Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1621933415 Message started by freediver on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:03pm

Title: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:03pm

You would be hard pressed to find a climate skeptic these days who is not a complete moron, a dedicated liar, or both. A popular lie is the claim that measured temperature data does not match predictions, usually accompanied by a plot comparing predicted average global surface temperature with measured temperatures from somewhere else, such as the ocean, the tropics, the troposphere etc. These plots often look like they were produced by a primary school student being taught to use microsoft excel, with the data stopping about a decade ago. Pointing out the obvious flaws does not seem to help, they have an endless supply of slightly different versions of the same lie.

This is what you get when you compare predicted average global surface temperature with measured average global surface temperature:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Here is Ajax comparing the tropics with the global average, and in the same post comparing lower troposphere temperatures with surface temperatures.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619599858/26#26

Here is Lee comparing ocean temperatures with predicted air temperatures:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619147859/24#24

Here is Lee comparing troposphere temperatures with surface temperatures, and trying to avoid providing the source:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619599858/1#1

Here is Lee comparing predictions with measured lower troposphere temperatures. The graph also shows a separate line with different measured data for the surface temperature:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619147859/17#17

Here is Lee arguing that it is valid to compare surface temperatures with lower troposphere measurements, because the lower troposphere is “where we live”.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619599858/33#33

Here is Lee providing another graph highlighting the difference between the lower troposphere and the surface:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619599858/13#13

Here is Lee comparing surface temperatures with mid troposphere measurements:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1619147859/19#19

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by cods on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:20pm

https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-largest-iceberg-breaks-antarctica-2653093274.html

yet the science says this is normal and has nothing to do with GW.. :-/ :-/ how do they know which is which?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:27pm

cods wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:20pm:

https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-largest-iceberg-breaks-antarctica-2653093274.html

yet the science says this is normal and has nothing to do with GW.. :-/ :-/ how do they know which is which?

Both are true. It is normal, but would also be affected in some way by changes in temperature.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:29pm

Poor petal. Fancy trying to convince people an average of an ensemble (many) models is somehow proof that they are correct. Only one model can be correct.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:03pm:

Here is Lee arguing that it is valid to compare surface temperatures with lower troposphere measurements, because the lower troposphere is “where we live”.

Yes the one that NASA, climate morons that they are, endorse.

"The National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) provided AMSR-E to NASA as an indispensable part of Aqua's global hydrology mission. Over the oceans, AMSR-E is measuring a number of important geophysical parameters, including sea surface temperature (SST), wind speed, atmospheric water vapor, cloud water, and rain rate. "

https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/AMSRE-REMSS-L2P-v7a

Wow. Not only SST's Water vapour and rain. ;)

"Our yearly summer school focuses on the topic of "Using Satellite Observations to Advance Climate Models". Students will explore how satellite observations can be used to evaluate and improve climate models, and will hear from a range of speakers on climate model diagnostics and evaluation and remote sensing of the planet."

https://climatesciences.jpl.nasa.gov/events/31/

Maybe you should check NASA's Climate Kids site. It's only slightly above your level of understanding.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:45pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:29pm:

Here is Lee arguing that it is valid to compare surface temperatures with lower troposphere measurements, because the lower troposphere is “where we live”.

Are you trying to make a point Lee?

I was not criticising you for using satellite data. I was criticising you for being full of crap. If you took your thermometer to the beach to measure the water temperature, or used a balloon to measure the troposphere temperature, and compared that with the predicted surface temperature, you would be just as full of crap.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Bobby. on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 26^th, 2021 at 9:08pm

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:45pm:

I was not criticising you for using satellite data.

Oh yes you were. Lying again when caught out.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

I see now why you were so embarrassed to post the link - it is based on measured troposphere data, ie up to 18km high.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Frank on May 26^th, 2021 at 9:17pm

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:03pm:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

China, do somefin'!!!

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Bobby. on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 27^th, 2021 at 9:44pm

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 29^th, 2021 at 11:46am

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 7:03pm:

No wonder you're a sheep..... :-*

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-255582

Quote:

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/more-crowd-sourcing-please/

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:49pm

Thanks Ajax, they are great examples of the absolute crap that the climate "skeptics" want normal people to take seriously. Have you figured out why yet, or are you still confused?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Bobby. on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

My point is that such small changes could be normal
and have nothing to do with the CO2 we are creating.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by The_Barnacle on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:01pm

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

My point is that such small changes could be normal
and have nothing to do with the CO2 we are creating.

Do you have any evidence that it could be normal?
Because there is plenty of evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 produce warming

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:05pm

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

My point is that such small changes could be normal
and have nothing to do with the CO2 we are creating.

Only if you are open to all suggestions because you are ignorant of the science Bobby. The changes are caused by the CO2 we are emitting.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:05pm

The_Barnacle wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

My point is that such small changes could be normal
and have nothing to do with the CO2 we are creating.

Do you have any evidence that it could be normal?
Because there is plenty of evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 produce warming

Do you have evidence that it is not normal...........????

Mans emissions are so small they can get lost in the correction factor.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:06pm

Quote:

Do you have evidence that it is not normal...........????

That's what the science says Ajax.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Bobby. on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:13pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2021 at 5:31pm:

Quote:

Wow! Modelling 0.5 degrees, over 50 years, across the entite globe.

You are confused.

Bobby. wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 10:33pm:

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 25^th, 2021 at 9:53pm:

Hi FD,
would you be open to the idea that average temperatures
can normally go up and down 1 to 2 degrees
over periods of centuries?

They can go up and down that much in a few minutes.

I am talking about average global temperatures -
isn't that what you're talking about?

Sure.

If you are trying to make a point Bobby, try making it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

My point is that such small changes could be normal
and have nothing to do with the CO2 we are creating.

Only if you are open to all suggestions because you are ignorant of the science Bobby. The changes are caused by the CO2 we are emitting.

FD - with all due respect you need
to Google
Medieval Warm Period
and
The Roman Warm Period

We've been through this countless times on this MRB
but it seems that hardly anyone has bothered to read it.
So I won't repeat it again.
It's up to those like you to research it yourself
if you are really after the truth.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:20pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:06pm:

Quote:

Do you have evidence that it is not normal...........????

That's what the science says Ajax.

What science......????

You mean computer models..........????

You know the secret to computer models dont you...!!!

Sh!t in Sh!t out........!!!

Thats computer models for you.

Now where is this science.....!!!!????

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:25pm

There is evidence in the OP Ajax. Let us know when you figure out what it is.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:27pm

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:25pm:

There is evidence in the OP Ajax. Let us know when you figure out what it is.

You better go and find that hot spot around the equator FD.... :-*

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-255582

Quote:

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/more-crowd-sourcing-please/

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 29^th, 2021 at 3:07pm

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:27pm:

You better go and find that hot spot around the equator FD...

"The IPCC attempted to hide this lack of a hot spot in the AR5. It is after all critical to their exaggerated positive feedbacks. Professor Christy explains in the quote below.

“Unfortunately, it was buried in the Supplementary Material of Chapter 10 without comment. In Fig. 4, I present the figure that appeared in this IPCC section. I was a reviewer (a relatively minor position in that report) in the AR5 and had insisted that such a figure be shown in the main text because of its profound importance, but the government appointed lead authors decided against it. They opted to place it in the Supplementary Material where little attention would be paid, and to fashion the chart in such a way as to make it difficult to understand and interpret.”

For the period 1979 to 2016. Compare NASA GISS Model (Top Left) to satellite bulk atmosphere observations from UAH (Bottom Left), RSS (Bottom Right) and the Universal RAwinsonde Observation Program (RAOB) (Balloon Data) (Top Right). The observations clearly indicate the lack of the predicted hot spot.

Figure 7. The lack of a hot spot as actually measured compared to modelled.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/16/the-greenhouse-effect-in-a-water-world/

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:31am

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:25pm:

There is evidence in the OP Ajax. Let us know when you figure out what it is.

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/more-crowd-sourcing-please/

Ajax, why do you think your plot ends in 2014?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

How do satellites measure temperature close to the earth's surface?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 30^th, 2021 at 11:13am

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:31am:

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:25pm:

There is evidence in the OP Ajax. Let us know when you figure out what it is.

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/05/more-crowd-sourcing-please/

There are two graphs there FD........ ::) ::) ::)

Quote:

In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 11:16am

I am asking about the first one Ajax. This would have been obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Ajax, why do you think your plot ends in 2014?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

How do satellites measure temperature close to the earth's surface?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on May 30^th, 2021 at 11:25am

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 11:16am:

Don't know is that where it ran out for that particular study/talk/presentation.

What are you suggesting they tried to hide data by cutting the graph short.

Quote:

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

What is wrong with this....?!

Do you know what happens after the satellites obtain this data and what they do with it....????

Quote:

How do satellites measure temperature close to the earth's surface?

You can look that up your self so you can be better educated about these things might help resolve your previous question

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:00pm

Perhaps you would like this one? -

Updated to 2019
Original here - https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/model_obs_comp_nov_2019.pdf

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:09pm

Ajax as a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Quote:

Don't know is that where it ran out for that particular study/talk/presentation.

It "ran out" when everyone realised he was full of crap.

Quote:

What are you suggesting they tried to hide data by cutting the graph short.

I am suggesting that the original author has not bothered updating it because everyone already knows it is a load of crap.

And that, being a climate "skeptic," you are too gullible to be suspicious of it.

Quote:

You can look that up your self

I did. You cannot directly measure air temperature with a satellite. You and Lee have posted temperature "measurements" from two different groups that are based on the same set of satellite data, but which give very different sets of measurements. As far as I can tell, no-one else bothers trying to measure atmospheric temperature with satellites. It took about 30 seconds on google to figure out just how full of crap you are. Not that there is that much value in measuring the amount of crap coming from a climate skeptic. Maybe next time you can save us the trouble and figure this out for yourself.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by The_Barnacle on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:34pm

Here's another Ajax special relying on a graph that measures the RATE of change and comparing it to a graph that measures ACTUAL change.
Any high school student knows that theses graphs can't be compared

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1622340966

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:34pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:09pm:

You cannot directly measure air temperature with a satellite. You and Lee have posted temperature "measurements" from two different groups that are based on the same set of satellite data, but which give very different sets of measurements. As far as I can tell, no-one else bothers trying to measure atmospheric temperature with satellites.

Only NASA? The climate morons? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"These sea surface temperature maps are based on observations by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The satellite measures the temperature of the top millimeter of the ocean surface. "

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYD28M

"Satellites were used to develop an 18-year record (1981-1998) of global land surface temperatures. The data showed that the Earth's snow-free land surfaces, on average, warmed during the period. The findings are in a NASA study published in a recent issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society."

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Earth_Temperature.html

You do understand global temperatures are a combination of land and SST's?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm

The_Barnacle wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:34pm:

They are both in anomalies petal. Any school student would know you can compare anomalies.

"Global temperature data are reported as anomalies, the measure of the amount of departure from a reference value or long-term average."

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/graphing-global-temperature-trends/

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm

lee wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 1:09pm:

Do you understand the difference between atmospheric temperature and land temperature, or ocean temperature?

Why do you think your plot ends in 2014? Hint: it is not just because that is when it was presented.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:51pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

Do you understand the difference between atmospheric temperature and land temperature, or ocean temperature?

Yes petal. That's why they use satellites. They give almost global coverage. You do understand "land temperature" is actually air (atmospheric) temperature - taken ABOVE ground?;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

Why do you think your plot ends in 2014? Hint: it is not just because that is when it was presented.

Perhaps you have a reason please feel free to show you erudition. BTW - I did post an updated graph. Same problem. ;)

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

You tell the climate morons at NASA all about it petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

yes petal the same way they measure Sea Surface Temperature (SST). ;)

They use MSU/AMSU's.

"MSU / AMSU

Satellite measurements of the Earth’s microwave emissions are a crucial element in the development of an accurate system for long-term monitoring of atmospheric temperature. Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.
Microwave Temperature Sounding

Satellites can measure the temperature of the atmosphere by evaluating thermal emission from gases in the atmosphere. Molecular Oxygen has a complex of relatively strong absorption lines near 60 GHz. By choosing the different measurement frequencies, and thus different values of absorptivity, the emission from different layers of the atmosphere can be measured. RSS studies the measurements made by 3 series of satellite-borne microwave sounders in order to construct long-term, climate-quality atmospheric temperature datasets for use by the scientific community. "

http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Laugh till you cry on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:55pm

Proof of global warming:

Denizen Lee has been perpetually hot under the collar since the debate started.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 3:47pm

Quote:

Yes petal. That's why they use satellites. They give almost global coverage. You do understand "land temperature" is actually air (atmospheric) temperature - taken ABOVE ground?

You are so full of crap Lee. From your own link:

Quote:

Unlike scattered ground-based weather observing stations that measure the temperature two to three meters above land, satellites measure ground surface temperature, or skin temperature

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 5:05pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 3:47pm:

You are so full of crap Lee. From your own link:

Quote:
Unlike scattered ground-based weather observing stations that measure the temperature two to three meters above land, satellites measure ground surface temperature, or skin temperature

That sentence does not appear in the reference of amsu's.

Oh I found it. You mean NASA doesn't understand how MSU/AMSU's work. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You don't understand MSU/AMSU's do you?

"Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)"

"These four channels measured the atmospheric temperature in four thick layers spanning the surface through the stratosphere. The were 9 MSUs in total. "

"Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU)"

"Of the 15 channels, 11 (Channels 4 through 14) are located in the 60 GHz absorption complex and thus are most closely related to atmospheric temepratures at various heights above the surface. The increased number of channels relative to MSU means that AMSU-A samples the temperature of the atmosphere in a larger number of layers. The AMSU measurement footprints are also smaller than those for MSU, leading to higher spatial resolution. 3 AMSU channels (Channels 5,7,and 9) are closely matched to MSU channels 2,3 and 4. By using these channels,we have extended our climate-quality dataset to the present."

http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/

I thiught I better repeat the reference as you seemed to have lost it. ;)

BTW - I see you haven't backed up your assertion of a hint. Why is that? It doesn't exist? oh noes. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 6:14pm

The quote about land surface temperatures is from the link you provided about land surface temperatures Lee.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Earth_Temperature.html

At least try to keep up with yourself.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 6:42pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 6:14pm:

The quote about land surface temperatures is from the link you provided about land surface temperatures Lee.

Yes petal. Now tell us why NASA doesn't understand MSU/AMSU's. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I gave you the satellite reference to compare.

Here is NOAA with UAH data -

"This dataset includes monthly gridded temperature anomalies on a global 2.5 x 2.5 degree grid derived from Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) radiance data since December 1978. In addition, there are monthly regional anomalies and monthly mean annual cycle temperatures. All products are derived for four bulk layers of the atmosphere: the Lower Troposphere (TLT), Mid-Troposphere (TMT), Tropopause (TTP) and Lower Stratosphere (TLS). Version 6.0 is the latest UAH version archived at NOAA and is updated monthly."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00961

So tell us about the hint petal. Can't find it? You have gone very quiet on it. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:09pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 6:14pm:

The quote about land surface temperatures is from the link you provided about land surface temperatures Lee.

BTW - If that were true petal then the surface temperature should be warmer than the 2m air temperature; due to the adiabatic lapse rate which gets colder as elevation climbs. But the satellite temperatures are lower than the air temperatures. ::)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:56pm

What do you mean "if that were true"? Are you not capable of reading your own link? Can you not figure it out for yourself? Do you still think land temperature means air temperature?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 30^th, 2021 at 9:43pm

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

What do you mean "if that were true"? Are you not capable of reading your own link?

Ok So now you say that the earth's satellite temperature is warmer than global earthbound temperature; despite rhe satellite data showing that is not so. You can't have it both ways petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Do you still think land temperature means air temperature?

For all intents and purposes yes petal. The dry lapse rate is 9.8C/km. So at 2m it is 9.8*2/1000 or 0.0196C. Huge eh? ;D ;D ;D

The moist air lapse rate is typically 5C/km or 0.01C at 2M. (it depends on how moist the air is)

That 0.01C is finer than the thermometers used. "The thermometer is read to the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius."

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cdo/about/airtemp-measure.shtml

For an earthbound station set at 2M. You really are too funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 31^st, 2021 at 5:40pm

Quote:

Ok So now you say that the earth's satellite temperature is warmer than global earthbound temperature

Still struggling with reading comprehension I see. Do you need me to explain how to read someone's post?

Quote:

For all intents and purposes yes petal.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures, or ocean temperatures, or land temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:32pm

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 5:40pm:

Quote:
Ok So now you say that the earth's satellite temperature is warmer than global earthbound temperature

Still struggling with reading comprehension I see. Do you need me to explain how to read someone's post?

You were the one saying that the satellites were reading skin temperature whilst earth stations measure at 2M. So because of adbiatic lapse rate it gets cooler at higher elevations. That should make the satellite temperatures warmer than the ground station data. So you must be saying that the satellite temperatures are warmer, although that is not the case. Are you three legged? You keep getting tangled and falling down. ;)

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 5:40pm:

Quote:
For all intents and purposes yes petal.

Well it was you who said the readings were from 18km up. But you found you were wrong when you wanted to debunk and came up with skin temperature. I also posted about the adibiatic lapse rate on 18May, but it went right over your head. And nothing you have posted has addressed it at all.

You are such a failure. You just don't want to learn. As I said it doesn't have to be from me; but learn. ::)

So tell us about this hint about satellite temperatures in 2014 that you were promoting. Got lost in translation? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:45pm

Quote:

Lee, it's really quite simple. If you want to know what I am saying, read what I am saying. I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.

Why can't you or Ajax give a straight answer to these questions?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 1:06pm

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:45pm:

If you want to know what I am saying, read what I am saying. I don't know how to dumb it down any further for you.

That's your trouble petal. Too dumb to dumb down anything. What you need to do is dumb it up from your really low level of understanding. But that is not possible. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:45pm:

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

Already answered petal. You just didn't like it. Too bad.

You remember NASA; The climate morons? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 5:43pm

I must have missed your straight answer. What was it?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 5:45pm

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 5:43pm:

I must have missed your straight answer.

That would make you even more ignorant than you appear. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 5:37pm

You don't know what it was either, do you Lee?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 6:19pm

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 5:37pm:

Your ignorance is showing again.

The climate models do things in discrete steps. At least 3 -

1. Northern Hemisphere

2. Southern Hemisphere

3. Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)

So the tropical satellite readings are compared to the models ITCZ prediction. eg.-

"Satellite observations and reanalysis data show a narrowing and strengthening of precipitation in the ITCZ over recent decades in both the Atlantic and Pacific basins, but little change in ITCZ location. Consistent with observations, coupled climate models predict no robust change in the zonal-mean ITCZ location over the twenty-first century. However, the majority of models project a narrowing of the ITCZ and weakening mean ascent. Interestingly, changes in ITCZ width and strength are strongly anti-correlated across models. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30931244/

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 5:37pm:

Do you know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Yes petal. I told you about MSU/AMSU's.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:13pm

Do all climate "skeptics" share your difficulty in giving a straight answer?

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

How do satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:27pm

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:13pm:

Do all climate "skeptics" share your difficulty in giving a straight answer?

No we merely have trouble with ignoramuses.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:13pm:

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

The comparison was between predicted global tropical temperatures and measured tropical temperatures.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 7:21pm

"Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean."

http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/climatemodel.pdf

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 6:33pm

It's a simple question Lee.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Also, how do satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 7:18pm

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 6:33pm:

It's a simple question Lee.

It is a simple question that has been answered. I can't help if you have cognitive dysfunction.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Frank on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 8:43pm

Fossil fuels are solar energy. There is no 'magic' evil human eneery importation from outer space into the economy of the Earth's climate.

Fossil fuels are what plants, mostly, captured of the Sun's energy over a long time.

Here's a question for all the 'scientists' here: what was the point/purpose of capturing all that solar energy in the form of coal, oil and gas? What was Mother gaia thinking? Why IS there sso much sun energy stored in fossil fuels? Some evil fantasy game??

Remember - ALL that energy was transported to Earth? Captured, transformed into fossil fuels - why?
Carbon based life form, carbon fuels, vegetation DEPENDS on exhaling CO2 - ie burning fossil fuels, among other things.

There is absolutely NOTHING man-made happening here. Nothing. Man uses the resources of the Earth.

BAAADD!!!!!!

Well, it's nutty like squirrel poo.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:08am

lee wrote on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 7:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2021 at 6:33pm:

It's a simple question Lee.

It is a simple question that has been answered. I can't help if you have cognitive dysfunction.

It has been clumsily dodged.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Also, how do satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 10:54am

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:08am:

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Quite idiotic to compare

1. Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

with

2. Computer model predicted future temperature outputs, where the information being fed into the computer determines what the outcome will be.

Have you found that hot spot around the equator FD.... ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Also, how do satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

WOW....Still haven't worked that one out have you then stay in the dark ages where you belong.

You see FD once you establish a trend with real world observations (empirical data) this gives you a good platform to make an estimation for the future.

So satellite data gathered the last 40 odd years suggest that we will warm by 1.07°C by end of 21st century.

So we dont have to spend billions on the stock market buying up carbon credits as a nation to keep the temperature rise to under 2°C.

This will happen all on its own.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Frank on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 1:06pm

Obsession

2131f95bda10ca6f19f3c7468bd949e9.jpeg (91 KB | 23 )

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 7:58am

Quote:

Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 10:28am

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 7:58am:

Quote:

Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

I know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature and then how they get the land temperature.

You should look it up, so you stop asking me every time.... :-*

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by UnSubRocky on Jun 7^th, 2021 at 3:43pm

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 7:58am:

Quote:

Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

I bet those satellites, if they could have had them in use 130 years ago, would have shown a great difference in the temperature for the areas that recorded temperatures on the ground.

Practically every city has grown around the world. Many of the environmental detectors have undergone influences from a growing population. More urban heat. More or less humidity. If the city has less trees (such as those being remove to make way for housing and development), you would see less humidity. New nearby parks around the cities would encourage more humidity. More shade in some areas cooling the region. Or more heat from the roads.

Anyway you look at it, the measurements recorded have been skewed because of development.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 7:24am

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7^th, 2021 at 3:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 7:58am:

Quote:

Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

You left out GHG emissions.

Quote:

I know how satellites measure atmospheric temperature

How?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 1:45pm

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2021 at 7:24am:

You left out GHG emissions.

CO2? SO2?

Remember that increasing CO2 has a logarithmic decreasing effect. CO2 doubling is not going to raise temperatures by 7C as postulated by some.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 8:56am

Quote:

CO2 doubling is not going to raise temperatures by 7C as postulated by some.

How much then?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 10:29am

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 8:56am:

Quote:

CO2 doubling is not going to raise temperatures by 7C as postulated by some.

How much then?

What have we got 410ppm to go to 820ppm.

Dont worry FD we're not going to have a runaway greenhouse effect if CO2 doubles dude.

And the temperature may go up by about no more than 1°C.

So stop listening to the doomsayers you might end up doing something you will regret...... :-*

You do realise that in the last 600 million years today atmospheric CO2 level is one of the lowest.

Only one other time has it been this low in 600 million years.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:06pm

Can you explain how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:14pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:06pm:

Can you explain how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

You still haven't found out for yourself...?!?!

Just google it buddy it can explain it much better than I can.... :-* ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:43pm

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 8:56am:

Quote:

CO2 doubling is not going to raise temperatures by 7C as postulated by some.

How much then?

Studies show it is likely less than 2C. The IPCC says 1.5C - 4.5C. The CMIP6 models suggest 7C. But they run hotter than CMIP5.

Also remember Temperature is an intensive property. That means it can't be added, subtracted or averaged - and yet that is what the "global temperature" purports to do.

That is the difference between intensive and extensive. Extensive can be added, subtracted, averaged etc. Sugar, coins etc are extensive. 5c coin + 10c coin = 15cents. It can be divided also.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jun 26^th, 2021 at 8:35am

Ajax wrote on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2021 at 2:06pm:

Can you explain how satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

You still haven't found out for yourself...?!?!

Just google it buddy it can explain it much better than I can.... :-* ;)

What I have found is that even the scientists using satellite data to measure atmospheric temperature do not know how to do it. So you are either very special, or just another lying climate skeptic.

Which is it?

Quote:

Also remember Temperature is an intensive property. That means it can't be added, subtracted or averaged - and yet that is what the "global temperature" purports to do.

I have seen a lot of stupid things posted here, but I think this is a new low.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jun 26^th, 2021 at 1:06pm

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2021 at 8:35am:

What I have found is that even the scientists using satellite data to measure atmospheric temperature do not know how to do it.

Exactly how did you find this? ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2021 at 8:35am:

Quote:
Also remember Temperature is an intensive property. That means it can't be added, subtracted or averaged - and yet that is what the "global temperature" purports to do.

I have seen a lot of stupid things posted here, but I think this is a new low.

So tell us where it is wrong. If the temperature at you place is 26C and the temperature at my place is 45C we can't average it, subtract it or added together. Unlike that sugar - if you have 1kg and I have 2kg - between us we have 3kg; I have 1kg more that you, if we average it we would have 1.5kg each. ::)

https://study.com/academy/answer/why-is-temperature-an-intensive-property.html

https://www.lorecentral.org/2018/12/20-examples-of-intensive-and-extensive-properties.html

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 2:04pm

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2021 at 8:35am:

You're either a brainwashed sheep or you are on the AGW payroll.

Come on FD fess up which is it.....???..... :-*

Quote:

I have seen a lot of stupid things posted here, but I think this is a new low.

You take the land temperature you take the water temperature add (them together) a bit of pepper and lemon halve it and presto

You get the global average mean temperature.

What is so hard to understand about that makes you think its stupid........ :-*

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 2:13pm

Just because satellite data (observations of the real world) or better known as empirical data disagree with the AGW narrative of course they will attack it, anything that goes against the narrative will be attacked you haven't figured this out yet.

We have temperature taken with thermometers in certain places around the world that's land and sea, they do not cover all the Earth mind you, just bits and pieces here and there.

So you add land and sea or ocean temperatures halve it and you get the global mean average temperature.

Of course these data sets have been fiddled with to agree with those HOPELESS climate models that cannot tell you what will happen tomorrow let alone in a hundred years.

Unless they too are fiddled with after the fact.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 2:39pm

Surface Temperature of the Planet Earth from Satellite Data

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/2/218

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ajax on Jun 27^th, 2021 at 2:40pm

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/2/218

More discussion on satellite temperature measurements

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/09/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 9^th, 2021 at 6:22pm

I am aware that you have learnt to copy and paste Ajax. What I asked was, do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 8:25am

Also, why do the only two groups using satellite data to measure atmospheric temperature disagree with themselves and each other on what temperature they are measuring?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 12:44pm

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 8:25am:

Also, why do the only two groups using satellite data to measure atmospheric temperature disagree with themselves and each other on what temperature they are measuring?

They use differing algorithms petal.

Of course those that don't do satellite data rely on use the Reynolds Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature. And according to Phil Jones CRU the normals for the SST in the Southern hemisphere were mostly made up.

"Tom,
      The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
   of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
   5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
   we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH
   between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
   very little ship data there.
      Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to
   the ocean.

You could try doing an additional plot. Download from
   the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if
   is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that
   still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the
   problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real.
   Cheers
   Phil"

Dated 2009.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

So no real data until about 2000. And yet you pin your faith to temperature reconstructions going back to 1880 or in some cases 1850. Of course there would be even less data from 40S to 85S. Bizarre.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:51pm

Quote:

They use differing algorithms petal.

So they get different "measurements" from the same set of satellite data?

How do you know which one is correct?

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 8:27pm

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 5:51pm:

So they get different "measurements" from the same set of satellite data?

yeah the same as NOAA, HadCruT and GIStemp and yet you have no trouble with them. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 6:01pm

The only reason we have any confidence at all in the attempts to measure atmospheric temperature with satellites is that after correcting countless errors and drastically changing their "measurements," they are finally getting close to what the climate models predict.

Which is why you cannot even explain how to measure atmospheric temperature data with a satellite, and why you use dodgy looking graphs that are ten years old to further your lies.

You are full of crap lee.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 7:32pm

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 6:01pm:

That's hilarious after your previous attempts to belittle them. Remember I showed that REMSS graph and how the climate models were getting further away from them. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Did you notice how the models were closer to the data earlier rather than later in the series? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:54am

Quote:

Did you notice how the models were closer to the data earlier rather than later in the series?

That's how anomaly plots work Lee. Are you really that clueless?

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Can you give an example of anyone other than fools on the internet taking your dodgy temperature plots from a decade ago seriously?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 12:05pm

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:54am:

That's how anomaly plots work Lee. Are you really that clueless?

What that the difference between the climate models and the satellite data is widening. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes petal it is and it shows the models are warming too much. The clueless one is you.

You really should get a clue.

Edit: "Fig. 1. Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)"

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 8:40am

Quote:

Yes petal it is and it shows the models are warming too much. The clueless one is you.

The offset is entirely arbitrary. They could also make it narrowing. That's how anomaly plots work Lee. Are you really that clueless?

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Can you give an example of anyone other than fools on the internet taking your dodgy temperature plots from a decade ago seriously?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 11:25am

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 8:40am:

The offset is entirely arbitrary. They could also make it narrowing.

It isn't arbitrary. The models are showing warming as compared to observations.

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 8:40am:

That's how anomaly plots work Lee.

No petal. Anomalies may go up and down but they should also go up and down in some sort of sync with the observations. They don't. ::)

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2021 at 8:40am:

Can you give an example of anyone other than fools on the internet taking your dodgy temperature plots from a decade ago seriously?

Poor petal. Can you give any evidence of anyone, bar you of course, who disbelieves the satellite data. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Even SkepSci acknowledges the problem. Carl Mears of RSS (or REMSS if you prefer) is a climate alarmist.But even he admits the models are warming too fast. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 8:49am

Quote:

It isn't arbitrary. The models are showing warming as compared to observations.

The warming is not the offset Lee.

The people who use satellites to measure atmospheric temperature have not claimed to be measuring a cooling trend for a long time. They have corrected a lot of errors since then. It is only liars and morons on the internet (climate "skeptics") still peddling that crap.

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Can you give an example of anyone other than fools on the internet taking your dodgy temperature plots from a decade ago seriously?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 11:53am

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

The warming is not the offset Lee.

Offset against what exactly? The satellites have their anomaly data. The models have their anomaly data. So you tell us how it is done. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

The people who use satellites to measure atmospheric temperature have not claimed to be measuring a cooling trend for a long time.

So who is claiming a cooling trend for "a long time"?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

Do you know how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Yes you have been told many times. You refuse to learn. You started out saying it was bunk. Then you went to maybe it is not bunk. And no where have you shown you know anything about it.

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2021 at 8:49am:

Can you give an example of anyone other than fools on the internet taking your dodgy temperature plots from a decade ago seriously?

The plot is up to 2018. Nowhere near a decade ago. So now we know you can't even read a graph. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 10:17am

Quote:

Offset against what exactly?

Let me say this real slowly. The offset is arbitrary.

Quote:

So who is claiming a cooling trend for "a long time"?

Not any more. They fixed a lot of mistakes.

Quote:

Yes

Can you tell us how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite?

Quote:

You refuse to learn. You started out saying it was bunk.

Even the people who use satellites to measure atmospheric temperature say the "measurements" you posted are bunk. That's why you post primary school looking plots from a decade ago, like an idiot. You are so full of crap that even the people you are quoting think you are full of crap.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 12:22pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 10:17am:

Let me say this real slowly. The offset is arbitrary.

It doesn't matter how slowly you say it - you are wrong. You keep chnaging your position. So is it offset or not? Do you want to increase the offsets at the start so it doesn't seem as bad at the start or at the end?

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 10:17am:

Even the people who use satellites to measure atmospheric temperature say the "measurements" you posted are bunk.

Then it should not be too hard to find them saying precisely that. "Our measurements are bunk". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

quote author=freediver link=1621933415/89#89 date=1626999429]Quote:
So who is claiming a cooling trend for "a long time"?

Not any more. They fixed a lot of mistakes.[/quote]

Poor petal. Doesn't know about satellite drift. That's a correction petal. Not a mistake. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 10:17am:

That's why you post primary school looking plots from a decade ago, like an idiot.

Poor petal. Failed maths again 2 years is not a decade. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2021 at 10:17am:

Quote:
So who is claiming a cooling trend for "a long time"?

Not any more. They fixed a lot of mistakes.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am

Lee are you able to explain how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite or not? Right now the only possible conclusion is that you are way out of your depth and have no clue what you are talking about.

Quote:

Poor petal. Failed maths again 2 years is not a decade.

It is not maths Lee. It is plain English. Read what I actually posted.

Quote:

What do you think zero offset means?

Quote:

Then it should not be too hard to find them saying precisely that. "Our measurements are bunk".

You cannot offer a rational explanation for why you posted ten year old plots that look like they were done by a primary school students. The reason is that even the people who came up with those "measurements" think they are bunk.

But in any case, see the examples from wikipedia below where they admit a long series of errors.

Quote:

Poor petal. Doesn't know about satellite drift. That's a correction petal. Not a mistake.

It is a mistake (one of many) if they do not correct for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Quote:

Pre-1998 results published by UAH showed no warming of the atmosphere. In a 1998 paper, Wentz and Schabel showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[10] With these errors corrected, the UAH data showed a 0.07 °C/decade increase in lower troposphere temperature.

Some discrepancies between the UAH temperature measurements and temperatures measured by other groups remain, with (as of 2019) the lower troposphere temperature trend from 1979-2019 calculated as +0.13 °C/decade by UAH,[6][7] and calculated at +0.208 °C/decade by RSS.

The table below summarizes the adjustments that have been applied to the UAH TLT dataset.[11] [12] The 'trend correction' refers to the change in global mean decadal temperature trend in degrees Celsius/decade as a result of the correction.

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, had been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011, at which time the RSS and UAH TLT were now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remained, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends. However, in June 2017 RSS released version 4 which significantly increased the trend from 0.136 to 0.184 K/decade substantially increasing the difference again.

In other words, crap. Climate "skeptics" share old data on facebook that has long since been shown to be crap. They are so desperate to believe it they do not take 30 seconds to figure out why they are posting schoolboy plots from a decade ago.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 11:16am

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

Already been done.It s not my fault it is beyond your comprehension. ;)

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

It is not maths Lee. It is plain English. Read what I actually posted.

Yep. And again the plot is up to 2018. Not decades. ;)

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

What do you think zero offset means?

It means petal that the anomalies are not centred so that they cannot be compared. Now if you have another please tell us. ;)

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

Which ten year old plots petal? ;D ;D ;D But you haven't posted a link so you don't have that. Just another lie.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

But in any case, see the examples from wikipedia below where they admit a long series of errors.

"Yesterday it was reported that Sanger now believes no one should believe Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can no longer be trusted as a source of unbiased information since the online encyclopedia’s left-leaning volunteers cut out any news that doesn’t fit their agenda, according to the site’s co-founder.

Larry Sanger, 52, co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 alongside Jimmy Wales, said the crowdsourcing project has betrayed its original mission by reflecting the views of the ‘establishment.’ "

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/nobody-trust-wikipedia-co-founder-wikipedia-larry-sanger/

Wiki? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - Nothing there about "mistakes". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You really are getting desperate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

It is a mistake (one of many) if they do not correct for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Mistake not mentioned there either. ;)

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

So no mistake. And corrected. Oh dear.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

Some discrepancies between the UAH temperature measurements and temperatures measured by other groups remain, with (as of 2019) the lower troposphere temperature trend from 1979-2019 calculated as +0.13 °C/decade by UAH,[6][7] and calculated at +0.208 °C/decade by RSS.

So which is correct?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, had been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011, at which time the RSS and UAH TLT were now within 0.003 K/decade of one another.

Wow that far back. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 26^th, 2021 at 6:58pm

Quote:

Already been done.

No it hasn't. You are not able to explain how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. You are out of your depth already.

Quote:

So no mistake.

You are confused. The article has a very long list of errors that have been corrected. Only an idiot or a compulsive liar (who cannot even explain how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite) would use this as proof that the current "measurements" contain no errors.

Quote:

So which is correct?

I expect neither. Which do you think is correct?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 26^th, 2021 at 7:45pm

freediver wrote on Jul 26^th, 2021 at 6:58pm:

Poor petal

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2021 at 8:43am:

It is a mistake (one of many) if they do not correct for it.

They have corrected for it. So you are simply a liar - first saying they weren't corrected and now saying they are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 26^th, 2021 at 6:58pm:

So which is correct?

I think that the graphic is correct and that the models are diverging from reality as bot UAH and RSS state. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 27^th, 2021 at 5:20pm

So you think they are both correct, even though they give different "measurements"?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 27^th, 2021 at 6:20pm

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2021 at 5:20pm:

So you think they are both correct, even though they give different "measurements"?

They are still within the uncertainty bars. Whereas the models are diverging. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 6:03pm

What uncertainty bars? You are full of crap Lee.

You lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 6:43pm

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 6:03pm:

What uncertainty bars? You are full of crap Lee.

poor petal. Everything has uncertainty (or error bars if you will). The"global" temperature from HadCRUt, from NOAA etc all have the uncertainty (error) bars.

June Ranks and Records
Land +1.42 ± 0.19 +2.56 ± 0.34

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202106

They are the uncertainties. So you have now shown that you don't understand satellites, you lie about any corrections, you don't understand uncertainty (error) bars, and you think model land is reality. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 29^th, 2021 at 7:27pm

You are full of crap Lee. I was not asking you to google uncertainty bar and copy the first result you could find.

Also, you lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 29^th, 2021 at 7:47pm

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

I was not asking you to google uncertainty bar and copy the first result you could find.

No - you just wanted to lie again. Why is that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - it wasn't the first I could find. it was targeted because I know NOAA have the uncertainty bars.

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2021 at 7:27pm:

Also, you lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite.

Ah you forgot already?

lee wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 2:51pm:

They use MSU/AMSU's.

"MSU / AMSU

Satellite measurements of the Earth’s microwave emissions are a crucial element in the development of an accurate system for long-term monitoring of atmospheric temperature. Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.
Microwave Temperature Sounding

Satellites can measure the temperature of the atmosphere by evaluating thermal emission from gases in the atmosphere. Molecular Oxygen has a complex of relatively strong absorption lines near 60 GHz. By choosing the different measurement frequencies, and thus different values of absorptivity, the emission from different layers of the atmosphere can be measured. RSS studies the measurements made by 3 series of satellite-borne microwave sounders in order to construct long-term, climate-quality atmospheric temperature datasets for use by the scientific community. "

http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu/

You can't even lie straight in bed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Jul 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am

Lee, do you understand that a measurement is not "correct" merely because you can google an unrelated uncertainty bar bigger than the amount they change their mind by? Did you fail high school maths?

Also, you lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. Your ability to use google does not change this.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Jul 31^st, 2021 at 11:16am

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

Lee, do you understand that a measurement is not "correct" merely because you can google an unrelated uncertainty bar bigger than the amount they change their mind by? Did you fail high school maths?

No petal. How come you are only interested in any failings in satellite measurement but not how well the models are doing? ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

Also, you lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. Your ability to use google does not change this.

It doesn't matter how I did it - the fact is I did it. That's what people do when they want to learn. You on the other hand show no such inclination Why is that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 8:39am

Quote:

It doesn't matter how I did it - the fact is I did it.

Copying and pasting isn't really a skill Lee. The point is you do not understand what you are talking about.

Quote:

No petal. How come you are only interested in any failings in satellite measurement but not how well the models are doing?

I have made plenty of posts about how well the models are doing. See the opening post of this thread for an example. Here it is again:

You'll note that it is a good example of using uncertainty bar to provide transparency regarding the level of uncertainty.

The uncertainty bars reflect known uncertainties Lee, not mistakes. That's why you cannot google someone else's published uncertainties and use it as an argument that you did not make a mistake. It takes a special kind of uneducated moron (aka climate skeptic) to invent that trick.

Do you know what the uncertainty levels are for your "measurements"?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 11:54am

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 8:39am:

Copying and pasting isn't really a skill Lee.

No But you do it so well. And you don't even show the derivation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 8:39am:

I have made plenty of posts about how well the models are doing.

Ah. The Zeke Hausfather study. ;D ;D ;D ;D

NASA didn't do the study; merely reported it. Out of 100 odd models they chose 17; yep that should be good enough. Cherry pick much. ;D ;D ;D ;D

" In about 9 of the 17 model projections examined, the projected forcings were within the uncertainty envelope of observational forcing ensemble.
However, the remaining 8 models – RS71, H81 scenario 1, H88 scenarios A, B, and C, FAR, MS93, and TAR – had projected forcings significantly stronger or weaker than observed (Figure 1). "

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
So only about half of the models were within their self selected range. And NASA etc only reported those that fell within their guidelines. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

They used GISTemp and derivatives but not HadCruT. Gistemp has smoothing of 250km and 1200km. 1200km over the Arctic. Good enough for government work. ;)

So there you have it. The paper is not worth the paper it was written on. You can of course tell us where you believe Hausfather's paper is right. ;)

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 8:39am:

Do you know what the uncertainty levels are for your "measurements"?

You have already said that the corrections are smaller than the uncertainties, You tell us. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 1^st, 2021 at 3:16pm

BTW - Why do even modellers say that they are projection too warm?

"But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast."

...

"Already scientific papers are appearing using CMIP’s unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100, adding fire to what are already well-justified fears. But that practice needs to change, Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

That's Gavin Schmidt, co-author of the paper you touted. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 2^nd, 2021 at 6:46am

They look pretty good so far:

Quote:

You have already said that the corrections are smaller than the uncertainties, You tell us.

No I haven't. Why do climate "skeptics" lie so habitually?

Do you understand that it is a lie to insist your temperature measurements are correct because you can find a completely unrelated error bar that is bigger than one of their mistakes?

Would you like to have another go at telling us which of the various measurements of atmospheric temperatures from satellites, if any, you think are correct?

You lied when you said you were capable of explaining how to measure atmospheric temperature with a satellite. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 2^nd, 2021 at 11:19am

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2021 at 6:46am:

Quote:
You have already said that the corrections are smaller than the uncertainties, You tell us.

No I haven't. Why do climate "skeptics" lie so habitually?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2021 at 7:41am:

Lee, do you understand that a measurement is not "correct" merely because you can google an unrelated uncertainty bar bigger than the amount they change their mind by?

You are just trolling. All has been explained. You don't want to know. We understand that because you "believe". You can't even read the "science" that I gave from the paper referred to y NASA. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The liar is you.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 3^rd, 2021 at 6:59am

Do you know what the uncertainty is on your satellite "measurements" of atmospheric temperature?

Or are you full of crap?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 3^rd, 2021 at 12:03pm

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2021 at 6:59am:

Do you know what the uncertainty is on your satellite "measurements" of atmospheric temperature?

Yes and so do you. You told us you did. ;)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 4^th, 2021 at 7:41am

What is it Lee?

Or are you full of crap?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ayn Marx on Aug 4^th, 2021 at 7:58am

Measurements, shmeasurements already. Reality will soon grab you all by the balls anyway.

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 4^th, 2021 at 11:22am

Measurements, without adjustments, are reality.

The rest is "feelings". :)

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 6:35am

They make regular "adjustments" to the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature that you keep bringing up.

Are you trying to disown your own BS now Lee?

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by Ayn Marx on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 10:50am

Those of you who imagine climate change is a delusion need read no further :-
https://link.newyorker.com/view/5d87c528283d8e22f8320025eod5h.u8x/a2b64a1f

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by lee on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 11:05am

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 6:35am:

They make regular "adjustments" to the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature that you keep bringing up.

poor petal. Just doesn't understand satellites. These orbiting satellites are not geostationary. ;)

But he otherwise believes adjustments such as BoM does from 100 years ago are better than ok. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Post by freediver on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 8:03am

Were the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature correct before or after the adjustments Lee?

And why are you so fond of posting the older "measurements"?