What is the IPCC

[eagle1462010]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph
http:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...acier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Its amazing to see what a little homogenization, break point alignment and data point manipulations will do for the historical record..

Particularly from objective, scientifically literate sources like Forbes. Why don't you skip the self-delusion and go straight to Fox News?

BTW, the only argument I ever see that these adjustments must be unjustified and deceitful, is that - at least as far as your comments about them go - they all seem to move the data in the same direction. I've yet to see ANY evidence that tells me that's not precisely where it needed to go.

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN - Breitbart

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating.


The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.


The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

This isn’t the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it.

lol keep reading on this one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Me, from April 23.

Predictions Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And soggy conditions move in on the Gulf coast, another El Nino effect.

Frank, thanks for letting me brag about that.

So Frank, can you give us your predictions now? Or are you too chicken for that?

Gotta give you credit for that.

I predict it will continue to warm in the northeast as we move into June, July and August.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

From the horses mouth at NASA................showing that they fucked up the data.................as I've already posted.

Judicial Watch Uncovers NASA Documents Related to Global Warming Controversy - Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter fromBloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.

Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”

Email Response from James Hansen to Demian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”

Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…” (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)

(This issue also crops up in email communications with New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin a little over a week later.)

According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.

Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”

 

[eagle1462010]

NASA Data Global Warming Still on Pause Sea Ice Hit Record

Despite the alarmist “climate” claims made in an official press conference, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showed that Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.

The establishment media and the taxpayer-funded climate alarmists, as usual, tried to avoid the troublesome issues — or they at least tried to confuse the public by citing dubious theories purporting to explain the conflict between reality and the climate predictions. However, experts said the latest temperature data offered further evidence that United Nations theories and forecasts surrounding alleged catastrophic man-made global warming are simply wrong.

Perhaps the most broadly overlooked element in the latest data presented by NOAA and NASA is the fact that, as The New Americanhas been reporting for months, Antarctic sea ice extent was at never-before-seen highs throughout much of 2013. In March of last year, meanwhile, ice coverage was the second largest on record. The previous record highs were set in 2012, only to be overtaken in 2013.


Of course, virtually all of the UN and government-funded “climate experts” predicted drastically decreasing levels of sea ice, so the latest data proved to be deeply embarrassing. It also went virtually ignored by the establishment press, which has consistently tried to avoid reporting on the growing chasm between reality and the doomsday forecasts presented by man-made global-warming theorists. After all, the media’s credibility is on the line now, too.

The UN and governments around the world, which are now spending more than $1 billion of taxpayer money per day on “climate” schemes, have been at the forefront of the frantic search for explanations. The Obama administration, for example, was exposed in leaked documents last year trying to prod the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) into attributing the near-universally acknowledged “pause” in temperature increases to what critics ridicule as “The Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.”

Dr. Whitehouse did the math. “Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 degrees Celsius, the world is now 0.3 degrees C cooler than it should have been,” he explained. Indeed, faced with worldwide criticism and ridicule after its wild predictions failed to materialize, the UN quietly but drastically slashed its temperature forecasts early this year — implicitly acknowledging that all of its previous predictions and models were way off the mark, to put it mildly.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[mamooth]

Eagle, Crick spent great effort debunking every point of one of your cut-and-paste fraudathons. And from you ... silence.

Hit and run avalanche o' crap tactics are only used by the gutless. Those who can defend what they post do defend it. You just paste and run, so you're considered to be a joke.

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagle, Crick spent great effort debunking every point of one of your cut-and-paste fraudathons. And from you ... silence.

Hit and run avalanche o' crap tactics are only used by the gutless. Those who can defend what they post do defend it. You just paste and run, so you're considered to be a joke.

aka I'm fucking up your damned Lies..............

The recent articles are quoting NASA and NOAA fuck ups on data............and the correspondence on trying to cover the data up.................period.....................

It's those orgs saying the DATA WAS WRONG................so what have you disproved...............

The other article showed how they used a single temperature reading in Antarctica to conclude data for 1200 square miles of the area..................

Showed .3mm increases FUDGES as well...............

Face it..............they've been lying their asses off.......................on another article.............the temps are well below the models on their predictions..................

You haven't proved Jack Squat.

 

[Crick]

And YES.. I DO DECLARE that AGW depends on those adjustments to way past gone historical temperature records.

You declare? Gollee, am I impressed!

And if you could read and understand the simple graphs you post -- MAYBE you could too.

If you understood this material well enough to make such a judgement, I might be concerned. But, obviously, there's no such need.

When that happens, we'll discuss pet names.

It's not up for discussion. Use my name or you're talking to yourself.

But in the meantime, the dissonance of equating you with the name of a renown scientist is far too much for me to handle.

What you think of it doesn't matter in the slightest. If it's any comfort, that isn't it's source. Besides, I gave you the alternative of using my actual name.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

 

[mamooth]

aka I'm fucking up your damned Lies..............

The Moon Landing Hoaxers and Birthers tell us that too. And they have better evidence for their conspiracy claims than you do.

Throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks is the conspiracy theorist's favorite tactic. Therefore, it's what you do.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Link please.

I've shown you many, many times. You waste your time looking it up again.

You've never shown us any such thing.

 

[westwall]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

AGW is a theory that has been proven false. That occurred about 15 years ago. Since that time the proponents have resorted to wholesale data falsification in a effort to prop up their now fraudulent work.

Climatology was a legit branch of science till then, now it is discredited by all except those who are poised to benefit from the greatest fraud in human history.

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

Nope. Just the climatologists. I see you have problems with basic reading comprehension too. Why is it that ALL of you progressives respond like whiney little children? You ALL make the same responses my 8, soon to be, 9 year old daughter makes.

Did you never grow up?

 

[westwall]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Link please.

I've shown you many, many times. You waste your time looking it up again.

You've never shown us any such thing.

Oh yes.. Many, many times. The fact you close your eyes and cover your ears doesn't make the posts or the links go away. Now, you have to spend the time looking for them. I am no longer wasting my time on twerps like you.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?

^ debunked numerous times today alone

Show us Frank. I think the new rules require you do so.

It HAS been shown many, many, many times before. Feel free to look it up yourself right here in this very same Environmental forum.

Show us. Your unsupported assertions will get exactly the respect they deserve.

 

[Crick]

So, you believe the vast majority of the world's scientists are either liars or idiots. Which is it?

Nope. Just the climatologists. I see you have problems with basic reading comprehension too. Why is it that ALL of you progressives respond like whiney little children? You ALL make the same responses my 8, soon to be, 9 year old daughter makes.

Did you never grow up?

Even when my children were 8 or 9, they weren't stupid enough to think they could win an argument by claiming that tens of thousands of PhD scientists were ignorant fools.

No where NEAR that stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

Glad to see you back, Crick. Ol' Walleyes is still the lying troll he has always been. Uses exactly the same fake graph that ol' Billy Boob did. And when you zoom out the graph to where you can see the dates, it is obvious that we are in an El Nino. Our self proclaimed Phd has no better use for the truth than the buffoon, Billy Boob.

 

[Wyld Kard]

What is the IPCC?

A corrupt political organization masquerading as scientific.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm done "showing" you stuff. Because you CHOOSE to ignore everything that doesn't support your preconceived notions. Much like you ignore the preconcieved Mission Statement of the IPCC which I've told you about NUMEROUS times. And 2 weeks from now you will pretend you've never about it.

Same deal with the hockey stick graphs. I've repeatedly given you the words of climatologists who have been involved in their making. Words that acknowledge there is insufficient temporal resolution in a Global proxy study to even begin to see 100 or 200 year events. Never mind 50 or 60 year events like our current observations.

Nonetheless -- you CONTINUE to post them and pretend to have never heard such criticisms. My take is that you've heard them, but since you have so much trouble with really simple charts and data -- you just don't understand any of it.

Those hockeysticks are a literal "cut and paste" construct designed to get stupid folks to infer that the current warming data is "unprecendented". One of your favorite words --- aint it Bullwinkle? There's only one thing unprecedented about this.. And that's the amount of time you've wasted throwing a juvenile hissyfit and making no real points or progress with your cause.

Tell me in your own words how a math process with a time resolution of several hundred years shows an accurate representation of a 50 yr spike at its right side. And what that sucky cumulative resolution would do to an event like the Med. Warm Period.

Otherwise -- I'm done with your "memory" issues..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Glad to see you back, Crick. Ol' Walleyes is still the lying troll he has always been. Uses exactly the same fake graph that ol' Billy Boob did. And when you zoom out the graph to where you can see the dates, it is obvious that we are in an El Nino. Our self proclaimed Phd has no better use for the truth than the buffoon, Billy Boob.

LOL... Coming from a left wit fool this is a badge of honor..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Eagle, Crick spent great effort debunking every point of one of your cut-and-paste fraudathons. And from you ... silence.

Hit and run avalanche o' crap tactics are only used by the gutless. Those who can defend what they post do defend it. You just paste and run, so you're considered to be a joke.