Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

[Fweethawt]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-sceptics-satellite-data-correction-global-warming-140-per-cent-zeke-hausfather-a7816676.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says

[bornagainathiest]

Fwee,

 

Do you really want to use the word 'proved' here?

 

A proof is final and not subject to further refinement and/or rebuttal.

 

This satellite data isn't really final, is it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[buffettphan]

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-sceptics-satellite-data-correction-global-warming-140-per-cent-zeke-hausfather-a7816676.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says

 

 

Fwee,

 

Do you really want to use the word 'proved' here?

 

A proof is final and not subject to further refinement and/or rebuttal.

 

This satellite data isn't really final, is it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

The sentence Fwee posted is a direct quote from the article.  Therefore your beef is either with Dr. Zeke Hausfather or Ian Johnston, Environmental Correspondent.  

 

[Fweethawt]

^^^ agree ^^^

 

Don't hold me responsible for someone else's words. I read and I repost here in hopes of generating discussions, not witchhunts. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

BAA,

 

The sentence Fwee posted is a direct quote from the article.  Therefore your beef is either with Dr. Zeke Hausfather or Ian Johnston, Environmental Correspondent.  

 

 

Not with the good doctor, but with the journalist, buffetphan.

 

Here is the Independent article.

.

.

.

Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says

• Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent

 

Climate change deniers and sceptics have long pointed to satellite data showing lower temperatures than those recorded on the ground.

However, new research has found an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:00

/

0:26

 

 

 

 

 

Using information from the satellites, the scientists, Dr Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research company, developed a new method of correcting for the changes.

 

And what they found was startling.

The rate of warming was about a third higher at 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade between 1976 and 2016, compared to 0.134C per decade.

Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset. 

“This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde [weather balloon] data.”

In an article on the Carbon Brief website about the new research, data scientist Dr Zeke Hausfather said it showed an even faster rate of warming since 1998 – at nearly 140 per cent – than previous satellite-based studies.

“Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced that observational data collected on the Earth’s surface,” he said.

 

Delaware-sized iceberg set to send Trump message about global warming

“This new correction to the … data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than predicted in most climate models.”

Dr Hausfather explained the problem with interpreting climate data from satellites due to their subtly changing orbit.

“As these satellites circle the Earth, their orbits slowly decay over time due to drag from the upper atmosphere,” he wrote.

 

“While the satellites are designed to fly over the same spot on the Earth at the same time every day – a precondition to accurately estimating changes in temperatures over time – this orbital decay causes their flyover time to change.

“Some satellites have fairly large orbital drifts, going from measuring temperatures at 2pm to 6pm or 8pm. 

“Since the temperature changes since 1979 are on the order of 0.6C or so, it is relatively easy for bias, due to changing observation times, to swamp the underlying climate signal.”

 

Surface temperature records, Dr Hausfather added, “all tend to agree quite closely with each other, despite different groups using different datasets”. 

“Unlike the satellite temperature record, where only a few satellites are measuring temperatures at any given point of time, there is a large amount of redundancy in surface temperature observations, with multiple independent sets of data producing consistent results,” he said.

“Therefore, it is not too surprising that corrections to problems with satellite data would move them closer to surface records.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And here are the two science papers cited in the article.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

 

Neither of them uses the word proves, proved, proof or proven.

Also, nowhere does Dr. Hausfather use any of these words either. No professional scientist uses these words because they realize that the only science that delivers proof is math.  All the others deal in evidence.  So what we have here is an example of sloppy journalism, a.k.a. clickbait.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[buffettphan]

Yes I have known the proper definition of the word "proof" for many decades, BAA.   My point was that a simple click of Fwee's link revealed that it wasn't Fwee using the word.  

 

Thanks,

BP

[bornagainathiest]

 

Yes I have known the proper definition of the word "proof" for many decades, BAA.   My point was that a simple click of Fwee's link revealed that it wasn't Fwee using the word.  

 

Thanks,

BP

 

Yes, thanks BP.

 

Shall we just say that my attention has been split between threads and this got past me?

[LogicalFallacy]

This might be a little of left field woo, and is completely unverified, but I have heard of a thing called Geo engineering where the US government is using high flying aircraft to seed snow in the air to make it look like warming isn't happening.

 

But this may just be conspiracy building off the back of research that aims to be able to seed the atmosphere to make it rain in drought areas.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

This new correction to the … data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than predicted in most climate models.”
 

 

 

I read an awful lot from the scientists who oppose the political motivated climate change movement. And this is but another episode in adjusting temperature readings to conform to preconceived ideas. They've been doing it on the ground and now they're adjusting the satellite readings and by golly, look what they've found. Who could have guessed? By claiming problems with satellite readings due to orbits, they're now making adjustments to the data again, which coincidentally fall in line to support the preconceived idea. Adjustments here, adjustments there, and presto, a preconceived idea passed off as science. Surprise everyone!  

 

Here's some linkage to counter arguments: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22720-global-warming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

 

 

 

In his conclusion, Spencer said the evidence suggests that the latest RSS data set has “spurious warming” due to a lack of correction for calibration drift in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument, which gathers data from a satellite. “Somewhat smaller increases in their warming trend are due to their use of a climate model for diurnal [daily] drift adjustment, compared to our use of an empirical approach that relies upon observed diurnal drift from the satellite data themselves,” he added. “While the difference in diurnal drift correction methodology is a more legitimate point of contention, in the final analysis independent validation with radiosonde data [from weather balloons] and most reanalysis data sets suggest better agreement with the UAH product than the RSS product.”

Speaking to meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs one of the world's leading websites focused on climate science, Spencer was even more blunt about the problems. “So, it looks like they [RSS] decided to force good data to match bad data,” he said. “Sound familiar?” Watts responded by saying, “Yes, yes it does.” Considering the fact that there “aren't many satellite temperature data experts in the world,” Watts also asked Spencer at UAH whether he or Dr. Christy, also a climatologist at UAH, had been asked to review the paper by RSS' scientists “finding” the spurious warming. Spencer said that Christy reviewed the original one and requested more evidence, but the paper was ultimately rejected anyway. Eventually the RSS scientists submitted the claims to another journal “and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers,” Spencer noted.

 

Watts also tore into the latest adjustments, lambasting what he called the “Karlization” of temperature data — a term named after National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl, currently under congressional scrutiny, who was called out even by fellow warmists for trying to make the past seem colder so the present would seem warmer. “It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should,” Watts said about the recent adjustments to RSS data. “Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have 'found' that missing warming.”

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

[pantheory]

Nice, it could be valid, but, satellites produce data which humans interpret. The exact same data, for instance, has been used to support the extremely well-known hypothesis of global warming, as well as the little-known hypothesis of global cooling -- that is also real, if not valid, which can also be found on the internet

[Joshpantera]

The problem here goes beyond the surface level down to human psychology and brain function. This all started because someone thought that it ought to be a certain way. Beyond that primary assumption, comes a long line of confirmation bias that led to one young student, Al Gore, who, happened to have taken the primary assumption along with the confirmation bias into the political arena. More and more is at stake as the meme moves forward through time. The more people that align themselves with the meme, the higher the stakes, just like religion, exactly like religion. 

 

Watch this in full, people, please do: 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Natural Global warming and cooling involves many cycles often involving scores of thousands of years. Man-made additions to global warming is the real question. Human pollutants can block the sun and reflect heat via smog as well as producing atmospheric particulates and gases that can absorb heat. Scientists are paid to find problems; if they don't they may not be able to keep their job. Some of their work is not controversial such as controlling the extent of smog. This is certainly a human health and pollution problem rather than just a global warming issue.

[Joshpantera]

Like Coleman concluded, it boils down to time. Time is the biggest enemy of the climate change fear mongering campaign. 

 

The reason they centered in on the period after 1998 is because it was causing them a problem. And just like a christian apologist will focus in on a problem area and try and devise a claim that consists of saying that the opposition has been silenced, we find the same general mentality with the recent efforts to adjust satellite readings into conformity with the meme. It's a scientific version of apologetic's when you look closely at the psychology involved in this. And that's caught my attention. 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

I have still seen no water rise on the island I mentioned in posts past where Fort Pickens, near Pensacola FL is.  How do I know what is said vs what I have seen is pure bullshit? 

 

I hear you BO, but even if you are right that doesn't make your method of measurement reliable.

 

Regarding climate, its so complex that we are never going to find out which position is correct until it happens. (So either none of the predicted effects in 100 years, or the effects happen as predicted)

[Guest]

 

Like Coleman concluded, it boils down to time. Time is the biggest enemy of the climate change fear mongering campaign. 

 

The reason they centered in on the period after 1998 is because it was causing them a problem. And just like a christian apologist will focus in on a problem area and try and devise a claim that consists of saying that the opposition has been silenced, we find the same general mentality with the recent efforts to adjust satellite readings into conformity with the meme. It's a scientific version of apologetic's when you look closely at the psychology involved in this. And that's caught my attention. 

 Oh please, shall we talk about the greenhouse effect and how much CO2 the atmosphere is able to absorb, which is done mostly by the ocean?  These claims are the exact opposite of apologists.  

 

We have a global scientific and political consensus on this issue except with Nationalists who have no solutions to global problems except deny they exist.  Republican lawmakers are clearly in the pocket of Oil & Gas whose own scientists we are learning became aware of this before the rest of us, but then quickly took up a strategy of obscuring the data or talking points in order to express doubt about climate change, but even Exxon Mobile who did this does not accept Climate Change.  Basically all of the Oil & Gas companies do but now only the politicians and their base whom they have formed a consensus with, using their media machines have formed the opposition to the global effort to combat climate change.

 

"Watch my YouTube propaganda movie, which distorts facts and clearly has a bias."  Why not admonish people to actually read the scientific research for themselves, rather than ally yourself with fact denying Christians who are the core base of Climate Denial in America?

 

What about your psychology?  Are you immune to influence, or do you think that since you're not a specialist here that you might have been bamboozled?

[Guest]

 

 

I hear you BO, but even if you are right that doesn't make your method of measurement reliable.

 

Regarding climate, its so complex that we are never going to find out which position is correct until it happens. (So either none of the predicted effects in 100 years, or the effects happen as predicted)

BO is basically equating local sea level rise with global sea level rise, which is like measuring global warming by seeing if your own temperature go up.  Stick with the scientists, not the partisan hacks on this one.  Here is a link for more information on the sea level rising.

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

[bornagainathiest]

If the Earth were...

 

A perfect sphere of uniform mass density, or whose density varies solely with distance from the centre (spherical symmetry), would produce a gravitational field of uniform magnitude at all points on its surface, always pointing directly towards the sphere's centre. 

 

...then water lying on the Earth's surface would always lie at the same height on every shoreline.

But since the Earth is neither a perfect sphere, doesn't have a uniform mass density and isn't spherically symmetrical, local variations in it's gravitational field cause the height of the seas to vary by as much as 630 feet across the whole of it's surface.  

 

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

 

 

 

Other pages detailing variations in the Earth's interior, density and gravitational field.

 

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-seismic-aims-earth-interior-d.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170328135508.htm

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/09/02/ct-scan-of-earth-links-deep-mantle-plumes-with-volcanic-hotspots/

 

Our eyes cannot observe these variations in the Earth's gravitational field.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

BO is basically equating local sea level rise with global sea level rise, which is like measuring global warming by seeing if your own temperature go up.  Stick with the scientists, not the partisan hacks on this one.  Here is a link for more information on the sea level rising.

 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

Hi TS

 

Thanks, BO and I are quite opposite on this topic so I'm well aware of the flaws in his reasoning.

 

BAA and I have had conversations with BO about the reliability of organisations such as NOAA, NASA etc, and the reliability, or rather the complete lack thereof, of BO eyeballing the local beach to judge whether scientists are correct in their interpretation of data.

 

Edit: Oh I just read my conversation with BO in this thread so I now understand why you might be thinking I'm agreeing with him, but that's not the case. I was merely acknowledging the complexity of climate systems and measuring change.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

How do you know that NOAA and NASA are not lying?  

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html 

 

Now, if I read articles like this and it matches what I see with my own eyes at the ocean's edge, then chances are, they are correct. 

 

We've been through this. I provided a video showing extensive breakdown of the 'whistle blower' issue, and that it was not what it was made out to be. We discussed this but you want to remain on your anti the world hobby horse rather than facing reality. I can't help that. The 'whistle blower' himself refuted what was said about him and said that his concern was that the report didn't clearly state how it was adjusting the data - NOT that NOOA was corrupting data.

 

What's happening is when scientists adjust data there is always the cry of "manipulation" "Bias" etc. So now whether the adjustments is correct or not, there is a distrust.

 

To answer your first question with another: How do we know anything is true? Where do you want to stop? Moon Hoax, Area 51, atmospheric seeding, Twin Towers, Climate change, population drugging... your entire life could be a lie.

 

"Now, if I read articles like this and it matches what I see with my own eyes at the ocean's edge, then chances are, they are correct"

 

Until I can actually see the American flag on the moon with MY OWN EYES I won't believe it, Unless I can see the entire spherical earth I won't believe the earth is a sphere....

 

Do you not understand how retarded this line of reasoning is? Trying to verify everything with your own eyes? Even if you are correct and there is no climate change.... (good luck on falsifying that!) your line of reasoning is fallacious. "You can't see therefore its not" is just really... 5th grade reasoning.

 

Gah, we've been through this... give me a wall to bash against.

[bornagainathiest]

 

^^If the water is new water, it doesn't matter.  In relative terms, water everywhere would be higher, higher places would be yet higher and the lower areas would be higher.  That water has to go somewhere.  Unless I see it going higher were *I* can see it, all I can determine is that there are people trying to blow smoke up my ass. 

 

The variation of sea levels due to gravity has been observed, tested and measured across the world, BO.

To challenge that you would need to make observations with your own eyes - across the world.  Observations from just one location cannot do that.  One, isolated data point is worthless in comparison to a worldwide database of measurements.  But, if you want to claim that your lone observations are of greater value than everyone else's then you'd be committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Fyi BO.

 

As with this thread... 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/75258-bill-nye-compares-trump-to-people-who-believe-in-astrology-they’re-so-invested-in-belief-they-ignore-facts/?page=2#comment-1132772

 

...in this thread I am not promoting any political agenda or occupying any position for or against global warming.  

 

I am simply challenging your ability to accurately evaluate global sea levels from your one vantage point.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 Oh please, shall we talk about the greenhouse effect and how much CO2 the atmosphere is able to absorb, which is done mostly by the ocean?  These claims are the exact opposite of apologists.  

 

We have a global scientific and political consensus on this issue except with Nationalists who have no solutions to global problems except deny they exist.  Republican lawmakers are clearly in the pocket of Oil & Gas whose own scientists we are learning became aware of this before the rest of us, but then quickly took up a strategy of obscuring the data or talking points in order to express doubt about climate change, but even Exxon Mobile who did this does not accept Climate Change.  Basically all of the Oil & Gas companies do but now only the politicians and their base whom they have formed a consensus with, using their media machines have formed the opposition to the global effort to combat climate change.

 

"Watch my YouTube propaganda movie, which distorts facts and clearly has a bias."  Why not admonish people to actually read the scientific research for themselves, rather than ally yourself with fact denying Christians who are the core base of Climate Denial in America?

 

What about your psychology?  Are you immune to influence, or do you think that since you're not a specialist here that you might have been bamboozled?

 

@TrueScotsman I guess you skipped the video? 

 

Coleman is a scientist, believing in the scientific method, explaining exactly how this meme originated and then spread through the political spectrum. He has nothing to do with unscientific oriented christian denial nor the oil and gas companies, he's addressing this shame from the perspective of a scientist sick and tired of the unscientific approaches and methodology used by the fear mongering climate change lobby. Coleman talks about over 30,000 signatures from scientists around the world on a petition, making nonsense of the issue of consensus which is part of the meme that people keep repeating.

 

It's fear mongering for political purposes. 

 

It's the equivalent of a pseudo-scientific rendition of Revelation, hell and damnation, scare everyone into submission psychological social meme promotion. And it's gone global, like religion. And it has it's apologists, like religion. And it has traceable sources, like religion. And it speaks to the psychology of fear mongering and thinking that the end justifies the means. 

 

And so many ex-christians seem to be suckered in by these meme because it wears a cloak of proclaiming to be science. 

 

Many scientists disagree with that claim, however. 

 

And it's not a christian verse science thing only, it's more importantly a science verse pseudo-science thing now. And that's where I began to take interest in the back and fourth between scientists disagreeing on this fear mongering meme. 

 

[Guest]

 

 

I guess you skipped the video again? 

 

Coleman is a scientist, believing in the scientific method, explaining exactly how this meme originated and then spread through the political spectrum. He has nothing to do with unscientific oriented christian denial nor the oil and gas companies, he's addressing this shame from the perspective of a scientist sick and tired of the unscientific approaches and methodology used by the fear mongering climate change lobby. Coleman talks about over 30,000 signatures from scientists around the world on a petition, making nonsense of the issue of consensus which is part of the meme that people keep repeating. Even though that claim seems just as ill informed as the others. 

 

Maybe try again after watching what it's actually about? 

I'm well familiar with John Coleman the former head of the Weather Channel who is a journalist, not a climate scientist.  And finding 30,000 scientists who will join along in condemning the view, just look at the tremendous amount of partisanship on this with the Right in America, there is a whole alternative knowledge system you folks of conjured up.  Good luck finding 30,000 climate scientists (those who actually have a specialization in this field) who will sign any sort of silly petition.  I believe in the scientific method, which means that if any of Coleman's arguments want to be submitted to a peer reviewed journal than he can be my guess, but sadly most of the anti-anthropogenic climate change crowd wants to aim their information at the more impressionable so that they can win politically instead of scientifically.  Which it just so happens that they are in the United States.  

 

I take climate denial just about as seriously as evolution denial or Joseph Smith finding the golden plates, you just have to keep stacking conspiracy theories in order to assert the misinformation campaign that has so thoroughly been carried out.  

[Joshpantera]

 

And finding 30,000 scientists who will join along in condemning the view, just look at the tremendous amount of partisanship on this with the Right in America, there is a whole alternative knowledge system you folks of conjured up. 

 

You folks? I'm not Republican. I'm largely apolitical. It's obvious that you rolled through here with a preconceived idea of who I am and what this is about and jumped to many assumptions. Climate denial is a broad term. There's no denying climate change, obviously. There is however denying claims of man made climate change that have fallen short through out the entire life of the movement, and the dramatic impacts and projections that have been claimed. There's fowl play going on in the manipulation of data to try and save face aspect of all of this. 

 

When you read a sensational headline that warming is 140% higher, guess what? 

 

Big red flag. 

 

Dig deeper into the claim and it's methodology, surprise everyone!

 

Peer review showing the claims as "spurious." 

 

That's why these "spurious" claims are so apologetic in scope in depth.