Hansen And Jones Need To Sharpen Up Their Maths

I think it’s too close to call. Based on these numbers it’ll be second, but it depends on how warm November and December are,” said Dr Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), at the University of East Anglia, which says 1998 was the record year so far.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

The graph above shows how HadCRUT 2010 compares to 1998 through the end of October.

The 1998 average through October is 0.56, and the 2010 average is 0.49. In order to beat 1998, November and December would have to average more than 0.38 above the same months in 1998. The graph below shows what would have to happen the remainder of the year to make Hansen an honest man.

“I would not be surprised if most or all groups found that 2010 was tied for the warmest year,” said Nasa’s Dr James Hansen.

Are Hansen and Jones both unaware that we are having a near record La Niña event, and that temperatures are plummeting?

These guys are supposed to be the world’s best climatologists, yet they seem to be out of touch with the fundamentals of both climate science and mathematics.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Hansen. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Hansen And Jones Need To Sharpen Up Their Maths

  1. Dave N says:

    Doesn’t Hansen work with GIStemp?. Not that I’d trust them anyway, but how are those figures looking?

    • GISS is going to set 2010 as #1. That was obvious six months ago, regardless of what happened with the weather.

      • clearscience says:

        You know that multiple reconstructions, (as shown on Watts up with that by Steven Mosher) have validated global temperature reconstructions. All these accusations of GISS having a predecided value for 2010 really have been disproved by proponents, lukewarmers and skeptics… Many of whose reconstructions showed greater warmth than GISS. Are you forgetting about the great work that mosher et al put in?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Properly adjusted temperature records give you any results you want. First you need to know what you want to find then work backwards to find the numbers to support the results. Finding a known answer is harder work than finding an unknown answer.

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    another clear case of fraud, Steve. WHY aren’t you publishing all your proof! Wouldn’t it feel good to have all those famous scientists sputtering as they try to distort the reality that you have put together.
    Are you scared of success?

    • I am publishing it. Right here.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        But if you publish in a peer reviewed journal, you will do MUCH more damage to the ACC myth, because you will be showing climate scientists that there are people who Do know the science and won;t be fooled any more.
        And again I urge you to get people to read the geology societies position papers so that they can see there is not this monolithic scientific consensus supporting ACC. Surely that will carry great weight in congress next spring.

      • Mike Davis says:

        TonyD:
        The ACC Myth is a personal thing because each ACC believer has their own vision of what ACC means. One can not address a generic ACC myth to reach all the believers. It is a person to person reprogramming that is required. That method has proven to be the best in most cases throughout the last five decades.
        First you need to admit to yourself you have been duped and are brainwashed into being a true believer.
        No paper published in a peer review journal can give you a personal view of your personal problem.
        It is OK we can help you overcome the problem!

    • Paul H says:

      Tony

      You still have not got it, have you?

      It is not about numbers anymore. The numbers just don’t support what Hansen + co have been claiming. We know it + so do they.

      It is only about politics and vested interests now.

  3. Mohatdebos says:

    No need to worry. “World temperatures in 2010 may be the warmest on record, the U.K. Met Office said, as it plans to calibrate a decade of data to account for newer sensors” according to the attached report from Bloomberg. Reported data cannot be relied upon until it is adjusted to conform to the accepted dogma.

    http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=akOgKGUrom2E

    • Interglacial John says:

      Yes, I have seen this lame excuse before. Would you trust the gas station owner who “adjusts” his pump meters? There is a reason why we must maintain standard units of measure. And you cannot tell me that in 21st century we are unable to match the quality of temperature measurements of a century ago. If the sensors are faulty or just not reproducing accurate measures without manipulation, then put the old thermometers back in place so we can attain measurements comparable to those with which we intend
      to compare. This ain’t rocket science boys!

  4. lance says:

    Your text above has a gross error in it. You stated:
    “…make Hansen an honest man”.. you can’t have Honest and Hansen in the same sentence.

  5. Lazlo says:

    But Hansen and Jones are very much in touch with the fundamentals of propaganda.

  6. Paul H says:

    To be fair to Jones, he cannot know what 2010 temps will come out like until he has had a chance to fiddle them.

  7. 1DandyTroll says:

    OMFG! You guys know absolutely nothing, zip, nada, nill and null.

    What is so bloody hard to understand about this decade being the hottest ever of this decade? :p

    • Mike Davis says:

      It is also the hottest decade of this century! Come to think of it, it is also the hottest decade of this millennium!
      On the other hand it is the coldest decade of this millennium and century also!
      OMG where do we go from here?

    • goodspkr says:

      If you follow this at all you would know that temperatures are adjusted. Now that adjustment always seems to be up for current temperatures and they adjust down for historic temperatures. It’s a scam. The major reason to adjust temperatures are changes in the location of the equipment or the Urban Heat Island effect. The Urban Heat Island effect is especially important as more and more temperature stations are located in Urban areas. Yet the Urban heat Island effect seems to be nil in GISS adjustments.

      You can read about it here http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20528

  8. J.M. Bransford says:

    It seems to me that some people are seeking the truth about real temperatures and others are hoping to prove that temperatures are rising. I just want the truth one way or another. truth matters!

    • Mike Davis says:

      J.M.
      There are no real temperatures. There are relative temperatures in a small area that have nothing to do with relative temperatures in some other small area. It is always Hot, Cold, or mild and it is a personal observation. Whatever the weatherman says is a general guide for your region.
      Temperatures are always changing and always will. Either warming or cooling!

  9. LevelGaze says:

    Am I seeing things?
    “The temperature on 11/23/2010 is 454.72 deg F cooler than this day last year” !!

  10. John Marshall says:

    How can Hansen describe himself as a climatologist? His PhD was in astrophysics. Not the same discipline at all. It is no wonder he gets it wrong then.
    November in the UK is the coldest for years and unseasonal snow, up to 14 inches in the North, so December will have to have tropical heat for Hansen’s idea to come to fruition.

  11. goodspkr says:

    As I recall, Jimmy Carter describe himself as a Nuclear Engineer.

    Actually Climatologist graduate from the same school as meteorologist do. It’s a newer discipline, but people seem to put a lot of stock into what they say. Most people from other scientific disciplines find the pronouncements of climatologist to be less than credible, not because they know more about the climate than climatologist do, but because they know enough about science to realize the are making pronouncements they can’t back up with real science. You have a number of chaotic systems and from that we have “climatologists” predicting what will happen in the future. It isn’t good science.

  12. Denis Ables says:

    The best you can hope for is to get people acquainted with the basic science. It’s impossible at that point, at least for anyone not retarded (oops, mentally challenged) to not become VERY suspicious of CAGW claims.

    My effort at that, a google document is here:

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

    There are others. Feel free to extract data, (but check it out 1st) and whip out something better!

  13. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Strange how they discover an error that allows for an adjustment just before they fly off to Cancun. Don’t they know that the science is irrelevant because the UN says it’s all about wealth redistribution now.

    Surely the new Congress is going to challenge these charlatans. They get more bold by the day as if they are somehow exempt from the normal standards of behaviour.

  14. BKG says:

    I believe that it really doesn’t matter to Hansen, Jones and their co-conspirators what the facts are. We can close up the ARGOS Buoy system if they are going to adjust all of the data….GOOD GRIEF

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s