In Defense of Statellite Temperature Data

[Threegoofs]

Nope, that is the issue with "Mike's Nature Trick". Michael Man had to truncate his dendro record and tack the instrumental record to the end because the tree ring data was diverging drastically in the instrumental era.

Not even close. You can't even get denier blogs straight.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not even close. You can't even get denier blogs straight.

Wouldn't that suggest he isn't reading a denier blog?

Think....

 

[Threegoofs]

Wouldn't that suggest he isn't reading a denier blog?

Think....

Well...no. All the denier concepts are there, just moved around incoherently.

Did you think after you read it?

 

[jmotivator]

Not even close. You can't even get denier blogs straight.

It's exactly correct no matter how many alarmist blogs you read.

 

[humbolt]

Why don't you just say "What difference at this point does it make?" ... these days it's kind of the accepted vernacular for when a person feels icky answering a question.

Yet we'll both know you finally agreed the H.S. was a sham built on bad data

... but, following my suggestion you won't have to actually say the words.
See?
It'd be a Win Win.

Yep. I'd like to hear exactly how some fairy tale "context" could possibly alter this remark: - "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." That's not science. It's crap.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep. I'd like to hear exactly how some fairy tale "context" could possibly alter this remark: - "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." That's not science. It's crap.

You should get together with jmotivator. You both have read a bunch of denier stuff, but don't know the context and don't understand the difference between proxy, satellite and surface data- but you 'know' it's all a scam!

 

[humbolt]

You should get together with jmotivator. You both have read a bunch of denier stuff, but don't know the context and don't understand the difference between proxy, satellite and surface data- but you 'know' it's all a scam!

You can't explain the context of the remark I quoted, but you continue to claim such remarks are taken out of context. You AGW guys are long on such excuses, but completely lack proof of just about everything you claim.

 

[Jack Hays]

The only reason you love satellite data is because it tends to produce data that supports your world-view that temperatures have stopped rising. Problem is that sattelites actually measure microwave emissions from oxygen molecules far above the atmosphere and then infer surface temperature from these readings, and it is well known in the scientific community that there are lots of problems with Satellite data. For example orbital drift by Sattelites and calibration differences makes it difficult to keep their data accurate.

I love satellite data because it is more accurate and not subject to outcome-directed "adjustments." The rest of your claims are refuted in the link.

 

[bubbabgone]

You should get together with jmotivator. You both have read a bunch of denier stuff, but don't know the context and don't understand the difference between proxy, satellite and surface data- but you 'know' it's all a scam!

So what was the context that rescued the quote from ignominy?

 

[bubbabgone]

HS?

You seem to be trying to quickly bury any point you were trying to make.

Hmmmm.
Maybe this is simply a problem of miscommunication.
What exactly do you think the point was that I was trying to make.

 

[humbolt]

You should get together with jmotivator. You both have read a bunch of denier stuff, but don't know the context and don't understand the difference between proxy, satellite and surface data- but you 'know' it's all a scam!

You have problems telling the difference between truth and falsehood. You've read a bunch of fluffy stuff that makes you think you know something, but when pushed for proof, you have nothing substantive to offer beyond insult. If the truth is so apparent to you, you should have no problem stating it.

 

[Threegoofs]

You have problems telling the difference between truth and falsehood. You've read a bunch of fluffy stuff that makes you think you know something, but when pushed for proof, you have nothing substantive to offer beyond insult. If the truth is so apparent to you, you should have no problem stating it.

The issue was about paleoclimate data. You responded with some rambling about HADCRUT data.

 

[bubbabgone]

I love satellite data because it is more accurate and not subject to outcome-directed "adjustments." The rest of your claims are refuted in the link.

HA! Don't be so naive. They've come up with something so much more accurate. Haven't you heard?

 

[joG]

An arbitrary temperature point in an area representing roughly 2% of the planet's surface isn't exactly a smoking gun, chief. Wouldn't you rather use global figures?

Sure. Do you have a link?

 

[joG]

There's been lots of sniping from AGW believers, calling satellite temperature data into question. Here Dr. John Christy weighs in.

Climate News
In defense of satellite temperature data – Dr. John Christy’s powerful Senate testimony yesterday

From the “yes, but satellite data is good enough when they want to scream the Arctic is melting” department comes this powerful takedown of recent claims about the satellite temperature data being inferior to surface temperature data. I was traveling yesterday, so could not cover this live. Dr. Christy said in testimony:
‘When you look at the United States record of extreme high temperatures you do not see an upward trend at all. In fact, it’s slightly downward. That does fly in the face of climate model projections.

I’ll say.

Thanks. I cannot remember seeing that one before.

 

[humbolt]

The issue was about paleoclimate data. You responded with some rambling about HADCRUT data.

It's indicative of the failure to offer clean data that permeates the entire AGW foundation. I don't expect you to see any connection because you condone such practices, and laughably do so in the name of science.

 

[Threegoofs]

It's indicative of the failure to offer clean data that permeates the entire AGW foundation. I don't expect you to see any connection because you condone such practices, and laughably do so in the name of science.

Its all a conspiracy!

Wrong section, dude.

 

[humbolt]

Its all a conspiracy!

Wrong section, dude.

And again, this ^ is all you can manage. Pitiful.

 

[Threegoofs]

And again, this ^ is all you can manage. Pitiful.

If you were worthy of a more comprehensive response, you would have gotten it.

 

[humbolt]

If you were worthy of a more comprehensive response, you would have gotten it.

If you were capable of offering substantive evidence based on factual information, I suppose you'd have done it by now, too. It appears that you are not only not well disposed to address the seriously rotten data you use for your beliefs, but that you don't know what that seriously rotten data might be. Please note that these are beliefs of yours, because they don't have the necessary requirements to constitute knowledge. Knowledge is based on evidence, and evidence requires truth.

 

[flogger]

If you were capable of offering substantive evidence based on factual information, I suppose you'd have done it by now, too. It appears that you are not only not well disposed to address the seriously rotten data you use for your beliefs, but that you don't know what that seriously rotten data might be. Please note that these are beliefs of yours, because they don't have the necessary requirements to constitute knowledge. Knowledge is based on evidence, and evidence requires truth.

I suggest you look at the last half dozen or more responses this guy has made to you and to various posters here then seriously ask yourself this question

'Why am I bothering' ?

 

[humbolt]

I suggest you look at the last half dozen or more responses this guy has made to you and to various posters here then seriously ask yourself this question

'Why am I bothering' ?

Yeah, I dunno why I bother. I guess it's because he claims to be a scientist, but gives all appearances of having read only that with which he agrees in advance of the reading. Part of the "I only read good books" crowd.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, I dunno why I bother. I guess it's because he claims to be a scientist, but gives all appearances of having read only that with which he agrees in advance of the reading. Part of the "I only read good books" crowd.

As opposed to 'I read any trash put in front of me and believe it' crowd?

LOL.

 

[flogger]

Yeah, I dunno why I bother. I guess it's because he claims to be a scientist, but gives all appearances of having read only that with which he agrees in advance of the reading. Part of the "I only read good books" crowd.

How many 'scientists' do you think would use moronic words like 'denierstan' and 'bizarroland' in any debate about a scientific hypothesis ?

 

[humbolt]

As opposed to 'I read any trash put in front of me and believe it' crowd?

LOL.

Actually, as opposed to being scientifically inquisitive - something about which you know little or nothing. Your sole criteria in reading or subscribing to anything is who wrote it and what do they promote in advance of the reading. That's an intellectually primitive approach and seriously unscientific, but hey, it's you. Go with it.