Climate science seems to work on the principle of “let’s find an explanation which kinda sorta makes sense if you don’t think about it, and then blame (whatever it is) on CO2.”
A classic example is Hansen’s claim about the current cold in Europe.
Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean. The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way — Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
His explanation doesn’t work. Last winter showed the same weather pattern – yet sea ice extent was the highest in years – and had the latest peak on record.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Another related claim is dodgy.
The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November
Once again, the high temperature anomaly over Northeast Canada persisted all winter, long after Hudson Bay froze over. The anomaly was due to the record low Arctic Oscillation. How is it that the world’s greatest climatologist is unaware of this fundamental principle?
And there were a lot of of peak ice years where Hudson Bay wasn’t frozen over in November. Standards in the climate science community are low – beyond comprehension.
Guess what, things like the 40,000km long Mid Atlantic volcano chain actually have some slight effect on earth, amazing hey
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-undersea-methane-contributor-ocean-acidity.html
UN says it’s good to destroy the Rainforests and plant a Monoculture, we’ll reward you with the climate change money we stole from the West
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/palm-oil-growers-may-be-winners-from-un-forest-protection-accord-in-mexico.html
of course what the UN SHOULD be doing is to encourage as MUCH planting of monocultures in the rainforest as possible to bring down demand which will bankrupt the bio-oil companies and then the rainforest will grow back WITHOUT huge profits for those companies.
Very clever thinking Scarlet!
Perhaps you did not notice your sarcasm button was on for your comment.
Just maybe the UN could find a way to promote crop and land use that does not involve strip mining and clear cutting….but that would involve actual thinking, planning and inovation. It is much easier just to remove money from the western world on the excuse of climate change reparations , and hand it to “developing ” economies so tha they can now build coal fire power plants to “catch up” to the western eorlds economic standards…
Catch up using technology several generations old that produce the actual climate altering products that the west is being crucified on the alter of climate change for….
How about just for giggles we help them with new technology and ideas that will actually help the countries that want help. Force the WHOLE WORLD to live by the same standards that you want to shove down the throat of the most productive and technologically advance sector of the planetary economy. Perhaps we can then move forward with everybody enjoying a reasonable standard of living as opposed to the standard of living that you decide is best for them
Of course, given the UN’s dismal history of mucking up virtually every thing it touches, perhaps the best thing the UN can do, is pack it in and disband. Probably its best help to offer the world.
suyts:
That would be a logical solution to lots of the world’s problems. Logic is not a big commodity in the political arena these days!
From Hansen’s statements it is more obvious that he has no clue about weather or climate.
There is a statement: If you can not Dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your Bull Sh@@! Most of what comes from GISS appears to be based on that statement and they ran out of brilliance long ago!
So why is Korea exempt from Climate Change? 48million people that’s double that of Australia??? http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=050000&biid=2010121320368
Do they produce CO3 instead of CO2?
Maybe it’s because North meets the target of zero?
http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/northkorea-at-night.jpg
Do we want James Hansen and GISS as the keeper of the official temperature records?
Senator David Vitter has introduced legislation (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/a-bill-for-climate-data-integrity-the-public-access-to-historical-records-act/) giving NASA responsibility for establishing and maintaining the temperature records as follows: “The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall establish an official dataset on the historical temperature record.”
First of all, the bill does not define what records are included. Does it include
USA records, global records, satellite records and ocean records?
Currently the USA records and the global historical climate records (GHCN) are maintained by NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
The US historical data is described at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/background.html.
The global data is described at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ghcn-gridded-temp.html#data.
The US historical climatology network (USHCN) and the global historical climatology network (GHCN) are maintained by NOAA’s NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina (and are stored by the Department of Energy at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ?? could not confirm this)
Where are satellite data stored? John Christie and Roy Spencer of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama are prominent in writing about satellite data. Is that the facility that maintains that data?
Sea surface temperature data is maintained at NASA’s JPL. The link to the website is:
http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/DATA_CATALOG/sst.html.
Their site does not mention the ARGO buoy data. That is mentioned at the NOAA National Oceanic Data Center (NODC) site:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html. The NODC is headquartered in Silver Springs, Maryland.
NOAA also maintains the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.
I would prefer that NOAA continue to be responsible for the US and global temperature data. All of the rest of the requirements for openness and quality in Sen. Vitter’s bill should continue to apply.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.pdf
Burt has the solution anyway – do nothing
With the obvious level of quality of data coming out of GISS their funding should be terminated as a cost saving measure. They should also set a mandatory retirement age for government funded climatologists at 55 or lower, say 30 and out because it is apparent they fry their brains playing with their enhanced Game Boys.
Hansen knows that most people reading his garbage will probably not run into the material showing that it is indeed garbage. He wins by putting out the garbage before anybody can really smell it and successfully place a garbage label on it where all can see.
I guess Hansen knows of these principles, but they do not serve his purposes, so why should he recognize that they even exist?
Do take a few minutes to follow the link Steve kindly provided and read all of what Hansen wrote.
“However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record. Figure 3, from our paper, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology. The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
Hansen is simply speculating about different possibilities. Perhaps Steve was just skimming, looking for juicy quotes he could unwittingly take out of context.
You obviously haven’t spent much time in Europe over the last ten years.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/hansen-should-probably-check-his-own-data-before-writing-articles/
“September 2009 had the third lowest minimum sea ice extent relative to the period when observations began in 1979.”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
You do realize that 1979-1981 was the peak for the century. Not surprising that it has gone down from the peak.
Perhaps. But: “The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900.” (See Mike’s link, fig. 1.)
The article also ‘explains’ the current cold in much of Europe and N-Am: “This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.”
At what point does he just admit that he is wrong?
he won’t. he is a liar, a charlatan, and a fraud.
I guess that would be the point where you come up with solid evidence, Steve.
I explained it in the article.
Do you trust Hansen the activist who has been arrested at least 2 times to make temperature adjustments objectively and without bias creeping in? I don’t.