Satellite Temperature Data Errors Revealed

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!!!!!!!

We should hang on to this one. JC, you might want to print this one out and take it to a science tutor to illustrate to them your shortcomings.
 
THe article is horse shit..

" As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier."

They out themselves right here by showing they wanted correlation. As for Diurnal shift, it has been compensated for.. The paper is garbage.....

The Guardian should have given it away... The paper is written by a left wing activist, well known in Washington state.. Basically the paper states that the satellites were not complying with our fiddling of the historical record so we need to change it now too...

DESPERATION PLAY by the alarmists that now see rapid cooling coming and they dont want to be marked as the fools they are..
 
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.

Right... How about the data doesn't fit your theory
 
From the paper:
"We also found that the model-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. "

The corrections have already been made! These fucking morons admit, in writing, that the corrections have already been done yet they dont like the results.... so they want to further adjust them up...

Mantooth fails again.. finds shit hole and falls in...
 
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.

Right... How about the data doesn't fit your theory
How about you are full of shit.
Again, if you want to measure the temperature at the equator and the satellite is drifting so that it is at the equator at a different time each day, you obviously have to correct the time you take the reading, not the data.
Get it? :asshole:
 
From the paper:
"We also found that the model-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. "

The corrections have already been made! These fucking morons admit, in writing, that the corrections have already been done yet they dont like the results.... so they want to further adjust them up...

Mantooth fails again.. finds shit hole and falls in...
Yeah, but Spencer used the opposite sign for the corrections turning warming into cooling.
 
And this would be why the fabrication is being pushed..

RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years (Now Includes February Data)


offset-0-05.png


The pause has now exceeded 15 years in three data sets...
 
So Nuttercellie has liabled some folks....

Guest essay by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (reprinted with permission from his blog)

That tireless ecological zealot over at The Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli, took the opportunity of our 25th anniversary of satellite-based global temperature monitoring to rip us a new one.


Comparing John Christy and me to “scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer”, Dana once again demonstrates his dedication to the highest standards of journalism.

Well done, Grauniad.

I prefer to compare us to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food. While they eventually received the Nobel Prize after years of ridicule and scorn from the medical research community, we have no illusions that we will ever be credited for our long-standing position that global warming fears have been overblown. I’m sure the UN’s IPCC will find a way to take credit for that, and get another Peace Prize for it.


Source
 
Spencer tries to equate himself to Marshall and Warren, the men who discovered that peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria. However, unlike Spencer and Christy, Marshall and Warren had all the data on their side, so they quickly overturned the consensus. All the data contradicts Spencer and the deniers, so everyone just laughs at them. Deniers are more like the last few doctors who still claimed peptic ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food, because they had been running a profitable practice treating ulcers the old way.

Even right-wing think tanks are threatening to sue anyone who says they don't believe in AGW theory. That's how toxic the denier cult's reputation is now.

This conservative group is tired of being accused of climate denial and is fighting back - The Washington Post
---
Attorneys for ALEC sent letters to Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters asking them to immediately “cease making false statements” and “remove all false or misleading material” suggesting that ALEC does not believe in global warming.
---
 
This conservative group is tired of being accused of climate denial and is fighting back - The Washington Post

The legal demands from ALEC follow an exodus of some of its best known corporate members, including Google, British Petroleum, Facebook, Yahoo and Northrop Grumman. Activist groups had pressured these corporate sponsors in recent years to abandon their support for organizations that they believe oppose action to stem climate change. Google publicly connected its decision to stop funding ALEC to the climate change issue.

The legal spat is an escalation of the conflict and suggests ALEC is feeling the heat of the activist groups’ efforts. It also suggests a new risk to organizations that rely on the donations from companies that do not want to be associated with organizations accused of denying that human activity is warming the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

The dispute comes at a time when conservative states and lawmakers and some energy sectors — especially coal interests — are also amping up their battle against the Obama administration’s push to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, a move that will shift the nation toward more use of natural gas and renewable energy.

LOL. The dumb asses are caught between their lies and the desire for the big corperate bucks.
 
One thing that is very apparent...........almost to a person, the AGW climate crusader community sentiments are dictated by a pronounced level of naïve due to blindly embracing the PC narrative!! Its fascinating.

Fact is........conveniently ignored by the AGW community...........that climate science is BIG business >>>

The Big Winners in the Climate Change Money Game


The big money of climate science highlighted by Climategate and Copenhagen - National Climate Change Examiner.com


Bayer and Other Corporations Getting Rich Off Global Warming




These people think climate science is ALL about this genuine love for the environment.

duh........its always about follow the money s0ns!!!!


:2up:Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!:2up:
 
Last edited:
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
Thats what deniers do.
 
And this would be why the fabrication is being pushed..

RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years


The pause has now exceeded 15 years in three data sets...
There has been no cooling for 100 years.

No need to fabricate anything.

LOL...

There have been durations if increase and durations of decrease in the last 100 years. Disingenuous, you are..
there have only been significant increases over the last 100 years, NO significant cooling. You get sharp warming followed by a flat period and then another sharp warming period. We are now in our second flat period which will be followed by our third period of sharp warming I predict.
 
And this would be why the fabrication is being pushed..

RSS Shows No Warming For 15 Years


The pause has now exceeded 15 years in three data sets...
There has been no cooling for 100 years.

No need to fabricate anything.

LOL...

There have been durations if increase and durations of decrease in the last 100 years. Disingenuous, you are..
there have only been significant increases over the last 100 years, NO significant cooling. You get sharp warming followed by a flat period and then another sharp warming period. We are now in our second flat period which will be followed by our third period of sharp warming I predict.
Could it be because we are coming out of an ice age? Also, temperatures have been several degrees warmer in the past.
 
Mr.Right would defund all the data sets and then demand everyone to go pray to Jesus Christ.
Is that all you've got? Insults? And you seem to believe that you know the inner thoughts and desires of others. This leads me to believe that you are suffering from a serious delusion. Seek professional help immediately. They can help you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top