NASA GISS shows 2009 as tied for 2nd warmest year on record

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by icarus

Who's being nasty now?

"For instant, he is a known environmental activist and has been arrested for his psychotic, moronic, idiotic, asinine, brainless, dense, dimwitted, doltish, dopey, dumb, foolish, half-baked, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irresponsible, ludicrous, mindless, nonsensical, pointless, senseless, and unintelligent protesting against mining."

There are many who might think that environmental activism is a noble endeavor. Let's try to keep this on subject shall we. Besides, just because you decide that some one is wrong certainly doesn't make it so.

And there are many who might think that environmental activism is the work of morons.

Originally Posted by Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute of Space Studies

We cannot afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.

Obama has 'four years to save the world'

Dr. Hansen is more than just a little bit extreme in his beliefs and has seen more than his share of controversy. He has accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him, has urged criminal trials for the executives of energy companies for spreading doubt about manmade climate change and advocated for the acquittal of Greenpeace activists that damaged a coal fired power plant saying the power plant was more damaging. Twice in recent years he and GISS have been repudiated for releasing incorrect data – first when he claimed 1998 was the hottest year of the 20th century and more recently when he said October 2008 was the warmest month ever measured. Both of those claims were disproved by other scientists when the data was thoroughly analyzed.

In my previous post I showed that Hansen himself said it's ok to exaggerate to get people's attention. That is him admitting he lied. And now he claims he was "silenced" (THANKFULLY! One less moron on the street preaching about the end of the world!). Funny that he openly admits to lying, but now he wants to tell the truth and he wants people to believe him.

Sorry, Hansen, you big moron, no one will believe you anymore.

[patsparks]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Just to emphasize how RIDICULOUS the idea of mathematically adjusting stations that give poor data is:

How would you write a mathematical equation to adjust for bad data given by a thermometer that is located over a BBQ pit? How would you adjust for bad data given by a thermometer that is located in an asphalt parking lot? It's such a hilariously stupid idea. In addition, the NOAA CRN has never surveyed all of the stations themselves, the only people who do it are Watt's people.

See this link for plotting of the most unadjusted data someone could find (which is still probably adjusted and molested)

Step by step: Is the climate changing? Data analytics

The whole thing is just absurd. The only data I remotely trust is the quasi/fake skeptic John Christy's.

1. You mean where a barbecue is stored? Was it in use in that location? You assume it is from time to time but do you know?
2. Has it always been in that parking lot? How old is the asphalt? How long has the thermometer been there? Is it just used to monitor change since installation or is the data collected compared to other sites. What are your assumptions on this?
3. So you named 2 sites you assume are giving false data, you or one of your fellow parishioners have posted some photos of sites you assume to be collecting bad data. How may sites are there all over the world?
(which is still probably adjusted and molested) = assumption

[chogan2]

Well, I've learned a couple of things.

First, to be clear, no, Radioprius1 could or would not find evidence that Hansen ever actually wrote that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008. So, perhaps that bit of disinformation can be dropped from discussions here. But maybe not, if past behavior is any guide.

But second, for the thoughtful reader, think about what that Watts posting, and the dutiful dittoheading by people like Radioprius, actually reveals.

Here we have James Hansen, with hundreds of published papers, probably hundreds of published scholarly interviews, numerous popular articles, testimony before the Congress. He heads a division of NASA, he's received numerous honors. It's not like there's any dearth of material that actually, accurately reflects what he's said and done.

But what is the Watts posting on Hansen's "prediction"?

Well, it's:
a) an offhand statement,
b ) in a nine-year-old Salon article,
c) by an obscure author/newspaper reporter,
d) about that reporters somewhat vague recollection,
e) of an offhand statement
f) that he says Hansen made
g) 12 or maybe 13 years prior, he's not sure.

And Watts and his followers then
a) treat it like Gospel,
b) put in on a par with an actual piece of analysis that might have be used to project sea level changes, and
b ) uncritically use it to ridicule Hansen.

Now think about that.

1) Somebody had to go trolling for this, figure out the angle on how best to use it, and so on. Somebody went to the effort of tracking this down. Is somebody trolling for whatever information they could use to try to damage James Hansen's reputation? Up to now, I'd been kind of skeptical that there was a concerted effort like that. Now, I'm not so sure.

2) Watts clearly didn't bother about the quality of the information he was passing on. Shoot, he got both the author's name and book title wrong.

3) But my guess is that he's accurately assessed his clientele: The people who are going to ditto things off Watts site are hardly the type to think critically or check facts anyway. So why bother.

In short, it was kind of an eye-opener to me to see Watts, who at least tries sometimes to pass himself off as serious, engage in this frivolous bit of character assassination. And to see him construct this entire campaign around a nine-year-old offhand comment about an even older offhand comment by Hansen. I found that illuminating.

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by patsparks

1. You mean where a barbecue is stored? Was it in use in that location? You assume it is from time to time but do you know?
2. Has it always been in that parking lot? How old is the asphalt? How long has the thermometer been there? Is it just used to monitor change since installation or is the data collected compared to other sites. What are your assumptions on this?

Actually these are great questions. I guarantee you that the NOAA CRN can not answer them either. All the more reasons why their adjusting of data is completely ridiculous and flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by patsparks

3. So you named 2 sites you assume are giving false data, you or one of your fellow parishioners have posted some photos of sites you assume to be collecting bad data. How may sites are there all over the world?

Ah, I answer those questions and more in my blog post that has received over 45,000 hits:

Quality of U.S. Temperature Data The Climate Conspiracy

For your question about how many are around the world, be sure to read this:

GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect Musings from the Chiefio

Originally Posted by patsparks

(which is still probably adjusted and molested) = assumption

Actually it's not an assumption. When people find different versions of "unadjusted" data there are few conclusions that can be drawn

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by chogan2

Well, I've learned a couple of things.

First, to be clear, no, Radioprius1 could or would not find evidence that Hansen ever actually wrote that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008. So, perhaps that bit of disinformation can be dropped from discussions here. But maybe not, if past behavior is any guide.

But second, for the thoughtful reader, think about what that Watts posting, and the dutiful dittoheading by people like Radioprius, actually reveals.

Here we have James Hansen, with hundreds of published papers, probably hundreds of published scholarly interviews, numerous popular articles, testimony before the Congress. He heads a division of NASA, he's received numerous honors. It's not like there's any dearth of material that actually, accurately reflects what he's said and done.

But what is the Watts posting on Hansen's "prediction"?

Well, it's:
a) an offhand statement,
b ) in a nine-year-old Salon article,
c) by an obscure author/newspaper reporter,
d) about that reporters somewhat vague recollection,
e) of an offhand statement
f) that he says Hansen made
g) 12 or maybe 13 years prior, he's not sure.

And Watts and his followers then
a) treat it like Gospel,
b) put in on a par with an actual piece of analysis that might have be used to project sea level changes, and
b ) uncritically use it to ridicule Hansen.

Now think about that.

1) Somebody had to go trolling for this, figure out the angle on how best to use it, and so on. Somebody went to the effort of tracking this down. Is somebody trolling for whatever information they could use to try to damage James Hansen's reputation? Up to now, I'd been kind of skeptical that there was a concerted effort like that. Now, I'm not so sure.

2) Watts clearly didn't bother about the quality of the information he was passing on. Shoot, he got both the author's name and book title wrong.

3) But my guess is that he's accurately assessed his clientele: The people who are going to ditto things off Watts site are hardly the type to think critically or check facts anyway. So why bother.

In short, it was kind of an eye-opener to me to see Watts, who at least tries sometimes to pass himself off as serious, engage in this frivolous bit of character assassination. And to see him construct this entire campaign around a nine-year-old offhand comment about an even older offhand comment by Hansen. I found that illuminating.

You're ridiculous. You've completely skipped everything else I said, and you're focusing on one thing, and for the one thing your entire argument is based around "I don't believe it!" Until Hansen comes out and denies the rumor I'm going to have to side with the people who have quoted him. Our evidence that he said it is a personal conversation he had with someone, backed up by his known personality of being an ideological alarmist. The only evidence he didn't say it is that you don't believe it.

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by patsparks

2. Has it always been in that parking lot? How old is the asphalt? How long has the thermometer been there? Is it just used to monitor change since installation or is the data collected compared to other sites. What are your assumptions on this?

I wanted to reply to this one again. I think you were being facetious, but that is actually an incredibly important issue. They call it encroachment. There are a lot of surface stations where the thermometer has been in one spot for many, many years, but asphalt parking lots, and air conditioners (and barbecue pits) have been added around the thermometer. Measuring anomalies (which is great if the station remains unchanged through time) does not
help with encroachment. Encroachment will show warming if you measure anomalies (or anything else.)

In many data sets you can see a specific point where the temperature starts rising and it coincides with the encroachment of heat retaining/radiating objects. The problem is you have to be acutely aware of the history of each surface station. Again, this is something that the NOAA is completely without knowledge of.

Here are a couple of photos.

The first couple are of stations showing the heat island effects, via thermal imaging, of cement, asphalt, etc, and also showing the heat island effect of being close to waste water treatment. The last photo is showing the effect on temperature data of a station having been moved from where it was historically located (nice Prius!)

[radioprius1]

WOOPS!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...by-jim-hansen/

The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world. Global mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1a, was 0.57°C (1.0°F) warmer than climatology (the 1951-1980 base period). Southern Hemisphere mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1b, was 0.49°C (0.88°F) warmer than in the period of climatology.

Wow! So 2009 was the 2nd warmest year globally, and the warmest year in 2009 according to NASA GISS James Hansen. Let's look further!

NASA GISS a temperature outlier again – this time for the southern hemisphere Watts Up With That?

The GISS "2009 2nd warmest record year" is the outlier for the southern hemisphere! It's no wonder they can arrive at such arrogant claims!

After reading Roger Pielke Sr’s post Reality Check On Science Magazine’s Claim That 2009 Was The Hottest Year on Record in Southern Hemisphere, I plotted Annual GISTEMP Southern Hemisphere Land+Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2009, Figure 1, and the Annual UAH MSU TLT anomalies for the same period, Figure 2. There’s nothing surprising with those graphs based on Pielke Sr’s post. GISTEMP is showing record 2009 combined surface temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere, while the 2009 TLT anomalies are far from record levels.

The annual NCDC Land+Sea Surface Temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2009, Figure 3, also do not show the record levels in 2009, but the NCDC does not infill with the 1200km smoothing like GISS.

GISS has used OI.v2 SST data since 1982. Figure 3 is an annual graph of SST anomalies for the Southern Hemisphere, and it illustrates that 2009 was not a record year for SST anomalies. That leaves the GISS land surface temperature anomaly data as the culprit.

I stand by my words: Hansen has no credibility!

Also, watch this:

I made the Animation in this video by making Anomaly maps from the GISS site. They are Jan-Dec, 1951-80 Normals but instead of using the 1200km “smooth” its set to the 250km option. Once you do that you see that the SH is really lacking in readings. Africa almost none, South America has a blank spot and if you do a polar view on the 250km scale Antarctica is very sparse in data.

YouTube - March of the Thermometers

YouTube - March of the Thermometers

This is a good place for this: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01...olivia-effect/ - If you are actually wondering WHY, perhaps, the southern hemisphere's data is garbage, give it a read!

And lastly an interesting read:

The Strata-Sphere Proof Why Global Warming Alarmists Are Mathematically Wrong

The whole James Hansen thing cracks me up. You can just imagine James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, sitting in their offices, with a big bucket of greasy fried chicken sitting there eating it and while grease is covering their fingers and they sit there with their data sets and manipulate them this-way and that-way to molest the findings into something that is not even remotely close to reality. They probably hi-five each other every time they manipulate it, and grease goes flying across the room. They probably walk out of the office together, both with big armpit stains on their white shirts and grease all over their faces, and maybe a little chicken grizzle hanging off their fat lips, with their soy sauce colored hair, chiclet looking teeth, and big gummy gums, and fat chafed nipples, and then walk over to an "adult" (rub and tug) massage parlor and enjoy the more questionable sides of life together while they hypothesize about living in a post-global warming world. Or maybe they are just concerned about their funding not coming in any more since ClimateGate exposed what a load of garbage they are pushing on everyone (oh crap the public finally realized this is all a bunch of statistical misinterpretations! we better bump up 2009's temperatures to "better reflect reality!")

[radioprius1]

^ lol

[Politburo]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Please prove he didn't say that.

It's obvious that you are not stupid.

So why have you asked someone to prove a negative, knowing full well that such an action is impossible?

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by Politburo

It's obvious that you are not stupid.

So why have you asked someone to prove a negative, knowing full well that such an action is impossible?

I would accept James Hansen's denial of making that quote as proof that it wasn't said. James Hansen's quote is on one of the biggest climate sites out there (maybe the biggest?), so I would be surprised if he has not received word yet. As vocal as he is, I'd be further surprised if he would not somehow deny making it.

But I totally agree with you - that is the point of this thread ( An Open Invitation: ) I am asking the people who are making the positive claims to come forth with their scientific evidence for the questions posed. In one day zero people have been able to do so.