Satellite Records RSS-UAH now show 220 months of NO WARMING

It seems to me that satellite information would read the radiation at different levels of the atmosphere for different wave lengths because the outward radiation for each wavelength depends on what gas has a spectral absorption lines at that wavelength and what it's density is as a function of altitude. Between spectral absorption lines it would actually see the surface radiation.

I don't know what methodology UAH used, nor the resolution and bandwidth of the spectrometer, but in light of the above, it seems temperature might not be a very good measure of GW from a satellite. However, total radiant energy would be easier to measure. I would think that energy output would be more meaningful and accurate than a temperature calculation since the solar input energy can be directly related to the earth output energy.

The charts in the OP show temperature. At what altitude? I wonder if any satellite survey has actually measured total radiation output over an extended period.

...it seems temperature might not be a very good measure of GW from a satellite.......


:eusa_doh:
 
go to the UAH and RSS sites and look at all the products that they have to peruse. if you dont find what you want try somewhere else.
 
It seems to me that satellite information would read the radiation at different levels of the atmosphere for different wave lengths because the outward radiation for each wavelength depends on what gas has a spectral absorption lines at that wavelength and what it's density is as a function of altitude. Between spectral absorption lines it would actually see the surface radiation.

I don't know what methodology UAH used, nor the resolution and bandwidth of the spectrometer, but in light of the above, it seems temperature might not be a very good measure of GW from a satellite. However, total radiant energy would be easier to measure. I would think that energy output would be more meaningful and accurate than a temperature calculation since the solar input energy can be directly related to the earth output energy.

The charts in the OP show temperature. At what altitude? I wonder if any satellite survey has actually measured total radiation output over an extended period.

...it seems temperature might not be a very good measure of GW from a satellite.......


:eusa_doh:


I know. Satellites with coverage over most of the earth is suspect but land stations at airports is better than fine. hahahaha. BEST actually measures UHI as negative while actual meaasurements of most cities gives double digit increase. GISS has UHI as 0.05C per century. I dont know what HadCru has it at now but Phil Jones was the instigator of low estimates for UHI with his China paper that actually got investigated for research fraud so I doubt it is more than GISS.
 
With the new El Nino peak coming, Billy is going will have to change his kook tale from "No warming since 1998!" to "No warming since 2015!".

The good news for Billy is he'll probably be able to get 10 years of use out of his new lie.

Billy? Only the most flagrant cult liars cherrypick endpoints. That's you. And only the most flagrant cult liars discard the far more accurate surface data in favor of the much more twiddled, massaged, adjusted and fudged satellite data, which is understand by pretty much everyone to have a strong cooling bias.

You are the poster boy for hypocrisy.
 
With the new El Nino peak coming, Billy is going will have to change his kook tale from "No warming since 1998!" to "No warming since 2015!".

The good news for Billy is he'll probably be able to get 10 years of use out of his new lie.

Billy? Only the most flagrant cult liars cherrypick endpoints. That's you. And only the most flagrant cult liars discard the far more accurate surface data in favor of the much more twiddled, massaged, adjusted and fudged satellite data, which is understand by pretty much everyone to have a strong cooling bias.





Whaaaa? NATURAL processes trump so called man made global warming? What happened to the meme of "so long as Co2 levels increase global warming is "inexorable". Gotta love that hysterical language...
 
Whaaaa? NATURAL processes trump so called man made global warming?

Only over the short term. Over the long term, the CO2 contribution inexorably dominates. Exactly as all the evidence shows.

Seriously, after all this time, you still need the basics explained to you?

What happened to the meme of "so long as Co2 levels increase global warming is "inexorable".

The temps kept increasing, the record high temps happened, proving all the predictions were absolutely correct.

Not to mention the outgoing longwave went down, the stratosphere cooled, and the backradiation increased. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for that. AGW theory explains it perfectly. That's why it's the accepted theory, because it's the only theory that explains all of the observed evidence.
 
Whaaaa? NATURAL processes trump so called man made global warming?

Only over the short term. Over the long term, the CO2 contribution inexorably dominates. Exactly as all the evidence shows.

Seriously, after all this time, you still need the basics explained to you?

What happened to the meme of "so long as Co2 levels increase global warming is "inexorable".

The temps kept increasing, the record high temps happened, proving all the predictions were absolutely correct.

Not to mention the outgoing longwave went down, the stratosphere cooled, and the backradiation increased. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for that. AGW theory explains it perfectly. That's why it's the accepted theory, because it's the only theory that explains all of the observed evidence.







That's not what you folks have been claiming. Ever. We are the proponents of natural processes governing the temperature of the globe. You all claim that CO2 is a magical knob that controls it. The past few years have shown that that simply isn't factual.
 
I know. Satellites with coverage over most of the earth is suspect but land stations at airports is better than fine. hahahaha. BEST actually measures UHI as negative while actual meaasurements of most cities gives double digit increase. GISS has UHI as 0.05C per century. I dont know what HadCru has it at now but Phil Jones was the instigator of low estimates for UHI with his China paper that actually got investigated for research fraud so I doubt it is more than GISS.

You totally misunderstood my post. Of course! satellites have much better coverage. Thermometers directly measure temperature. But satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiation at different spectral bands. The temperature must be reconstructed from those bands using Plank's black body radiation law. The different bands come from different altitudes and temperatures due to GHG scattering That would complicate the reconstruction.

Rather than screwing around with that complexity, I thought satellite data could directly and easily provide total radiation output. And I wondered if anyone knew of a direct energy measurement survey. If you aren't aware of that. Fine. Yes, I will look into it if I have time.

That type of survey would yield yearly Earth energy loss, not yearly temperature change. Yearly earth energy loss would furnish a great comparison to yearly earth energy gain from the sun.

I hope this explanation is clearer. You have an antagonistic attitude toward me, but I have stated before that I'm a mild skeptic of AGW. The antagonism anyone will see from me comes only if idiotic science is promoted, for example, bastardizing the 2nd law of thermodynamics to "prove" backscattering does not exists.
 
Whaaaa? NATURAL processes trump so called man made global warming?

Only over the short term. Over the long term, the CO2 contribution inexorably dominates. Exactly as all the evidence shows.

Seriously, after all this time, you still need the basics explained to you?

What happened to the meme of "so long as Co2 levels increase global warming is "inexorable".

The temps kept increasing, the record high temps happened, proving all the predictions were absolutely correct.

Not to mention the outgoing longwave went down, the stratosphere cooled, and the backradiation increased. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for that. AGW theory explains it perfectly. That's why it's the accepted theory, because it's the only theory that explains all of the observed evidence.


I agree that 2xCO2 puts about 1C pressure toward warming the surface IF everything else remains the same.

Does everything remain the same? No. The extra energy shunted back towards the surface has other pathways to take other than warming the surface. Convection by evaporation being the main one. This uses the available energy to run an 'air conditioner' to pump that extra energy up to the cloud tops. Does this mean that extra water vapour is present to increase the greenhouse effect? Not necessarily. The air conditioning effect is always there but extra available energy just turns it on sooner.

This is part of the Iris Effect that has resurfaced again with Stevens' last paper. Trenberth is having a conniption fit but it isn't going away.
 
I know. Satellites with coverage over most of the earth is suspect but land stations at airports is better than fine. hahahaha. BEST actually measures UHI as negative while actual meaasurements of most cities gives double digit increase. GISS has UHI as 0.05C per century. I dont know what HadCru has it at now but Phil Jones was the instigator of low estimates for UHI with his China paper that actually got investigated for research fraud so I doubt it is more than GISS.

You totally misunderstood my post. Of course! satellites have much better coverage. Thermometers directly measure temperature. But satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiation at different spectral bands. The temperature must be reconstructed from those bands using Plank's black body radiation law. The different bands come from different altitudes and temperatures due to GHG scattering That would complicate the reconstruction.

Rather than screwing around with that complexity, I thought satellite data could directly and easily provide total radiation output. And I wondered if anyone knew of a direct energy measurement survey. If you aren't aware of that. Fine. Yes, I will look into it if I have time.

That type of survey would yield yearly Earth energy loss, not yearly temperature change. Yearly earth energy loss would furnish a great comparison to yearly earth energy gain from the sun.

I hope this explanation is clearer. You have an antagonistic attitude toward me, but I have stated before that I'm a mild skeptic of AGW. The antagonism anyone will see from me comes only if idiotic science is promoted, for example, bastardizing the 2nd law of thermodynamics to "prove" backscattering does not exists.


You seem to have an antagonistic attitude towards skeptics. And not just the flaky ones on this MB. I will reset my opinion of you for now but....

The information you seem to be looking for may be in the ERBES and CERES datasets. Unfortunately the measured input minus measured output is in a strong deficit that would cause huge amounts of warming, but the trends themselves seem quite precise. Hansen artificially set the deficit at 0.85 w/m2. That is what the IPCC uses.
 
Whaaaa? NATURAL processes trump so called man made global warming?

Only over the short term. Over the long term, the CO2 contribution inexorably dominates. Exactly as all the evidence shows.

Seriously, after all this time, you still need the basics explained to you?

What happened to the meme of "so long as Co2 levels increase global warming is "inexorable".

The temps kept increasing, the record high temps happened, proving all the predictions were absolutely correct.

Not to mention the outgoing longwave went down, the stratosphere cooled, and the backradiation increased. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for that. AGW theory explains it perfectly. That's why it's the accepted theory, because it's the only theory that explains all of the observed evidence.

So where is this be all end all proof?

I have been asking for it on this board and in the AGW community for over 20 years and yet no one can produce it.

Not one! Not even James Hansen the hack himself..
 
This is part of the Iris Effect that has resurfaced again with Stevens' last paper.

Stevens tweaked a model parameter, and estimated doubling sensitivity was 2.2C instead of 2.8C. Not earth shattering.

Lindzen's Iris Effect postulated a sensitivity near zero. Lindzen is still wildly wrong, as the Stevens paper confirms.
 
This is part of the Iris Effect that has resurfaced again with Stevens' last paper.

Stevens tweaked a model parameter, and estimated doubling sensitivity was 2.2C instead of 2.8C. Not earth shattering.

Lindzen's Iris Effect postulated a sensitivity near zero. Lindzen is still wildly wrong, as the Stevens paper confirms.

Stevens still assumes many of the IPCC premises are correct and his findings are flawed. Lizden, showed that the feedbacks were not positive at all and resulted in a negative response zeroing out any positive swing that could be postulated from closed atmosphere lab results.

Stevens following of group think is one of the reasons he is wrong in specific areas. But he is coming around rather fast.
 
Last edited:
This is part of the Iris Effect that has resurfaced again with Stevens' last paper.

Stevens tweaked a model parameter, and estimated doubling sensitivity was 2.2C instead of 2.8C. Not earth shattering.

Lindzen's Iris Effect postulated a sensitivity near zero. Lindzen is still wildly wrong, as the Stevens paper confirms.


where are you getting the 2.8C dropping to 2.2C figures? I presume that is equilibrium climate sensitivity rather than transient climate response?


Lewis' recalculations using Steven's aerosol figures-

niclewis_aerosol-article_table1.png


niclewis_fig1_aerosol-article_ecs_pdfs-vol1-sd08-base1.png


niclewis_fig2_aerosol-article_tcr_pdfs-vol1-sd08-base1.png
 
never mind. I stumbled across your source. ATTP

Testing the IRIS Hypothesis and Then There s Physics

ECHAM6 model, which has an ECS of 2.8K. The yellow, light-green, and dark-green symbols show the impact of the Iris effect for
latex.php
and
latex.php
, but considering the long-wavelength effect only. This brings the ECS down into the range suggested by Lindzen & Chou (2001). The blue symbols, however, show the ECS when the short-wavelength and other feebacks are also included. The net effect is relatively small, with the ECS reduced from 2.8K, to between 2.2 and 2.5K, depending on the value of
latex.php
. The right hand-panel illustrates why. The long-wavelength effect is quite large, changing the feedback from around +0.5Wm-2K-1, to between -0.4 to -0.8Wm-2K-1.
 
never mind. I stumbled across your source. ATTP

Testing the IRIS Hypothesis and Then There s Physics

ECHAM6 model, which has an ECS of 2.8K. The yellow, light-green, and dark-green symbols show the impact of the Iris effect for
latex.php
and
latex.php
, but considering the long-wavelength effect only. This brings the ECS down into the range suggested by Lindzen & Chou (2001). The blue symbols, however, show the ECS when the short-wavelength and other feebacks are also included. The net effect is relatively small, with the ECS reduced from 2.8K, to between 2.2 and 2.5K, depending on the value of
latex.php
. The right hand-panel illustrates why. The long-wavelength effect is quite large, changing the feedback from around +0.5Wm-2K-1, to between -0.4 to -0.8Wm-2K-1.

Rather interesting isn't it. The so called positive feedbacks are really negative. Those numbers are also quantitatively in the range of Trenbrth's missing heat as well, showing that there is no missing heat. It has all escaped the atmosphere by Convection.
 
One of my colleagues just pointed out, in an email, that the Pargua surface adjustments can be checked with this new version to see if their break point evaluation and realignment by BEST was justified... I await his response to looking at specific sections of the satellite data compilation. This should be interesting.. It wont be pinpoint to station location but the general grid square should show if the adjustments were justified.

The fun has just begun..

Regardless of the temperature data, it still not prove that climate is being changed by human activities.

I am not implying that man caused anything. The only thing I want to convey is consistency in data handling which is leaps and bounds above the surface station boys and their hodge-podge methods and madness.
Now that two satellite records are extremely consistent over the last 35 years it should be rather easy grid point areas and see if the surface station boys are making valid adjustments to the stations in the region. Even BEST's new break point adjustments can be shown inappropriate showing rapid temp jumps up and down in regions where they have made serious adjustments. Cursory looks show that BEST is in no way the best.
 
BEST turns ALL stations into positive trends even though Muller himself admits 1/3 of all stations have an initial negative trend. Everything is adjusted towards expectations until it meets them.
 
I said it 20 years ago and continue to be supported by the emerging evidence: global warming is a progressive scam invented in the early 1990's to hasten the pace of movement to a socialistic society. Environmentalism is a pillar in any radical leftist manifesto........it is very well documented.


 
BEST turns ALL stations into positive trends even though Muller himself admits 1/3 of all stations have an initial negative trend. Everything is adjusted towards expectations until it meets them.


The bottom line here is that global temp is no longer a measure of individual stations but rather the result of adjustments.
 

Forum List

Back
Top