So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

[whitehall]

In other words they have a piece of junk that they thought would give them scientific data but it's readings are so far off that they use the government's calculations and pretend the data from the pile of junk works?

 

[Ernie S.]

Of course, one could read the whole article in order to understand what is being stated. But that would not fit the political agenda of the wingnutters here.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10027, USA


Karina von Schuckmann
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN Paris, hosted by Ifremer, Brest, France

Abstract.

Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing
more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar
minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period
2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global
climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the
net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too
efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made
aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial
aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific
origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to
understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was
caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar
minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt
and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration
of the rate of sea level rise this decade.
Humanity is potentially vulnerable to global temperature change, as discussed in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) reports and by innumerable
authors. Although climate change is driven by many climate forcing agents and the climate
system also exhibits unforced (chaotic) variability, it is now widely agreed that the strong global
warming trend of recent decades is caused predominantly by human-made changes of
atmospheric composition (IPCC, 2007).
The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An
increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This
added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the
atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between
the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until
planetary energy balance is restored.

Words like "We conclude and inferred are not the same as "Our data proves"
They build a model with a specific output predetermined and if the data doesn't support the result hoped for, they "recalibrate" their instruments, or tweak the model. Climate religion, oops "science" is agenda driven. It is political in nature and bears little resemblance to real SCIENCE.

 

[code1211]

Of course, one could read the whole article in order to understand what is being stated. But that would not fit the political agenda of the wingnutters here.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10027, USA


Karina von Schuckmann
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN Paris, hosted by Ifremer, Brest, France

Abstract.

Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing
more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar
minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period
2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global
climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the
net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too
efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made
aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial
aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific
origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to
understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was
caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar
minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt
and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration
of the rate of sea level rise this decade.
Humanity is potentially vulnerable to global temperature change, as discussed in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) reports and by innumerable
authors. Although climate change is driven by many climate forcing agents and the climate
system also exhibits unforced (chaotic) variability, it is now widely agreed that the strong global
warming trend of recent decades is caused predominantly by human-made changes of
atmospheric composition (IPCC, 2007).
The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An
increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This
added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the
atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between
the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until
planetary energy balance is restored.

Words like "We conclude and inferred are not the same as "Our data proves"
They build a model with a specific output predetermined and if the data doesn't support the result hoped for, they "recalibrate" their instruments, or tweak the model. Climate religion, oops "science" is agenda driven. It is political in nature and bears little resemblance to real SCIENCE.

For ease of reference, I've highlighted the parts of the abstract where the words, "we have proven conclusively" might have been used but were not.

They got nothing.

 

[westwall]

Of course, one could read the whole article in order to understand what is being stated. But that would not fit the political agenda of the wingnutters here.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10027, USA


Karina von Schuckmann
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN Paris, hosted by Ifremer, Brest, France

Abstract.

Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing
more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar
minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period
2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global
climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the
net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too
efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made
aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial
aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific
origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to
understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was
caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar
minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt
and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration
of the rate of sea level rise this decade.
Humanity is potentially vulnerable to global temperature change, as discussed in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) reports and by innumerable
authors. Although climate change is driven by many climate forcing agents and the climate
system also exhibits unforced (chaotic) variability, it is now widely agreed that the strong global
warming trend of recent decades is caused predominantly by human-made changes of
atmospheric composition (IPCC, 2007).
The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An
increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This
added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the
atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between
the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until
planetary energy balance is restored.

Words like "We conclude and inferred are not the same as "Our data proves"
They build a model with a specific output predetermined and if the data doesn't support the result hoped for, they "recalibrate" their instruments, or tweak the model. Climate religion, oops "science" is agenda driven. It is political in nature and bears little resemblance to real SCIENCE.

For ease of reference, I've highlighted the parts of the abstract where the words, "we have proven conclusively" might have been used but were not.

They got nothing.

In fact, they have so little they need to make crap up.

 

[daveman]

The AGW cult leaders may as well have announced, "We're making this all up."

But the cultists like Roxy and konrad still insist it's real science. Pathetic.

 

[parkinson1963]

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."
I don't want to be a pain and point out the obvious but what Hansen did was lower the heat imbalance, in other words he made the earth heat up slower that what the satellite data said was happening. Not much of an Alarmist is he?

 

[Zoom-boing]

In plain English they simply cried 'do over' and proceeded accordingly.

 

[code1211]

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."
I don't want to be a pain and point out the obvious but what Hansen did was lower the heat imbalance, in other words he made the earth heat up slower that what the satellite data said was happening. Not much of an Alarmist is he?

It sounds like this is what happened:

A theory was advanced that predicted that a heat imbalance would produce a given rise in the temperature of the planet.

Instruments were deployed that could measure the factors by collecting data that would prove the measured increase in the temperature was the direct result of the imbalance in the radiation.

The radiation imbalance was proven, but the temperature stubbornly did not change.

The Scientists, secure in the knowledge that their models were perfect and the world was wrong, changed that collected data to reflect the assumed perfection.

Perfect AGW Science.

 

[konradv]

Sounds to me like they're trying to make climate models fit what's actually happening. Thought that's what you wanted. The abstract just proves the climatologists you're bashing are doing things properly, i.e. drawing inferences, but not making categorical statements about what the models show. It's definitely more in line with the scientific method, than anything we see from the skeptics/deniers.

 

[daveman]

Sounds to me like they're trying to make climate models fit what's actually happening. Thought that's what you wanted. The abstract just proves the climatologists you're bashing are doing things properly, i.e. drawing inferences, but not making categorical statements about what the models show. It's definitely more in line with the scientific method, than anything we see from the skeptics/deniers.

"Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models..."

They didn't change the model. They changed the data.

That's not science. That's cheating.

 

[westwall]

Sounds to me like they're trying to make climate models fit what's actually happening. Thought that's what you wanted. The abstract just proves the climatologists you're bashing are doing things properly, i.e. drawing inferences, but not making categorical statements about what the models show. It's definitely more in line with the scientific method, than anything we see from the skeptics/deniers.

Sooooo, what planet do you live on where you attempt to alter the computer models by changing the data collected in the real world?

This should be real good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds to me like they're trying to make climate models fit what's actually happening. Thought that's what you wanted. The abstract just proves the climatologists you're bashing are doing things properly, i.e. drawing inferences, but not making categorical statements about what the models show. It's definitely more in line with the scientific method, than anything we see from the skeptics/deniers.

Are you saying the model was off by more than 700%?

I'm glad we didn't spend trillions of dollars and destroy our economy based on such shitty predictions.

Aren't you?

 

[Trakar]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

 

[flacaltenn]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

This thread is 8 months old, but you should recognize that it IS a nasa.gov link..

More probably, it was an embarrassment to the priesthood and was exorcised...

 

[daveman]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

NASA is a blog?

 

[daveman]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

This thread is 8 months old, but you should recognize that it IS a nasa.gov link..

More probably, it was an embarrassment to the priesthood and was exorcised...

Inconvenient truths do seem to get disappeared a lot with the AGW cult, don't they?

"Hide the decline".

 

[Trakar]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

This thread is 8 months old, but you should recognize that it IS a nasa.gov link..

More probably, it was an embarrassment to the priesthood and was exorcised...

Oh the link opens a Hansen paper, the quoted material simply isn't in that paper, or even old copies of the paper which were printed before the "quote" began appearing on several blog postings. It looks like it all traces back to a Wattsupmybutt blog post but I'm not sure that's the actual origin. Perhaps that one link was to the wrong paper and everyone else has just copied the mistake without verifying even the most basic information. Or maybe my eyesight is just getting bad and I've missed the quoted section in the three or four physical and electronic scans I've done. Either way, if you figure out what happened or find it on the linked pdf, please get back to me, all I wanted to do was read the quote in the context of its surrounding material to better understand what exactly is being discussed.

 

[Politico]

And to think I believed it got warmer because of summer time.

 

[westwall]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

 

[Trakar]

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

Strangely, I click on your link and then cannot find the quoted paragraph at that link? Did you perhaps post the wrong link, or is this a case of relying on blogs instead of legitimate science sites?

Well, this was written by Hansen and Co. He is the master of data falsification and manipulation. I am not surprised that he altered the paper after the field day we had pointing out his methodologies.

Please provide a reliable source for the quoted material, can't believe that you would actually post something like that without referencing back to the original material yourself?! All I want is a link to the same material so I can see what the context of those few sentences were. You didn't get suckered in by a blog source did you? Seriously!?

((hey it happens, that's one of the reasons I don't go to blogs for my science!))

Let me know if you find something.