*********************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Patrick Davis says:
“P. Solar says:
February 4, 2011 at 4:56 am”
Or Mark Twain.
But yes, it is odd that this new dataset is adjusted, either way, I don’t care. It is still adjusted (Mannipulated). Opens up even more questions about their methods, data and “science” IMO. What base measure was used to re-adjust the data? What data was used (Can’t be stuff from UEA CRU, the cat ate it in the move)? Why the adjustment now (After Climategate, the Copenhagen failure, massive cold almost everywhere, dare I say globally)?
I smell a, politically biased, fishy smelling temperature rat!
****************************EXCERPT************************************
Chris Wright says:
WUWT has an interesting explanation about satellite calibration etc by Dr Roy Spencer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
He answers my question right at the end:
“Fortunately, John Christy has spent a lot of time comparing our datasets to radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets, and finds very good long-term agreement.”
I think I’m satisfied. Of course, it does mean we have to worry about whether the rediosonde data has been ‘adjusted’ to match the surface data.
Overall, I’m reasonably satisfied that the satellite record is reliable. By the way, doesn’t AGW theory predict that the satellite (atmospheric) record should show more warming than the surface?
Chris
******************My Comment*********************
And that would be the Hot Spot......that seems to be missing....from actual measurements....
The computer models predict the hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics...
See the JoNova website for much info on that.