Shock News : NASA Surface Temperatures Don’t Match More Accurate Satellite Data

ScreenHunter_253 Jan. 22 11.02

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Shock News : NASA Surface Temperatures Don’t Match More Accurate Satellite Data

  1. tomwys says:

    C’mon, Steve! How ’bout some links to source data, even though I don’t doubt it one whit!!!

    • Dude the links are given above……gov’t would never lie to the peasantry would it ?

        • Why do you consider a radiance measure from a satellite better than a measurement of temperature from the air 1.5 meters above the surface? Both of those are a complete FRAUD. They both measure “somthing” and should never be “corrected” until some folk can decide what they are measuring! They are both important but like hieroglyphics are not understandable without much more consideration. The PR claims of these measurements are pure FRAUD. This fraud needs to be examined first, with criminal penialties. Later,others can decypher what was measured.

  2. jay352 says:

    Too many thermometers mounted on the side of AC units with stickem

  3. omanuel says:


    The historical record of NASA’s data manipulation:

    1969: Apollo Mission to the Moon brought lunar soil samples to Earth for precise analysis.

    1983: Analysis of solar-wind-implanted elements in lunar soils revealed severe mass fractionation in the Sun and an interior of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [O. Manuel & Golden Hwaung, “Solar abundances of the elements,” Meteoritics (1983)].

    1983: The conclusion section of the above paper predicted that the Galileo Mission to Jupiter would find excess Xe-136 from the supernova birth of the solar system.

    1995: The Galileo probe entered Jupiter and observed excess Xe-136 there, as predicted twelve years earlier.

    1998: CSPAN news recorded this admission from the NASA Administrator of hiding Jupiter isotope data:

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    • omanuel says:

      This 1998 report on the findings in Jupiter also contains a complete reference to the original 1983 paper on “Solar abundances of the elements.”

      O. Manuel, “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”,
      Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, a
      Paper 5011 (1998)

      Click to access 5011.pdf

  4. Nothing says:

    WHy would you compare GLOBAL data with USA data? of course they wont line up. ass-hat.

  5. Kiwi7 says:

    Interesting how the divergence gets larger the closer the data gets to the present. If you want ot show warming, cool the past and heat the present.

  6. gregole says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here truly is “Man-Made Global Warming”. Just change the data by cooling the past, and warm the present. Here we see Mankind’s Fingerprint, so to speak.

    Global warming in it’s heyday never amounted to much – worldwide average temperatures measured to within a hundredth of a degree, displayed in tenths of a degree – if you believe any of that… well let’s just pretend and play along. Since the satellite era, say late seventies, GATA is up what; a fraction of a degree? Yawn. Crisis. Really?

    Just astounding how a small group of frauds and charlatans have gotten away with this. I is difficult not to conclude that there are a lot of suckers in the world.

  7. Brian H says:

    A systemic error trend. How could that be? Oh, wait …

  8. omanuel says:

    This three (3) minute video of the Sun (Earth’s heat source) over a three year period is instructive.

    Compare the featureless, tranquil images of low energy radiation coming from the photosphere with the violent images of high energy radiation coming from the interior of the Sun:

  9. barry says:

    There’s no information here. Are the time periods the same? What is the value of the divergence? Where is the commentary on the difference of what is being measured (2 different strata of the atmosphere)?

    Here are linear trends for GISS and RSS from 1979 – 2013 inclusive.


    Not very different. GISS and RSS diverge by 0.03C/decade over the period. Interannuaol data is very similar, but RSS has more variance (larger troughs and peaks).

    But why compare these two data sets in isolation from others? Here are the trends for both satellite data sets, GISS and HadCrut4.

    Not only are the trends very similar for all 4 data sets, the year to year variation is almost identical, with a notable exception for 1997/98. Satellite measurements appear to be more sensitive to ENSO.

    Trend ranked from highest:

    GISS – 0.158c/dec
    Had4 – 0.154c/dec
    UAH – 0.136c/dec
    RSS – 0.125c/dec

    I think I see why GISS and RSS were chosen for comparison.

  10. barry says:

    Calculating statistical significance for the two trends…

    RSS – 0.125c/dec [+/- 0.069]
    GISS – 0.158c/dec [+/- 0.044

    The uncertainties overlap – between 0.114c/decade and 0.194c/decade, 55% of the spread. the trends are not statistically distinguishable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s