Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

Old news. The new UAH v6 will be more in line with the RSS not the other way around. Nice try thought.

 

what is it we're supposed to look for in them? As suggested by the others here, why not quote it? Are you supposedly too good/beyond having to do that, or is there actually nothing there and you wish to waste all our time. Well I do not think you will achieve that goal if it is actually it. So again, just post and quote!!!

 

I have this thing with internet boasts like "I have this or that qualification" I always look at the evidence from the posts to see if the knowledge is evident. If it is not I dismiss the boasting. I am sure a lot of others do the same.

 

Just like you dismiss everything you don't understand from views that don't match your confirmation bias.

 

Assuming the results before you do the analysis. Is that you're idea of sound science?

 

Spencer is almost done and has provided details. You have been clinging to a 3 year old off the cuff statement.

 

Where? The only mention of Version 6 on his blog from July 9th, 2013, only says they are now making good progress, and yet 17 months later he's still posting Version 5.6 data.

 

Your inability to do a search is none of my concern.

 

Your inability to back up your claims certain is.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2014-0-33-deg-c/

Ha Ha Ha

Guess you are going to have to find a new argument.

 

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

By the way, have you figured out how they calibrate the AMSU-4 sensors on these satellites without actually measuring the surface temperature?

 

Have you figured out that you are wrong?

 

That is not a rebuttal

 

The argument occurred in another thread. I smoked him. It went from him claiming that the satellite record is calibrated with the surface record to any thermometer being used at any time. It was a joke. 10 pages of a typical leftist trying to keep from admitting an error.

 

So, now Windy's opinion is that anyone who believes that .03 > 0 is a liar.

And I would say anyone who believes .03 > 0 is a more honest and competent mathematician than Windy.

 

You smoked something all right, but it certainly wasn't me. ASMUs installed on satellites measure brightness temperature, which is only the same as actual temperature for black bodies, which the atmosphere most certainly is not. Converting brightness temperature to actual temperature requires knowing the emissivity of the object you're measuring, which can't be determined without knowing its actual temperature.

 

Considering the uncertainty is 2.8 degrees, .03 is essentially no different than zero. Statistics.

 

Statistically 0. The real value could be more than 0.3 it could also be less. Looks like I was beaten to it.

- - - Updated - - -

We dont know the earths actual temperature. The various reconstructions differ. And you are also flat out (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wrong. Post the suposed evidence, not a blanket link but what you actually beleive shows that the surface reconstruction is used to calibrate the satellite record.

 

Satellites are not calibrated with any temperature on earth but use two sources. An onboard “warm calibration target” and cosmic background, which is assumed to radiate at 2.7 Kelvin degrees. Long term individual satellite records often drift so are then 'reconstructed' using modeling on earth to give a continuous record.

 

Yeah its pretty simple. Contrails is just caught up on this idea that the satellite record is calibrated with the surface record. Its been pages over pages of contrails refusing to admit an error. Such is the case with all leftists. When your world view is that you are intellectually superior and are therefore entitled to micromanage the world your won incompetence cannot be admitted to especially not to yourself.

 

Congratulations, you figured out how they adjust for ASMU sensor degradation on satellites in orbit. Now you should learn how they produce the global baseline emissivity database used to convert brightness temperatures into surface temperatures.

 

Actually since you are the one trying to argue that the surface record is used to calibrate the record the onus is on you.

 

Anyone who understands thermal imaging knows that emissivity is critical to calculating temperature and the only way to accurately determine emissivity is to measure the brightness of a surface at a known temperature.

 

Maybe it's beyond my understanding, but I don't comprehend how scientists think they can accurately see the surface temperature via satellite. I think it's just one huge SWAG.

I was involved with spectral analysis years ago, using the spectra to determine layer thickness of wafer layers in the semiconductor industry. The top layer was no problem, all that was needed was knowing the materiel type and characteristics. It became more complex as you looked at deeper layers. Understanding this process, I simply cannot fathom how scientists think they can determine surface temperatures with any usable accuracy, seeing through a complex mix of changing temperatures, aerosols, and gasses.

Now there are some differences between the two types of measurements, but the complexity of other materials is still there.

Seeing temperature relies on more than just emissivity, but knowing the exact ratio differences of two or more of the spectral lines of the materials you are looking at, at a given temperature. Since everything in the path will have some effect on these spectra...

Humor me. Can anyone explain the process?

 

well if that isn't how the alarmist work. Yep, still no experiment to show what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. N o n e!