As you might have guessed, the mean surface temperature was less than half a degree higher in 2006.
The chart shows the clear cooling trend prior to the 1950s as well as the modest warming of the 1980s as consistent with solar cycles. Less than a half degree warming trend is statistically insignificant, especially since the data is disproportionately collected from selective sites with bias towards heating.
Marxist symphatizers are everywhere - even in science. Likes of Dr. Hansen, who once lamented the injustice of uneven wealth distribution in a letter to President Clinton, need to be exposed for the charlatans that they are.
5 comments:
I believe that Hansen's official and published position is a temperature rise of 2 to 4 degrees over a century up to 2100.
I still think this is a highly unlikely outcome, but temperature rise of between 2 to 4 degrees in a single decade is completely crazy talk. I'm temped to say that the journalist just made a massive blunder (as journalists often do). I note that no one was willing to put their name to that article. I would not put my name to such rubbish either.
If you notice, the chart is talking about "anomalies," not the actual mean temperatures.
If you want to see actual temperatures, you might want to take a look at the plots of month-by-month mean temperatures by every location that was in the GHCNv2 in 2006:
http://climate.unur.com/ghcn-v2/
which E.M. Smith did a better job of explaining than I did.
Also, my post "Dude, where's my thermometer?" shows where those measurements come from:
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
Sorry, for the shameless self-promotion but I think this information will help put things in perspective. Thank you.
-- Sinan
Tel:
I disagree completely. Coupled with his prediction that the CO2 concentration would double by 2040, you know that he meant a 2c increase in mean temperatures.
Hansen has been caught multiple times falsifying data - another inescapable fact. He is a committed Marxist. I will have to post his letter lamenting the injustice of global wealth redistribution.
Wake up, why do you think they say green is the new red in Europe?
Sinan:
yes it is an anomaly chart showing the temperature variance from the mean. I have temperature charts but will check yours also.
You suggest Hansen is a Marxist. I understand why you say this. Same with Strong, Suzuki. But he and they are of the funny, South America Marxist types that have no problem with their personal wealth, for their wealth is gained in the service of the little people.
When you are on the side of God and Righteousness, the wealth flows and is Good. Wealth that is achieved in service to the Other Side, i.e. to something the Godly disagree with, is corruptive and evil in its influence.
The climate debate avoids religious aspects, but I can't help but see a lot of fundamental Christian beliefs in here, tied into behaving correctly so that the Second Coming of Christ happens in the lifetimes of the Hansen set. Just as the support for Israel by politicians from anti-Semitic areas who are also evangelical types, might well be a reflection of the born-again who understands that the Jews have to be back in their homeland before Christ reappears (it is so writ).
I think that there is more to the radical warmist views than science and a fear for future changes in a secular world. Between the lines seems to be a deep, deep philosophy of being Good to God's creation.
I'm sure this is a non-politically acceptable thought, but the blatant cooling of the past and warming of the present seems to slide by as if such detail didn't matter. Not wasn't weird, but didn't matter.
Post a Comment