Every once in awhile something comes along that lets you know you made a difference while generating a laugh at the same time.
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/
h/t to Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition
Every once in awhile something comes along that lets you know you made a difference while generating a laugh at the same time.
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/
h/t to Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition
Thing is AW, They would get their high temps some other way..
That’s what they do !!!
Great cartoon 🙂
I do like the way climate sceptics think!
On a more serious note, the cartoon comment reflects the reason why GISS has made most of its largest temperature adjustments/manipulations/torturing in the pre-satellite area.
Mostly cooler, of course from 1890 to 1965 and warmer thereafter..
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS%20MaturityDiagram
The truth is that satellites CAN NOT measure land temperatures. It has been tried – it does not work!
Here is another of his cartoons which also makes a very strong point.
http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/Political%20cartoons_files/Gravy%20train.jpg
Got a good laugh out of that one especially when I saw the IPCC and the CSIRO on those brief cases.
Anthony, It is a damn good feeling sometimes when you know from deep down inside you that you have made a difference, a real difference to the world. and not many can claim that.
In your case along with a very few others who took on the nascent global green dictatorship with their massive resources of every type backing them, you along with the other skeptic bloggers Steve McIntyre amongst them, have made that difference in the forcing back the tide of a possible future global green dictatorship.
Your’s and your contemporary’s effectiveness and success is global in extent and has perhaps done more than any other tiny group on this planet to begin the rolling back of what one day will be seen as a mass collective madness almost beyond comprehension to those who will follow after our generations.
Feel good about yourself, You deserve it in every way.
“The truth is that satellites CAN NOT measure land temperatures. It has been tried – it does not work!”
They can, if You mean the ground surface. What they can’t do is to measure the air temperature just above the ground (except in the Arctic apparently, if we are to believe believe the “pause-killers”).
Robert Clemenzi says: November 15, 2013 at 1:22 am
The truth is that satellites CAN NOT measure land temperatures. It has been tried – it does not work!
____________________________________
They can, but they need calibration. Thats where the land stations come into the picture – and the warmer the calibration stations on land, the warmer the rest of the world looks to the satellite.
R
ROM
+1000
Good try, but a major fault in the drawing, The incinerator should clearly have been an outside grill or a simple burn barrel.
It is generally agreed that the global surface-to-lower troposhere amplification factor (as derived from the laspe rate enhancement) is, or should be, approximately 1.2. So, if the satellites have now suddenly become super-accurate and reliable, let’s go the whole hog and use them to estimate the global surface temperature trend. By ratioing the current RSS decadal trend of .127C down by 1.2, the new and improved GISS’ decadal trend (since 1979) would come in around .106C instead of its current obviously incorrect rate of .159C. Better than we thought! This method has the additional benefit of saving a lot of money, since we no longer require either the GISS and HADCRUTx temperature series, nor the expensive and sophisticated efforts of the TOBS adjusters and the UHI non-adjusters.
He is a third cartoon by Steve Hunter: http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/Political%20cartoons_files/Scare%20them.jpg
It really captures the heart of the IPCC.
I think this one is my favorite: http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/Political%20cartoons_files/Gravity%20Tax.jpg
How do these compare with those of cartoonist John Cook?
Robert
Land base stations sample about 2% of the Earth’s surface. Satellites sample over 80%. We’re looking for trends in average air temps, not absolute values. Two reasons: 1) we are only interested in finding the rate (if any) warming or cooling & 2) the AGW crowd doesn’t want the public thinking about absolute temps. God forbid the general public should consider that people actually like to move south to warmer climes.
Satellites aren’t absolutely accurate but they are far more indicative of changes and trends than surface stations, especially with the trend toward airport based land stations and the drastic drop in rural stations after 1989.
Finally, you obviously have no sense of humor and have swallowed too much of the AGW pablum.
Bill
@ Peter Miller “On a more serious note, the cartoon comment reflects the reason why GISS has made most of its largest temperature adjustments/manipulations/torturing in the pre-satellite area.”
More pragmatically, if you lie about the current temperatures, more people will notice. If you lie about temperature half a century ago, how many people will realize?
For anyone concerned, pardon my usage of the word “lie” instead of euphemisms such as “adjust” or “recalibrate”. I think we went past the “adjust” phase some years back.
chris y says:
November 15, 2013 at 4:46 am
> How do these compare with those of cartoonist John Cook?
Cook’s cartoons seem to predate him becoming a climate change evangelist. The only thing he seems to have done since then is SkS’s banner image with the penguins looking at a green plant emerging from antarctic ice. I’ve sometimes wondered why he’s dropped his art, possibilities range from lack of time, general bitterness, fear of being compared to Josh, and maybe someone else drew them.
A few years ago here in Newcastle upon Tyne, we had the distinction of having the highest levels of airborne pollution in Europe, because the city council in their wisdom installed the pollution sensors in the underground Bus Concourse!
You really couldn’t make it up!
[snip this thread is NOT about gravity shifts – take your cyclomania elsewhere – Anthony]
Lately here in the UK, our tv weather presenters have been at pains to point out: ‘That’s the temperature in the towns and cities, in rural areas it will be two or three degrees (Celcius) cooler..’
Because of the URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT…
A good joke has an element of truth. This one has a lot of it!
The Sun beating down on the perfectly angled brick building is the best part. Should keep that sensor toasty all night long.
Funny but Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way were just able to employ satellites in a “study” that ends up with even better, more positive warming trends than those from the airports themselves! 😉 Never underestimate the alarmists’ creativity in fabricating evidence.
It is a Friday here.
This is Anthonie’s (misspelled on purpose) wonderful place.
And that cartoon is great comedy.
Thanks.
John
Like to put that on my FB, any problem?
Paul
Anthony,
Get in touch with Mary K. Hamm of http://www.hotair.com news/blog and work with her on a post/story/news item on Obama’s new lie / power grab of the EPA/CO2 climate change fraud.
Reason being his lie based health care .con is wrecking the U.S. health care system. Now he goes for the full monte of the entire operation via the EPA wrecking the base industries that keeps the worlds and U.S.A.’s food and energy going.
Plus she seems to be a very nice and smart lady.
You forgot the parking lot.
I have a temperature gauge in my truck. As I drive across the USA I find that almost all the temperature displays on the side of the road deviate from my own temperature gauge by +/- 2, 3 some even 4 degrees.
I find it hard to believe that they have accurate temperature information. How often do they check or calibrate their equipment? Is there a temperature equivalent of the atomic clock. Super precise, accurate and stable over long periods of time?
I mean, if a few degrees make such a huge difference in the climate of the earth, wouldn’t ½° temperature change cause undeniable and self-evident climate change?
Wouldn’t even one tenth of a degree change cause some severe weather?
If my car engine melts jus two degrees above normal operating temperature, a ½ degree change in temperature would mean a pretty hot engine!
There once was a climate scientist from Nantucket
Who carried this data to work in a bucket
Though his models showed warming
he was caught misinforming
and was last seen wearing a straightjacket.
Philip Fink
See
http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=HTCNE0294&DataType=WorldHistory&WinType=Free
for a more detailed description of the hurricane of 1780. It may be the one you’re thinking of.
The thing is, if they actually did change tack and rely on satellites to measure temperature, we’d discover that the satellites were redirected to orbit the sun.
Great cartoon and worth framing. The Australian CSIRO that has produced great inventions (e.g. Wi-Fi) has become a laughing stock when it comes to climate change and sea level rise. Someone really needs to pull the CSIRO climate dingbats back into line.
You’ve made quite a difference – and don’t need a cartoon as evidence!!!
@ Gail Combs – THANKS FOR SHARING. Yes, super funny (esp. #2). “… Talk about an inconvenient truth.” lol
***********************************
Dear Philip Finck,
Some Possible Sources for You:
1. http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/pre1900s/1780/
2. http://worldhistoryproject.org/1780/10/10/great-hurricane-of-1780
WUWT Threads (be sure to look in the Comments, too):
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/did-global-warming-reduce-the-impacts-of-sandy/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/if-storms-are-worse-now-why-did-they-need-a-sea-wall-150-years-ago/
3. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ipcc-sea-level-exaggeration/
4. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/the-great-labor-day-hurricane-of-1935/
(See comment at 4:13pm 8/29/13)
5. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/from-the-scientific-urban-legend-department-agw-sea-level-rise-made-sandy-more-destructive/
Was that helpful? If you can find anything in the above that helps you successfully counter the economy-damaging AGW l1es, the time I spent looking for these cites will have been worth it.
Your American ally for truth and freedom,
Janice
Bill: “Pablum” is a trademarked baby food; you are thinking of “pabulum”.
yeah…can anybody please explain precisely how they measure temps from satellites
You go Janice!!! After reading your cites I feel sure they will help Mr. Finck. I enjoyed them because they expanded my knowledge.
Speaking of fun, the sunspot number is 272 currently.
Philip Finck says:
November 15, 2013 at 3:43 am
I don’t remember the post off hand, but I found the account you want to use, see http://www.thebermudian.com/past-issues/143 which says in part:
Wikipedia offers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
A more general look at that year is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1780_Atlantic_hurricane_season :
@ Stan Stendera — Thanks! Hope all is well in the studio and with your little birds on the railing and with dear Libby. I wish you posted more often. Your shining star personality brightens this place up. We NEED that around here!
Boy, after Hawkins and Werme and I went to all that effort….. IF MR. FINCK DOES NOT REPORT BACK HERE, HE WILL BE A FINK. (grrr)
Robert Clemenzi says November 15, 2013 at 1:22 am
The truth is that satellites CAN NOT measure land temperatures. It has been tried – it does not work!
Nor do the “land temperatures”. They are supposed to measure air temps at around 4 foot off the ground. To measure the ground temp, you need to put a thermometer in the ground.
Satellites measure air temps in different layers, one being closest to the ground.
Robert of Ottawa says:
The idea that satellites can determine the temperature of different layers is an area of recent research, but the results are very speculative and, so far, of little use.
Satellites measure radiation. Various algorithms are used to determine the temperature that produces that radiation. Because IR radiation does not penetrate clouds, microwave radiation is used to determine the *surface* temperature. If you assume that the atmosphere is opaque, the rest of the spectra can be used to determine the radiation temperature of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The problem is that because the upper atmosphere is not opaque, there is no way to determine how thick the emission layer is or how much radiation, if any, is coming from the surface. As a result, there are multiple possible scenarios that will give the same spectra. Also, once a specific temperature profile is selected, there is no way to determine how high above the surface a specific temperature occurs.
In addition, because the 4-foot air temperature is frequently colder than the air a few hundred meters above it, there is no way to determine what it might be.
Over the oceans, satellites are capable of determining the temperature of the upper 2 millimeters of water. Research indicates that this is a good approximation of the atmosphere temperature 4 feet above the surface. However, over land, ground based thermometers have shown that the *surface* temperature is +60F to -20F of what is measured in a Stevenson screen, perhaps more.
There are additional problems with satellites – orbital drift, a lack of needed detectors, a lack of adequate calibration, and so forth.
In my opinion, the only temperature that “might” apply to climate is one from 6″ to 1′ below the surface. I like this because all peaks are integrated out. Transient phenomena, like air conditioners and jet airplanes, will have no effect.