How James Hansen And Michael Mann Destroyed Climate Science

Climate scientists used to understand that the sun controlled Earth’s climate – until Michael Mann and James Hansen destroyed the temperature record about 20 years ago.

Total solar irradiance (TSI) has increased since the Little Ice Age.

climate4you Sun

The graph below  is from the 1990 IPCC report, and it shows temperatures were much warmer 900 years ago, and were much cooler 400 years ago during the Little Ice Age.

ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

 

If we overlay the TSI graph and the 1990 IPCC graph, we see correlation between temperature and TSI.

The 1990 IPCC graph is hand drawn and the X-axis is irregular. A small shift and scaling change lines up TSI and temperature almost perfectly.

Similarly, we see a correlation between the 1974 NCAR global temperature graph and sunspots.

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Again, a small shift of the hand drawn 1974 graph causes sunspots and temperature to line up very closely.

TSI and Sunspots are only part of the solar climate story.  Comets have two tails because there are at least two distinct types of energy being emitted from the Sun – photons and ionized particles known as the Solar Wind.

The Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the Solar Wind – directing the charged particles towards the poles where they release energy as the Northern and Southern lights. Without the magnetic field surrounding Earth, our planet would be unlivable.

A Mighty Solar Wind May Kindle Auroras Next 3 Nights – Astro Bob

In 1859, a large solar storm brought charged particles across the entire planet, with so much energy that people all over the world could read at night, and telegraph lines carried current without any power supply.

31 Aug 1859, 1 – The Cadiz Sentinel at Newspapers.com

The storm came from a coronal mass ejection which was released from this sunspot group.

Carrington Richard sunspots 1859 – Solar storm of 1859 – Wikipedia

The solar wind brings a lot of very variable energy into Earth’s atmosphere, which is completely unaccounted for by climate scientists. And because the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields are constantly changing, this causes weather patterns on earth to change too – leading to all sorts of superstitions like the current “climate change” cult.

The correlation between solar activity and earth’s temperature was obvious until 20 years ago when Michael Mann and James Hansen corrupted Earth’s temperature record through massive data tampering.  Mann made the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age disappear with his hockey stick graph.

Meanwhile Hansen made the 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling disappear.

1974      2017

There was no question at the time that the 1930’s and 1940’s were very warm, and that the temperatures correlated with solar activity.

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

13 Oct 1940, Page 76 – Hartford Courant at Newspapers.com

TimesMachine: July 2, 1931 – NYTimes.com

In 1951, MIT professor Hurd C. Willett correctly predicted 20 years of global cooling, based on sunspot cycles.

07 May 1951, Page 9 – The Pantagraph at Newspapers.com

The first director of NCAR understood that sun controlled earth’s climate.

In 1973, Roberts predicted a drought based on sunspot cycles.

27 Sep 1973, Page 38 – El Paso Herald-Post at Newspapers.com

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

By destroying the temperature record, Mann and Hansen wrecked an entire field of science – and caused scientists to pursue a superstitious relationship between temperature and CO2 instead of doing actual research.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to How James Hansen And Michael Mann Destroyed Climate Science

  1. arn says:

    People who sabotage air conditioning to ‘proove’ climate science
    will sabotage ‘climate science’ that way.

    But more interessting is that beside this very unscientific approach
    all the other methods they use(lies ,tampering,activism, etc etc()have
    the same “quality”.

  2. Don B says:

    Of the 50 maximum temperature records for U.S. states, 36 were set prior to 1940.

    http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm

  3. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    The irony upon ironies is Mike Mann’s own paper from 2005 proves global warming is harmless by showing the ~60 year cycle is persistent. Ever since then the IPCC has been studiously ignoring this despite it adding about 40% to the temperature rise last century. Removing the artefact would immediately lower climate sensitivity by 40% and thus CO2 would be shown not to be at all dangerous.

    And that is even without the contribution of the Sun, which is empirically worth about another 45%.

  4. Andy says:

    ” A small shift and scaling change lines up TSI and temperature almost perfectly.”

    Problem is Tony that if you do not do that shift and scaling and just take the original two graphs it completely shows the opposite to what you are trying to show, ie in the year 1700 the TSI was low, but the temperature was high.

    https://imgur.com/a/3onNqAR

    why do you want to add a “fix” to prove some point?

    Andy

    • tonyheller says:

      It is ridiculous to cherry-pick one point and ignore the similarity of the overall patterns. The tick marks on the hand drawn 1990 IPCC plot are not evenly spaced, and the smoothing of the graph shows that they were not making any attempt to be extremely precise about their dates. Your comment is just plain silly.

  5. Andy says:

    Also

    https://imgur.com/a/1Bq7zlo

    seems like even after manipulating the graph by moving the axis and scaling it still does not prove what you are trying to prove.

    Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      Little Any, your child-minded graph proves nothing except for your inability to think.

      Do you really think the oceans loose temperature that fast? doh !!

  6. Kris Johanson says:

    What do you mean by “the x-axis is irregular”? Honest question….

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The century marks are in “approximate” places on the axis …

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Thanks…. yes, I finally noticed that…

      • Hivemind says:

        I understand the author’s point, but I would prefer it if he had taken the original raw data for both of the original charts and re-plotted it on the same chart.

        • JMS Martins says:

          I agree with you, and I have tried to find the original data, but no joy.
          Nevertheless, I would like to make one point: I disagree with Tom when he states that the IPCC 1990 graphic was drawn by hand; on the contrary, I think it was drawn with the software available at that time. And I remember the times I had to fight against the “intelligence” built in some of those programs, having to change my data tables so that the graphics were rigth. The thing was, many programs, when drawing _certain_ (not all!) types of curves, applied the point to the _middle_ of the next interval between the x-axis coordinates, and in other cases they plotted the points calculated for the middle points on the _left_ limit of each interval. There were no established “rules” for this “intelligent” behaviour, and Excel was particularly bad in this respect.
          Now, it seems, from the inflections of the curve in the IPCC1990 graphic, that the original data were at 50 years intervals. What Tom has done was to displace the graphic by 50 years (ex.: put its 1940 value on the 1990 abscissa). Most probably, the original IPCC1990 plot was already affected by this error, but one will never know unless we find the original data.
          I also guess that the differences in length of the horizontal scale units are due to rounding errors of the sofware of that time and on top of them the poor resolution (and software) of the printers: I also have some bad memories of correcting this kind of ugliness in my graphics and one can easily find many examples browising the scientific journals of that time (mainly, before the fear of the year 2000 bug).

          • JMS Martins says:

            Oops!
            I meant “browsing”…
            And more memories came up, Excel was not very different from others (Harvard Graphics, FigP, Quattro Pro, etc.), almost if not all suffered from one or other type of shifting data along the abscissa.

  7. AndyG55 says:

    The following graph is probably more of an indication that sunspots is closely linked to temperature.

    Real question is, , with the sunspot count dropping how long will the lag be before cooling.

    If you look closely you will see that warming is fairly close after TSI rises, but cooling seems to lag.

    Could it be something to do with what takes up some 70% of the Earth’s surface ;-)

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Thanks!
      1. One would expect a bit of lag in both temperature directions. That makes sense, intuitively at least
      2. One must bear in mind the y-axis is pretty expanded. If I’m reading it right, we’re only talking about <1 Watt per m2 variation over a 400 year time span.
      3. Question: TSI is only counting electromag radiation, right? …or are solar particles also in that number?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Energy from the Sun has FAR more variability than just TSI.

        UV spectrum, magnetic fields, solar wind, etc.

        Maybe things we haven’t figured out yet as.

        I suspect something that warms the planet AND drives the number of sunspots both in advance a bit. Magnetic field could do that, maybe

        The boost in UV during high sunspot counts certainly allows more energy to penetrate into the oceans etc.

        There may also be solar effects on formation of cloud cover, which has decreased over the last few decade, thus reflecting less energy.

        Lots of things still to know.

        One thing can be pretty certain though, is that the slight but highly beneficial warming out of the LIA Anomaly has absolutely NOTHING to do with a small change in atmospheric CO2.

    • RAH says:

      I think other very important questions, and perhaps the most important in the shorter term, are:
      How long will this minimum last?
      What will be the amplitude of cycle 25.

      The sun is the power source and the oceans the driver and modulator.
      Until we can prognosticate the behavior of both we will never be able to predict where the climate is going in the relatively shorter term within the longer term Milankovitch Cycles.

  8. esalil says:

    The problem is that the temperature is leading TSI and the sunspots

  9. esalil says:

    Roberttv: The temperature rise in Barcelona has little to do with CO2, I guess.

  10. Stewart Pid says:

    By the alarmists definition there is a new ice age occuring in Aberdeen at 12C while London at 26C has GLOBALONEY WARMING … ain’t climate science wonderful.
    Keep up the good work Mr Heller!!

  11. Ice Age 2050 says:

    Thank you very much Tony! I would really like to meet you in person if you are ever back in my neck of the woods.

    If the data doesn’t match their theory- they tamper with the data to match their hypothesis or theory.

    Earth could be headed into an ice age- we would be in an ice age and it would still be the “Hottest Year Eveah!” according to NASA. Last time I checked, NASA stood for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    …they should be renamed National Acute & Stupidity Association. It is a shame they aren’t doing moon landings anymore…

    I have one request Tony… I remember you used to do certain day temperatures…For Example:

    “September 12 days have plummeted” Could you start doing daily posts on those again? You skipped a lot of days between January and Early June ;-)

    You might find this of interest

  12. GW Smith says:

    Great one, Tony. Thanks!

  13. Penelope says:

    Hansen & Mann were given a media megaphone, which praised where it ought to have criticized. Who controls those 6 megamedia companies, folks?

  14. Rosco says:

    “Without the magnetic field surrounding Earth, our planet would be unlivable.”

    True – but apparently we can all live on Mars as all of the Musk acolytes seem fascinated by.

    I reckon we should all contribute to a fund to help the alarmists who see Mars as our future become the first inhabitants.

  15. dennisambler says:

    Mann is swinging his hockey stick again…

    https://www.kqed.org/science/1923414/why-this-climate-scientist-is-optimistic-despite-record-co2-levels

    • Michael Mann, creator of ‘hockey stick’ curve for greenhouse gases, says we now have to double sea rise projections.
    • Sees California as ‘shining beacon’ for how to take action
    • Despite harassment, says ‘You don’t back off from a worthy battle when the stakes are important.’

  16. ED says:

    According to ice core records, the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of our current Holocene interglacial. This point is more fully illustrated with ice core records on a millennial basis back to the Eemian period here:
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    Our current, warm, congenial Holocene interglacial, although cooler than the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago, has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years, spanning from mankind’s earliest farming to the most recent technologies.
    Viewing the current Holocene interglacial on a millennial basis is rational. But sadly it seems that, driven by the need to continually support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis / religion Climate alarmists irrationally examine the temperature record at too fine a scale, weather event by weather event, month by month, or year by year.
    From the broader perspective, each of the notable high points in the current 11,000 year Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
    The ice core records from Greenland for its first 7-8000 years, the early Holocene, shows, virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium, including its early high point known as the “climate optimum”. But the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at around 1000BC, 3000 years ago, has seen temperature fall at about 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium .
    The Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and just judging from the length of previous interglacial periods, the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
    Nonetheless, the slight and truly beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to a Modern high point has been transmuted by Climate alarmists into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.
    The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age, which include:
    • decolonisation of Greenland
    • Black death
    • French revolution promoted by crop failures and famine
    • the failures of the Inca and Angkor Wat civilisations
    • etc., etc.
    As global temperatures, after a short spurt at the end of the last century, have already been showing stagnation or cooling over the last nineteen years or more.
    The world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of cooling, rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or probably now non-existent further warming. Warmer times are times of success and prosperity for man-kind and for the biosphere. For example during the Roman warm period the climate was warmer and wetter so that the Northern Sahara was the breadbasket of the Roman empire.
    But the coming end of the present Holocene interglacial will eventually again result in a mile high ice sheet over much of the Northern hemisphere. As the Holocene epoch is already about 11,000 years old, the reversion to a true ice age is becoming overdue.
    That reversion to Ice Age conditions will be the real climate catastrophe.
    With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon this century.
    Whether the present impending cooling will really lead on to a new glacial ice age or not is still in question.
    As an interested layman, I would say that the betting is more heavily weighted towards a catastrophically cooling world rather than one that will be overheating because of the comparatively minor CO2 emissions from mankind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *