NASA ignores their own satellite data, in order to generate propaganda for the White House. Their Earth science funding should be cut off, until they agree to be scientists rather than propagandists.
FACT :
Obama lies about almost everything.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Actually the entire section should be disbanded what they do there is a perversion of science.
One of this years 10 best questions! 🙂
Andrew M seems to believe that UHI corrupted and grantologist adjusted surface stations are superior to satellite measurements.
This is what you’re saying:
http://i.imgur.com/A7ws8P6.jpg
Global warming, real or not, was never a claim that Boston would tectonically drop in latitude and cease experiencing Winter.
Surely if you warm the surface and cool the stratosphere, more evaporation and more of the vapour freezing to snow is just what you’d expect. The temperature where it falls is not the temperature of where it evaporated.
There are plenty of good arguments against CAGW. No need to resort to absurdity.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/learning-to-think-like-a-climate-scientist/#comment-519822
He then points to adjusted surface station data as proof that Tony is wrong, and so are the satellites.
He goes on to say that a buoy system still under construction, and data torturing, is also superior to satellites by pointing to this garbage…
The marine data are taken from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, ICOADS, from 1973 to 1997 and from the NCEP-GTS from 1998 to the present. The marine component of HadCRUH is produced by taking in-situ measurements of T and dewpoint T from ships, marine platforms and drifting buoys, and converting q and RH. Observations undergo quality checks for internal consistency, spatial consistency and outliers and the remaining values are converted to anomalies by subtracting climatological means based on the period 1974 to 2003. The anomaly values are then averaged over a 5° by 5° monthly mean grid.
http://hadobs.metoffice.gov.uk/hadcruh/index.html
And most absurdly, he calls himself a skeptic, and us…
It’s these sorts of bogus arguments from the hoi polloi that StevenGoddard attracts when he strays from the firm foundation of data adjustments, WV feedback suppositions, failed models, rigged peer review, adaptability, and natural weather precedents, and just launches into snowflake silliness.
I wonder of what it is that Andrew is so very skeptical?
Gees, what a moronically stupid cartoon.
Did one of his alarmist mates draw that for him ?
What amazes me is his argument that adjusted “data” is OK and he uses it to refute my graphs, but then goes on to say that “data adjustments” is a “firm foundation” of the skeptical argument. WTF?
And on top of that, it appears he has not read any of Dr Spencers work in 18 years, as he points to this pdf…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS.pdf
… dated June 6 1997.
From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
A good list of various false arguments.
I noticed that Andrew M never responded to you, or Neal.
Andrew M, is a typical flying spam troll. He is like a pigeon. Lands, squawks, defecates all over and then flies off.
Gail Combs at May 2, 2015, 3:13 pm has flirted with libel by fabricating claims about me “flying off” from the argument, which is indefensible as she posted that comment a full 10 hours after I had replied to Gator69. Simply checking the previous thread would have been reasonable before putting her feet in her mouth. (The world revolves around Gail, which is why any reply made to a person other than Gail is a reply that just doesn’t exist.)
Actually, Gail, I couldn’t be bothered replying to your Ice Age fantasy, not only because its conclusion had no relevance to the point StevenGoddard was arguing (ie that snow in 2015 disproves AGW), but it fallaciously relied on an assertion of the weather patterns of 20,000 years ago as measured by satellites that had not yet been invented.
As for the comment by “Neal”, well, I couldn’t script that comedy skit any better if I tried.
The one advantage AGW has over Intelligent Design is that at least AGW is scientifically falsifiable. But, no, there the so-called “climate skeptic” advocating I.D., right on cue. So it was best not to spoil his punchline with any response.
AndrewM:
No religious tale of creation or intelligent design is as unscientific as the BBC claim that nothing exploded into a universe filled with hydrogen at time zero (t = 0).
I am quite happy for anyone to carefully read what I wrote in the earlier thread and compare it to both the climate science information generally available in blogs and to Gator69’s subsequent free-ranging responses. A careful reader will discover:
* Gator69 fabricated a claim that I had relied on “UHI corrupted and grantologist adjusted surface stations” and he then goes on to correctly illustrate the distortions in GISS land data, whereas in fact I never referenced GISS data. I referenced the ICOADS data in both HadSST3 and HadCRUH, which Gator69 himself points out was produced by “taking in-situ measurements of T and dewpoint T from ships, marine platforms and drifting buoys…”. One wonders how measurements taken out at sea are contaminated by UHI. Perhaps Gator69 believes the lost city of Atlantis is not quite so lost any more.
* Gator69 stated “The satellites are again more consistent and reliable” at measuring oceans, while conveniently ignoring the deficiencies of measuring *surface* temperature remotely from space instead of at the surface, such as the errors highlighted by Roy Spencer himself [ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/why-do-different-satellite-datasets-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/ ] : “there is not a single satellite which has been operating continuously, in a stable orbit, measuring a constant layer of the atmosphere, at the same local time every day, with no instrumental calibration drifts. … All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them.” The main problem with the relevance of UAH and RSS satellite data products is that they measure the troposphere and *not* the surface temperature. You see this distinction made by John Christy in a recent interview [ http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html ] : “So if you want to measure the response and say that’s the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That’s precisely where satellites measure it.” That’s because their satellite data product does not measure surface temperature. It is possible to estimate surface temperature from satellite-based instruments, but RSS and UAH TLT do not do that. A separate data product, which Gator69 did not reference, is needed to estimate surface temperature from space, bearing in mind there are even more manipulations and sources of error for that process than for producing TLT.
* Gator69 helpfully points out the reported data processing steps done on ICOADS to produce HadCRUH: “converting q and RH. Observations undergo quality checks for internal consistency, spatial consistency and outliers and the remaining values are converted to anomalies by subtracting climatological means based on the period 1974 to 2003.” He pretends this is fiddling, whereas it reads like the bare minimum processing required to remove outliers and provide trends easily comparable to other sources (ie anomalies). Seems any method that he doesn’t understand must be “fiddling”.
* Gator69 rhetorically asks “what warming?” and believes there has been no warming over the last 10 years despite Gator69 just referencing a guardian article stating “global average surface temperatures, while still on an upward trend, have risen more slowly in the past 10 to fifteen years than previously.” Is Gator69 going to believe his own sources?
* Gator69 continues to conflate the hypothesis of AGW with the proposition that the planet has gotten warmer. The troposphere got warmer, then it stopped warming. The surface continues to get warmer while the stratosphere cooled. Rates of warming can be different at different altitudes, so the surface can be warming while the troposphere and stratosphere cool (and that’s what was observed by both satellites and weather balloons). If you have a warming surface and a cooling stratosphere then the situation is consistent with the AGW hypothesis. RSS TLT does not measure the surface. That is why referencing RSS troposphere temperatures does not provide a counter-argument to the AGW hypothesis. If there is no warming at the surface then this invalidates the climate models, but even that does not disprove AGW. AGW in theory makes the surface warmer than it would be without AGW, so it is superimposed on top of natural variation. As the experts have not had a realistic model of natural climate cycles it is no surprise their models failed. By the same token, this means temperatures can stall or decrease and that still does not tell us there is no AGW. Only with a perfect model of natural variation would we be able to subtract the model from the reality and estimate the difference AGW was making. In other words, proving any layer of the atmosphere has not warmed in ten years is insufficient for disproving AGW.
* That whole “snowflake silliness” thread was StevenGoddard’s attempt to argue that if you have a lot of winter snow in recent years then there can’t be any significant man-made global warming from CO2. I provided an analysis of how that argument is faulty, because snowfalls will still happen anyway, with reference to tropospheric humidity and sea surface measurements. Nobody has provided any substantial counter argument yet. The claim that HadSST3 or HadCRUH is “fudged” is unsupported by any evidence offered so far. One warm day in the Arctic does not prove the trendline of the entire decadal series is concocted.
* An increase in specific humidity would occur from warming regardless of the cause of the warming, so that trend also doesn’t prove CO2 was the cause. A natural cause is still plausible. A combination of factors which are partly man-made and partly natural is a plausible explanation for temperature. Gator69 seems oblivious to that logic.
* A correct argument for disproving the IPCC’s highly specific and bold claim is: observe that cosmic rays have always altered the climate of Earth (according to 10Be and 18O isotope proxies), observe there was a grand maximum in solar magnetic activity in the late 20th century (by sunspot count), and further the effect this solar activity has on climate could account for almost half the warming in SST, allow for the fact that the oceans have a high heat capacity and CO2 is a weak heating effect, and further the feedbacks are net negative not positive (eg Lindzen & Choi 2011, and others), and altogether that means CO2 did not cause more than half the warming of the 20th century. I did not see Gator69 advance any similar argument.
* Gator69 fabricated a claim that I “bow to your masters when they tell you the MWP never happened”, whereas I have never disputed the existence of the MWP, either at this web site nor any other, and have argued vociferously in the past against warmists who tried to do so. Gator69 seems content to face into the corner and mumble arguments against imaginary caricatures rather than understand what people are actually writing to him.
What am I skeptical about? I could tell you what I’m skeptical about, but then you’d discover more about me than about the climate, which is really not the point of StevenGoddard’s web site. Less ad-hominem and more study, please. We probably have the same goal, just some of you are mistaken in how to get there.
Andrew still does not get it. From his link…
Christy: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When you put more of it in the atmosphere, the radiation budget will respond appropriately. It’s just that what we found with the real data is that the way the earth responds is to shed a lot of that heat, not keep it in, which climate models do. So I’d rather base policy on observations than on climate models.
Where is the biggest response to greenhouse gases? It’s in the atmosphere, not on the surface. So if you want to measure the response and say that’s the greenhouse gas response, you would look in the atmosphere. That’s precisely where satellites measure it. So the scientific to how does the world respond is found here. The response of the climate system is stronger in the atmosphere than on the surface.
And what does Dr Spencer say about satellite data?
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.
Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.
And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.
In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Andrew thinks I am new to this. Andrew has no idea that I was a climatology student after the ice age scare, and before the great global warming swindle, and have closely followed the science ever since. Or that I have a remote sensing degree.
The claim that HadSST3 or HadCRUH is “fudged” is unsupported by any evidence offered so far.
Huh?
The marine data are taken from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, ICOADS, from 1973 to 1997 and from the NCEP-GTS from 1998 to the present. The marine component of HadCRUH is produced by taking in-situ measurements of T and dewpoint T from ships, marine platforms and drifting buoys, and converting q and RH. Observations undergo quality checks for internal consisitency, spatial consistency and outliers and the remaining values are converted to anomalies by subtracting climatological means based on the period 1974 to 2003. The anomaly values are then averaged over a 5° by 5° monthly mean grid.
The land data are taken from the Integrated Surface Dataset (ISD, formerly ISH) provided by the US National Climatic Data Center from 1973 to 2003. The land component of HadCRUH is a station based dataset where each station must report sufficiently over 1974 to 2003 to create station climatologies. Simultaneously observed T and dewpoint T are converted to q and RH and put through a series of quality checks for internal consisistency, outliers and humidity specific problems. Spatial comparisons are made with neighbour composites to detect inhomogeneities within each station and timeseries adjusted where necessary. Remaining data are converted to anomalies by subtracting the climatology. The anomaly values are then averaged over a 5° by 5° monthly mean grid.
The data are blended where each grid-box value is weighted according to the proportional spatial presence of land or ocean in that grid-box. Boxes containing both land and marine data must have a weighting of at least 25 % for each component.
That isn”t fudging?
Andrew states that the peer review process is corrupt, but doesn’t seem to understand that it is that same peer review process that says the fudging is golden.
Andrew I could go on, but you think you know it all, so have your little fantasy and waste somebody elses time.
So much copypasta, so little content.
My point about humidity was that there had been a multidecadal trend of +0.08g/kg/dec, which was not a statement about whether that trend had changed or stopped during The Pause. If specific humidity also stopped increasing at the same time temperature stopped increasing, that would be consistent with what I said earlier. I don’t have the data for that last 10 years, just that MetOffice graph of the last 40.
Spencer is talking about fudging of land-based temperature records, not ocean. I’m citing HadSST3 Global for temperature trend, which has nothing to do with land, and I like it that way because it precludes UHI contamination. But has it been “fiddled” anyway? Let’s check.
All that “massaging” and “fudging” that you and Spencer allege is going on with land-based temperatures to exaggerate them has a slight issue, which is that in 2010 Spencer himself recreated CRUTem3NH exactly from the original raw data. He just did a series of data processing that was the bare minimum to assemble a continuous chart from the station data. Here are his words:
What a lot of processing steps, although maybe it is “fiddling” in your terminology??
So on the one hand, we know NCDC and GISS have fiddled the USA land temperatures beyond recognition. On the other hand, CRUTem3NH wasn’t exaggerated, it was legit, because Spencer recreated it exactly from source with no secret biased fiddling. Remember this is the guy who told you land thermometers can’t be trusted, only his baby can be trusted, which is satellites.
Now here is the odd thing, Gator69, because when I chart The Halt In Warming in the last 13 years for which data is available from both CRUTem3NH and HadSST3 NH… they show the same trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem3vnh/from:2002/to:2014.4/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002/to:2014.4/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2002/to:2014.4/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2002/to:2014.4/trend
Now switch from NH to global and throw in the ironclad gold-standard UAH satellite data, and what trend do you see?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem3vgl/from:2002/to:2014.4/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2002/to:2014.4/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2014.4/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/to:2014.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014.4/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2014.4/trend
Oh, they’re all flatter than a pancake.
Whilst I appreciate these metrics are not measuring the same thing (one is land, one is ocean, and the other is global troposphere) and there is absolutely no reason why they must all show the same warming rate, isn’t it strange that all the HadSST3 secret fudging you fantasise about has had the effect of making no additional warming to the trend line of the last 13 years?
Actually no, it’s not strange, because HadSST3 is reliable enough for the task.
So much hand waving, and so little to say.
The HadSST3 is based, again, on “spotty” measurements and fudging.
Satellite records are more reliable. But dont ask me, ask the expert. (see above)
Now run along.
NO!
Nor should we give public funds to the space (NASA) or energy (DOE) agencyies that LIED to the public about the Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy.
1. The Department of Energy (DOE) promotes Yukawa’s Standard Nuclear Model of an attractive force between neutrons and Dr. Carl von Weizsacker’s seriously flawed concept of “average nuclear binding energy” to hide neutron repulsion.
2. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) promotes the SSM (Standard Solar Model) of stars as H-fusion reactors and Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) of sudden creation of hydrogen (H) from nothing* at the beginning of time (t = 0) to hide neutron repulsion as the driving force that causes the cores of heavy atoms, ordinary stars, galaxies and the universe itself to emit neutrons or fragment.
*No religious tale of creation is less scientific than the BBC!
NO RELIGIOUS TALE IS LESS SCIENTIFIC THAN BIG BANG COSMOLOGY – the basic falsehood funded by billions of public dollars after Stalin united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) on 24 Oct 1945.
Alarmists cite Satellite Data for supposed Sea Level rise and ice in Antarctica… despite the error rates far exceeding the measurement precision…
Ridiculous… “Science”… Love how Progressives refer to “the Science” all the time without ever delving into actual Science!!
https://youtu.be/BI_ZehPOMwI
long long ago in a galaxy far far away
Reblogged this on Climatism.
NASA = Never A Straight Answer
similar in veracity to the BLS (Bureau of Lying Services)
When a government agency speaks, it is safest to consider the statement a lie until proven otherwise.
I have had former students come back to speak to some of my classes, when I was teaching.
One, a terrific, pleasant, dedicated student who was also a terrific athlete for me in track, was an employee of NASA.
Like most within the NASA circle, he had no idea of most happenings at NASA. He did what he did every day with honesty and integrity and hardly had any idea at all of the AGW meme.
I am retired, and he has now moved on into an area of engineering.
But we discussed the AGW and a lot of things at length.
He is gradually doing what I would have proposed to anyone. Listen to me, but don;t relay on anything I say or show. If, however, he wishes to form an opinion and express it some fashion then delve deeply into at least the aspect to which he is presenting.
Today, people pontificate to the extreme with no investment of time or understanding.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/02/tough-times-for-nasa-giss/
Bye bye NASA SCAMMERS!
In the interests of correcting the record, after further research it turns out one of the statements I made above (in #comment-519889) was false: “RSS TLT does not measure the surface. That is why referencing RSS troposphere temperatures does not provide a counter-argument to the AGW hypothesis.”
The referenced document “Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS” had channel weighting functions chosen specifically for measuring mid-tropospheric humidity, not surface temperature, which is why they had the weighting zero at the surface for that study.
The RSS TLT product includes surface temperature in their integration, as in section 2.2.2.4 of the RSS temperature retrieval algorithm Figure 3 shows the weighting peaks at about 2km and is much greater than zero for the surface. As Spencer And Christy invented the method for including the surface in the integration it seems likely UAH TLT includes a surface contribution.
So it is more true to say that the satellites do not measure only surface temperature, it’s a weighted average that includes the surface as one small part.
It remains true that referencing a flat line in RSS TLT does not disprove global warming, but the reason for that was the second reason given (global warming is additional to natural variability), not due to satellites being unable to measure surface temperature.
In hindsight, that was the only false statement in that comment, the rest remains true, including all the conclusions, especially this: all the HadSST3 secret fudging you fantasise about has had the effect of making no additional warming to the trend line of the last 13 years.
The only alternative is to argue that RSS has the correct algorithm for TLT and that Spencer and Christy have been artificially boosting the UAH TLT product by an extra 0.0071 degrees per year to hide the decline and prop up the IPCC, but you won’t find me making that ridiculous argument.
I also expected the global SST to go into cooling after 2008, but after only 7 years it is no clear signal either way.