Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientist: Heat Waves Really Are From Global Warming
mdsolar writes with a tidbit from the New York Times on global warming: "The percentage of the earth's land surface covered by extreme heat in the summer has soared in recent decades, from less than 1 percent in the years before 1980 to as much as 13 percent in recent years, according to a new scientific paper. The change is so drastic, the paper says, that scientists can claim with near certainty that events like the Texas heat wave last year, the Russian heat wave of 2010 and the European heat wave of 2003 would not have happened without the planetary warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. Those claims, which go beyond the established scientific consensus about the role of climate change in causing weather extremes, were advanced by James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and two co-authors in a scientific paper published online on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural,' Dr. Hansen said in an interview."
Hansen is a "scientist" who likes headlines and attention. Nothing to see here, move along...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
All this drought, devastation and disaster from just under 1 degree C. Imagine what it will be like at 2 degrees! When you multiply the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of the oceans and air by 1 degree, it's a number that's off the charts. How did people think we could dump that much energy into any system and it would not make a difference?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
In the U.S. the conservative political party (the ones opposed to doing anything about this) is called the Republicans.
By and large they live in the center and southern parts of the country, the parts most affected by the heat.
So, in a sense, they are burning in the Hell they themselves have created. Unfortunately the rest of the world is also suffering.
Look at the abstract. This isn't arguing about the accuracy of fractional degree measurements at individual weather stations: it is about > 3 sigma events over >10% of the Earth's surface, quite large changes and exactly the kind of thing that would be expected if more energy was being added to the atmosphere. For years the climatologists have been trying to explain that adding energy doesn't simply make everything slightly warmer, but will have effects larger in one place and smaller in another. This study tends to bear that out and emphasises that the extremes are over large land masses - again as would be expected. I am rather glad I live close enough to the Atlantic to be affected by Atlantic weather patterns, but far enough that we rarely get the worst of the storms, even though I am going to have to put in extra soil drainage in October.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Tell me, if these heatwaves were 1C cooler, would they be less of a severe heat wave or no different?
'The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural,' Dr. Hansen said in an interview./quote?
Right, so "not natural". Maybe that's true. But why assume that man caused it? Man is natural, unlike magical creatures such as pixies. Have any of these so-called "scientists" considered that some sort of global warming pixie might be behind it? Probbaly not, because they depend on massive grants from organisations with a pro-AGW bias. Give me proof that it wasn't pixies and we might have something to talk about.
Either that or arsenic based life forms.
Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.
The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.
Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.
...heaven forbid we actually do anything about it that's worth more than some blog post. It's like everything is in a bad dream anymore where you're watching yourself trying to run away from something but can't because for some reason, your legs just don't move as fast as they can.
The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural
Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
In the end the planet will be a dry wasteland, but by the time I'm an old man, we'll be able to launch a probe that sends information about humanity amongst the stars - just at the same time I reawaken safe and well to find myself captain of a starship again. Plus I'll have learned how to play the flute - bonus!
Yet more scaremongering from the statistically-incompetent Jim Hansen. Regarding the heat wave in Russia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a press release entitled "Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands"; the press release is based on a paper that was published in Geophysical Research Letters. Another paper, published in the same journal, concluded that "the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability ... [and] appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes". Also, some researchers in Germany analyzed the data and published a paper, entitled "Large scale flow and the long-lasting blocking high over Russia", which says that the heat wave "appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability".
In short, the claim about Russia is false. The claim about the European summer of 2003 is also debunked. (I am not familiar with Texas.) And why does Hansen not mention extreme cold recently in Alaska?—is that also due to global warming? Bad weather has always existed.
The only thing we normal people can do on an individual basis is try to live our lives in the most sustainable way possible. Of primary consideration is the location of where to live, as forest fires, flooding, drought, heat waves, and hurricanes are all increasing in magnitude. Sustainabble energy is important, as is renewable energy. Possessing a generator and solar array is essential, not only do they lower electricity bills, but they ensure life wil not be disrupted by outages. Similarly, storage and conservation of drinking water is also useful. Planting a decent size garden now days can save a family hundreds or even thousands dog dollars a year in food costs.
If one lives in an urban environment (as a majority of humanity now do), live within your means and build up a saving account to deal with unforeseen incidences (disasters, outbreaks, ...anything goes these days!). It pays to be prepared, one cannot say they were not warned. No need to turn into a gun nut and go all survivalist stocking 10 years of food in ones basement, but we clearly need to reevaluate how we live on a daily basis.
The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural...
I think you underestimate the denier's capacity to ignore science.
That global warming is caused by Liberal politicians, you elected Obama, then you get heat waves. A clear cause effect link.
God is sending you a warning! And the heatwave was sent to Texas! A clear sign that Texas Republican need to spend more money getting their guy elected.
Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.
The one world goverment and alternative energy industry lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.
Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.
You'll notice Hansen carefully avoids talking about the 1930's. The EPA has a heatwave graphic which goes back to the turn of the last century. If Hansen wants to claim it is due to co2 then there must have been one hell of a co2 bubble sitting stationary over the US for most of the 1930's. http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heat-waves.html
Isn't Mitt Romney from the midwest Hell?
Thanks for analyzing that paper's scientific value for me without actually reading it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I didn't do anything for you. read it if you want to? it has no "scientific" value, because it's not science. I don't need to read something like that. I don't read Harry Potter, either.
Warm weather is caused by something.
AGW is something.
Therefore, warm weather is caused by AGW.
QED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
All-time temperature records of 24 out of 51 US states (including DC) were made in the 1930ies and still stand. Colorado reached its all time high this year, but didn't surpass it.
Another 8 states have all-time temperature records dating back before the 1930ies. Oregons record dates back all the way to the 19th century - 1898.
That's 32 temperature records older than 70 years.
No record high temperatures were recorded for the 1940ies. For another 4 states record dates are in the 1950ies one more in 1961. Another 2 states set records in the 1970ies, another 2 states in the 1980ies. Out of 5 states in the table with record temperatures set in the 1990ies there were 3 states that merely repeated their old records, without setting a new one. The same is true for all 4 states listed in this table for merely repeating their old records within the last 12 years.
My suggested headline: NASA scientists turn a blind eye to reality.
Did he skip the one in 1988 too? Yep looks like he did.
Om, nomnomnom...
Someone needs to take a long, hard look at the moderation of climate threads on /. Quoting from the moderation guidelines:
I'm not taking sides either way in the climate debate; I'm saying that sceptics are moderated down because the moderators disagree with their point of view. At least one comment here already has the score '0 Flamebait' when I'm pretty sure the author of that comment posted what he posted because he honestly believes it, not because he's trying to stir up a flame war. Another comment is titled, 'Before the trolls start...', immediately branding anyone who disagrees with the author as a troll. They're not, they just disagree with you. Build a bridge and get over it.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Read the original link, it's not a 164 day heat wave, it's 164 days of temperature above 100F, which the article you linked to then claims is a heat wave. Which of course it isn't since Marble bar is damn hot normally:
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
"The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100Fahrenheit (or 37.8 on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. "
It's normal for Marble Bar:
"Temperatures above 100F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of northwestern Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year. "
So you're attempting to mislead. Which is why we have peer reviewed science. This is peer reviewed, Weatherman's claims aren't, indeed they were debunked many times in several different ways, and he simply repeats them to mislead.
Feel better?
Have you ever considered that maybe the scientists are really scientists and that they are really right?
Give me some proof it is not made made and we might have something to talk about.
What happened in 1980 to cause the climate to change?
im all for electing smart people who will do what is right (as opposed to what their corporate masters demand). However, China has 1.2 billion, as does India, and Africa growth will be well over a billion. The earths biospheres are almost dead. The oceans are fished out and becoming acidified. The great forests of the amazon, Congo, and SE Asia are quickly being deforested. Indeed, melting of the glaciers is accelerating. All these things are happening, well outside of the control and limited influence of the democracies of the world. A prudent thing to do is to recognize where things are heading to mitigate the consequences of periodic disaster.
And of course, Hansen did not study the 1930s. He compared 30 years when there was cooling after the 1940s to the 30 years of warming which followed. Yes, when you have a cool spell then things do warm up when the cool spell ends.
Hansen is a PNAS member, meaning he can either skip peer review entirely or pick his reviewers. Even if the review process had been rigorous, peer review guarantees nothing about the correctness of a paper. Peer review simply means that the paper passes basic quality standards and editorial policies for the publication in question. If you want to judge by external factors, none of the authors are statisticians, so their statements about statistical anomalies amount to little more than opinion.
I don't know whether the hot summers have been due to global warming; I tend to believe so. But to claim that as a fact, I'd certainly like a valid statistical analysis from someone qualified to make such an analysis, not from a climate hack like Hansen.
Finally someone that points out this is about the change in temperature *variance* (square root of variance rather), and not the change in temperature mean. Sigma-dot as it were. The plot of the sigma over the last six decades showed a clear trend that the temperature became more varied in that time. Six decades is nothing in climate terms though. I read the argument on why 1951-1980 was used as the baseline, its mean was near the overall holocene mean, and the mean wasn't changing much during those three decades, but that is still just too little data to base such a strong conclusion on. A similar study could be conducted with indirect measures (ice cores, tree rings, permafrost bands, or who knows what), and we could ascertain the previous "sigma-dot" maximums. Using a second order statistic was a good idea and I suspect that if the variance isn't simply tied to the mean (the plots kind of look like that), that he is on to something, but only grabbing a handful of data points in extremely close time proximity and then drawing a conclusion from them is overreaching.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
GLOBAL WARMING SUPPORTER!!
"during a sunspot-cycle (which is known for abnormal solar activity,"
Seeing as we're in a minimum solar sunspot cycle, what do you think talking about extreme sunspot events is going to do for your case?
Please, no accusations of being a right-wing nut. I just don't jump on any bandwagons until I'm sure of the facts.
Humans do contribute to the problem, but most of the issue is natural.
In fact, most of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from Europe and China, and within the US, most of it comes from the big, industrialized areas controlled by Democrats. So, actually, in your way of looking at it, Republicans are burning in the hell created by Europeans, Chinese, and Democrats. Republicans would also have welcomed greater use of nuclear energy.
But, hey, it is of course the Republicans' fault if they don't stop you from emitting so much carbon (or eating so much or whatever other bad habits you may have).
I'm posting this AC, because even mildly questioning GW dogma on /. is a sure way to drain your karma into oblivion (the last time I did, I got modded down from excellent karma to poor--for just TWO posts MILDLY questioning GW).
Anyway, AFAICT, the GW hardcores seem to have developed a bulletproof form of "science" where their model CANNOT, by its nature, be disproved. Why? Because all contradictory evidence has been appropriated into the model in such a way that it is impossible to cite any weather pattern or trend that contradicts it.
Is there a heat wave? That's global warming. Cold wave? That's produced by the extremes caused by global warming. Mild wave? Well, that just shows that climate is bigger than individual weather patterns. Tornados, hurricanes, etc.? Global warming. Lack of tornados, hurricanes? Again, individual weather patterns don't contradict global warming.
See what I mean?
The extremes of GW to me look more like a religion now than a science. I've seen religions create this same sort of bulletproof cage around themselves. But that is NOT what science is supposed to be about. Science is supposed to be about accepting the possibility that evidence could one day overturn your particular theory or model. Even greats like Newton had to face that (though he didn't live to see it). It's not supposed to be about millenialist/apocalyptic fear-mongering, religious dogma, or viciously attacking everyone who dares question your hypothesis as an unbeliever who should be excommunicated.
Again, posting AC so as to avoid excommunication.
Here, since you seem to have forgotten it, is what the GGP said:
"The rest of all the people who (think they) can predict the future: GO BUY LOTTO TICKETS YOU IDIOT!!!"
Which is patently wrong.
Who needs to literally have it spelled out for them anymore?
Oh, I imagine there's a fair number of right-wing glibertards who aren't getting it because a man has difficulty understanding something when his salary depends on him not understanding it, but other than that, duh you've gotta be a fuckin' stupid git to not comprehend that things are warmer today than they were even 10 years ago.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
My dad, who gets most of his news and opinions from Rupert Murdoch's corporation, and my brother, who gets most of his news and opinions from libertarian blogs, assure me that climate science is socialist science. You see, there is a conspiracy at the universities, where all the faculty is implicitly socialist (evidently not having to really work for a living fosters that political belief!) to end capitalism. Climate scientists are the cutting edge by which that conspiracy seeks to slice the capitalist throat. Everything in their journals and public pronouncements is a concerted lie in the furtherance of their conspiracy.
What Joe McCarthy warned us about — a communist conspiracy in government (at a time where there really were some communist conspirators in government, if perhaps not as many as he claimed) — doesn't begin to compare to this (where rather than a minority of government workers being communist, over 97% of climate scientists are in on the grand conspiracy)! To find a parallel, we must look back to earlier in the 20th century, when "Jewish science" threatened to undermine that most advanced of states, Germany. Top non-Jewish scientists in Germany, many with fundamental discoveries to their credit, elucidated precisely how the "theory" of relativity and certain quantum claims from "Jewish science" threatened to undermine the Thousand Year Reich, and more than that were specifically designed to.
From our point of view as Americans, we have much to thank "Jewish science" for. It shows how scientists, when they conspire, can undermine what they see as an evil empire. Similarly, future citizens of Greater Socialist Scandinavia may thank the "climate scientists" whose clever scheme if successful will spell the end of the Capitialist American Empire.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Beware of any politician that promises to change the temperature of the earth.
mankind has fooked this planet...time to get your robocop style spf 3000 suncream..or if global dimming is added ..confused well nature is ..:( :(
we have had more recorded funnel clouds ectect in the uk this year than in any recorded year passed..and dont talk about the start of our summer when we had nothing but rain for weeks on end..i know we are the uk but that was takeing the urine..this rock that we all live in is going down hill faster than any model suggests
its all gone pete tong .
Or can't you answer the question and have to distract to avoid answering?
If the temperatures were 1C cooler, would the heatwaves be less severe or not?
Well if you have '+1 informative' moderation, and you see a post that's presenting MISinformation, surely a -1 for MISinformative is appropriate? I know there isn't a -1 misinformation label, but that doesn't mean misinformation shouldn't be moderated down.
It's not a debate, it's not people agreeing to disagree by discussion. There's science here. Real stats, real research. You can win a debate using debating tricks, but it won't change the science.
What's notably missing is the lack of science on the denial side. The denial side has been taken seriously. The weatherman claims were taken seriously, NASA took the weather stations he criticized out of the statistics and the trend was identical. They then pointed out they actually measure global temperature by radar these days, and the global trends match too. He was debunked, thoroughly and completely. Yet he presents the exact same claim again, and the moderators rightly flag comments pretending it's not been debunked as misinformation.
"Build a bridge"
No, one side has the science behind them, one side is in denial. A compromise would be *half* wrong. There's nothing to be gained by that.
Well given your described cause-and-effect, sounds like the most direct solution would be euthanasia throughout the developing world. In the modern age there is no longer any reason to have more than one or two children, and indeed, as you narrate events it is horribly irresponsible and deadly to one's own species to have more children. Surely then our species, through an organization like the U.N., has the right to step in and protect itself by limiting/euthanizing across the globe. Self-defense against extinction is the most basic natural right.
He based his conclusions on a 60 year time frame. 60 years is statistically insignificant when looked at on geologic time scales. It is the equivalent of stating a person's average life-time activity level by looking at what said person did over the last minute.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The funny thing about global warming is that whenever there's a massive heatwave or cold snap, it has all happened before. We're just going through a cycle.
The only people that will suffer are the idiots that built homes in flood planes and along shorelines.
Curious though: do Arabs in the Middle East complain about heat waves? Or, are they just laughing at all the silly Western doomsday proclomations?
Well fuck me!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You obviously don't read much of anything.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Records and averages are not the same thing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
It will get Warmer.
It will get colder.
Repeat.
It is infallible.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Umm numm numm numm num!
Peer-review? by The National Academy of Science (NAS)?
Hansen is a member of the NAS. NAS would never reject a
paper from a member!
But the conclusions are not supported because the 'technical'
details are unfounded on too many accounts of dubious
numerology posing as mathematics.
The title of the paper is correct, 'Perception' a quality of the
human mind apart from reality.
LOL
no.
State's rights is Local control-- or at least more local. + you can move if you don't approve of how your state spends your taxes -- or to get a bigger welfare check.
You are already wearing the 2 shackles,
Looks like the AGW folks have basically won. This is a sad sad day for science and rational thought in this country when an unscientific theory like AGW gets so much uncritical airtime.
The amount of Human habitation/destruction/deforestation/... in the last century has to have some effect on the climate.
But why all the blame on CO2? Lets blame Reagan and be done with the carbon tax and blocking clean coal and and and...
ready the lifeboats for a trip to our new home. Mars! Looks nice!
no.
Even the wildest hocky-stick models don't show things getting that bad
EVER!
And Ive seen a 'paper' that proves that Cats cause global warming too.....
Need to see what these 'statistics' are and how they were collected (And where from) and what the analysis method is.
OR has the raw data already been destroyed and the analysis method kept hidden like so many of these 'papers' and 'studies' ???
And thats ALL the raw data - not just 'cherry picked' bits that match the desired outcome.
I am a philosophy major you insensitive clod.
I post AC therefore I am.
"It will get Warmer.
It will get colder."
The average rises.
This is global warming.
How do you know that the climate is different in Florida than in NY state? The average weather over 30 years.
Now, if that measure was taken 80 years ago and done again today, the values you get for THE EXACT SAME PLACE have changed.
This is called "climate change" and we know it's changed for the exact same reason why know what the climate of a state or region is.
Over where I'm spending the summer, it has been one of the coldest, rainiest and shittiest in the past couple decades.
What heat waves? Please heat things up a heck of a lot more!
Build a bridge and get over it.
I don't think it's possible. Here's why:
Consider the 3x3 matrix:
a: climate change isn't happening
b: climate change may be happening
c: climate change is happening
x: do nothing about it
y: implement technology-based solutions to deal with it
z: implement State-based solutions to deal with it
the people in (c,z) are advocating the violence-based taking of resources from the other 8 sectors, which upsets them. This especially burns the people at (c,y) because the (c,z) people are also preventing the (c,y) people from acting, and the (c,y) people believe that the (c,z) people have an unworkable solution, but they have might-makes-right people on their side.
The (c,z) people also paint the (c,y) people as (a,x) people, when they're actually closest neighbors. Media people tend to describe the problem as (A,B), where A maps to (a,x) and B maps to (c,z), which does the debate no favors at all.
The only way for the (c,y) people to prove their case is for them to be allowed to demonstrate it. But the (c,z) people prevent that from happening. Some (c,z) people know that the (c,y) people are right but want more State power, some are unaware, and some believe they are wrong. If we call them (l,m,n) respectively, it's only the (c,z,l) people who are dangerous - the other 26/27 quadrant occupants are amenable to persuasion by science. But you can't build a bridge between science and anti-science, they are actually opposites.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
One way to measure trends in extreme weather is to compare the number of state record high and low temperatures by decade. Many more state high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades. Even more surprising, since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.
Now you can mod me down, believers.
Does this analysis take into account increasing heat injected into the system? In the 50's the concern was testing nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, and how long the injected heat would take to dissapate. Now we can monitor mass coronal ejections as well. I don't know how that affects the thermal aspects of the atmosphere, but I wonder if this research factored that into the equation?
... the same people who were trying to sell an impending Ice Age in the 1970's...
Ok, my first off-the-cuff response got modded "flamebait". I hadn't RTFA, I just based my opinion on Hansen's past publicity stunts. More, look at the timing: Right after the Curiosity landing sends NASA hits through the roof, to stage your next publicity stunt as a "NASA scientist".
So now I've read the publicly accessible parts of the paper. I stick by my initial opinion: he's a publicity hound, nothing more. The paper is based on the trend of "hot weather" incidents starting in 1950 through 2000. Why didn't he include the 1930's and 1940's? Probably because they were hotter than the 1950's and would mess up his nice little trend. Anyway, looking for serious climate trends over a period of only 50 years is just dumb. There is a natural 60-year climate oscillation (see Scafetta, 2010) that lines up nicely with this little line segment that Hansen has chopped out. If you cherry pick your data, of course you can find a trend.
I stick by my original message: Hansen is a publicity cow, cynically using the Curiosity publicity to advance his own agenda.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
It is very easy to be fooled by 3 sigma fluctuations, especially on an analysis of data that has already been collected. The problem is the statistical penalty. how many searches were made and not reported? If you do 100 tests on random data, you will find a three sigma effect that is just a statistical fluctuation. One reason why 5 sigma, and not 3 sigma is the requirement for discovery in physics (eg the Higgs)
Do you think someone ignorant of the uses and necessity of capitalization is even capable of reading a scientific paper??? The guy's obviously fifteen years old and trying to be "133t" and not relizing how ignorant his comment looks.
Free Martian Whores!
Care to explain to me what relizing means ? English is not my mother tongue and I'm eager to learn new words.
I'm not a coward by any name.
Ever notice these so called "scientist" never include the #1 reason the earth warms or cools? The output (or lack) from the sun? When we are in an "up" period of sun activity, we get warming. I remember in high school in the 70's, everyone in the dead of winter was worried about a new ice age. Now we are worried about warming. Also, these same so called "scientist" take data from only what, 100-200 years? And, in the course of EARTH HISTORY, that is what? 1-2 seconds in the time of the history of the earth? More anticapitalist antiprogress idiots, who have an axe to grind, more BS from the same scientist who receive their funding to continue this garbage from government, who wants to control everything & everyone.
Maybe you'll get a little reward for your slavishness.
The Carbon Tax has just gone live in Australia. The conservative opposition is finding it easy to whip up outrage all over at this "Great Big New Tax". This is even after redistribution of the proceeds of the tax has made almost every voter (microscopically) richer rather than poorer, and has given everyone an opportunity to become (slightly) richer again by cutting down on energy usage.
I think the Carbon Tax idea is the perfect solution. But people are dumb as mud. So you'll never get your tax through in the USA where people are dumber than mud and armed with automatic weaponry.
It's a typo, it should have had an A between the E and the L. They may spell it with an S rather than a Z in Britain, I'm not sure.
"realize"
Free Martian Whores!
Seriously? This clown still gets stuff published that has holes so big you could drive a MAC truck through them? You don't even need any more than a cursory read to spot the huge errors.
“This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/editorial-hansen-is-simply-wrong-and-a-complete-and-abject-failure/#more-68784
The paper cherry picks the data in such a blatant way that only a complete fool would agree with it. Even amateurs have eviscerated this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/#more-68722
1. Note all of the missing southern hemisphere data. There are operating weather stations during his time, but they are excluded from the analysis. Why?
2. The period chosen, 1955-1999 (in the bell curve animation) leaves out the warmer 1930s and the cooler 2000s. Why?
3. The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out (of the bell curve animation) biases the presentation.
4. The period chosen exhibits significant postwar growth, urbanization is not considered.
5. As for severe weather, Hansen ignores the fact that neither tornadoes nor hurricanes have shown any increase recently. Only smaller tornadoes show an increase, due to reporting bias thanks to easily affordable and accessible technology. NOAA’s SPC reports that July 2012 seems to be at a record low for tornadoes.
6. My latest results in Watts et al 2012 suggest surface station data may be biased warmer over the last 30 years.
I have read enough comments to realize that people on /. will continue to debate whether the adverse environmental conditions are man-caused or natural. It really does not matter any longer as there is nothing that can stop it. Storms will be more destructive year after year and those islands no one cares about will disappear in to the water. Of course, people will debate if the weather is really worse than before. We are only just starting to see weather that will scare the crap out of you and your wallet. Who to blame for it, does it really matter?
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
Of course NASA is going to interpret any data it finds to promote the view that global warming is equal to impending doom for us all unless we change our ways and live like cave men. I doubt if they had any comment on the recent study that the general trend since Roman Times is for the earth to be cooling off. Of course, looking at anything beyond recent history might be too much for some so-called scientists to fathom.
we can stop global warming with individual actions self begin, example always not industrial consumtion, this way can reduce produc and than can reduce activity http://malangrayaonline.blogspot.com/2012/08/sepeda-motor-bebek-injeksi-kencang-dan.html