Sentences with phrase «satellites do»

Further, I'd like to note the satellites don't measure ground temps and probably shouldn't be on the same graph.

The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don't actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, from which the scientists estimate the temperature.

Weather satellites do not measure temperature directly.

Curry wrote that it «seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don't show a warming trend.»

Satellites do not measure temperature.

Chris Mooney, «Ted Cruz keeps saying that satellites don't show global warming.

Routine weather satellites don't work — you need specially designed radiometers to be accurate enough.

During that time the thermometer series measure the narrow belt of warming at the sea and land surface, but the satellites do not see it until atmospheric circulation starts moving it toward the poles.

BTW, if satellites don't show more difference than + / - 8 ppmv CO2 in the mid-atmosphere in all parts of the globe, while over the seasons some 20 % of all atmospheric CO2 goes in and out, then I call that «well mixed»...

Satellites do not measure temperature directly.

The UAH satellites do not have it, and neither do GISTEMP and NCDC data sets from the land.

The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don't actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and the intensity of this radiation is a proxy for air temperature.

Finally, satellites do not pass over a given point on the Earth at the same time each day (let alone punctually at the time of minimum and maximum temperatures), thereby requiring a continuous Time of Observation adjustment every day.

The arguments change all the time: this year it is «global warming has stopped», while last year it was «hurricanes aren't linked with warming», and the year before «satellites don't show any warming of the atmosphere».

As noted by Jim Eager, satellites do not measure surface temperature.

Can anyone come up with one single answer as to why climate scientists eschew satellite measurements for surface temperatures EXCEPT that the satellites don't give the dramatic answer they want to hear?

Weather balloons and satellites do a good job of measuring short - term changes and indeed find a hot spot over monthly timescales.

As for the temperature record, the satellites do not show any GHG warming.

The only reason catastrophists don't agree with this statement is because satellites don't give them the highest possible catastrophic temperature reading (because surface readings are, in fact, biased up).

The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere.

Satellites do, however, provide valuable estimates of the temperature in the upper atmosphere and they deliver global coverage, with only small gaps at the poles.

Ultimately there are uncertainties in the radiosondes, but the satellites don't find the scaling ratios either, and the models fail on most other measures.

It's very hard to get data on the ground, the satellites don't provide the needed detail, and it's very heterogeneous.

I wonder why satellites do not evaluate the DTR at different pressures.

Worse, satellites don't actually measure temperature directly; they measure how much energy the Earth radiates, and that's converted into a temperature.

Thermometers don't measure temperature either, if you want to make the claim that satellites don't measure temperature.

Perhaps you mean that satellites don't measure temperature directly.

Satellites do snow extent very easily; there are also satellite - derived data sets on snow water equivalent

Satellites do not show it.

Surface temperature measurements are largely concentrated in the continental USA and suffer from some siting and heat island issues that satellites do not.

You completely ignore the fact that satellites don't * measure * lower - troposphere temperature.

Satellites don't measure surface temperature.

But data from weather balloons and satellites don't match the projections.

[Response: If you view the clouds from above, as the satellites do, you will have problems seing the low clouds underneath high clouds where these overlap.

If the satellites don't potentially offer more growth, then the capital should be transferred back into the core portion.

Because satellites do not detect these small - scale phenomena, local measurements are crucial for the establishment and monitoring of protected areas, the scientists point out in the January issue of the «Proceedings of the Royal Society B».

You are an important part of the puzzle, providing a new perspective of the clouds that our NASA satellites do not have, looking up.

«Satellites don't see mosquitoes per se,» says Assaf Anyamba of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, «However they provide us observation platforms from which to monitor the environmental variables that indicate where mosquito populations can flourish.

But data from weather balloons and satellites don't match the projections.

Similarly, most satellites don't have the propellant available to change their own orbit plane, so they can't come to the station.

Even if all these satellites do launch as planned, there will still be data gaps.

Nonetheless, in 2029 the asteroid, dubbed Apophis — derived from the Egyptian god Apep, the destroyer who dwells in eternal darkness — will zoom closer to Earth than the world's communications satellites do.

that's why I said oldest some bible stories tens if not hundreds of thousands of years old.I can tell you about hurricanes that struck here years before I was born because of older families telling what happened.thank God or who ever you want for weather satellites I do.

The investigations tentatively concluded that onboard sensors did not immediately communicate to ground systems that the satellite did not separate from the rocket, according to the Journal.

The launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California went well at first, but a few minutes into the flight the fairing that contains the satellite did not separate properly from the rocket, according to NASA officials.

The Global Positioning System (which locates our position on Earth to within 50 feet or less) would malfunction, because the clock on the satellite does not tick at the same speed as Earth clocks.

Spinning the satellite did not unstick the array, and the open solar panel provided limited power for only a few years.

A satellite doing flyby's of Europa is great, but adding a lander as well, man, that will be spectacular!

But even if the remote satellite did not provide a 100 % occultation picking out objects otherwise lost in the glare should be possible.

We are in the process of finding out what filling the sky with hundreds of thousands of satellites does to all life on Earth.