Replies

Gotta keep up, man.

Maybe you should keep up. Surely you are aware of the correction to satellite data due to diurnal temperature range correction in the tropic zones. Yes, as the web page you linked to correctly pointed out. A correction was made, this is trumpeted everwhere in AGW circles, but they rarely point out that the magnitude of the correction was 0.035 degC/decade! Yes, the mid troposhere is warmer than the original conclusions made by Christy et al, but only by 0.035 degC per decade. It did not change the overall conclusion that warming in the upper parts of the troposphere does not match greenhouse gas theory.

There was a discussion at ClimateScience about the satellite data, and the following is a posting from Dr. Pielke to a J. McCuskey (from 3 days ago):

J. McCuskey - Please see the new papers

Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2006: Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 1181 – 1194.

Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 417-423.

which updates the issue of the microwave temperature trends. The disconnect between the surface and tropospheric temperature trend data in the tropics remains.

And this was a reply by a Dr. Benjamin Herman (also from 3 days ago):

In reply to S. Raghavan, the satellite data has been corrected for stratospheric cooling through the use of combining weighting functions to minimize the contribution of stratospheric cooling. The best way of doing this, in our opinion, has been by UAH through the use of measurements at differing angles. Other approaches that claim to have made the satellite data consistent with ground based observations have been faulty, although some workers still refer to this work.

Corrections to satellite data for stitching together the various data sets from the different satellites during periods when they overlapped in time and diurnal corrections due to measurements being made at different times of the day have been made, as have corrections due to drifts in satellite orbits, also causing measurements to be made at different times of the day.

We are quite certain that these corrections have been accomplished best by the UAH group, as indicated in the original message. After these corrections have been done, there is still a discrepancy between ground based and tropospheric trends, although the difference is somewhat less. The improper use of weighting functions originally appeared to bring the tropospheric trends more in line with surface trends and model predictions, so if you choose to use those improperly weighted (with height) data sets, you can also then satisfy yourself that there is no discrepancy. We do not agree with that.

(The bolding was added by me)

“Yes, the mid troposhere is warmer than the original conclusions made by Christy et al, but only by 0.035 degC per decade. It did not change the overall conclusion that warming in the upper parts of the troposphere does not match greenhouse gas theory.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

“The improper use of weighting functions originally appeared to bring the tropospheric trends more in line with surface trends and model predictions, so if you choose to use those improperly weighted (with height) data sets, you can also then satisfy yourself that there is no discrepancy. We do not agree with that.”

Great post. Doesn’t matter to the global warming alarmists that the data don’t match their theories... they can make their models fit anything ... even designing a dress. I notice that the IPCC seems to have lowered several of their even more alarmist 2001 contentions probably for the same reason so they don’t get laughed off the planet:

Lowered the high end of their temperature range by 2C.
Lowered the sea level rise by a factor of about 2.
Lowered their “confidence level” from 95% to “90%”.

Meanwhile it is ever more clear that the temperature data they started out their “quest” with in the 80s was faulty, and quite surprisingly, the Sun is warmer now than ever before in human written history.

But the alarmists only notice the polar bears floating on icebergs as they always have, and that the Arctic Ocean is becoming navigable... as it was in the early part of the last millenium - can you say Marco Polo?

They’re all trying to get more power and more money and more control of the lives of the world’s population. The real scientists who look at the data, like Lindzen, state accurately that the CO2 is more an effect, not a cause, of the temperature rise - which is primarily driven by the Sun.