Comments on: Hansen Red and Blue States http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 23:28:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: pommygranate http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91429 Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:34:30 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91429 Steve

An ingenious idea!

One question – what if the earth warms but not for anthropogenic reasons?
Wouldnt this end up being a pointless tax?

thanks

]]> By: Howard http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91428 Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:17:07 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91428 RE#32 Sure, overall humidity only slightly changed, but do the surf temp measurements account for the growth of irrigation and thermo-electric power water use from very little in the 19th century, to 150-billion gallons per day in 1950 to 400-billion gallons per day in 2000.

This would produce a much larger change in the drier states, which is what the first map shows. Just food for thought, not a theory.

]]> By: jae http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91427 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:55:55 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91427 27: Yeah, but that irrigation does not change the humidity that much. The air is still very dry in the West, compared to the East.

]]> By: John Nicklin http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91426 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:17:15 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91426 Hans, it’s a procesing artifact alright, but just think what Al Gore could do with it. Conclusive proof of warming. It does make you wonder how many artifacts are being passed off as fact. I’d say watch Eli Rabbet’s site for a note that Steve M has proven that significant warming has occured.

]]> By: Hans Erren http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91425 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:00:57 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91425 re 28: That’s a processing artifact, there is no underlying data there. Similar to extrapolating CO2 emissions to 2100.

]]> By: Steve Sadlov http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91424 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:54:11 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91424 Argh …. Going from the first “raw” plot to the last, highly “smoothed” one

]]> By: Steve Sadlov http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91423 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91423 Going from the first “raw” plot the the last, highly “smoothed” one, look at what happened to the apparent situation on the Eastern Canadian Shield (and presumably, Greenland, Nunavut major islands, etc, as well). Fascinating ……

]]> By: Howard http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91422 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:15:05 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91422 RE#14 If this is true, how do you think the explosive growth of irrigation in the west and midwest effected the temperature map. This activity took water out of ground storage and out of rivers and evaporated most of it over large areas.

]]> By: Steve Sadlov http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91421 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:16:11 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91421 RE: #22 – It’s negative feedback. The IPCC got the sign wrong.

]]> By: pochas http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/11/hansen-red-and-blue-states/#comment-91420 Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:14:11 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1695#comment-91420 Steve,

Where’s the punch line?? How about some numbers on the average (gridded and ungridded) temperature trends for unadjusted USHCN, TOB adjusted USHCN, fully adjusted USHCN, and GISS adjusted data? Inquiring minds want to know.

]]>