Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Westwall -
It's interesting that you demand scientists display integrity and honety in their research findings - but refuse to do so yourself.
Here once again we see that you are presented with solid evidence in the form of two different polls conducted by different independent organisations - and reject both in favour of blind faith.
You are wrong, you clearly know that you are wrong, and anyone who looks at the research will see that you are wrong. But admitting it is apparently beyond you.
I got nothing from Skeptical Science, but since you condemn them they must be honest and I will be sure to check them out.
But thank you for confirming that Spencer did not correct his errors until 2005 even though Wentz published in 1998. BTW, Watt's Up With That has less credibility than you!
Who cares if the earth is a few degrees warmer?
We're not all gonna die because of it.
There are a lot more pressing things to worry about than warmer weather,
Again you are just making stuff up.Christy and Spencer refused to recheck their work, three guesses why and the first two don't count, forcing others to invest their time and money into checking their work.
Untrue...Spencer, while I don't agree with him as he is a believer in backradiaton did correct his work as soon as the error was pointed out to him.
The point is that the satellite data is being massaged because the satellite can no longer provide accurate data according to Spencer himself.
Spencer put out his cooked data in 1996 and by 1998 Wentz published his paper that said Spencer's error was due satellite drift. Spencer did nothing. In 2000 Prabhakara also found satellite drift errors. Spencer again did nothing. It was always outside sources who corrected Spencer's errors, Mears at RSS who corrected his drift errors which Spencer did not fully correct until 2005 and Qiang Fu of the University of Washington who came up with a method of removing the spurious stratospheric cooling as a result of the satellite drift, the Fu Method, which Spencer fought tooth and nail.
The only shabby characters are you and Watts. I got no dates from the apparently stellar Skeptical Science web site, and you are again creating a Straw Man by changing what I said. The 1998 paper that first exposed Spencer's satellite drift errors was written by Wentz and Schabel not Wentz and Mears. As you so clearly have shown, Christy and Spencer did not fully correct their errors untin 2005 when Wentz and Mears along with Fu at the University of Washington did it for them!I got nothing from Skeptical Science, but since you condemn them they must be honest and I will be sure to check them out.
Of course you did, including your bogus dates.
But thank you for confirming that Spencer did not correct his errors until 2005 even though Wentz published in 1998. BTW, Watt's Up With That has less credibility than you!
Wentz may have published something in 1998, but not the corrections at issue. Those errors were published in a paper titled The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature published online in Science August 2005. The corrections were in print within 3 months of Wentz bringing the errors to their attention.
Published Online August 11 2005
Science 2 September 2005:
Vol. 309 no. 5740 pp. 1548-1551
DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772
Report
The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
Carl A. Mears,
Frank J. Wentz
The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
You really should try to avoid shabby characters like those who run SS.
The only shabby characters are you and Watts. I got no dates from the apparently stellar Skeptical Science web site, and you are again creating a Straw Man by changing what I said.
The 1998 paper that first exposed Spencer's satellite drift errors was written by Wentz and Schabel not Wentz and Mears.
By
Dr. Roy Spencer
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies
NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
14 August 1998
The paper published by Wentz and Schabel in Nature this week (August 14, 1998) is bound to generate controversy about the satellite measurements of global tropospheric temperatures. These measurements, for the period since 1979, have been made with the TIROS-N satellite Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) by myself and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville). We are grateful to Wentz and Schabel for discovering the first convincing evidence for needed corrections to our satellite-based global temperatures.
However, we believe that there are a few important points that should be considered when reporting on this paper.
....................
As your quote hints at where you cut it off, Spencer did not accept the proven accurate Wentz and Schabel corrections. Spencer and Christy had to be forced kicking and screaming to correct their work. In 1998 their token correction for show only was well below Wentz and Schabel's correction and they were still claiming global cooling. It took them until 2005 and three other papers by other scientists to get them to fully correct their work!The only shabby characters are you and Watts. I got no dates from the apparently stellar Skeptical Science web site, and you are again creating a Straw Man by changing what I said.
Of course you did. Don't worry though, I would be embarassed if I were caught hanging out in that cesspool too.
The 1998 paper that first exposed Spencer's satellite drift errors was written by Wentz and Schabel not Wentz and Mears.
And those issues were addressed in quick order as well. To claim that nothing was done is, again, just dishonest...
Corrected satellite data still disagree with Global Warming models
Bitterness, especially when you are wrong doesn't enhance your argument.By
Dr. Roy Spencer
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies
NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
14 August 1998
The paper published by Wentz and Schabel in Nature this week (August 14, 1998) is bound to generate controversy about the satellite measurements of global tropospheric temperatures. These measurements, for the period since 1979, have been made with the TIROS-N satellite Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) by myself and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville). We are grateful to Wentz and Schabel for discovering the first convincing evidence for needed corrections to our satellite-based global temperatures.
However, we believe that there are a few important points that should be considered when reporting on this paper.
....................
Weather balloon trend (Angell/NOAA) -0.07 deg. C/decade
Unadjusted satellite trend: -0.04 deg. C/decade
Weather balloon trend
(Parker, UK Met Office): -0.02 deg. C/decade
Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade
Wentz-estimated adjusted satellite trend: +0.08 deg. C/decade
As the past decade and a half + of flat temperatures have shown, Wentz was wrong.
As the past decade and a half + of flat temperatures have shown, Wentz was wrong.
The ten hottest years on record:
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
That paper went up to 1998, so how could it be wrong about what happened after 1998?????Weather balloon trend (Angell/NOAA) -0.07 deg. C/decade
Unadjusted satellite trend: -0.04 deg. C/decade
Weather balloon trend
(Parker, UK Met Office): -0.02 deg. C/decade
Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade
Wentz-estimated adjusted satellite trend: +0.08 deg. C/decade
As the past decade and a half + of flat temperatures have shown, Wentz was wrong.
That paper went up to 1998, so how could it be wrong about what happened after 1998?????
Again we see the complete stupidity of the Misinformation Voter!!!!!!!
SSDD -
Dismissing all science as being "altered" doesn't actually count for much, nor does it add anything to the debate. {/quote]
I am not dismissing all science as altered...but the global record has been altered. It is unarguable.
At the point you can explain quite why and how university researchers right around the world are "altering" their research, you might have a point. Until then - you're just burying you head in the sand.
7 billion dollars a year just from the US and rock star status. And again, I am not suggesting a concerted conspiracy...just a plain old run of the mill error cascade.
To muster a credible case, you'd also have to establish that any data altered had been done so maliciously, and not simply to improve the accuracy of results - something I think we can assume you don't seriously believe yourself.
I asked you to give me a reasonable scientific explanation as to why 739 months prior to 1960 have been systematically cooled and 570 months since 1958 have been systematically warmed. Did you think of a credible reason such alterations might have happened?
What possible mathematical reason could there be for cooling the past...and not just the past, the record prior to 1960 if not to make the present appear warmer?
I don't expect you to change your mind. You have obviously consumed the coolaid. The wheels are falling off and if you can look past your bias, you will see that the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit from the AGW bandwagon with some hope of a post AGW career intact.
As the past decade and a half + of flat temperatures have shown, Wentz was wrong.
The ten hottest years on record:
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
According to which altered record?
Weather balloon trend (Angell/NOAA) -0.07 deg. C/decade
Unadjusted satellite trend: -0.04 deg. C/decade
Weather balloon trend
(Parker, UK Met Office): -0.02 deg. C/decade
Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade
Wentz-estimated adjusted satellite trend: +0.08 deg. C/decade
As the past decade and a half + of flat temperatures have shown, Wentz was wrong.
First you said Wentz was wrong, when that lie was exposed you now invent "you guys" to cover your lie. The trend has been flat at an ELEVATED level.That paper went up to 1998, so how could it be wrong about what happened after 1998?????
Again we see the complete stupidity of the Misinformation Voter!!!!!!!
The trend according to you guys is still positive... You are right, the misinformation is staggering.
edthecynic;6728293 Scientists at NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880 said:The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976.[/B]
SSDD -
Dismissing all science as being "altered" doesn't actually count for much, nor does it add anything to the debate.
At the point you can explain quite why and how university researchers right around the world are "altering" their research, you might have a point. Until then - you're just burying you head in the sand.
To muster a credible case, you'd also have to establish that any data altered had been done so maliciously, and not simply to improve the accuracy of results - something I think we can assume you don't seriously believe yourself.
There IS no debate wehen you are using falsified data silly person. When are you going to get that? In a court of law anyone found guilty of perjury is automatically ASSUMED to be a perjuror whenever they testify in court again, so no lawyer will EVER call a person as a witness who has been convicted of perjury.
