Remember me
▼ Content

major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998


major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-199801-07-2017 16:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
01-07-2017 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Magick satellites won't help you.

'Correcting' data means it is no longer data. This is a math error in statistics known as preselection.


The Parrot Killer
01-07-2017 23:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Magick satellites won't help you.

'Correcting' data means it is no longer data. This is a math error in statistics known as preselection.


Things cannot be measured?

Things that are known about should not be taken into account?

Magic is spelled Magick?


If anyone thinks that you have a clue about what you are talking about they need to shoot themselves.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 02-07-2017 00:00
02-07-2017 07:48
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1528)
Instead of getting the big orgasm, why don't you read this with some sense of reality?

Here's the real headline...

We were wrong by up to 140% yesterday, but today we're sure we got it right because we made a big correction in our favor.

Great news everyone! You can run down to the bank and just let them know that you've made a correction and there's 140% more money in your checking account.

If they don't believe you, ask for Spot. He can help you.
Edited on 02-07-2017 07:50
03-07-2017 03:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Instead of getting the big orgasm, why don't you read this with some sense of reality?

Here's the real headline...

We were wrong by up to 140% yesterday, but today we're sure we got it right because we made a big correction in our favor.

Great news everyone! You can run down to the bank and just let them know that you've made a correction and there's 140% more money in your checking account.

If they don't believe you, ask for Spot. He can help you.


its not that they were wrong all along the problem with just using satellite data is nothing new its the UAH dataset that is quoted most often by climate skeptics that is out.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-07-2017 03:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gassed & grizzley" gushed: We were wrong by up to 140% .....


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gassed & grizzley" & other AGW denier liar whiners, who say we are returning to an ice age, have their plus/minus #'s reversed & only listen to coal, oil, energy, gas & re-pubic-lick-un propaganda PR poop.
03-07-2017 18:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Magick satellites won't help you.

'Correcting' data means it is no longer data. This is a math error in statistics known as preselection.


Things cannot be measured?

Things that are known about should not be taken into account?

Magic is spelled Magick?


If anyone thinks that you have a clue about what you are talking about they need to shoot themselves.

Things can be measured. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.
Magic is not spelled magick. Magick is spelled magick. Magic uses physics. Magick does not.


The Parrot Killer
03-07-2017 18:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Instead of getting the big orgasm, why don't you read this with some sense of reality?

Here's the real headline...

We were wrong by up to 140% yesterday, but today we're sure we got it right because we made a big correction in our favor.

Great news everyone! You can run down to the bank and just let them know that you've made a correction and there's 140% more money in your checking account.

If they don't believe you, ask for Spot. He can help you.


its not that they were wrong all along the problem with just using satellite data is nothing new its the UAH dataset that is quoted most often by climate skeptics that is out.


The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


The Parrot Killer
03-07-2017 19:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1225)
You pair are not bringing any new information to the debate you are simply repeating the fact free assertion that trying to measure something is useless no matter how you do it. despite the fact that a great deal of clever people say that it is and can demonstrate how they did it.

You are entitled to your opinion but it comes across as extremely ignorant and borderline trolling.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-07-2017 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
spot wrote:
You pair are not bringing any new information to the debate you are simply repeating the fact free assertion that trying to measure something is useless no matter how you do it. despite the fact that a great deal of clever people say that it is and can demonstrate how they did it.

You are entitled to your opinion but it comes across as extremely ignorant and borderline trolling.


A great deal of clever people are out to steal your money too.

There has been no demonstration of any satellite measuring absolute temperature.


The Parrot Killer
03-07-2017 22:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Too bad you are incapable of actually reading anything. What is 2.4 x 0? We have gone through several warm years over the last 10 years. If you focus only on those years and present them as a "trend" and then "correct" for that "trend" instead of getting the 0.5 degree C rise you get a 1.8 degree "rise".

But that isn't the way a chaotic system works. At the very least you have to average over 20 year periods and more like the 40 year period that the Satellite has been in orbit and returning information.

Again over correct averaging periods we have NO GAIN.

But then who expects a dumbazz to know anything?
03-07-2017 22:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Magick satellites won't help you.

'Correcting' data means it is no longer data. This is a math error in statistics known as preselection.


Things cannot be measured?

Things that are known about should not be taken into account?

Magic is spelled Magick?


If anyone thinks that you have a clue about what you are talking about they need to shoot themselves.


This is the same guy that doesn't know how to transpose terms in a calculation. That doesn't understand that you can divide a whole into parts and that you can provide calculations that demonstrate the contributions of the component parts of a whole.

He indeed doesn't know that heat has a wavelength and that knowing how much heat is exuded over a measured surface you can calculate the total amount of energy.

What truly is Magick is that he can write. Plainly he cannot read.
03-07-2017 23:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?
04-07-2017 10:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?

What a nasty piece of work you are.
04-07-2017 18:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[ "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: chaotic system...you have to average over 20 (-) 40 year period...
over correct averaging periods we have NO GAIN.

Earth temperatures have been escalating for a a good portion of a score of decades, High Arctic temperatures escalating since the latter-1950's, & Arctic sea ice drops since the 1980's, showing a blunting of the chaotic system & organized increases of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs & their positive feedbacks, PLUS effects of increases of phase change infra-red energy absorbing water vapor & its positive feedbacks.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" proves it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wiffer.
04-07-2017 18:30
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote: What a nasty piece of work you are.


B-b-but, it is NOT chaotic about its nastiness.... it is organized, consistent & continuous.
04-07-2017 19:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?

What a nasty piece of work you are.


So you think that my simple recognician of you as nothing worthy of bother offends you? Then perhaps you could learn some real science before shooting your mouth off as if you had any simple understanding of anything.
04-07-2017 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

There you have it folks, we are told by followers of the blogosphere that satellites show no warming, as we can see from reading the link this is not true.


Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature.

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Magick satellites won't help you.

'Correcting' data means it is no longer data. This is a math error in statistics known as preselection.


Things cannot be measured?

Things that are known about should not be taken into account?

Magic is spelled Magick?


If anyone thinks that you have a clue about what you are talking about they need to shoot themselves.


This is the same guy that doesn't know how to transpose terms in a calculation. That doesn't understand that you can divide a whole into parts and that you can provide calculations that demonstrate the contributions of the component parts of a whole.

What ARE you talking about??? If you want to make basic errors in statistical math, that's YOUR problem.
Wake wrote:
He indeed doesn't know that heat has a wavelength

Heat does not HAVE a wavelength.
Wake wrote:
and that knowing how much heat is exuded over a measured surface you can calculate the total amount of energy.

You can't. You can, however, calculate the amount of thermal energy, IF you know the sink temperature and the coupling to the sink from the source.
Wake wrote:
What truly is Magick is that he can write. Plainly he cannot read.

This actually seems to be your problem, since you do not understand statistical math, probability math, or random number math. You do not understand the difference between relative and absolute measurements. You do not understand the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law since you are attempting to add a term for reflection into it, and are using a random number for emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
04-07-2017 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?


Nice. You really do seem to have an anger problem. This is the second time you have suggested people who disagree with you should be killed.


The Parrot Killer
04-07-2017 20:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10243)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?

What a nasty piece of work you are.


So you think that my simple recognician of you as nothing worthy of bother offends you? Then perhaps you could learn some real science before shooting your mouth off as if you had any simple understanding of anything.


So...suggesting that someone slit their own throat is not shooting his mouth off???


The Parrot Killer
04-07-2017 21:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
This is the same guy that doesn't know how to transpose terms in a calculation. That doesn't understand that you can divide a whole into parts and that you can provide calculations that demonstrate the contributions of the component parts of a whole.

What ARE you talking about??? If you want to make basic errors in statistical math, that's YOUR problem.
Wake wrote:
He indeed doesn't know that heat has a wavelength

Heat does not HAVE a wavelength.
Wake wrote:
and that knowing how much heat is exuded over a measured surface you can calculate the total amount of energy.

You can't. You can, however, calculate the amount of thermal energy, IF you know the sink temperature and the coupling to the sink from the source.
Wake wrote:
What truly is Magick is that he can write. Plainly he cannot read.

This actually seems to be your problem, since you do not understand statistical math, probability math, or random number math. You do not understand the difference between relative and absolute measurements. You do not understand the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law since you are attempting to add a term for reflection into it, and are using a random number for emissivity.[/quote]

You have shown the entire world that you don't have even an inclining of what you're talking about. You demonstrated that you didn't know even high school math but being unable to transpose terms in a calculation.

You are unaware that ALL materials that are above absolute zero emit specific wavelengths pertinent to their heat energy in the IR bands until their heat energy get's high enough to be in the visible spectrum or above.

There is an entire industry built around that fact AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

Among you most absolute stupid statements are:

"What ARE you talking about??? If you want to make basic errors in statistical math, that's YOUR problem." Since we were speaking of your inability to actually understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation of that it had been corrected I suggest you invent still another excuse for your moronic statements.

"Heat does not HAVE a wavelength." All it would have taken you in your total ignorance was to look something up and that was beyond your understanding: http://www.omega.com/technical-learning/infrared-temperature-measurement-theory-application.html

"You can, however, calculate the amount of thermal energy, IF you know the sink temperature and the coupling to the sink from the source." Too bad you simply can't understand simple physics.

"This actually seems to be your problem, since you do not understand statistical math, probability math, or random number math. You do not understand the difference between relative and absolute measurements. You do not understand the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law since you are attempting to add a term for reflection into it, and are using a random number for emissivity." Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind demonstrating: 1. What statistics has to do with the Stafan-Boltzmann Law. 2. What random numbers have to do with mathematics. 3. Where I ever said anything about "reflectivity" or ever suggested a random number for emissivity.

The level of your ignorance is almost beyond belief.
04-07-2017 21:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The UAH dataset only shows relative temperatures. It cannot show absolute temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth or any part of it using satellites.

All a satellite can show you is that one place is warmer or colder than another. It cannot tell you the temperature of either place.


Since you do not know ANYTHING about science why don't you just slit your own throat for us and save the world a lot of effort getting around to you?


Nice. You really do seem to have an anger problem. This is the second time you have suggested people who disagree with you should be killed.


I see you aren't even aware of the difference between killing someone and them committing suicide. You continue to demonstrate just how stupid you are. Did you graduate from grade school? You don't seem to know the simplest things that anyone should know. That you can even write is surprising.
Edited on 04-07-2017 21:35




Join the debate major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Climate change is a major factor in flooding – but it's not the only one030-04-2019 06:03
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact