PDA

View Full Version : NOAA : Satellite failure -- decade of global warming data doubtful



Apocalypse
08-17-2010, 10:52 PM
Oh this one is good.

Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful by John O'Sullivan guest post at Climate Change Fraud

Thursday, August 12th 2010, 11:26 AM EDT

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high. Please remember this, very important.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true. Now they call him respected!

However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite.

‘NOAA-16’ was launched in September 2000, and is currently operational, in a sun-synchronous orbit, 849 km above the Earth, orbiting every 102 minutes providing automated data feed of surface temperatures which are fed into climate computer models.

NOAA has reported a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years based on such satellite readings but these may now all be undermined.

World-renowned Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball, after casting his expert eye over the shocking findings concluded, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”

Great Lakes Sees Unphysical Wild Temperature Fluctuations

Great Lakes users of the satellite service were the first to blow the whistle on the wildly distorted readings that showed a multitude of impossibly high temperatures. NOAA admits that the machine-generated readings are not continuously monitored so that absurdly high false temperatures could have become hidden amidst the bulk of automated readings.

In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view. But just removing them from sight is not the same as addressing the implications of this gross statistical debacle. Gone from sight, but still used by them.

NOAA Whitewash Fails in One Day

NOAA’s Chuck Pistis went into whitewash mode on first hearing the story about the worst affected location, Egg Harbor, set by his instruments onto fast boil. On Tuesday morning Pistis loftily declared, “I looked in the archives and I find no image with that time stamp. Also we don't typically post completely cloudy images at all, let alone with temperatures. This image appears to be manufactured for someone's entertainment.”

But later that day Chuck and his calamitous colleagues now with egg on their faces, threw in the towel and owned up to the almighty gaffe. Pistis conceded,

“I just relooked and (sic) the image again AND IT IS in my archive. I do not know why the temperatures were so inaccurate (sic). It appears to have been a malfunction in the satellite. WE have posted thousands if (sic) images since the inauguration of our Coatwatch (sic) service in 1994. I have never seen one like this.”

But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a ‘Coastwatch’ partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms. NOAA declined to make any comment as to whether such a glitch could have ramped up the averages for the entire northeastern United States by an average of 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by going undetected over a longer time scale.

Somewhat more contritely NOAA's Pistis later went into damage limitation mode to offer his excuses,

“We need to do a better job screening what is placed in the archive or posted. Coastwatch is completely automated so you can see how something like this could slip through.”

In his statement Pistis agreed NOAA’s satellite readings were “degraded” and the administration will have to “look more into this.” Indeed, visitors to the Michigan Sea Grant site now see the following official message:

"NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. “Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.”


http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6127&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28Cl imateRealists+News+Blog%29

On one radio station I listen too. One reporter said this may in fact be common with all their sats.

Now math time, from what I asked you to remember.

612 - 15% means Wisconson sees an average normal temp of 457 Deg.

Rockntractor
08-17-2010, 10:56 PM
Wilbur will say, oh for crying out loud, blah blah blah.............................................. .....................................

Gingersnap
08-18-2010, 10:16 AM
We have met stations all over Colorado. These are ground stations and unlike the NWS and NOAA, these stations are actually sited correctly in terms of drainage, elevation, shade, reflectivity, and other parameters. Some of these stations use a human operator but a lot of them use telemetry. Again, unlike the NWS and NOAA, we actually train our operators and fire them if they screw up. We also calibrate our equipment quarterly (again, unlike the NWS and NOAA).

Despite all this, we have to employ a guy who does nothing but QA/QC on these kind of data sets using sophisticated software and his own functional brain. We still get outliers that need to be verified or thrown out. If anybody in this place missed a temp that was above 115 F or below -40 F, they would be fired. If they failed to notice an upward trending seasonal average, they would be retrained. If they failed to notice it for 10 years, they would be fired and their supervisor would be fired.

djones520
08-18-2010, 10:24 AM
We have met stations all over Colorado. These are ground stations and unlike the NWS and NOAA, these stations are actually sited correctly in terms of drainage, elevation, shade, reflectivity, and other parameters. Some of these stations use a human operator but a lot of them use telemetry. Again, unlike the NWS and NOAA, we actually train our operators and fire them if they screw up. We also calibrate our equipment quarterly (again, unlike the NWS and NOAA).

Despite all this, we have to employ a guy who does nothing but QA/QC on these kind of data sets using sophisticated software and his own functional brain. We still get outliers that need to be verified or thrown out. If anybody in this place missed a temp that was above 115 F or below -40 F, they would be fired. If they failed to notice an upward trending seasonal average, they would be retrained. If they failed to notice it for 10 years, they would be fired and their supervisor would be fired.

Hell Ginger, in the AF most of our observing sites are automated now. We can actually get in trouble for altering an observation sent by the FMQ-19, which is quite frequently wrong.

I remember one day we got about a 1/4 inch of rain back home. The FMQ-19 reported 6 inches of rain that day. That data got archived as climatological data. Probably screwed the entire year up.

According to our AFI's, we're only allowed to augment an observation from the FMQ-19 in the event of something like a tornado, volcanic eruption, or nuclear explosion. Doesn't matter if it's transmitting blatantly wrong information.

Gingersnap
08-18-2010, 10:41 AM
Hell Ginger, in the AF most of our observing sites are automated now. We can actually get in trouble for altering an observation sent by the FMQ-19, which is quite frequently wrong.

I remember one day we got about a 1/4 inch of rain back home. The FMQ-19 reported 6 inches of rain that day. That data got archived as climatological data. Probably screwed the entire year up.

According to our AFI's, we're only allowed to augment an observation from the FMQ-19 in the event of something like a tornado, volcanic eruption, or nuclear explosion. Doesn't matter if it's transmitting blatantly wrong information.

I know what you mean. Our business isn't primarily meteorology, we just need accurate met data for our real business which is air quality. Some types of air quality equipment do require human action to set up and retrieve particulate samples every few days so some of those stations also run met equipment that a human needs to view and send back to a central processor. They had better not send any unflagged data that exceeds expected parameters. And if they flag it, they'd better also get on the horn and explain that a meteor crashed 3 feet from the site and spiked the temps. :mad:

PoliCon
08-18-2010, 10:54 AM
Hell Ginger, in the AF most of our observing sites are automated now. We can actually get in trouble for altering an observation sent by the FMQ-19, which is quite frequently wrong.

I remember one day we got about a 1/4 inch of rain back home. The FMQ-19 reported 6 inches of rain that day. That data got archived as climatological data. Probably screwed the entire year up.

According to our AFI's, we're only allowed to augment an observation from the FMQ-19 in the event of something like a tornado, volcanic eruption, or nuclear explosion. Doesn't matter if it's transmitting blatantly wrong information.

WTF?:rolleyes: Typical.

hazlnut
08-25-2010, 10:21 AM
Climaterealists!! Seriously.

You jokers will cling to anything, meanwhile it's the winter/summer record temps continue to be broken.

I'll repeat myself -- global warming = the end of normal spring and fall conditions. All over the world we're seeing longer summers and winters along with extreme weather patters. This will increase at an exponential rate.

Quote junk science from all the partisan sites you want, or get better informed and take action to be part of the solution. The choice is yours.

PoliCon
08-25-2010, 10:33 AM
Climaterealists!! Seriously.

You jokers will cling to anything, meanwhile it's the winter/summer record temps continue to be broken.

I'll repeat myself -- global warming = the end of normal spring and fall conditions. All over the world we're seeing longer summers and winters along with extreme weather patters. This will increase at an exponential rate.

Quote junk science from all the partisan sites you want, or get better informed and take action to be part of the solution. The choice is yours.


I think that the action we should take is to eliminate **ALL** of the AGW alarmists with extreme prejudice. JUST THINK - we could help the 'overpopulation problem' and eliminate the carbon footprints of a TON of elitists who do not practice what they preach. And on the upside there would be few people saying idiotic things on the internet.