World Meteorological Organization - Leaves Out Empirical Temperatures From Its Yearly Report.

[Crick]

I'd call your description the lie. What those agencies have done and continue to do has only improved the accuracy of the record.

 

[Crick]

Do you understand what the term "model" means in this context? It doesn't appear as if you do.

Are you capable of reading? It doesn't appear that you do...

Okay. Read to us where it speaks of models?

 

[saveliberty]

Anybody need a can of whoop-ass? I don't need one here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you suggesting NOAA, NCDC, AMS, Hadley, CRU, GISS and all the rest are lying about warm temperature in those areas?

No, I'm suggesting they all suffer from using the same manipulated data sets.

When the data has been so badly corrupted the data sets become useless. If you use garbage in your paper, your paper will be garbage...

Funny how some scientists can not follow that logic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you understand what the term "model" means in this context? It doesn't appear as if you do.

Are you capable of reading? It doesn't appear that you do...

Okay. Read to us where it speaks of models?

I'll post it again so you can read what you didn't read the first time..

They arrived at the conclusion by using innovative computer modeling methods to simulate regional patterns of climate anomalies. This enabled them to see global warming in greater spatial detail, revealing where it has been most intense and where there has been no warming or even cooling.

(Old Rocks Source)

 

[Crick]

This was the text to which you responded "All contrived models". The word "model" does not appear.

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This was the text to which you responded "All contrived models". The word "model" does not appear.

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.
Below we discuss the contributions to temperature change in the past decade from stochastic (unforced) climate variability and from climate forcings.

You didn't read the dam paper just like the other person didn't..

Please explain how they came to their quantitative numbers for multiple forcings? READ THE DAM PAPER! You guy post shit and then fail to read the dam papers to know what it is they are really talking about.... OY! arguing with idiots 101!

 

[Crick]

"Damn", not "Dam"

I'd say they calculated them from empirical measurement and the laws of physics. Would that be okay with you?

And what sort of number aren't "quantitative"?

 

[mamooth]

Not sure you want to call it lying, but what do you call agencies who manipulate their data to preconceived conclusion?

"Deniers".

And you joyously lick the boots of those liars. Just making it clear where each side stands. You worship proven liars, and we don't. Deep down, you know that, but rather than elevate yourself, you want to drag everyone else down to your level.

I don't have to ask if it angers you, the way nearly the entire planet considers you to be an acolyte of a liars' cult. It clearly does bother you. However, I can't feel much pity for you, since you've deliberately chosen that life of humiliation. You're free to leave your cult and step off of that path at any time.

 

[jc456]

Not sure you want to call it lying, but what do you call agencies who manipulate their data to preconceived conclusion?

"Deniers".

And you joyously lick the boots of those liars. Just making it clear where each side stands. You worship proven liars, and we don't. Deep down, you know that, but rather than elevate yourself, you want to drag everyone else down to your level.

I don't have to ask if it angers you, the way nearly the entire planet considers you to be an acolyte of a liars' cult. It clearly does bother you. However, I can't feel much pity for you, since you've deliberately chosen that life of humiliation. You're free to leave your cult and step off of that path at any time.

WiNNiNg

 

[Crick]

Not sure you want to call it lying, but what do you call agencies who manipulate their data to preconceived conclusion? Misdirection? Error? Misleading? I call it lying.

Not sure, but the only folks I've seen doing it are Roy Spencer and John Christy

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not sure you want to call it lying, but what do you call agencies who manipulate their data to preconceived conclusion? Misdirection? Error? Misleading? I call it lying.

Not sure, but the only folks I've seen doing it are Roy Spencer and John Christy

I guess your blind to the partisan IPCC, GISS/NASA and EPA doing it along with the likes of Michale Mann and his ongoing deceptions.. Ignorance is bliss in the alarmist world of BS pseudoscience...

 

[Crick]

Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist, not an archivist. The IPCC maintains no climate datasets. Neither does the EPA. GISS does and they have been completely open and forthcoming about the adjustments they've made to their historical records. There have been NO complaints about those adjustments from the scientists who actually use them - only from denier hacks and pundits who don't use those data and lack any qualification to make comment on the process.

Apparently ignorance is bliss in the world of denier pseudoscience you inhabit.

 

[jc456]

Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist, not an archivist. The IPCC maintains no climate datasets. Neither does the EPA. GISS does and they have been completely open and forthcoming about the adjustments they've made to their historical records. There have been NO complaints about those adjustments from the scientists who actually use them - only from denier hacks and pundits who don't use those data and lack any qualification to make comment on the process.

Apparently ignorance is bliss in the world of denier pseudoscience you inhabit.

dude, can you even read what you post, "completely open and forthcoming about the adjustments they've made to their historical records"... meaning they're fudging numbers. hah again you all are a kick. You give the answer to the complaint, the adjustments the manipulation, there is our proof in your own writing. See, the lies now? hahahahahahahaahhaahha k00k LoSiNg agian.............

 

[Crick]

I wrote what I mean and it did not mean "fudging the numbers". You have no reason to believe those numbers were adjusted for any reason but to improve their accuracy. That you choose to believe otherwise is only due to the FACT that the only argument you have to make about the validity of AGW is that its a massive conspiracy among all the world's scientists.

God are you stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist, not an archivist. The IPCC maintains no climate datasets. Neither does the EPA. GISS does and they have been completely open and forthcoming about the adjustments they've made to their historical records. There have been NO complaints about those adjustments from the scientists who actually use them - only from denier hacks and pundits who don't use those data and lack any qualification to make comment on the process.

Apparently ignorance is bliss in the world of denier pseudoscience you inhabit.

Your lack of any intelligent facts precedes you.. NO Complaints? What a load of horse shit!

These surface networks have had so many changes over time that the number of stations that have been moved, had their time of observation changed, had equipment changes, maintenance issues,or have been encroached upon by micro site biases and/or UHI using the raw data for all stations on a national scale or even a global scale gives you a result that is no longer representative of the actual measurements, there is simply too much polluted data.

A good example of polluted data can be found in Las Vegas Nevada USHCN station:

Source for data: NOAA/NWS Las Vegas, from

Las Vegas Climate Book Index

 

[Crick]

Michael Mann is a dendrochronologist, not an archivist. The IPCC maintains no climate datasets. Neither does the EPA. GISS does and they have been completely open and forthcoming about the adjustments they've made to their historical records. There have been NO complaints about those adjustments from the scientists who actually use them - only from denier hacks and pundits who don't use those data and lack any qualification to make comment on the process.

Apparently ignorance is bliss in the world of denier pseudoscience you inhabit.

Your lack of any intelligent facts precedes you.. NO Complaints? What a load of horse shit!

These surface networks have had so many changes over time that the number of stations that have been moved, had their time of observation changed, had equipment changes, maintenance issues,or have been encroached upon by micro site biases and/or UHI using the raw data for all stations on a national scale or even a global scale gives you a result that is no longer representative of the actual measurements, there is simply too much polluted data.

A good example of polluted data can be found in Las Vegas Nevada USHCN station:

Source for data: NOAA/NWS Las Vegas, from

Las Vegas Climate Book Index

I went to the link you provided, downloaded a complete copy of the Las Vegas Climate Book Index to which you linked and did a text search for a sentence from your quote. The search failed to find it.

How about you tell us where that text ACTUALLY came from?

 

[Crick]

Never mind, I found it myself.

What you claim to be a quote from the Las Vegas Climate Book Index is actually from an article at WUWT.

On denying Hockey Sticks USHCN data and all that part 2 Watts Up With That

Did you actually think you'd get away with that?

here have been NO complaints about those adjustments from the scientists who actually use them - only from denier hacks and pundits who don't use those data and lack any qualification to make comment on the process.

If you think Anthony Watts qualifies, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, and it's made of solid gold.

 

[jc456]

I wrote what I mean and it did not mean "fudging the numbers". You have no reason to believe those numbers were adjusted for any reason but to improve their accuracy. That you choose to believe otherwise is only due to the FACT that the only argument you have to make about the validity of AGW is that its a massive conspiracy among all the world's scientists.

God are you stupid.

And there you go and write again. Accuracy, what wasn't accurate? oh,oh,... how do they know they're not accurate?

 

[mamooth]

Great news! Anthony Watts has started his own online peer-reviewed journal, the Open Atmosphere Society! We'll surely be getting some quality entertainment from that endeavor.

Open Atmospheric Society

Billy, your "credentials" qualify you as an editor/reviewer. Make sure you sign up, so you can advance the cause of real science and all that. All of us will be very interested in your review comments, which no doubt will display your brilliance.