IPCC to retract Himalayan glacier report

[bfdd]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

If you falsify evidence in a court of law you know what happens right? So why aren't we holding scientists to this? You tell me the world climate is changing for the worse etc etc you throw out all these numbers, refuse to let me see how you came up with these numbers, then it comes out you lied... yeah, I'd be fucking retarded to continue trusting people like that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

If you falsify evidence in a court of law you know what happens right? So why aren't we holding scientists to this? You tell me the world climate is changing for the worse etc etc you throw out all these numbers, refuse to let me see how you came up with these numbers, then it comes out you lied... yeah, I'd be fucking retarded to continue trusting people like that.

What do you mean by 'continue'?

 

[xj0hnx]

Once again, global warming deniers seize on one tiny bit of fudged evidence and then use it to say the overwhelming amount of non fudged evidence can therefore be dismissed because it need not be addressed. If some evidence is fudged, all evidence is fudged is what the argument boils down to.

Very much akin to saying, the puffer fish has blown itself up to look bigger and therefore
does not exists at all.

It isn't fudged "evidence", it's a report, based on another absent of facts report, that was based on some dude with no facts or data's speculation. Evidence, lol.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent, its quite understandable that global warming is at a temporary halt.

The last few years have given us far far less than the normal number of sunspots, even when the normal 11 year sun spot cycle is factored in at minimum levels.

The point being, we should expect even more cooling than we are now getting, but when and if the sunspots return to normal levels, net global warming will likely return with a vengeance.

Since the 11 year sunspot cycle is short, we could well reverse these effects in a matter of mere months.

 

[spacejamz]

To some extent, its quite understandable that global warming is at a temporary halt.

The last few years have given us far far less than the normal number of sunspots, even when the normal 11 year sun spot cycle is factored in at minimum levels.

The point being, we should expect even more cooling than we are now getting, but when and if the sunspots return to normal levels, net global warming will likely return with a vengeance.

Since the 11 year sunspot cycle is short, we could well reverse these effects in a matter of mere months.

are the folks that you listened to about global warming earlier the same group you learned about sun spots from?

 

[Jaskalas]

Recognizing cyclical effects in climate is a start. Now if you’d just recognize that last century’s rise in temperature was also one such natural event you’d really have something.

 

[shira]

So why can't we get just the facts/raw data? Oh, forgot. The Illuminati won't let us see it.

The problem is Climate "scientists" don't release any raw data. All they release is the graphs they grafted. That isn't real science.

How often do you know-nothings need to be given what you claim doesn't exist? Do you think that spouting the same lies over and over and over again makes the lies any less false?

Here are the websites that provide all of the raw climate data you could possibly want:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

and

http://gosic.org/

And here is the policy statement:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open-access-climate-data-policy.pdf

The basic tenet of physical climate data management at NOAA is full and open data access. All raw physical climate data available from NOAA’s various climate observing systems as well as the output data from state-of-the-science climate models are openly available in as timely a manner as possible. The timeliness of such data is dependent upon its receipt, coupled with the associated quality control procedures necessary to ensure that the data are valid. In addition, the latest versions of all derived data sets are made available to the public. NOAA also provides access to all of its major climate-related model simulations.

NOAA is a strong advocate of the scientific peer review process. Our major climate products are derived from algorithms that have been reviewed and published in the open peer-reviewed literature. This helps to ensure adequate information is available about the algorithms used to transform data into our many hundreds of climate-related products.

NOAA participates in numerous international and national scholarly bodies whose goal is to increase the accessibility of data worldwide. This includes the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the International Council of Science (ICSU), and other international bodies dedicated to the exchange and open-access of climate-related data.

The World Data Center (WDC) system was created under the auspices of the International Council for Science (ICSU) to archive and distribute data collected from the observational programs of the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year. Originally established in the U.S., Europe, Russia, and Japan, the WDC system has since expanded to other countries and to new scientific disciplines. The WDC system now includes 50 Centers in 12 countries. NOAA hosts a total of 5 WDCs at its 3 National Data Centers (2 at the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); 2 at the National Geophysical Data Center, and 1 at the National Oceanographic Data Center) covering a wide range of thematic disciplines including meteorology, climatology, paleoclimatology, oceanography, marine geology and geophysics, and solar terrestrial physics. The WDC system has worked very well in the context of the NOAA National Data Center structure, as it provides a non-governmental portal that in many cases allows a much easier and more seamless access to data across a number of data centers. Its holdings include a wide range of solar, geophysical, environmental, and human dimensions data.

As an example of data accessibility, navigating all those international data centers can sometimes be a bit daunting, and that is why NOAA’s NCDC operates and hosts the Global Observing Systems Information Center (GOSIC) at http://gosic.org [managed by the US GCOS program at NCDC] to try and help people get to international climate related datasets as easily as possible. For example, the GOSIC has a matrix to aid people get to various climate-related datasets via the 44 GCOS Essential Climate Variables at http://gosic.org/ios/MATRICES/ECV/ecv-matrix.htm. GOSIC is also flexible enough to present new views to data as required, and NCDC continues to work on improving the interface to data from many global and national data centers, along with the associated metadata holdings. The GOSIC also has a presence on the GEOSS Data Portal in order to further the availability of climate data. An article on the GOSIC was published in the September 29, 2009, edition of EOS; see link at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO390001.shtml.

Now you've been informed. If either of you spouts the same lie - a lie which you now KNOW FOR A FACT is false - I will contact the moderators and demand that you be banned.

 

[Hacp]

How often do you know-nothings need to be given what you claim doesn't exist? Do you think that spouting the same lies over and over and over again makes the lies any less false?

Here are the websites that provide all of the raw climate data you could possibly want:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

and

http://gosic.org/

And here is the policy statement:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open-access-climate-data-policy.pdf



Now you've been informed. If either of you spouts the same lie - a lie which you now KNOW FOR A FACT is false - I will contact the moderators and demand that you be banned.

Nice try but people have already debunked that myth. Real scientists have looked over the provided data and noticed that data from certain regions or countries is not up do date.

 

[Craig234]

We believe AGW is full of bad science, and now we're seeing this stink come to light in the face of ZERO warming.

The GCC schedules I've seen say the prevention is needed now but the effects most start in 20-30 years.

 

[xj0hnx]

Nice try but people have already debunked that myth. Real scientists have looked over the provided data and noticed that data from certain regions or countries is not up do date.

You ...you ...you know-nothing

 

[shira]

Nice try but people have already debunked that myth. Real scientists have looked over the provided data and noticed that data from certain regions or countries is not up do date.

"Real scientists"? Please provide links that support your contention. Second- and third-hand unsupported claims are worthless. Oh, and what data, what regions, and what dates are missing?

 

[shira]

Nice try but people have already debunked that myth. Real scientists have looked over the provided data and noticed that data from certain regions or countries is not up do date.

Oh, and here's even a more complete compilation of the raw climate data:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

And here's the refutation of your claim:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-4/#comment-145448

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.

Now, tell us what data is "missing."

 

[Ozoned]

Sometimes, it's not a matter of missing. It's a matter of hidden.

 

[shira]

Sometimes, it's not a matter of missing. It's a matter of hidden.

Okay then, What's being "hidden" then?

Look, a major part of the so-called CRU controversy revolved around "missing raw data." Well, it's well established now that 95% of all of the raw data used by CRU is available from CRU, and ALL of the raw data is available from it's ORIGINAL SOURCES. Those links I provided are where the full set of data used by CRU can be found.

Note that CRU is NOT a repository for raw weather data. It USES raw data, analyzes it, and writes papers on its findings.

 

[Xellos2099]

Man made global warming is a very unique branch of science. Majority of the science out there require prove and hard evidences to be consider to be real, however, on global warming issue, it is made to be real then the scientists rush to look for data and evidence and in some case, "cook" the data to made it look real.

I am not saying global warming is not real, but like all science, I require real evidence, not a political made believe evidence, before I can decide for myself.

 

[Craig234]

Okay then, What's being "hidden" then?

Look, a major part of the so-called CRU controversy revolved around "missing raw data." Well, it's well established now that 95% of all of the raw data used by CRU is available from CRU, and ALL of the raw data is available from it's ORIGINAL SOURCES. Those links I provided are where the full set of data used by CRU can be found.

Note that CRU is NOT a repository for raw weather data. It USES raw data, analyzes it, and writes papers on its findings.

You're doing a very good job countering the well-funded FUD.

Don't let the bad reactions of some who are willfully ignorant discourage you.

 

[waggy]

man that has to be embarrassing to people. to base so much off something that NOBODY has bothered to check? ugh yeah that is one way to get people to believe you.

 

[shira]

Man made global warming is a very unique branch of science. Majority of the science out there require prove and hard evidences to be consider to be real, however, on global warming issue, it is made to be real then the scientists rush to look for data and evidence and in some case, "cook" the data to made it look real.

I am not saying global warming is not real, but like all science, I require real evidence, not a political made believe evidence, before I can decide for myself.

MMGW (aka anthropogenic climate change) is not a branch of science. Climatology is a branch of science.

I've written many times before: lay persons are about as qualified to evaluate the theories of climatology as they are to evaluate the theories of cosmology. As such, being presented with mountains of raw data or derivations of immensely complex climate models is useless to you and me and pretty much everyone else who isn't a specialist in the field.

Thus, the only "real evidence" you're going to get as a lay person will be just like the "real evidence" you get for every other field of science: reports in the mainstream media on interesting climatology papers being published. And if history is any guide, most of those papers are going to report that ACC is real and growing.

Of course, you can also read the claims of non-climatologists (or of the very small minority of actual climatologists), and see all the dissenting views you care to. But you can also engage in that type of naysaying exercise about evolution, black holes, the Holocaust, and pretty much any other field of study where there's a strong consensus - there will always be those who disagree with that consensus.

Ultimately you are going to need to decide: Do you think mainstream climatologists are engaged in a vast conspiracy that pretends that a non-existent phenomenon is real (or that a minor phenomenon is significant) OR - as with pretty much every other branch of science - are you going to believe that the results being reported represent the best-efforts of honest scientists?

It really does come down to a matter of faith: Faith that climatologists are in the main honest.

 

[Lemon law]

Even if we assume climate scientists are in the main honest, it still can't disguise the fact that our current knowledge is woefully inadequate.

But two things to say there.

1. When presented with some doubts, we still should act on best available evidence.

2. Demanding perfect knowledge that may never be available, is still no reason to assume global warming is false.

 

[Rainsford]

If you falsify evidence in a court of law you know what happens right? So why aren't we holding scientists to this? You tell me the world climate is changing for the worse etc etc you throw out all these numbers, refuse to let me see how you came up with these numbers, then it comes out you lied... yeah, I'd be fucking retarded to continue trusting people like that.

What do you mean we aren't holding scientists to that? You people haven't shut up about it since it happened. I think there is PLENTY of incentive to not falsify evidence.

Here's the problem though. Number one, "you lied" is WAAAY too broad to describe what's happening. Did some scientists behave badly? It would certainly appear that way. Does that mean climate change is a hoax? Only if you're an idiot... The second problem is more a political one. "..continue trusting..." is a BS phrase, you didn't believe climate scientists BEFORE the latest handful of stories (for some unstated reason). You aren't jumping all over this because you feel betrayed, it's just good politics.

 

[shira]

Even if we assume climate scientists are in the main honest, it still can't disguise the fact that our current knowledge is woefully inadequate.

But two things to say there.

1. When presented with some doubts, we still should act on best available evidence.

2. Demanding perfect knowledge that may never be available, is still no reason to assume global warming is false.

I don't know how woeful our current knowledge is, but I do agree that there's a lot we don't know.

I also understand that the comparison between climatology and other branches of science fails in an important respect: The implications of ACC may compel us to take very expensive mitigating actions, which - given our imperfect knowledge - may turn out to be of no value (if, for example, ACC turns out to be false or if the actions we take don't accomplish what we intend). The implications of other scientific theories are a big nothing: they don't compel us to do anything; we can just continue on as we always have, slowing accumulating knowledge.

 

[drebo]

To some extent, its quite understandable that global warming is at a temporary halt.

The last few years have given us far far less than the normal number of sunspots, even when the normal 11 year sun spot cycle is factored in at minimum levels.

The point being, we should expect even more cooling than we are now getting, but when and if the sunspots return to normal levels, net global warming will likely return with a vengeance.

Since the 11 year sunspot cycle is short, we could well reverse these effects in a matter of mere months.

And this has exactly what to do with humans?

And exactly how is giving $100 billion/year to "developing" nations going to stop the [SIZE=+4]SUN FROM BEING THE SUN?!?![/SIZE]

Not many people deny that the Earth will warm at some point. And not many people deny that the climates will change. What people are denying is that humans have anything to do with it or can do anything at all to stop it.

Even more important is whether or not change in climate will have net negatives. This is something that "AGW" proponents have flatly refused to answer, and until they do, we should not be spending money on a "problem" that may not even be a problem.

 

[shira]

And this has exactly what to do with humans?

And exactly how is giving $100 billion/year to "developing" nations going to stop the [SIZE=+4]SUN FROM BEING THE SUN?!?![/SIZE]

Not many people deny that the Earth will warm at some point. And not many people deny that the climates will change. What people are denying is that humans have anything to do with it or can do anything at all to stop it.

Even more important is whether or not change in climate will have net negatives. This is something that "AGW" proponents have flatly refused to answer, and until they do, we should not be spending money on a "problem" that may not even be a problem.

Ignorance is not a virtue. I don't want to overburden you, so I've bolded only one of your really silly statements. Try doing a little research. Not only will you learn something about climate change, but you'll also learn a technique to avoid making really silly statements in the future.

 

[drebo]

Ignorance is not a virtue. I don't want to overburden you, so I've bolded only one of your really silly statements. Try doing a little research. Not only will you learn something about climate change, but you'll also learn a technique to avoid making really silly statements in the future.

If the information is so readily available, you shouldn't have any trouble pointing to one reputable study by one reputable science journal that says that all climate change leads to net negative.

Didn't think so.

 

[monovillage]

Here you go Shira. Your prior post is a little outdated. Now you get "raw data... but "corrected".......how can it be raw data if it's been adjusted?

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/ghcn-does-unadjusted-mean-cooked/

"The data he used is not the GHCN Unadjusted data directly, but the data set used is the result of the processing of GIStemp. (The link in the paper at Icecap connects to the GISS web site, not to NOAA / NCDC. The option to download the STEP0 data is labled “Raw GHCN + USHCN corrections” at GISS). If that was, in fact, the data set used; then the graph will reflect the merger process in GIStemp STEP0.

That process looks for the existence of both sets of data (GHCN “unadjusted” and USHCN – version one prior to November 15th 2009, and version 2 with added “adjustments” thereafter). If only one exists, that one is used. If both exist, then they are averaged, in an odd sort of way. To the extent the heading on this graph ought to have been “GHCN Unadjusted AND USHCN” there will be some USHCN derived adjustments making up part of that “unadjusted” line. To the extent that the “as combined” data were used, the chart does not change much (it is mostly an ‘in fill’ process). And to the extent that the “homogenized” data were used, then this chart shows what the “homogenization” process does to the data. (And potentially, for all cases, what “adjustements” are in the USHCN version 2 set.)"