Reply to: USA’s top Climate Change Expert Lied

[EternalOptimist]

Glasnost was a cover story for the Illuminati coup that distributed state assets into the oligarchs. It is no coincidence that this is the year Hansen gave his testimony using Farenheit to terrify the populace. We can guess what happened to the Siberian weather stations.

Are you suggesting that the soviet soldiers looked out the window and said 'fck thatski. I aint going out there. How cold do you reckon it is Ivan ?'
'Well comrade, dont forget the cold weather allowance, the vodka allowance and the extra oil if it goes below -40'
'It's -41 I reckon'


how very dare you, old greg

[Old Greg]

Well something happened in 1988. I doubt it was a sudden effect of co2.

maybe there are some Rusians on this board wh can enlighten us.

what happened in Russ in 88. particularly siberia.

and how accurate would they rate temp records under the soviets ? would things have changed in 88 with glasnost and the closing down of the military bases which housed the weather stations ?

I dont know. but I am curious

Glasnost was a cover story for the Illuminati coup that distributed state assets into the oligarchs. It is no coincidence that this is the year Hansen gave his testimony using Farenheit to terrify the populace. We can guess what happened to the Siberian weather stations.

[EternalOptimist]

I see Anthony Watts thinks that global warming is caused by municipal steam heating pipes in Siberia. Presumably these were all switched on at once in 1988

Well something happened in 1988. I doubt it was a sudden effect of co2.

maybe there are some Rusians on this board wh can enlighten us.

what happened in Russ in 88. particularly siberia.

and how accurate would they rate temp records under the soviets ? would things have changed in 88 with glasnost and the closing down of the military bases which housed the weather stations ?

I dont know. but I am curious

[pjclarke]

Temperatures in Russia stepped up in 1988. They have remained stepped up ever since.
by about 1 degree.

Really?

comparing data before that step to after in that region is not a very wise move.

It is a very wise move, unless you have reason to believe the step change is an unphysical artifact. I see Anthony Watts thinks that global warming is caused by municipal steam heating pipes in Siberia. Presumably these were all switched on at once in 1988

[pjclarke]

Friday :

Temperatures haven't risen for 20 years,

Saturday:

Just to recap....the temperature trend has been flat for 17 years and continues to be flat. This is confirned by the GISS temps.

Do I detect a trend? : Is he right? Here's the 17yr trend in the data GISS (NASA) data

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gis...last:204/trend

I sleep just fine, thanx.

[BlasterBates]

Well, the original quote gave the wrong size of the prediction, used the wrong units, the wrong geographical area and the wrong timescale.

Remembering that celsius is the unit most widely used in modern climatology and we were talking about global temperaure, the original quote is



To which I called BS. The source is :-


In other words a likely rise of between 1.6C and 5C sometime between 2025 and mid-century in the global average with Northern latitudes peaking at 11C. So yes, the original quote was wrong about the size of the prediction, the units, the geographical area and timescale. Apart from those pettifogging details, pretty good accuracy.

I see this all the time, the IPCC and others give a range of scenarios, as nobody can predict exactly what will actually happen to emissions, and our understanding of the climate system is constantly improving (all those billions on research heh, for example Hansen's 1988 model had a 'climate sensitivity' of around 4C per doubling of CO2, the most up to date number is nearer 3C). Inactivists pick the most extreme, exaggerate it a bit further or lift it out of context and when it doesn't come to pass shriek that the whole edifice is wrong.... A good example would be Pat Michaels, who in testimony to Congress simply erased Hansen's scenarios B and C from the graph presenting only the 'high side' projection, described by Paul Krugman as 'fraud, pure and simple'.

That was a good one but 20 degrees in 11 years is another doozie.

BTW Here's the temperature map for Nov, the warmest on record:



Happy Solstice!

So confirming the flat trend




Just to recap....the temperature trend has been flat for 17 years and continues to be flat. This is confirned by the GISS temps.

You can sleep easy at night because you will be pleased to know, that I can assure you the upwards trend you're fretting about is simply a figment of your imagination rather than anything real. Posting pictures of the world with red blobs on it is not a scientific argument.

Happy holidays

[Old Greg]

Temperatures in Russia stepped up in 1988. They have remained stepped up ever since.
by about 1 degree.

comparing data before that step to after in that region is not a very wise move.

Why did you so misrepresent what Hansen said?

[EternalOptimist]

Temperatures in Russia stepped up in 1988. They have remained stepped up ever since.
by about 1 degree.

comparing data before that step to after in that region is not a very wise move.

[pjclarke]

ok. you are agreeing with me, but disputing the word 'by'

Well, the original quote gave the wrong size of the prediction, used the wrong units, the wrong geographical area and the wrong timescale.

Remembering that celsius is the unit most widely used in modern climatology and we were talking about global temperaure, the original quote is

James Hansen predicted a 20 degree rise in temps by 2025.

thats twenty degrees in the next 11 years. Do you honestly believe that will happen?

To which I called BS. The source is :-

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

In other words a likely rise of between 1.6C and 5C sometime between 2025 and mid-century in the global average with Northern latitudes peaking at 11C. So yes, the original quote was wrong about the size of the prediction, the units, the geographical area and timescale. Apart from those pettifogging details, pretty good accuracy.

I see this all the time, the IPCC and others give a range of scenarios, as nobody can predict exactly what will actually happen to emissions, and our understanding of the climate system is constantly improving (all those billions on research heh, for example Hansen's 1988 model had a 'climate sensitivity' of around 4C per doubling of CO2, the most up to date number is nearer 3C). Inactivists pick the most extreme, exaggerate it a bit further or lift it out of context and when it doesn't come to pass shriek that the whole edifice is wrong.... A good example would be Pat Michaels, who in testimony to Congress simply erased Hansen's scenarios B and C from the graph presenting only the 'high side' projection, described by Paul Krugman as 'fraud, pure and simple'.

That was a good one but 20 degrees in 11 years is another doozie.

BTW Here's the temperature map for Nov, the warmest on record:



Happy Solstice!

[pjclarke]

People post nonsense, half-truths, selective quotations, lies, tabloid headlines, pictures of snow ironically titled 'Global warming' (Wink)

I try and rebut the nonsense - very rarely have I started a thread, very rarely strayed into activism - with references to primary sources.

This makes me a conspiracist hell-bent on establishing a totalitarian green dictatorship to take us back to the seventies/stone age, naturally. Got no better arguments, guys?

The Climate Change Bill was passed with only 5 votes against. Hardly undemocratic.

The (woefully inadequate) effect so far has been more windfarms, and an increase in energy bills, tiny compared to the increases from fluctuations in the international prices for oil and gas.

Do get a grip.

[EternalOptimist]

they want a fundamental reorganisation of society.
back to the 1970's or hunter gatherer


but without that democracy bit in the middle

[Zero Liability]

Unfortunately for people like you scientists are now quantifying what is needed to solve the problem, so scaremongers such as yourself are now having your "statistics" put into context. When you say things like "But we'd need a helluva lot more plants of a species not yet known to science to make a difference" you are actually saying "there no technology solution so people do as we tell you if you do not want to die from CC"

As I have said the last thing you people want is a solution.

Agreed entirely.

[Old Greg]

get back to the baby.

i'll take care of the boobie

I am going to get drunk now. Have a good one.

[EternalOptimist]

Stop it. I've been up every night with my baby for a week and this isn't kind.

In the bit I quote he doesn't say anything about what will happen up to 2025, but he does make predictions as to what (looking forward from 1988) would happen after 2025.

get back to the baby.

i'll take care of the boobie

[Old Greg]

ok. you are agreeing with me, but disputing the word 'by'


if I say 'by' + 1 second


would that satisfy you ?

Stop it. I've been up every night with my baby for a week and this isn't kind.

In the bit I quote he doesn't say anything about what will happen up to 2025, but he does make predictions as to what (looking forward from 1988) would happen after 2025.