Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC's lies, They have brainwashed the public society with their bent opinions!
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 12 2010, 09:43 AM
Post #1







Guests








QUOTE
To cook temperature data and warm the earth artificially, NASA and NOAA have whipped up a nifty recipe. Here are the not-so-secret ingredients for global warming:

1) Reduce temperature reporting stations across the globe from nearly 6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 or less today.

2) Drop out reporting stations in higher latitudes (colder), higher elevations (colder) and mainly rural locations (colder).

3) Cool early temperature records through data “adjustments” to create the impression of a current warming trend.

4) Fail to compensate or under-compensate for urban growth and land-use changes that can produce localized warming known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

5) Cherry-pick thermometers from reporting stations sited at busy airports and other warm locales (e.g. near the coast or at lower elevations).

6) Fill gaps in the shrunk-down thermometer network by estimating temperatures using a system of global grid boxes. Then “populate” the grids with thermometers stationed at lower latitudes and altitudes, or near the coast and in other warm spots.

7) If there are no temperature stations inside the grid box, use the closest station in a nearby box (for example, at the bottom of a mountain plateau or on the coast).

8) Adjust the final temperature dataset using “homogenization,” a blending process that effectively spreads a warm bias to all surrounding stations.

9) Voila, global warming made easy!

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-C...ith-cooked-data

NOAA and NASA are pro-AGW, and it is quite apparent, when you look at NOAA's "climate.gov" and see the Arctic ice melting etc. And nothing with the Antarctic sea ice.

http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch/images to see all of their pro-AGW bias.

And of course, wecan't forget the GISS, falsely claiming that they have more Arctic data than the Hadcrut, and then showing this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...250&pol=reg

Lol, Hansen! Where's the data in the Arctic now?



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/giss...mperature-data/

The IPCC also removes the Hockey Stick graph, is a bunch of activists, and lie, according to critics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q

-Snowlover123

So, still think that they're objective, honest scientists, that can be trusted?

UPDATE: The GISS also deleted data. Is that truely being credible? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/giss...mperature-data/



This post has been edited by Snowlover123: Jul 12 2010, 01:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wjp201111
post Jul 12 2010, 09:56 AM
Post #2




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 15-January 10
Member No.: 20,958





QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 12 2010, 10:43 AM) *
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-C...ith-cooked-data

NOAA and NASA are pro-AGW, and it is quite apparent, when you look at NOAA's "climate.gov" and see the Arctic ice melting etc. And nothing with the Antarctic sea ice.

http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch/images to see all of their pro-AGW bias.

And of course, wecan't forget the GISS, falsely claiming that they have more Arctic data than the Hadcrut, and then showing this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...250&pol=reg

Lol, Hansen! Where's the data in the Arctic now?

The IPCC also removes the Hockey Stick graph, is a bunch of activists, and lie, according to critics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q

-Snowlover123

So, still think that they're objective, honest scientists, that can be trusted?



From what I see, you are Spot on! What I see most often is the reduction in Temperatures from the Sattelite Era.

One thing I question, is NASA. They Feel the Need to construct their own temperature records, However, they admit it is not official, and is not used in records. Yet, it is displayed in news paper articles, and Is even More exagerrated Thah NOAA/IPCC!

Just For the Record, they actually said "This is a Victory", when discussing the lowering pre-sattelite era temperatures. It reminds me of George Orwells "1984". Except this isn't a fiction Novel, this is real, and is our future if we don't give NOAA/NASA/IPCC The Boot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phased Vort
post Jul 12 2010, 10:11 AM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Founding Member
Posts: 19,266
Joined: 13-January 08
From: White Plains, NY
Member No.: 12,468





WJP201111 and all other users,


QUOTE
Just For the Record, they actually said "This is a Victory", when discussing the lowering pre-sattelite era temperatures.


That must be sourced and/or sourced data to back up that sentence is required by the forum guideline.

As I posted in another Climate Chance thread, failure by any user to source and use back up data to validate their posts will lead to trouble with the moderating team, leading to warn level increases and moderation and even a ban if the failure to use back up data and sourcing continues.


--------------------
Phasing's done. The Vort's out.

[
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wjp201111
post Jul 12 2010, 11:55 AM
Post #4




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 15-January 10
Member No.: 20,958





QUOTE(WhitePlainsNYBlizzard @ Jul 12 2010, 11:11 AM) *
WJP201111 and all other users,




That must be sourced and/or sourced data to back up that sentence is required by the forum guideline.

As I posted in another Climate Chance thread, failure by any user to source and use back up data to validate their posts will lead to trouble with the moderating team, leading to warn level increases and moderation and even a ban if the failure to use back up data and sourcing continues.


Sorry, forgot to post them wacko.gif

Here they Are

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/CANADA-CGDI_C...limateData.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003310031

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/accou...ochrane-orcutt/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jul 12 2010, 01:29 PM
Post #5







Guests








QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 12 2010, 10:43 AM) *
So, still think that they're objective, honest scientists, that can be trusted?


Be sure to add
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

•American Association for the Advancement of Science
•American Astronomical Society
•American Chemical Society
•American Geophysical Union
•American Institute of Physics
•American Meteorological Society
•American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
•Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
•British Antarctic Survey
•Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Environmental Protection Agency
•European Federation of Geologists
•European Geosciences Union

•Federation of American Scientists
•Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
•Geological Society of America
•Geological Society of Australia
•International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
•International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
•National Center for Atmospheric Research
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Royal Meteorological Society
•Royal Society of the UK (http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/joint-statements/)


The Academies of Science from 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position

11 Are if you don't read the link above joint statement :

•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

It is a BIG Conspiracy Theory wacko.gif

This post has been edited by TheATHiker: Jul 12 2010, 01:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 12 2010, 01:50 PM
Post #6







Guests








QUOTE(TheATHiker @ Jul 12 2010, 02:29 PM) *
Be sure to add
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

•American Association for the Advancement of Science
•American Astronomical Society
•American Chemical Society
•American Geophysical Union
•American Institute of Physics
•American Meteorological Society
•American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
•Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
•British Antarctic Survey
•Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•Environmental Protection Agency
•European Federation of Geologists
•European Geosciences Union

•Federation of American Scientists
•Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
•Geological Society of America
•Geological Society of Australia
•International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
•International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
•National Center for Atmospheric Research
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Royal Meteorological Society
•Royal Society of the UK (http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/joint-statements/)
The Academies of Science from 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position

11 Are if you don't read the link above joint statement :

•Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
•Royal Society of Canada
•Chinese Academy of Sciences
•Academie des Sciences (France)
•Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
•Indian National Science Academy
•Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
•Science Council of Japan
•Russian Academy of Sciences
•Royal Society (United Kingdom)
•National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

It is a BIG Conspiracy Theory wacko.gif

ATH,

I love how you try and bring this off topic, as the believers, (not you personally) obviously don't have a credible explaination for why NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC (referrence to links above) delete data, and in my video I showed above, the IPCC completely deleted the Hockey Stick Graph from their 2007 report, yet we have folks on this blog showing Mann's stick as if it's some sort of god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q

Review what they deleted before you come up with any conclusion. The film, 12 Angry Men is a good analogy of what you have just presented. 11 men voted that a boy commited 1st degree murder on his father, yet one man was skeptical, and it turns out he saved the boy's life. What you have done, instead of giving a legittimate response to my topic, you try and throw it off topic. So I ask respectfully, to please comment on the topic at hand. It doesn't do anything for you, except take up space on this forum.

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

-Snowlover123
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 12 2010, 02:08 PM
Post #7







Guests








QUOTE(wjp201111 @ Jul 12 2010, 10:56 AM) *
From what I see, you are Spot on! What I see most often is the reduction in Temperatures from the Sattelite Era.

One thing I question, is NASA. They Feel the Need to construct their own temperature records, However, they admit it is not official, and is not used in records. Yet, it is displayed in news paper articles, and Is even More exagerrated Thah NOAA/IPCC!

Just For the Record, they actually said "This is a Victory", when discussing the lowering pre-sattelite era temperatures. It reminds me of George Orwells "1984". Except this isn't a fiction Novel, this is real, and is our future if we don't give NOAA/NASA/IPCC The Boot.


Thank you wjp. I see that my first link best describes why NASA and NOAA can't be trusted. The main reason though, is homogeniztion. That creates a warm bias, probably that most NOAA scientists know, and use it to "appear" as if Global Warming is happening.

-Snowlover123
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jul 12 2010, 03:20 PM
Post #8







Guests








QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 12 2010, 02:50 PM) *
ATH,

I love how you try and bring this off topic, as the believers, (not you personally) obviously don't have a credible explaination for why NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC (referrence to links above) delete data, and in my video I showed above, the IPCC completely deleted the Hockey Stick Graph from their 2007 report, yet we have folks on this blog showing Mann's stick as if it's some sort of god.


Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

-Snowlover123


[IPPC]Delete???
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/a...en/ch6s6-6.html
using multiple climate proxy records, identified in Table 6.1, including three records (JBB..1998, MBH..1999 and BOS..2001) shown in the TAR, and the HadCRUT2v instrumental temperature record in black

.... Same page..
The TAR discussed various attempts to use proxy data to reconstruct changes in the average temperature of the NH for the period after AD 1000, but focused on three reconstructions (included in Figure 6.10), all with yearly resolution. The first (Mann et al., 1999) represents mean annual temperatures, and is based on a range of proxy types, including data extracted from tree rings, ice cores and documentary sources; this reconstruction also incorporates a number of instrumental (temperature and precipitation) records from the 18th century onwards. For 900 years, this series exhibits multi-decadal fluctuations with amplitudes up to 0.3°C superimposed on a negative trend of 0.15°C, followed by an abrupt warming (~0.4°C) matching that observed in the instrumental data during the first half of the 20th century. Of the other two reconstructions, one (Jones et al., 1998) was based on a much smaller number of proxies, whereas the other (Briffa et al., 2001) was based solely on tree ring density series from an expansive area of the extratropics, but reached back only to AD 1400. These two reconstructions emphasise warm season rather than annual temperatures, with a geographical focus on extratropical land areas. They indicate a greater range of variability on centennial time scales prior to the 20th century, and also suggest slightly cooler conditions during the 17th century than those portrayed in the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) series.

The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.

This post has been edited by TheATHiker: Jul 12 2010, 03:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 12 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #9







Guests








QUOTE(TheATHiker @ Jul 12 2010, 04:20 PM) *
[IPPC]Delete???
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/a...en/ch6s6-6.html
using multiple climate proxy records, identified in Table 6.1, including three records (JBB..1998, MBH..1999 and BOS..2001) shown in the TAR, and the HadCRUT2v instrumental temperature record in black

.... Same page..
The TAR discussed various attempts to use proxy data to reconstruct changes in the average temperature of the NH for the period after AD 1000, but focused on three reconstructions (included in Figure 6.10), all with yearly resolution. The first (Mann et al., 1999) represents mean annual temperatures, and is based on a range of proxy types, including data extracted from tree rings, ice cores and documentary sources; this reconstruction also incorporates a number of instrumental (temperature and precipitation) records from the 18th century onwards. For 900 years, this series exhibits multi-decadal fluctuations with amplitudes up to 0.3°C superimposed on a negative trend of 0.15°C, followed by an abrupt warming (~0.4°C) matching that observed in the instrumental data during the first half of the 20th century. Of the other two reconstructions, one (Jones et al., 1998) was based on a much smaller number of proxies, whereas the other (Briffa et al., 2001) was based solely on tree ring density series from an expansive area of the extratropics, but reached back only to AD 1400. These two reconstructions emphasise warm season rather than annual temperatures, with a geographical focus on extratropical land areas. They indicate a greater range of variability on centennial time scales prior to the 20th century, and also suggest slightly cooler conditions during the 17th century than those portrayed in the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) series.


By golly, we didn't have data for the oceans, back in the 1000s, and gosh! I thought that the instrumental record began in the late 70s! Silly me!

QUOTE
Satellite temperature measurements have been obtained from the troposphere since late 1978. By comparison, the usable balloon (radiosonde) record begins in 1958 but has less geographic coverage and is less uniform.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements



"Hide the Decline!" Since 2001.

This post has been edited by Snowlover123: Jul 12 2010, 07:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
idecline
post Jul 13 2010, 01:45 AM
Post #10




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 19,293
Joined: 27-May 10
From: uncertain
Member No.: 22,866





This entire thread seems biased , and based on 'hearsay'. I have absolutely no 'scientific' response to this nonsense of a thread. Purely conjecture.

I am sure all 'scientific' people are aware of problems with any data collection, compilation, and computer algorithms that give us managable information.

That is why the 'scientific method' allows for mistakes, recalculations, and new information to be provided to help accuracy of 'predictions' or 'theories'.

To argue about NASA,NOAA, and other 'data compilers' information is not seeing the 'woods for the trees'.

Very unnecessary thread in my opinion. rolleyes.gif

idecline

p.s.-The title of this thread is :
QUOTE
NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC's lies, THey have brainwashed the public society with their bent opinions!


I gather that calling someone a liar is allowed if it is an acronym such as NASA, or NOAA... but to call an individual a prevaricator is not allowed?

This post has been edited by idecline: Jul 13 2010, 05:14 AM


--------------------

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
- Max Planck

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jul 13 2010, 08:55 AM
Post #11







Guests








QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 12 2010, 08:35 PM) *
"Hide the Decline!"


You complain that I was not on topic? Okay my second post address directly one of your video and one of your claim "IPCC (reference to links above) delete data, and in my video I showed above, the IPCC completely deleted the Hockey Stick Graph from their 2007 report, yet we have folks on this blog showing Mann's stick as if it's some sort of god."
From the video, Chris Horner is a senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Horner is a lawyer by training and regularly appears on television as a commentator on the issue of climate change.

I'll paraphrase Horner (about AR4) ". Does anybody see a hockey stick anywhere anymore? I can't see one? It was airbrushed out and no reason why it is no longer in the report"

That's a truly serious allegation so this is how you can tell denialist form true skeptics.
You would look at actual report which I referenced above. I see Hockey sticks with a lot of scientific explanation etc.
So either Chris Horner did not read the report, or has poor memory and is confused, or he just flat out lie. Only Chris knows that answer.
It's why we call them denialist. They deny anything that doesn’t support their view.

On the link I gave above did you read anything interesting pertaining to Climategate now called bogus-gate:
IPPC “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998).”…. allegation about a report kept out.

“Hide the Decline” Tree Ring divergence hiding it by putting it in the IPPC
“Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.”

denialist-- "Hide the Science"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jul 13 2010, 10:41 AM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





QUOTE(wjp201111 @ Jul 12 2010, 12:55 PM) *


From your first link, it is important to know the disclaimer that is coming with that data - and it is clarely stated that it is not the daily account but processed data for specific study purposes. Here's the disclaimer from Environment Canada

''These data are not the official Meteorological Service of Canada in situ station records and therefore should not be used for legal purposes. The official records can be obtained at the National Climate Data Archives.

Users are strongly cautioned to determine the data suitability for their application. They should also be aware that ongoing research on adjustment techniques may result in future revisions of the datasets. The datasets are updated at the beginning of each year with the most recent data.
''

Yet we've seen people using that processed data to compare it with the source data and tell the world the data was flawed, when it is clarely stated that it had been processed and that it is not representing the daily records.

Your second link is what i see with Fox network and the behavior/tendancy to only look at one side (and always the same) of the road without even searching a bit if the source of information might have been distorted. So whoever claims something in favor of there point of view, they'll make a big headline and go with it. Even if proven wrong afterward, they won't care to put as much amphasis to discredit the original claim and the ''claimer''.

On your third link, it looks very interesting until the guy said he completed his study with data from Watt's blog. Hum... non-disputable data from a blog. Ok , i see how serious that was, but that is putting a big blow to what he's trying to demonstrate.

No one can say the IPCC conclusion will hold the run - it was made from the available knowledge and science, and that is very significant when you see all the reference used. But Science evolves every day. New study/research can confirmed or prove wrong previous assumptions. Still it is not by posting on blogs that science will evolved, it is by publishing the findings and new conclusions. That's how the world evolves. To get a better scientific accuracy is what we have to look for, even if it's to throw to the garbage whatever the IPCC published and put up a new report.

The IPCC's mission is not to show the world it'll warmed, the mission is about stating the current climatic situation (past and actual) and foresee from what they know, what can be the outcome in a near future.

It's not about a battle, it's about knowledge and rigorous process.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jul 13 2010, 10:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 13 2010, 10:56 AM
Post #13







Guests








Let's see what the IPPC projected compared to the real temperatures. Wow! The Earth has to be burning up!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/813366130...hannel=vbbastaj

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jul 13 2010, 11:20 AM
Post #14







Guests








QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 13 2010, 11:56 AM) *
Let's see what the IPPC projected compared to the real temperatures. Wow! The Earth has to be burning up!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/813366130...hannel=vbbastaj


What did •Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D - Global Warming: Some Convenient Facts link
Say about this very subject at 2008 International Conference on Climate Change? (`12 mins in)


Also on Topic
"I[you] showed above, the IPCC completely deleted the Hockey Stick Graph from their 2007 report..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q
Review what they deleted before you come up with any conclusion"

Did they now? Are you still saying they did or have you realized you where wrong on that?

This post has been edited by TheATHiker: Jul 13 2010, 11:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jul 13 2010, 11:28 AM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





QUOTE(Snowlover123 @ Jul 13 2010, 11:56 AM) *
Let's see what the IPPC projected compared to the real temperatures. Wow! The Earth has to be burning up!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/813366130...hannel=vbbastaj

On that video, the critics i can made is the author is opportunist and mixing things up. The IPCC forecast is on a 100 years based average, while the author here is comparing less than 10 years of data, and does'nt seem to be able to show the degrees from that scale. What i would have like is plane data to show the starting point - wich is , if cherry pick (i'm not saying it is the case, but the author carefully did not show it) , can changed the way a graph will turned out.

But again, comparing less than 10 years of data vs a 100 years based forecast is unfair, and very un-scientific, even if you present it in a pseudo scientific way. In other words, it's more a political statement than a scientific account.

But you like being driven that way - it's your choice. I tend to be more skeptics and rigorous - more than anything i look both ways of the road before going forward.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jul 13 2010, 11:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jul 13 2010, 11:50 AM
Post #16




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





If you want a real skeptical point of view of one aspect of the predicted scenario, i can give you one.

The Co2 warming is a demonstrable fact that is governed by a physic law (Beer–Lambert law in the atmosphere). At the base, Co2 interacts with infrared and that is creating heat. The infrared is absorbed and not reflected back. So at some point (saturation) all the infrared gets absorbed by Co2.

So even if you put more Co2, you will not get more absorbtion - and will not get more heat from it. As another member explained/showned/linked it is an algorithm with an end. However, the impression we have from the many aspects of the IPCC reports is that it is a never ending slope going up. I would like the scientific community to come back with a paper referencing that point. Of course Co2 does'nt act alone (multi GHGs interacting as well) and you have a chain of event/reaction while the area is heated and it can give you other forcing from other reaction - having the area changed. Still i have hard time finding data/papers/research showing that part.

But that's a skeptical point - not a denying one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 13 2010, 11:57 AM
Post #17







Guests








QUOTE(Regg @ Jul 13 2010, 12:28 PM) *
On that video, the critics i can made is the author is opportunist and mixing things up. The IPCC forecast is on a 100 years based average, while the author here is comparing less than 10 years of data, and does'nt seem to be able to show the degrees from that scale. What i would have like is plane data to show the starting point - wich is , if cherry pick (i'm not saying it is the case, but the author carefully did not show it) , can changed the way a graph will turned out.

But again, comparing less than 10 years of data vs a 100 years based forecast is unfair, and very un-scientific, even if you present it in a pseudo scientific way. In other words, it's more a political statement than a scientific account.

But you like being driven that way - it's your choice. I tend to be more skeptics and rigorous - more than anything i look both ways of the road before going forward.


Still, no matter what you try and say, they're wrong no matter how you look at it.



http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2311

According to this linear graph, by 2011, the IPPC predicts the temperature to have warmed by 1 degree Celcius. If we don't get to there by 2011, the IPCC models will be proven invalid, and all of their mass hysteria will go into the garbage, as has their theory that Mt. Everest will melt by 2035.

-Snowlover123

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 13 2010, 12:04 PM
Post #18







Guests








QUOTE(TheATHiker @ Jul 13 2010, 12:20 PM) *
What did •Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D - Global Warming: Some Convenient Facts link
Say about this very subject at 2008 International Conference on Climate Change? (`12 mins in)
Also on Topic
"I[you] showed above, the IPCC completely deleted the Hockey Stick Graph from their 2007 report..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q
Review what they deleted before you come up with any conclusion"

Did they now? Are you still saying they did or have you realized you where wrong on that?


The image in that video was not the IPCC's Hockey Stick graph. It was a series of computer models run by the IPCC, and assuming that co2 was the greenhouse gas, causing all of this warming, the temp should have followed, but no, it didn't. Not even close to the orange line in the video either!

Why is that so, ATH? Could it be the reversal of the oceans, low sunspot activity, or both?

-Snowlover123
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Snowlover123_*
post Jul 13 2010, 12:13 PM
Post #19







Guests








QUOTE(Regg @ Jul 13 2010, 12:28 PM) *
But again, comparing less than 10 years of data vs a 100 years based forecast is unfair, and very un-scientific, even if you present it in a pseudo scientific way. In other words, it's more a political statement than a scientific account.


Tell that to the 'scientists' at NASA!



Wow! The Arctic is warming at 3.5 Degrees Celcius per decade! Wait... let's look at the NASA data.



There has been no warming on Greenland over the past 90 years, yet NASA shows it at almost 3.5 Degrees Celcius per decade. Why? It's a very simple answer indeed. NASA cherry picks the data, by shortening it to 2000, and then judging the trend from there. That's only ten years of data from NASA, and even you say "that's very unscientific." So who are the bozos working at NASA then?

Just another one to add to the long list of growing lies from NOAA and NASA. What a shame. Our own government hides stuff from us, thinking that we can't handle the truth about Climate Change.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/gree...-hype-meltdown/

And yes, from your denier, the one and only Watts. tongue.gif

-Snowlover123
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jul 13 2010, 01:11 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





The IPCC, is not pretending anything about local places - it aimed at the global situation. Again you are comparing localised situation with global situation - not the same thing at all.

And you're cherry picking stations and data to show otherwise. If they're wrong (and i'm not saying they are doing it), you're as wrong and your accusations is failing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th May 2018 - 09:56 PM