let more sunlight in and lower albedo; hence positive feedback global warming. There was one problem though; they copmpletely short circuited the feedback circuit; so the surface temperature didn’t change one atto K while they doubled the CO2.
It’s not nice to make up your own physical laws.
George
[snip]
REPLY: Please don’t use that word. – Anthony
Anthony, understood.
Simon Evans (10:36:48):
I tend to use the charts at Junkscience.com, I like looking at less-smoothed data when comparing datasets.
I’ll analyze the HadCRUT vs. GISS data you suggest… I can’t get to it ’til later.
Individuals like Hansen have always existed in our form of government, and always will. Using a position of power and high profile to make money/advocate for one’s own beliefs is nothing new. Gore is a master at the technique.
What’s new in this day and age is the power of the media to influence masses of gullible people with prounouncements of doom that can’t be easily refuted. It’s a perfect story, as far as the editors are concerned. Running headlines with a prediction of disaster far in the future is a wonderful way to get attention and to sell whatever they are selling. By the time any legitimate refutation of the story of looming doom can occur, they probably won’t be around.
The bright spot in the picture, however, is that there are still a few folks around who have, and use, common sense. They don’t buy the ‘scientists have the answer to everything and can’t ever be wrong’ brainwashing we’ve all been subjected to in the last couple of decades. And they have a way to make their veiws known, as this blog demonstrates. Thanks to Anthony for bringing a little corner of sanity to the current ‘run for the hills, the sky is falling’ syndrome that many of the world’s governments seem to be suffering from.
I recommend that all claimants to the title ‘climate scientist’ have their offices relocated to the great outdoors, so they can experience the climate personally. Maybe it will then become more obvious to them what’s really going on.
an opinion of a non scientific observer
mr hansen is probably more innocuous than we are imagining . Is not he putting up a show like Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas ? Easy to listen to and distracting the crowd from the noise in the background ? In his own mindset he is not beyond reasonable doubt , but more likely above reasonable doubt . A highly questionable performance at his level . Or did he make up the figures deliberately and on purpose ? In both cases we should wish him well ……
George E. Smith — re chemistry.
While I am no Ph.D. chemist, I do have a degree in chemical engineering, from a rather good university. I believe I understand battery chemistry well enough to follow the research.
I am always amused when people say that certain things cannot be done. I am a firm believer in some limits, such as thermodynamics. It is pretty tough to violate Law Number 2.
But some statements just make me laugh, for example: “What goes up, must come down.” — Nope, rockets send objects up and out of Earth’s gravity well — some forever.
“Water always runs downhill.” — Nope, consider a tsunami. Then consider a syphon, like the one that brings water from the Colorado river to Los Angeles; it has several segments where water flows uphill.
“No person could ever have a use for a computer.”
“A thrown baseball cannot curve.” See Sandy Koufax on that one.
“Dunking a basketball is impossible.” See e.g. Dr. J, Michael Jordan, etc.
“We are running out of oil.”
“We are running out of water.”
“We are using up the earth’s mineral resources.” — Nope, just changing them to different forms. All the iron that was ever mined is still around, with some of it perhaps a bit more diffuse as rust. But the iron atoms did not run away.
“Using energy is a bad thing for humanity.” Ummm…is there anybody who actually believes that?
“We can control the Earth’s climate change by reducing man-made greenhouse gases.”
“An electric car is impractical and will never work.”
Roger E. Sowell
There are two satellites on the horizon that will hopefully take some of the guess work out of future measurements. This is a little off topic and may merit further discussion on its own.
Orbiting Carbon Observatory – is scheduled to launch February 23, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite GOSAT (or Ibuki which means “breath” in Japanese) actually launched on January 23, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases_Observing_Satellite
David Corcoran (11:32:46) :
I tend to use the charts at Junkscience.com, I like looking at less-smoothed data when comparing datasets.
I’ll analyze the HadCRUT vs. GISS data you suggest… I can’t get to it ’til later.
Fair enough. Obviously one can’t get more ‘smoothed’ than linear trends! I think they’re appropriate, though, to refute the false assertion that GISS has ‘outwarmed’ Hadley over the period of record.
There is no question that GISS (or Hadley, or RSS, or whatever) will show more warming over cherry-picked periods. That is inevitable, given that they’re assessing different things in different ways. There’s also no question, as demonstrated, that one can cherry-pick other periods to show the contrary. If there is a bias in any of the records then it would be systematic and thus sustained. The first suspect for that, on the basis of simply considering correlation over their whole record periods, would be UAH, though in saying that I am not asserting that they are humanly biased. UAH is the most consistently divergent record, however – there can be no intelligent quarrel with that statement.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of GISS being subject to the bias of human inclination. The corrections that have been made are extensively explained and analysed, the outcome of those corrections is trivial in terms of global record and the outcome of that record is in fact somewhat ‘cooler’ than HadCRUT over the full period.
If the outcome of the ‘surface stations project’ was to establish that a warming bias existed in the records (which I think highly unlikely, but never mind that), would you think it then appropriate to remove that bias? That is, would you think that corrections should be made following an Anthony Watts analysis revealing that the record was ‘over-reading’ warming? If you say ‘no’ then I guess that’s fair enough – you don’t want any reanalysis of the records with the intent of recognising and correcting for bias. If you say ‘yes’, however, then how on earth do you distinguish your accusation of fraud against Hansen from an approval of bias analysis promoted by others (and in passing, there has, of course, been no analysis as yet from AW in respect of the surface stations project).
Present some evidence of Hansen distorting the records rather than removing biases and you might have a case. Until you do, you and all those others here are just repeating articles of faith, it seems to me.
“” G Alston (10:01:43) :
Philip McDaniel —
To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science.
That humans are changing their environment is fact. “”
I believe that. Well Heisenberg teaches us that we cannot even observe the state of a single particle, without changing that state. And I also understand how those unpredictable changes occur. I have some nice properly functioning yellow LED lamps that simply would not work unless Heisenberg was correct, so I believe it.
Ergo; we cannot even take a photograph of the environment without changing it; so yes man alters the climate. Everything on earth has an influence on climate; and lots of other things that aren’t on earth. I think Heisenberg also teaches us that by observing, we change things in ways that are quite unpredictable.
Yet we still try to predict the outcome of the effect of our existence on climate. But most of what has been predicted to date, has not actually happened as it was predicted.
Right now, we don’t even seem to be able to observe the changes in climate; well at least we seem to change the results of those observations whenever we feel like it.
I would suggest that we need to be able to predict the past (that we can test), before we attempt to predict the future.
I’m not in favor of putting any shackles on what Dr James Hansen does or says.
But yesterday, I heard one of our local California politicians say that the polar ice was melting and would all be gone in a few years.
Now he belongs in an asylum for the criminally insane; because the scientific media have been reporting the fact that that is untrue for quite a number of years, and if the guy just read something each day, he would know his statement is a bald faced lie.
“” G Alston (10:07:02) :
George E. Smith — “There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space.”
Gasoline is nothing more than energy storage. It is reasonably safe when treated properly. I think modern automotive infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, fuel trucks, etc.) is testament to that. I’m thinking gasoline at this point seems far safer than any sort of exotic battery as a storage medium.
IMHO of course. 🙂 “”
Well I would not recommend that you try carrying any of that safe gasoline on board an aircraft; not even the three ounces of liquids you are allowed to carry aboard.
And I hope Roger is investing heavily in those new super batteries from Texas. If there’s one thing I like, it is people getting rich doing good things; filthy rich even. Please don’t ask me to subsidize the development of those texas batteries; if they are as good as you say they are; they won’t need any help from the taxpayers.
Now I didn’t say such things are impossible; if you read what I said Roger; I believe I said “they don’t exist”. Now you’re a lawyer; you can tell the difference between “they don’t exist” and “it can’t be done”.
I try to say what I mean, and if I get it wrong, I apologize.
But whether it is the angular momentum of a flywheel, or the stored chemical energy in TNT, or the more controllable energy of diesel fuel or some Lithium batteries; when you get lots of it in a small space it is dangerous, and often quite obnoxious too.
And what is going to be the environmental consequences of minig all that Lithium to make those batteries; or whatever other molecular species you have in mind.
Lithium and Fluorine ought to make a humdinger of a battery; or maybe a Lithium Astatine battery. Hopefully it will be some sort of rechargeable battery chemistry.
At over $100k per copy, the Tesla is about one order of magnitude out of my price range; nice gadget for the silicon valley geeks though; they like gadgets.
A further thought on the Wentz et al paper, and the GCMs.
Wentz observations: global evaporation rate, total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation rate increase at 7%K^-1.
GCM model predictions: global evaporation rate, and total global precipitation rate increase at 1-3%K^-1, and total atmospheric water content increase at 7%K^-1.
Now evaporation is a function of the molecular kinetics of the liquid, so it depends on the surface temperature, which is what the satellite measurments observed (surface warming is what the paper said).
Total atmospheric water content depends on the temperature of the atmosphere; not on the temperature of the liquid.
To me it seems a little weird that the atmosphere is able to suck up water faster than the surface is able to supply it.
The paper, appears to give no information as to the observed temperature of the atmosphere, or the GCM predictions of what that would be.
Seems to be some sort of regenerative process going on here if a 1% increase in evaporation rate, results in a 7% increase in the total water in the atmosphere. That also seems to say, that the atmosphere is in no hurry to precipitate all that extra moisture out bia cloud formation.
Yes I know I’m assuming that clouds form before precipitation happens.
Still sounds like a weird model result to me. It also suggests that the positive feedback gain of H2O in the atmosphere is large, unless the water absorption is so saturated that alot more water doesn’t give much surface temperature increase.
Would have been nice if Wentz et al had but a complete statement of the results in their abstract. the abstract says nothing about GCM model evaporation data.
Simon and George. Both of your last comments have been deleted, try not to antagonize each other. Please Take a rest – I have better things to do than moderate arguments. – Anthony
Ok, Anthony. I genuinely wanted to know what George meant, but never mind then :-).
I was listening to one of my Great Courses lectures from the The Teaching Company and heard this:
Particle Physics for Non-Physicists.
Professor Steven Pollock University of Colorado at Boulder
“To physicists, when a theory is well established, it doesn’t mean you quit thinking about it. In fact, physicists are the most skeptical, cynical and aggressively
challenging conservatives that you can imagine. If you say a theory is out there and it is correct, all the experimentalists want to do is prove you wrong, and they
are working really hard to try to find some data that will prove you wrong.
Of course, in the process, if they keep agreeing with the theory, it just stronger and stronger and stronger evidence that in fact the theory really is correct.”
That is the true scientific mind.
I think Dr. Hansen should return to the fold, act like a true scientist, and no longer make statements like the science is settled and that people should be incarcerated when they disagree with him.
George E. Smith,
I would quibble over “does not exist” and “it can’t be done.” Existence has many forms, from lab bench to demonstration prototype to commercially available.
As I am no expert in battery research, I must rely on information received from others. A common malady, I might add! Therefore, I turned up an interesting comparison of theoretical limits on chemical battery technologies, site shown below.
Per that book, from 2002, Li-ion has a 320 Wh/kg limit, and the Al-S (aluminum-sulfur) has a 910 Wh/kg limit. For comparison, the lead-acid battery is limited to 170 Wh/kg.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10595&page=23
As to taxpayer dollars for the graphene research, the Science Daily site has this to say: “Funding and support was provided by the Texas Nanotechnology Research Superiority Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin and a Korea Research Foundation Grant for fellowship support for Dr. Park.”
From another site, “The Texas Nanoelectronics Research Superiority Initiative, … is a joint venture between the State of Texas Emerging Technology Fund, The University of Texas System, UT Dallas, UT Austin, UT Arlington and private industry to make Texas a leader in nanoelectronics research.”
http://ecs.utdallas.edu/newsandevents/Chabal.html
So, since the Universities involved are public universities, there are likely some tax dollars involved, not to mention the State of Texas.
IMHO, it is far better to spend tax dollars on things like nanotech for vehicle batteries than some other things I could name. But, I would likely get the SNIP for that, so I won’t.
Besides, President Obama just today signed another executive order allowing the states to make their own rules for vehicle mileage standards. Improved batteries will be one means to achieve those new standards.
And for disclosure, I do have a modest investment in a battery company stock, Ener1 ticker HEV.
As to the $100,000 Tesla electric, no need to pay that much. The Electric Vehicle Association has many members, and they likely do not pay nearly that much for an EV. One guy’s car was featured recently in the Los Angeles Times; it was a Porsche 914 modified for electric only.
http://www.eaaev.org/
Folks, let us all get back on topic please.
I could post something here that would get me censored, and quite rightly so, by the moderators because we cannot attribute to intention that which is quite explicable by folly.
Smokey (09:46:50) :
“…if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others…”
“As we see, GISS diverges significantly from the others: click”
Smokey,
I think it is perfectly clear what is happening.
The AGW Doctrine has it’s servants backed by huge funding.
As time goes by and their mission is almost accomplished they become sloppy.
Hanson’s open support to the Greenpeace members that demolished a coal plant in Britain provides a perfect example that he is backed by establishment.
Hanson clearly has become “carte blance” to support the AGW doctrine with all means available and he is rewarded for his efforts.
In the mean time he has lost his integrity as a scientist.
Something of interest to the ‘followers’ of Dr James Hansen is his appearance on :”Supreme Master TV” a world wide satellite network.
Particularly this link:
http://tinyurl.com/82b8xr
One of a few interviews with Dr Hansen.
If you browse around you will also find Australia’s Dr Barry Brook amongst others.
From the looks of Supreme Master TV, it appears that these broadcasts are for remote areas, to people that possibly have very little schooling and and no understanding of basic science. There is also a lot of reinforcing of the dialogue by drastic event graphics.
Ron de Haan (15:57:37) :
Hanson’s open support to the Greenpeace members that demolished a coal plant in Britain provides a perfect example that he is backed by establishment.
ROTFLMAO! They painted “Gordon” on the side of a chimney, but you have transmuted this into demolishing a coal plant!
Honestly, how ridiculously detached from the truth can the anti-Hansen smears become?
My apologies Anthony. I thought my comment was written in plain English; that didn’t need any expansion; which is why I declined to comment further since it was generally off topic anyway, and I had no idea in what way Simon wanted further elaboration.
Folks here might be curious to know that Susan solomon of NOAA Colorado, is now projecting the climate for 3000 AD, a full 1000 years from now.
So Hansen is not alone in making claims that seem off the wall.
What I see strange about Hansen’s GISS temp, is why he keeps a graph with only a five year running average; why not simply average all the previous data,a dn the new annual number, and give us a new average number for GISStemp anomaly. The way he does it implies that the way he gets from one data point to the next is meaningful.
I still maintain that “Climate” is the integral of “weather”, and not the average of weather.
George
REPLY: I just want to head off clashes that result in extra work for myself. Economic times have reduced what used to be a mderator staff of 5 to two people, one of whom is me. The volume of comments is large, and keeping fights from breaking out pays me back in time saved. – Anthony