Sattelite Data Show 2015 Was NOT EVEN CLOSE to Being Hottest on Record.

[9aces]

That tenth of a degree puts us over 1 degree C. for the total increase since the industrial age began. And the generally accepted danger level is a 2 degree increase. Well, given that the present temperature is representative of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, we are going to blow right by the 2 degree mark.

Good.

 

[Crick]

Why do you think that is good?

 

[Crick]

These data, for both RSS and UAH, show that, for both measures, 2015 was the highest back to 1979 (the beginning of the UAH record) and that for the last 12 years, UAH has shown global temperatures higher than RSS.

View attachment 59347

Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

as always, when crick puts up a graph you have to parse what he thinks it means, and what it really means.

does crick think that because this is RSS and UAH data plotted up on a different website, that the data which is obviously different from the annual satellite global temp from the original sources (edit- could look like this?). obviously there is a disconnect somewhere along the line.

looking at the title of crick's graph it becomes clear. this is a comparison of November values. both RSS and UAH had their warmest Novembers since 1979. by about 0.05F, or 0.03C.

December values are not available yet. of the previous months before Nov, RSS has no record months, UAH has oct 2015 also a record.

perhaps crick just failed to mention that the graph was for a specific month. perhaps not.

I failed to note it was just November. Mea culpa. Below is the annual data for the same period. It doesn't show 2015 as hottest year, but then, NOAA never made that claim for Lower Tropospheric temperatures, did they. That's just the only place you can make real comparisons with UAH.

Happier now?

 

[Crick]

The graph above should have been this one: complete through November of 2015. For unknown reason, the board would not allow me to replace that graphic with this one. Again, these are not global land/ocean temperatures. They are satellite-based, microwave sounder data from the lower troposphere. They do not include ocean and they do not the poles.

 

[9aces]

Why do you think that is good?

Because it's closer to the normal temperature of the globe based on its history. Till we hit a certain point, warmer beats the daylights out of colder.

We're nowhere close to this being a problem, and there's zero evidence from any source man can either start, or stop one of these trends.

 

[westwall]

Well, I will wait for the rest of the agencies that monitor this before I accept their data. They really don't have that good of a record at getting things right. After all, their head scientist is also a Creationist.

Hansen was a creationist? Who knew! That would explain his wholesale violation of scientific ethics and widespread data falsification though. If it doesn't conform to scripture it must be PERSECUTED!

 

[westwall]

Well, it sure was the wettest December ever here in Portland, Oregon.

Yeah? So? And, for the record, this year doesn't come close to 1862 so you lose on two counts.

 

[Crick]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

BEST is crap.... They have the arm (temperatures) twisted in so many directions they might just have a pretzel...

 

[IanC]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

BEST is crap.... They have the arm (temperatures) twisted in so many directions they might just have a pretzel...

Occasionally I have to agree with Billy. This is one of them. Muller freely admits that roughly a third of long running stations have a cooling trend. Yet I have done a lot of searching and I cannot even find one station in his database that still shows cooling after 'adjustments'.

 

[Crick]

Sorry, but I'll take BEST's, NOAA's, NCDC's, JMS, NWS and, essentially, every other professional weather and climate organization's word before I'll take yours, Ian. They ALL say 2015 sets a new record. That you say you can't find something in their data doesn't impress me a great deal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

BEST is crap.... They have the arm (temperatures) twisted in so many directions they might just have a pretzel...

Occasionally I have to agree with Billy. This is one of them. Muller freely admits that roughly a third of long running stations have a cooling trend. Yet I have done a lot of searching and I cannot even find one station in his database that still shows cooling after 'adjustments'.

Ah yes, Dr. Muller committed the ultimate heresy. He took Koch money to do scientific research, and did and reported scientific research, rather than just pocketing the money and parroting the official denialist line.,

And when Dr. Mullur started that work, Ian was stating that he would accept whatever Dr. Muller found. And turned 180 degrees when what Dr. Muller found did not agree with Ian's political position. LOL

 

[IanC]

A while back I posted up some excerpts of the description of the BEST algorithm.

It described how every station is compared to its neighbours and adjusted to remove the differences. This, by itself, would only remove the variance and make all the stations look more and more like the average depending on how many times you repeated this step.

But there is another aspect to the algorithm. Different stations are given weightings for how close they resemble the average. The range is 2 (very close and trusted) to 1/13th (not trusted). This moves outlier stations back towards the mean even more quickly. The algorithm description says this step can be repeated up to sixty times per measurement.

So far I haven't said how this can affect the trend. In a warming world, warm measurements are less likely to be adjusted, cool measurements are more likely. This insidious pressure is a constant force that inflates the warming trend. Obviously it would also lower the trend in a cool world.

I believe this sort of black box addition to the trend is found in many other algorithms. The CET record goes back hundreds of years. Comparing recent versions to older ones points this out. Many values from dates up to hundreds of years ago have been adjusted up. I don't think it is human intervention, I believe it is just a byproduct of the code.

 

[IanC]

Berkely Earth says you can shove your satellite data where the sun don't shine

2015 'unambiguously' the hottest year on record, says report

Note the reality about your sacred HIATUS as well.

BEST is crap.... They have the arm (temperatures) twisted in so many directions they might just have a pretzel...

Occasionally I have to agree with Billy. This is one of them. Muller freely admits that roughly a third of long running stations have a cooling trend. Yet I have done a lot of searching and I cannot even find one station in his database that still shows cooling after 'adjustments'.

Ah yes, Dr. Muller committed the ultimate heresy. He took Koch money to do scientific research, and did and reported scientific research, rather than just pocketing the money and parroting the official denialist line.,

And when Dr. Mullur started that work, Ian was stating that he would accept whatever Dr. Muller found. And turned 180 degrees when what Dr. Muller found did not agree with Ian's political position. LOL

As I have stated dozens of times in response to this statement, the description of what Muller SAID he would do did not match the results of the people he put in charge of the dataset project. He was like a politician in this respect, promise one thing and deliver another.

Ask Judith Curry why she demanded to have her name taken off the papers. Ask why the BEST papers sat in limbo for years until they were finally published in the first volume, first issue of a new Indian pay-for-publish Journal rather than a prestigious American one.

 

[mamooth]

This is what currently has the denier blogs in a meltdown state. It's the same stuff I've been saying, but presented nicer. Not a coincidence. Deniers, having had every other conspiracy theory debunked, recently retreated to their last stand at "but look at the satellites!", and have tried carpet-bombing that argument everywhere. Thus, it's now getting refuted everywhere.

Naturally, none of the deniers will be capable of discussing the science talked about in the video. Having Dr. Mears of RSS smack them down in the video was a really nice touch. And simply having Dr. Mann and Dr. Trenberth as speakers causes deniers to instantly lose their shit. That's funny to watch, though it does give deniers plenty of ammunition for their subsequent feces-flinging.

 

[skookerasbil]

no consensus............

And don't forget here.......the NOAA and NASA have been rigging the data for 2 decades!!!


Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government - Principia Scientific Intl

 

[skookerasbil]

The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown
Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up.
By
Judith Curry
Oct. 9, 2014 8:31 p.m. ET


The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown

 

[jc456]

Well, I will wait for the rest of the agencies that monitor this before I accept their data. They really don't have that good of a record at getting things right. After all, their head scientist is also a Creationist.

so are you saying that satellites aren't the technology to move forward for collecting accurate global temperature data? I mean, you can't place enough stations on the globe to accurately collect the data. It's been my pet peave since I got in this forum. Made up anomalies is not acceptable to me. Seems to be your sides life line.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bottom line with this in laymans terms..................

The alarmists are calling for open heart surgery for a pimple on a face. That's the level of k00k you're talking here.......

 

[80zephyr]

The denier here sob so delightfully when we point how everyone with a brain understands the satellite data is crap. The surface data disagrees with it, the balloon data disagrees with it, the rising oceans disagree with it, and even the satellite guys say it's not reliable enough to use.

But then, denier cultists don't care about stinkin' facts or data. The cult has told them what to say, and not one of 'em has the brains or balls necessary to go against cult orders.

What excuse will deniers fall back on when the satellite data gets corrected? Deniers really need to be planning for that. I suggest they do the same as they did with the BEST data. You know, when deniers all said they'd accept the result of the BEST study, being it was the best and most accurate study ever. And then it came out and contradicted their cult, and deniers all instantly spun about and declared their promise didn't count because BEST was clearly part of the conspiracy.

That is, when the satellite data gets corrected, deniers will simply claim the people who fixed it are in on the conspiracy, and thus they will be able to maintain faith in their religion.

NASA disagrees with you.

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space - NASA Science


And how anyone can believe that a system that covers 90+% of the earths surface can be less accurate than the few places on earth where we have temperature stations...well, I want some of what you are smoking.

Mark