NASA’s James Hansen’s big cherry pick ( Summer heat... caused by Global Warming )

Watts Up With That? ^ | August 6, 2012 | Anthony Watts

[Bob]

It snowed in South Africa today. First time in forty years.

SEE!!! It's climate change. That proves it conclusively. </sarcasm>

[FlingWingFlyer]

Hansen’s “NASA” should not be confused with the NASA that put Curiosity on Mars.

[houeto]

Not trying to hijack the thread but, musicman, I SERIOUSLY appreciate your donation graphics on the threads.

Not sure how you do it but I sure do like 'em!

Thanks!

[houeto]

They experienced global cooling in S. Africa where it snowed.

Global warming causes that too. Where have you been?

[musicman]

Thank you so much!! (It’s a LOT of “pre-planning” but it’s fun.) Thanks again!!

[Blado]

Several years ago it snowed in Baghdad. For the first time in recorded history.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Learning to cope

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now that should be breaking news for the national media....all we hear is crickets....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

165 Responses to NASA’s James Hansen’s big cherry pick

*****************************EXCERPT*****************************************

Stephen Rasey says:

August 6, 2012 at 10:30 am

You know, there have been a spate of papers to prove the warming alarm via statistics.

It’s time to use the same technique to show that GISS and CRU adjustments are also far from what can be expected by normal, random, unbiased forces and thus their warming signal is conclusively “man-made”.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the comments:

************************************EXCERPT********************************************

David Ball says:

August 6, 2012 at 10:30 am

Waiting for James’ reply,……cue Jeopardy music. Great article Anthony. So sick of their “selective science”. How will Hansen be viewed by his peers in the future? Perhaps as one of the men who derailed science for political machinations (the cause).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

******************************************EXCERPT***********************************

• Volker Doormann says:

  August 6, 2012 at 10:38 am

  “James E. Hansen: “When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.”

  If global temperatures are increasing over a time interval, it is out of the methods of science to predict global temperatures for the future without the knowledge of the physical mechanism of increasing or decreasing global temperatures. Each disregard of this limit of physics is not a method of science and/or a fallacious argument, which includes in the case of an authority the fallacy Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to authority). ‘The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.’.

  Independent from this argument it needs not much logic to conclude that with increased global temperatures the processes driven by a higher heat must change in its effects. It seems to be intelligent to take the consequences in the adaptability as humans ever have done.

  A further disregard of the methods of science is to take the old fashion dept phantom, people have controlled by kings, religions, and governments for many millennia, and mix it into a prediction of an authority, without any valid scientific argument.

  http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/agw_poll.jpg

  In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

  To understand the nature of global temperatures it is necessary and possible to analyse the reconstructed and measured temperatures for the time interval of about 1 million years or for the time interval of about 10 ky to present. This is inalienable because a supposed linear increased temperature of 6 decades can be a phase of a oscillating function of centuries or millennia. From this it is not possible to extrapolate time interval of temperature into the future.

  This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened.

  No Sir. You do say two times a word on prediction and future.

  Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change.

  No Sir. Your analysis shows simple that you think there is an connection between high global temperatures and effects from that level. But that is not a new recognition. That’s what wrong is, that your analyse shell show that ‘global warming will increase’ something, because this suggests a knowledge about the future, but this is not analysed.

  our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

  That is not the point in climate science. The point in climate science is to explain the cause for the analysable global temperature periods from many kiloyears to month. Periods which are well known since Bond have analysed the frequencies after Fourier’s method with an example of about 1 period per 1800 years. But it seems that there are 2 periods in 1800 years, and the temperature reconstruction from Zorita et al. fit with Bond’s data. There are 13 increasing temperature phases over 11.000 years but as you can see, there are also phases of decreasing temperatures after high global temperature levels
  :
  http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/bond_vs_zorita2.gif

  This may show that an analysis of your chosen time interval of 6 decades with an increasing phase is not useful to make predictions to the future. You cannot rule out from the scientific point of view that the natural period of 1800 years, or better 900 years, occurs in a new decreasing phase of the global temperature.

  To whom it may concern, analysed solar tides can be simulated from 3000 BC until 3000 CE. The pattern of some solar tide functions indicate, it fits with Bond et al. and Zorita et al. and lower temperatures in the next decades to 2040 CE..

  http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/bond_vs_zorita3.gif

  V.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Looked at Volker Doormann's website and found a reference to a comment he posted on an article at WUWT....Article is very interesting...and I now have that posted....see it at :

Scafetta’s new paper attempts to link climate cycles to planetary motion ( March 2012)