Scienceglobalwarminghoax

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 07:52 PM

Satellite data: No real increase in global warming for the last 23 years

https://newstarget.com/2019-02-15-no-increase-in-global-warming-in-23-years.html

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

Now, a new study by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider of the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is sure to lead to even more heated discussions at dinner tables around the country.

The study, which was funded by the Department of Energy, found that if you remove the unusual heating and cooling effects caused by two major volcanoes – El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 – from the satellite temperature record, it becomes clear that there has been virtually no change in the rate of warming in the past 23 years. Christy explained that the volcanoes initially resulted in lower temperatures when soot, ash and debris in the atmosphere reflected sunlight back into space. This initial cooling was followed by higher temperatures in the years immediately following the eruptions. Christy believes that this caused what looked like a trend of warming caused by man-made emissions that was actually strictly caused by the volcanoes.

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

Like many other climate scientists, Christy has argued for years that climate models are incorrect and exaggerate the levels of global warming in the bulk atmospheres. These levels have been monitored by satellites since the latter part of the 1970s. “We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy noted in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.” Christy has been insisting for years that climate models predict too much warming in the lowest five miles of the atmosphere – known as the troposphere – and that they are too sensitive to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

26 replies, 905 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Satellite data: No real increase in global warming for the last 23 years (Original post)
Jack Burton Feb 19 OP
Cold Warrior Feb 19 #1
Gunslinger201 Feb 19 #2
Cold Warrior Feb 19 #3
Gunslinger201 Feb 19 #5
oflguy Feb 20 #10
nolidad Feb 20 #11
oflguy Feb 20 #9
oflguy Feb 20 #12
def_con5 Feb 19 #4
quad489 Feb 19 #6
def_con5 Feb 19 #7
Jack Burton Feb 19 #8
Transcendence Feb 23 #13
oflguy Feb 24 #14
Transcendence Feb 28 #15
oflguy Feb 28 #16
Transcendence Mar 1 #17
oflguy Mar 1 #18
Transcendence Mar 3 #19
oflguy Mar 3 #20
Transcendence Mar 4 #21
oflguy Mar 4 #22
oflguy Mar 4 #23
Transcendence Mar 4 #24
oflguy Mar 4 #25
Transcendence Mar 4 #26

Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 07:54 PM

1. You're really citing the Failed Weatherman as a scientific source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 07:56 PM

2. Joe Bastardi is considered the best in the business

He says its a Crock Also....I gotta go with Joe...He used to run the National Hurricane Center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:04 PM

3. Don't you think it a bit odd that both sources come out of the

University of Alabama data which we know has had to have been re-calibrated at least four times?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:20 PM

5. I honestly don't know about that

But Joe Bastardi has studied El Nino and says thats more the culprit and the cycle will turn soon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:41 AM

10. recalibrated

got a link to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 09:37 AM

11. Instead of the Hadleigh data which

which was fraudulent and cooked from the get go??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:39 AM

9. Failed weatherman?

Care to explain what you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:39 PM

12. I didn't think so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:04 PM

4. I wish it would (lead to a discussion)

sadly, it won't they'll just be dismissed as climate deniers.

Fairly recently, 9 US Senators proposed legislation to make "climate denial" a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:20 PM

6. ''make "climate denial" a crime''...seems odd, from those claiming to have an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:21 PM

7. The tolerant left

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 09:29 PM

8. The left never changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 12:43 PM

13. UAH has always been an outlier

When you look at the 30 year trend the other four temperature indices are in broad agreement:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 12:17 AM

14. Ever heard of significant figures?

Hint: Its a scientific term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 28, 2019, 06:40 PM

15. Yes I have

Perhaps you'd like to explain how the concept applies to my point about UAH being an outlier. Make sure you use small words so we all understand what you are talking about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 28, 2019, 06:44 PM

16. obviously you don't believe in it

Or maybe you don't realize NWS temperatures are reported in rounded off whole numbers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 1, 2019, 11:57 AM

17. That is simply not true

The dataset in question (UAH) reports temperatures to three decimal places:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

GISS says it's accurate to 1/100 of a degree (see note at bottom):
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

And HadCRUT's numbers are also reported to three decimal places:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

This means you were either assuming no one would verify your claim or you don't know shit about temperature records. Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #17)

Fri Mar 1, 2019, 01:48 PM

18. Satellite measurements are totally different from NWS temperature gathering

The NWS uses measurements taken by mostly volunteers at ground based stations that even NOAA says many of which are questionable. Temperature measurements are gathered from instruments that have to be accurate to within plus or minus 1/2 degree and are rounded to the nearest whole degree.


It is NOAA data that determines what a record is, and stations can be added or taken away at any time. Want global warming? Just add more stations in warm locations.


Roy Spencer is a very trusted name in temperature data. He is one of the two scientists that developed satellite temperature measuring. To hear him report that after 25 years he has observed a difference in measurements of plus eleven 100ths of a degree does not cause me to be very concerned.


If you think satellite data determines NOAA and NWS records, then it is you that does not know shit about temperature records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 3, 2019, 09:48 PM

19. Again, that is simply not true

First of all, I never said or even implied that satellite data determined NOAA and NWS records.

Second of all, no one is going to believe anything you post unless you include links supporting your assertions.

The simple facts are that NOAA temperature stations use Thermometrics Corporation PT1000 Platinum Resistance Thermometers which have a rated accuracy of ± 0.04% at 0°C.

Here are the links:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/instruments.html

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/site/sensors/airtemperature/Descriptions/AirTemp_ThermometricsPT1000PRT.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 3, 2019, 10:29 PM

20. Sorry bubba

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2019, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Rounded off to whole numbers

Did you happen to notice the 114 stations you referenced were established in 2002?

On the other hand:
NOAA maintains a network of thousands of stations, many of which have volunteer observers. A subset of 1,219 of these stations in the contiguous 48 states make up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). This dataset has undergone extensive quality control and corrections to remove biases. One of the differences between USHCN and GHCN is that for U.S. data, we have access to detailed station history information which is used to guide part of the bias removal process. Additionally, the new, high quality U.S. Climate Reference Network data are used to verify recent years of the USHCN analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 09:14 AM

21. Still no links

Show me a link that says temperature data is reported in whole numbers. I'm willing to admit being wrong on this point, but I'll have to see some proof.

Regardless, even if temperature data is reported in whole numbers, the calculation of the global temperature average that is being referred to in the OP is NOT reported in whole numbers, as the links in my very first post demonstrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 09:36 AM

22. Do your own research since you are so nasty about it. You might learn something

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2019, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

I know you don't have the nerve to watch Coleman's video, but you would learn something there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 10:10 AM

23. You still don't get it

World temperature data is NOT reported in fractions. Outside the United States data is even more unreliable than it is within the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 03:32 PM

24. World temperature data IS reported in fractions

Just LOOK at the DATA. I showed it to you in my very first post.

Again, here is are the links for all the major non-satellite global temperature indices:

NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

--snip--

2017 5 0.784 0.056 0.745 0.048
2017 6 0.618 0.055 0.741 0.048
2017 7 0.655 0.060 0.724 0.048
2017 8 0.714 0.063 0.696 0.047
2017 9 0.555 0.056 0.676 0.047
2017 10 0.687 0.059 0.671 0.048
2017 11 0.610 0.057 0.661 0.047
2017 12 0.695 0.063 0.662 0.047
2018 1 0.650 0.054 0.660 0.046
2018 2 0.626 0.056 0.654 0.046
2018 3 0.738 0.056 0.656 0.046
2018 4 0.755 0.056 0.661 0.045
2018 5 0.669 0.054 0.665 0.045
2018 6 0.630 0.053 0.669 0.045
2018 7 0.630 0.055 0.683 0.045

--snip--


HaCRUT: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

--snip--

2018/01 0.554 0.507 0.603 0.527 0.581 0.410 0.699 0.503 0.611 0.402 0.710
2018/02 0.528 0.477 0.578 0.501 0.556 0.412 0.645 0.476 0.586 0.402 0.659
2018/03 0.615 0.575 0.655 0.590 0.640 0.493 0.737 0.563 0.664 0.480 0.746
2018/04 0.627 0.586 0.666 0.601 0.653 0.501 0.753 0.575 0.676 0.490 0.764
2018/05 0.587 0.544 0.626 0.564 0.611 0.442 0.732 0.537 0.635 0.434 0.740
2018/06 0.573 0.536 0.619 0.550 0.597 0.442 0.704 0.528 0.626 0.435 0.716
2018/07 0.594 0.553 0.633 0.570 0.619 0.423 0.765 0.546 0.642 0.417 0.773
2018/08 0.591 0.534 0.629 0.568 0.614 0.372 0.809 0.538 0.641 0.367 0.817
2018/09 0.599 0.564 0.644 0.575 0.623 0.413 0.785 0.554 0.651 0.409 0.794
2018/10 0.684 0.646 0.727 0.661 0.708 0.546 0.823 0.637 0.736 0.539 0.834
2018/11 0.591 0.548 0.631 0.565 0.616 0.483 0.699 0.541 0.641 0.472 0.710
2018/12 0.604 0.549 0.648 0.578 0.631 0.471 0.737 0.545 0.656 0.458 0.747
2019/01 0.738 0.689 0.784 0.709 0.767 0.595 0.880 0.686 0.795 0.587 0.892

--snip--


GISS: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (see note at bottom)

--snip--

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 42 44 56 51 57 54 60 48 54 51 70 55 53 51 38 54 54 58 2001
2002 75 75 90 56 64 55 61 53 62 55 58 44 62 63 69 70 56 58 2002
2003 73 55 58 53 61 48 53 65 64 74 52 73 61 58 57 57 55 63 2003
2004 58 72 65 63 39 43 24 43 50 64 70 49 53 55 68 55 37 61 2004
2005 71 56 71 67 63 66 64 60 74 76 72 65 67 66 59 67 63 74 2005
2006 56 68 61 50 47 64 52 70 61 67 69 73 61 61 63 53 62 66 2006
2007 94 70 68 73 66 59 59 57 59 57 55 45 64 66 79 69 58 57 2007
2008 23 33 73 51 47 45 58 43 62 62 65 52 51 51 34 57 49 63 2008
2009 61 50 52 58 64 65 70 66 68 63 75 65 63 62 54 58 67 69 2009
2010 73 79 92 85 73 62 59 62 59 69 77 46 70 71 72 83 61 68 2010
2011 48 50 62 62 51 57 71 71 54 62 55 52 58 58 48 58 67 57 2011
2012 44 47 55 67 74 62 53 61 72 74 73 52 61 61 48 66 59 73 2012
2013 66 54 65 53 57 65 57 66 77 66 77 65 64 63 57 58 63 74 2013
2014 72 51 75 76 85 66 55 80 88 80 65 77 73 72 63 79 67 78 2014
2015 81 86 89 74 75 78 71 78 81 106 102 110 86 83 81 79 76 97 2015
2016 115 133 130 107 90 77 81 100 87 89 90 83 98 101 119 109 86 89 2016
2017 97 112 112 92 88 69 82 86 75 87 85 89 90 89 97 97 79 83 2017
2018 77 84 91 87 81 74 78 73 75 99 78 89 82 82 83 86 75 84 2018
2019 88 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** **** **** **** **** 2019
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).

--snip--


Still going to claim those aren't fractions of a degree?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 04:50 PM

25. I already explained it to you

Believe what you want. If you don't believe me, do what I did, talk to NOAA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 4, 2019, 06:51 PM

26. Still no links

Claim whatever you like. Without proof no one will believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Scienceglobalwarminghoax