So tell us again how NOAA is so great.

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Aug 17, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,977
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,734
    It seems that it is more than one satellite that was giving erroneous data (on the warm side for those who care to know anything). Turns out it may be up to five of them...and NOAA knew about it. For shame.

    Looks like you can't trust anyone these days.


    Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
    By John O'Sullivan Monday, August 16, 2010
    US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” - temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.


    In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

    Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

    Readers who missed the details when this sensational story first broke can see here at Climatedepot.com.

    NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

    The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ since its launch in September 2000. Yet on the advice of top climate scientists I’m reliably informed that such failures were made known to NOAA years ago.

    Nonetheless, the U.S. agency continued to sell its flawed data products to numerous international institutions without making it public that satellite sensors were “degraded” and unreliable for assessing climate change.

    NOAA-16 had been commissioned as a polar-orbiting satellite featuring AMSU, AVHRR and High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS) measuring instrumentation which were discovered by a member of the public last week to have suffered catastrophic failure. Dr John Christy drew my attention to specific concomitant flaws he had uncovered and reported with the AMSU years ago.

    NOAA in Fear of Rush of International Lawsuits?
    The snuffed out satellite had been run continuously up until being taken offline soon after my article went viral (August 10, 2010) in which I exposed the full extent of how seriously degraded it’s sensors were. The automatic readings had been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit (boiling point of water is 212 F.). We now know NOAA was aware of these outrageous anomalies at least since 2006 but they were not remedied ( see below).

    Worryingly, as to how many of its users (mostly international meteorologists and climate researchers) were affected has not beent revealed by NOAA. But we know the automated numbers were sold throughout the world and it’s readings of land and ocean temperatures have been used by climate scientists in their models since the satellite’s launch in September 2000. As a consequence and without full disclosure by NOAA, it is feared innumerable scientific studies about rising global temperatures are now rendered entirely invalid.

    It is open to speculation whether NOAA may have been hesitant to admit to long standing faults for fear of a rash of lawsuits from its customers, mainly national governments and university research institutes. Based on such data most scientists agree that our planet may have warmed by 0.6 degrees Centigrade during the 20th century (with a margin of error of 0.5C degrees-but this error margin now looks way off).

    From analysis of the bogus online temperature data before NOAA removed it from view, it may be determined that almost all the false temperature readings were far in excess of expected averages—many by a factor of four or five - almost none of the bogus temperatures were lower than average.

    US Government Foresaw Satelligate Failures Mounting
    But it wasn’t just a handful of skeptical climatologists sounding the alarm. The National Academy of Sciences, in its 2007 455-page report concluded that because of degradation in the U.S. satellite network, the country’s ability to monitor the climate and severe weather was “at great risk.”

    By coincidence, in the same week my article led to the shut down of NOAA-16, Susan Bohan published her excellent article here in which she exposes the broader systemic failures in the wider satellite network. Among the calamities Bohan reported, “the satellite, Landsat 7, is broken. And it’s emblematic of the nation’s battered satellite environmental monitoring program.”

    The term ‘satelligate’ was coined by the CO2insanity.com blog after it diligently picked up on the piece.

    At Least Five Climate Measuring Satellites Compromised
    Crucially, Bohan’s article wasn’t based on any so-called unsubstantiated ‘big oil’ funded skeptic disinformation plot, a dying urban myth anyway, but on a US Government Accountability Office report (GAO). GAO concedes that nine new climate instruments on the latest generation of satellites were canceled or their capabilities scaled back in 2006. GAO is the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.

    As a consequence at least five such satellite programs have been identified as being either degraded or seriously compromised:

    Landsat 7 (currently in orbit) is broken leaving data gaps. Scientists do not get all the information they should.
    NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite) will not have any sensors that measure the sun’s energy output on the 2nd and 4th satellites.
    GOES-R (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively neutered.
    No sensor for movement of greenhouse gases and pollutants. No sensor to monitor temperature changes on Earth over time. (NOAA didn’t even bother to try to get the funding to keep the eliminated sensors!).
    The sensor to measure how Earth’s temperature reacts to changes in Solar energy was cancelled by the Obama Administration at the end of June 2010.
    Perhaps its no accident that the current head of NOAA, Dr. Jane Lubchenco and hand picked by President Barack Obama, declared that her agency would play its role in developing a green economy.

    Thus, despite the US Government spending in excess of $80 billion in climate research a failure to allocate sufficient funds to the satellite program has now resulted in serious damage to the credibility of the entire data set (note: the cost of a typical NOAA satellite is around $11 million and the network recoups the US government millions by selling data worldwide).

    Evidence from Climate Experts Points to Conspiracy to Deceive
    Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.”

    Dr Christy particularly addressed faults exclusively with the AMSU instrumentation and not problems with the AVHRR system. He advised me, “We spent a lot of time in 2006 trying to deal with the issues of NOAA-16, but the errors were so erratic, we ended up eliminating it as one of the backbones of our dataset.”

    As many such analysts have long been advising, these failures go way beyond the shockingly absurd numbers of 604 degrees recorded at Egg harbor, Wisconsin.

    Dr. Timothy Ball, climate consultant to the military and lead author of a new book
    debunking the greenhouse gas theory, observes, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”

    Mainstream Media Turn Blind Eye to Another ‘Gate’ Scandal
    In 2006 Christy and Spencer had sought to complete a technical analysis on NOAA-16’s AMSU but Christy reveals that it, “was very tedious and we chased a lot of rabbits that turned out to be dead ends.”

    Such appalling facts just don’t appear in the ‘on message’ mainstream media and all the while researchers have been struggling in vain to keep pace with the ever-increasing numbers gap due to ongoing sensor degradation. For example, each month Dr. Christy works with Dr. Spencer trying to piece together the faltering patchwork of global temperature datasets given by a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites since 1979.

    Over such a long time period it has been suggested that cosmic rays or particle impacts may be deteriorating the highly sensitive instrumentation on board the crafts.

    Spencer publishes his findings on his blog while a fuller assessment of the satellite problems found by Dr. Christy is found here.

    Will Systemic Measuring Failures Cost Even more Lives?
    Respected internationally for his world leading weather forecasts, Piers Corbyn, of Weatheraction.com is another expert lamenting the scandalous failures in the satellite network.

    Piers thundered on the Climate Realists blog, “This revelation further confirms something I and Tom Harris said on Russia Today TV Feb (5th) 2010 namely that WE JUST DO NOT reliably KNOW what world temperatures are and have been doing over the last decade or century.”

    Corbyn had correctly forecast this summer’s West Russia heatwave and a general increase in VERY extreme events (evidenced by Pakistan & China horrendous floods and “super cold” in parts of S hemisphere) weeks and months in advance.

    A Growing List of Global Warming Satellite Measuring Failures
    Satelligate points to yet another infuriating government cover up of fudged global warming numbers. Despite the clamor for years from scientists from all sides of the global warming debate for more transparency and better access to such data, zealous gatekeepers within NASA and Britain’s CRU have refused such requests and unlawfully defied Freedom of Information (FOIA) demands.

    As indicated on WattsupWithThat such errors and deficiencies along with plain old-fashioned data fraud have long been swept under the carpet with ever more lives put at risk.

    Indeed, public confidence in the reliability of official warnings of apocalyptic doom from purveyors of NOAA’s trumpeted fake data has been met with increasing cynicism. A growing number of taxpayers are voicing opposition to the zealous rush towards crippling tax hikes dismantling first world standards of living without first having ascertained the proper facts.

    Questions NOAA Refuses to Answer
    In light of concerns that NOAA has officially admitted to only withdrawing “images” from its archives without confirming all bogus data has also been dumped, I posed the following and yet unanswered questions to NOAA’s Dr. Jane Lubchenco:

    What steps have you taken to ascertain the scope and extent of this data error and what action will be taken to avoid further recurrence?
    Have you identified whether these temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings; in particular does this undermine in any way the credibility of official government statements already made about climatic changes, and if so by how much?
    Until Lubchenco comes clean I fear we may be witnessing another ‘Phil Jones’ in the making. For without full transparency and frank answers then the endless media hype about the dangers from the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ remains just that




    Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Canada Free Press. Why not some Globe and National Enquirer articles as well?

    I think that there is also a three paragraph limit on the cut and paste. Brevity, you know, and, by giving the site address, anyone interested can go to the article.
     
  3. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Typical. Nothing to say about the faulty data generated by the satellites?

    I've got something to say:

    GIGO.
     
  4. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    It is very odd how crazy statements and readings are accepted credulously when the mistakes are in the 'right' direction but automatically investigated when they don't support AGW. The ocean temp buoys were assumed to have a problem when they showed a large cooling but himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was quickly published. The satellite mentioned in the OP was giving readings of over 600 degrees and yet they continued to accept the data and even sold the information worldwide to people making climate studies.

    But it is the skeptics that are called dupes. Hahaha
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,977
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,734



    If they're ACCURATE (hint, hint) why not? And screw brevity I wanted to make a point! Now crawl back to your hole.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Hmmm, Seems we have a pretty good correlation here.

    http://alpha1.infim.ro/rrp/2010_62_01/art17Diamandi.pdf

    ANALYSIS OF THE LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE
    ESTIMATED FROM DIFFERENT SATELLITE SENSORS
    OVER ROMANIA
    A. DIAMANDI, S. OANCEA, C. ALECU
    National Meteorological Administration
    E-mail: diamandi@meteoromania.ro
    Abstract. This paper deals with the analysis of the thermal field parameters using the space
    radiometry information for the infrared channels of MODIS-TERRA/AQUA/MSG satellite data and
    the infrared/microwave of the ATOVS system onboard NOAA/EPS satellites. Different methods and
    algorithms have been studied to derive land surface temperature (LST). Relatively homogenous
    surface emissivity areas from all over Romania were chosen based on the availability of appropriate
    satellite data and auxiliary data; the latter being used for validation. Each type of data has different
    ways of being acquired and processed and these are described in details. Two kinds of data (sensor
    and satellite characteristics and resolution) were taken into consideration in this study in order to
    estimate the land surface temperature. Modified split-window methods were mainly studied and there
    were chosen quasi-homogenous bodies were chosen as test areas for the emissivity values. A good
    correlation between existing LST products were obtained in the case of MSG data. The ATOVS
    temperature was then compared with the LST temperatures in order to find if there is a correlation
    between satellite derived air temperatures at 2m and LST temperatures, which, if true, could be
    usefull in estimating LST in cloudy conditions, since ATOVS derived profiles can be calculated with
    the same accuracy independently of the clod cover. A linear relationship was found.
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Apperantly the people at the AMS have no idea of what they are talking about.

    AMS Journals Online - Evaluation of Latent Heat Flux Fields from Satellites and Models during SEMAPHORE

    Evaluation of Latent Heat Flux Fields from Satellites and Models during SEMAPHORE

    DenisBourras*W. TimothyLiuLaurenceEymardWenqingTang
    NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California

    Centre d'Etude des Environnements Terrestre et Planétaires, Velizy-Villacoublay, France

    NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California







    Abstract

    Latent heat fluxes were derived from satellite observations in the region of Structure des Echanges Mer–Atmosphère, Propriétés des Hétérogénéités Océaniques: Recherche Expérimentale (SEMAPHORE), which was conducted near the Azores islands in the North Atlantic Ocean in autumn of 1993. The satellite fluxes were compared with output fields of two atmospheric circulation models and in situ measurements. The rms error of the instantaneous satellite fluxes is between 35 and 40 W m–2 and the bias is 60–85 W m–2. The large bias is mainly attributed to a bias in satellite-derived atmospheric humidity and is related to the particular shape of the vertical humidity profiles during SEMAPHORE. The bias in humidity implies that the range of estimated fluxes is smaller than the range of ship fluxes, by 34%–38%. The rms errors for fluxes from models are 30–35 W m–2, and the biases are smaller than the biases in satellite fluxes (14–18 W m–2). Two case studies suggest that the satellites detect horizontal gradients of wind speed and specific humidity if the magnitude of the gradients exceeds a detection threshold, which is 1.27 g kg–1 (100 km)–1 for specific humidity and between 0.35 and 0.82 m s–1 (30 km)–1 for wind speed. In contrast, the accuracy of the spatial gradients of bulk variables from models always varies as a function of the location and number of assimilated observations. A comparison between monthly fluxes from satellites and models reveals that satellite-derived flux anomaly fields are consistent with reanalyzed fields, whereas operational model products lack part of the mesoscale structures present in the satellite fields.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Perhaps this is what is being discussed?

    Of satellites and temperatures

    Are the Great Lakes Coastwatch data used in any of the global mean temperature records?
    First off, the Great Lakes Coastwatch data products aren't part of any global climate data set. They are produced by a local team of investigators supported by the Michigan Sea Grant program and NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), and are primarily used by fishing vessels, natural resource managers, and scientists with an interest in the Great Lakes.


    The images posted at the Great Lakes Coastwatch site come from an automated algorithm that assimilates thermal infrared imagery from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument on NOAA's Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) constellation. Where clouds are present, the temperature measurements are not reliable, and the algorithm flags these areas with black or gray tints on the maps to indicate this uncertainty.

    It's important to note immediately that these data have no connection whatsoever to the main global satellite temperature records, which are produced by researchers at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Those data sets come from measurements by different sensors entirely, operating in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, rather than the thermal infrared range used by AVHRR.

    The Great Lakes Coastwatch data are likewise not merged with any of the global mean temperature records produced by NASA, NOAA, the University of East Anglia, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, or others
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Now since there are many nations now with satellites that measure temperature, we seem to have another tin hat conspiracy concerning satellites. When a US satellite starting making wrong measurements on ice cover, they were compared to the EU satellites data, and the satellites data was dicarded as the divergance increased.

    No one nations satellites are used as the sole data source.
     

Share This Page