Updated Global Temperature predictions

11 Responses to Updated Global Temperature predictions

1. Kit Carruthers says:

   15 November 2015 at 20:20

   …satellites recording actual temperatures…

   Satellites don’t measure temperature.

   …as opposed to the fabricated ones particularly from NASA and NOAA

   And besides, NOAA do provide satellite estimates of temperature.
2. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   15 November 2015 at 20:53

   Nothing measures average surface temperature. The one that has proven least susceptible to tampering has been the Satellites and NOAA and NASA have been clearly fabricating their temperatures to make them fit their bizarre views about current warming.
   And to be frank, I used to be responsible for several thousand temperature sensors and dozens of people supposedly “reading” them and I’ve had much better people that NOAA or NASA trying to fool me.
3. catweazle666 says:

   15 November 2015 at 21:01

   “Satellites don’t measure temperature.”
   Nor do columns of mercury in tubes, nor platinum resistances connected to electronic circuits, come to that.
   Both microwave observation satellites and thermometers of whatever variety simply produce an analogue related to temperature, which has to be manipulated and processed by the observer.
   Do you have a point?
4. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   15 November 2015 at 21:10

   No he doesn’t have a point.
5. Kit Carruthers says:

   15 November 2015 at 22:30

   I said nothing about land based measurements, only pointing out that satellite temperatures are not ‘real’ as Mike Haseler claims. That’s my point.
6. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   15 November 2015 at 23:55

   I said fabricated – your perception of what this means, betrays your public sector background and anti-industry cultural values.
7. Kevin O'Neill says:

   16 November 2015 at 01:28

   “Nothing measures average surface temperature. The one that has proven least susceptible to tampering has been the Satellites …” Satellites don’t measure surface temperature, period. UAH has LT coverage from 85S to 85N. RSS has TLT coverage from 70S to 82.5N. Each of these data products is equivalent to 4km above sea level. I.e., not surface temperatures.
   ““The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere.” – Dr Roy Spencer.
   This “new weighting function” is what you call ‘tampering’, is it not? How about the infamous orbital decay errors and the fact Christy and Spencer refused to believe their data was in error? That had to be ‘tampered with’ as well to make it correct.
   But enough of UAH – how about RSS? “As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.” – Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist and Vice-President of Remote Sensing Systems (otherwise known as the producers of the RSS satellite dataset).
   What is the net effect on global surface temperatures by the adjustments made by *any* of the global surface datasets? The net effect is to *reduce* the amount of global warming over the past century. So, if we believe your claims that scientists are fiddling with the data, then they are doing so to make global warming *less* than the raw data shows.
8. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   16 November 2015 at 08:12

   I said nothing measures surface temperature – and you argue against it by “proving” that satellites don’t measure surface temperature. In other words you agree with me.
   So, what is your point?
   What you don’t seem to understand is that having worked in engineering I am perfectly comfortable taking lots of different metrics and working out what is happening from those different metrics and the attitude of the people pushing them.
   NOAA and NASA had a fig leaf of credibility so long as the global temperature wasn’t doing what they wanted it to do, but as soon as they changed it to produce warming, they lost all credibilty. Because any one can change a measurement to make it tell the story they want (and boy I’ve seen that enough times), but only honest people will show a measurement that doesn’t tell the story they want it to show.
9. Mark Hodgson says:

   16 November 2015 at 09:06

   I cheerfully confess to not being a scientist, merely an interested observer of these debates. I cheerfully confess also to being a sceptic, as a result of what I have observed going on in this area over the last few years (like many sceptics, I started by believing in the CAGW propaganda). Two questions (with sub-questions), if I may Kevin, as I genuinely would like to know the answers, in order that I may be better informed:
   1. You said: “Satellites don’t measure surface temperature…Each of these data products is equivalent to 4km above sea level. I.e., not surface temperatures.”
   Are the datasets produced by satellites relevant, then? If so, do they not contradict the land-based results produced by GISS et al, or do you claim that they are consistent with those results? Why do the BBC, NASA, MSM generally push the land-based sets while not mentioning the satellite data?
   2. You said: “What is the net effect on global surface temperatures by the adjustments made by *any* of the global surface datasets? The net effect is to *reduce* the amount of global warming over the past century. So, if we believe your claims that scientists are fiddling with the data, then they are doing so to make global warming *less* than the raw data shows.”
   Where did you get your information to make this assertion, please? It is the first time I have seen this assertion made. I do visit “alarmist” websites too on a regular basis, but not even there have I seen anyone make this claim. All the information I have seen is the opposite of your assertion, so I am genuinely interested in why/how you come to say it.
10. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    16 November 2015 at 09:20

    The problem is that the land based measurements have nothing like the same coverage as satellites, and that coverage is wholly skewed toward areas known to have what is called “urban heating” – but is really a form of heating following the transition from natural vegetation to man-made environments.
    And lastly, unlike the Satellite the land-based measurements were never intended to measure “global temperature”. So, there’s a hell of a lot of poor quality measurements, These can only be sorted out by using a lot of judgemental assessments – and ever with the best will in the world that would lead to bias. But when you’ve got organisations hell bent on proving warming, it was a no brainer that the data would be biased. That’s why I started the Climategate petition in 2009.
    But it wasn’t until NASA and NOAA became so desperate with the lack of warming and started overtly fiddling the data, that the proof became obvious to anyone even if they didn’t understand what is actually involved in meteorological measurements and the compilation of these supposed “global temperatures”.
11. Mark Hodgson says:

    18 November 2015 at 09:08

    It’s a pity Kevin didn’t return to the site to answer my basic and, I think, reasonable questions.

Comments are closed.