Dr. Hansen Blunders Yet again/ GW Figures falsified

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Nov 21, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

    This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

    So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
    # EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
    # EU plans new energy deals
    # Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'

    The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

    A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

    If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

    Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

    More Here
  2. windcatcher

    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Apr 28, 2007
    Likes Received:
    If one doesn't get the figures they want ('scientific') then report the figures they want....not the ones they get:

    Also set up the equipment so that measurements aren't truely representative of climate but are, instead, influences by bias in the environment surrounding the instrumentation.

    I've heard that in California, a reporter was slipped some information regarding placement of guages by a group which is responsible for gathering data on temperatures for one of Gore's pet projects to produce global warming data: In his investigation he used satilite projections of addresses and visited the sites..... He found measurement guages in places like the heat exhaust of the ac cooling systems.... hot tarmats, locations where climatic heat is augmented by other heat producing sources.... such as the external areas of refrigeration equipment/motors, and areas where frequent warm-ups such as transportation and flight equipment occur, or heat exhaust from sewers.

    God made our earth very adaptible and resileient. I do not believe everything I see reported, nor everything which is touted as being 'scientifically proven' or backed by 'reputible' authorities: Such are often biased to prove a particular POV, from which they get their funding, and job support.

Share This Page