Cult Of Climastrology: Satellite Data Only Good When It Tells Us What We Want

Warmists used to think that the best method for measuring the warming of the Earth was via satellites, which could measure global temperatures in places that had no monitoring stations, and would not show the often huge bias within places that suffer from the Urban Heat Island Effect. That is until the satellites started showing a huge divergence from the computer models and land data, especially since Warmists couldn’t adjust the satellite data. Hence, the satellites showed an almost 19 year pause. The satellites were supposed to confirm the land based measurements. Instead, they showed that the land based measurements were wrong. And then we have this

Satellites – “not good enough to tell us global temperature”, but apparently good enough to tell us global climate sensitivity

Remember that video produced a few weeks ago from the usual suspects that says satellite data is no good for climate data? Others in science don’t seem to think so.

Mapping the world for climate sensitivity

By using information gathered by satellites, a group of biologists have developed a new method for measuring ecosystem sensitivity to climate variability.

By developing this method, the international team of researchers has been able to map which areas are most sensitive to climate variability across the world.

“Based on the satellite data gathered, we can identify areas that, over the past 14 years, have shown high sensitivity to climate variability,” says researcher Alistair Seddon at the Department of Biology at the University of Bergen (UiB).

You can find other examples of this, such as last November the UN said that the satellites showed “visible shifts” in food production due to man-caused climate change.

It’s high time for Warmists to admit their movement is a cult, and not based on science. Conversely, if they believe so strongly that their preferred data is proof, they should make their own lives carbon neutral.

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

24 Responses to “Cult Of Climastrology: Satellite Data Only Good When It Tells Us What We Want”

  1. John says:

    Teach says require MUCH MORE data tweaking than thermometers
    Remember: stars don’t even measure temps they measure radiation, some of these are 20+ years old, their orbits are constantly changing, their instrumentation must be calibrated against ballon and land based thermometers( which are the gold standard)
    If as you claim/imply there hasn’t been any increase in temps please tell us why the loss of ice in the Arctic and 90% of the glaciers retreating
    Is it your claim that THE PAUSE is causing this?
    Teach the only nation that is in more denial over climate change than the USA is Saydi Arabia
    Carbon neutral is the long term goal, but as a nation we are moving in that direction with individual carbon footprints now at 30+ year lows coal use us dropping the fastest.
    The percent of income Americans spend on energy for their home is at record lows
    Gas prices are headed to 1$
    Is thus the “skyrocketing” energy costs we have been warned about?

  2. Jeffery says:

    It’s high time for Warmists Deniers to admit their movement is a cult, and not based on science.

    There. Fixed it for ya’.

    The satellites measure microwave radiation several thousand feet above the Earth’s surface and use complex computer modeling to turn the radiation data into a temperature. The satellites do not measure surface temperature. Unlike Deniers, climate scientists do not ignore contrary data, but recognize that the satellite data is part of the whole. Deniers scrounge whatever data they can to support their political and ideological positions (btw, that’s the definition of “cherry-picking”).

    Satellitists: How will Deniers respond when in 5 or 6 months the satellite “temperature” records race past the land/sea thermometer records? The satellite records are especially sensitive to El Nino years (e.g., 1998 when the Denier “pause” started). It’s likely that the UAH and RSS signals will exceed the 1998 high. But we can wait until it happens. In 2015 alone, according to UAH and RSS, the troposphere warmed 0.29C and 0.23C, respectively! NOAA showed 0.23C warming in 2015, HADCRUT 0.27C.

    Will Deniers be forced to scrounge around for new “data” to support their cult? Lord Monckton will let you know.

    The benefit of the satellite records, however, is that they offer near global coverage. The surface record, on the other hand, has some well-documented gaps. Measurements are few in remote places, such as the Southern Ocean, Antarctica and the interior of Africa, for example.

    A criticism sometimes levied at the surface temperature record is that it goes through a series of adjustments to correct for issues, such as missing data, changes in instrumentation, movement of stations, and human or technical error.

    This process is known as homogenisation and, despite being a well-understood scientific practice, has been used by some climate-skeptic commentators as evidence that scientists are “fiddling” the data to overstate the amount of warming we’ve seen.

    But while the surface data routinely receives interrogation, the fact that the raw satellite data goes through a far more extensive “adjustment” process often goes undiscussed, says Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth, a group set up in in 2010 to independently assess the surface temperature record. He tells Carbon Brief:

    “[Satellites] do not directly measure temperatures, and are subject to large systemic biases due to orbital decay, diurnal sampling drifts, changes in the satellite used (there are 13 or so different ones that span the period from 1979-present).”

    Adjustments to the satellite data to account for these issues are just as necessary as those to the surface record, says Hausfather. But the uncertainty in the measurements is much higher and varies between the two different groups collecting the satellite data. He explains:

    Correcting for these biases is not straightforward, and different choices in correction parameters (adjustments, if you will) can lead to very different trends during the period from 1979-present.

    Historically, the satellite record has changed much more than the surface record ever has, Hausfather tells Carbon Brief.

    This does not invalidate the satellite record, nor is it an attempt to disparage the record. These are just facts. Deniers only use data that support their ideology, scientists must consider all the data.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    So where’s the direct scientic proof that links global warming to man-made CO2?

  4. Rev. Hoagie says:

    Both John and Jeffery are entitled to believe whatever they like. I only wish they would let others do the same. They are not entitled to have anyone else pay for what they believe. You both should also realize the current (which could change tomorrow) low price of energy is because of the massive oil, gas and fraking being done since “alternate energy” costs more money to purchase and to subsidize.

    And I do hope you both are carbon neutral or better. Anything else would be hypocritical.

  5. john says:

    Hypocritical ? Of course others must be allowed to believe in what they wish. However, unfortunately my dear Reverend living here in the USA does NOT allow you to decide on all that you must “pay” for. Much of that is determined in a democracy by majority rule.

    Hypocritical ? Unless one leads a perfected life one is a hypocrite ?
    do you consider yourself to live a fully perfected life?
    Yes today’s fossil fuel prices ARE low and for that I am grateful. Renewable prices are also decreasing and will continue to lessen, unlike fossil fuel prices which may/will fluctuate. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Future-Solar-Cost-Projections-PPA-LCOE.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/10/how-cheap-can-solar-get-very-cheap-indeed/&h=840&w=1551&tbnid=nYFD62R3G5KgjM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=188&docid=rUL5TCZaJtdVgM&usg=__G5myrA7cXAzEAY_MUZurWWQsg3A=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4YHSuITLAhXKaT4KHUsmCMsQ9QEIIDAA
    Please note that in that graph solar prices only trend in one direction DOWN
    from the Wall Street Journal
    Even the Saudis are going solar !http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/07/13/saudi-arabia-solar-power/

  6. Jeffery says:

    Rev. Hoagie typed:

    They are not entitled to have anyone else pay for what they believe.

    Back at ya’. I pay (and probably a lot more than you) for the roads, schools, clean air, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, police, fire protection, the bloated military and the bloated interest we pay on a national debt arising from Bush’s invasion, tax cuts and recession. Part of my tax monies go to pay for lung cancer patients who smoked. Why aren’t the millionaire tobacco execs and the corporations picking up that tab?

    Oil prices are lower now because of 1) decreased demand from the slowed economy and pressure to reduce fossil fuel use, 2) increased production from Saudi Arabia and Iran (thanks Barack!). The plummeting oil prices have shut down some of the expensive, dangerous and environmentally damaging fracking operations allowing the execs and investors to sit and count their money. Meanwhile states like Oklahoma and Pennsylvania are left to clean up the mess. Do you agree that the “frackers” should, in real time, pay every penny of all environmental clean ups, methane releases, watershed contamination, earthquake damages and loss of property values? These charges would make fracked gas more expensive and less attractive.

    Energy sources that do not increase CO2 emissions and don’t contribute to the catastrophe that is global warming are at a built-in disadvantage to fossil fuels that DO significantly contribute to environmental decline. The “cost” of fossil fuels does not include the cost of environmental damages! That cost is pushed onto the tax payer!

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Hypocritical ? Unless one leads a perfected life one is a hypocrite ?

    Unless one is willing to do what they demand others do, yes that is a hypocrite.

    Hypocrite:

    noun
    1.
    a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
    2.
    a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

    We keep expecting you to learn things john and yet you keep exposing your ignorance.

  8. Jeffery says:

    So where’s the direct scientic (sic) proof that links global warming to man-made CO2?

    Kudos on typing this yourself for once! All you have to do is look it up the evidence, it’s all over the interwebs. Try Google. You can’t miss it.

    Are you troubled by the term “man-made CO2”? I am a bit – it seems scientifically trite. I guess it’s a reasonable short-hand for what is actually happening when we oxidize coal, oil, gas or wood – actually, any carbohydrate or hydrocarbon source.

    It’s certainly more meaningful than “direct scientific proof”, which neither you or Vin Diesel explained.

    Can you describe what further “proof” you need to see to be persuaded? LOL. That’s rhetorical.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    … the catastrophe that is global warming…

    -the little guy who exaggerates often

    There he goes again.

  10. john says:

    Well Reverend you certainly might pay more than me in taxes, I am just a blue collar truck driver. I have heard that some DO make quite a substantial income in being a Reverend Any chance you might share with us some of your professional tricks for increasing that income ?
    Oh by the way Iranian oil production ? That is down 25% because of the sanctions that Obama enforced. It hasn’t gone up yet. When it does I expect my truck fuel costs to go down by 1/3 THANKS OBAMA
    https://ycharts.com/indicators/iran_crude_oil_production

  11. Jl says:

    Thermometers don’t actually measure temperature, either. They measure the thermal expansion of a heat sensitive medium, and converts it to temp. And poor Zeke vainly tries to equivilate satellites with the highly polluted, highly adjusted land based system. He forgets to mention the many compromised locations of the land measurements that are located in urban heat island locations, and that the satellite data is backed up by 4 radiosonde ballon datasets. What’s the land-based system backed-up by? Besides the fraudsters at NOAA and NASA

  12. Jl says:

    John “90% of glaciers retreating..” Yes, John, and they’ve been retreating long before your SUV ruined the planet. We are in an inter-glacial period, where glaciers are supposed……to melt. Funny how that works like its supposed to. Absolutely no evidence your SUV is causing glaciers to melt.

  13. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Do you “believe” the UAH and RSS satellite data showing steady tropospheric warming in 2015?

  14. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Can you link to the radiosonde data you claim supports the RSS data? Thanks.

  15. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Equivilate? Is that from “Sarah Palin’s Big Book of Words for Refudiating Liberals”?

  16. Jeffery says:

    j,

    How are NOAA and NASA faking:

    1. the increase in UAH and RSS data?
    2. the melting of the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheets?
    3. the increase in the volume of ocean water?

  17. Jeffery says:

    j,

    So you do believe that heat causes the volume of liquids to expand as in thermometers and the oceans?

  18. John says:

    So
    Glaciers are retreating
    But
    It is not getting warmer?
    Or
    It is getting warmer but it can’t be from CO2 but from some other cause (supernatural)?
    If climate truthers do think it is getting warmer WHY. Is it getting warmer? Certainly not from Sun output which is slightly lower now that 50 years ago
    Every country on the planet believes in AGW

  19. John says:

    Are surface temps more important than those in the troposphere. ? Exactly where do says “measure ” temps?

  20. Jeffery says:

    jl took a powder when the going got tough…

    So, anyone… Do you believe the steady increase that the RSS and UAH calculations have shown for the past year?

    Did you know that the RSS calculations show that the troposphere has warmed 0.7C since the satellites came online? How is that possible? (UAH = 0.7C too).

    The lying liar hoaxers at NASA show the Earth’s surface has warmed about 1C over the same time period.

  21. John says:

    Climate truthers used to say ……. That global cooling was going to begin in 2012
    Monkeyton used to say that the glaciers were not shrinking

  22. Jeffery says:

    William is right! Another record hot in St. Louis today! Now hunkering down from violent thunder, lightning and hail wetstorms! In the middle of winter! I guess cold and dry yet to come.

  23. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    Here’s the radiosonde thermoometer data you couldn’t find, compared to the RSS adjusted values.

    It appears the RSS adjusted values began to drift below the radiosonde thermometer data starting around 2000.

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/