Surprise: Warmists “Correct” Satellite Data To Accord With Their Beliefs

For a long time now, there has a been a massive discrepancy between the satellite data and Warmist models and “ground data”. Well, obviously, that was a big issue for the Cult of Climastrology. So they did what they do best: modify the data

Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

Climate change deniers and sceptics have long pointed to satellite data showing lower temperatures than those recorded on the ground.

However, new research has found an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature.

Using information from the satellites, the scientists, Dr Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research company, developed a new method of correcting for the changes.

Obviously, they found something startling

And what they found was startling.

The rate of warming was about a third higher at 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade between 1976 and 2016, compared to 0.134C per decade.

Is anyone surprised that massaging and adjusting the data with a “new method” suddenly gave them not only an outcome that accords with the Warmist’s talking points, but is even worse than thought?

Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset.

Of course it did.

BTW, this still wouldn’t prove that the warming is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Oh, and I wrote this in the morning for posting in the p.m., ran across this

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Surprise: Warmists “Correct” Satellite Data To Accord With Their Beliefs”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Just waiting for little jeffuckery to come along and tell us how Roy Spencer is such a big fat liar and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
    Steven Goddard too.

  2. Jeffery says:

    We thought deniers no longer questioned warming, only the cause of the warming? Do you believe the Earth is warming or not? The overwhelming evidence, even from the obviously flawed data manipulation models used to adjust the satellite data, is that the Earth is warming.

    TEACH: The RSS outputs were corrected by RSS, not by your so-called warmists. Stop lying.

    The satellites do not measure temperature, even if Chris Monckton once claimed they contained the most sensitive platinum thermometers, LOL. Upper air temperatures are calculated from measurements made by satellite microwave sounders.  “Microwave sounders are capable of retrieving vertical temperature profiles of the atmosphere by measuring the thermal emission from oxygen molecules at different frequencies.” They measure radiances at various levels of the troposphere and through extensive computer modeling, manipulation and corrections these radiance outputs are converted into temperatures. The stability of the sensors deteriorates over time (satellite orbit decay and drift, for example). The satellite data is much much much more manipulated than the actual thermometer readings.

    The UAH dataset is in its tenth version, with each correction intended to improve the accuracy and precision of the models. Some of the corrections resulted in lower overall rates of warming, some in higher. The latest revision actually lowers the calculated (computer modeled) rate of warming. In fact, early in its development, the UAH data manipulation model suggested significant tropospheric cooling until the scientists in charge found significant errors in their data manipulation and corrected it. To their credit, the scientists manipulating the UAH data, so-called “skeptics” John Christy and Roy Spencer, admitted their mistakes and re-manipulated the data for their computer model, ostensibly improving the accuracy. Even with the data manipulation improvements, UAH computer models of radiance data still run cooler than RSS and the several thermometer based datasets.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Let’s reiterate TEACHs illogic this point:

    RSS is correcting its OWN data output. If they were really trying to

    “Correct” Satellite Data To Accord With Their Beliefs


    Their earlier findings showed slower warming compared to thermometers. Why didn’t they just fake the data then?


  4. Zachriel says:

    Satellites don’t measure surface temperature, but atmospheric radiation. Temperatures are inferred through a complex analytical process. Simply waving your hands because you don’t like adjustments is not an argument as to whether or not the particular adjustments are appropriate or scientifically justified. In fact, decay in satellite orbits do affect measurements, so taking that into account is necessary for accurate understanding of the trends.

  5. Jeffery says:

    And it has been shown that Dr. Spencer has made some “mistakes”. His two biggest “mistakes”: He and Dr. Christy were wrong in their original manipulation of satellite data for the UAH, and he more recently misrepresented the temperature record to claim that 95% of climate models failed.

    He was also a signatory of the evangelical Cornwall Alliance document that states:

    We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.


    We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

    So the leading “scientist” of the so-called “skeptics” Denies that changes in CO2 can change the climate. He should be pleased to be called a denier, then. He believes that that a socially conservative X-tian “god” controls all.

    Wow, the leading so-called “scientist” to the so-called “skeptics” doesn’t believe in science at all.

    Many, if not most, US Science Deniers are fundamentalist X-tians (or the right-wing authoritarians currying their favor aka vote). Could it be they oppose climate science as part of their overall strategy to enact X-tian Sharia – stop the teaching of evolution, ban abortion and birth control… how much of US Con Man opposition to the overwhelming evidence supporting CO2 dependent global warming is religious in nature?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Oh, fuckingpuppies, you’re so reliably dunceworthy!

Pirate's Cove