Green line is Hansen’s GISStemp overlaid on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts. Scenario C assumes no CO2 emissions after the year 2000. Temperatures are lower than that scenario, which would imply that increasing CO2 has essentially no effect on the global temperature.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Richard Muller believes that Hansen’s temperature record is accurate, which would mean that the headline below is exactly wrong.
The Case
AgainstFor Global-Warming SkepticismWhat about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
Mr. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley
hansen\s zero emissions scenarios
“Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
Wow. Thanks for the telling us what we already know Professor Obvious.
In the wacky world of climate snakeoil, black is white and white is black and never the two shall meet.
I downloaded their data…… these people are f’tarded. After unzipping, 1/2 gig text file. I haven’t looked at all of it, but it looks like they’re just making stuff up.
Perhaps it’s the way that they analyse the data
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
“It developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.”
Check out the video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics
Think about the thermometer distribution in the past and even now.
lol, thanks…… they were indeed just making things up. That’s some great thermometer coverage in Africa in the late 1800s. And where are they inventing the thermometers in the Antarctic today?
I prefer this video. You really only need the last 30 seconds to get the idea.
Thanks guys…… I’m using both in a post…….
These warmists are so tedious.
True, but this study confirms that the data has not been fiddled with, it means the data can be used with confidence. That’s worth the money spent on the project. Once again however, this data merely provides evidence that the climate changes, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause. Nothing’s changed.
cheers
You mean they used the same data that the CRU lost or what ever, so they didn’t have to deal with the FOI that may or may not incriminate them.
Plus, I’m really surprised that it still could not be accessed, if they had to seize the hard drives of all the computers used. Because I hear there is tech out there that can recover anything no matter how many times a hard drive has been formatted.
True, but this study confirms that the data has not been fiddled with, it means the data can be used with confidence.
========================================
klem, of course it’s been fiddled with….and in the worst way
smoothing…averaging….blending…….squishing
Read what been said about it at WUWT
Considering any “warming” at all shown in Hansen’s GISStemp is phoney-baloney, we can indeed conclude that CO2-based warming is a crackpot idea, and has been a crackpot idea since the original crackpot, Svante “erroneous” Arrhenius concocted it in 1896.
Since regional temps can vary significantly, extrapolation is fraught with peril, even over long periods.
AGW proponents use exactly the same principle for the LIA and MWP being “uninteresting”; they can’t have it both ways. Well, they can try, however they end up being spectacularly wrong.
James Hansen data is a-okay? Shya! Right!
Let’s watch these videos to see if everything is:
Part 1
Part 2
Maybe the cooling is from the increased co2:
Muller has actually confirmed that the temperature record is highly suspect.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/kansas-temperature-trend-updatemuller-confirms-there-is-a-problem/
Great post, Goddard. Glad I stumbled across a link to it!
I’ll repeat it so others might have a better chance of seeing it.