Remember When The Unanimity Of Our Temp Records Confirmed Global Warming?


Back in the day, the lunatics used to point to the unanimity of our temp records, both land and satellite temps as proof of global warming.  They were all so congruent!


That was then. 



Now, here’s GISS and RSS over the last 16+ years.



Just one more bit of their idiocy which as totally turned to $hit on them.

There are several reasons for this, none of which as anything to do with actual temperatures. 

The early part of the satellite records will naturally be congruent with land gathered temps, because that’s how one trains new technology … that is you bring it into conformance with what you believe you already “know”. 

But, with the temps, we see very notable divergence, now.  What’s changed? …..

While it’s true, the satellite data has gone through revisions, the revisions have been made (both RSS and UAH) to reflect reality, as best as they can.  GISS temps have been revised to reflect their world view, as best as they can. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not revised my thought that an “average global temperature” is a meaningless metric.  Neither one tells us anything useful.  Neither can tell us if the actual temps mean more energy is entering or leaving.  It’s useless knowledge which can only be used to form baseless hypotheses. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Remember When The Unanimity Of Our Temp Records Confirmed Global Warming?

  1. Latitude says:

    remember when we showed the same thing with sea level sats…..of course they all lined up….each new one was tuned to the previous one

  2. Latitude says:

    I sent you this paper, right?…don’t remember

    Anywho, where are you going to go when the majority of tide gauges show no sea level rise at all…

    • suyts says:

      Yep! You sent it to me. Did I post on that? I thought I did, but, I’m not sure. And, that’s the catch ….. tide gauges will never show no SLR “at all”, because the interpretation of the data is subjective. Their locations are not random, and not spatially proper. So, we’ll have subjective interpretations. But, regardless of the subjective interpretations, they can’t keep up with the satellite BS.

  3. Mark Luhman says:

    ” I’ve not revised my thought that an “average global temperature” is a meaningless metric.”

    I agree complete with the above statement the reason are, air temperature without humidity reading tells you nothing about heat content of air, both metrics leave that out. The satellite measurement should be more useful in time since it does measure the earth in a uniform matter. The problem with that thirty years is far to short to be of much use, a hundred maybe a thousand definitely, of course right now satellite is thirty years and the thermometer reading are a little over a hundred add to that reading land base thermometers and expecting them to tell you something useful is a fools errand since they are far to many variables to control to get a meaningful number. Just don’t tell climate scientist that you would interrupt their fools errand.

    • suyts says:

      I just can’t understand how we got so many people who don’t understand it’s a fool’s errand, both alarmists and supposed skeptics.

  4. Ted G says:

    Whats wrong with RSS and UAH don’t they know were frying in hell! Giss will have a gassy fitttttt!

  5. Scott says:

    The early part of the satellite records will naturally be congruent with land gathered temps, because that’s how one trains new technology … that is you bring it into conformance with what you believe you already “know”.

    Disagree with this one. The UAH record is 100% independent of land-based measures AFAIK, and the only link RSS has is in using a climate model to do diurnal drift correction, which is arguably not a climate model at all. I don’t know why the satellites agreed with the land record in the 80’s/90’s and haven’t since, but it really doesn’t matter. In reality, the satellites have never agreed with the land measurements b/c the satellite’s upward trend should be HIGHER and it has never been over any significant amount of time (always equal or lower).

    If trends were closer to predictions/projections, it might be worth figuring out. But lets face it, even the hottest land trends are a fraction of what we were told and extrapolating the official land trends leads to nothing scary even by the CAGWer’s own statements from a few years ago.


    • suyts says:

      Heh! Scott, I agree with the later part of your comment, but, disagree with your disagreement!

      Let me try to put it this way ……The satellite temp outfits …. UAH and RSS simply interpret various measurements from various satellites. The temp graphs and data are simply their interpretations as to how they relate to surface temperatures. This is why, from the very beginning, they’re posted in anomaly fashion with surface temps. This is how they validated their relationship to the global surface temps. If we’re now saying the sat temps are not related to the surface temps, then, they’re meaningless to the discussion.

      • Scott says:


        They should be related in some way, and a climate model is one way to guess at that relationship. But what I’m saying is that the they are computed in an entirely different and independent ways. They are not calibrated to the surface record in any way, so there’s no a priori reason to think the agreement should be better in the first half than the second half. Just because they’re computed as anomalies to remove the yearly cycle doesn’t mean they are dependent on the surface record. Maybe the satellite record was “validated” by agreeing with the surface record for a while, but that’s just CAGWers making stuff up and isn’t at all the real definition of “validated” in science. Now that the two sets disagree so strongly, the CAGWers are just switching over to them being invalid (e.g. see David Appell), so clearly it’s all just made up about validation.


        • suyts says:

          Okay, right …. I was trying to say that in the part you quoted. And, yes, it isn’t real “validation”, but, then, there’s not much in climate science that adheres to actual science norms.

  6. gator69 says:

    Oh noes! The models, they lies!

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

    The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

    In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing”, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

    “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

    Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

    “At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

    This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

    Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

    Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

  7. Latitude says:

    Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

  8. cdquarles says:

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around the latest Moshism that DAA and now even Willis E are going on about. I just don’t see how there can be a temperature field at all. A temperature gradient, yes. A radiation field, yes. Just can’t get how an intensive property, of which thermodynamic temperature is one, can be a field. Intensive properties are defined by the sample. Extensive properties are not and I’m pretty sure force fields in physics have to correspond to extensive properties. Even trying to envision fields, outside of pure mathematics, other than force fields, doesn’t get me there. What am I missing?

  9. cdquarles says:

    One other thing that bothers me. I’d appreciate someone pointing me to *any* paper that approaches or even discusses whether the Earth even *has* a climate system or if such a system is anything other than its weather system. This gets back to the Moshism mentioned above, through a mathematical relation: T = C + W. C being ‘constant’, even if it is only a constant for a given set of parameters of a system of differential equations and/or integrals and W being ‘random’ (by which seems to mean unpredictable based on knowledge of the system).

    I’m reading the paper Gator linked, which is why I’m commenting on it.

    • DirkH says:

      Climate is the long term average of weather. The modern definition. An average is just a low pass filter. So climate is the low frequency component of weather.

      This is why I maintain that Chaos must be present in both, as nonlinear systems shift energy between frequencies by means of nonlinear distortions. Those who say weather is chaotic but climate isn’t are therefore wrong.

      I expect also periodical influences from the sun to be found in the low frequency range, but chaos from the high frequencies *must* seep into it as well. To which extent is anyone’s guess.

      Also, the ocean currents, thermohaline circulation, chaotic in themselves, obviously, will play heavily into the low AND high frequency components of the atmosphere.

      • cdquarles says:

        That’s the definition that I know; but ‘average’ isn’t exactly correct, in my mind. Climate is a statistical summary of previously realized weather states, of which an average is just one such summary.

        I certainly agree with you that the dynamic system is, strictly speaking in terms of mathematics, deterministically chaotic. By that I mean that there is a system of damped, driven differential equations describing states and transitions between them.

        Further reading has given me a bit of insight into where the notion of a temperature field came from. It seems to be a purely abstract notion and thus is wholly dependent upon the truth, or lack of same, of the conditionals apparently assumed to be true, by faith. Yet a temperature isn’t a number in space, disconnected from real masses in real energy fields, undergoing dynamic changes with k type constants over a very vast range (infinite?) of scales.

    • suyts says:

      Haven’t all of us been through this before?

      FWIW …. yes, I believe the earth’s weather/climate is part of a system. Can we ever know the components enough to put it in a mathematical equation? Nope, not ever. Not for weather, not for climate.

      “Average” is what most people following the climate discussion refer to, but, I do like the “statistical summary” definition.

      I quit bothering with Mosh and Willis a long time ago. They’re both bright guys, but, both are habitually wrong.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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