And the purge begins.
Here’s the NASA Climate Change “evidence” page where they list a series of visual earth topics that support AGW as factual. In the sidebar they have heavy reference on IPCC AR4.
Scrolling down through the page you come across the section that talks about glacier melt. Here is the screencap of that section BEFORE (courtesy of Google Cache) and AFTER as it appears now:
Yellow highlight mine. Note not only did they cite the now famous false glacier melting alarm from IPCC AR4, they moved it up five years to 2030!
Feel free to check it yourself with Google cache here. I also saved the entire cached web page as a PDF file here: climate.nasa
Here is the NASA climate page after the recent change:
A big hat tip to WUWT reader “Jaymam” for spotting this. I wonder how many other pages are now going to start seeing IPCC references disappearing?
UPDATE: While the discovery by “Jaymam” was independent, it appears that the UK Register first posted on this on Jan 20th, from a tip from their reader, Charles W., who was the first to notice NASA rewriting history with the glaciers:
Sponsored IT training links:
Need quick success? Then try out our 642-436 prep material which includes latest PMI-001 dumps and 70-432 practice exam so you will pass exam on first try
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Konrad (23:20:31) :
“And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those interfering WUWT kids….”
And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those pesky skeptics…
Perhaps the next round of Australian experts will be a little less alarmist…
from…http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/call-for-authors.aspx
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report
22/01/2010
The IPCC has started work on the preparation of the Fifth Assessment Report that will detail the state of climate change knowledge, and has issued an official call for authors. More information on the AR5
The Department of Climate Change (DCC) operates as the National Focal Point for IPCC activities and is inviting Australian experts to nominate for Coordinating Lead Author, Lead Author and Review Editor roles. Interested parties are requested to read the background information and email climatescience(at)climatechange.gov.au for an Australian Government nomination form. This form will require interested parties to detail their qualifications, areas of expertise, recent publications and contact information.
The Australian Government will select nominees to put forward to the IPCC based on selection criteria that will be provided to interested parties. The IPCC Bureau will then select these positions.
The Assessment Report will be developed from 2010 to 2014 and the task of authors is a demanding one. Authors will need to have the available time to attend a likely 5 international author meetings and prepare their designated section of work.
Subject to ministerial approval, successful nominees will be provided with grants to support travel and living expenses when attending IPCC meetings. Funding will not cover costs associated with nominees’ regular professional engagements such as salaries.
Department of Climate Change nominations close on 19 February 2010, to allow for IPCC nominations to be submitted by 12 March 2010. Completed nomination forms should be emailed to climatescience (at) climatechange.gov.au.
Heard it snowed on the Kilimandjaro this year.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/21/capital-diary-week-starting-january-21/
“Labour Minister Rona Ambrose is right now climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. She promised herself she would reach the peak the last time she was in Eastern Africa, which was in 2006 for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Back then, there was no snow on the peak; now, she’s been told, the snow is back.”
Were it not for the UEA whistleblower, by this time we would have had an announcement from the IPCC that the Haiti earthquake was due to anthropogenic global warming.
Our debt to the whistleblower is such as can never be repaid.
When you accuse a person in the court and you’re proven wrong then you go to jail for many reasons which you all know.
How come NASA .. IPCC accuses all humanity for ruining this planet and when proven wrong they come up with a new accusation using their fake predictions.
There’s many reasons why they should go to jail.
Do we have cached web pages of ALL the bits of informtion that go into the IPCC report and a copy of the report itself?
I don’t know if its possible to set up a program to digitally check for changes?
If not, perhaps readers here could volunteer to do a check on a chapter/subject they have knowledge of every month. I would offer to do that for sea level changes.
In my opinion this section is more scandalous and flawed than the hockey stick itself. It is based on a tiny number of tide gauges heavily interpolated to extend the record. Basically much of the data and suppositions are invented and the report tacitly admits this at the very end of the chapter.
tonyb
Margaret, thank you for that link… veeeeerrrry interesting!
Politics makes strange debunk buddies.
Please, move along now… that’s right.
Tsk, tsk, tsk …
Now that’s truly an inconvenient truth.
When a body of lies gets too big, the implosion is not a pretty sight – and it can’t be stopped.
This very long comment can be summarized simply as “I have had multiple exchanges with NASA trying to get them to correct multiple errors in their webpages. Several of their “corrections” were themselves in error. NASA gives the impression that they don’t think they have a problem in regards to the accuracy of the information they disseminate. I have a pending appeal regarding their review system, and regarding the reliability of CRU data.
————————————————-
Long version follows:
I have had an ongoing correspondence since August with NASA about both the Key Indicators and Evidence pages you can select from the left sidebar of climate.nasa.gov.
Some of the many corrections have been:
1. the main page climate.nasa.gov now has a little box towards upper left that says Arctic Sea Ice -34% long term summer average. This used to say “-38% per decade”. -38% per decade is clearly wrong. -34% is about right for the month of September from 1979 to 2009, but “summer” is more like -25%. I have an appeal currently being reviewed by NASA on this item.
2. Key Indictors page, sea level. They used to have a historical graph with a trendline drawn that didn’t correspond to the caption. The graph on satellite record was incorrect. Both graphs have been changed and the references were change. After I made an informal request for correction, the update date was change to 7.51.09 and stayed set to July 51st for a couple of months.
3. Arctic Sea Ice Graphs — these have gone through several changes. For a while they had a graph with numbers appropriate for millions of sq km, but had a label of sq miles. One version of correction had a graph of ice area, but had it labeled as extent. They have had other versions that confused the daily minimum and the September average. They originally had a very scary graph of Greenland that showed how many days of melt there were in each area, but provided no context to show how things were changing, if at all.
4. Global Average Temperature Graph — they used to have their own internally drawn version of the CRU graphic. It had data through 2008, but with an legend that said latest data May 2008. Even worse, they had gone in and drawn a perfectly flat line for the last couple of years rather than plotting the actual smoothed data supplied by CRU. My Request For Correction inquired as to both the smoothing algorithm and the end point treatment. NASA finally responded in early December, saying that it was a 21 point Binomial filter. It is not. If you follow the reference to the Met Office you can see a different graph of the same data, but with the 21 point binomial filter, which is about a 10 year smooth. The CRU graph appears to use a 20 year smoothing algorithm (The CRU reference refers to a 10 year gaussian smooth — 13 point IIRC –, but in personal correspondence Phil Jones told me in Fall 2009 that the graph appears to be their standard 20 year gaussian smooth. Clarification of this is part of my still pending appeal per Quality of Info regulations. My appeal also asks for independent review of this data since it is a highly influential scientific product that NASAs own Quality of Info regs say must have additional, more stringent review. NASA has not responded to my December 7th appeal regarding this, and although I sent an e-mail to NASA on Jan 17th reminding them of the 30 working day deadline, NASA has failed to respond in any manner to my e-mail of a week ago.
———————————————
Until the Himalaya glacier thing gained prominence a couple of weeks ago, I had not looked at the “evidence” page — climate.nasa.gov/evidence . I was somewhat surprised to see the 2030 date and sent in a feedback via the web feedback form. I also posted this to several blogs requesting that others submit their feedback. I had also copied my comments about the NASA 2030 date to the NASA HQ person handling my appeal of their response to my August 15 request-for-correction. This was in a January 15th email. On January 19th I received back an e-mail from the webpage owner saying “Thank you for pointing out this error. Several other readers caught it as well, and it has now been corrected.
Best regards,” (I have corresponded with the webpage owner directly on many of these errors before going to the formal request for correction route. His standard response is generally “I’ve sent it to the scientists for review”
I responded to his January 19th e-mail with a thank you and a request for clarification of another statement, towards the top of the page, that reads “Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years.”
His 1/22 response was “I’ve forwarded your question to a scientist at the lab who reviewed this section prior to posting and am awaiting his response. ”
===============================
Meanwhile, another portion of my December 7th 2009 appeal was that NASA rejected my assertion that they have an inadequate content generation and proofing system for the climate pages. I requested that they do a systematic review of their system with the goal of minimizing future errors. I am still awaiting a response.
=======================================
I have not looked at the other pages on the left sidebar of climate.nasa.gov , such as “causes”, and “effects”, and “Uncertainties”, and “Solutions”. I invite other readers to take a look. Based on my experience with the other pages, there are problem several errors that need correcting. Most pages have a feedback link for the Site Manager at the bottom of the page.
Steve McIntyre’s efforts to use FOIA requests to the CRU were indirectly my inspiration for the above actions.
There are a series of regulations called Quality of Information Guidelines. This is separate and distinct from the FOI laws. They all are based upon Public Law 515. The OMB then issued guidelines direction various federal agencies to issue their own regulations.
NASA’s guidelines can be found at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/qualinfo.html. NOAA has its own set of guidelines, as does its parent organization, the Dept of Commerce. Above all of this the OMB has guidelines regarding peer review of influential and highly influential scientific information that is disseminated by by federal agencies.
It appears the Quality of Info procedure is rarely used. NASA has failed to comply with their own regulations in simple adminstrative ways such as failing to notify me of my right to appeal. Indeed, they also failed to comply in that they never came back with any formal response at all.
I do see the Q of I guidelines as potentially being a very useful tool in a quest to improve the quality of information and decisions in the climate science realm.
“Peter of Sydney (23:55:32) :
I’ve read somewhere that the IPCC will release their next major report in 2013. I can already imagine what they will be saying to scare us again. Before they even get a chance to publish it, we should make sure the IPCC is totally discredited and replaced with a real alternative.”
Didn’t the inventor of the interwebby thing (And discoverer of the ManBearPig, 50% Man, 50% Bear, 50% Pig) say that the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years, sometime in 2007 or 2008? Will be interesting to see how much ice will be there in 2013.
Yet another over the top and unsupportable claim – this time from the UN Environment Programme. http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
But even worse, if you read the actual report, this sound-bite is almost totally unsupported. The reports states quite clearly – time and again – that glacier shrinking started at the end of the Little Ice Age and that the majority of shrinkage occurred before the AGW era. There is discussion about rate of change of glacier length changing recently, but also discussion about how some glaciers have had lengthening periods within the AGW period – e.g. New Zealand Glaciers.
Thanks to http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/2634/#comments for pointing this out.
In fact this was pointed out to Gavin at Real Climate and all he could say was that it was a mistake which was rectified.
See comment #35 at http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2773 and his response:
I thought NASA were the people that sent men to the moon. If they can make errors like this then I wonder whether their high standards have taken a plunge because they have turned to AGW false alarmism. My guess is that NASA are soon going to drop Gavin and return to real research such as:
Himalayan glaciers melting due as much or more to soot as Co2 global warming.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html
Margaret (23:44:48)
it would be useful to know if the IPCC was doing more than just glaciers on the basis of the WWF
Well, the WWF has “peers” and they “review” things, apparently just like “Nature” does, both producing similar products. So what’s the problem?/sarc
By the way, I just noticed that next to the changed glacial comment on the NASA website they have a satellite image of Kilimanjaro with the annotation “The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.”
The implication is clearly that this is due to AGW. But I thought this had long ago been disproved and shown to be due to deforestation on the slopes of the volcano?
Am I incorrect in this or is NASA again being misleading?
Further to my link jerry (00:49:01) : I have dug up this text in the report body.
The critical statement is at the end
Which is polite-speak for “we don’t know whether glacier shrinkage is very different now compared to earlier” and “We need to do a shedload more work before we can say anything definitive”
The last part is in the class of “they would say that wouldn’t they” – after all this is funded work.
I am getting sick of these false and clearly exaggerated claims. It’s about time we made a few of our own. Withing 10 years we will see the river Thames freeze over in winter. If it happens do I get Al Gores Nobel Prize?
“The Science is Scuttled” Well, actually, I claim that one as I included it in my post on the piece by Christopher Booker in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. Unless, of course, it’s pure coincidence…
@ur momisugly Phillip Bratby (23:16:01) :
But they did it the other way around. This looks like they said global warming is caused by natural disasters?
Come on chaps – you shouldn’t be criticising all the climate scientists, because weather is a difficult subject.
A letter to the Sunday Telegraph from Professor Paul Hardaker, CEO of the Royal Meteorological Society, commenting on Christopher Booker’s criticisms of met office forecasting performance says “These forecasts have been of extremely high quality, given the challenging nature of the weather”.
He concludes with “… The Sunday Telegraph continues to knock its [the Met Office’s] performance, without understanding the difficult nature of what it has achieved in recent weeks.”
Sounds like we are going to get a lot of PR in the future about how hard it is being a weather forecaster (sorry -should that be climate scientist or am I getting climate and weather mixed up?).
I guess the galciers are just going to sheepishly grow back now that j00 guise have uncovered teh IPCC telling teh liez! Damn nature, always trying to push a warmist bias down the throats of weeze sceptics!!!
To find the Google cache for almost any site that has recently changed, type into Google:
site:URL-name “phrase to be searched for”
and select the cached version in the search results.
Note there is a blank after the URL-name.
e.g.
site:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ “may disappear altogether”
There you are – this just proves the point how skeptics create unnecessary work for hardworking scientists by demanding that they be accountable for the accuracy of “the science”!
And just so you know, “It doesn’t disprove the facts about global warming”. /sarc
Wow, Charlie A strong stuff. Good for you – an innovative way to keep public entities honest in their claims.
Cheers,
Pete