Satellite-gate

I periodically read about how wonderful and accurate the satellite data we get is compared to any other data.  I get the impression that many both sides of the global warming fence like the satellite data a lot. After reading this morning’s paper, I have to question that thought.

The photo is today’s headline from the front page of my local Sunday newspaper the Valley Times. Per the article, it seems we have problems with data coming from current satellites in orbit and we’ll have more problems with ones we haven’t even launched yet. Someone’s made a giant faux pas to say the least. Talk about “Houston, we have a problem” this is it.

These new satellites, if allowed to go “as is,” are tremendously handicapped. Sending them up in this condition could be likened to sending Ray Charles, or Stevie Wonder or Helen Keller into outer space to see what’s going on . To quote someone it’s called “read my lips, ain’t gonna happen.”

I about spit my coffee out when I opened up the paper and saw that this morning. Absolute astonishment is to say the least what my reaction was.

This is an extremely good article coming from a local newspaper and kudos to the author. This article is what I’d refer to as a “doozy.”

You can read the whole article by Susan Bohan here. I’d strongly suggest you do regardless if you’re a “warmer” or a “skeptic.” It is one of those very few things that both sides should agree is appalling. Why?

The way these satellites are being handicapped greatly reduces the ability to either side to prove or disprove global warming. This could be the bonifides required to end the argument one way or the other so we can all get on with our business of worrying about what to do to  or not about global warming. If disproved it would allow us to get on about the business, such as reducing pollution, providing more potable water and sanitary facilities for 3rd world countries, etc.

To summarize what left me with my mouth hanging open…..

  • The NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite)will not have any sensors that measure the sun’s energy output on the 2nd and 4th satellites.
  • The GOES-R (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively neutered.
  • Landsat 7 (currently in orbit) is broken leaving data gaps. Scientists do not get all the information they should.
  • No sensor for movement of greenhouse gases and pollutants.
  • No sensor to monitor temperature changes on Earth over time.
  • They’re blaming who else but George W. Bush.
  • But per the article NOAA and DOD failed to try to get the funding to keep the eliminated sensors.
  • The sensor to measure how Earth’s temperature reacts to changes in Solar energy was cancelled by the Obama Administration at the end of June 2011.

Not having these satellites fully armed to collect all the proper data to help us understand what is happening with Earth’s weather, environment and the effect the Sun has on it, is what I would at a minimum, term gross negligence.

Regardless whether you believe in global warming or not, we should in this day and age be able to have the proper equipment orbiting the Earth. But no, we spend billions on handicapped satellites, which makes no sense whatsoever.

That the United Nations, most governments of the world, and all those involved in carbon trading schemes are salivating at the thought of taxing the snot out of all of us, redistributing wealth from rich to poor countries, making billions on carbon trading schemes, and having a one-world order fired up where we’ll all do the United Nations bidding just makes me more suspicious about sending up one-armed satellites.

That, in turn, makes me wonder if this was done as claimed for budgetary reasons? Is it pure stupidity? Or, is this a deliberate attempt to keep a shroud of secrecy around the fact that there isn’t any anthropogenic global warming?

What better way to keep those who genuflect at the altar of the Church of Global Warming continuing to “believe” in the gospel of the “Goracle” and permit them to levy carbon taxes. It’s classic religion! No one gets to see what’s on the other side, no factual information is put forth, we’re just supposed to believe and have faith that those running the Church of Global Warming say. Sorry Al, but you don’t even be close to being up on the pedestal with GOD, the Pope, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, et al.

It might be that someone is very afraid that if we start getting real accurate satellite data that it’s going to bust the AGW religious business and carbon trading schemes worldwide. I can’t see any other reason for eliminating the ability of these satellites to collect certain forms of data. If they believe global warming is true, one would think that they’d ensure these satellites would have every sensor known to man, plus a few more, so they could prove their point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To add to my suspicions, it appears no one’s put up much of a fuss about this space  travesty either. Where’s Al Gore, James Hansen, Pachauri, et al? They seem stunningly silent about this, especially for such a group of true believers who are constantly contributing to the AGW din. It also seems interesting that Obama just recently eliminated one sensor they seem to have forgotten about with a seeming wave of the hand. Suspicious too, isn’t it?

A mere case of government stupidity? Budget problems? Or, a conspiracy? If the latter, I’d doubt anyone would be able to prove anything unless someone of enormous stature and involvement decided to blow the whistle or some evidence on the order of climategate is found. What’s going on sure makes me wonder about it though.

Either way it’s more CO2 Insanity.

Source: Valley Times/Contra Costa Times/Bay Area News Group

Advertisements

26 Comments

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, NASA, NOAA, Obama, Science, Weather

26 responses to “Satellite-gate

  1. Great article, John. Many thanks for this. It ties in so beautifully with the breaking news of NOAA’s admission that the sensors on their important NOAA-16 satellite were yesterday found to be so seriously degraded causing contamination of untold quantities of climate data, that has been forced to remove all NOAA-16’s images from their archives. Thus it is now discredited.
    But let’s not let this agenda-driven government off the hook so easily; because removal from the ‘images’ from the archives is not the same as removing the ‘data’ from the climate models. NOAA has not issued any caveats or retractions over all their press releases that claimed ad nauseam, that this satellite and others ‘proved’ ever higher temp. records.
    It such discredited data needs consigning to the garbage can unless the public is satisfied that a full and transparent re-analysis by independent third parties outside of government influence can assure taxpayers of the removal of all such contaminated numbers.

    • blizzard

      John,

      I just do not trust this. The satellite data was at least able to be better understood and analysed for manipulation and bias even with the admission now of functional issues. The Land data that we will now be expected to rationalise is where I believe they want us.
      In Australia now the media are not putting AGW editorial up for exposure to comment. This phenomena is only weeks old. Two thoughts here the 1st being we have an election and The ETS [our cap & trade] is being stepped back from by all. The 2nd is that I just do not think our Warmist Brothers are wanting any debate [or minimal] to keep the issue alive through media scaremongering [Russia and Pakistan for instance] and just run Climate change as a political issue because we skeptics are luddites and fringe dwelling loonies so what do we know.
      The rhetoric around the media and the election is for the “Joe Public” that the science is not just in but undeniable. It is worth noting that even our Conservative Parties are being held in the web of spin.

    • cmb

      Where is your proof any of the numbers were used? They’d stand out like a sore thumb.

      • Does 612 degrees in Egg Harbor, Wisconsin stand out enough for you?

        https://co2insanity.com/2010/08/09/noaas-600-degree-city/

        • cmb

          So where is your proof the number was used?

          You know, that someone did a climate study including it.

          Show us, if you would, the climatologist dumb enough to not strike that number, and the others like it.

          You have a bit to learn about data analysis.

          • CMB, Why not just look at how NOAA has handled the situation to determine their malfeasance? First off, other more responsible agencies dropped using the NOAA-16 data in 2006. NOAA failed to publish on the satellite’s Subsystem summary any statement ‘degraded sensor’ even though it was known for 4/5 years. They kept quiet on this until a member of the public tipped me off and I wrote a big story that shamed NOAA into taking action.
            NOAA did publish summaries for NOAA-16 right up to May 2010 on their website-but on publication of my article they not only removed the satellite’s ‘images’ from the archives, they also removed all their own commentary on NOAA-16’s subsystem summary as no entries for their sensor failures was noted ( proof of malfeasance/conspiracy to hide fraud). NOAA declines to answer my interrogatory specifying my requests to affirm or deny that NOAA has removed all ‘data’ from their archives ( not just ‘images’)-no answer. They also refuse to answer whether such ‘automadated’ data has been fed into climate models-no answer.
            Instead, all I receive from NOAA is letter from their senior legal counsel to go ask some other agency, not NOAA- but Michigan’s Coast Watch partnership, how the NOAA-16 satellite is doing! Do you not see a pattern here of malfeasance and obstruction to access to information?
            How apologists for fraud can condone such behavior speaks volumes for their lack of scientific rigor and their zealous pursuit of unsubstantiated religious beliefs that humans are killing ‘Mother Gaia’- what a farce!
            The public has lost all faith in governments that concoct their own evidence to support government policy and allow no independent audit-that’s why FOIA requests have been criminally denied for 3-7 years!

            • cmb

              CMB, Why not just look at how NOAA has handled the situation to determine their malfeasance? First off, other more responsible agencies dropped using the NOAA-16 data in 2006.

              …You mean AGW researchers like RSS and UAH, don’t you? More evidence that this one satellite series by itself could have little or no bearing on scientific work.

              NOAA failed to publish on the satellite’s Subsystem summary any statement ‘degraded sensor’ even though it was known for 4/5 years. They kept quiet on this until a member of the public tipped me off and I wrote a big story that shamed NOAA into taking action.
              NOAA did publish summaries for NOAA-16 right up to May 2010 on their website-

              …Seems an odd way to hide fraud.

              but on publication of my article they not only removed the satellite’s ‘images’ from the archives, they also removed all their own commentary on NOAA-16′s subsystem summary as no entries for their sensor failures was noted ( proof of malfeasance/conspiracy to hide fraud).

              …Or, at least, proof of a desire to keep errant material off their site. lol

              NOAA declines to answer my interrogatory specifying my requests to affirm or deny that NOAA has removed all ‘data’ from their archives ( not just ‘images’)-no answer.

              …I’m always amazed when denialist liars complain about not being taken seriously by the people they lie about.

              They also refuse to answer whether such ‘automadated’ data has been fed into climate models-no answer.

              …How are they supposed to know that information? lol

              Instead, all I receive from NOAA is letter from their senior legal counsel to go ask some other agency, not NOAA- but Michigan’s Coast Watch partnership, how the NOAA-16 satellite is doing!

              ….Exactly how you should be treated across the board, judging by the rest of your post.

              Do you not see a pattern here of malfeasance and obstruction to access to information?

              …Do you mean their leaving the faulty info up for anyone to find for years? Again, an odd way to hide something. You yourself certainly deserved no reply. “Mother Gaia,” indeed. lol

              How apologists for fraud can condone such behavior speaks volumes for their lack of scientific rigor and their zealous pursuit of unsubstantiated religious beliefs that humans are killing ‘Mother Gaia’- what a farce!

              …Made-up crap.

              The public has lost all faith in governments that concoct their own evidence

              …Made-up crap.

              to support government policy and allow no independent audit

              …Made-up crap. Or are you forgetting the time frame and claiming the Bush administration were AGW boosters?

              -that’s why FOIA requests have been criminally denied for 3-7 years!

              …If you’re referring to CRU, do you find it interesting that the information office that stated those denials were unethical is the same information office that originally consulted with CRU on ways to deny them? Jeff Id’s “Air Vent” has that story, you might check it out.

              …In the meantime, here’s a quick question for you, since you have gone to such lengths to change the subject rather than answer my last one – what moral obligation does anyone have to supply information to someone else who will use it to lie about and attempt to destroy their work and career?

              Why not simply face the fact that this blog entry is simply an attempt to pin the damage done to America’s satellite program by climate denialists in the previous administration on AGW researchers instead?

  2. manbearpig

    If the temperature sensors are giving misreadings in one area of such magnitude, then it has to be found out why, otherwise it has to be presumed that the entire temperature readings are invalid.

    Any scientist will understand how important the accuracy of measurement is, particularly where it is the basis of the research and in many cases will either provide certificates of Calibration or the method used to calibrate the measuring equipment. If the calibration system is wrong as is the case here, then the whole data set must be wrong.

    When I first read the report I thought it could not be true, NASA/NOAA could not be that stupid ?

    But here is the disclaimer on the website

    http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/

    (in case it disappears)
    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.

  3. Pingback: Top Climate Scientists Speak Out About The SatelliteGate Scandal « The Tonka Report

  4. cmb

    # No sensor for movement of greenhouse gases and pollutants.

    A lie. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-japanese-satellite-measuring-ea-2009-01-23

    # No sensor to monitor temperature changes on Earth over time.

    A lie. http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    # They’re blaming who else but George W. Bush.

    Who else? Cut by Bush in 2006. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-ritz/nasas-climate-change-sate_b_60214.html

    # But per the article NOAA and DOD failed to try to get the funding to keep the eliminated sensors.

    Lie. Starts on page 4-8: http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~nbo/FY09_Rollout_Materials/Chapter_4_Procurement_Acquisition_Construction.pdf

    # The sensor to measure how Earth’s temperature reacts to changes in Solar energy was cancelled by the Obama Administration at the end of June 2011.

    Temporarily. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/solar-sensor-dropped-from-first-.html

    • In order of your allegations.

      1. That’s a Japanese satellite not a NOAA satellite, it’s also not any of the satellite(s) referred to. So your point is?

      2. You are referring to old information from February 4, 2009 (date of publication). Things change, this is 18 months later. What you have isn’t relevent.

      3. Yes Bush cut it, but Obama could have increased it, but he hasn’t. In fact Obama appears to be laying waste to NASA. Again your point is?

      4. I see lots of request for money I don’t see where that document said they got it. I can ask for billions, too. Doesn’t mean I’ll get it. Or do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

      • cmb

        1. That’s a Japanese satellite not a NOAA satellite, it’s also not any of the satellite(s) referred to. So your point is?

        No handicap, no lack of data. You do understand their data is being made public, yes? No problem for AGW here.

        2. You are referring to old information from February 4, 2009 (date of publication). Things change, this is 18 months later. What you have isn’t relevent.

        False. Monitoring continues to this day. No problem for AGW here.

        In fact, I bet you can’t find one single valid climate variable in your list that is not still being monitored to this day by someone.

        3. Yes Bush cut it, but Obama could have increased it, but he hasn’t. In fact Obama appears to be laying waste to NASA. Again your point is?

        Blaming George Bush for many of the deficiencies you are discussing (not some Obama fantasy you are trying to move the goalposts to) is perfectly correct. And blaming George is all you mentioned. No problem here.

        4. I see lots of request for money I don’t see where that document said they got it. I can ask for billions, too. Doesn’t mean I’ll get it. Or do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

        You claimed they “failed to try to get” it, no moving goalposts allowed. They tried to get it, you lied.

        Bottom line – there is no story here. There are alternate sources for this data which continue to back up AGW theory, as it has been accepted by almost every national government on the planet – and no real science exists against it, period.

        • 1. Sure it’s public. Sure it gets data. But you miss the point again. Lack of data is not the problem. The problem is the skewed data from satellites like NOAA-15, and Landsat-7. The problem is they’re sending up handicapped satellites to replace them, wasting your tax money to get half-assed information.You also missed the point that it was just launched in January 2009 so it’s not had much time to be collecting data. One year’s data doesn’t make a case for AGW. Moreover, having the faulty data from other satellites that have been up there nullifies years of that “data” because that data is no good. Another waste of tax dollars, wasting time on bogus data.

          2. You should have left out the period after false. It should read: False monitoring continues to this day. Change “no” to big. Regarding climate variable, monitoring them and getting accurate data is two different things. Monitoring by itself doesn’t mean much. 600 + degree’s is not what I’d call accurate, not even remotely close to in the ballbark, which skews the “data.”
          3. There is no “Obama fantasy” the article was written by Susan Bohan, not me. As Ulf points out above “The 1994 Clinton administration decision to save costs by merging into NPOESS previously separate military and civilian Earth-observing satellite systems backfired, ultimately creating a dysfunctional program plagued by bureaucratic wrangling, delays and cost overruns.”

          Frankly you can blame Clinton, Bush and Obama. I’m not particularly picking on anyone, I am sick and tired of a sitting president who’s been in office for 18 month continuing to blame his predecessor for all his problems and I’m tired of his groupies doing the same thing. If he’s so worried about AGW then he should order the satellites be sent up with 100% of what they should have, not just play golf and not worry about it.

          4. You’re splitting hairs which is a typical liberal response. Whether “they failed to try to get the money” or merely failed to get the money (which lands it back in Obama’s court), really is a matter of semantics. Regardless, no money was gotten. Regardless, you have handicapped satellites about to be launched. Regardless, if you are a “warmer” or a “skeptic” the bottom line should be that we should do everything in our power to find out the reality of the situation. This isn’t being done.

          Perhaps it’s nefarious, perhaps it’s due to stupidity, either way it’s wasting my tax dollars. Kind of like building a battleship with no guns.

          Bottom line is you can spin it all you want there is a story here and you don’t like it because it doesn’t back up the “warmer” BS machine.

          • cmb

            1. Sure it’s public. Sure it gets data. But you miss the point again. Lack of data is not the problem. The problem is the skewed data from satellites like NOAA-15, and Landsat-7.

            …You have no such evidence until you show they skewed the research. None.

            The problem is they’re sending up handicapped satellites to replace them, wasting your tax money to get half-assed information.

            ….The usual sort of overblown denialist fantasy accusations. If you don’t want them “handicapped”, don’t fight the research. Get it? lol

            You also missed the point that it

            ….which “it?”

            was just launched in January 2009 so it’s not had much time to be collecting data. One year’s data doesn’t make a case for AGW.

            …No one, anywhere, has ever said it did. There are hundreds of datasets involved. And you just blew another hole in your big story. lol

            Moreover, having the faulty data from other satellites that have been up there nullifies years of that “data” because that data is no good. Another waste of tax dollars, wasting time on bogus data.

            …Don’t like it? Quit aiding and abetting it.

            2. You should have left out the period after false. It should read: False monitoring continues to this day.

            …A ridiculous, pathetic lie. Getting your satellites mixed up, are you?

            Change “no” to big.

            …A ridiculous, pathetic lie.

            Regarding climate variable, monitoring them and getting accurate data is two different things. Monitoring by itself doesn’t mean much. 600 + degree’s is not what I’d call accurate, not even remotely close to in the ballbark, which skews the “data.”

            You have zero proof it was ever used in the data. None. lol

            3. There is no “Obama fantasy” the article was written by Susan Bohan, not me.

            ..”3. Yes Bush cut it, but Obama could have increased it, but he hasn’t. In fact Obama appears to be laying waste to NASA. Again your point is? ”

            …You wrote that, to avoid the fact that bush cut the funding.

            4. You’re splitting hairs which is a typical liberal response. Whether “they failed to try to get the money” or merely failed to get the money (which lands it back in Obama’s court), really is a matter of semantics.

            …No, it is a matter of the wording in the lie you told. Period. And as I revealed, the Obama delay is temporary – you bring it up as deflection.

            The reason is that you cannot prove any bad figures were allowed to enter the models, and cannot prove any earth science variables are going unobserved.

            • My, another liberal who has no real facts so you play the denigration game as proof of AGW.

              I’ll tell you what. You keep claiming I can’t prove any bad figures were used, why don’t you provide me with all the good figures as proof positive that no bad figures were used?

              If you’re so sure about this you should already have all those good figures that went into the models right?

              Since they use models they must adjust the data, too, so while your at it why don’t you show us the difference between the real and adjusted data so we can see how much fantasy (aka: warming) was perhaps added to these models?

              • cmb

                My, another liberal who has no real facts so you play the denigration game as proof of AGW.

                …Two ridiculous, pathetic lies. lol

                I’ll tell you what. You keep claiming I can’t prove any bad figures were used, why don’t you provide me with all the good figures as proof positive that no bad figures were used?

                …An impossible request (typical childish internet delay tactic) to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used. None.

                If you’re so sure about this you should already have all those good figures that went into the models right?

                …A pathetic, infantile distortion of the nature of fact-finding, to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used. None.

                Since they use models they must adjust the data, too, so while your at it why don’t you show us the difference between the real and adjusted data so we can see how much fantasy (aka: warming) was perhaps added to these models?

                …A pathetic, infantile distortion of the nature of fact-finding, to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used. None.

                ….You’re getting very desperate now.

                • Sounds to me like you’re describing yourself. You keep sinking. So, how low will you go in playing the denigration game?

                  Desperate? You seem to have an inflated opinion of your debating skills.

                  • cmb

                    You are now reduced to nonstop lying. I’m the only one in this conversation who’s posted proof of anything whatsoever. You haven’t disproved a single statement I’ve made, while yours are half insane lies.

                    Go ahead, find us any proof whatsoever that this error is a problem for getting accurate temperature data.

  5. Ulf

    From the fact sheet of Bohan’s article:

    The 1994 Clinton administration decision to save costs by merging into NPOESS previously separate military and civilian Earth-observing satellite systems backfired, ultimately creating a dysfunctional program plagued by bureaucratic wrangling, delays and cost overruns.

  6. Ooh Honey Honey

    I realise that you liked the article, but awarding the journalist some even-toed African ungulates with spiral horns is going a bit far. Why not just say “kudos the to the author”?

  7. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Aug 19th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet

  8. ThomasJ

    Please give som info on who’s the whooosious ‘cmb’… cannot be for real…
    Brdgs from Sweden!
    //TJ

  9. ThomasJ

    Can someone please give info on who is [aka] ‘cmb’?
    Cheers from Sweden
    //TJ