Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[icefisher]

Jan 25, 2009 17:32:10 GMT socold said:

Jan 25, 2009 4:42:54 GMT icefisher said:

Yet you pick 11 years which starts in an unusually warm year!

It's one of ten possible choices. 8 of those choices show the same thing, 2 do not and they are in the depth of a La Nina. If you average the preceding 2yr El Nino with the La Nina iin years 9 and 10 and substitute that average into the 9 and 10 slots you get a flatline trend. That flattening shows up in the smoothed Hadcru data also.

I think its fair to argue there is no significant trend of cooling but instead a very significant shape is forming on the chart we haven't seen for 60 years and we also saw 120 years ago.

I thought Don Easterbrook's work was pretty accurate in regards to what we do know. He shows a 30 year flatline with warming resuming after that. If you plot the smoothed Hadcrut data the 30 year patterns really jump out right down to the recent rounding over looking exactly like it did in the early 40's

Roughly from 1880 to 1910 you had cooling, 1910 to 1940 -warming, 1940 to 70 cooling (but flatter), 1970 to 2000 warming, and now that pattern is shaping again.

The 1910-40 warming trend has a slope very close to the recent warming trend right down to an acceleration in the last decade of the 30 year warming period.

What is significant is there is a bigger event underlying it all that makes the past 2 warming cycles much stronger than the 2 cooling cycles preceding them.

Something other than global warming is driving the short cycles and since we have no understanding of them we cannot discount that force as also driving the bigger underlying trend.

Now as I see it is when you are clueless about what drives the PDO and the surface temperature oscillations . . . .you haven't gotten to first base in understanding what drives climate.

But I don't think we are clueless on that, observations of the sun and other planets and how those patterns match the 30 year shifts seems to suggest a force beyond the earth. I just think you find cluelessness when you discard those 30 year shifts.

Now you may not see any of the above but I think you need to have your eyes checked if you can't.

[ron]

Why pick a year to start?

How about using a starting point of an imaginary year: An average temp of some arbitrary length of time say centered on 10 years or 20 years to encompass the entire 10 year forward period, or the previous 20 or 60 or somesuch??

[trbixler]

socold
An alternate view
digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uahcooling200812.jpg
Looks pretty flat to me. Time frame over 10 years. CO2 up GCMs did not call this. I agree we should wait and see, maybe doing nothing is the proper response. But Hansen knows otherwise. To give equal footing maybe CO2 is not involved and the sun is not involved either. So maybe scurrying around like chickens on a mission to fix the sky should not be on Jim's agenda.

[jimg]

Solar minimum socold?

So, if the solar minimum affects current weather trends, than the energetic cycles of the past century played a role in past warming.

CO2 has a slightly smaller role in global climate, and the antropogenic portion is even smaller.

Another year and you too will be a CO2/AGW critic.

[dopeydog]

Back in the USSR.

media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

[socold]

Jan 26, 2009 0:52:15 GMT trbixler said:

socold
An alternate view
digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/uahcooling200812.jpg
Looks pretty flat to me. Time frame over 10 years.

1997 - present is not 10 years.

CO2 up GCMs did not call this.

GCMs don't call anything over short timescales.

I agree we should wait and see, maybe doing nothing is the proper response.

Wait and see means emission cuts. We'll possibily increase emissions again if after wait and see we find co2 rise doesn't cause significant warming.

[socold]

Jan 26, 2009 6:37:29 GMT jimg said:

Solar minimum socold?

So, if the solar minimum affects current weather trends, than the energetic cycles of the past century played a role in past warming.

Yes, but it's not the only factor.

CO2 has a slightly smaller role in global climate, and the antropogenic portion is even smaller.

The anthropogenic co2 forcing is the only co2 forcing over the past 200 years. There is no natural co2 forcing over this time, nature has been a negative feedback.

Another year and you too will be a CO2/AGW critic.

I doubt it

[ron]

Jan 29, 2009 20:33:33 GMT socold said:

The anthropogenic co2 forcing is the only co2 forcing over the past 200 years. There is no natural co2 forcing over this time, nature has been a negative feedback.

That's not necessarily true at all, the Earth has been warming and warming reduces uptake (or increases output) of CO2 to/from the oceans, no?

[dopeydog]

More from the resistance at CNN:

www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_11589528

When will Jim Hansen declare Lou Dobbs a public enemy??

[dopeydog]

This quote is from the linked article on Jim Hansen. The author of the quote is Water Cuningham (astronaunt and moonwalker).

“it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.”

Have our agw'rs not proved this over and over on this site.

www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/dissing_hansen.html

Note at the bottom of the article why Jack Schmidt resigned from the Planetary society.

[dopeydog]

Jan 31, 2009 21:42:52 GMT dopeydog said:

More from the resistance at CNN:

www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_11589528

When will Jim Hansen declare Lou Dobbs a public enemy??

Soon no doubt..the empire strikes back:

www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cnns_lou_dobbs_manufactures_controversy/

[magellan]

Feb 2, 2009 20:41:58 GMT dopeydog said:

Jan 31, 2009 21:42:52 GMT dopeydog said:

More from the resistance at CNN:

www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_11589528

When will Jim Hansen declare Lou Dobbs a public enemy??

Soon no doubt..the empire strikes back:

www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cnns_lou_dobbs_manufactures_controversy/

It really is amusing to see how these people always resort to ad hominem to conduct their argument. The facts don't matter, only discrediting their opposition does.

Who was it again that exposed the Hockey Stick fraud? A "climatologist"? A "paleontologist"?

And who is it now that is exposing Santer et al 2008 for the trash it is?

See, we are too stupid to read and educate ourselves. No, only the High Priests can communicate the Truth. Only a "climatologist" can interpret the Scriptures.

And of course, the good professor tells this whopper:

If the sun was causing the warming then we would find that the entire atmosphere, the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere, would warm. But, in fact, the only, only the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling and that’s the signature of the way the greenhouse gas warming would affect the atmosphere. If it were the sun it would be the other way around.

Now, does anyone need to be a "climatologist" to check if his story is right? There are lies and then there are damned lies.

[dopeydog]

I think the reason that so many meteorologists doubt agw is not because they haven't the been exposed to "climate length views" but that they are responsible for their forecasts.

[socold]

Many meteorologists doubt AGW because they are ignorant of climate.

[woodstove]

Feb 3, 2009 21:37:52 GMT socold said:

Many meteorologists doubt AGW because they are ignorant of climate.

ad, ad-hom, ad, ad, ad-hom
ad, ad-hom, ad, ad, ad-hom

oh, ad-ad-hom, you are so wrong
oh, ad-ad-hom, you are so wrong
you got me rockin' and a rollin'
rockin' and a reelin' ad-ad-hom
ad-hom, ad-ad-ad-hom..

;D