New Video : Erasing The Satellite Data
July 2, 2017
Tony Heller has a must watch video on the latest RSS pause busting shenaigans.
Well worth a bookmark
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Martin Brumby on Greta’s Halo Slips oomhead on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… hamishjmcdougall on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… energywise on Greta’s Halo Slips Geoff Chambers on Greta’s Halo Slips energywise on Chinese handcuffs: How China e… Geoff Chambers on Greta’s Halo Slips energywise on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… Gamecock on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… energywise on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
NOAA pronounces Angola/Namibia ‘record’ temps, despite their own records showing no data since 1951 for Angola & 1948 for Namibia:
It is possible that the data before 1950 was sufficient to establish how much hotter that region is relative to surrounding areas, if so its current temperature can be estimated from the current temperature of the surrounding areas. They may also use meteorological models to do the estimation of temperature differences between different areas, as in weather forecasting.
I also note that Nepal, Tibet and the Chinese area surrounding gets unusually warm. Must be those sea breezes.
“The climate mafia” is a fair description. The BBC is just one of many mafia enforcers.
Dr Roy Spencer has yet to comment on this. As an honest scientist he may very well find that the new RSS algorithms are an improvement over past methods of calculating planetary temperatures. We mutter about the homogenisation of surface temps, but that’s nothing compared to the mathematical complexity of interpreting data from satellites which are a. not in perfectly circular orbits b. in decaying orbits c. seldom passing over the same place on earth at the same time of day d. subject to the same interpolation problem for polar temps that ground stations experience and e. use many different hardware systems for collecting the data. Drs Spencer and Christy at UAH have been careful never to claim that satellite temps are the gold standard,
The only way for Roy Spencer to predict that he and John Christy would NOT be asked to review the RSS adjustment paper is for this “climate mafia” to exist.
As Tony correctly points out, they are two of the only people on the planet who are actually qualified to review such adjustments.
Now, instead of allowing true peer review, it looks like they did a pal review and a quick pat on the back instead of scrutinizing it. Now that it has been “peer reviewed”, if either Christy or Spencer try to comment on it they will be denounced as science deniers. If they try to submit their comments as a new paper, now their concerns must get through the climate mafia. It turns the scientific process on its head, and is upside down from any other scientific field. This is the modus operandi of the climate mafia. Instead of proving that their new idea about how the global climate is actually fragile and prone to positive feedback mechanisms, they insist on a consensus and then try to say the onus is on skeptics to disprove it. That’s not how science works in any other field, just this one.
“Drs Spencer and Christy at UAH have been careful never to claim that satellite temps are the gold standard,”
indeed so, however it makes one wonder just what the eck is going on and if – all these newly ‘updated’ stats and the calculations therein are not released then, what are we to suppose, and does it all not, anyway, lend itself to a sceptical eye and mind?
Whatever it’s methodology, the line was flatlining and that was always a problem for terrestrially based climate prognosticators.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
It’s really incredible how every facet of climate data is knowingly corrupted. Trends in sea-surface temperatures; ocean temperatures; sea level rise; terrestrial temperatures and now satellite are knowingly and brazenly altered. They acknowledge the observed— highly unalarming data– and openly state their intention to alter the data on the flimsiest of pretexts.
What a grotesque betrayal of science ….
Latest “ADJUSTMENTS™©” from RSS.
Carl Mears has finally folded his integrity and flushed it down the sewer.
Mother Nature is not interested in the numberskullery of snakeoil salesmen:
It is snowing quite hard in the top half of Greenland – in July!
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
I do like the artistic touch, whereby the “adjustment” is scaled back near the end of the series – for all the world as if it were genuine science.
Judging by THIS, non-nobbled sattelite series
it is all ancient history because the “temperature” NOW is well down.
Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.
One of the best things about this blog is the diverse backgrounds of those participating. It is fascinating to see the tidbits of information from other sources and other backgrounds which populate the comments. I also appreciate the humor and especially the lack of nasty invective postings so prevalent on other blogs.
It’s such a shame, because RSS, I think, probably had a slightly better product than UAH prior to this “adjustment”. There is another proxy for global temperature available: the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. The previous RSS matched that proxy extremely well:
“Summing up, monthly data since January 1980 on atmospheric CO2 and sea and air temperatures unambiguously demonstrate the overall global temperature change sequence of events to be 1) ocean surface, 2) surface air, 3) lower troposphere, and with changes in atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind changes in any of these different tremperature records.”
FROM:
Click to access Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The problem, in a nutshell, is confirmation bias. They wanted the temps to be warmer, so they went looking for “adjustments” that would create warmer readings. Then, when they found some, they stopped looking. They are so sure that the temperatures should be warmer that they throw caution to the wind, and accept whatever agrees with their preconceived outcome.
It’s pretty much a given that reasons can always be found to make adjustments one way or the other within the bounds of uncertainty – after all, we are talking here about 0.1 degC differences. Your own body temperature can vary by +/- 0.6 degC over a day. You could not feel a 0.1 degC difference.
But, if you only look for “adjustments” that will give you increased warming, you will only find “adjustments” that give you increased warming.
Hi,
Do you have an English translation of this?
http://jyllands-posten.dk/nyviden/ECE9712951/kulderekord-paa-indlandsisen-laveste-julitemperaturer-nogensinde/
Lowest temperatures in Greenland in history admitted by DMI Danish Meteorological Institute. 4th July it hit minus 33,0 degrees which is 1,3 degrees lower than the previous 1958 record.
The ice on Greenland is melting fast. The only people who haven’t noticed are the ignorant third wold people of Greenland.
Happy hunting
Soren
[http://jyllands-posten.dk/incoming/article5207007.ece/ALTERNATES/f_a-s/AB_1602]
Kulderekord på Indlandsisen: Laveste juli-temperaturer nogensinde jyllands-posten.dk Global opvarmning er ikke afblæst, men lavtryk giver ekstremt kold juli på Indlandsisen.
________________________________