Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree8Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 2nd, 2017, 04:33 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

Quote:
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

CarbonBrief
Zeke Hausfather 30.06.2017 | 6:38am


Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.



Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.



The figure above shows a comparison between the new RSS record and the global surface temperature record produced by NASA. RSS v4 shows about 5% more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began.

...

Continued here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-co...ing-since-1998
And the study can be found here:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1...LI-D-16-0768.1
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2017, 06:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors,

Ha ha!! Corrected for "other factors" Hilarious.
Thanks from webguy4 and League of Justice
justoneman is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2017, 02:08 PM   #3
Banned
 
League of Justice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Mood Indigo
Posts: 296
Yeah, more lies.

Quote:
The only two people who were qualified to review this data tampering by RSS, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, were not consulted and the changes were not submitted for peer review to them. This is very severe malfeasance, and standard practice for climate scientists. Their job is to push global warming, not do science.

Here are Dr. Spencer’s predictions from January, 2017.
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:

1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper

2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)

3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.

Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.

-Roy”
Roy Spencer’s Prediction | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...two-years-ago/
Thanks from webguy4
League of Justice is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:14 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
1. ...and those alleged "lies" happen to be...?

2. Spencer and Christy are certainly free to review and scrutinize the cited research all they like, now that it has been published.

3. So if Spencer and Christy are the allegedly "only" individuals who are supposedly "qualified" to review the adjustments made to the RSS dataset, then who would be supposedly "qualified" to review the numerous adjustments that Spencer and Christy make to the UAH dataset? Indeed, both datasets are based upon satellite temperature measurements which inevitably have inherent biases. (Moreover, it seems quite inconsistent-as well as being an appeal to authority fallacy-to imply that peer review of scientific research is important, but only when two particular individuals scrutize said research.)

Lastly,

4. Heck, Spencer's and Christy's latest UAH adjustment research results were presented to the public, as well as promoted by them in a way to influence government policy, prior to said research even being peer-reviewed, of which kinda deflates the importance of peer review that the author of the cited blog implied. But I guess the author of that cited blog chooses to overlook that action by his apparent heros when they share certain personal beliefs.

Thanks from RNG

Last edited by baloney_detector; July 3rd, 2017 at 09:19 PM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
Ha ha!! Corrected for "other factors" Hilarious.
And the particular "other factors" that you believe are "hilarious" happen to be...?

And precisely why they are allegedly "hilarious" is...?


baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:37 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 1,303
Did they use a red pen when the corrected their mistakes?
Did they take a blood oath when they promised that this time the data was right?
guy39 is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Did they use a red pen when the corrected their mistakes?
Did they take a blood oath when they promised that this time the data was right?
You mean like when Spencer and Christy discovered their numerous ...ummm..."mistakes?":

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ture-estimates

(The fact of the matter is, all measurement systems have biases. And it is quite normal for researchers to make efforts to account for said biases once they are discovered.)
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 09:12 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
And here are some details about this latest RSS dataset adjustment.:

Quote:

...

What is the main issue addressed in the paper?

The paper describes an important update to the methods we use to construct our lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data record. The methods used in this TLT update are very similar used for our latest version of the middle tropospheric temperature (TMT).

The most important differences between the previous version (Version 3.3) and the new version (Version 4.0) are:

1. The method used to make adjustments for drifting satellite measurement time was changed. In the new method, the model based diurnal cycle climatology used for these adjustments was optimized so that differences between satellites making measurements at different times of day are removed in a more accurate manner. The new method steps away from adjusting the satellite data using model output by incorporating infomation from the measurements themselves. (This will be discussed in greater detail below.)

2. Inter-satellite offsets are now calculated separately for land and ocean scenes. This prevents possible errors over land, where the adjustment for changing measurement times are large, from adversely affecting measurements over the ocean, where the diurnal cycle is close to zero.

3. Several periods of suspect data were removed (see below for more details).

4. Two new satellites, NOAA-19 and METOP-B, are now included in the processing. This serves to reduce sampling error as well as any remaining errors due to the diurnal adjustment during the last part of the record, where NOAA-18's measurement time is drifting rapidly.

...

What motivated the update?

The new study was mostly motivated by a problem in the differences between co-orbiting satellites making measurements at different times of the day. We routinely monitor these differences as part of our quality control procedures. These differences were particularly large over land, leading us to suspect that there were problems with using the “raw” model-based diurnal cycle to correct for changing measurement times. Over the last few years, we have upgraded the diurnal cycle adjustment for both TLT (described here) and TMT (described in an earlier paper, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1...LI-D-15-0744.1, which has been available for the last 15 months).

...

Continued here:

FAQ about the V4.0 TLT Update | Remote Sensing Systems
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 09:44 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
You mean like when Spencer and Christy discovered their numerous ...ummm..."mistakes?":

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ture-estimates

(The fact of the matter is, all measurement systems have biases. And it is quite normal for researchers to make efforts to account for said biases once they are discovered.)
Thats great and all. But, how much money or the potential thereof has Spencer and Tracy mistakes going to possibly cost. Compared to the umm system biases, after they are discovered.
Thanks from Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2017, 10:41 PM   #10
Banned
 
League of Justice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Mood Indigo
Posts: 296
The statists are trying ever so hard. LOL Please! Believe us! We only want to run your lives! That's all.
Thanks from webguy4
League of Justice is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
140%, 1998, correction, data, faster, major, satellite, shows, warming



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware Salinator1 Current Events 43 January 2nd, 2017 02:55 PM
‘Absurd’ to think current data shows clear link between CTE, football Boo Current Events 0 March 29th, 2016 04:52 PM
Clinton Emails Contained Spy Satellite Data on North Korean Nukes excalibur Current Events 5 September 3rd, 2015 02:16 AM
NASA Data Shows the Pause in Global Warming Continues excalibur Current Events 52 January 29th, 2014 10:39 AM
Creating Jobs Faster by Cutting Timelines in Half for Major Infrastructure Projects The White House The White House 0 May 17th, 2013 05:40 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.