When confronted with the major issues I have presented, the Berkeley Earth, NASA and NOAA people demonstrate that their only interest is producing graphs showing warming while maintaining some appearance of plausible deniability.
Actual scientists would want to understand why their data radically diverges from satellite data and a host of other proxies.
“Actual scientists would want to understand why their data radically diverges from satellite data and a host of other proxies.”
Exactly. Which simply proves that none of these people are actual scientists.
Actual scientists would want to understand why their data radically diverges from satellite data and a host of other proxies.
This would assume they have some level of intrinsic curiosity. They don’t. We do (or at least I do.)
.
Thanks, Steven. These are the kinds of questions that need to be made public over and over again. You have a way of adding a bit of wicked wit that is much appreciated, too. But the main issue is: why don’t “they” want to be “actual scientists” investigating where their data/theories/fantasies do not fit the actual findings. Keep pounding on them to wake up — stop taking the grants/fellowships/govt funding to lie. You don’t sleep well when you lie. And the bed you lie in smells foul.
Keep up the good work. A mantle has passed to you…by your own efforts. Others are also doing the heavy hauling for the truth, and you are one of the main ones these days. Thanks again. Truths shall make us free.
pyro, I believe it’s a combination of things. First of all, they’re not very bright. But, like Pavlov demonstrated, you can teach anything to do something.
Check the responses to Steve’s posts with graphics vs posts without them. People respond to graphs, pictures, and whatnot. But, they quit responding to graphs which show sameness and no reason to panic.
So, we tell the pretend scientists, “we like graphs”, but, they must move in some direction. Truth, not being a barrier for pretend scientists, precludes any graphic which isn’t alarmist. Add a scumbag ideological bent, and we get what has been presented to the public. Why are they prevalent? Because we don’t pay the people who show boring graphics, people who seek and show truth, we pay for lies, and we get liars. Stupid ones, at that. Because any deep thinker would not, for very long, continue in the lies.
Satellite data a “proxy”?
Is it a direct measurement?
Are IR thermometers “direct measurements”?
No. Reading a metallic surface, for instance, which can have a low ’emittance’ requires either a correction factor or ‘flat black paint’ to be applied to the spot to be ‘read’.
See for instance: “Infrared Thermometer Emissivity tables” in this doc for correction factors for a variety of materials:
http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf
Note in particular the low values for Aluminium for instance on pg 5.
.
Oh, come on. Many IR thermometers can be calibrated for reflectivity and emissivity as function of temperature.
Satellites are IR thermometers because they can easily be kept cold enough to measure the maxima of black body irradiance near about 290 K. They are calibrated against ground based temperature measurements, and the principal correction is azimuth drift from the receiving station. (They are not corrected for the reflection of “aerosols,” leading me to think that “aerosols” are nothing but an excuse for no global warming)
re: Brian G Valentine July 16, 2014 at 3:25 am
Bzzzt! Overeaction! I answered a general question on IR thermometry. Maybe your initial impression or concept of IR thermometry was much simpler regarding surface emissivity. The surface emissivity of all ‘substances’ is not the same, as you have been informed.
The only ‘direct measure’ is a thermometer in direct contact with an object of study. Anything else is a proxy, getting back to your first question.
.
Brian G Valentine says:
July 16, 2014 at 3:25 am
Satellites are IR thermometers
But they are not like a Mercury or Alcohol Thermometer which can be “Read” by humans, they require many algorithms, calculations and “adjustments” to get a final result. There are many places that it can all go wrong, by accident or design.
Have you looked at how they actually work?
I forgot to add, have you looked at their “accuracy”?
They have ideology, they don’t need the truth.
Here’s a good article from today’s NYT about a skeptic professor from UAB and the obstacles he’s faced from the establishment: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?ref=todayspaper
Correction: UAH.