?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
21 August 2010 @ 12:56 pm
NOAA - rank amateurs or liars? 2 & SPPI CO2 report  

Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful by John O'Sullivan guest post at Climate Change Fraud.
Aug 12 2010
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).

SatelliteGate: Lake Michigan Temp July 4th 2010: 489.2°F ?
August 13 2010
Major Update about the NOAA 16 Satellite and when problems with it were known see end of the article
Well according to NOAA at least part of Lake Michigan reached that temperature, while other parts had temperatures in excess of 100°, 200°, 300° and 400° F. I saw this a couple of days ago and at first thought it was a hoax being perputrated to try and discredit skeptics, and I still had a nagging suspicion that was the case when I saw the data myself from the Michigan State University's CoastWatch archives (CoastWatch is a co-operative effort between NOAA and MSU). Then yesterday I saw something about all the data for the NOAA-16 Satellite going bye bye (don't remember where exactly)
Well today those two little facts got tied together with a nice little bow and a big attempt by NOAA to first cover up and then whitewash at the minimum gross negligence by the agency.
[...] NOAA either through incomptence, negligence or malice "cooked" the books (pun intended) on Lake Michigan temperatures, but it has far wider questions and implications. If the NOAA 16 satellite is "degraded" what about the others such as the new NOAA 18 satellite and the older NASA AQUA satellite that is used by UAH and RSS to make the "official" Satellite temperature records, what about NOAA 15 that was used prior to NASA's AQUA by RSS and UAH are they as well ? or will the newer ones be expected to now or not? Is the older one, older then one discussed, not
just "degraded" by orbital decay but also it's sensors and if so when did it start? Was UAH and RSS told if so? How was it handled.

 
Questions for SatelliteGate by Piers Corbyn
[...] Imagine if it were found the satellite data had been reading minus 200F in Michigan etc and that had been used in input for world averages, THERE WOULD BE FRONT PAGE NEWS AND ENRAGED QUESTIONS IN EVERY ELECTED (and unelected) PUBLIC FORUM IN THE WORLD coupled with public sackings of the scientists involved and the most dire 'end of the world' warnings possible and redoubled calls for carbon supertaxes.
Why are ALL the errors and tricks in data collection and processing found since Climategate broke of the sort which make temperatures too high?
How bad is this error and how long has it been going on for?
Are there other errors in satellite data?
What parts of the globe does it mainly concern?
WHEN and HOW will we get a reliable world temperature data set; and just WHAT is the best (most reliable) data set around?
Could it be that the world temp peak (believed) of around 1998 - 2003 was no higher than that around 1935-1940?

 
SatelliteGate: Top Climate Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal by John O'Sullivan
In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.
Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.
Government Weather Forecasting: A Corrupted Waste Of Time And Money by Dr. Tim Ball [Inc. comments about Piers Corbyn]
Reading material

SURFACE TEMP RECORDS POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION (updated June 2010)

Also we have CRU having to redo all their temperature time series because the raw data got "lost" or was deleted. GISS data constantly adjusted, ostensibly justified but the adjustments predominantly accentuate warming rather than a roughly equal amount of adjustments favouring cooling.

Latest via Climate Realists

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’ by John O'Sullivan
[...] I had proven that the website operated by the Michigan State University had published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously comprised.
In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.
Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

***************************************
SPPI's monthly CO2 report for July - link
Accurate, Authoritative Analysis for Today’s Policymakers
Mörner on sea level: The Professor says yet another suggestion that sea level will soon rise 23 feet is nonsense. Page 4.
Our revised graphs explained: An account of how we compile our authoritiative SPPI temperature and CO2 graphs. Page 5.
IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, on present trends, it will be well short. Pages 6-8.
Since 1980 global temperature has risen at only 2.7 °F (1.5 °C)/century, not 6 F° (3.4 C°) as IPCC predicts. Pages 9-12.
Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has been rising since 1993 at a very modest 1 ft/century. Page 13.
Arctic sea-ice extent is nearing its summer minimum. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is now at its third-highest in the 30-year record. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 14-18.
Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity remains at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Pages 19-22.
Sunspot activity is back to low-normal: but, looking back it was a long – and cool – solar minimum. Pages 23-24.
The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 25-28.
There is no cause for alarm: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says CO2 and warming are normal. Pages 29-32.
As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, the surest way to check policy costs against benefits. Pages 33-34.
and our selection of recent scientific papers of interest, compiled by Dr. Craig Idso of www.co2science.org. Pages 35-40.
The medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than the present, as our global map shows. Page 41.
And finally ... a polar bear’s take on “global warming! Page 42.
 

 
 
 
clothcapclothcap on August 22nd, 2010 02:12 pm (UTC)
Update
Added
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’