Yes, you read it correctly. Dr. James Hansen’s latest article, "What Global Warming Looks Like
" and associated full paper, "Global Surface Temperature Change
", supports the hype of man-made global warming. It does nothing to show that man is responsible for the current climate temperature but the details are illustrative and interesting. Here are a few of the key points that one could easily miss but they were certainly not invisible to the fine doctor.
If you look into the first paragraph of the full paper you see the real key to the claim that the globe’s temperature rose as fast in this decade as it did in the past two. To define the issue I go back to a discussion on a sceptic website several years ago where it was agreed that any running average over more than three years was deceiving at best. In the IPCC AR4 report they went to a running average of 9 years, if I recall, illustrating that the climate was still warming. The average temperatures had been dropping for 5 or 6 years at the time. Give or take a few years between data submission and publishing. At the time I thought it was entirely dishonest as did a number of scientists whose comments I saw. At the time I queried,
“What are they going to do next time, average 10 years to make their point
Well, as you might imagine, since it has been a few years, Dr. Hansen had to extend the running average to 12 years! As the late Dr. Stephen Schneider stated, referring to AGW supporting scientists,
“Each of us has to decide between being effective and being honest
He was always particular about the last part of his statement being quoted (so I will comply with his wishes here) “And I hope we can be both.” So was it not convenient, in this case, to be entirely honest? I invite Dr. Hansen to support his position and look forward to printing his response. The question is, why does the AGW fraternity feel the need to change the ground rules except to support a false hypothesis? Do you think it is possible they will be doing 32 year running averages in 20 years? Of course there is ample precedent for GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) to change history as has been shown on Anthony Watt’s “Watts Up With That” science blog. It seems that GISS has been reducing old temperatures and increasing newer temperatures in their data set for years.
I know I have heard their explanation that they have new information and they are refining the data but I, for one, don’t quite see it.
The other defining point of the paper is that the departure from the norm is based on a 30year period from 1950 to 1980. What makes this arbitrarily selected period the standard by which all future climate be judged? If the standard no longer suited their purposes, would they change that too?
Also the starting point of their temperature data set is 1880. The IPCC famously always, mostly, started with 1850. Regardless of what you may think of starting the data set with the bottom of the Little Ice Age, it is certainly advantageous to supporting the AGW advocate’s position. Had the data set gone back to the Medieval Warm Period, we would be wondering why it is still so cool. Fat chance they would ever do that!
Dr. Hansen’s paper does allow for the possibility of future cold weather patterns but insists the likelihood is small. This is possibly intended to allow more time for draconian climate legislation to be passed. Hansen has stated that this is a great opportunity for wealth redistribution that is in keeping with the current administration’s goals. In his last communication, Dr. Hansen noted that taxes collected on CO2 producing energy sources should be returned to the people “on a per capita basis”, not proportional to the energy used by any individual or group. We like to call this Marxism. It is contrary to the history of our country and a lot like socialist Europe. Actually, a large portion of this money could end up in third world countries if the UN model is followed.
Folks, I am not a scientist but it is plain to me that Hansen's latest is designed to put his hypothesis in the most complimentary light. If I am wrong, I would appreciate the answers to my questions. The gibberish that is in the paper does not answer my question, for instance, as to why the change to a 12 year running average. I want real answers. Also, someone didn't give the message to Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia University, Climate Research Unit, that the earth has warmed as much in the past decade as in the previous two. He told the BBC there has been
no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years
There is clearly a disconnect here that is "statistically significant".
Humorously, Hansen allows that almost “any trend” could be found from “judicious choice of start and end dates”. Yes, Dr. Hansen, you and the IPCC ought to know.
Source Link: examiner.com