Global Satellite Temperature Data Agree!!!! No Warming In Nearly 20 Years!!!

There’s fewer and fewer places for the climate alarmist lunatics to hide.  Yesterday, Scott alerted me to this post from Dr. Spencer.

Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade

This resolves one of the few issues I’ve had with the larger global warming debate.  The satellite data didn’t really agree.  For questions regarding why, and what was done in the recalculating of the UAH data, please read the post.  It’s straightforward, and unquestionably, an improvement.  But, this is what grabbed my eye …..

After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.

Throughout the climate debate, RSS satellite data was often disregarded as an outlier.  But, the correction for the diurnal drift by UAH is empirical based!  And, it now brings it in very close agreement with RSS.  That is to say, thought was confirm by data!

I’d love to go into more detail as to why theory says the lower troposphere temps should echo the land temps, but, I’m short on time.  Perhaps one of the commentators can. 

For the uninitiated, what this does, is that it condemns and confirms what we all already knew.  The global temp averages of the land based thermometers are unreliable, and are being manipulated to show warming which doesn’t exist.  Now, there’s much more to say on the notion of an “average global temperature”, especially in anomaly form, but, one step at a time! 

Without further ado, here’s the satellite temperature data since 1997. 

image

The satellites say there’s been no warming during this period.

UAH data here

RSS data from here, which sources to original.

 

h/t Scott

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Global Satellite Temperature Data Agree!!!! No Warming In Nearly 20 Years!!!

  1. gator69 says:

    So no warming since these songs were a hit?

    What is going on? 😆

    • squid2112 says:

      Hey Gator,

      I can’t reply to you on Heller’s blog (because he is a hypocrite, doesn’t believe in censorship unless he is the one doing the censoring) so I will post a reply to you here because James doesn’t censor like Heller does …

      so, you posted the NASA CO2 animation (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/more-flagrant-lies-from-climate-scientists/#comment-519338), and I wanted to also provide for you an image from the NASA OCO2 satellite that shows just how much their little model animation is wrong.

      You may want to consider posting that little gem along with your NASA video.

      And hey, thanks for all the good work … keep it up!

      • gator69 says:

        Thanks squid! I also noticed the video was not representing the contributions of the southern hemisphere, not sure how they did that, but my main point of illustration was that CO2 is not a “well mixed gas”. Thanks for the image, I will post it now.

        Have you been bore holed at Tony’s?

        • squid2112 says:

          Yeah, he threw me out a while back. He didn’t like me posting comments that were inconvenient for him. I seem to have hit a nerve. We were in a bit of an argument over the so-called “greenhouse effect”. I provided empirical counter to his arguments that he didn’t like. Finally, he just tossed me out. I think when I had pointed out his own argument refuted his own position, that is when I struck the nerve. I haven’t been able to post since.

        • gator69 says:

          That is one topic about which Tony has zero tolerance, for whatever reason. He and I got into it once because I object to the name “greenhouse” effect. As I explained to him, a greenhouse must have human controls or it can overheat, and our atmosphere needs no such controls. Tony argued that point, and I made him eat his words, by posting an aricle that explained how a greenhouse will overheat, if vents are not opened at certain times.

          Like I have said before, I call it the “outhouse” effect. It stinks, it’s FOS, and obsolete.

        • squid2112 says:

          Oh, and to comment about your video (thanks, by the way). It is a really good illustration of just how badly these folks at NASA attempt to do science. To your point, they contend that CO2 is a “well mixed gas”, and yet, their own video refutes that statement. Sure, it mixes, but it is certainly not “well mixed”. As you point out, they show little CO2 distribution in the southern hemisphere, and even very little in the equatorial regions. One would think that CO2 would follow the path of all other gasses in our atmosphere, and would have a tendency to accumulate around the equator. After all, we do live on a spinning ball. They claim that all OTHER gasses behave in this manner, but, as you are well aware, CO2 is MAGIC and is capable of many magical things. 😉

        • squid2112 says:

          I hope the OCO-2 image will help to bolster your point. As you can see by NASA’s very own empirical data, CO2 is NOT a “well mixed” gas, and, the empirical data emphatically shows the failure of their magical modelling skills.

        • squid2112 says:

          Here is a link to the NASA/JPL site that has all of the OCO-2 data and information.

          http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

        • gator69 says:

          Test… I am suddenly getting comments moderated on two WordPress sites… anyone else?

        • squid2112 says:

          The “Outhouse effect” … I like it! … ROFL

          I don’t know why Heller tries to defend the so-called “greenhouse effect”. He has spent years posting information and data that directly refutes it. He has posted a plethora of information that directly contradicts such a notion. But, he seems to be willing to defend it to the end. I can’t figure that out.

          My position, there is no version of the so-called “greenhouse effect” (or additional warming by any other name) that can operate without additional energy being created within the system. And as anyone with any knowledge of physics at all, will tell you, that is simply not possible. If it were possible, energy would not be a commodity.

        • Lars P. says:

          “Test… I am suddenly getting comments moderated on two WordPress sites… anyone else?”
          Gator, it might be a function related to the number of links you post (higher or equal with 3 in one post) or to specific links?

        • gator69 says:

          Happened to me yesterday, check to be sure your email address has not been corrupted, that was my problem. For some reason WordPress added letters onto the end of my email address at the two WordPress sites where I made comments.

        • Me says:

          I think the greenhouse effect can only be recreated in something that acts the same as a greenhouse. Until then, it is not a greenhouse effect.

        • Me says:

          :wink:!

        • Me says:

          Well that didn’t work! 😆

        • Me says:

          Well James, someone by the name of Marsh at goddards almost had me convince it was you, or they wanted to sound like you. Just a heads up!

        • suyts says:

          Heh! There can only be one! 😀

        • Me says:

          Yeah, What can ya do?

        • Me says:

          Now, I know it was a boxing one liner! 😆

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    James,

    I see that on Wattsupwiththat, dbstealy (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/#comment-1922003) stole your temperature graph without giving credit. I guess all’s fair in the climate wars.

    Jim

    • DirkH says:

      That’s unfair IMHO. Smokey commented here, there’s no animosity, and he probably just pasted the URL, and since a few months, wordpress automatically shows the graphic instead of the URL. People who rightclick at the graphic can still find out where it came from.

      • Jim Masterson says:

        >>
        That’s unfair IMHO.
        <<

        I’m not sure why you say that it’s unfair. There’s a large body of legalities covering copyright law. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m aware of some of things copyright law covers. Unlike trade marks where a company has to actively protect them, any published work is automatically covered (and a web page counts as a published work). You don’t have to add a copyright statement to be covered, but it does provide notice to others. Smokey’s link would probably fall under fair use and be allowed (which means James probably couldn’t collect damages). Still, it would be “wise” (and prudent) to acknowledge the source of the graph–just to keep everything aboveboard.

        I know James has told everyone to use his graph, but I’m not sure you can change the effect of copyright law in that way. Attempts to place things (such as programming code) into the public domain may be covered under contract law, but copyright law may still hold sway in such cases. (The owner of the code could have a change of heart.) I would assume I could link to his graph under fair use, but I would also give James full credit.

        Jim

        • suyts says:

          Right. I try, but, do not always give credit and point to where the image came from. It’s just good form to do so. But, in this case …. yeh, I’ve told people to use freely, but, it’s more than that. For people like you, Dirk, Smokey, and several others, …. my work, such as the graph, is simply a product of you guys. I don’t recall the specific circumstance or person who was the impetus of the graph, but, probably one of the many people who have impacted my thoughts on the climate issue. I’ll give Smoke what I pray others would give me.

          Now, if it were some other person, using the graph inappropriately …. that’s a different story.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Well, we should probably get the legalities of ownership worked out. Will probably influence the coming lengths of incarceration for using it. 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          Tony has jumped the shark.

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/on-the-other-hand-2/

          Sad, this will damage his credibility with anyone who checks him out, and it has damaged his credibility with me already. I do not want to be seen on his site.

          There is a terriffic rebuttal to the nonsense he posted, and this is the intro to it…

          … but I do not want to be seen posting anything, on his site.

          Sad day for true skeptics.

      • DirkH says:

        Jim Masterson says:
        April 30, 2015 at 6:33 pm
        “I’m not sure why you say that it’s unfair. ”

        Your choice of the word stolen. Smokey stole nothing, he linked it.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          Your choice of the word stolen. Smokey stole nothing, he linked it.
          <<

          If you click on the image you get–the image. You would have to retype and edit the link to get to suyts space. Notice the confusion of authorship by others until Smokey says it wasn’t his creation. People, like James, deserve proper credit. Now if Smokey had said he wasn’t sure where it came from originally . . . .

          Jim

        • DirkH says:

          People get used to technology ever so slowly.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          People get used to technology ever so slowly.
          <<

          If you are ever sued for copyright infringement, let me know if that defense works.

          Jim

        • DirkH says:

          Not in Germany, Jim, German judges get used to technology even slower than others.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, Jim, it would have been nice of Smoke to send people this way, but, he’s using the graph exactly as I intended it to be used. I’ve no problem with it and glad someone like Smoke can use it to help further the skeptic cause.

      I’m glad you pointed it out, though! It’s really a pretty cool compliment.

      It’s weird. The origin of the graph was just me playing around and looking to irritate a warmista or two. Yet, after all of the thought and work I’ve put into other efforts, this few minute effort has been the most enduring, best received. And, now, because of the comment with my graph, and the response to the comment, and your pointing out the usage, I’ll probably do another one, only this time in Kelvins!

      • cdquarles says:

        I remember fussing about the use of charts without a zero baseline. There’s nothing wrong with the zoom-in, provided you use a zero or similar baseline chart as a starting point or contrast.

        I’d note, for instance, if such a graph had the same visual effect, they’d use it. Since they didn’t, I wondered what it would look like (same with the ppm of ‘background’ atmospheric carbon dioxide. Both such charts would not appear alarming, at all; and would make one wonder if the correlation was spurious.

        These are things that Steve McIntyre noted at Climate Audit, such as leaving off adverse information and doing all sorts of tricks in presentation of the Hokey Stick by the Hockey Team. I am glad that ‘we humble readers’ 🙂 got our host to make that annual alcohol thermometer chart.

        Heh, a Kelvin chart; well that one has a natural zero baseline :D. Prick them some more and make a *Rankine* chart instead. 😛

    • DirkH says:

      Enter Blackface.

    • gator69 says:

      It’s true. I first read about this a couple of years ago. Why should anyone be surprised? This sort of reverse discrimination has been institutionalized in the US for decades.

    • suyts says:

      I don’t know if it’s true or not, the source is the LA Times.

      • gator69 says:

        Critics of affirmative action in American higher education sometimes lose
        sight of the fact that elite universities give added weight to many different
        types of student characteristics. In this article, we examine the roles played by
        preferences for athletes and children of alumni. Based on complete data for
        three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research
        universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival,
        and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority
        applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average
        of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes
        reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic
        applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more
        than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian
        background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.

        http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

      • DirkH says:

        I don’t know what SAT scores are but isn’t this all well known from affirmative action?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#California

        • suyts says:

          The SAT is a bit of an aptitude/quasi IQ test used for entrance into colleges. The higher the score the more the colleges want you. There is also the ACT test which serves the same purpose. Nearly every child in the US wanting to go to college takes both of them. Many universities will not even consider you without the tests and the scores being of an acceptable level ….. assuming you’re not one of the grievance groups, in which case, it doesn’t matter.

      • gator69 says:

        Critics of affirmative action in American higher education sometimes lose
        sight of the fact that elite universities give added weight to many different
        types of student characteristics. In this article, we examine the roles played by
        preferences for athletes and children of alumni. Based on complete data for
        three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research
        universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival,
        and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority
        applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average
        of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes
        reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic
        applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more
        than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian
        background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.

        http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf

        (Note to James… No need to post other comments under corrupted email address.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s