Satellite data: NO WARMING IN 21 YEARS!!!!!

[skookerasbil]

Ummm........I guess satellite data doesnt count to the committed AGW folks!! Not used by their scientists

Top story on THE DRUDGE REPORT right now!!!

Maybe one of my skeptic pals can help me out and post up the link.......Im on va-ca and the link wont copy on the hotel computer.

Been saying for 20 years....................global warming is a hoax!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

"
After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 21st year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.


Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 21 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.


Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 21st year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979. "

Yes the trend is so small that it is fully 0.3 deg C over 30 years and only 1/3 of what we would expect from CO2 alone. Stunning to say the least compared to the doctored data of NOAA and NECI (NCDC)

Source

 

[mamooth]

So how much does it bother you two cult kooks that nobody in the world will pay any attention to your whining?

It's over. Your cult has died. Let it stay dead with some dignity. Don't keep playing weekend at Bernie's with the corpse.

 

[skookerasbil]

So how much does it bother you two cult kooks that nobody in the world will pay any attention to your whining?

It's over. Your cult has died. Let it stay dead with some dignity. Don't keep playing weekend at Bernie's with the corpse.

loSiNg sweetie..........dont like the satellite data much huh??!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.........thanks for osting up the link bro!!!


wInNinG!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

 

[IanC]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

I beg to differ. the satellite global temperature dataset was grandfathered in with two groups, one on each side so they keep each other honest so to speak. the satellites used for SLR altimetry, and GRACE gravity products have no constraints on adjustments and it shows.

 

[Muhammed]

So how much does it bother you two cult kooks that nobody in the world will pay any attention to your whining?

It's over. Your cult has died. Let it stay dead with some dignity. Don't keep playing weekend at Bernie's with the corpse.

I've studied cults for over two decades. In my expert opinion you are a brainwashed member of a typical doomsday cult.

 

[Muhammed]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

If they ignore the data, fabricate data or cherry-pick data then they are not scientists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

I beg to differ. the satellite global temperature dataset was grandfathered in with two groups, one on each side so they keep each other honest so to speak. the satellites used for SLR altimetry, and GRACE gravity products have no constraints on adjustments and it shows.

Ian, I suspect you are right. Dr Spencer and his alter ego over at RSS are on opposite sides of the warmer/skeptic debate. I think this was a very smart move giving objectivity and balance to the data and how it is collected and interpreted. We have no such balance on the land based monitoring stations giving us the corruption we see today. Watts attempted to become that balance but the government shut him down when they built US-CRN which they now ignore with the satellite data. I think Watts need to reassert his plan and finish what he started, however it may be academic at this point, as the cooling coming is going to kill the alarmists drivel once and for all very soon.

 

[mamooth]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

Because the satellite data is a far inferior product. Using bad data when good data is available is a form of dishonesty.

First, the satellite data is twiddled and adjusted far more than surface data. Here's some discussion on how just complicated it is.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Nov2014

Satellites don't measure temperature directly. They measure microwave radiation. At different angles, different times of day, though different cloud covers, humidity levels, all kinds of wildly varying conditions. Converting microwave data to temperature uses a great deal of guesswork. In contrast, surface data measures temperature directly, It is adjusted very little, and is a model of straightforwardness and simplicity in comparison to satellite data..

Second, satellite data doesn't measure surface temperatures. It measures mid-tropospheric temperature. We're interested in surface temperatures, so it's pretty stupid to use mid-tropospheric temperatures instead of surface temperatures.

Even the people who make the satellite data point out it's not designed for use in climate studies.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

 

[skookerasbil]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

Because the satellite data is a far inferior product. Using bad data when good data is available is a form of dishonesty.

First, the satellite data is twiddled and adjusted far more than surface data. Here's some discussion on how just complicated it is.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Nov2014

Satellites don't measure temperature directly. They measure microwave radiation. At different angles, different times of day, though different cloud covers, humidity levels, all kinds of wildly varying conditions. Converting microwave data to temperature uses a great deal of guesswork. In contrast, surface data measures temperature directly, It is adjusted very little, and is a model of straightforwardness and simplicity in comparison to satellite data..

Second, satellite data doesn't measure surface temperatures. It measures mid-tropospheric temperature. We're interested in surface temperatures, so it's pretty stupid to use mid-tropospheric temperatures instead of surface temperatures.

Even the people who make the satellite data point out it's not designed for use in climate studies.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

Or....how about, if it doesnt conform with the alarmist model, its not scientific!!!

"not designed for climate studies"...............OK!!

Climate science is the perfect scam........these mofu's can twist anything, up, down, east, west, wet, dry, cold, warm........to perpetuate the myth.


Thankfully..........they continue to lose in epic fashion however because their science is having no impact in the real world = renewable energy continues to be a fringe joke and will be for decades which has been well documented in these pages and actually supported by projections made by the Obama EIA.

 

[mamooth]

Or....how about, if it doesnt conform with the alarmist model, its not scientific!!

That's a pathologically dishonest conspiracy theory that only the whiniest little bitches will try to use to run from the data. Like you just did.

Skook, you're just a prancing wuss. Now don't go flapping those limp wrists too hard, else you won't be able to type.

 

[jc456]

Or....how about, if it doesnt conform with the alarmist model, its not scientific!!

That's a pathologically dishonest conspiracy theory that only the whiniest little bitches will try to use to run from the data. Like you just did.

Skook, you're just a prancing wuss. Now don't go flapping those limp wrists too hard, else you won't be able to type.

funny the skeptics provide fact after fact about the misuse of the climate scientists, and you sir/maam, mouth the same bullshit without any evidence to support your science. Just one piece of it, evidence, would be much appreciated.

 

[skookerasbil]

Or....how about, if it doesnt conform with the alarmist model, its not scientific!!

That's a pathologically dishonest conspiracy theory that only the whiniest little bitches will try to use to run from the data. Like you just did.

Skook, you're just a prancing wuss. Now don't go flapping those limp wrists too hard, else you won't be able to type.

but pwning you s0n.........Gore, Spencer and all the k00ks have been referencing satellite data for over 15 years >>>

http://patdollard.com/2014/02/paging-al-gore-report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/


******* pwned s0n!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/dumper_anim_1.gif.html][/URL]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellite is a DENIER!!

 

[jc456]

The satellite is a DENIER!!

That's why it can't be trusted!

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks love satellites until their data doesn't conform with what they'd like to see.......then its instantly to, "well, satellites suck for measuring climate change".

Foolproof scams are ghey........fuckkers have a response that fits any and every situation............and they're still losing!! Its fascinating!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Just wondering......why do the climate scientists ignore satellite data?

Because the satellite data is a far inferior product. Using bad data when good data is available is a form of dishonesty.

First, the satellite data is twiddled and adjusted far more than surface data. Here's some discussion on how just complicated it is.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Nov2014

Satellites don't measure temperature directly. They measure microwave radiation. At different angles, different times of day, though different cloud covers, humidity levels, all kinds of wildly varying conditions. Converting microwave data to temperature uses a great deal of guesswork. In contrast, surface data measures temperature directly, It is adjusted very little, and is a model of straightforwardness and simplicity in comparison to satellite data..

Second, satellite data doesn't measure surface temperatures. It measures mid-tropospheric temperature. We're interested in surface temperatures, so it's pretty stupid to use mid-tropospheric temperatures instead of surface temperatures.

Even the people who make the satellite data point out it's not designed for use in climate studies.

Upper Air Temperature Remote Sensing Systems
---
All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies.
---

You were corrected on MANY of these lies a couple days ago.. And some of your excuses are so juvenile -- you ought to be embarrassed. "Humidity levels"??? Showed you the response of "lower trop satellite" WAAY below 5000ft..

And NO MAN-DIRECTED network of 100,000 thermometers RANDOMLY placed on the globe is EVER gonna equal the REPEATABLE and consistent orbiting of a satellite. There are simple drift corrections, some diurnal sampling adjustments, but they are NOTHING like the constant meat factory of "expert opinion" analysts making UNSPECIFIED and UNTRACKABLE adjustments to the temperature in 1941.. TODAY -- they are STILL monkeying with 1941....

Funny you have an issue with using a WELL known and WELL behaved reflection off an Oxygen molecule to measure temperature --- YET --- You have NO issue with using TREE RINGS as thermometers, or Snail Shells as thermometers to make sweeping ass statements about temperature 10,000 years ago...

You're used up cat. I ignore you best I can.. But this desperate mangling of the truth just burns me..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's almost predictable that the Warmers would need to attack modern satellite data sooner or later. Because they can't monkey with the records as easily as they can when temperature readings in a region might be several hundred miles apart. IN FACT --- to attempt to DISPEL the PAUSE --- Hadley USED satellite data to fill in the missing coverage at the poles and changed "NO temperature increase" into "a miniscule warming". But since they were "filling in" their sparse Land Based coverage at the poles --- they COULD monkey with the way they infused satellite data into their inferior reanalysis models..

Check it out. Satellites to the RESCUE at Hadley...

Missing Data from Arctic One Cause of Pause in Temperature Rise - Scientific American

Turning to satellites

The new study, accepted for publication in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, suggests one of the reasons for the apparent slowdown in warming might lie in the fact that the Arctic, which has been warming much, much faster than the rest of the world, is under-represented in the HadCRUT4 temperature series.

In order to figure this out, the researchers found a clever way to take satellite observations, which measure temperature all over the Earth, including the poles, and put them into the global surface temperature data set in places where it lacked good coverage.

"The satellite data gives us a sort of geographical distribution of temperatures. It's got very good coverage, just a tiny little hole at each pole," Cowtan said.


Get the **** out of town with this latest attack on satellite coverage and accuracy. Skooks is right. The warmers hate SATELLITE data. Especially at NASA GISS.. Those kooky "space systems" guys who love to crayon up the 1930s temperatures every day..