PDA

View Full Version : Global warming myth exposed. Again.



LWW
08-15-2010, 04:03 AM
Yet another nail in the coffin of one of the greatest scams ever pulled.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.

However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite. ...

NOAA has reported a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years based on such satellite readings but these may now all be undermined.

World-renowned Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball, after casting his expert eye over the shocking findings concluded, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.” ...

NOAA admits that the machine-generated readings are not continuously monitored so that absurdly high false temperatures could have become hidden amidst the bulk of automated readings.

In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view. But just removing them from sight is not the same as addressing the implications of this gross statistical debacle. ...


In his statement Pistis agreed NOAA’s satellite readings were “degraded” and the administration will have to “look more into this.” Indeed, visitors to the Michigan Sea Grant site now see the following official message:

NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. “Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.”

Blame the Clouds, not us says NOAA

NOAA further explained that cloud cover could affect the satellite data making the readings prone to error. But Pistis failed to explain how much cloud is significant or at what point the readings become unusable for climatic modeling purposes.

As one disgruntled observer noted,

What about hazy days? What about days with light cloud cover? What about days with partial cloud cover? Even on hot clear days, evaporation leads to a substantial amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly above a body of water. How can this satellite data be even slightly useful if it cannot "see" through clouds?”

Top Climatologist Condemns Lack of Due Diligence

The serious implications of these findings was not lost on Dr. Ball who responded that such government numbers with unusually high or low ranges have been exploited for political purposes and are already in the record and have been used in stories across the mainstream media, which is a widely recognized goal. ...

When McIntyre caught Hansen and NASA GISS with the wrong data in the US I never saw any adjustments to the world data that changes to the US record would create. The US record dominates the record, especially of the critical middle latitudes, and to change it so that it goes from having nine of the warmest years in the 1990s to four of them being in the 1930s, is a very significant change and must influence global averages.”

Each day that passes sees fresh discoveries of gross errors and omissions. One astute commenter on http://www.climatechangefraud.com noted, “it is generally understood that water heats up more slowly than land, and cools off more slowly. However, within the NOAA numbers we have identified at least two sets of data that run contrary to this known physical effect.

The canny commenter added, “two data points in question are at Charlevoix, where the temperature is listed at 43.5 degrees - while temperature nearby (+/- 30 miles) is 59.2 degrees; and in the bay on the east side of the peninsula from Leland is listed at 37.2 degrees. These are supposedly taken at 18:38 EDT (19:38 Central, or 7:38PM). These are both taken in areas that appear to be breaks in the cloud cover.

With NOAA’s failure to make further concise public statements on this sensational story it is left to public speculation and ‘citizen scientists’ to ascertain whether ten years or more of temperature data sets from satellites such as NOAA-16 are unreliable and worthless.

John O'Sullivan is a legal analyst, author and journalist. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O'Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide. </div></div>

AMAZING! (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful)

LWW

Sev
08-15-2010, 04:18 AM
They all have their heads in the sand.

hondo
08-15-2010, 06:29 AM
I opened your damn Right wing blog and almost got a virus!!!
I should have known.

BDers! DO NOT OPEN DICK'S LINK!!!

ALSO, STAY AWAY FROM THE PURPLE ACID!

LWW
08-15-2010, 07:15 AM
So you upgraded to "NORTON REALITYBLOCK" I see.

LWW

hondo
08-15-2010, 09:17 AM
Thank God for Norton! I'll never trust you again!

LWW
08-15-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank God for Norton! I'll never trust <s>you</s> REALITY again! </div></div>

I fixed that for you.

LWW

hondo
08-15-2010, 09:47 AM
You must be very proud.

LWW
08-15-2010, 12:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You must be very proud.</div></div>

It's a tough job cleaning up after you, but someone has to do it. If not me, who? If not now, when?

LWW

Qtec
08-15-2010, 08:03 PM
link (http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die)

link (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In September 2006, Ball filed a lawsuit against The Calgary Herald, a division of CanWest MediaWorks, specifically naming four of its staff, as well as Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the Department of Geography at the University of Lethbridge and the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge. Ball's suit is over the publication of a letter to the editor published in April 2006 by Johnson responding to an opinion column by Ball. In his statement of claim, Ball objects to Johnson's letter in which statements about his academic record were disputed. Ball's claim seeks $250,000 in damages, special damages for loss of future income and punitive damages of $75,000.[10]

Johnson has filed an 18-page statement of defence denying "each and every allegation of fact and law" made by Ball.[10]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the face of this and an even-more strident Statement of Defence by the Calgary Herald (“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”), Ball withdrew the suit in June 2007.</span>[10] </div></div>

And,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NRSP

"Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former [retired] professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg."...However, more correctly, Dr. Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg between 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.[7] </div></div>

The guy is a paid hack.

Q

LWW
08-16-2010, 02:31 AM
Why can't you address the issue instead of attacking the messenger?

Al Gore is a paid hack ... yet that never seems to trouble you.

LWW

Sev
08-20-2010, 07:07 AM
Almost doesn't count except in horseshoes and hand grenades.

llotter
08-20-2010, 06:05 PM
Any excuse for the lefties to assume control of the lives of everyone will be invoked and the more complicated, the better. I simply do not understand what business the government in this arena at all, especially when we all know what pinheads those politicians are.

Sev
08-20-2010, 06:34 PM
I believe pinhead is pretty much an understatement.

Qtec
08-21-2010, 03:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't you address the issue instead of attacking the messenger?

Al Gore is a paid hack ... yet that never seems to trouble you.

LWW </div></div>

Which oil company pays Al Gore?

Your guy is a paid hack who has NO CREDIBILITY, ie he lies for money.

Trust him if you will but when someone gets paid to present a certain lie and you believe it, YOU ARE A SAP.

your expert..................lol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85PcMJ9D8X0)

Q

LWW
08-21-2010, 03:38 AM
Who said any oil company paid Al Gore.

Al is a paid hack for the global warming scam. He has made many millions from movies, books, lectures, and the ultimate scam of of carbon offset credits.

Prior to that, Al was a grade A planet raper and "OIL BARON" from his holdings in Occidental Oil.

I would suggest that you research Al's eco-history in Tennessee and with Occidental ... but I understand the part won't allow you such freedom.

LWW

hondo
08-21-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't you address the issue instead of attacking the messenger?



LWW </div></div>


"For a self proclaimed "ENGLISH TEACHER OF THE YEAR" you seem to be routinely confused by the meanings of several common words in the English language?"

LWW


This, folks, was on CCB when I asked him, with ADR, what a quasi-custom cue was.
On another thread he bragged that Gayle and Wolfie, 2 posters known and respected by all the pool players on here but Steve,
were gone, and it was safe to post on NPR again.

Dick is now trying to infest both forums with his poison.
Disheartening.

Qtec
08-21-2010, 05:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who said any oil company paid Al Gore.</div></div>

Your guy is paid by oil companies to say what they want him to say.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Al is a paid hack for the global warming scam.</div></div>


Who pays him then? Be specific.



Geez, If you have proof that 1,000s of scientists etc around the world are making stuff up and all are part of one huge Leftist conspiracy, lets see it.

Q

hondo
08-21-2010, 07:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who said any oil company paid Al Gore.</div></div>

Your guy is paid by oil companies to say what they want him to say.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Al is a paid hack for the global warming scam.</div></div>


Who pays him then? Be specific.



Geez, If you have proof that 1,000s of scientists etc around the world are making stuff up and all are part of one huge Leftist conspiracy, lets see it.

Q </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
08-22-2010, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who pays him then? Be specific.

Q </div></div>

Doesn't your internet use the google?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When he gave his now-famous global warming slide presentation at the TED conference in 2006 (Technology, Entertainment and Design) I tried to approach him after the presentation to ask a question and was thwarted by his aggressive spokesman who planted himself between me and the former v.p. and griped that I’d been allowed to attend the presentation. He said the talk was supposed to have been off-limits to press (although the conference organizers never mentioned this to me, and no one tried to prevent me from entering the auditorium, although my badge clearly indicated I was press). Gore’s spokesman took down my name and affiliation and warned that I wasn’t to write anything about the event.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gore, whose speaker fee is reportedly $100,000</span>, spoke again at TED this year



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/al-gore-says-no/#ixzz0xKI2iPy7 </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships. ...

He and Tipper Gore released tax returns for 1998 showing they earned $224,376 that year, less than half the income of President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, news reports at the time said.

Now Gore charges a $175,000 speaking fee and has a net worth "well in excess'' of $100 million.</div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH DEAR&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0&refer=home)

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW

LWW
08-22-2010, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geez, If you have proof that 1,000s of scientists etc around the world are making stuff up and all are part of one huge Leftist conspiracy, lets see it.

Q </div></div>

That's been done ad infinitum ... your choosing to ignore it isn't my fault. That being said, a little more about Saint Albert of Green Acres ... Peace Prize be upon him ... and his many sins against the Goremon cult:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USA TODAY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much</span> but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act."<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green.</span> For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.</span>

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.</span>

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives. </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;AL GORE ... THE ONLY OIL BARON CANDIDATE IN 2000&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

H ... this is where you chime in and declare USA TODAY to be a right wing nut blog.

Q ... this is where you disappear and act like you never saw it.

S ... this is where you troll in with some insults and then ensconce your head as deeply as possible in the collectivist sand.

LWW

LWW
08-22-2010, 04:18 AM
H, this is where you declare Amy Goodman and "DEMOCRACY NOW!" of being a right wing nut blogger.

But, be honest ... you probably don't even know who she is being that she is one the few remaining leftists who admit what they are and don't lick the party spoon.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AMY GOODMAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, today we are going to be following the money trail in another case, and that is in the case of Vice President Gore and Occidental Petroleum. Environmentalists and human rights activists are accusing the Vice President of <span style='font-size: 11pt'>hypocrisy over his shareholding in Occidental Petroleum, a company that plans to drill in Colombia’s rainforest over the objections of local indigenous communities.</span>

Gore has targeted the environmental and human rights vote as part of his election campaign and was rated last week as the most knowledgeable presidential candidate on green issues by the League of Conservation Voters.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>But the U’wa Defense Working Group, which represents the U’wa indigenous group of Northeastern Colombia, says Gore is inextricably linked with Occidental Petroleum, the US oil giant that plans to start drilling on its ancestral lands in the next few months in search of an estimated one-and-a-half-billion barrels of oil.</span>

The U’wa have been campaigning for years to stop the drilling, but <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Gore’s connections to Occidental sprang to the headlines this week with a Financial Times piece about environmentalist requests to the Vice President that he call for Occidental to abandon their drilling plans in Colombia.</span> Gore, by the way, owns up to half-a-million dollars of the company’s stock.

And he’s <span style='font-size: 14pt'>also facing heat for his involvement in the sale by the Clinton administration of tens of thousands of acres of oil-rich publicly owned land to Occidental in 1997. The area is known as Elk Hills and is located in Bakersfield, California. It’s also known as an ancestral land for Native American communities.</span>

Now, two prior Republican presidents, Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan, had attempted to put Elk Hills on the auction block, but backed down because of fierce opposition. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It was President Clinton, under the advice of Vice President Gore, who approved the deal to let oil companies buy some of the reserve, pushing a bill through Congress that made it possible to sell the government’s interest in the 47,000-acre Elk Hills reserve to Occidental Petroleum for $3.65 billion.</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'> It was the largest privatization of federal land in the country’s history, and it tripled Occidental’s reserves overnight.</span>

We’re joined right now by two people to talk about Vice President Gore’s connection to Occidental. Peter Eisner is with the Center to Public Integrity, which just put out the book The Buying of the President 2000. And we’re on the line from the Berkeley area with Steve Kretzmann, who is right now the coordinator of the U’wa Working Group. And we welcome you both to Democracy Now! </div></div>

It never ceases to amaze me how easily most leftists ... especially the O-cultists and Goremons ... are to lead like a heard of sheep. (http://www.democracynow.org/2000/1/21/gore_attacked_over_ties_to_occidental)


LWW

Qtec
08-22-2010, 05:15 AM
So Gore is linkrd to big oil?

LMFAO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets <span style='font-size: 17pt'>is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company</span>.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed.

Opening exploration

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron.</span>

The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>some critics are calling the Bush government the "oil and gas administration". </span> </div></div>

and don't get me started on the Bush -oil- Saudi [ you know, those guys who brought the Twin Towers down] connections.

http://sites.google.com/site/anonymouspatriotusa/saudi-large.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/anonymouspatriotusa/saddam.jpg Rumy meets Saddam.



Q.. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm)

hondo
08-22-2010, 05:51 AM
LMAO! "Wired". Yet another credible source.
Do you think we don't notice, Dick?

LWW
08-22-2010, 07:43 AM
LMAO ... leftists tripping over their own collectivist arses to see who can issue Saint Albert of Green Acres a pass the fastest.

Why is it that whenever a leftist is exposed the knee jerk reaction from the left is ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
we all know it by heart ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
it's more predictable than sunrise ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!
</span></span>

Do y'all have any clue how foolish you appear when you do this?

LWW

cushioncrawler
08-23-2010, 02:27 AM
Friday, 13 August, 2010
Of satellites and temperatures
Guest post by Ned
There are a variety of rumors floating around the "skeptic" blogosphere involving claimed problems with satellite temperature measurements. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion on this point. While a lengthy analysis of this topic would be useful, for now we will just briefly hit the main points:

•These stories were sparked by image maps of surface temperatures for the US/Canada Great Lakes posted by an automated processing system at the NOAA-funded Great Lakes Coastwatch program website. In areas with full or partial cloud cover, these maps sometimes show obviously erroneous temperature estimates over the lakes.
•There is a great deal of confusion about whether this represents a broader problem with satellite temperature measurements, and perhaps "invalidates" the satellite temperature record.
Are the Great Lakes Coastwatch data used in any of the global mean temperature records?
First off, the Great Lakes Coastwatch data products aren't part of any global climate data set. They are produced by a local team of investigators supported by the Michigan Sea Grant program and NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), and are primarily used by fishing vessels, natural resource managers, and scientists with an interest in the Great Lakes.


The images posted at the Great Lakes Coastwatch site come from an automated algorithm that assimilates thermal infrared imagery from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument on NOAA's Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) constellation. Where clouds are present, the temperature measurements are not reliable, and the algorithm flags these areas with black or gray tints on the maps to indicate this uncertainty.

It's important to note immediately that these data have no connection whatsoever to the main global satellite temperature records, which are produced by researchers at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Those data sets come from measurements by different sensors entirely, operating in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, rather than the thermal infrared range used by AVHRR.

The Great Lakes Coastwatch data are likewise not merged with any of the global mean temperature records produced by NASA, NOAA, the University of East Anglia, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, or others.


So, to allay people's fears, none of the Great Lakes Coastwatch data are used in any global temperature reconstruction, and the primary satellite temperature trends don't even come from the same sensor or the same portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Conflating the two data sets isn't just like confusing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and salmon, or apples and lettuce (or pick any two completely unrelated food groups of your choice).

Implications for sea surface temperature measurements elsewhere

That said, data from AVHRR are used as one (among many) sources used to measure sea surface temperatures (SST). Do the errors in some of the Great Lakes Coastwatch images indicate potential problems for SST data sets elsewhere?


There is a particular concern about the status of the AVHRR instrument on the NOAA-16 spacecraft. The stories circulating in the skeptic blogosphere this week generally don't recognize that NOAA-16 is a "secondary" satellite in the POES constellation, that AVHRR is present on other satellites, and that there are additional sensors on other US and international spacecraft with similar wavelength ranges in the thermal infrared range that are used for sea (or lake) surface temperature measurement.

Satellite thermal infrared measurements of sea surface are one of the most important global weather and climate records, and are used for everything from tropical storm prediction to fishing vessel operations. These data are provided by different sensors on multiple spacecraft, and are continuously validated using in-situ temperature measurements from buoys and ships.

In summary
Stories in the "skeptic" blogosphere recently have given their readers a mistaken impression that there are reasons to question the validity of observed warming in the various satellite-derived global climate data sets. This is not the case.

The cited examples of temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not incorporated in any of the global mean temperature records. In particular, there is no connection to the satellite microwave temperature analyses by RSS (Figure 1) and UAH, which use entirely different sensors operating in a quite different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

cushioncrawler
08-23-2010, 02:55 AM
3.2 Changes in Surface Climate: Temperature &lt;&gt;3.2.1 Background Improvements have been made to both land surface air temperature and sea surface temperature (SST) databases during the six years since the TAR was published. Jones and Moberg (2003) revised and updated the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) monthly land-surface air temperature record, improving coverage particularly in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) in the late 19th century. Further revisions by Brohan et al. (2006) include a comprehensive reassessment of errors together with an extension back to 1850. Under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), daily temperature (together with precipitation and pressure) data for an increasing number of land stations have also become available, allowing more detailed assessment of extremes (see Section 3.8), as well as potential urban influences on both large-scale temperature averages and microclimate. A new gridded data set of monthly maximum and minimum temperatures has updated earlier work (Vose et al., 2005a). For the oceans, the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) has been extended by blending the former COADS with the UK’s Marine Data Bank and newly digitised data, including the US Maury Collection and Japan’s Kobe Collection. As a result, coverage has been improved substantially before 1920, especially over the Pacific, with further modest improvements up to 1950 (Worley et al., 2005; Rayner et al., 2006). Improvements have also been made in the bias reduction of satellite-based infrared (Reynolds et al., 2002) and microwave (Reynolds et al., 2004; Chelton and Wentz, 2005) retrievals of SST for the 1980s onwards. These data represent ocean skin temperature (Section 3.2.2.3), not air temperature or SST, and so must be adjusted to match the latter. Satellite infrared and microwave imagery can now also be used to monitor land surface temperature (Peterson et al., 2000; Jin and Dickinson, 2002; Kwok and Comiso, 2002b). Microwave imagery must allow for variations in surface emissivity and cannot act as a surrogate for air temperature over either snow-covered (Peterson et al., 2000) or sea-ice areas. As satellite-based records are still short in duration, all regional and hemispheric temperature series shown in this section are based on conventional surface-based data sets, except where stated.

Despite these improvements, substantial gaps in data coverage remain, especially in the tropics and the SH, particularly Antarctica. These gaps are largest in the 19th century and during the two world wars. Accordingly, advanced interpolation and averaging techniques have been applied when creating global data sets and hemispheric and global averages (Smith and Reynolds, 2005), and advanced techniques have also been used in the estimation of errors (Brohan et al., 2006), both locally and on a global basis (see Appendix 3.B.1). These errors, as well as the influence of decadal and multi-decadal variability in the climate, have been taken into account when estimating linear trends and their uncertainties (see Appendix 3.A). Estimates of surface temperature from ERA-40 reanalyses have been shown to be of climate quality (i.e., without major time-varying biases) at large scales from 1979 (Simmons et al., 2004). Improvements in ERA-40 over NRA arose from both improved data sources and better assimilation techniques (Uppala et al., 2005). The performance of ERA-40 was degraded prior to the availability of satellite data in the mid-1970s (see Appendix 3.B.5).

HMMMMMM -- NO MENTION OF NOAA SATELLITE DATA ANYWHERE.
THIS THREAD IZ INDEED ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING MYTH MYTH.
MAC.