Climate models go cold

[westwall]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

Oh yes, you mean the satellites that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites? The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites? You have a very short memory don't you.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, that would be nice. Home, Eastern Oregon, is getting a bit too much of needed moisture right now.

Uhhhh, if it's "needed" it is not too much. It may be coming down too fast, but it is never to much iff needed.

Strange thing for someone claiming to be a geologist to say. Rapid runoff doesn't do much for depleted aquifers. Perhaps you never studied any hydrology?

Uhhhhh, I think you missed the part where I stated quite clearly that it may be coming down too fast. But then English was never a strong point with you either was it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The weather in (place) was (blank) is neither science nor proof of ManMade Global Warming

 

[Big Fitz]

The weather in (place) was (blank) is neither science nor proof of ManMade Global Warming

GOODIE! Weather science has gone Mad Lib!

Waiiiiit a second........ Mad Lib Science... how apropos!

 

[RollingThunder]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

Oh yes, you mean the satellites that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites? The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites? You have a very short memory don't you.

No....pretty sure 'those' satellites only exist in the sick, twisted and very deluded minds of brain-dead denier cultists like you, walleyed.

 

[westwall]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

Oh yes, you mean the satellites that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites? The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites? You have a very short memory don't you.

No....pretty sure 'those' satellites only exist in the sick, twisted and very deluded minds of brain-dead denier cultists like you, walleyed.

The Satellitegate scandal festers on. US government passes the buck to Michigan State University but they won't give straight answers either.

University Relations officer, Mark Fellows of Michigan State University (MSU) gives an official response to questions I put originally to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) months ago about their "degraded" NOAA-16 satellite.

I had sought answers as to how deep and extensive was the data contamination from a broken sensor that led NOAA to remove a "degraded" global temperature satellite from service. I wished to know whether NOAA was going to actively root out all corrupted data and re-publish their numbers.

However, NOAA tossed that hot potato over to MSU who now advises they “cannot make any representations on behalf of NOAA.” Thus neither NOAA nor MSU will come clean on the true extent of satellite temperature data corruption and a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request is now becoming ever more necessary to move this issue forward.

Government Lawyers Quickly on the Case

After the Satellitegate story broke in the summer NOAA had their lawyers on the case. A formal attorney’s letter advised me NOAA would not comment and referred the matter to their Coast Watch partner’s site that is run by Michigan State University (MSU). Their legal advisers declined to accept that their NOAA-16 satellite failure was as an issue they ought to address.

But MSU now points the finger back at NOAA leaving taxpayers no closer to the truth about the extent of satellite data corruption. But conversely what is mounting is further evidence to suggest that the US government may be engaging in a cover up.

My original articles reported that the US Government has been forced to admit its satellite readings were 'degraded' and as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite
Climate Change Dispatch - Exposing the fraud in the so-called consensus


http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/released FOIA documents re DSCOVR.pdf

The models are wrong (but only by 400%) « JoNova

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

April was 5th, 6th, and 7th warmest April on record? Does that mean that April was cooler than last year? Than the last 5 to 7 years? That the people who are keeping the records are really confused? How is an intelligent person supposed to interpret stupidity like that?

 

[Dr.House]

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

The earth doesn't give a shit about theories. It dose what it wants and has always done. The earth doesn't give a rats ass about humans. We are a blip on its face and nothing more.

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

carry on.

Yes but does Earth know to separate the whites and the colors and when to add the fabric softener?

 

[edthecynic]

Oh yes, you mean the satellites [plural] that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites?[plural] The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites?[plural] You have a very short memory don't you.

No....pretty sure 'those' satellites only exist in the sick, twisted and very deluded minds of brain-dead denier cultists like you, walleyed.

The Satellitegate scandal festers on. US government passes the buck to Michigan State University but they won't give straight answers either.

University Relations officer, Mark Fellows of Michigan State University (MSU) gives an official response to questions I put originally to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) months ago about their "degraded" NOAA-16 satellite.

My original articles reported that the US Government has been forced to admit its satellite readings were 'degraded' and as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/#more-9813

Gee, I see only 1 ONE satellite and not "those satellites" PLURAL. As is typical of deniers, they have nothing so they have to exaggerate everything!!!

So a (one) faulty satellite, whose data had no impact on the temperature measurements due to quality control is exaggerated into multiple satellites and an imaginary 400% error.

It's interesting that you cite Christy, who with his partner Spencer actually got caught in data fraud. Deniers hail them as the foremost experts on satellite data, yet somehow these 2 TWO "experts didn't know what sign to use to correct for diurnal satellite drift and just by accident chose to use the sign that produced global cooling.

The funny thing is Spencer doesn't use NOAA-16 data in his UAH data and his data matches almost exactly the MSU data, so obviously the faulty satellite had no measurable effect on the accuracy of the MSU data.

here is Spencer's comment on the faulty satellite:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/july-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-49-deg-c/

Juho says:
August 12, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Hello Roy!
Two days ago, a John O’Sullivan made these accusations towards satellite data:
http://climatechangefraud.com/clima...ive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
Do you know if the faulty data ended up in the NOAA-16 satellite dataset or is this just a baseless assumption?


Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
August 14, 2010 at 7:01 AM
the bad data are coming from the AVHRR on NOAA-16. I don’t know whether anone uses this for a climate dataset, but if they did, they would be doing quality control anyway. It has no impact on our measurements.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

April was 5th, 6th, and 7th warmest April on record? Does that mean that April was cooler than last year? Than the last 5 to 7 years? That the people who are keeping the records are really confused? How is an intelligent person supposed to interpret stupidity like that?

An intelligent person would have no problem interpreting that sentence. I sympathize with your problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

Still does not change the fact that all the models used to predict global warming are wrong, which is why the real temperatures are not increasing as fast as the models say they should. would you care to address that point, or do you prefer to ignore it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course, parking them damned satellites in airports is the normal thing to do, right, ol' Walleyes? Sheesh, the satellite records and the ground stations all say the same thing. April was the fifth to seventh warmest April on record.

No need to lie about it, old boy, just to easy to check.

April was 5th, 6th, and 7th warmest April on record? Does that mean that April was cooler than last year? Than the last 5 to 7 years? That the people who are keeping the records are really confused? How is an intelligent person supposed to interpret stupidity like that?

An intelligent person would have no problem interpreting that sentence. I sympathize with your problem.

I did interpret it. It is bullshit, and you refuse to see facts.

 

[Big Fitz]

psst. wait till crocks goes off on the magic CO2 we make.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh yes, you mean the satellites that were reading up to 15 degrees too warm? Those satellites? The ones that got NOAA sued for releasing faulty data? Those satellites? You have a very short memory don't you.

No....pretty sure 'those' satellites only exist in the sick, twisted and very deluded minds of brain-dead denier cultists like you, walleyed.

The Satellitegate scandal festers on. US government passes the buck to Michigan State University but they won't give straight answers either.

University Relations officer, Mark Fellows of Michigan State University (MSU) gives an official response to questions I put originally to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) months ago about their "degraded" NOAA-16 satellite.

I had sought answers as to how deep and extensive was the data contamination from a broken sensor that led NOAA to remove a "degraded" global temperature satellite from service. I wished to know whether NOAA was going to actively root out all corrupted data and re-publish their numbers.

However, NOAA tossed that hot potato over to MSU who now advises they “cannot make any representations on behalf of NOAA.” Thus neither NOAA nor MSU will come clean on the true extent of satellite temperature data corruption and a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request is now becoming ever more necessary to move this issue forward.

Government Lawyers Quickly on the Case

After the Satellitegate story broke in the summer NOAA had their lawyers on the case. A formal attorney’s letter advised me NOAA would not comment and referred the matter to their Coast Watch partner’s site that is run by Michigan State University (MSU). Their legal advisers declined to accept that their NOAA-16 satellite failure was as an issue they ought to address.

But MSU now points the finger back at NOAA leaving taxpayers no closer to the truth about the extent of satellite data corruption. But conversely what is mounting is further evidence to suggest that the US government may be engaging in a cover up.

My original articles reported that the US Government has been forced to admit its satellite readings were 'degraded' and as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite
Climate Change Dispatch - Exposing the fraud in the so-called consensus


http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/released FOIA documents re DSCOVR.pdf

The models are wrong (but only by 400%) « JoNova

Hide the decline

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

 

[westwall]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

Don't forget to add the "but only just" that edthefool thinks means something other then what it means.

 

[edthecynic]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

[westwall]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

I've lost track of how many times I've caught CF posting this deliberate deception on other threads and this is the second time in this thread. But it does serve to show the complete dishonesty of CONS, so thank you CF.

First of all, CF gives no link because he knows that if you see the whole quote you will see his obvious attempt at deception by taking the much less than half quote completely out of context. The context of the quote was not that there was no global warming during the period, but that the time period was just a tiny bit too short for the MEASURED WARMING of +.12C to be "statistically-significant!" So the warming was statistically-significant but the time period wasn't!!!!!

Of course, this exposing your premeditated lie will not stop you from posting the same lie again in this thread or in another thread, after all, you ARE a CON$ervative.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Look at the quote below edtheblind........that part highlighted in blue....what exactly does that mean in five words or less?

"Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

 

[IanC]

Note how quickly the ding dongs backed away for the Berkeley study? That was supposed to show how badly the climatologists were handling the data, instead, confirmed that they were handling it in a proper fashion, and that the numbers were real.

Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” « Climate Progress

BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
.................................................................................
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Muller has now been exiled to Outer Slobovia!

What are Ian and Walleyes going to do now?

care to make your prediction of what the BEST findings will show? I predict a 10% decrease in the trend from 1900 (increased older temps, decreased newer temps or a combo).