- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
As I thought, mere propaganda.
[h=1]Yet Even More Nonsense from Grant Foster (Tamino) et al. on the Bias Adjustments in the New NOAA Pause-Buster Sea Surface Temperature Dataset[/h] Guest Post by Bob Tisdale UPDATE: It was pointed out in a comment that the model-data comparison in the post was skewed. I was comparing modeled marine air temperature minus modeled sea surface temperature anomalies to observed night marine air temperature minus sea surface temperature anomalies. Close, but not quite the same. I’ve crossed out…
July 25, 2015 in Hiatus in Global Warming.
[h=1]Tamino (Grant Foster) is Back at His Old Tricks…That Everyone (But His Followers) Can See Through[/h] Or In a Discussion of the Hiatus Since 1998, Grant Foster Presents Trends from 1970 to 2010, Go Figure! Guest Post by Bob Tisdale Statistician Grant Foster (a.k.a. blogger Tamino, who also likes to call himself Hansen’s Bulldog) is back to his one of his old debate tactics again: redirection. Or maybe a squirrel passed…
I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.As I thought, mere propaganda.
Nice try, but no points.
Didn't watch the video, did you?
Please provide a link to your graph.
I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.
Denier FAIL.
Yet another assertion without evidence.
Denier FAIL.
I'm surprised that Watts used that video, but the alarmists are lying about how the data works... 2PM to 6 PM... Alatitude difference? OPure BS. The altitude doesn't matter. They look at specific spectral frequencies and compare the differences. Not the absolute values.
These climatologists like Mann don't understand how they work. They are making it up! it is clear to me. I understand how they work!
They are rationalizing.
Satellites have limitations, but the way the alarmist rationalize the errors... is flat out wrong!
I'm surprised that Watts used that video, but the alarmists are lying about how the data works... 2PM to 6 PM... Alatitude difference? OPure BS. The altitude doesn't matter. They look at specific spectral frequencies and compare the differences. Not the absolute values.
These climatologists like Mann don't understand how they work. They are making it up! it is clear to me. I understand how they work!
They are rationalizing.
Satellites have limitations, but the way the alarmist rationalize the errors... is flat out wrong!
Its pseudoscience on its face. And there are many who can't see that.
You'd better inform Roy Spencer that he doesn't know what he's talking about then.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04...e-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts), NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9 after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).
3) The orbit altitude decay effect (which has been large only for calculation of the old LT), as well as different satellites’ altitudes, is automatically handled since we use routine satellite ephemeris updates to calculate Earth incidence angles, which are the new basis for Tb estimation, not footprint positions per se.
Good old LoP - everything is so clear to him, yet those dumb ol' scientists just don't get it! :lol:
He's not making the same claim.You'd better inform Roy Spencer that he doesn't know what he's talking about then.
Fig. 1. Local ascending node times for all satellites in our archive carrying MSU or AMSU temperature monitoring instruments. We do not use NOAA-17, Metop (failed AMSU7), NOAA-16 (excessive calibration drifts), NOAA-14 after July, 2001 (excessive calibration drift), or NOAA-9 after Feb. 1987 (failed MSU2).
Simple trigonometric equation changes, already known factors in all launches. The heat change from orbital degradation is not a factor, because if the spectra they are looking at.3) The orbit altitude decay effect (which has been large only for calculation of the old LT), as well as different satellites’ altitudes, is automatically handled since we use routine satellite ephemeris updates to calculate Earth incidence angles, which are the new basis for Tb estimation, not footprint positions per se.
Yet calibration drift wasn't mentioned in the video.Good old LoP - everything is so clear to him, yet those dumb ol' scientists just don't get it! :lol:
Meanwhile, Flogger has a solid track record of being unable to explain the data.
I take it that "propaganda" is your word for data that you disagree with but cannot refute.
Denier FAIL.
If you're going to debate data you need data.
OMG... Did you follow up any anything in his blog?
Did you replicate his methodology, and see the 87 stations, and how they are modelled?
I explain it by your desperate need to falsify things that don't fit your agenda. You are perhaps the scariest warmer posting here because none have indulged the sort of fraudulent behaviour you have exhibited :roll:
Using data pre 1998 to disprove the lack of warming since 1998 is called lying.
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Using data pre 1998 to disprove the lack of warming since 1998 is called lying.
No, it's called science. Ignoring the data pre-1998 for political reasons is called lying.
OMG. Did you read his post? Did you see 87 stations? Did you see a model? Or did you just make stuff up again?
I've posted data. You've posted insults.
Denier FAIL.
Yet another assertion without evidence.
Denier FAIL.
Yet another assertion without evidence.
Denier FAIL.
No, it's called science. Ignoring the data pre-1998 for political reasons is called lying.
no one that actually upholds any kind of scientific standard would call the AGW claims
science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?