Hansen Then and Now (global warming)

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2045#comments ^

[chessplayer]

In the “good old days” (August 25, 2007: after they had corrected their Y2K error), I downloaded Hansen’s “combined” version (his dset=1).

[chessplayer]

Looks like Hansen is up to some new tricks since being embarrassed last month.

[Rocky]

If he distributes code and then changes it practically immediately after release AND silently replaces the data online, you can have no possible way to test the code that was provided (because you can’t compare any output from that code with data that is available online).

Why are our tax dollars supporting this guy?

[Tarpon]

By his actions Hansen is proving he is faking the data output and the resulting records. All you have to do is demand the results be reproduced.

So now we know that the U.S. HCN data is fake and biased by siting issues and now the same faking is going on with the world data, which is a much smaller pool of reliable stations.

The conclusions are obvious, the whole thing is a faked hoax.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Hansen, who openly campaigned for Kerry in 2004, is more of a political activist than scientist and a whiny, bitchy one at that.

From Wikipedia: “In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,” he (Hansen) said in one of his many public appearances.

Hansen has appeared countless times on television news programs including 60 Minutes, has been interviewed by countless newspapers and testified before Congress. It’s hard to see what “restrictions” he is talking about.

[samm1148]

This is the same as Paul Ehrlich from the 70’s. (I think that was the name). He of global cooling fame who predicted mass starvation in...nine years ago.

There were actually maroons on here pointing to this guy’s cooked up data. (Note to maroons: Replacing common sense with a web site isn’t very smart).

Once again: Can you tell me the weather ten days from now? No; then how on earth can you predict it fifty years from now?

[chessplayer]

Now I wonder if we can look forward to another temperature history recalculation by Hansen.

[chessplayer]

This post from the link I provided hits the nail on the head;

“I don’t know why anyone is surprised by the new data.
If the present fails to get warmer the past MUST
become colder.”

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

more from climateaudit...

[Ramius]

Once again: Can you tell me the weather ten days from now? No; then how on earth can you predict it fifty years from now?

Actually, weather and climate are different things and they can be studied independently, though of course there are relationships between them.

Not that any reliability is possible anyway. But they are different. :-)

[Right Wing Assault]

Can you tell me the weather ten days from now?

http://hurricane.accuweather.com/hurricane/atcf.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&ocean=atlantic&storm=Humberto&stormNum=7

Can you tell me where that tropical storm will be 2 days from now? Sure. Maybe in Texas, maybe in Ohio, maybe in Maine, maybe half way to Europe, maybe back in the gulf where it started. Earlier today they showed it going through Chicago. These are all different short-range models and they disagree horribly. So, how can we expect different models looking out years are going to look? However they want them to.

[samm1148]

I was reading what Ramius posted above: He is right. But I guess as a commonsensnik my point is that there seem to be so many variables in weather and climate that attempts at long range predictions seem fantastical.

Also I think that something becomes science fact when it is consistently provable; like the boiling point of water. The short range predictions these global warming nuts are making have so far panned out wrong: Cloud formations they predicted haven’t shown. The dire prediction of tropical storms have failed to materialize now two years in a row and ice is increasing in the interior of Antarctica.

But what do I know? I’m just a dumb old commonsensnik.

[Technogeeb]

The conclusions are obvious, the whole thing is a faked hoax.

Perhaps not. Considering the dreadful quality of the released source code, it may simply be that he is just incompetent.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

All you have to do is demand the results be reproduced.

This whole exercise is fascinating. I hope this Hansen character is held accountable for any data falsification. His attitude has been beyond arrogant. And to think there are thousands just salivating at seeing his junk science become the basis for draconian law!

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Were you aware that none of the climate modeling computer programs take clouds into account? Because it’s too hard to model and the mechanism of creating clouds is poorly understood. Not one model out there takes clouds into account.

[Tarpon]

Nothing happens by accident. It's all been peer reviewed and don't you know, it's all perfect, so says the UN IPCC. Climate change is real, the Earth is either going to get hot or cold, yes. On that, we do have a consensus.

It's far easier to try and hide the globull warming hoax with dreadful code than it is to give out the code, improve it's operation, document what it is doing, and produce public peer reviewed software and correct answers -- All done way before the first official pronouncement and report. If this accurate result were really desired, it would have been done years ago, as many researchers had asked for it. It's nothing but simple computer code, unless of course you are trying to fudge the results to prove a flawed conclusion.

Man caused global warming is a hoax, the "guilty man" actions and behavior of Hansen proves it is. If it really were peer reviewed data, it would be open, documented and found to produce the answers reliably. As it is, the source data seems to be mysteriously in need of fixing almost daily now. As with the hockey stick lies, the USHCN Y2K "error", and the bad siting of temperature monitoring stations -- Faking it in today's connected world is set for tough sledding.

Odd there isn't more talk of the record Antarctica ice pack isn't it. The fact that sunspot cycle 24 is so far missing in action gets no coverage. Why? It's also reaching ridiculous proportions how NHC are trying to make the hurricane season match the predictions with all of these unusual hurricanes that aren't -- Laughable, lame and just downright idiotic.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Ref: Sunspot cycle 24:

What’s the story on this cycle? I thought it (was to to begin) 14 months ago?

Is it still “late” beginning? Or actually has begun, but is not even as large as expected?

---

2. The earth’s magnetic field intensity is lowering significantly over the past several decades. How has THAT change affected the cosmic ray impacts/shielding/sunspot effect that (in turn) affects cloud intensity?

Or has anybody related magnetic field intensity to cosmic ray received intensity?

[Tarpon]

Sunspot cycle 24 is still late, for the last few weeks the number has been 0. Suggestions are beginning that a new Maunder minimum may be in the making, but all we can do is wait and see, future prediction is not man's strong suit, even when armed with big computers.

There is some recent research showing that cosmic rays are increased with less solar winds, but increased with reduced magnetic field. The reduced magnetic filed also allows in much more of the particle energy of the sun, lots of auroras these days. Higher numbers of particles and more cosmic rays hitting the Earth's atmosphere means more clouds and precipitation, but -- Complicated at best.

For the sun, which I have the most interest in, the site www.spaceweather.com is probably the best clearing center for daily goings on.

[samm1148]

“Were you aware that none of the climate modeling computer programs take clouds into account?”

No; I had read that they were somehow reducing the factors down to two. Incredible that this is being sold. It just shows how far education in science has slipped.