Prof.Hansen Fiddling the Temperature Again.

The master snake oil salesman still hard at it as the New IPCC report approaches,get lies in early.

There is apparently no difference between cherry picking results or downright lying. These UHI results are all indeed now questionable. But Hansen (Snake oil for all) does selectively cherry pick anyway, just to make his Hysterical Global Warming (we're all gonna die) claims surface at an convenient moment. Again and again this main driver of the AGW scare and hoax, keeps on keeping on, with a range of manufactured graphs than any reasonable scientist would be too embarrassed to show, let alone lay a name on it.
Hansen has no such hesitation as he is an embarrassment to the science he claims to represent. He has to go. One should only be allowed to lie and embarrass the good name on NASA for so long.

U.S. Surface Temperature Update for July, 2012: +1.11 deg. C

A question asked on Dr Roy Spencer's Site regarding Hansen's questionable cherry picking.

Peter Hartley says:

August 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It is interesting that the trend is quite close to the Watts et al (2012) trend of +0.155 deg C/decade for the Class 1/2 stations using their new classification system. While you do not have to worry about TOBS bias by definition, they were criticized for ignoring TOBS bias when using max and min observations only. Perhaps the similarity of their results with yours suggests that the TOBS bias adjustment (the largest adjustment made to the official temperatures) is unjustified.

Another thought — I wonder how many of your specific synoptic reporting time observations pertain to stations they have classified according to siting criteria? It might be interesting to look at the fixed time of day observations for stations in different Classes. Perhaps your co-author Christy, who also co-authored the Watts et al paper might be interested in following up that issue.

How AGW Scientists Manipulate the Results.

Here is a fine example on what happen when temps are played around with. The different adjustments manipulates the graph to suit whoever is fiddling with the stats. Steve McIntyre has done a sterling job in exposing the crooks, the false savants and Snake Oil Salespeople, showing through practical applications including calculations, exactly how, when and where the Global Warming Soothsayers have erred or cheated or played with the result just to show how hysterical we are supposed to be about a planet weather system that appears to be almost self correcting.

Will we fry in our beds tonight or be BBQd next week ? It just ain't gonna happen and meanwhile our food and power goes up while those lunatics play paranioa and guess who pays the bill for their inane stupidity, lies, misinformation and thievery.

Gridding from CRN1-2

COMPARISONS
First here is a comparison of my calculation using CRN1-2 data to NOAA results from 1890-2007. (I re-iterate for the N-th time that analyses on U.S. data are not representative of the ROW.) NOAA has values to Aug 2007 and I’ve estimated the last 4 months as the same as the corresponding 2006 months for now. NOAA has run warmer by about 0.2 deg for the past decade and was about 0.1 deg C cooler in the 1930s.

Second here is a comparison of CRN1-2 data to GISS pre-Y2K results. As you see the GISS with the Y2K error was running warm by about the same as NOAA – which may be one reason why they didn’t spot the error. GISS runs a bit warmer than NOAA in the early and mid portions of the graph due to their greater efforts to do an urban adjustment.

Third, here is a comparison of CRN1-2 data to GISS post-Y2K results (but not including the September change from SHAP to FILNET, which seems much too opportunistic.) Relative to CRN1-2, GISS tends to warm the cool periods (1960s, 1900s) and to cool the warm periods (1930s), reducing the size of the mid-20th century cooling. For the U.S., as noted before, by using the trends from “unlit” stations to establish trends – in a context where there are a lot of decent rural stations with long records – the GISS methodology for USHCN stations seems more appropriate than the NOAA (and probably the CRU methods). Unfortunately, this method is not used in the ROW, where there is nothing equivalent to the USHCN.

Finally, here is a reconciliation to John V’s annual results sent ot me yesterday. His 2006 results run much colder than the ones that I calculate- which is presumably an artifact of the 3 months stub period that he used in his calculation. So the anomaly with his 2006 results can be traced definitely to this (which shows up a “cool” difference in the graph below.)

So what does my calculation using CRN1-2 data look like: see below, which includes a 2007 estimate (using the 2006 difference between the CRN1-2 and NOAA to estimate 2007 CRN1-2 from the YTD NOAA results.) In this calculation, the warmest year remains 1934 by a margin of nearly 0.2 (enough to be “statistically significant” according to things that GISS has said, then 1921, then 1998, then 2006 in fourth place. Values since 1998 have been at uninterrupted high levels. Looking at the graph, it’s definitely noticeable – but is it the sort of change that’s inconsistent with the sort of stochastic behavior in the early part of the series – hard to tell here. If you cut the series off in 1997, you certainly wouldn’t have noticed anything odd about the 1990s. You can sort of see in retrospect why MBH98-99 were so excited about how warm 1998 and in such a rush to include it in their article. The main verification issues right now is why the ROW history is so different from the US – is it climatic or nonclimatic? And can one tell?