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

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

Obama has 'four years to save the world'

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.

 

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

 

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.

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

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

 

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.

 

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!)

 

WOOPS!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/

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!

I stand by my words: Hansen has no credibility!

Also, watch this:

This is a good place for this: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-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!")

 

^ lol

 

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 ( http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/75058-open-invitation.html ) 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.

 

Or maybe people haven't cared to do so, since they know it's useless. Note how you couldn't even wait 30 hours before reaching a conclusion...

In any case, you didn't answer the question. How do you expect someone to prove a negative?

(That Hansen has or has not denied it is irrelevant to the actual facts, as you surely know.)

 

Oh, they care. The facts are that no solid, settled, undeniable science exists that demonstrates any of those key points listed in the thread.

I did answer your question. I would accept as proof if Hansen denied saying it. For me, and I'm sure for Chogan, that would be sufficient evidence that he did not make the quote.

Trust me, I am intimately familiar with the "impossible to prove a negative" argument you are trying to bait me into. You're going down a road where absolutely nothing will be accomplished.

 

I was fully aware of this the moment I clicked reply on one of your posts, and this is what I was talking about when I said people might not care to reply to your invitation.

Yet it still stands. If you are so familiar with the impossibility of proving a negative, why would you ever ask someone to do so?

ETA - I'm not "baiting" anything. You were the one who asked to prove a negative.

 

I've stated that Hansen denying it is sufficient to "proving a negative."

 

Another sidestep. To paraphase the thread:

chogan2: "So, first, show me where James Hansen himself literally wrote that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008."
rp1: "Please prove he didn't say that. I'm waiting."

That Hansen's denial would satisfy you is irrelevant. The fact remains that you asked chogan2 to prove a negative, knowing full well that it is impossible.

 

Grasping at straws eh? Hansen denying the statement would fully "prove the negative." It's bizarre that I am saying what a sufficient (and relatively easy) disproof would be, and yet you are harping on your interpretation of the impossibility of proving a negative.

You are completely misusing the argument. It's usually used in situations where something is claimed that is impossible to prove - ie, it is impossible to disprove the existence of an invisible, undetectable being (e.g., a god.) By your logic, no one can make any positive statements. Ie, I can't say that I'm happy because it's impossible to prove that I'm not. You're being ridiculous.

 

You are quite adept at deliberately misreading things. How does a person develop such a 'skill'?

How about this. Let's take Hansen out of it, since obviously the mention of his name causes some kind of malfunction.

Please prove that I didn't say "radioprius1 is 100% right on climate change". I'm waiting.

 

We can agree to disagree

I'll leave it at this:

1. A person who was known to have a conversation with James Hansen in 1988 quoted him as saying that NYC's West Side Highway will be flooded in 20-30 years.
2. James Hansen has not denied this quote.
3. Therefore it is logically sound to believe this quote until Hansen denies it.
4. Hansen denying the quote will be sufficient reasoning to believe that he did not say it.

 

Great article reviewing several different problems that have recently been noticed about the different data series and their manipulations:

American Thinker: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg