The desperate liars at NOAA are at it again.
Measurements of the temperature of the atmosphere made by satellites may be underestimating the global warming trend by as much as 30 per cent, according to research.
Complete bullshit. Phil Jones surface temperatures show less warming than UAH satellite temps, this millennium.
If clouds did have an effect, there is no reason to think it would have
not had an effect when satellites first started measuring.
And unless there has been a change in average cloud cover over time,
you would expect any such effect to not vary over time.
The real reason there is a divergence between satellites and
adjusted ground measurements is those adjustments themselves.
In any case, if this paper is what passes for science today,
then I for one am glad I am NOT a scientist.
” The real reason there is a divergence between satellites and
adjusted ground measurements is those adjustments themselves.”
Except for the fact that, as Steve points out, the Hadcrut surface temperature trend is lower than the UAH trend.
The article says satellite readings MAY (there’s that word again) be underestimating temps by up to 30%. Have they considered the possibility that surface temps may be overestimating by up to 30%? Probably not…
NOAA forecasters probably couldn’t pass a drug test. See that is more definitive than their BS!
Drug abuse is not a “negative” for members of this administration. If you really want them scrutinized and ostracized by the Obama team you have to say things like: “It’s possible that many NOAA researchers are members of the NRA and according to records that the IRS has requested, a not insignificant percentage of them may have had contact and thought about providing, if not actually providing, financial and ideological support to the TEA Party movement as well.”
Play their own game against them.
Yeah, any time the claim is “up to X”, you always have to ask, “or as little as”, which is usually on the other side of zero. But then, if they showed you the error bars, you would know right away the results are insignificant, which kind of ruins the whole effect…
Especially when all their error bars are longer than their Y axis to begin with.
If the satellite data is so unreliable, why did NASA spend so much money putting those satellites up in space? This scam is becoming comical now.
or NOAA
EVERY type of temperature measurement is no good as far as NOAA and NASA is concerned so they must always correct this by making it artificially warmer!!!
This is so silly. And the first of this year’s mega winter storms is about to hit Alaska and then roar across the US this next week!
Since cloud cover has significantly decreased since at least 1980 (except for the last 5-10 years), that “cooling effect”, which is not even noticeable according to Roy Spencer, has decreased instead of increased. So the Met Office people are contradicting themselves with their claim.
So after the 30% adjustments the pause disappears and they were right afterall…even if it’s snowing outside and your cattle are buried under feet of snow. That’s what global warming looks like – our computers said so. Reality is for loosers.
Another junk paper trying to remove the pause. Data only from NOAA 15, not corrected for major diurnal drift, which increasingly hot biased that satellites brightness readings. The precipitation induced microwave scattering washes out over time and space.
Plus, UAH compared satellite inferred temp to radiosonde temp in precipitation, cloudy, and clear sky situations to insure there was not a precipitation/microwave scattering bias in the UAH algorithms. NOAa knew or should have known that.
OT here, but Unysis has found their error in their SST maps.
http://weather.unisys.com/news/?p=404
I can’t be an accident that UAH scientists were not asked to peer review this study. More “pal review”, pushing more group-think.
I’m thinking that Inhoff and Smith will begin the process of defunding the climate liars and begin restoring all NASA and NOAA data to their original values….which will require firing all the scum suckers like Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenbirth, throwing Michael Mann in jail, and retiring Jim Hansen to the Maldives for mental health reasons
I say we get them some inexpensive office space in Detroit and they work for free (helping folks apply for Obamacare in its dying days and then advising inner city horticulture enthusiasts on when to plant their medical marijuana seeds and flower gardens) until they’ve paid off the billions their fraud has cost the American taxpayer… not to mention the trillions lost in the world economy. There is NOTHING they can do to offset the suffering of hundreds of millions of people in the third world still entrenched in Stone Age conditions without electricity, clean water, sewage systems, irrigation, etc. as a direct result of the anti-energy policies their work supports. I don’t wish to think about the number of early deaths inexpensive energy would have prevented in places like Africa and Asia in the decades since this evil farce began. Keeping reliable electricity from the poor of the world, for nothing other than ideology is a crime I don’t believe I can forgive.
It’s not just HadCRUT4 Steve. According to the trend calculator over at Play Skool (SkS), all three surface (land + ocean) data sets show less warming than UAH since 2001.
UAH: 0.054 ±0.242 °C/decade (2?)
GISTEMP: 0.022 ±0.210 °C/decade (2?)
NOAA: -0.003 ±0.194 °C/decade (2?)
HadCRUT4: -0.009 ±0.175 °C/decade (2?)
Quite. What’s more, you can go back as far as 1992 as the start year and the UAH trend is the highest of all the main datasets. No need to use SkS – just download the actual data and calculate the trends.
Actually John, you can go back to 1988!
UAH: 0.160 ±0.105 °C/decade (2?)
GISTEMP: 0.151 ±0.092 °C/decade (2?)
NOAA: 0.140 ±0.085 °C/decade (2?)
HadCRUT4: 0.145 ±0.080 °C/decade (2?)
P.S. I like using the SkS calculator for two reasons.
a) It’s easier.
&
b) It’s using their own ‘tool’ to disprove any of their claims.
Further to earlier posts I’ve just checked the UAH and GISS trends for the past 30 years (1984-2014) and they are virtually identical.
Play Skool agrees with you John.
UAH: 0.174 ±0.084 °C/decade (2?)
GISTEMP: 0.172 ±0.074 °C/decade (2?)
NOAA: 0.162 ±0.069 °C/decade (2?)
HadCRUT4: 0.169 ±0.065 °C/decade (2?)
What is more interesting here is that NOAA’s own data set contradicts their own ‘latest’ study.
There is a huge difference in 2014, which is where the controversy comes from.
Steve
I’m pretty sure there isn’t a huge difference. If you use the 1981-2010 baseline the 2014 (Jan-Sep) anomalies for UAH and GISS are almost exactly the same (i.e. ~0.25 deg C)
It’s the RANKINGS that are different but that’s more to do with the Lower Trop response to the 97//98 El Nino and, to a lesser extent, the 09/10 El Nino.
Dr Spencer’s reply to the NOAA study.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/do-satellite-temperature-trends-have-a-spurious-cooling-from-clouds/
Steve, could this be a ‘cherry pick’ in regards to NOAA’s study? The study in question covers the period from 1998 to 2010 (12 years). Again, using the kiddies calculator, we have this scenario (using only NOAA & UAH):
UAH: 0.014 ±0.329 °C/decade (2?)
NOAA: 0.050 ±0.256 °C/decade (2?)
Now, if we to extent the END date to NOW (16 years, keeping 1998 as the START date), we have this:
UAH: 0.062 ±0.213 °C/decade (2?)
NOAA: 0.041 ±0.162 °C/decade (2?)
As can be seen, UAH is defiantly cooler during the ‘study’ period, but the trend reverses with an extra 4 years added to the end.
NOTE: Gistemp and Hadcrut show a similar reversal.
Correction to the above. Gistemp shows a similar trend to UAH, not a reversal. Sorry.
Thermometers are underestimating global warming by 30%, so we will simply destroy them all, unless surrondeded by asphalt, concrete, jet exhaust and air conditioning exhaust.
Maybe they should update their method of measuring temperature to using modeled Yamal tree-rings counting. That should stop all the arguments,…er, maybe.