AGW Theory - Discussion

Not even 60 years from the launch of the very first weather satellite and Jassik thinks the global average temperature is accurate.

Oh, wait they don't even use satellites. They use samples taken from buoys and ships then "adjust them" to fit their narrative.

You know when someone says something wrong with a smug look on their face?

I know this is hard for people like you but read both the articles and think about it.

Pro-tip:

Very articulate. Thanks for trying.

The paper found a (declining) net gain. This just emphasizes that some regions experience climate change differently than others (in this case, West Antarctic vs East) and confounding factors like increased precipitation variability add complexity to ice gains/losses. None of this is inconsistent with an increasing global average temperature nor does it remove any concern for polar ice melt.
You've provided as much evidence of this as Altima has of the liberal media conspiracy.

That is to say, none of interest.

This just in; the climate changes, getting colder in some areas and warmer in others.



Very astute Pleebo let me get you a nobel prize.

Oh lets not even get into the temperature discrepancies between land / ocean data and satellite data. Guaranteed NASA and NOAA are kicking themselves in the *** for insisting, back during the Bush administration, that the raw satellite data be made available to the public without any government control on it. According to the adjusted land / ocean data, which is derived from shore line buoys and weather stations at airports, the world is heating up and exploding. According to satellites, no warming for over eighteen years. It really shows the real scientists from the political mouth pieces. A real scientist, which faced with an unexpected result, says "that's interesting" and usually starts on a path to some great discovery. A political mouth piece see's the same thing and says "oh ***that's not good" and tries to alter the result.

Cue those trying to ignore the satellite record for the past 20 years.

It only counts when it fit the narrative..

Christopher Monckton wrote the following.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/the-pause-draws-blood-a-new-record-pause-length-no-warming-for-18-years-7-months/

I'll copy paste the bullet points but the topic has FAR more information in it. Lots of charts and statistics for our scientifically inclined. Basically the satellite temperature record record is going to be the death of AGW as the data is accurate and available to anyone, including those who aren't on "team green". Reading the IR emission from the planet directly is a much more accurate way to measure global effects then anything surface based, and it's not agreeing with the theory.

Co2 emmissions far above predictions, warming trend far below predictions.

Yet they still insist they're the smartest people in the room.

Where is the notion coming from that surface records aren't matching satellite data?

That wasn't my point, but, ok, climate changes and is changing. What is the underlying cause if not it is not anthropogenic?

So he took the oldest set of data from the First Assessment as an example of how wrong the predictions were. Fantastic. I, too, judge topics in science by the state of the field over 20 years ago.

From Dr Roy Spencer, the climate scientist (yes an actual climate scientist) who's work is based around the satellite data I was discussing earlier. Also responsible for a lot of the work associating cloud formations as a climate control mechanism.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/



He does a bunch of near timer and long term trend analysis and has been a very strong skeptic of "humans are causing the earth to burn up".

The alarmists really really hate this guy.

A graph showing an increasing trend in global lower atmospheric temperatures... disproves global warming?

Actually, it isn't necessarily. There are no few technical issues with regards to data collection and accuracy.

It's far far far better then reading it from Ocean buoys where one buoy represents an area larger then Alaska. Or from weather stations located next to open tarmacs at regional airports. Yet somehow despite being co-located on top of a Urban Heat Island (UHI) they get their raw temp data "adjusted" upwards a degree or more, as if they weren't already warmer then average. The best part is the data set's are available, unaltered, to anyone who asks making transparency possible.

So yes reading IR transmissions directly from a planet, which is quite literally reading the planets temperature, is more accurate then attempting to guess it via proxy. Only the most obtuse individual would attempt to argue that taking someone's temperature directly is less accurate then putting a hand on their forehead and saying "hmm you feel like your 105".

More evidence that Saevel has no idea what he's talking about:

• Satellites don't measure temperatures directly. There is no 'quite literal' (lol) reading of the planet's temperature. This is basic ***. The spectral signal needs to converted to temperature using series of *gasp* corrections. Why is this data not as suspicious as earth-based corrected data?

• The large majority of these satellites are operated by the NOAA (Figure 1 from his own link before). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the same organization that handles much of the surface-based measurements, and they were the same organization responsible for the corrected data earlier this year which put into the question the existence of the global warming "pause". Again, why is this data more trustworthy when the bulk of it is handled by the same organization?

• The methods for NASA's GISS temperature corrections for the urban heat island effect are publicly accessible. There are no secrets and the process has been peer-reviewed. Additionally, all the code and data to recreate these data sets are free for anyone to *** with on their website. Have fun with that.

• Analyses have empirically shown that surface-based measurements are well in line with satellite-based ones, and both sets of data show a similar warming trend. Oops!

Basically, listening to Saevel for information on climate change science is like using the National Enquirer to read up on current events - entertaining and good for a laugh but don't take the stories on Bat Boy seriously.

However, this now brings us to the question. Why are we placing our faith in measurements that are "adjusted" and have been manipulated in the past?

Corrections are necessary because raw data of this kind taken at the global scale would be a mess. I posted a link pages back detailing why adjustments are necessary and the methods used to do it. Nothing about this is abnormal in the realm of science and shouldn't be viewed as inherently suspicious, especially considering that, as I mentioned, the means to do these corrections yourself (assuming competency) are available for at least the 3 most prevalent data sets, NASA's, UAE's CRUTEM, and NOAA's. Possibly more, I don't know.

The satellite data being talked about is literally meaningless with regard to temperatures because the raw data are reflectance values (measures of radiation hitting the sensors). These then need to be processed to get the desired data set. Also, these satellites (or any satellite really) need constant corrections for changes in orbit as well as atmospheric corrections. Remember there's a large atmosphere between the satellite and the area of interest so that needs to be accounted for, which requires *ta-dah* adjustments.

I'm assuming you're using the word "manipulated" in a malicious context so I imagine you're willing to actually back up that claim?

Edit: Found and added the link.

It's interesting how you say the satellite data is meaningless because it requires corrections and other various adjustments and hold onto the belief that its perfectly okay and even "scientific" when land/sea data also requires corrections and other various adjustments..

I don't get your point. Both types of measurements require corrections for different reasons. Raw surface measurements aren't necessarily useless individually (they actually are direct measures of temperature), but greater processing is required when combining them into global maps. The reasons are listed in my link under the section 'Why Adjust Temperatures?'.

This is why you do not get my point. While you are correct that they are direct measures of temperature. You refuse to acknowledge that while taken directly, the circumstances in taking them were flawed in the past, possibly even now.


This wasn't used 70-150years ago.. Why is this NEEDED now?

Flawed how?
Because we weren't trying to measure the temperature of the entire globe? I'm not necessarily talking about measurements taken at the local scale.

The adjustments are fundamentally different in nature and purpose. Different satellites are made by different manufacturers which use different methods for tuning them and sometimes different bands. Raw satellite data is just energy input on particular bands, and by itself it's meaningless. It's when you convert this measurements into IR radiation (which is quite literally thermal output) that they take on meaning. Also sometimes the satellites drift slightly or were moved between different years, this would alter the absolute values for their measurements such that the value of one year might not be directly relative to the proceeding year.

So most of the "adjustments" are just them correcting for the differences in manufacturing, orbits and tuning. It's very well documented, based on thermodynamics, and applied on an individual level to each satellite source. There is no "averaging" or "homogenizing" of the data, it's still raw, just corrected such that they all have the same baseline to compare from. One satellites measurements will have no effect on a nearby satellites data adjustment. The whole process used, including code, is published and open for public inspection. The tuning adjustment values are take from the manufacturers themselves, the drift values from physics calculations. It's a whole system designed for maximum unbiased transparency free from governmental interference, and it was done this way by NASA because they feared a Republican administration would suppress the "Global Warming" evidence they believed, at that time, the satellite system would prove. It didn't happen and now they are kicking themselves in the *** for not putting it under their control.

This is in contrast to surface based temperature readings where they "adjust" by taking the average of nearby stations and then raising it by the difference. If a one station reported a higher temperature then a nearby station, the nearby station would have it's data "adjusted" upwards so that they would both report similar temperatures. This process creates giant over-estimates in regional temperatures, which is easily visible by comparing them to the satellite record of the exact same geographic area.

Anyhow it's pretty simple really. Surface based "adjusted" data shows the earth xploding into a fire ball therefor it's "good facts". Satellite based measurements show no evidence of warming and there for it's "hate facts".

Good ole progressive double-speak for ya.

Wow, thanks man for repeating what I just said. Imagine how much more productive your posts would be if you weren't too afraid to take me off block.

Then why are you so sure the climate is changing when we do not have adequate information? How can you possibly claim the Globe is warming when greater processing was required but never taken!