Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print
Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data (Read 32083 times)
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #90 - Jul 23rd, 2021 at 12:22pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 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 23rd, 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". Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #91 - Jul 24th, 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:
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?


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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2021 at 9:09am by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #92 - Jul 24th, 2021 at 11:16am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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.


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

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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. Wink

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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. Wink

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


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

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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-wikip...

Wiki? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

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

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

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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. Wink

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



So no mistake. And corrected. Oh dear.

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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 24th, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #93 - Jul 26th, 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?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #94 - Jul 26th, 2021 at 7:45pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2021 at 6:58pm:
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.



Poor petal

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 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. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #95 - Jul 27th, 2021 at 5:20pm
 
So you think they are both correct, even though they give different "measurements"?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #96 - Jul 27th, 2021 at 6:20pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 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. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #97 - Jul 28th, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #98 - Jul 28th, 2021 at 6:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 28th, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #99 - Jul 29th, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #100 - Jul 29th, 2021 at 7:47pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 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? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

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

freediver wrote on Jul 29th, 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 30th, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #101 - Jul 31st, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #102 - Jul 31st, 2021 at 11:16am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 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? Grin Grin Grin Grin

freediver wrote on Jul 31st, 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? Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #103 - Aug 1st, 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"?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2021 at 9:12am by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Climate “skeptics” lie: measured temperature data
Reply #104 - Aug 1st, 2021 at 11:54am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2021 at 8:39am:
I have made plenty of posts about how well the models are doing.


Ah. The Zeke Hausfather study. Grin Grin Grin Grin

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. Grin Grin Grin Grin

" 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. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

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

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. Wink

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 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. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print