Comments on: Hansen Then and Now

By: Přepisování historie teplot 20. století « AntiMELOUN

Přepisování historie teplot 20. století « AntiMELOUN — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:10:40 +0000

[...] McIntyre. Hansen then and now (Climateaudit.org 23.Feb 2007) (McIntyre se snažil pečlivě vyřešit otázku srovnávacího období, tzv. nulové hladiny, [...]

By: Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors « Climate Audit

Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors « Climate Audit — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:14:05 +0000

[...] point shaving is the key question here. I’ve also discussed Hansen adjustments to past data here [...]

By: Julian Flood

Julian Flood — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:04:48 +0000

Re 61: If you look at the thirties and forties hump without the bucket correction, you will find that the hump begins in 1939. If we are trying to explain aspects of change it is going to be necessary to clean up the ‘corrected’, ‘adjusted’ or otherwise ‘fudged’ data. Clean data will give us the chance to tease out the underlying causes. Adjusting data — because, for example, it makes your computer model produce the right land temperatures — will obscure the subtle causes.

Take out the bucket correction — there’s a CA thread on this — and you can see the WWII signal loud and clear. Climate was experimented on by the huge oil spills released by the Battle of the Atlantic and we can see the response, we can even do predictions by using the data and we can hypothesise about the PETM using the data. It may be rough and ready science, but to my mind it’s a lot better science than fiddling your data to fiddle your results, which how I interpret much of what is going on. I know this may sound nit-picky, but the integrity of the data is vital: without it all the computer models are junk, all the scares are junk, all predictions so much hot air. Defend the data and the truth will be found. Allowing the data to be corrupted and controlled will mean the end of climate science.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:10:42 +0000

# 67 — If you move your mouse over the graphic, you’ll find the temperature from year 200 to 1800 is known to four significant figures, which admirable precision descends to a mere three significant figures during the 1800-2000 Jones measurement era.

With that sort of high accuracy proxy result available, I can only wonder that anyone thinks there could be any uncertainty in the AGW conclusion.

There’s also a pretty irony when the mouse pointer graphic informs us of Medieval grapes in England with temperature change flat-lined. Reason seems to have fled those parts.

By: Jason L

Jason L — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:44:05 +0000

I couldn't help but notice the following quote at Wikipedia in the section on John Christy and the MSU data.

Unlike some other major climate data sets, the satellite data are constantly being refined and adjusted as new discoveries are made in the relatively new science of remote sensing.

This particular quote was added by

William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) at 15:58, 30 March 2007

By: Leigh

Leigh — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:15:03 +0000

In reply #43 george h. says:

May I please have a citation for the appended graph?

Thanks.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:59:34 +0000

Darn it, in my 71 I meant to refer to 70, not 67. I did notice that the figure referenced by 67 actually shows a leveling off in temperature for the past few years, but then it zooms on up in the future. This is almost comical. Wonder if the models show the leveling, followed by a rapid increase…To me, this, alone, shows deceit.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:23:11 +0000

43: Here. And here's an even better one. But please realize that this figure has been criticized severely because of errors and the correlation appears (so far) to be weak since about 1985. I have not given up on it, however, since more solar cycles are needed to accurately establish the location of the last few points on the graph (due to a 1,2,2,1 filtering of the data).

By: Scott Brooks

Scott Brooks — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:37:01 +0000

Re: 43

From what Science organization did you get that SunSpot Chart from? The Max Planck Institute shows something similar.

By: jae

jae — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:40:00 +0000

67: MarkW, The last real data value is 2000 on that graph, also. It should show a relatively flat line for the past 8 years, but then, it would take a little work to update it. The Team has no time for updating, since they have to move on…