AGW Believer Claim: The Satellites Are Lying!

[US Conservative]

As I thought, mere propaganda.

[h=1]Yet Even More Nonsense from Grant Foster (Tamino) et al. on the Bias Adjustments in the New NOAA Pause-Buster Sea Surface Temperature Dataset[/h] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale UPDATE: It was pointed out in a comment that the model-data comparison in the post was skewed. I was comparing modeled marine air temperature minus modeled sea surface temperature anomalies to observed night marine air temperature minus sea surface temperature anomalies. Close, but not quite the same. I’ve crossed out…

July 25, 2015 in Hiatus in Global Warming.
[h=1]Tamino (Grant Foster) is Back at His Old Tricks…That Everyone (But His Followers) Can See Through[/h] Or In a Discussion of the Hiatus Since 1998, Grant Foster Presents Trends from 1970 to 2010, Go Figure! Guest Post by Bob Tisdale Statistician Grant Foster (a.k.a. blogger Tamino, who also likes to call himself Hansen’s Bulldog) is back to his one of his old debate tactics again: redirection. Or maybe a squirrel passed…

What a silly superstition this has become.

 

[Poor Debater]

As I thought, mere propaganda.

I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.

Denier FAIL.

 

[Poor Debater]

Nice try, but no points.

Yet another assertion without evidence.

Denier FAIL.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Didn't watch the video, did you?

I'm surprised that Watts used that video, but the alarmists are lying about how the data works... 2PM to 6 PM... Alatitude difference? OPure BS. The altitude doesn't matter. They look at specific spectral frequencies and compare the differences. Not the absolute values.

These climatologists like Mann don't understand how they work. They are making it up! it is clear to me. I understand how they work!

They are rationalizing.

Satellites have limitations, but the way the alarmist rationalize the errors... is flat out wrong!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please provide a link to your graph.

LOL...

It's Tamino...

LOL...

I'd like to see his source data.

Link to the blog please Duece. I want to see the linked data.

 

[Jack Hays]

I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.

Denier FAIL.

Yet another assertion without evidence.

Denier FAIL.

If you're going to debate data you need data.

 

[Lord of Planar]

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/drift/

OMG... Did you follow up any anything in his blog?

Did you replicate his methodology, and see the 87 stations, and how they are modelled?

 

[US Conservative]

I'm surprised that Watts used that video, but the alarmists are lying about how the data works... 2PM to 6 PM... Alatitude difference? OPure BS. The altitude doesn't matter. They look at specific spectral frequencies and compare the differences. Not the absolute values.

These climatologists like Mann don't understand how they work. They are making it up! it is clear to me. I understand how they work!

They are rationalizing.

Satellites have limitations, but the way the alarmist rationalize the errors... is flat out wrong!

Its pseudoscience on its face. And there are many who can't see that.

 

[Mithrae]

I'm surprised that Watts used that video, but the alarmists are lying about how the data works... 2PM to 6 PM... Alatitude difference? OPure BS. The altitude doesn't matter. They look at specific spectral frequencies and compare the differences. Not the absolute values.

These climatologists like Mann don't understand how they work. They are making it up! it is clear to me. I understand how they work!

They are rationalizing.

Satellites have limitations, but the way the alarmist rationalize the errors... is flat out wrong!

You'd better inform Roy Spencer that he doesn't know what he's talking about then.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04...e-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts), NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9 after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).



3) The orbit altitude decay effect (which has been large only for calculation of the old LT), as well as different satellites’ altitudes, is automatically handled since we use routine satellite ephemeris updates to calculate Earth incidence angles, which are the new basis for Tb estimation, not footprint positions per se. ​

Good old LoP - everything is so clear to him, yet those dumb ol' scientists just don't get it! :lol:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Its pseudoscience on its face. And there are many who can't see that.

I got quite the laugh when the climatologists explianed of how satellites see temperature. The video exposed their ignorance, but a layperson would never see it! They were either ignorant themselves, or trusted that 99+% of the people wouldn't see their lies.

 

[Threegoofs]

You'd better inform Roy Spencer that he doesn't know what he's talking about then.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04...e-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts), NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9 after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).



3) The orbit altitude decay effect (which has been large only for calculation of the old LT), as well as different satellites’ altitudes, is automatically handled since we use routine satellite ephemeris updates to calculate Earth incidence angles, which are the new basis for Tb estimation, not footprint positions per se. ​

Good old LoP - everything is so clear to him, yet those dumb ol' scientists just don't get it! :lol:

Well, he's a self proclaimed autodidact.

So there's that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You'd better inform Roy Spencer that he doesn't know what he's talking about then.

He's not making the same claim.

Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts), NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9 after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).

their orbits are 101 minutes, and we are talking global temperature changes. Not regional changes directly under the satellite.

3) The orbit altitude decay effect (which has been large only for calculation of the old LT), as well as different satellites’ altitudes, is automatically handled since we use routine satellite ephemeris updates to calculate Earth incidence angles, which are the new basis for Tb estimation, not footprint positions per se.

Simple trigonometric equation changes, already known factors in all launches. The heat change from orbital degradation is not a factor, because if the spectra they are looking at.

Good old LoP - everything is so clear to him, yet those dumb ol' scientists just don't get it! :lol:

Yet calibration drift wasn't mentioned in the video.

I am one that has said satellites are not real accurate, but them Mann et al are twisting the facts. These satellites orbit 14 times a day The six hours is meaningless when the orbit is 101 minutes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you have the time, watch this:

 

[flogger]

Meanwhile, Flogger has a solid track record of being unable to explain the data.

I explain it by your desperate need to falsify things that don't fit your agenda. You are perhaps the scariest warmer posting here because none have indulged the sort of fraudulent behaviour you have exhibited :roll:

 

[Tim the plumber]

I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.

Denier FAIL.

Using data pre 1998 to disprove the lack of warming since 1998 is called lying.

 

[Poor Debater]

If you're going to debate data you need data.

I've posted data. You've posted insults.

Denier FAIL.

 

[Poor Debater]

OMG... Did you follow up any anything in his blog?

Did you replicate his methodology, and see the 87 stations, and how they are modelled?

OMG. Did you read his post? Did you see 87 stations? Did you see a model? Or did you just make stuff up again?

 

[Poor Debater]

I explain it by your desperate need to falsify things that don't fit your agenda. You are perhaps the scariest warmer posting here because none have indulged the sort of fraudulent behaviour you have exhibited :roll:

You, sir, are a liar.

 

[Poor Debater]

Using data pre 1998 to disprove the lack of warming since 1998 is called lying.

No, it's called science. Ignoring the data pre-1998 for political reasons is called lying.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Using data pre 1998 to disprove the lack of warming since 1998 is called lying.

No, it's called science. Ignoring the data pre-1998 for political reasons is called lying.

You just don't do honest clear thinking do you. We have been here before. We have done this before. You have forgotten it again.

The statement the earth warmed between 1970 and 1998 is true.

So is the earth has warmed between 1970 and now.

So is the earth has not warmed since 1998.

The statement the earth has warmed since 1998 is a lie.

 

[Lord of Planar]

OMG. Did you read his post? Did you see 87 stations? Did you see a model? Or did you just make stuff up again?

LOL...

You don't even know what the number 87 represents, do you?

 

[Jack Hays]

I've posted data. You've posted insults.

Denier FAIL.

Sorry, but no. My point was based on the verbatim words of Mann, Santer et al themselves. Yours was based on Tamino. The prosecution rests.

 

[ludin]

Yet another assertion without evidence.

Denier FAIL.

yes denier fail when you are presented with evidence that proves you wrong.
yes you are a denier of science.

no one that actually upholds any kind of scientific standard would call the AGW claims
science.

 

[ludin]

Yet another assertion without evidence.

Denier FAIL.

No, it's called science. Ignoring the data pre-1998 for political reasons is called lying.

well real science takes everything into account and not just by record temperature recorded right?
why ignore historical temperature data for only temperature recently recorded?

why? because they would find that the earth isn't warming nearly as bad as what they think.
that co2 levels are as bad as what they think.

then the zealots can't continue to steal money to fund this crap.

it is kind of hard to say you can accurately measure temperature
when 80+% of your ground based station carry a heat bias of 2+ degrees.

but I am sure they are adjusting those number down to account for it pffft.

 

[Threegoofs]

no one that actually upholds any kind of scientific standard would call the AGW claims
science.

Hmmm. The National Academy of Science seems to differ.

Not sure what organization YOU think is the most respected scientific group, but I'm guessing they also agree that the IPCC has synthesized the science quite well.