Hansen reports global temperature in the 1880s within 0.01 degrees. He has 0% 1880s coverage in Antarctica, less than 10% in South America and Africa, less than 50% coverage in Australia, Asia and Canada, less than 25% coverage in Greenland, and almost no coverage in Alaska.
But this is just scratching the surface of the problem. The bulk of Hansen’s feeble warming over the last 130 years is based almost entirely on fabricating Arctic temperature data, where he had none in the 1880s, and still has none now. During the 1880s, he had almost no data at either pole.
The bottom line is that his warming trend since 1880 is primarily based on non-existent temperature readings in the Arctic. Is Hansen the worst scientist in history?
Not only there is US “hegemony ” in economics, military power, culture ect. Now all the Greenie stuff is more of the same that Hansen helped expand. OMG
Is Hansen the worst scientist in history?
Not according to some politicians!
He had Nuuk (or Godthab as it was then) didn’t he?
But they say MWP and LIA were local phenomena.
Yes, cooling / warming is NEVER global. Laws of physics don’t permit Warmer planet or colder planet.
Reporting the temperature for last year is not much different than Hanson’s data for 19 century. Unlike on the moon; earth’s temperature distribution is THREE DIMENSIONAL! Warmth unit 123m – 567m up in the air has same value as the one around their thermometers. Apart on few places 2,5 of the ground; Who is monitoring the temperature on every cubic kilometre of troposphere? NASA’s occasional TWO DIMENSIONAL infra-red photo? Insult to human intelligence, but fodder for the lower IQ Warmist and for most of the Skeptics. Law should be: NASA / IPCC, must put on the label: how many kilojoules per shovelful of bullshit.
How can Hansen adjust data he doesn’t even have?
It’s called Credit Card Data.
he adjusts it in one direction one year, then adjusts it in the opposite direction when necessary another year.
Much like spending money on a credit card then paying some of it back later.
Was the available 1881 data below normal? If it was not, Hansen had no basis in fact to make it cold.
“Is Hansen the worst scientist in history?”
Um No because he is not a scientist he is a political hack.
Hansen et al, 1999:
We estimate that the 5 year mean global surface temperature has increased about 0.7°C since the late 1800s
Borehole temperature profiles from hundreds of locations around the world have been used to infer a mean warming of 0.5°-0.6°C between the 1800s and the 1980s [Harris and Chapman, 1997; Pollack et al., 1998]. Analysis of the near-global meltback of mountain glaciers on the century time scale yields an estimated global warming rate of 0.66°C/century [Oerlemans, 1994].
Three independent measurement techniques that arrive at the same conclusion. They all must be wrong. Obviously SG doesn’t shave using Occam’s razor.
Obviously you have no critical thinking skills. Notice the precision of centuries and decades used. Is the late 1800′s equal to the 1800′s? Cast a wide enough net and your sure to be correct in some sense. Why don’t you go wander around on the freeway. You might do somebody some good there.
@EB: Rather than spouting nonsense, you could always just read the referenced work.
Why when we have the great Kevin O to look under every rock and leap to the conclusion that human evil that is hurling us into the abyss?
@EB: Buffoon. Where have I ever said anything remotely resembling your little fantasy.
Answer: never.
You can’t stick to the science, that’s obvious. You make sh*t up and then change the subject when you’re called on it. I think that’s creepy. That makes you creepy. Creepy old Eric.
COE.
Oh, so now you’re saying that the recent warming is no big deal? Can you make up your mind? What is the great Kevin O trying to tell the dirty CO2 spewing peasants?
Why do you insist on putting words into my mouth that I’ve never said? I’ve typed thousands of words on this site – stick to what I write and not your feeble mental fantasies.
Oh, so now you’re saying that the recent warming is no big deal?
we have the great Kevin O to look under every rock and leap to the conclusion that human evil that is hurling us into the abyss?
I’ve never made either of those remarks. You just continue making sh*t up.
Oh. So what is your position on global warming? You plan on moving to AK and basking in the CO2 warmed outdoors?
@EB: So, was Hansen correct when he stated his results were in accord with other independent lines of scientific inquiry? Or is it just too much for you to admit you’d never actually read the science and were just talking out of your nether regions?
@EB: Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of Earth has increased by about 0.5°C and that the 20th century has been the warmest of the past five centuries. Pollack et al, 1998, Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective
Obviously you have no critical thinking skills.
Heard of the little ice age? Are you surprised?
Misdirection. Obfuscation. Retreat! Retreat!
Predictable little moron. When you’re called on your idiocy you just change the subject. Buffoon.
Don’t be so hard on yourself Kevin. I’m sure your parents made you take piano lessons or something awful like that.
My god that cut to the quick. LOL.
Is that it? Deranged by piano lessons. Interesting psychological study in itself. What type of person would consider piano lessons to be traumatic?
Most people *regret* not playing a musical instrument. Creepy Old Eric views music lessons as something to be abhorred. He’s getting creepier and creepier by the minute.
Of course he forgets that I’ve already mentioned that I played in a punk rock band – where I was lead ‘singer’ and lead guitar. Of course I use ‘singer’ in a very, very loose sense. Lead screamer would be more accurate.
KO, your my favorite AGW lunatic. When the rapture comes and you , MM, JH, KT and the rest of the AGW crew are puzzling why God thinks your are such evil scumbags I’ll appeal to God on your behalf. Now why don’t you find a more noble cause like stamping out homelessness among tapeworms.
PS. Too bad I’m agnostic.
Too bad I’m agnostic.
@COE:
When the rapture comes …
…God thinks your are such evil scumbags
I’ll appeal to God on your behalf.
PS. Too bad I’m agnostic.
Creepy AND schizophrenic.
Hopefully the vengeful god of the Old Testament is nothing more than myth, otherwise Creepy Old Eric will be spending eternity taking piano lessons.
Wow. Poor reasoning skills *and* no sense of humor. You’ve got it all K.
@EB: The retreat of glaciers during the last 100 years appears to be coherent over the globe. On the basis of modeling of the climate sensitivity of glaciers, the observed glacier retreat can be explained by a linear warming trend of 0.66 kelvin per century. Johannes Oerlemans 1994, Quantifying Global Warming from the Retreat of Glaciers
That darn Hansen, accurately quoting others work.
Obviously you have no critical thinking skills. Or reading skills. You are pretty skilled at making yourself look like a foolish ass.
Which is more likely: Three independent lines of scientific inquiry that all reach the same conclusion are all wrong, or Creepy Old Eric is delusional?
Occam’s razor is pointing towards COE.
Now what was that conclusion again? How does it circle back to dangerous AGW? Oh that’s right. Detail is only serves to misdirect from any tangible claim about dangerous warming. It’s a tired old recipe Kevin. Why not take a break. You deserve it trying to apologize for the biggest scam on the planet. I admire your effort.
Occam’s razor. Google it.
How will my googling occam’s razor help you to start making sense?
Kevin, are you prepared for some truth: the amount of ice doesn’t depend on the coldness, but on the amount of raw material; the ice / glaciers to renew themselves every season.
”City island heat” is gone up by 0.7C, NOT GLOBAL!!! When the city bitumen / bricks and other activity increased > air in those cities warmed /expands and increases the volume of the troposphere – same as when car engine gets warmer – the radiator to instantly increase in volume. Extra volume intercepts / redirects extra of the unlimited coldness; but because of fast spinning of the planet eastward + that extra coldness is distributed far away from the cities = overall same warmth in the troposphere, at any time!
stefan – whether you’re a POE or not is beyond my skills to fathom. It may be that English is your 2nd language, I wish that I could speak a 2nd language as imperfectly as you do English.
In any event, I have no wish to engage in a discussion with you on anything more complicated than the best unknown indie bands. If you have any recommendations, my tastes run the whole gamut. Otherwise, live long and prosper.
kto
@ Kevin; from million people commenting on the net, 3 of them got stuck into ” English is not my first language” all 3 from your camp – ”truth phobia sufferers”
You are making lots of ”public statements / comments” that are pure lies and affect ME, and million others. I’m challenging your lies, not your English. If it was about music. sport, religion; I wouldn’t be commenting. The conspiracy your camp is using affects me personally; I wish I had time to point to every lie / liar. You are scared of debate, I will comment / refer in third person; no need for you to reply from now. Agree?
People, I have all the proofs, now; no need to wait 100y trick, to see that they are lying! People like Kevin are using references from characters that should be in jail. They avoid the truth, by using every trick, kinking and screaming; same as turkey avoids the oven before Christmas; but eventually get in. Crime shouldn’t pay!!! It only proves that: people that decided to be part of the swindle, are people without dignity, honesty. Kevin will be in the cell next to Hanson’s. Nothing personal Kev, the truth is paramount. I wish you good luck, you will need it.
It’s ‘Hansen’ with an ‘e.’
You are such a moron Kevin. You think that JH just found out about borehole measurements last week and found out that they confirmed his findings? There has been a circle jerk going on for some time about temperature reconstructions and the modern temperature measurements. See if you can figure out IPCC 1990′s figure 7c and how it fits your deluded narrative.
Notice the modern temps pasted on in green *after* 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg-manley.png
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
Face it. You are the worst sort of sheeple imaginable. Not only are you as gullible as sin, you take the crap given you by others and unquestioningly try to foist it on others.
Get a life and try to do something useful like inspecting the footings of the brooklyn bridge. I’ve got a cement sack if you need one.
@CreepyOldEric: Ummm what does a 25 year old schematic used in IPCC 1990 have to do with anything? The British Antarctic Survey graph was probably the source. The data appears to be a smoothing of Lamb 1965. Lamb’s data was for central England (HadCET). The endpoint is the 50 year average centred on the 1920s.
The graph can be continued using the same dataset (HadCET) to the present day. In fact, it’s already been done.
I love the title of the article: Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
That doesn’t even cover Wegman’s malfeasance on the subject.
Did you have a point? Or were you just giving me the opportunity to destroy another denialsphere zombie lie?
See people; bigots like Kevin cannot be recognised by the horns on their heads; but by the stupidity they believe in and promote. Lamb was promoting ”Nuclear Winter for year 2000” Before you even defrosted from their nuclear winter, Kevin is threatening you with a phony GLOBAL warming. Scientist using data for ” central England” to know the GLOBAL temperature, is not a scientist.
Honest person would have being ashamed to use small parts of the planet / only the hottest minute of the day / only temp for the ground – referring it as GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, is a bullshit artist. D/H that believe him, are addicted bullshit consumers
It should also be remembered that Hansen had access to and used the SST analysis of Smith & Reynolds as input to his global temperature reconstruction. SG’s map completely ignores the ocean (70% of the earth’s surface shouldn’t be ignored).
In 1880 there are approximately 100,000 shipboard observations. Some might consider the fact these aren’t plotted on the map as an intent to deceive or mislead.
In 1910 the number is closer to 1,000,000
You can, of course, read all this for yourself: Extended Reconstruction of Global Sea Surface Temperatures Based on COADS Data (1854–1997) Reynolds & Smith, 2002
Kevin; because they have being cornered; can fabricate any evidences. The jury will not buy those freshly made evidences for last centuries. Give up. 40m – 70, – 456m above the sea warmth has same value as the one on the ground; therefore they don’t need to fabricate more lies, to cover their original lies. In 2010 IPCC had monitored on 6 000 places / all on the ground… starting to exaggerate for before 100y, will not make you and the Swindlers more credible. All the lies have being exposed. Time to spit the dummy
Interesting. According to the abstract, the data is pretty much useless prior to 1950:
“Using this method, little global variance can be reconstructed before the 1880s because data are too sparse to resolve enough modes for that period. Error estimates indicate that except in the North Atlantic ERSST is of limited value before 1880, when the uncertainty of the near-global average is almost as large as the signal. In most regions, the uncertainty decreases through most of the period and is smallest after 1950.“
@Ivan: That’s a rather poor reading of “In most regions, the uncertainty decreases through most of the period and is smallest after 1950.”
They specifically say of limited value before 1880 – not 1950.
For junk science – where accuracy is unimportant – it is probably close enough.
You probably wouldn’t want to base any important decisions on: “the uncertainty decreases through most of the period and is smallest after 1950.
Three weasel words in one sentence.
The errors are quantified. Look them up.
Junk reading ability, is more like it. Apparently you never made it past the abstract.
Only 3? That probably means rock solid fact in K’s mind. Now just sprinkle in a reference to occams razor and you’re golden right K?
The errors are not “quantified,” they are “estimated” (Section 4). Because the “data” is so dodgy, they have to go into 2 pages of statistical bullsh1t to try and give this crock some semblance of respectability. No sale.
@Ivan: The errors are quantified. There’s no contradiction. You’re unfamiliar with the terminology if you think otherwise.
An error is always an estimate because the ‘true’ value is unobservable. Quantification is placing a number to that estimate.
If I say, “The error is small.” I have failed to quantify it.
If I say, “The error is small. We estimate it at +/- .1%.” I have now quantified the error.
The question of whether or not the estimate is justified is based on the math.
Your lack of understanding becomes evident when you complain they take two pages to justify their estimate. Obviously they were thorough. There would be reason to complain if they just put an error bar on their data without any explanation of how they arrived at the error bars. You’ve got the rationale bass ackwards.
Color me surprised. Right.
@ Ivan;
They have only 0,000000000000001% of the ESSENTIAL data for the last year, to know the GLOBAL temperature; you are commenting about 19 century… Oceania is 10 times larger than Europe + USA, combined. USA + Europe have 10 times more monitoring places than Oceania; can you smell a rat?! Troposphere is not as human body – when under the armpit gets warmer by one degree – the whole body is warmer by that much; troposphere is opposite. When some area gets warmer than normal – another area INSTANTLY gets colder than normal. That’s what the ”laws of physics and my formulas say”
Unless the laws of physics are abolished by the shallow politicians and by UN, the truth will win!!!
Ivan, WRONG!!! Data for the last year is useless, same as for 1850. Last year’s data collected on 6000 places / mostly concentrated in Europe / USA / mostly on the ground / only for the hottest minute of the day’ what about the other 1439 minutes in 24h? Sometimes nights are warmer comparing to hottest minute. When is cloudy, upper atmosphere is warmer, but cooler registering on the ground; the first 3m from the ground contain less heat than 2km thick layer above.
In Europe + USA can be warmer by 2C, needs to be cooler in Oceania by only 0,2C, to balance – because Oceania is 10 times larger area. Compare if they have 10 times more monitoring places in Oceania than Europe + USA. Warmist shouldn’t be blamed any-more, but the toddlers in the Skeptic’s camp. Q: how can anybody oner 4 years old believe that 98 was warmer than 97, or year 2000? They don’t have more than 0,000000000001% of the data ESSENTIAL, to know what the temperature is; what they collect is only B/S fodder for the Urban Sheep. QUESTIONING THE DATA FOR 19century, but not for last, or any other year, is the precursor of all evil. That’s why shameless liars as Hansen and your own Kevin don’t walk with a paper bag over their head. If he tells lies – is his shame – if you believe in their lies = is your shame
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Wow, who’s that Kevin dude? He’s spending a lot of time posting here. I guess the Church of CAGW doesn’t meet on Sunday or he’d been in church singing out of the Goreacle hymnbook or reading out of his IPCC climate bible in Jim ‘deathtrain’ Hansen’s sunday school class. They probably tore out the pages of the climate bible where Hansen & the IPCC predicted that temps would rise 0.6C from 1990 to 2010, since the T’s have only gone up <0.2C. Guess they never read what Danish physicist Niels Bohr said: "Prediction is very difficult, especially when it's about the future"
Boring. Get some new rhetoric. stefanthedenier makes more sense than you.
P.S. How far is it from Tallahassee to Chicago?
Is this some new rhetorical style? I thought it was customary to shutup after completely losing an argument. You seem to think arguing pointless details doesn’t make you look like a pedantic moron.
@EB: I thought it was customary to shutup after completely losing an argument. You seem to think arguing pointless details doesn’t make you look like a pedantic moron.
LOL, yes I completely ‘lost’ the argument on the distance between Tallahassee and Chicago. Yep, you’re right.
Just so I don’t forget though, how far is it again from Tallahassee to Chicago?
Is your brain not fully functional?
@SG: Is your brain not fully functional? Are you so much a megalomaniac you *still* insist you’re right and the rest of the universe is wrong on such an easily verifed fact? You’re entitled to your own opinion – you’re not entitled to your own facts.
A) It’s 1300 km from Tallahassee to Chicago per any distance calculator on the internet.
B) Your Google Earth ruler distance is completely dependent on where you set your start and endpoints. Unless you zoom in for greater detail you’re only going to be ‘close’.
C) 1225km is *still* > 1200km. At 1200km the linear weight in the GISS formula is ZERO. It would have ZERO effect.
ZERO effect. Is there some part of ‘zero’ you don’t understand? Nada. Zilch. None.
Steven, meteorolgical station (A) is 1225km distance from station (B), how much effect does (A) have on (B)’s calculated temperature per the GISS formula.?
Answer: ZERO. Nada. Zilch. None.
All clear? Or did I go too fast for you?
You are really coming across as a complete idiot.
The weather in Florida and Illinois is largely unrelated, and there are thousands of similar examples you could find yourself if you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to take an honest look at your heroes.
Kevin -
Let’s drop the 1200 km discussion for now. What effect would a 600 km distance have on the temperature data?
Heck, in Chicago we have 3 different temps at O’Hare, Midway, and the Lakefront weather stations. Depends on the season, wind direction and speed, cloud cover, … The stations are all within 50 km.
Define avg temp for a particular station. Is it the simple avg of the high and low for the 24 hr period, or is it the area under the temp vs. time curve divided by 24 hrs and heat content adjusted for ambient humidity?
@SG: Why can’t you answer the question?
Meteorolgical station (A) is 1225km distance from station (B), how much effect does (A) have on (B)’s calculated temperature per the GISS formula?
@JohnB: I’ve posted links several times to not only the methodology used, but to its independent verification by both peer-review and even undergraduate college students. It’s nothing more than basic statistics with areal averaging.
If you’re unwilling to read the scientific papers for yourself, think of it this way: The temperature at the South Pole is -35. In northern Greenland we’ll find -25. In Sakaka Saudi Arabia it’s 110.
The temperature in the Chicago area is:
31 in Kenosha, WI
31 in Rockford
34 in Peru
32 in Kankakee
27 in South Bend, IN
32 in South Haven, MI
The weather 600km away is
32 Minneapolis, MN
25 Youngstown OH
30 Clarksville, TN
28 Kitchener, ON, Canada
37 Independence, MO
Now, I could keep looking up temps and distances, but this quick list shows all points of the compass. Is this going to be true everyday? I doubt it, but it doesn’t have to be.
A) GLOBAL temperature. That’s what we’re looking for. And we’re only looking at CHANGE – not actual temperatures.
B)AVERAGING. It smooths out minor errors. From the poles to the middle eastern deserts we see a difference of 150 degrees. A few degrees error here or there just isn’t going to have an effect on globally averaged annual temperatures.
C) The oceans comprise 70% of the earth’s surface and they don’t vary nearly as much. Nor do they vary seasonally as much as land temperatures do.
C) Statistical sampling is robust. It’s just a plain fact of mathematics that it works. It’s been proven over and over and over again. It may be counterintuitive at times, but math works. With your background you should know this.
Steve,
Wow! You’ve definitely drawn the crabs here!
Every day another gem o’ painful stupidity gurgles out of our resident waterhead.
No, you have not quantified anything. You have to make a verifiable, repeatable measurement for it to be quantification. If you had some valid reason to estimate the error as such, you would be quantifying. If you attach misleading numbers to blind guesses you’re still guessing. Attaching misleading numbers is not quantifying.
If your quantitative chemistry professor tells you to analyze a sample of horse semen and you write down, “20% tastier than rat fæces!” you will fail.
Let me reiterate: fatuously stubbing a number on your pointless and flatulent babbling does not make your idiotic statements quantifications. You, Kevin, are a simp and a liar. You should be deeply ashamed of everything you write.
@short_dick: Are you daft? There are thousands of measurements in the COADS dataset. Yes, the errors are quantified. It’s done, over, no argument. You may disagree with the mathematical derivation of the error, but then again you don’t point out any errors in their estimation. Just handwaving.
Handwaving. Always handwaving.