Satellite Temperature Data Errors Revealed

[mamooth]

And another denier talking point bites the dust.

One satellite data set is underestimating global warming John Abraham Environment The Guardian

That study referenced in that article points out the big errors that Spencer and Christy have been making with their UAH data set, which results in UAH lowballing temperatures by a lot.

(This would be the part now where deniers start screaming "CONSPIRACY!".)

Spencer has sulked a bit and, over on WUWT, he's brought up the ulcer strawman. People are pointing out his errors, which makes him the poor persecuted victim.

It is interesting, how the deniers are doing a reverse-Ghandi. Ghandi's quote was something like "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Deniers? They initially "won" in the sense there was no AGW theory. Then in the early days of the science, they were fighting against the theory. Now everyone is laughing at deniers. The next inevitable phase will be everyone completely ignoring them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Linking articles from "climate consensus ( not a scientific term) the 97%" as if its Gospel = lolz

 

[Mr.Right]

The guardian? Lol!

 

[edthecynic]

That study referenced in that article points out the big errors that Spencer and Christy have been making with their UAH data set, which results in UAH lowballing temperatures by a lot.

Spencer and Christy got caught playing the same games with the Diurnal Satellite Drift corrections years ago when measuring the Lower Troposphere that he is now doing with the Mid Troposphere. Once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar, which is why Spencer is the "official" MessiahRushie climatologist.

 

[mamooth]

Frank and Mr. Right apparently couldn't follow the link in the Guardian article back to the original paper.

But then, it's not like they're allowed to look at sources that the cult hasn't approved. They didn't even look at the Guardian article, much less the paper itself.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's fucking hilarious, the satellites weren't reading Global Warming so they must be adjusted. When the data refuses to match the AGWCult Theory, the data gets adjusted

That's not science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank and Mr. Right apparently couldn't follow the link in the Guardian article back to the original paper.

But then, it's not like they're allowed to look at sources that the cult hasn't approved. They didn't even look at the Guardian article, much less the paper itself.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I read it you fucking retard

 

[MisterBeale]

Hmmm. . . The data tell us that Global Warming is not real. We see that global warming is not real. The people of the Earth can feel that global warming is not real. What can we do?

Use some scientific mumbo jumbo, convoluted lawyering and a twisted rational to convince them all, that the data sets that we have are skewed SO MUCH, that we need to manually adjust them to get the results we need to show that we are indeed experiencing a long term global warming trend that is, indeed, with out a doubt, caused entirely by man, necessitating the need for the immediate formation of a global government and a new layer of taxation! Eureka!



This article was a brilliant find mamooth. I am totally and completely, 100% won over, you have convinced me. Damn, I have seen the light. How astounding. What a stroke of brilliance.

Why didn't the skeptics think of this? Just manually alter the data to get the results you want? Genius!


No wonder you call the side that doesn't agree with you deniers. They just don't know how to do science. When you don't have the data you need, you just fill in the numbers. Hell, I remember doing that in eighth grade when we didn't get the data sets we were supposed to on labs. . . . Looks like all that junior-high science paid off for them global warming researchers, eh?

 

[edthecynic]

It's fucking hilarious, the satellites weren't reading Global Warming so they must be adjusted. When the data refuses to match the AGWCult Theory, the data gets adjusted

That's not science

Actually adjusting for diurnal satellite drift IS science because, well, satellites DO drift!!!

 

[mamooth]

As predicted, Frank and MisterBeale instantly started weeping about a conspiracy.

And that's why they call them deniers, because denying the data is what they do. Denialism is literally just a conspiracy cult now.

 

[MisterBeale]

As predicted, Frank and MisterBeale instantly started weeping about a conspiracy.

And that's why they call them deniers, because denying the data is what they do. Denialism is literally just a conspiracy cult now.

I TOLD YOU, I'm not denying anything. You have us all so convinced. Clearly, this data is incontrovertible. It hasn't been manipulated, fudged, or played with to achieve preconceived results in anyway, shape or form. It is clear to me now these researchers do not suffer from confirmation bias in anyway. Nobody, I mean nobody could have any qualms with how they arrived at their conclusions. You are absolutely correct.


Thank you for setting us straight.

 

[IanC]

here is the C&S response to the latest smear, with links to the relevant articles. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/has-the-guardian-rolling-stoned-christy-spencer/

I thought this graph was funny. it is Dana's 'proof' that Christie and Spencer are up to no good!

see!!!!! every time then improve their methods the temperature trend goes up!!!

wait a minute. what were those trends again?

huh??? the trends match Dana's graph. what does the trend from 1979-1994 have to do with the trend from 1979-2014? does Dana have a problem reading and creating graphs or was it just a ploy to misdirect people who dont inspect graphs for actual evidence and meaning? you decide. If I was you, I would read both sides first though, and decide which is more reasonable, and which fits the facts better.

 

[edthecynic]

here is the C&S response to the latest smear, with links to the relevant articles. Has The Guardian Rolling Stoned Christy Spencer Roy Spencer PhD

I thought this graph was funny. it is Dana's 'proof' that Christie and Spencer are up to no good!

see!!!!! every time then improve their methods the temperature trend goes up!!!

Notice the professional deception! The OP was about Christy and Spencer fudging the MID Troposphere data, so Ian posts the corrections to the LOWER Troposphere they got caught fudging many years ago and were FORCED to correct when RSS did the corrections for them and then PUBLISHED the corrections. Up to that point they refused to even check their data let alone correct it. Not only that the Christy and Spencer fudged lower troposphere data was used by their fellow deniers to accuse the honest scientists of cooking the real data because it didn't matched the phony data C&S generated.

 

[IanC]

here is the C&S response to the latest smear, with links to the relevant articles. Has The Guardian Rolling Stoned Christy Spencer Roy Spencer PhD

I thought this graph was funny. it is Dana's 'proof' that Christie and Spencer are up to no good!

see!!!!! every time then improve their methods the temperature trend goes up!!!

Notice the professional deception! The OP was about Christy and Spencer fudging the MID Troposphere data, so Ian posts the corrections to the LOWER Troposphere they got caught fudging many years ago and were FORCED to correct when RSS did the corrections for them and then PUBLISHED the corrections. Up to that point they refused to even check their data let alone correct it. Not only that the Christy and Spencer fudged lower troposphere data was used by their fellow deniers to accuse the honest scientists of cooking the real data because it didn't matched the phony data C&S generated.

do you have an unpaywalled link to the paper? I thought this was about the nutteracelli nonsense at the Guardian. I'll try to get around to chasing up some info on the OP paper.

 

[edthecynic]

here is the C&S response to the latest smear, with links to the relevant articles. Has The Guardian Rolling Stoned Christy Spencer Roy Spencer PhD

I thought this graph was funny. it is Dana's 'proof' that Christie and Spencer are up to no good!

see!!!!! every time then improve their methods the temperature trend goes up!!!

Notice the professional deception! The OP was about Christy and Spencer fudging the MID Troposphere data, so Ian posts the corrections to the LOWER Troposphere they got caught fudging many years ago and were FORCED to correct when RSS did the corrections for them and then PUBLISHED the corrections. Up to that point they refused to even check their data let alone correct it. Not only that the Christy and Spencer fudged lower troposphere data was used by their fellow deniers to accuse the honest scientists of cooking the real data because it didn't matched the phony data C&S generated.

do you have an unpaywalled link to the paper? I thought this was about the nutteracelli nonsense at the Guardian. I'll try to get around to chasing up some info on the OP paper.

UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites. Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

http://www.remss.com/papers/MSU_Nature_Article.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As predicted, Frank and MisterBeale instantly started weeping about a conspiracy.

And that's why they call them deniers, because denying the data is what they do. Denialism is literally just a conspiracy cult now.

Your Cult is adjusting data does not fit your stupid, insane theory

 

[jc456]

here is the C&S response to the latest smear, with links to the relevant articles. Has The Guardian Rolling Stoned Christy Spencer Roy Spencer PhD

I thought this graph was funny. it is Dana's 'proof' that Christie and Spencer are up to no good!

see!!!!! every time then improve their methods the temperature trend goes up!!!

Notice the professional deception! The OP was about Christy and Spencer fudging the MID Troposphere data, so Ian posts the corrections to the LOWER Troposphere they got caught fudging many years ago and were FORCED to correct when RSS did the corrections for them and then PUBLISHED the corrections. Up to that point they refused to even check their data let alone correct it. Not only that the Christy and Spencer fudged lower troposphere data was used by their fellow deniers to accuse the honest scientists of cooking the real data because it didn't matched the phony data C&S generated.

do you have an unpaywalled link to the paper? I thought this was about the nutteracelli nonsense at the Guardian. I'll try to get around to chasing up some info on the OP paper.

UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites. Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

http://www.remss.com/papers/MSU_Nature_Article.pdf

what is meant by the orbital corrections? Does that mean the satellites were moved back where they were originally at, or was there a manipulation of the data?

 

[edthecynic]

what is meant by the orbital corrections? Does that mean the satellites were moved back where they were originally at, or was there a manipulation of the data?

Diurnal satellite drift effects the time of day that the readings take place. As the drift occurs the readings are not taken at the exact same time each day and have to be corrected for the time change.

 

[jc456]

what is meant by the orbital corrections? Does that mean the satellites were moved back where they were originally at, or was there a manipulation of the data?

Diurnal satellite drift effects the time of day that the readings take place. As the drift occurs the readings are not taken at the exact same time each day and have to be corrected for the time change.

so you're saying the data was adjusted? hmmm, isn't that what we've said? arbitrary numbers presented as fact. it's called bullshit!!! I'm calling it bullshit, and I will continue to call it bullshit. comprehenda?

BTW, for my side, We told them so!!!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

what is meant by the orbital corrections? Does that mean the satellites were moved back where they were originally at, or was there a manipulation of the data?

Diurnal satellite drift effects the time of day that the readings take place. As the drift occurs the readings are not taken at the exact same time each day and have to be corrected for the time change.

so you're saying the data was adjusted? hmmm, isn't that what we've said? arbitrary numbers presented as fact. it's called bullshit!!! I'm calling it bullshit, and I will continue to call it bullshit. comprehenda?

BTW, for my side, We told them so!!!!!!!

No, the time of the readings has to be adjusted because the time the polar satellites cross the equator changes. Spencer and Christy were using the opposite sign for the diurnal satellite drift corrections to turn warming into cooling.