But, surely, our resident deniers, comprised of laymen posting on their lunch breaks -- and some who post the entire workday -- know much more than Dr. Hansen. After all, he's just a socialist who is trying to undermine capitalism and starve us to death.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable posts about the weather on Greenland summit, Antarctic sea ice, or how it's supposed to snow tomorrow. More red herrings. Or mosquitoes.

As usual, Hansen's data is politically motivated.

Even the Met (who are nearly as fanatical as Hansen) place the January-November data as the second coldest this millenium, and that will undoubtedly drop to coldest when the December data is figured in. It is only off by 1/100th of a degree now.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20071213.html

UAH also shows 2007 as the coldest this millenium.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Ocean temperatures are near or below normal. That is 70% of the earth. Hansen's claims ring hollow and he can not be considered an objective source.

I am a little confused. I have seen it stated on this board and elsewhere that temperatures reached a peak in 1998, and we have been in a slight cooling trend. And here we have data showing that we are still at or near the peak of temperatures. Which one is it? Looking at the trends over the past 10 years, is the planet still getting warming or are we getting cooler?

Reply: There are different types of measurments on global temperature which can yield different results. Some will have different results than this particular one.

Hi Guys,

Another NOAA/NASA flip flop. I thought moet of the warmest years are is the 1930's now its back to the 2000's. Oh and Hansen says oh those errors don't make any difference.. trust me. Here a group of scientist that say the UN should do nothing. They say its natural and that we should be putting resources in to adapting to the change. The first link is the list of scientists and the second is the letter. I like the great right wing conspiracy part that we should help the other countries though development.

I Quote.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

WOW, what fantastic statements from a scientist who has a lot to gain from the continuation of the hysteria.

Since the paper mentions the immeasurably global insignificant flaw of .003C, I suppose that means that temps were measured to 4 decimal places. I find that to be incredible considering the vastness over which it had to be measured. Or, rather, if it is immeasureable, how do they know what it is?

More importantly is the comment that the arctic shows the greatest warming. The article states that this is consistent with AGW theory and also expected since the great loss of ice this past September. What seems to be glossed over is that they also state that values for the arctic are extrapolated due to limited data. Hmmm...guessed, or shall we say massaged, data that results in warming. Amazing.

I also note that much ado is made about the solar minimum. As though that is signficant in that this CLEARLY is the result of CO2 and not the sun. What I find intriguing is that warm years seem to follow several years after a period of high sun activity. Is there a link? Anybody heard of carryover heat in cooking?

Interesting that he mentioned La Nina, but didn't bother to mention the El Nino in January-March which greatly skewed temperatures upwards. January, February and March were unusually warm due to El Nino, yet he tries to represent this as being a cool La Nina year.

Then he contradicts himself by showing a map of ocean temperatures which is generally quite warm and does not line up with the NOAA data. His yearly rankings do not line up either with Hadley, UAH or NOAA.

Hansen is judge, jury and executioner and will generate whatever results he can get away with to push his agenda. If he was back home in New York doing his job instead of jet-setting to Bali, he might know that it is very cold.

According to NOAA's website, 2007 will rank fifth globally and eighth for the contiguous United States. I assume they are using the same data sets as I cannot imagine a redundant set of global weather satellites, so I wonder why it is these two sources cannot agree. Perhaps these statistical facts are more subjective than we are led to believe.

Reply: On Hansen's website he explains about those differences between the GISS data and other methods. Read the link if you have time.

This is an example of statements being factual but not truthful because the overall picture isn't presented.

As a whole temp indicators suggest a warming lull of about 9 years. So, yes, 2007 may be the xth warmest year on record, but there has been a non-trivial pause in the trend. Take the stock market as an analogy, where the expectation is the same as alarmists have, i.e., things will just keep going up. A characterization of "the 3rd highest DOW average on record" after a 9 year period would be taken for what it is, a failed attempt to impose a view that doesn't reflect the overall situation. The more truthful view would be "the DOW hovers near its alltime high but things haven't moved in quite a while".

Another question that keeps popping up is "how does this unequivocably prove AGW"? It isn't unprecedented, or even extreme relative to this and the previous interglacial. And if it can't be distinguished from a purely natural behavior of the climate system, then on what basis do alarmists assume that it isn't? Dr. Hansen says that warming for the last 30 years is 3 times what it is since 1900. OK, so what?

It's well known that the global temperatures are fraudulent. They serve a political purpose only. Use the US temperatures. They are only slightly inflated.

Just posted on Yahoo news
re melting in Greenland - how dare the earth still
allow natural processes

�The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,� said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. �However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.�

The corner of Greenland where the hotspot was found had no known ice streams, the rivers of ice that run through the main ice sheet and out to sea, until one was discovered in 1991. What exactly caused the stream to form was uncertain.

�Ice streams have to have some reason for being there,� von Frese said, �and it�s pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of the ice sheet.�

The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth�s crust is thinner, allowing hot magma from Earth's mantle to come closer to the surface, is just below the ice sheet and could have caused it to form, von Frese and his team suggest.

�Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it�s thinner, things are warmer,� von Frese explained. �And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica, natural variations in the crust will makes some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others.�

I wonder how badly Dr. Hansen had to beat the data into submission before it gave him this result. Everything he comes out with should be suspect and gone over with a fine tooth comb to confirm or deny it's validity. I'm very thankful we have Steve McIntyre on our side.

A professional group of meteorologists (at least 10 or more) from different backgrounds should be responsible for the whole GISSTEMP data. Climatologists with an agenda should not be allowed close to any of the data (except as observers)

Eastern Greenland has cooled over the last 100 years, since a giant iceberg broke off and wrecked the Titanic.

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/global_t/0112/global/1900/latest.gif

The only way a giant iceberg can form, is if the glacier it calved from is moving quite quickly. Too bad NASA's "top" scientist wasn't there to forecast the end of the world.

Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming

Good point Dr. Hansen! That must explain why Antarctic temperatures are running 5-15 degrees below normal and Antarctic sea ice is breaking all records this year. (Apparently the Antarctic doesn't know how to read Hansen's red graphs.)
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html

Dear Mark,

You must never question the experts! Saddam did have WMD and Iran has no intention of building nuclear weapons. Don't you dare question their judgement, because you are a lowly peon "posting on your lunchbreak." President Bush and Hugo Chavez both know infinitely more than you do.

When Gore is drafted as President, he can change the US motto to "In Hansen We Trust"

In the Sudan, the fervor is over teddy bears. In the Godless west, they no longer have any way to absolve sin and thus worship Armageddon. Who is more primitive?

I have a question that I would love to see the answer to. What % of the global warming is caused by man and what % is caused by solar radiation?

according to gisstemp station data
432 km (*) Baker Lake, N 64.3 N 96.1 W 403719260005 rural area 1946 - 2007
then look at graph
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719260005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
anybody spot the error?
again cambridge bay
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719250005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
INUvik NWT
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719570006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
and so on and on. The most reliable land data is rural 1880 to 2007 ans so far seems to be riddled with errors or missing data although it is stated year X - 2007

All I know is that the month of December here in WI has been extremely cold and with more precipitation than what has been "normal" the past 10 or more years. I own a large indoor riding ring that last Feb froze for the first time since being built 7 years ago. Here it is December and the indoor ground is already partially frozen. At the moment, I certainly do not feel "global warming". Oh...my horses have much thicker coats this year which should indicate a much colder winter than normal.

Dr. Hansen seems to have a very short memory. The 2006-2007 "super El Nino" was the reason that he and others were predicting a record hot year.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000771out_on_a_limb_with_a.html

We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a "super El Nino", rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the "El Nino of the century" as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years.

In today's report he conveniently forgot about it. It also becomes abundantly clear that he is clueless about forecasting ocean circulation.

Every single one of these doom and gloom predictions was off the mark.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-01-04-climate-prediction_x.htm

----------

El Nino, greenhouse gases predicted to make 2007 hottest ever

1/4/2007

LONDON � Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America.

British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases could touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters � and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.

"Even a moderate (El Nino) warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top," said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia.

The warmest year on record was 1998, when the average global temperature was 1.2�F higher than the long-term average of 57�F. Though such a change appears small, incremental differences can, for example, add to the ferocity of storms by evaporating more steam off the ocean.

There is a 60% chance that the average global temperature for 2007 will match or break the record, Britain's Meteorological Office said Thursday. The consequences of the high temperatures could be felt worldwide.

El Nino, which is now underway in the Pacific Ocean and is expected to last until May, occurs irregularly. But when it does, winters in Southeast Asia tend to become milder, summers in Australia get drier, and Pacific storms can be more intense. The U.N.'s Food Aid Organization has warned that rising temperatures could wreak agricultural havoc.

In Australia, which is struggling through its worst drought on record, the impact on farmers could be devastating. The country has already registered its smallest wheat harvest in a decade, food prices are rising, and severe water restrictions have put thousands of farmers at risk of bankruptcy.

UHI this morning

Downtown Minneapolis is 6-18 degrees warmer than the outlying areas.
http://www.wunderground.com/stationmaps/gmap.asp?zip=55401&magic=1&wmo=99999

Metro Denver is 3-16 degrees warmer than outlying areas at equal elevation.
http://www.wunderground.com/stationmaps/gmap.asp?zip=80002&magic=3&wmo=99999

Hansen and USHCN do not believe that UHI is an important factor and make minimal, if any, adjustment for it. They do however make very large upwards adjustments for "time of day bias" which magically increase over the time period where they are trying to claim global warming.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

If you remove the USHCN manipulations from the US climate record, there is essentially no warming.

I am starting to find Dr. Hansen's habit of coming up with data so different from anyone else's quite alarming.

For a while I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but a person can only live on benefits so long before they become a sort of welfare dependant. And he truely is living off my tax dollars (and making more than I do, dag nab it!)

He must surround himself with yes-men who eagerly nod each time he states, "These numbers can't be right. We need to adjust them."

The result seems to be that he has created a sort of data dream-world. At what point do we face facts and sadly concede the poor, old fellow is simply delusional?

In light of recent discoveries concerning NASA, NOAA, and HadCRU gridcell adjustments, and thier "warm deviations" that result, and not to mention the miscategorizations of rural vs urban stations (thanks to Anthony Watts we now know that at least 35% of the US reporting stations are labled rural when they are in fact urban), we can take Hansen's analysis with a grain of salt.

Many people over the last few years quietly shake thier heads when they read this stuff. When a California or Michigan fruit farmer just lost thier crops due to late Winter or late Spring frosts read that thier region had the 3rd or 5th warmest month in thier region's history, they silently scoff at these reports. The AGW alarmists gleefully point out to the public that climate and weather are not the same, but in the public's eye these people cannot be trusted. People's memories are long -especially those people's who lives are dependent are certain weather phenomena (construction workers, farmers, resort workers, etc...).

This year's global December temperature anomally should be one of the coldest in recent decades, as not only North America, but Europe, scattered areas of Asia as well as New Zealand and Austrailia have seen temps well below their 50 year average. Also, Douglas, Christ, and Singer just released a peer reviewed paper that again illustrated the lack of a tropical tropespheric "AGW finger print". That papaer illustrates what the climate models predicted, and what the observations revealed. If anything, the tropical tropesphere has in some respects have shown a negative temperatue anomaly. I predict that Hansen as well as NOAA will adjust December into one of the 10 warmest Decembers in history, and you won't hear a word of the study that Christy, Douglas, and Singer authored.

If Hansen is wrong then we will have cut 100's of billions of dollars from flowing to the middle east and Hugo Chavez, have revitalized our manufacturing base by building alternative systems (Chevy Volt) and cut back on mercury spewing coal plants for the wrong reason.

If Patrick Henry is wrong then the US abandons 30 major coastal cities, suffers intense droughts (Hi! Atlanta), Cat 4 + 5 hurricanes, $7/ gallon gas and 100 of millions of people globally will probably starve.

There is not enough tin foil to cover all the heads of all the denier / conspirators, causing another global resource in short supply.

Canada Free Press
For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editor