The Trouble With Satellites

Satellite temperatures are infinitely better than the fake surface temperatures produced by NASA and NOAA.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

But there is a huge problem with satellite temperatures. They start in 1979, which was the coldest period of the last 90 years in the US. The frequency of below 0F (-18C) nights peaked in 1979, and then dropped in half by the year 2000, before starting to increase again.

1979 was also the peak Arctic sea ice extent of the last 90 years.

Visualizing Government Arctic Sea Ice Fraud | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

NOAA has sea ice satellite data from before 1979, but they hide it because it wrecks their Arctic sea ice melting scam.

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report. Sea ice extent was almost two million km² lower in 1974 than it was in 1979.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

But the scam gets worse because the Arctic had already cooled dramatically by 1970. Sea ice had become ominously thicker.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

Glaciers were expanding by 1976.

National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 575

Forty years earlier in 1939, glaciers were facing “catastrophic collapse.”

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

Because satellite data typically begins at the coldest and iciest period of the last 90 years, the upwards trend since 1979 is very misleading. I see little or no evidence that Earth is warmer now than it was in 1940.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Trouble With Satellites

  1. Sunsettommy says:

    Even then,the temperature per decade rate is well below the IPCC projected rate to support the silly AGW conjecture. Despite that starting point handicap, it warming at less than HALF the projected rate,which tells me that the AGW is a failure.

  2. Andy DC says:

    An unprecedented three very severe consecutive winters in the US from 1977 to 1979 was the culmination of the 1940-1979 cooling period. I remember comparing the US snowfall records of the 1920’s in the US to those of the 1970’s and was shocked with how much snowier the 1970’s were. The summers of the 1970’s were noticeably cooler as well.

    Meanwhile, CO2 was increasing during all of that cooling. That if nothing else showed that CO2 was not the primary driver of climate during that period.

    • AZ1971 says:

      Meanwhile, CO2 was increasing during all of that cooling.

      Exactly. What of the physics of radiative forcing for each molecule of CO2 emitted since 1880? Did it somehow magically stop working during the 1970’s?

      • arn says:

        During the 70ies co2 and science were in global warming denial mode.
        That’s the reason why there was no warming.

        For centuries scientists did not care about co2.
        and did not know about the massive impact co2 can have,because it can’t.
        Nor did they call co2 a pollution.
        But thanks to massive MSM propaganda and tons of money since the 80ies scientists all of a sudden discovered how mean and ugly co2 really is ((after some of them blamed co2 in the 70ies for global cooling))

    • Latitude says:

      CO2 was increasing at a level when it would have had to most effect

  3. John says:

    A lot like historical temperature measurements starting at the end of the LIA.

  4. Griff says:

    all of the minimums since 2007 have been lower than the lowest point shown on that chart labelled ‘5.2’

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    all the measurements would be off the chart as scaled…

    So in this century the seaice is demonstrably lower than any 20th century point.

    • gator69 says:

      Even if true, so what.

      Nobody is dying because of melting ice.

      People are dying because ice melt alarmists are diverting funds away from the starving.

      • gregole says:

        +1
        Personally, melting ice simple does not bother me. It barely interests me. The only interest I have, is why anyone other than a profession like for example glaciology or geology or hydrology cares at all about melting ice. A normal citizen caring about melting ice? Possibly mentally ill, certainly ignorant, and certainly having too much free-time on their hands. I recommend volunteer work if the later!

        • Griff says:

          So, to be clear, losing the arctic sea ice would have NO effect on world weather or climate, according to you?

          No effect on jet stream circulation, Earth’s albedo, etc, etc??

          • gator69 says:

            So, to be clear, losing the arctic sea ice kills nobody according to nobel laureates and most of humanity.

            No effect on starving masses, food suppllies, etc, etc…

            Ms Griff, why do you hate poor brown people?

      • Griff says:

        Well, the piece above is about how sea ice was ‘ominously thicker’ after the 1940s.

        but clearly it is much, much lower and staying lower that the lowest point of the 1940s, isn’t it?

        • gator69 says:

          And still nobody has died as a result.

          21,000 innocent people needlessly starve to death each and every day because climate alarmists cause funds to be diverted to a non-issue that kills nobody.

          Ms Griff, why do you hate poor brown people?

    • Latitude says:

      So in this century the seaice is demonstrably lower than any 20th century point.

      That might actually be “normal”…
      Who know?…do you?

    • David Reich says:

      Sea Ice extent used to be reported at the 30% level, now it is at the 15% level so all prior readings are “adjusted” and “estimated”. What is important is multi-year ice which is currently at a 10 year high as Tony has pointed out countless times.

  5. Gonzo says:

    And just where is the NIMBUS satellite data? They said they were going to digitize the film. Maybe it didn’t show what they wanted to see.

  6. Bill Yarber says:

    Steve, suggest you find and post Jim Hansen’s 1999 and 2000 NASA US temperature trends from ~1880 to the respective years of publication. Hansen’s duplicity is obvious when these two grafts are overlaid. In just one adjustment, Hansen lowered temps from 1900 to 1950 and raised post 1980 data to increase the Warming Trend slope! Historical data should never be adjusted unless a rigerous analysis proves the earlier method was flawed with a consistent systemic bias.

    • tonyheller says:

      I’ve probably done that about 500 times over the past decade. Most of the graphs you see out on the internet showing that were done by me.

Leave a Reply

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