Warmers Double Down on Altered Data, fake science and just making it all up

[Old Rocks]

Hilarious!!!

Yes, it is hilarious that there exists such a number of Dunning-Kruger candidates on this board.

 

[Old Rocks]

Warmers:

DENIER!!!

I don't deny global warming, I welcome it.
Winter sucks here and when the shores of Lake Superior have Palm Trees I will celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
So far, very dissatisfied with the rate of warming.
Think I will just go run my Hemi for no reason but to help it along.

and

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll put it succinctly, you dingbats are total fruitloops. My goodness, just because the glaciers, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, and the Arctic ocean sea ice are melting doesn't mean it is warming. Just because the Permafrost is melting does not mean it is warming. Just because the snow is coming to the mountains later and melting off earlier, doesn't mean it is warming. LOL You guys are pathetic.

If that's true, how can you or anyone know WHAT THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION is to the warming? Any scientist who says he/she can prove that the 100 variable equation of global climate can be reduced down to one is full of shit.

What is with their belief that Earth is currently at its perfect climate anyway? Cities stupidly build in flood zones?
The planet has had warm and cold periods for millions of years, now suddenly any deviation is somehow a global catastrophe.
Pure nonsense.
The Earth goes through constant changes we don't notice in our short lifespans, and no feature on the planet whether natural or man made is permanent.

What an ignoramus you are. Of course the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. And every one of those warmings and coolings had drivers. And, when that warming or cooling was very rapid, there were periods of extinctions. The present very rapid warming is due to the amount of GHGs mankind have put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. The last time we had this level of of GHGs in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll put it succinctly, you dingbats are total fruitloops. My goodness, just because the glaciers, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, and the Arctic ocean sea ice are melting doesn't mean it is warming. Just because the Permafrost is melting does not mean it is warming. Just because the snow is coming to the mountains later and melting off earlier, doesn't mean it is warming. LOL You guys are pathetic.

If that's true, how can you or anyone know WHAT THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION is to the warming? Any scientist who says he/she can prove that the 100 variable equation of global climate can be reduced down to one is full of shit.

Anyone that thinks we can increase the GHGs to the level we have and have no effect, is not full of shit, they are shit for brains.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently the reason that satellite measured Earth temperatures have not increased since Sputnik, is well, can't be that the AGW Global Climate Warming Change Theory is wrong that can only mean that, um, the satellites are wrong!

It's like how Einstein realized time was mutable and a function of acceleration, temperatures MUST be increasing therefore the instruments MUST be wrong

So sad. So Cult

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades

Oh my, Frankie boi of the hollow moon, is now claiming that he is so much smarter than the scientists that write for 'Science and Astronomy'
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

1. Home
2. News
3. Science & Astronomy

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades​

By Stephanie Pappas 11 days ago
A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

A map of tropical water vapor from NASA. Research on water vapor and other climate features suggests that satellite measurements might have underestimated past warming. (Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

The global warming that has already taken place may be even worse than we thought. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds satellite measurements have likely been underestimating the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere over the last 40 years.

Basic physics equations govern the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air, but many measurements of temperature and moisture used in climate models diverge from this relationship, the new study finds.
That means either satellite measurements of the troposphere have underestimated its temperature or overestimated its moisture, study leader Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, said in a statement.

A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

Eaten by the deep ocean..........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious!!!

Yes, it is hilarious that there exists such a number of Dunning-Kruger candidates on this board.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hilarious!!!

Yes, it is hilarious that there exists such a number of Dunning-Kruger candidates on this board.

You talking to yourself again?

Meanwhile Dr. Spenser has responded to the dishonest misleading media generated crap:

Biased Media Reporting on the New Santer et al. Study Regarding Satellite Tropospheric Temperature Trends​

June 9th, 2021
Excerpt:

Executive Summary
A new paper by Santer et al. in Journal of Climate shows that observed trends during 1988-2019 in sea surface temperature [SST], tropospheric temperature [TLT and TMT], and total tropospheric water vapor [TWV] are generally inconsistent, by varying amounts, with climate model trends over the same period. The study uses ratios between observed trends in these variables to explore how well the ratios match model expectations, with the presumption that the models provide “truth” in such comparisons. Special emphasis is placed on the inconsistency between TWV moistening rates and the satellite tropospheric temperature warming rates: the total water vapor has risen faster than one would expect for the weak rate of satellite-observed tropospheric warming (but both are still less than the average climate model trends in either CMIP5 or CMIP6).

While the paper itself does not single out the tropospheric temperatures as being in error, widespread reporting of the paper used the same biased headline, for instance this from DailyMail.com: “Satellites may have been underestimating the planet’s warming for decades”. The reporting largely ignored the bulk of what was in the paper, which was much less critical of the satellite temperature trends, and which should have been more newsworthy. For example: (1) SST warming is shown in the paper to be well below climate model expectations from both CMIP5 and CMIP6, which one might expect could have been a major conclusion; (2) the possibility that the satellite-based TWV is rising too rapidly (admitted in the paper, and addressed below), and especially (3) the possibility that TWV is not a good proxy anyway for mid- and upper-tropospheric warming (discussed below).

LINK

 

[petro]

I'll put it succinctly, you dingbats are total fruitloops. My goodness, just because the glaciers, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, and the Arctic ocean sea ice are melting doesn't mean it is warming. Just because the Permafrost is melting does not mean it is warming. Just because the snow is coming to the mountains later and melting off earlier, doesn't mean it is warming. LOL You guys are pathetic.

If that's true, how can you or anyone know WHAT THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION is to the warming? Any scientist who says he/she can prove that the 100 variable equation of global climate can be reduced down to one is full of shit.

What is with their belief that Earth is currently at its perfect climate anyway? Cities stupidly build in flood zones?
The planet has had warm and cold periods for millions of years, now suddenly any deviation is somehow a global catastrophe.
Pure nonsense.
The Earth goes through constant changes we don't notice in our short lifespans, and no feature on the planet whether natural or man made is permanent.

What an ignoramus you are. Of course the Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. And every one of those warmings and coolings had drivers. And, when that warming or cooling was very rapid, there were periods of extinctions. The present very rapid warming is due to the amount of GHGs mankind have put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. The last time we had this level of of GHGs in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps.

Your math is off..

 

[Sunsettommy]

Apparently the reason that satellite measured Earth temperatures have not increased since Sputnik, is well, can't be that the AGW Global Climate Warming Change Theory is wrong that can only mean that, um, the satellites are wrong!

It's like how Einstein realized time was mutable and a function of acceleration, temperatures MUST be increasing therefore the instruments MUST be wrong

So sad. So Cult

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades

Oh my, Frankie boi of the hollow moon, is now claiming that he is so much smarter than the scientists that write for 'Science and Astronomy'
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

1. Home
2. News
3. Science & Astronomy

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades​

By Stephanie Pappas 11 days ago
A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

A map of tropical water vapor from NASA. Research on water vapor and other climate features suggests that satellite measurements might have underestimated past warming. (Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

The global warming that has already taken place may be even worse than we thought. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds satellite measurements have likely been underestimating the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere over the last 40 years.

Basic physics equations govern the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air, but many measurements of temperature and moisture used in climate models diverge from this relationship, the new study finds.
That means either satellite measurements of the troposphere have underestimated its temperature or overestimated its moisture, study leader Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, said in a statement.

It is YOU who got fooled by this media LYING narrative, the actual paper doesn't say that as pointed out by Dr. Spenser who read it:

While the paper itself does not single out the tropospheric temperatures as being in error, widespread reporting of the paper used the same biased headline, for instance this from DailyMail.com: “Satellites may have been underestimating the planet’s warming for decades”. The reporting largely ignored the bulk of what was in the paper, which was much less critical of the satellite temperature trends, and which should have been more newsworthy. For example: (1) SST warming is shown in the paper to be well below climate model expectations from both CMIP5 and CMIP6, which one might expect could have been a major conclusion; (2) the possibility that the satellite-based TWV is rising too rapidly (admitted in the paper, and addressed below), and especially (3) the possibility that TWV is not a good proxy anyway for mid- and upper-tropospheric warming (discussed below).

bolding mine

It is assholes like YOU who display the Dunning-Kruger effect so well, maybe you should stop attacking many here with that attack and clear up your gumby mouth!

 

[daveman]

Apparently the reason that satellite measured Earth temperatures have not increased since Sputnik, is well, can't be that the AGW Global Climate Warming Change Theory is wrong that can only mean that, um, the satellites are wrong!

It's like how Einstein realized time was mutable and a function of acceleration, temperatures MUST be increasing therefore the instruments MUST be wrong

So sad. So Cult

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades

Oh my, Frankie boi of the hollow moon, is now claiming that he is so much smarter than the scientists that write for 'Science and Astronomy'
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

1. Home
2. News
3. Science & Astronomy

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades​

By Stephanie Pappas 11 days ago
A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

A map of tropical water vapor from NASA. Research on water vapor and other climate features suggests that satellite measurements might have underestimated past warming. (Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

The global warming that has already taken place may be even worse than we thought. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds satellite measurements have likely been underestimating the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere over the last 40 years.

Basic physics equations govern the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air, but many measurements of temperature and moisture used in climate models diverge from this relationship, the new study finds.
That means either satellite measurements of the troposphere have underestimated its temperature or overestimated its moisture, study leader Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, said in a statement.

Gosh, imagine that. The data do not support the pre-determined conclusion, so the data must be wrong.

 

[daveman]

I'll put it succinctly, you dingbats are total fruitloops. My goodness, just because the glaciers, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica, and the Arctic ocean sea ice are melting doesn't mean it is warming. Just because the Permafrost is melting does not mean it is warming. Just because the snow is coming to the mountains later and melting off earlier, doesn't mean it is warming. LOL You guys are pathetic.

If that's true, how can you or anyone know WHAT THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION is to the warming? Any scientist who says he/she can prove that the 100 variable equation of global climate can be reduced down to one is full of shit.

Anyone that thinks we can increase the GHGs to the level we have and have no effect, is not full of shit, they are shit for brains.

If you could make your case with science, you wouldn't have to resort to attempting to shame people into agreeing with you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Apparently the reason that satellite measured Earth temperatures have not increased since Sputnik, is well, can't be that the AGW Global Climate Warming Change Theory is wrong that can only mean that, um, the satellites are wrong!

It's like how Einstein realized time was mutable and a function of acceleration, temperatures MUST be increasing therefore the instruments MUST be wrong

So sad. So Cult

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades

Oh my, Frankie boi of the hollow moon, is now claiming that he is so much smarter than the scientists that write for 'Science and Astronomy'
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

1. Home
2. News
3. Science & Astronomy

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades​

By Stephanie Pappas 11 days ago
A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

A map of tropical water vapor from NASA. Research on water vapor and other climate features suggests that satellite measurements might have underestimated past warming. (Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

The global warming that has already taken place may be even worse than we thought. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds satellite measurements have likely been underestimating the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere over the last 40 years.

Basic physics equations govern the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air, but many measurements of temperature and moisture used in climate models diverge from this relationship, the new study finds.
That means either satellite measurements of the troposphere have underestimated its temperature or overestimated its moisture, study leader Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, said in a statement.

See? Doubling down on hiding the decline! The satellites are deniers for not showing the warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellites also missed how a 140ppm increase in atmosphere CO2 is warming the oceans 700m deep

 

[jc456]

Apparently the reason that satellite measured Earth temperatures have not increased since Sputnik, is well, can't be that the AGW Global Climate Warming Change Theory is wrong that can only mean that, um, the satellites are wrong!

It's like how Einstein realized time was mutable and a function of acceleration, temperatures MUST be increasing therefore the instruments MUST be wrong

So sad. So Cult

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades

Oh my, Frankie boi of the hollow moon, is now claiming that he is so much smarter than the scientists that write for 'Science and Astronomy'
Space is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

1. Home
2. News
3. Science & Astronomy

Satellites may have been underestimating the planet's warming for decades​

By Stephanie Pappas 11 days ago
A new comparison of measurements finds that some don't add up.

A map of tropical water vapor from NASA. Research on water vapor and other climate features suggests that satellite measurements might have underestimated past warming. (Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

The global warming that has already taken place may be even worse than we thought. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds satellite measurements have likely been underestimating the warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere over the last 40 years.

Basic physics equations govern the relationship between temperature and moisture in the air, but many measurements of temperature and moisture used in climate models diverge from this relationship, the new study finds.
That means either satellite measurements of the troposphere have underestimated its temperature or overestimated its moisture, study leader Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, said in a statement.

why haven't you answered Frank's question in the other threads?