There's a character out there in YouTube land who's been pumping out incredibly deceitful videos at a prodigious rate. Rumor has it, it's none other than Lord Monckton. When I asked him directly he was very coy about it. I would expect no less from one of the world's foremost political entertainers. I'd already had a couple comment go-around with 1000frolly, and I have an acquaintance with the Lord going back five years now, so I wasn't surprised that he (er… 1000frolly) has chosen to "Ghost" me at the 1000frolly YouTube channel.
This from men who self-righteously demand that serious full-time working professionals stop everything to run off for a kangaroo debate with self-certain dabblers. Interestingly, these same people never stand up to a constructive debate themselves? Nor do they ever learn from information that's been shared?
To underscore the disingenuous nature of their challenge, they refuse to follow through on serious fact based rational debates that they are challenged with, instead opting to remain within their echo-chamber.
One tactic is "Ghosting" - challenging commenters on one's YouTube channel.
How "Ghosting" works is that a targeted individual can see his/her own comments when logged in, making it appear that your comments are a part of the discussion. However, if you log out of your account and return to the same video you will see that your comment has disappeared, for example:
___________________________________________________________
What's tragic is how few students who know better are offended enough to stand up and add their own thoughtful correcting comments to such maliciously misleading videos or internet articles and such. - Why not make the effort to point out the many deceitful tricks being employed, then offering up real world information so at least people are aware that real evidence is out there.
Below I address this video's fundamental claim with a series of links and quotes that explain why the Ted Cruzs, 1000frollys, Lord Moncktons are so terribly wrong when they insist there's been no warming on this planet for the past 18 years. Also about the satellite temperature record, which is not the holy grail some claim..
___________________________________________________________
By Chris Mooney - March 24, 2015
… The key phrase here is “satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming. None whatsoever.” And it’s noteworthy, because it shows that Cruz has done some homework and found a particular type of data that would appear to support his claim.
… To explore Carl Mears' (a physicist and senior scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, whom Cruz quoted.) views further, I did one thing journalists can do when covering the climate views of presidential candidates — I contacted the researcher. And his response was quite critical of Cruz’s approach to the evidence on this issue:
Mr. Cruz (and others who seek to minimize the threat posed by climate change) likes to cite statistics about the last 17 years because 17 years ago, the Earth was experiencing a large ENSO [El Nino-Southern Oscillation] event and the observed temperatures were substantially above normal, and above any long-term trend line a reasonable person would draw.
When one starts their analysis on an extraordinarily warm year, the resulting trend is below the true long term trend. It’s like a pro baseball player deciding he’s having a batting slump three weeks after a game when he hit three homers because he’s only considering those three weeks instead of the whole season.
Mears went further, explaining that while he studies satellite data, we probably shouldn’t rely on those data more than we rely on the temperatures that NASA and NOAA are using:
My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors.
In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset.
___________________________________________________________
One satellite data set is underestimating global warming
A new study suggests that the University of Alabama at Huntsville is lowballing the warming of the atmosphere
John Abraham - Wednesday 25 March 2015
A very important study was just published in the Journal of Climate a few days ago. ...
The publication, authored by Stephen Po-Chedley and colleagues from the University of Washington, discusses some major sources of error in satellite records. For instance, after satellites are launched, they scan the Earth’s atmosphere and calibrate the atmospheric measurements using a warm target onboard the satellite and cold space.
The accuracy with which the atmospheric measurements are calibrated can influence the inferred temperature of the atmosphere (called the warm-target bias). Additionally, over the years, multiple satellites have been launched and the selection of which satellite data are used can play a role. Finally, biases can occur because the satellite orbits drift during their lifetime and the influence of diurnal temperature variation can affect the global temperature trends. ...
___________________________________________________________
NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’
... Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement
The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. ...
___________________________________________________________
Posted on 27 December 2011 by dana1981, Albatross
November 2011 marked the 33rd year of atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change. ...
___________________________________________________________
Bad Week for Roy “Wrong-Way” Spencer
September 7, 2011
...This week, Andrew Dessler, top flight atmospheric scientist of Texas A & M, (and advisor to this blog and video series) published a paper showing why Spencer is so off base.
The basic issue in the current kerfuffle is, Spencer wants us to believe that clouds are the driver, rather than a feedback, or result of, global climate change. ...
___________________________________________________________
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
No comments:
Post a Comment