Cherry Picking Hansen
Timothy Birdnow
Recently I wrote about an old paper by James Hansen that purported to have now "proven" Global Warming theory. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/climatological_caligulas I just touched on a few of the more obvious points that anyone could make about this (I've been sick, after all, and an in-depth study had to wait for the professionals.)
Well, an in-depth study has been done, by none other than Roger Pielke Sr.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/cherrypicking-a-comment-on-the-atlantic-article-now-this-is-interesting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981-by-james-fallows/
According to Dr. Pielke Sr.:
"If the observed surface temperature data used in the figure in which this claim is made is correct, but also so is the measurement of lower tropospheric temperatures (such as from MSU RSS and MSU UAH), than Hansen’s forecast for the surface temperatures would be correct, but for the wrong reason. If the warming were due to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the lower tropospheric temperatures would have warmed at least as much.
However, the latest available global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly (see) is only +0.11 C above the 30 year average. Over this time period, the Hansen figure shows an expected change anomaly of ~+0.5c.
The trend has also been essentially flat since 2002. The Hansen figure indicates the current change since 2002 should be almost +0.2C.
These discrepancies clearly show the Atlantic article did not objectively look into the Hansen prediction.
The lower tropospheric temperature anomaly analyses, therefore, need to also be compared with the Hansen model predictions. That was not done for the article. These two real-world analyses are reproduced below for the period of record."
End excerpt.
In short, Dr. Pielke Sr. cries foul, and accuses Atlantic author James Fallows of using cherry-picked data.
That should come as no surprise; cherry-picked data has been the watchword of the AGW Alarmists for decades. What did Michael Mann do with his tree ring reconstructions but cherry-pick the trees that buttressed his case? What is "hide the decline" all about? "Mike's nature trick" was to graph real and proxy data together without telling anyone to strengthen their case.
It's an old trick, one that they've been using a long time now.
Many thanks to Dr. Pielke for making the connection.
Recently I wrote about an old paper by James Hansen that purported to have now "proven" Global Warming theory. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/climatological_caligulas I just touched on a few of the more obvious points that anyone could make about this (I've been sick, after all, and an in-depth study had to wait for the professionals.)
Well, an in-depth study has been done, by none other than Roger Pielke Sr.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/cherrypicking-a-comment-on-the-atlantic-article-now-this-is-interesting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981-by-james-fallows/
According to Dr. Pielke Sr.:
"If the observed surface temperature data used in the figure in which this claim is made is correct, but also so is the measurement of lower tropospheric temperatures (such as from MSU RSS and MSU UAH), than Hansen’s forecast for the surface temperatures would be correct, but for the wrong reason. If the warming were due to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the lower tropospheric temperatures would have warmed at least as much.
However, the latest available global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly (see) is only +0.11 C above the 30 year average. Over this time period, the Hansen figure shows an expected change anomaly of ~+0.5c.
The trend has also been essentially flat since 2002. The Hansen figure indicates the current change since 2002 should be almost +0.2C.
These discrepancies clearly show the Atlantic article did not objectively look into the Hansen prediction.
The lower tropospheric temperature anomaly analyses, therefore, need to also be compared with the Hansen model predictions. That was not done for the article. These two real-world analyses are reproduced below for the period of record."
End excerpt.
In short, Dr. Pielke Sr. cries foul, and accuses Atlantic author James Fallows of using cherry-picked data.
That should come as no surprise; cherry-picked data has been the watchword of the AGW Alarmists for decades. What did Michael Mann do with his tree ring reconstructions but cherry-pick the trees that buttressed his case? What is "hide the decline" all about? "Mike's nature trick" was to graph real and proxy data together without telling anyone to strengthen their case.
It's an old trick, one that they've been using a long time now.
Many thanks to Dr. Pielke for making the connection.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home