NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

So, publish the uncertainties and the other datasets that don't show September is the warmest.

 

The simplest deffinition of what is good and what is bad would be which uses the best technology. The satellite record uses the best technology available. The GISS uses Stevenson screens which is 19th century technology. While the surface reconstructions have their place for getting an idea of the climate prior to the satellite era they should never be construed to be superior to the satellite record in any way. Believing the surface reconstructions over the satellite record is as stupid as believing an X-ray over an MRI.

 

Since satellites and surface stations don't measure exactly the same thing, your argument is bogus. There's a good scientific reason we use both forms of measurement.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jclim96/

 

If the surface was as accurate and running hotter than the mid troposphere would that not falsify AGW?

 

Especially since it is supposed to show up in the troposphere first according to the AGW models, yet the hot spot is missing.

 

The bright red line represents actual empirical measurements showing that global mean surface temperature has increased by 1 °C over the last century. Whether you use tree rings, ice cores, or any other temperature proxy, you will not find such a large and rapid increase in the last 11,000 years.

 

You never have explained how satellite sensors are calibrated without actually measuring temperature at the surface.

 

I don't expect to see that large of a swing from proxy data that is a long term average vs. daily temperature readings.

 

Nope nothing in your link supports your claim that yhe satellite record is calibrated by the surface record. You've tried this befire snd know you are wrong. Repeating it is called a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Marcott the author of his study said as much. However warmmonger propagandists don't care.

 

What's funny about the ice core records, and never seeing CO2 above 300 ppm in them is likely in my opinion for the same reason. I once saw a statistical analysis done, and because of the average length between CO2 proxy data, if a 50 year peak above 300 ppm did occur, it was something like only 5% likely to be visible in the core record.

 

So, during the last century (no warming this century) only 1/2 is attributable to CO2 according to the IPCC, so what caused the other half of warming?

 

Excellent graphic. Love it. But…but…but…THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!

 

This blog post explains why that isn't true. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

 

The advanced microwave sounding units satellites use to measure surface temperature actually measure brightness temperature, which is then converted to an actual temperature using calibration coefficients. How do you think they determine what the calibration coefficient should be?

 

Back to posting photoshop fakes again, I see.

 

Another Ice Age?

 

Why don't you tell us and provide clear evidence.