NASA: Climate Change

[edthecynic]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

Now there is some Ultra and Fudgey Denial for ya -- right there. A regular Luddite festival of anti-technology and science. SHOOT the satellites down -- spawns of Satan..

Where'd ya get that sketchy data??

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

View attachment 50895
Not only is it not warming but RSS says it has actually been cooling. Only your heavily adjusted and manipulated data shows any warming. Even US-CRN shows cooling for more than 15 years now.

RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.

So, why the discrepancy? According to Spencer and Christy at UAH, the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.

So what did Spencer do? He created a whole new fudge factor in v6.0 that gave a trend cooler than the RSS trend Spencer admits is flawed by spurious cooling.

As you can see, Spencer's entire cooling trend for the last 15 years comes from his new v6.0 fudge factor.

Let me see... Satellites which cover 82.5 deg North lat to 82.5 South lat with 100% coverage of the earths area vs land based readings of just 31.7% of the earths surface with added 66% magical fairy dust numbers... whom to believe....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

View attachment 50895
Not only is it not warming but RSS says it has actually been cooling. Only your heavily adjusted and manipulated data shows any warming. Even US-CRN shows cooling for more than 15 years now.

RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.

So, why the discrepancy? According to Spencer and Christy at UAH, the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.

So what did Spencer do? He created a whole new fudge factor in v6.0 that gave a trend cooler than the RSS trend Spencer admits is flawed by spurious cooling.

As you can see, Spencer's entire cooling trend for the last 15 years comes from his new v6.0 fudge factor.

Let me see... Satellites which cover 82.5 deg North lat to 82.5 South lat with 100% coverage of the earths area vs land based readings of just 31.7% of the earths surface with added 66% magical fairy dust numbers... whom to believe....

It can only mean that the satellites are DENIERS!!! and must be offed to appease Crick and the AGWCult

 

[flacaltenn]

Cold is right especially in light of the 2 decade pause.

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

Now there is some Ultra and Fudgey Denial for ya -- right there. A regular Luddite festival of anti-technology and science. SHOOT the satellites down -- spawns of Satan..

Where'd ya get that sketchy data??

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

So how come the PLOT and the TABLE don't line up????

Did ya notice the trend line? 0.07 degC/decade? What do ya think the UNCERTAINTY IS on that linear regression??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NASA on Climate Change is like Bernie Madoff on Financial Reporting

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the deal SnidelyCynic.... It's a waste of time to be arguing a 0.04 deg/decade change in the linear temperature for the Globe.

Couple of amazing things here..

1) The general good agreement of ALL these sources breaks down as the "pause" increases in time.

2) If I evenly weight ALL of these decadal trends -- the result has to be a range of estimates somewhere between 0.02 and 0.05degC. NOT anywhere NEAR the model predictions -- and NOT a catatastrophy if carried out for another decade. And it definitely WILL affect the 2100 predictions at this rate.

3) Also amazing is that ALL the surface records START with the NOAA data -- and yet the rate in the H-CRU plot is HALF of what it is in the NCEI plot.. While the 2 satellite methodologies give appreciably BETTER agreement thru the LATTER part of the "pause.

The moral here is --- this juvenile attempt to measure 0.02degC RECORDS and make news is a fools errand.
And the UNCERTAINTY in the measurement swamps MOST of the record margins. There is a tendency in GW hype and propaganda to reduce EVERYTHING to meaningless GLOBAL single values. That's because this is not about SCIENCE -- but about furthering the socio-political goals of the GW activists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How exactly can you have a "pause" when fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been in this century?
A slow down, yes, but a pause, no.

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

Now there is some Ultra and Fudgey Denial for ya -- right there. A regular Luddite festival of anti-technology and science. SHOOT the satellites down -- spawns of Satan..

Where'd ya get that sketchy data??

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

So how come the PLOT and the TABLE don't line up????

Did ya notice the trend line? 0.07 degC/decade? What do ya think the UNCERTAINTY IS on that linear regression??

IF my training serves me well that uncertainty (MOE) would be +/- 0.2 Deg C.. (in NASA's terminology "less than a 35% confidence level")

Gives you all kinds of warm fuzzy feelings dont it!

 

[flacaltenn]

Easy question. You draw a linear estimation line through the last 15 years of satellite data and it's slope will show close to ZERO warming rate. You set "relative highs" from the top of ANY shape curve. The number of records set by 0.02 or 0.04degC -- don't influence the linear fit..

In other words, you fudge the data. Satellites do not measure surface temperature, in fact, they do not measure temperature at all..

Year Anomaly Rank
2000 0.42°C 1
2001 0.54°C 2
2008 0.54°C 2
2004 0.57°C 4
2011 0.57°C 4
2002 0.59°C 6
2007 0.61°C 7
2003 0.61°C 9
2006 0.61°C 9
2012 0.62°C 10
2009 0.63°C 11
2005 0.66°C 13
2013 0.66°C 13
2010 0.70°C 14
2014 0.74°C 15

Now there is some Ultra and Fudgey Denial for ya -- right there. A regular Luddite festival of anti-technology and science. SHOOT the satellites down -- spawns of Satan..

Where'd ya get that sketchy data??

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

So how come the PLOT and the TABLE don't line up????

Did ya notice the trend line? 0.07 degC/decade? What do ya think the UNCERTAINTY IS on that linear regression??

IF my training serves me well that uncertainty (MOE) would be +/- 0.2 Deg C.. (in NASA's terminology "less than a 35% confidence level")

Gives you all kinds of warm fuzzy feelings dont it!

I'm slightly LESS warm and fuzzy knowing that GISS and NCEI use only their OWN data to determine that confidence level. Where is the organization that's actually doing meta-studies on temperatures records?

Where is the Berkeley BEST on all of this? Have they done meta-study that INCLUDES sat records ??

 

[Crick]

Are you willing to accept data from BEST now?