GISS June anomaly is 0.5, staying well below Scenario C. ENSO is neutral – can’t blame La Nina.
In a sane world, people would say – Hansen was wrong. He should retire and the rest of us should move on.
The Ministry of Truth has an answer though – Chinese aerosols.
I wrote to Mr Schmidt on his climate porn blog to ask him why, satellite temperature measurements were never corrected from ground based temperature measurements for “aerosols.”
Despite this smut website being run on public funds, and therefore public domain, the producer of this climate filth would not even reproduce my question, let alone answer it
FOI them
@ Brian and Me
It is my understanding that a FOI is underway for Mr. Schmidt to account for his time, as is one for Mr. Hansen. Also, I’m quit sure the question put to Schmidt is beyond his depth. What temp satellites exactly measure is something of a mystery to me, but I do know there is a disagreement between both RSS and UAH as to why the temps are diverging between the both. I believe what we are seeing is the margin of error and we’re not able to get closer than the greatest divergence in both land and sat data. I also believe the data for both land and sat data is inherently biased to show warmth based on the assumptions made towards both. I don’t believe we’ll fix this anytime soon. It took us over a decade for the warmistas to acknowledge UHI even though this dynamic was known for over a century.
The other day, here in Kansas, in the midst of a drought and unseasonable heat, for about 2 hrs, the temps dropped from about 100 F to 80 with clouds and just a bit of rain. Then it left and high temps returned. This will not be reckoned by either sat or land temp data sets. It will be as if it never happened. The high will still be recorded as will the low, the drop in daytime temps didn’t match the low of the day(night time). This dynamic won’t be recorded, it won’t be averaged, it will be ignored. All data sets are biased towards showing heat.
The largest error in the UHI between space and ground is (or was), azimuth drift; aerosol correction has to be bigger than that
BTW Hansen and NASA admin signed off for Gavin for use of his Government time on the blog.
I also work for US Government and somebody wrote to general council about me affiliating myself with US Government on blogs. I showed them Gavin’s permission forms from NASA administrator, asked for same. Request denied.
Don’t hassle or threaten the scientists, please. And Hansen is not the only one working on this crucial issue.
Take your meds.
What is Steven’s excuse for his failed ice extent predictions.
And since a single month is soooo important then a single week shoul be even more informative.
Which ones are you referring to?
IWB:
I remember reading Steven’s prediction and the Arctic ice conditions are tracking perfectly with what Steven predicted.
Gavin said on unRealClimate that scenario C is irrelevant, since it implies stasis in CO2 emissions. He then said that scenario B “is running a little high”. This is all newspeak for “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, so we’ll just have to bluff it out until the climate cooperates. Trenberth’s missing heat will pop out soon and magically puts us back on scenario B”. I’d say scenario C is “running a little high at the moment”, but then who am I to argue with an expert in interpreting graphs?
Scenario B was CO2 release continuing at the same rate of increase. Which did not happen. CO2 increase surpassed scenario A which made scenario B irrelevant.
When the Titanic struck an iceberg the NY Times said we are entering an ice age. In the 30s the NY Times said it was global warming. In the 70s the NY Times said we are going into another ice age. In the 80’s they started the global warming game again. As a Stanford grad I used to have talks with the late Stephen Schneider and Paul Erlich (two Malthusians who have been wrong on every doomsday scenario they ever announced). Schneider was banging the ice age drum in the 70s, then switched to bang the global warming drum in the 80s. After he switched, I said to Schneider “Stephen you know it is going to go back to a cold phase again, what will you do?” To which he just said, “I will switch back to ice age again.” He didn’t care, and no one called him on it. Go back to the record…you will see everything I say is true. How anyone with one ounce of intelligence could believe this nonsense takes a complete suspension of disbelief and a complete disregard for history.
Gary,
Thanks for that – amazing you actually knew those guys, wow. I remember, no, I vividly remember reading Erlich’s, “The Population Bomb” back when it first came out. There were just so many wacky books and ideas back then. The immanent ice-age was just plain accepted common knowledge back then and of course man-made air pollution was causing all of it. Time and Newsweek were actually big-deal media back then and they pushed the man-made ice-age thing hard. I also remember the floods, and cool weather in Southern California back then. And speaking of the record, there is a You Tube video of a young Stephan Schneider, of course bitching about population growth, but also warning of the immanent ice age.
Oh, I Googled around a bit and found this:
http://algorelied.com/?p=2839
Immanent ice age (man-made aerosols); Global Warming (man-made CO2); these
claims are silly and devoid of anything like real scientific work.