Guest post by Ryan Maue
Green journalists and partisan bloggers are baffled about the lack of sufficient coverage of the “2010 hottest year ever” — and utter failure to ram through climate legislation in the 111th Congress. After scratching your head in amazement at the conundrum these journalists find themselves, something about pots, kettles, and a mirror comes to mind.
Here is a sample of headlines from the green media establishment:
Huffington Post: 2010 Hottest Year on Record: The graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper
The Hill: Frustration on global warming deepens for supporters of climate change bill
Guardian UK (warning Bob Ward, palaeopiezometry): Why have UK Media ignored climate change announcements?
I’ll give you a very easy answer: it’s winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and so far, it’s been historically cold. And, the media should be more wary about using such vitriolic language like “denier” considering the explosive connotation that the term implies.
They are all constipated about the lack of overwhelming coverage of 2010, and the sizzling planet (we’re talking about hundredths of degrees here): Read about NASA’s press release below…
Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment. According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). They have to admit an inconvenient truth:
One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.
Confusion?
“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.
Wait a minute, wait a minute: a remarkably inactive sun …
“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.
Subtle differences? Extraordinary agreement?
Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”
Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto. You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why does anyone assume that Hansen is sitting in his office doing actual meteorology/climate research? There is little evidence over the past decade that Hansen is contributing/manufacturing anything more than statistical data — I haven’t not seen a hard science / rigorous dynamical explanation for anything. He is busy writing up legal briefs in order to sue his employer.
Posted on the Grauniad at 5:40 – will it survive until 5:45? 😛
Hansen says: “La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet”
Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am
What Dave says, plus the chief administrator at NASA should have understand the ENSO by now and study it before coming out with this nonsense.
January to May 2010 were El Nino months, July 2010 onwards were La Nina months, but global temperatures take a few months for the beginning of the change once reached neutral or opposite ENSO phase to start it’s influence. The La Nina didn’t start to affect global temperatures while around November 2010. This is well known science about the delay in ENSO and for Hansen not to know this is astonishing to say the least or is lying about it.
Why should he even be that suprised, he has made up as much warming as possible as likely to get away with. 10 months of 2010 were significantly affected by El Nino, yet tries to blame it on La Nina. Words can’t describe how bad this has become and climate science is the biggest joke in all sciences of the history of the planet with people like this in charge.
Ryan Maue-Depending one what one considers “science” Hansen has done, or has had his name tacked onto, a number of papers involving this subject, besides GISS temp. But the point you raise is interesting in a way, as technically all the climate work associated with Hansen appears to be primarily associated, now, with others working under him at GISS. In particular, the model work is mostly done by Gavin Schmidt. Hansen seems primarily to be an administrator, and the actual “work” whatever the merits, is done under his direction, by other people. I doubt he spends much time actually doing research now, too.
[ryanm: yes, i agree with that reasoning. he is an admin. however, when he makes these “hand-wavy” arse-originating explanations for the climate-year-in-review, invoking el nino, the sun, etc., it is clear he has done absolutely no research to figure this out. I think he simply is 10-20 years out of date when it comes to the academic literature. evidence includes his snapping immediately onto the arctic-seesaw and the grotesque potsdam barrents sea ice paper as evidence of something]
Kate says: January 14, 2011 at 1:37 am
By the way, the British media are more concerned with rocketing fuel bills which are provoking some Unions to threaten strikes and protests over the massive amount of fuel taxes we are forced to pay.
—————————————————————————-
Yes Kate (at last) and this is what FINALLY might concentrate the minds of the politicians about the purpose(s) and economics of the power supply and also THEIR ultimate survival as politicians.
Douglas
[ryanm: note, Hansen wants folks to blow up their coal plants to save the planet, often invoking disturbing, terrorist ideology]
Carl McIntosh quotes an article as part of his critical remarks as follows:
January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am
“One theory is that melting ice caps have lowered the horizon allowing the sun to shine through earlier”
Unbelievable! The Warmista have inadvertently stated a testable hypothesis! Quick, get the helicopters up! (Of course, the supposed melting might effect only that one little town. It is not much of a testable hypothesis, but the best you are going to get from Warmista.)
John Brookes:
At January 14, 2011 at 7:13 am you assert:
“Some time soon there will be another weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming, probably something which actually hurts rich people, and then global warming will be all the rage again.”
You assert “ANOTHER weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming” which can only mean there has been such a disaster “obviously related to global warming”? Please say what and where it was. Many people – notably the IPCC – want to know of it.
Or have you taken James Hansen as your example so you have just made something up?
Richard
Here’s one possible solution to keep people toeing the CAGW line
Several people have made comments about the Daily Mail item on the sun rising two days early in part of Greenland.
The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating
14th January 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html#ixzz1B2U0ShJQ
A few months ago the sun set at the onset of the Arctic winter but apparently it went down in the wrong place!
New documentary recounts bizarre climate changes seen by Inuit elders
GUY DIXON
Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/new-documentary-recounts-bizarre-climate-changes-seen-by-inuit-elders/article1763952/
“Even stranger is the fact that the sun now appears to set many kilometres off its usual point on the horizon, and the stars are no longer where they should be. Is the Earth shifting on its axis, causing the very look of the sun and stars to change?”
“These are the drastic conditions Northern Canadians, whose lives depend from childhood on their knowledge of the most minute details of the Arctic land and skies, say they see all around them. These observations by Inuit elders are detailed in a groundbreaking new documentary, Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, by acclaimed Nunavut filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk (The Fast Runner, The Journals of Knud Rasmussen) and environmental scientist Ian Mauro.”
“When the filmmakers presented some of their findings at the Copenhagen conference on climate change last year, the media picked up on these views of the Inuit subjects, film co-director Ian Mauro says, and alarm bells started to ring in the scientific community. “We had a litany of scientists come back to us, responding after seeing this news, saying, ‘This was great to be speaking to indigenous people about their views, but if you continue to perpetuate this fallacy that the Earth had tilted on its axis, [the Inuit] …. would lose all credibility.’ And so there was really this backlash by the scientific community.”
“Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun’s course and the position of the stars in the night sky. “These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather,” Kunuk says. “So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes] alarm.”
The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.
http://webkit.dailykos.com/stories/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters..html
The media is too busy worming away on something that’s more likely to pay off. Linking Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly to terrorism, provoking lone wolfs to attack! Heh!
Roy says and quotes:
“Several people have made comments about the Daily Mail item on the sun rising two days early in part of Greenland.”
“‘The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating'”
‘”Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun’s course and the position of the stars in the night sky. “These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather,” Kunuk says. “So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes] alarm.”‘”
“‘A few months ago the sun set at the onset of the Arctic winter but apparently it went down in the wrong place!'”
How do they get “climate change” out of a shift of the Earth’s axis? The notion that the ice was lower so the sun came up earlier is beyond stupid. Tampa International Airport has closed some of its runways this week because the one supposedly running in line with the magnetic North and South Poles, is now way off, and they had to find another runway to designate as a pole-pointer.
I love that phrase “sparking fears.” Everything sparks fears with the AGW bunch.
The Guardian has recently got tough on those who question or discuss the science of AGW within it’s ‘Comment is Free’ (CiF) system – which allows registered users to freely post comments about articles published on the Guardian’s web site.
As of last weekend, the CiF moderation team now retrospectively remove all comments, and/or block any user who attempts to discuss the science of AGW within CiF. You’ll see lots and lots of ‘This comment has been removed by a moderator.’ notices in the comments section of the the Guardian article mentioned in this WUWT guest post.
The Guardian now claims that discussing the science of AGW within CiF is off-topic, unless the published article is specifically about AGW science. It’s now, no longer possible to comment on the assumtions made in any article that concerns Climate Change which is published on the Guardian’s web site.
However, when the Guardian does publish a science article about AGW (as they did last Sunday), they simply switch CiF commenting off, preventing any discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/09/global-warming-glaciers-sea-levels
As Lubos said on his site Reference Frame, the real news is the 0.6 deg C divergence between Hansen’s 1998 temp projections and the 2010 surface temps. If the models are such huge errors (on the warm side), what will they be worth in 2100?
Put down the Fly Agaric and step away from the igloo!
Global Warming causes Global Cooling has become the butt of many a joke.
Out in the real world, they take time out from shoveling snow and scraping off ice to poke fun at the clowns who came up with the whackiest explanation of the century.
The end result: rip-roaring laughter that warms many a heart.
Yes, the sky really is falling, and it’s piling up. Now get out there and utilize a non-mechanized eco-friendly shovel.
Carl McIntosh says:
“Anton says:
“‘How do they get “climate change” out of a shift of the Earth’s axis?’
“Put down the Fly Agaric and step away from the igloo!”
Ha. But, seriously, how can they attribute an axis shift to CO2? If the Earth is changing positions, I think they much greater things to worry about than whether the temperature here or there has gone up or down one tenth of one degree.
If the Moon crashed into Earth would they blame climate change? Yes, of course, stupid question. I recall seeing a C-Grade sci-fi movie on cable recently with the same “ominous” signs: the sun rising and setting where it didn’t before. Is anyone sure the Eskimos weren’t watching the SyFy Channel shortly before they reported their anomaly?
David Icke has made a living off of terrorizing the gullible with claims of lizard aliens coming to Earth to eat us: a scenario he apparently got from the old television series “V,” which has recently been resurrected in a new body. Is there any reason to think that climate “scientists,” a bunch of nerds and geeks playing with computers and rarely venturing outside, aren’t doing the same thing with their doomsday predictions?
Yep.. it’s all part of the “green democracy”. You are always free to speak out or ask awkward questions. Seems to be a great success (not so much in circulation terms though) – Komment Macht Frei eh? (Zensur Macht “pink slips” (apologies to German readers))
Anton, here is an article on polar movement with a link to a longer article, you might be interested in.
Earth’s magnetic field: still not reversing « Highly Allochthonous
It says… “Tampa runway realignment is not a big, recent jerk –instead, it’s the result of the gradual –and entirely unremarkable –motion of the magnetic pole relative to the geographic pole over the past few decades (what people who study the Earth’s magnetic field call secular variation).”
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2011/01/earths-magnetic-field-still-not-reversing/
Ryan M, what is your opinion regarding the lowering of temperatures in the early and mid 20th somewhat knowledgeable layman, it is hard for me not to believe that there is a concerted effort being made to keep the AGW train(wreck) on track.
Ed Mertin says:
“Anton, here is an article on polar movement with a link to a longer article, you might be interested in….”
Thanks Ed, I’ve seen it. However the recent reports of Eskimos saying that the Earth has changed its position relative to the sun would suggest something more dramatic. What it doesn’t suggest is something CAUSED by climate change, though a shift in the planet’s position would certainly AFFECT climate.
I want to know who is making these claims about planetary position, and based on how many years of observation. As Michael Mann has shown us, some people actually do believe that the weather conditions they experienced as children are the “correct” ones, and must be reclaimed and preserved for all time. So I imagine someone used to seeing the sun rise over A for twenty years might be shocked to see it rise over B. But, would he be shocked if he’d observed for thirty or fifty years?
Humans in general have very short and narrow perspectives, though geologists seem to be able to think in big numbers.
The Blackfoot Indians living around Glacier National Park have said that the supposed catastrophic retreat of glaciers there is a normal, cyclical occurrence, and that glaciers have completely retreated and reformed in the course of a single lifetime, as recorded by their ancestors.
If observers can only compare new experiences to their own prior experiences, everything might look shockingly different over a period of years. If they could draw on a long historical record, they might not become so hysterical.
Okay, a Unified Theory of Everything Wrong with CLimate: See: A) Sarah Palin exhales CO2, B) CO2 is causing everything bad, Ergo: Sara Palin is causing Manmade (Woman made?) Global Warming Change Catastrophy Disruption. She also cause the axial tilt to change because of her hate speech. Feel free to snip if too bitterly political.
Jeremy Crick says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:19 am
“I confidently predict that The Guardian will be one of the last bastions of warmist orthodoxy even when the international reputation of the IPCC eventually lies in tatters.”
Point taken about the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” (my ass!) deletions but as for the last bastion? Maybe the financial tatters the paper is in will be its true downfall, lets face it, the paper is already intellectually bankrupt
My post yesterday got mangled. The question for Ryan is what is his opinion of GISS’ lowering of global temperatures in the early and mid 20th century, and the raising of global temperatures for the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Thank you.
Regarding Hansen, wasn’t it Feynman who used to tell his students that they should absolutely question everything their professors told them about their own theories?