Hansen and Karl to put on a "worse than we thought" event

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

****
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…