So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

[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

 

[konradv]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

 

[westwall]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

Tell me then, what exactly is the blue highlighted section saying.

 

[code1211]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

I don't pretend to understand the science of this, but that except above says that the real world results are being changed to match the results predicted by a model.

I just don't understand if the instruments are any good, why they would collect the data then throw it out in favor of a conclusion that is not supported.

That is the stuff of politics, not science.

 

[westwall]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

I don't pretend to understand the science of this, but that except above says that the real world results are being changed to match the results predicted by a model.

I just don't understand if the instruments are any good, why they would collect the data then throw it out in favor of a conclusion that is not supported.

That is the stuff of politics, not science.

I was desiring to see if he could make that leap himself! Now we'll never know!

 

[bripat9643]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

He's saying they didn't get the result they wanted so they "adjusted" the instrumentation until they did get the result they wanted.

 

[bripat9643]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

I don't pretend to understand the science of this, but that except above says that the real world results are being changed to match the results predicted by a model.

I just don't understand if the instruments are any good, why they would collect the data then throw it out in favor of a conclusion that is not supported.

That is the stuff of politics, not science.

Hansen and cronies should be arrested and charged with fraud for stuff like that. he just admitted he's doctoring the data to put a hoax over on the American public.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

For implausible, substitute "contrary to predetermined results"
Now! Doesn't it make more sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A computer model is not able to accurately predict weather or temperature in the future. We simple do not know enough to properly program the model.

And temperature on the surface at temperature stations is adjusted also. No one claiming global warming is man made uses actual readings they "adjust" them all to fit what they want to believe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the data fails to fit the theory, you adjust the data

 

[konradv]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

He's saying they didn't get the result they wanted so they "adjusted" the instrumentation until they did get the result they wanted.

What you call "adusted", scientists would call "re-calibrated". It's done all the time. Instruments often drift over time versus a calibrating standard. If you have a record of those standard readings, you can re-calibrate the instrument, but you can also go back and adjust readings to correct for the drift. Nothing nefarious, just standard scientific practice.

 

[westwall]

I see, you don't understand what they're saying, so THEY'RE mentally challenged?!?!

He's saying they didn't get the result they wanted so they "adjusted" the instrumentation until they did get the result they wanted.

What you call "adusted", scientists would call "re-calibrated". It's done all the time. Instruments often drift over time versus a calibrating standard. If you have a record of those standard readings, you can re-calibrate the instrument, but you can also go back and adjust readings to correct for the drift. Nothing nefarious, just standard scientific practice.

Actually, no, it's not. A experiment is set up, the instruments are calibrated and the experiment is run to its conclusion. If calibration errors are found, the experiment is deemed a failure and the process begins anew. Recalibration DURING a experiment is NEVER DONE.

Well, it's not done by legitimate scientists.

 

[bripat9643]

He's saying they didn't get the result they wanted so they "adjusted" the instrumentation until they did get the result they wanted.

What you call "adusted", scientists would call "re-calibrated". It's done all the time. Instruments often drift over time versus a calibrating standard. If you have a record of those standard readings, you can re-calibrate the instrument, but you can also go back and adjust readings to correct for the drift. Nothing nefarious, just standard scientific practice.

A computer model is not a "standard." It's complete fiction. It's bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey..........just wanted to point out that it is 2011. The years of hysterical rants by the OCD warmer crowd has blown up...............

Never has the debate been more irrelevant. The left never considers "cost" with anything, as if it isnt part of the equation in the global warming debate. They wanted this, that and all the other government shit and now the country is 15 trillion in the red, thus, like all of us, you are forced to sleep in the bed YOU made. And how ironic is that? And in the end, isnt it all about common sense and understanding that in life, it all comes down to accepting necessary tradeoffs.

Thankfully........most Americans realize that when their credit card balloons up to 30K, the kitchen re-do and the Mercedes in the driveway aint happening. Lacking common sense, the k00ks cant comprehend this math. Of course, the political class will throw them a bone here or there and make them all happy.......enough to come in here and post up the same crap they've been posting up for nearly a decade now. The future of energy........at least for the next several decades has NEVER been more clear..

Pull up your pants!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Years ago, there was a brilliant cartoon on network TV called "Mr Magoo"......a blind guy who was always happy and laughing but every moment of his life was fcukked up and he never even realized it. Alwyas doing the wrong thing..........always going the wrong way...........but laughing his ass off the whole time.

Mr Magoo is the perfect illustration of the alarmist warmer crowd. I laughed my balls off when I found this image..................

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHvXC5eegA8]Fat Guy making fun of Global Warming(from boston) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

Fat Guy making fun of Global Warming(from boston) - YouTube

The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe

 

[bripat9643]

in the article Hansen admits he has no actual data. He's just making it up and guessing that the earth is warming.

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.

 

[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.

I determined a few years ago that Hansens work is useful for the bottom of bird cages and little else.