Warmists New Excuse For Great Pause: The Satellites Are Lying

There are now so many excuses for the Pause that Skeptics stopped keeping track. Here’s yet another, and it’s a doozy, via James Delingpole

The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.

Turns out the satellite data is lying.

And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The same people who are involved with altering ground level temperature data to conform to their Warmist talking points.

This (satellite) accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

But, they are very upset over the satellites refusing to cooperate with their computer models of warming doom

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets whichdo show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

Unfortunately for the Cult of Climastrology members, the balloon atmosphere data agrees with the satellite data. Bummer. And, as John Christy points out

I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense.  The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?

Yes, they do. A smattering of the typical far, far left Progressive (nice fascist) people and groups. The video is about pushing political policy, not science.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • Maggie's Farm (January 17, 2016)
    A few Sunday links Ace: Movie Review: 13 Hours, A Great Movie CIA Spokesman Slams ‘13 Hours’ as ‘Distortion’ of Benghazi Events ... a reminder that “The correct minimum wage is, as it always has been, $0 per hour Two New Yorks: De Blasio’s friends — an
  • From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal. (January 17, 2016)
    […] Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: Warmists New Excuse For Great Pause: The Satellites Are Lying It used to be standard scientific procedure: if the observations or experimental data did not […]

25 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-16 16:45:28

And next year the deniosaurs will claim the Earth hasn’t warmed since 2015, starting the next “pause”.

The satellites don’t lie but James “I am an imposter talking about science” Delingpole does. The adjustments to the raw UAH data show warming, while the adjustments to the RSS data do not.

The satellites do not measure surface temperature; they measure radiation high in the atmosphere and the raw data is adjusted in a series of steps to something called a “brightness” temperature. Clearly the UAH adjustments and RSS adjustments differ. Which is correct?

Early on John Christy and Roy Spencer made significant errors in adjusting the UAH raw data suggesting that the Earth was not warming as much as thermometers indicated. Was it surprising that the output from deniers showed lower warming? Maybe their errors were accidental and their bias a coincidence. Why do you believe in Christy and Spencer after it was proven they were cheating?

the balloon atmosphere data agrees with the satellite data

Can you support that claim? Perhaps link to a scientific paper (That Delingpole refuses to read).

Do you believe the satellite sea level data (sea level is rising)? Do you believe the satellite arctic sea ice data? The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet data?

 
Comment by Rich Horton
2016-01-16 17:42:48

Oh shut up Jeffrey.

The only adjustment made to the sat data is to account for orbital decay. Without accounting for that the data would show a spurious “warming.” (Talk about fucking science denial.)

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-16 18:17:08

Oh shut up Horton.

You are ignorant and misinformed. Or just an outright liar. Regardless, you’re attempting to spread misinformation to William’s hapless readers.

Do yourself a favor – Google the RSS site and read about the data manipulations necessary to end up with a “temperature”. Orbital decay is just one of them.

If the satellite data isn’t manipulated how do you explain how Christy and Spencer got it so wrong? If all they have to do is write down the numbers, how did they get it so wrong?

 
Comment by jl
2016-01-16 19:13:47

And again, let’s not forget that the land based temperature system only covers about 50% of the earth’s surface. No wonder these clowns like to use it, because that allow them to infill, or guess at the remaining figures. And surprise- they show warming.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-16 20:13:48

the land based temperature system only covers about 50% of the Earth’s surface

Would you like to reconsider what you just typed?

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-16 21:39:42

If the satellite data isn’t manipulated how do you explain how Christy and Spencer got it so wrong?

Christy explained the discrepancy in the article.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-16 23:09:17

“Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done”. — Ray Pierrehumbert

How do we know that Christy is not up to his same old shenanigans? Spencer and Christy are both proven frauds. Why trust them now?

Deniers like Christy (who should know better, but has lost his mind) and Delingpole (who is a fraud) trot out these nonsensical stories. They should write an actual scientific paper describing their stuff.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-16 23:51:58

How do we know that Christy is not up to his same old shenanigans? Spencer and Christy are both proven frauds. Why trust them now?

Laughable but understandable smear by one who believes the likes of Mann and Trenberth (“Nobel laureates”).

The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.”


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 01:55:36

And whom do you cite in defense of Drs. Christy and Spencer (from 1997, no less)? Read on…

scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are

Let’s see… Drs. Christy and Spencer pimped false “evidence” (incorrectly adjusted satellite data) for a decade concluding that the Earth was not warming, got caught and finally fessed up. Maybe it was just an honest mistake. By the way, the UAH satellite “data” (adjusted by Christy) shows 0.14 C/decade warming since it came online some 35 years ago. By contrast, the NOAA land/sea thermometer data shows 0.15 C/decade warming over the same interval. Since 2000, the warming rate, according to Christy, is 0.14 C/decade, and is 0.15 C/decade according to NOAA. Where’s the pause??

On the other hand, the adjusted satellite “data” from RSS (the data that William Monckton loves) shows only 0.03 C/decade warming since 2000. Why do the RSS and UAH data differ so much. The unscrupulous Delingpole conflates RSS and UAH.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 09:07:46

the balloon atmosphere data agrees with the satellite data

Is it? You never offered any supporting evidence.

Here is an analysis of the RATPAC radiosonde data:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/desperate-for-a-pause/

The satellites are great, but they measure microwave brightness, not temperature — we have to deduce how hot it is from the microwave data. That’s an extremely complex problem, and splicing together all the records from all the different satellites (there have been many) is a delicate issue. All of which is part of the reason the different groups doing so don’t agree

Then when one looks at a plot of the RATPAC data:

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/ratpac97.jpeg

So no pause in the balloon thermometer data.

Do you have actual evidence in conflict with this?

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-17 10:27:25

Maybe it was just an honest mistake.
Uh, yeah.
Roy Spencer and John Christy wrote an article about orbital decay and produced a new data set to correct for it. The orbital decay problem did not apply to all the satellites.
Also, unlike surface data the old unadjusted data is still available on the web.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 10:53:11

So, you vote for “honest mistake”. I happen to agree with you. On the other hand, both Spencer and Christy have been misleading people for a couple of decades.

Christy’s own UAH data shows warming, and yet he still denies it.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-17 13:16:08

Misleading is trying to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age along with tampering with historical temperature data like Mann et al.
Yes that is curious.

 
Comment by john
2016-01-17 13:24:37

No major political party of any country deny AGW except our own country.
There is less frozen water now than since accurate measurements first began in 1970
98% of the world’s glaciers are receding
The Pope the US NAvy believe in AGW

 
Comment by john
2016-01-17 13:31:22

Climate truthers think that all the thermometers are liars
and of course also the US Navy

 
 
Comment by drowningpuppies
 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 14:13:57

Supply your best evidence that the MWP was warmer than today and/or warmer than scientists have demonstrated.

Thanks.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 14:42:50

Here’s Greenwald’s recap of his article you use to ridicule the US Navy who are defending your right to whine:

So, to recap the U.S. media narrative: when the U.S. Navy enters Iran’s territorial waters without permission or notice, and Iran detains them and then releases them within 24 hours, Iran is the aggressor; and the same is true when Iran aggressively allows one of its civilian jets to be shot down by the U.S. Navy.

The redoubtable Greenwald was lambasting the US corporate media for transcribing whatever the government tells them.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-17 14:55:11

Supply your best evidence…

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Kinda tired of doing your research for you but it’s not that difficult if you really are looking for the truth.

Now do you want to supply evidence to the contrary?

 
Comment by PHIL Taylor
2016-01-17 18:45:14

Oh boy! The propaganda continues…

Ok if the satellites are now suspect and the land-sea data are suspect then definitely more research needs to be done before this is used as an excuse for moochers to feed at the trough.
The best compromise is to spend money in R&D to find alternatives to fossil fuel. Not give it away to those who did not earn it or do not deserve it.

All stats show insignificant warming or cooling. Choose for yourself if it is warming or cooling. The real debate is what to do about it.
The most logical answer is to do more research and search for ways like thorium nuclear to replace fossil. Then we can all get on board.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 22:05:05

You didn’t supply evidence, you linked to a right-wing blog.

Check what the scientists are saying.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-17 22:12:08

Check what the scientists are saying.

LOL.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-01-17 23:14:06

You prefer to get your “evidence” from right-wing bloggers. We get it.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-01-17 23:37:48

No, I don’t think you do.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10274 access attempts in the last 7 days.