http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995
“What is clear, though, is that the warmest 12-month period in the GISS analysis was reached in mid-2010,” El Hañsen said.
Besides the fact that this isn’t the hottest year according to satellites or Had-Crut, he also carefully cherry-picked a strong El Niño for his 12-month period (red rectangle.)
That is two strikes so far, and here is strike three. In 2008, temperatures did the opposite during a La Niña. They got very cold (blue rectangle.)
How did El Hañsen react to this equal and opposite event?
Undoubtedly, the cooling trend through the year was due to the strengthening La Nina, and the unusual coolness in January was aided by a winter weather fluctuation. The reason to show these is to expose the recent nonsense that has appeared in the blogosphere, to the effect that recent cooling has wiped out global warming of the past century, and the Earth may be headed into an ice age. On the contrary, these misleaders have foolishly (or devilishly) fixated on a natural fluctuation that will soon disappear.
So here is how the game works. You cherry-pick a twelve month El Niño period, adjust the temperatures up, call it the hottest year ever, call any differing opinions corrupt, and then wave off a complimentary cold period as just weather.
El Diablo.
he also carefully cherry-picked a strong El Niño for his 12-month period
Please be sure to mention this cherry-picking business every time one of your compadres tries to claim that “the Earth has been cooling since 1998.”
Thanks.
You claim that James Hansen did not cherry pick?
Did you know that GISTemp shows things other data sources do not?
Does it mean anything to you that James Hansen is a radical environmental activist? One of the most radical in the world?
Does it mean anything to you that James Hansen is a radical environmental activist? One of the most radical in the world?
With all due respect, that is a ridiculous statement. Does Hansen spike trees? Chase Japanese whalers in Zodiacs? Blow up buildings? Take hostages in the Discovery Channel headquarters?
Or does he simply attend, and sometimes speak at, protests against practices that he feels are catastrophically damaging our climate? Is that not a right? Were the hundred thousand who attented Glenn Beck’s protest–and make no mistake, that’s what it was–all radicals? Were the speakers? Does this make Hansen “one of the most radical in the world”? If it does, then so are Beck and Palin.
But here’s the bigger problem with your statement. When did Hansen become a “radical environmentalist”? Was it before or after he became convinced, through his research, that the path we’re on leads to disaster? If it’s “after”–which you can easily determine to be the case–wasn’t it virtually his duty to try to do something about it? What kind of person would he be if he’s convinced that we’re destroying the climate for our descendents, and he’s in a position to raise a loud voice, and he didn’t at least attend some protests?
Let me restate that last point in a simpler way:
Did Jim Hansen become an environmentalist because he became convinced through his research that we are causing severe damage to the planet, or did contrive his research results to show severe damage to the planet because he was already an environmentalist?
The answer to this is easy to find. Perhaps you can guess what it is.
ChrisD
did you know about James Hansen’s heated testimony room? Watch this video so you can learn about James Hansen’s political life. Mixing politics with science is unacceptable. Do you agree?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTxM2ith5k
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
claim that “the Earth has been cooling since 1998.”
After the La Nina spike now in progress takes full effect you will see that the earth has been cooling since 1998. You cherry picked a time, i.e., a time immediately after an El Nino before the following La Nina is completed, to claim the earth is not cooling since 1998.
Chris,
The year 1998 is fair game to pick as a starting point.
When the year 1998 finished it became the Flagship year for global warming alarmists. Everytime the subject of catastrophic warming was discussed, the year 1998 was brought up.
SMS,
They came to regret doing that with 1998. All the talk now of warmest year ever is something they will come to regret too. The earth is already into cooling and 2010 will look worse to them in contrast to the cooling as time goes by.
Also, not all data sets are showing the hottest year ever like GISS is showing. And there is nothing global warming people can do about those other data sets. They will not be able to rationalize why they are different. It will be GISS and NOAA against the world.
People will be left wondering which side is accurate. And when people find that James Hansen has a vivid history of environmental activism, and is working at GISS, one of the places that produces a data set that shows more warming than other data sets, then people’s instincts will tell them what to believe— the other data sets will be respected and trusted more.
‘Global warming’ goes farther out on a branch all the time.
GISS temperature does not agree with the other 3 known sources. Either GISS is wrong or the other 3 are wrong.
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ROMzxA4A9c
part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ZhWZj8zfQ
You have only to plot the actual data to see that this is wrong. Here, I’ve done it for ya:
http://bit.ly/cgzG4U
That’s GISTEMP and UAH (UAH, you’ll remember, is run by the well-known “skeptics” Spencer and Christy). Do those trends look significantly different to you?
In fact, they are nearly identical; both are ~0.07degC/decade.
Whats you assertion about those who run RSS?
My how you cherry picked the time frame.
Spencer and Christy are both quite skeptical about the extent of AGW (and one of them, I forget which one, is a creationist to boot). They run the UAH data set. How can you not know this?
My how you cherry picked the time frame.
Uh, no.
Look at the time frame clearly shown in the screen grab right above here. The screen grab from the VIDEO YOU POSTED.
Now look at the time frame I used.
Now apologize.
What screen grab?
Did you watch the video? I used all data from 1979 to 2010.
Did you just pick one frame from the video to argue with me?
ChrisD,
post all your responses. I will reply to them when I get back from work.
Right above here is the first frame of “Part 2” of the video you posted. It purports to show a graph of how GISTEMP is, like, TOTALLY different from the rest. It says “1983-1995” in real big letters.
That’s the same time frame I used.
So if you want to complain about cherrypicking, go talk to the guy who made the video, not me.
Correction: It is not the first frame. It is a frame that whatever is displaying it picked from the video. It happens to be the 1983-1995 graph; but any of them would do.
ChrisD
Did you watch the video?
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
My how you cherry picked the time frame.
Uh, no.
Look at the time frame clearly shown in the screen grab right above here. The screen grab from the VIDEO YOU POSTED.
Now look at the time frame I used.
Now apologize.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Apologize for what?
Funny how people don’t want to take into account James Hansen radical environmentalism when talking about his data set that shows more warming than other sources. If the tables were turned and a ‘skeptic’ was working at GISS and his data set was showing colder temperatures than other data sources, and that ‘skeptic’ was a radical oil lobbyist, one of the most radical in the world, they would never stop talking about it—and they would never trust his data set.
Is it possible James Hansen’s radical personal life is affecting his work? Is it even a remote possibility?
The quarter degree difference in the absolute temperatures isn’t important. It doesn’t matter if the average temp in 2100 is 50.25 as opposed to 50 (made up numbers).
What matters are the trends, not the absolute temps. What matters is that the 2100 temps will be X degrees higher than whatever-it-is-now.
The UAH and GISTEMP trends, as I showed you above, are nearly identical.
You cherry picked a time frame.
I did not cheery pick. I show the entire set from 1979 to 2010.
The quarter degree difference in the absolute temperatures isn’t important.
The global warming argument is over hundredths od a degree, and tenths of a degree. How does 0.25 not matter, or whatever it is you are talking about.
The graphs show GISTemp does something the other 3 don’t, not even CRU
ChrisD,
who runs CRU? GISS diverges from CRU in recent years also.
I compared GISTemp to all 3, not just UAH. I did not cherry pick out anything. I did not bias anything.
The global warming argument is over hundredths od a degree, and tenths of a degree
No, it isn’t, Amino. You’re thinking only of short term changes. Nobody would care if there was only going to be tenths of a degree. The argument is over what happens when all those tenths of a degree add up over the course of a hundred or two hundred years. The increase of temp over that time completely swamps the quarter-degree difference between the two data sets.
Why do you think everything you’ve ever read about climate talks about trends, and so much per doubling, and degrees per decade, and never about the absolute temperature?
You cherry picked a time frame. I did not cheery pick. I show the entire set from 1979 to 2010.
No, I didn’t. I used the one that happened to appear in this page. But it doesn’t make any difference. You’re trying to show that there’s some huge difference between the GISTEMP data and the rest. There isn’t.
The longer term trends (say, 1980-2010) are nearly identical for all four.
The shorter term trends aren’t identical, but they are very close. For example, over the period 1995-2010, the difference between the biggest trend (GISTEMP) and the smallest (RSS) is eight one-thousandths (8/1000) of a degree per year.
Sorry, that is just not a big deal. They’re all increasing. The only difference between them is exactly how long it is before we’re f—-d.
Any response ChrisD?
Gosh, sorry, Amino. I sincerely apologize for sleeping at night. It won’t happen again.
I posted comments immediately to what you said, not in the middle of the night.
Did it occur to you that perhaps we don’t live in the same time zone?
ChrisD?
Hi Steven,
of course Dr. Hansen is an hypocrite, but we always observe the weather! The climate change would occur if there will be a change of climate zone for a location (city, region etc). But no one has observed such a change.
Good job, Steven!
The climate change would occur if there will be a change of climate zone for a location (city, region etc). But no one has observed such a change.
Actually, there are many such observations. For a start, look at how the USDA has had to change its hardiness zone map. The zones are creeping northward.
Any response, Amino?
Amino?
What are you thoughts on CRU? Who runs CRU? UAH and CRU are both in the graphs I generated. No cherry picking was done.
You see, there is an elephant in the room: GISTemp also diverges from HadCRUT in recent years.
HadCRU doesn’t include polar temps. It’s not in the least surprising that its data diverges somewhat from GISTEMP.
An GISS just makes theirs up.
An GISS just makes theirs up.
You can’t back that up.
ChrisD
did you watch the video?
ChrisD
all 3 are not like GISS. Either all 3 are wrong or GISS is wrong.
If you had watched the video you would have seen that GIS in recent years does not match the same characteristics it had before that. GISS has changed in recent years.
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm
An GISS just makes theirs up.
You can’t back that up.
==========================================================
GISS themselves say they don’t use real Arctic data. Don’t you know that? Why do you say Steven Goddard needs to back that up. Go to GISS and tell them they need to start using actual temperature readings from the Arctic—because as it is now they don’t.
Belatedly:
Interpolating between available data points is not the same as “just making things up,” sorry.
They don’t use real data. So what they do is make it up.
It is not real.
ChrisD
Write to James Hansen and ask him how they interpolate the Arctic temperatures and don’t use real temperature readings. Ask James Hansen himself if they use actual readings.
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Did it occur to you that perhaps we don’t live in the same time zone?
==========================================================
You responded to my first comment then you stopped. So you did know I was replying to you before you went to bed.
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/el-hansen-el-nino-is-climate-la-nina-is-weather/#comment-2543
Amino says:
October 5, 2010 at 1:04 am
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/el-hansen-el-nino-is-climate-la-nina-is-weather/#comment-2545
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 11:09 am
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/el-hansen-el-nino-is-climate-la-nina-is-weather/#comment-2595
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/el-hansen-el-nino-is-climate-la-nina-is-weather/#comment-2610
========================================================
After this no replies from you. You went to bed in the middle of things, that’s ok. But why did you expect me to know you did so while in the middle of debating something?
my last comment is in error
correction
my comment came 6 minutes after yours.
ChrisD
You should watch both videos then comment about how GISS has changed recently.
GISS has changed not only in relation to the other 3 but in relation to itself. That’s what part 2 is all about.
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm
You cherry picked a time frame. I did not cheery pick. I show the entire set from 1979 to 2010.
No, I didn’t. I used the one that happened to appear in this page. But it doesn’t make any difference. You’re trying to show that there’s some huge difference between the GISTEMP data and the rest. There isn’t.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Again, watch the videos.
ChrisD says:
October 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
My how you cherry picked the time frame.
Uh, no.
Look at the time frame clearly shown in the screen grab right above here. The screen grab from the VIDEO YOU POSTED.
Now look at the time frame I used.
Now apologize.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Apologize for what?
ChrisD,
You took one graph, one frame, from an 11 minute video. The video uses 20 graphs. But you chose one.
And the video is not about trend. You must not have watched it before talking about it.
This is friendly advise, watch videos before commenting on them. I’m not being sarcastic. I’m giving you friendly advice.
I watched the videos. I picked one graph because I don’t have the time to do all 20 of them. The one I picked was the one that shows on this page.
The fact is that over any reasonable time frame there is very little difference between the GISTEMP trend and the other trends, and that is what is actually important.
ChrisD says:
October 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I watched the videos. I picked one graph because I don’t have the time to do all 20 of them. The one I picked was the one that shows on this page.
The fact is that over any reasonable time frame there is very little difference between the GISTEMP trend and the other trends, and that is what is actually important.
——————————————————————————————————————————
The video was not about trend. I think you did not watch the video.
ChrisD says:
October 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I watched the videos. I picked one graph because I don’t have the time to do all 20 of them.
You don’t need to make time. The video does it for you. Every graph is there already showing that GISTemp changes in recent years.
But why don’t you have time? Is it because you don’t like what the graph from recent years show?
Gee, Dudley. I admire your persistence. Civilized people around the world are discussing what horrible, dangerous people you Alarmists are with your snuff film and here you are, splitting hairs and cherry picking the minutiae. You’ve lost the hearts and minds, son. It’s time to call it quits.
They have been running on empty for years. that’s all they know. I don’t think they will quit what they’ve always have been doing. I don’t think it’s ever been about the science for them. It’s been about other things. They rationalize away they science and talk about something else. Reality doesn’t matter. So trying to convince them to stop by looking at reality won’t work. They pretend they win—so in their mind they win. It called being deluded.
Pingback: Arctic Oscillation spoiling NASA GISS party | Watts Up With That?