Before we get launched into this discussion, I'd like to make a request: could we please talk about the science rather than Mr. Hansen? I really don't care if this guy is a perverted orphan-raping litterbug. Let's just focus on the science, OK?

Looking through the GISS data set, it becomes obvious that most of the world does not have any contiguous temperature records prior to 1950. The notable exception being the US and a few other locations which generally show the 1930s warmer than the present.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Given the huge disparity in trend between the (relatively) high quality and transparent data of the US, and the opaque reconstructed data for much of the rest of the world - I once again have to wonder what tricks Hansen has up his sleeve.

Combine that with the large discrepancies between Hansen's data and everybody else's - and the only logical conclusion is that Hansen is not an objective source of information.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/temp%20trends.png

Chris:
I understand your sentiment but your request is like asking us to discuss Michael Mann's science without any mantion that it was all a fraud.
It would be very difficult to have an honest discussion about Hansen and GISS data and ignore the obvious problems with it.
This is not science it is political advocacy.

Chris C.-

So you would embrace a theory heralded by an orphan-raping pervert?

I'm not accusing you of doing such, but many on the agw side of the issue seem to believe it is a big deal that many of the skeptical scientists are funded by big corporation X. The person presenting the "science" deserves to be under scrutiny and as such, will be present in the argument over said science.

I don't think it's right to initiate character assassination, but when valid questions can be raised about the integrity of a person in a position such as Hansen, it will come up, and rightly so.

Chris Crawford:
"I really don't care if this guy is a perverted orphan-raping litterbug."

ROTFL thank you for that Chris, you made me laugh out loud.

But Hansen is GISS and GISS is NASA
and it disagrees with everyone else

of course

I missed this gem the first time - 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2C above the prior record with the help of the "El Nino of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nino-La Nina cycle.

Remarkable how many problems there are with this statement.

1. Hansen predicted a "Super El Nino" for 2007.
2. The first three months of 2007 were a moderate El Nino.
(Reply: Patrick, according to NOAA the first 3 months (JFM) of 2007 were a +0.4 c, which is considered neutral, but is is close. Dec/Jan/Feb was still a weak El Nino. The threshhold is +0.5 for El Nino.)
3. The La Nina which occurred at the end of the year lead to below normal SST's and RSS temperatures for the last few months.

First he adjusts the surface temperatures upwards, then averages the El Nino and La Nina together, then he concludes that the result shows a "remarkable" warming in a cool La Nina phase.

Hansen is smearing different concepts and time periods together and ignoring his past mis-predictions, in order to push an agenda. This is not honest science.

How can we discuss science when we have no reliable data? All we can do is espouse our opinions.

Its a dead giveaway. Record this page and data analysis for posterity
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

CC:

The science says that the increase in CO2 over the last century has caused an increase in temperatures of a small fraction of a degree. There are also theories that there are positive feedbacks which increase the temperatures even more - even catastrophically by the most extreme AGWers. However, it doesn't appear that the extremists are correct based on observations by systems other than those manipulated by advocates of AGW.

Funny how many areas that were +2-+4 deg above "normal" had more cold days than warm days, and saw many record lows. Hansen's GISS data consistently measures 20-25% warmer than Sat Data, unadjusted raw data, and even HadCrut's numbers.

Wow...second warmest now? It wasn't that long ago that they said '07 was the fifth warmest. (Reply: That's already noted here.) By constantly changing their minds, it is clear that NASA doesn't know what they are talking about and/or they are constantly being pressured by the global warming alarmists to inflate their findings to make it seem as if the planet is "warming up catastrophically". Anyone with any scientific knowledge knows that there hasn't been any "catastrophe" because of a MAN MADE temperature shift.

Chris Crawford,

Which science would that be? Pre-conceptual science? Hansen's pretty good at that, if the data doesn't fit his preconceived trend; he can always adjust it to make it fit, eh?

Let us not forget that 2007 was marked by a La Ni�a event in the Pacific for half of the year, which means that ocean temperatures were decidedly cooler than what can be expected.

La Ni�a is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon similar but opposite to El Ni�o. Without that cooling, global temperatures would have set a new all time record.

Historically, such events occur at irregular intervals of 2-7 years and usually last one or two years. So, while neutral conditions are possible towards mid 2009, above average equatorial pacific temperatures are not likely until 2010. Still, the warming over land masses is so extreme, that Global temperatures can still be near record levels.

Also, as noted, this is also partially due to loss of snow and ice cover which is providing a positive feedback from the underlying warming trend due to increased greenhouse gases. Snow and ice coverage during the summer months have the greatest influence since that is when sun light is the most intense.

Anybody care to guess which hemisphere has the greatest extent of seasonal snow and ice coverage?

HINT: It's the one with the greatest warming.

All of this may be challenged by the politicals with their evil agendas and inflated egos. Despite rising temperatures and sea levels accompanied by falling snow and ice coverage, they will cherry pick facts and make up theories in an attempt to mislead as many as possible into thinking there is a shred of doubt with the science of climate change.

I am so tired of hearing that Dr. Hansen is not a legitimate scientist. It is simply not true. The discussion above *is* about science, so I have to assume the above comment references participants in this blog who use name-calling to call into disrepute the findings of highly qualified specialists, and who do more harm than good.

I would love to know how here in Northwest Jersey we ended up above average. The first 15 days of January were warm and then most of October, the rest of the year was really right on average or below.

Brett, is that map accurate with the warming at the poles? If not then from what latitude would it be accurate?

Brett,

+0.4 may be a marginal El Nino, but it is definitely not "the cool phase of its natural El Nino-La Nina cycle" as Hansen described.

The part of the year which was actually La Nina showed up near or below normal on RSS data. Which prompts me to say that Hansen's statement is, at a minimum, misleading.

In the private sector, people go to jail for making intentionally misleading press releases about their product.

Would be the first to support NASA if I could. As a scientist I cannot because of the data supplied by RSS UAH, even HADCRUT and of course the recent analysis by Roger Pielke which shows how much this data is out of kilter with most of the others. The main reason I cannot support the NASA data is actually looking at the temp maps on a daily base over the past few years and then seeing what has been put up by GISS. The shocking data extrapolated by NASA (Hansen predictions) of greenhouse gases (methane, CHC etc) since 1980 to now versus reality... see climateaudit etc al together is also suggesting that the provenance of this data is not likely to be reliable. Also the smoothing to 1200 km, the UHI issue, the NH versus the SH ice issue, There is no doubt that there are localized heat pockets in the NH atmosphere and surface over Northern Europe, Siberia and sometimes Alaska (just look at the UAH maps ), most likely due to water and wind circulation and possibly due to underwater volcanic (SH) but this just goes to show that it is not global. Also there are more and more scientist joining the skeptical list.
http://www.diarioperfil.com.ar/edimp/0213/articulo.php?art=4384&ed=0213
I suppose they want to cover themselves.. just in case LOL
the exagerated claims and the general biased warming tone in The NASA page tends to make us skeptical sorry NASA. Best of luck in the future

Great, another thread with a bunch of lies about Hansen and accusations of fraud from people who think weather is climate. Nothing new to see here.

WeatherWatcher,

When there are indications that politics, combined with personal agendas and employment opportunities have a hand in driving the science, then the repercussion will certainly be scrutiny by those who refuse to take things at face value, when they see a continuing pattern of un-abated mis-information from the same sources.

Inputting and tweeking information to fit a certain required pattern is what professional computer game designers do on a daily basis, until the game runs the way they want it to. I wonder if there are any game designers presently working on climate models?

I think if we want to have a fair debate, you have to look with a high degree of skepticism at Dr. Hansen's data. Why is he the only one coming up with these things?

Al Gore and his crew like to dismiss what scientists on the other side of the debate say by saying they're probably funded by oil companies. They say this without concrete evidence and even use the word "may have" when they say it. See http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1002.

I'd be happy to throw out the opinions and data of scientists on both of the extreme ends and focus only on ones in the middle. Shall we just say we're eliminating the outliars to come up with a normal distribution of scientists? So we can either eliminate the ones on the extreme ends of the issue or as Chris C. has said take everyone's opinion into consideration. Hansen clearly has an agenda, and I have no doubt there are probably denier-scientists who also have an agenda. As Paul Yeager said last week, "A reputable scientist never attempts to use research to prove what he believes to be true or what he would like to see proven." Can we honestly say this is not true about Dr. Hansen?

Well it appears my heating bill will be awful this month as well. Last month, Dec, as compared to last year, was 13 degrees colder this year. Well folks, this month appears to be much colder than normal as well. We are currently sitting at -13. Things are crunchy. It really feels like the tundra outside.

ok bro,
if u want to talk about the science instead of mr. "ANONYMOUS temperature adjuster" at the YOU-KNOW-WHERE-BUT-CANNOT-SAY agency, which do you think is a more valid explanation for earth's temperature fluctuations? which theory that says co2, a beneficial life sustaining gas whose concentrations is measured in parts per million, whose heat absorbing capability represents 1% of all the heat absorbers, whose concentrations are cyclic throughout earth's geologic history? tell me bro, is earth's temperature fluctuation the result of 1) a fluctuating ball of fire 100 times bigger than earth interacting with a fluctuating earth orbit, a fluctuating earth wobble in that orbit, a fluctuating oceanic circulation on 75% of its surface, a fluctuating atmospheric circulation, a fluctuating heat expulsion from the earth's interior, a fluctuating heat reflection from clouds and ice, a fluctuating magnetic field all of which fluctuate on a time scale from decades to thousands of years that we dont understand very well or 2) a faulty crystal ball math equation that predicts earth's future temperature to one degree in a hundred years, whose input variables are based on inaccurate, poorly maintained thermometers, whose input variables vary the result based on guesses of the input variables and their interactions, whose sister equations prove on a daily basis they cannot predict the temperature three days from now and the biggest proponents of this theory dont live the lifestyle they preach? Scientifically speaking bro, which do you think is the more valid case for earths fluctuating temp 1 or 2?

I am disappointed that so few people take an interest in the actual scientific content of the report and instead engage in idle personal slurs against Mr. Hansen. Patrick Henry does make a good point about the higher quality and quantity of data from the USA, which should give its dataset greater weight, but I think he too quickly discounts the temperature data from Europe and some of the bigger cities, especially ports, during this period. Sure, there's lots of data that doesn't start until the mid-twentieth century, but there's still plenty of good data from a variety of locations all over the world.

Gary points out:

It would be very difficult to have an honest discussion about Hansen and GISS data and ignore the obvious problems with it.

OK, good, so let's talk about those problems with the GISS data. Who gives a fig about Mr. Hansen?

Anon asks:

So you would embrace a theory heralded by an orphan-raping pervert?

You bet I would, in an instant, if it were well-supported and there were no decent disproofs offered. I don't care WHO says it, I care about whether "it" is true. However, I am not so naive as to accept the claims of people with an obvious financial or personal interest in biasing their claims in one direction or another. I'm sorry, but somebody paid by a company with an economic interest in the subject doesn't have much credibility with me. For all the abuse directed at Mr. Hansen, nobody has shown that he's biasing his data to make money or further some other extraneous motive.

mrsund writes:

However, it doesn't appear that the extremists are correct based on observations by systems other than those manipulated by advocates of AGW.

What do you mean by 'observations by systems other than those manipulated by advocates of AGW.'? What are these systems?

Paul writes,

Which science would that be? Pre-conceptual science? Hansen's pretty good at that, if the data doesn't fit his preconceived trend; he can always adjust it to make it fit, eh?

The science would be climatology. Did you have anything to say about it?

The divergence between this data and the RSS data can no longer be overlooked. Hansen's "adjustments" demand a congressional investigation, for the discrepancy between reality as Hansen sees it and what satellites see not only embarrasses NASA; it effects our reputation as a nation world-wide.

If you look at the GISS temperature graph as it is portrayed in this link, there is every reason for alarm. This GISS data is a major prop for conclusions in the IPCC paper. This GISS data supports calls for drastic action, and even supports Mann's concept of a "hockey stick" increase and a "tipping point." If you look at this graph, and this graph alone, you can see why some alarmists feel we should park all SUVs and pedal about on unicycles.

The problem is: The RSS graph is utterly different. It goes down where this goes up. The RSS data in effect knocks the GISS prop out from under the IPCC conclusions, and causes the IPCC to fall flat on its face.

Therefore we can expect those who have invested greatly in things such as carbon credits and solar-powered unicycles to raise a howl. They will do everything possible to discredit the RSS data and praise this data. They might even hire people to post on blogs like this one 16 hours a day, striving to effect public conciousness through muddying the waters and obscuring the simple fact that the GISS data can't co-exist with the RSS data.

When Chris Crawford demands we "talk about the science" I know what to expect. In an attempt to defend his beloved IPCC he will produce thousands of words which do little but fustigate the facts into a form that defends GISS data, but utterly fails to explain away a simple truth: The GISS graph goes up while the RSS graph goes down.

The divergence between the two graphs has simply reached a point where it can't be tollerated. Hansen's "adjustments" need to be scrutinized and likely re-adjusted.