Why Does The US Space Agency Ignore Satellites?

Satellites are far more accurate at measuring global temperatures than the severely flawed surface temperature record. NASA claims global warming is rapidly occurring, but satellites show very little warming this century. What could possibly motivate the US Space Agency to ignore their own satellites?

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-8-24-35-am

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The answer is obvious.  Much of NASA’s funding depends on keeping the global warming scam alive, so NASA generates scientifically unsupportable graphs and distributes them hysterical politicians and journalists.

As Trump Heads to Washington, Global Warming Nears Tipping Point

1x-1

As Trump Heads to Washington, Global Warming Nears Tipping Point – Bloomberg

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Why Does The US Space Agency Ignore Satellites?

  1. Neal S says:

    I sent website feedback to Bloomberg …

    Ticket ID: 737891813
    Summary: Stop lying so much.
    Your Feedback: More and more people realize that the MSM are consistently lying to them about practically everything. Global warming is yet another place where lies are constantly thrown out. Tony Hellers blog is one place where the lies are pointed out. https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/why-does-the-us-space-agency-ignore-satellites/ You have a short window of opportunity within which to begin to tell the truth. If you don’t, nobody will ever believe you again, eyeballs will go elsewhere, advertising will drop, and your business will be gone as will your jobs. Your choice.
    —–
    I realize it probably won’t make any difference.

    • Steve Case says:

      That’s right, it won’t make a difference, they’ve been lying since before the days of the town criers.

      • Sam Pyeatte says:

        Trump will change NASA’s task from AGW and Muslim Outreach to what it is suppose to be – Space exploration and advancing related technology. Their time in the darkness is about to end.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      I call them Doomberg and they have been shilling about GLO-BULL warming for many years at a most insane level. Doomberg eliminated comments because too many were making them look like fools.

    • Bob Hoye says:

      Neal–You rang the bell.
      The election is a massive lesson to the MSM.
      The next instruction to the MSM will be in real climate.

      • RAH says:

        It’s a lesson they aren’t learning. They don’t know anything else to do but what they have been doing and that is exactly what they are continuing to do. Evidence? The libel of Stephen K. Bannon they are committing.
        The fact is that the MSM is as arrogant as Hillary is and like her will only discover they have lost their ability to have a significant effect on events after it is painfully obvious to about everyone else.

  2. Don B says:

    With Trump’s victory, NASA whistleblowers should have no fear of being fired for exposing data altering.

    • Steve Case says:

      Yeah, I think that’s a distinct possibility. For that, and a few other events looming after Friday 20 January 2017, we live in interesting times.

  3. Simon Platt says:

    Off topic, but maybe of interest to Tony and readers: Mrs Brian Cox has just been on BBC Radio 4’s book review programme, “A Good Read”. Her recommendation? “Surely you’re joking, Mr Feynmann”!

  4. Duke Silver says:

    Oddly, they don’t seem to like the USCRN network of ground stations as well. The excuse being ‘they haven’t been around for 40 years – so we can’t trust the output’.

    Be real girls, you like the data you can massage at will and do not like the more accurate data. Doesn’t tell the story, does it?

    • AndyG55 says:

      The comparison of the USCRN network with the satellites over the same area.

      Because the surface data shows bigger spikes and troughs, there is currently a very slight discrepancy in the near ZERO trends.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    Rather than use satellites, NOAA/GISS relies on surface stations, many of either UNKNOWN or HIGHLY DUBIOUS nature, that even by their own admission cover barely 50% of the world’s land surface. They then mix it in with sea temperatures from goodness knows where (There was only very limited coverage before 2003)

    The whole NOAA/GISS temperature series is a near TOTAL FABRICATION from its very beginning.

    • gator69 says:

      Rather than use satellites, NOAA/GISS relies on surface stations, many of either UNKNOWN or HIGHLY DUBIOUS nature, that even by their own admission cover barely 50% of the world’s land surface. They then mix it in with sea temperatures from goodness knows where (There was only very limited coverage before 2003)

      You forgot to mention that they then throw out the actual data, and just make sh!t up.

    • Sam Pyeatte says:

      The rules of the game are about to change. Truth will no longer be in the back seat.

  6. RandoCalrissian says:

    How do I know the origin of this info is legit (ie, not made up by someone). I played around with the plots, only changing the name of the source, and it jumped allllll over the place–in some spots way higher than even the green line on the graph you feature here. What if the cooler temps are just selected from satellites that spend more time over cooler areas of the planet?

  7. gator69 says:

    Rather than use satellites, NOAA/GISS relies on surface stations, many of either UNKNOWN or HIGHLY DUBIOUS nature, that even by their own admission cover barely 50% of the world’s land surface. They then mix it in with sea temperatures from goodness knows where (There was only very limited coverage before 2003)

    You forgot to mention that they then toss the actual data, and just make sh!t up.

  8. Shooter says:

    I noticed how, in the 1930’s, there was no major uptick in overall temp trends, and neither was the drop in the 1970’s. A little hockey stick, I see.

    NASA doesn’t look at their satellites, but they’ll sure say that the data still agrees with them. That’s what John Cook and the others do, after all.

  9. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    NASA and other federal agencies must not generate data they cannot adjust to fit the Standard Models of reality promoted by world leaders after WWII. That is why AGW, SSMand BBC (Anthroprogenic Global Warming, Standard Solar Model and Big Bang Cosmology) are designed to hide a flaw inserted in the SNM, the Standard Nuclear Model by nuclear physicists:

    Einstein (1905) had revealed mass (m) as the source of energy (E) that powers the Sun and the cosmos, E =mc^2. Aston (1922) had measured and reported the exact mass of each atom as “nuclear packing fractions.”

    To save the world from possible nuclear annihilation after WWII, nations and their national academies of sciences united under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 and replaced Einstein’s and Aston’s valid definition of mass (m) as energy (E) with Weizsacker’s (1935) and Bethe & Bacher’s (1936) flawed definition of “nuclear binding energy.

    The basic flaw in the post-WWII definition of nuclear energy is explained in detail in this recent paper and in earlier papers cited there:

    http://tinyurl.com/jn5v652 or

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HUMAN_DESTINY.pdf

    • gator69 says:

      Mmmmm…. Spam.

    • Doug says:

      The AGW scam has absolutely ZERO to do with your idea of Standard Nuclear Model.

      Maybe your theory is right, maybe it’s wrong. I have no idea, and have a hard time understanding why it matters. But your repetitive off-topic posts here and elsewhere have a certain crazy obsessive trollish quality about them. Perhaps you need your own blog.

      I’m sure you’re a nice guy, but wish Tony would finally ban your posts. IMO having them here hurts his credibility.

  10. Norman says:

    I used your graph in a link on Roy Spencer blog.

    I am debating with David Appell about it at this time.

    The satellite data you present matches what the CERES data shows (David questions the CERES data as he should). The CERES data for the entire globe (average radiant net energy hitting the surface is not changing from 2000 to 2015 which the satellite temperatures indicate. I am not sure what the truth is. I think Climate Science resembles the maze in Westworld. You have to get to the center to find the Truth but there are so many complex paths along the way it becomes difficult to reach the center.

    Here is a link to the CERES data I am talking about.

    https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp

    On this page, clicking on the “Visualize Data” button will bring up graphs of radiant energy. Scroll down some to find Net total all-sky and it shows no increase (or decrease) in the amount of radiant energy striking the Earth’s surface.

  11. Pingback: Why Does The US Space Agency Ignore Satellites? - Principia Scientific International

  12. GoFigure says:

    “1.2 degrees from the 1800s” ?

    But co2 didn’t start increasing until about the mid 1800s, and, with an average annual rate of increase of about 2 ppmv, it would have taken another century before its level would have increased enough to have had any possible impact on our global temperature measurements. That brings us to about 1950. But there was a mild cooling from the 1940s to about 1975. So most of that 1.2 degrees is merely natural climate variation.

    What’s more, the only temperature increase which can possibly be associated with co2 increase is the period from 1975 to about 1998, a bit more than two decades. From 1998 until now there has been no further statistically significant increase in temperature according to satellite data. That’s a less than two decades.

    What’s causing the alarmists to wring their hands?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “What’s causing the alarmists to wring their hands?”

      They use GISS’s massively adjusted data which shows only warming

      The cooling from the 1940’s peak has been all but totally squashed in an attempt to make the temperature trend monotonically increasing so it matches the CO2 increase and the climate models.

  13. GoFigure says:

    …. That’s a BIT less than two decades…..

  14. HL Mencken says:

    After reading two dozen or so skeptics makng their points, I knew it was time for an
    alarmist troll to peek out from the cracks to post a lame challenge to the instructive
    graphs as presented. Thanks, Tony, for calling him out. It’s morning in America.
    HL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *