Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[richard]

Apr 24, 2011 15:12:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

I disagree. Hansen is just about the most respected climate scientist on the planet. GISS is the most accurate temperature record available.

[ZL4DH]

Apr 25, 2011 7:02:41 GMT richard said:

Apr 24, 2011 15:12:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

I disagree. Hansen is just about the most respected climate scientist on the planet. GISS is the most accurate temperature record available.

which planet do you mean, the one made of cheese comes to mind!!!. I think this is on a par with your dreamworld

[sigurdur]

Apr 25, 2011 7:02:41 GMT richard said:

Apr 24, 2011 15:12:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

I disagree. Hansen is just about the most respected climate scientist on the planet. GISS is the most accurate temperature record available.

Richard:
I don't like saying this as GISS is US. GISS is certainly not the most accurate temp record. The divergence as of late with other temp metrics shows that the bias in GISS moves it to the trash bin at this time.

[magellan]

Apr 25, 2011 7:02:41 GMT richard said:

Apr 24, 2011 15:12:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

I disagree. Hansen is just about the most respected climate scientist on the planet. GISS is the most accurate temperature record available.

This gif was not to illustrate Hansen's crayon coloring ability. GISS temps for March is a complete joke. I am speaking for Michigan. GISS shows our region 1-2 deg above normal. NCDC is 2 deg below normal. We do have thermometers in Michigan and I can tell you it was NOT above normal in our state. That is the type of malarkey that comes out his Hansen's delusional smoothing/extrapolation/interpolation/rewriting historical temperature practices; pure crap.

[glc]

This gif was not to illustrate Hansen's crayon coloring ability. GISS temps for March is a complete joke. I am speaking for Michigan. GISS shows our region 1-2 deg above normal.

Rather than rely on anomaly maps for specific regional locations, it's probably best to check out the GISS database here.

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Click on the region of interest on the global map (scroll down) and it will bring up a selection of stations local to that region. You will only be interested in those records which go up to 2011.

I've looked at a few for the Michigan area and all of them had recorded a March temperature which was BELOW the long term average. Obviously you will know Michigan better than me so I'll leave you to investigate further.

Do the thing properly, Magellan. There are reasons why anomaly maps don't always represent the local situation. You need to check the data before you start making accusations. It's the data that ultimately makes up the surface temperature record.

If you think you've still got a case after you've looked at the station data - then post your complaint then.

[glc]

Richard:
I don't like saying this as GISS is US. GISS is certainly not the most accurate temp record. The divergence as of late with other temp metrics shows that the bias in GISS moves it to the trash bin at this time.


Come on then , Sigurdur. You and Magellan can work together on this. You've both made what I consider to be groundless accusations. I've given you the source for the GISS data (see above post). Let's see if you have a case.

[sigurdur]

glc:
I don't know when I will get time to look at that list, but here is some from ND.

www.crh.noaa.gov/images/bis/climate/BISLCDMAR

[sigurdur]

www.crh.noaa.gov/images/bis/climate/BISLCDMAR

[sigurdur]

www.crh.noaa.gov/fgf/scripts/localdata.php?loc=appcli&data=farlcdmar

[sigurdur]

www.crh.noaa.gov/fgf/scripts/localdata.php?loc=appcli&data=gfklcdmar

[sigurdur]

No matter how you cut it, it was a cold cold March.

[sigurdur]

If you can't see the disparity between those 4 stations and the GISS map...well......I know a good optomitrist.

[steve]

Apr 26, 2011 11:13:18 GMT sigurdur said:

If you can't see the disparity between those 4 stations and the GISS map...well......I know a good optomitrist.

glc's point is that if there is something wrong with the anomaly plot then look at the data before claiming that the data is wrong. You seem to be saying that the data says it is cold and that it therefore confirms your observations.

So you appear to have no complaint here with the underlying data and there is perhaps nothing wrong with the data.

Following the link back to Steve Goddard's website his claim seems to be more about the suggestion that GISS looks warm because it is comparing against a cold period (1951-1980). Perhaps he should compare with 1998 and we can pretend the globe hasn't warmed at all.

[sigurdur]

Apr 26, 2011 13:46:06 GMT steve said:

Apr 26, 2011 11:13:18 GMT sigurdur said:

If you can't see the disparity between those 4 stations and the GISS map...well......I know a good optomitrist.

glc's point is that if there is something wrong with the anomaly plot then look at the data before claiming that the data is wrong. You seem to be saying that the data says it is cold and that it therefore confirms your observations.

So you appear to have no complaint here with the underlying data and there is perhaps nothing wrong with the data.

Following the link back to Steve Goddard's website his claim seems to be more about the suggestion that GISS looks warm because it is comparing against a cold period (1951-1980). Perhaps he should compare with 1998 and we can pretend the globe hasn't warmed at all.

Steve:
I haven't had time to look at the underlying data. I know that GISS uses a 1200KM radius to draw its anaomoly maps.
I also understand the anomoly. I also understand what is called useful information. The GISS map is not useful information at present times.
I haven't read the Steve Goodard thing, so no comment on that.

By the way....comparing it to 1998 sounds like a spectacular idea... ;D

[steve]

Sigurdur

By the way....comparing it to 1998 sounds like a spectacular idea... ;D

Here you go. And with 250km smoothing. Takes a few seconds to generate:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2011&year2=2011&base1=1998&base2=1998&radius=250&pol=reg

Still looks pretty warm in the southern US and Mexico because March 1998 was cold in the US:

[a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=2&mon1=3&mon2=3&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=1998&irange2=1998&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=2&mon1=3&mon2=3&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=1998&irange2=1998&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a]