[Number_Cruncher]

Concerning the Mears, Schabel, and Wentz new analysis of the MSU temperature measurements, it has major flaws. An acquaintance of mine attended their talk. Apparently Mears calibrated their instruments using a climate model and this is probably why they get their large trend. Audience members pointed out about a half dozen flaws in their analysis. Their analysis does not agree with the balloons. I doubt if their results hold up.

[cogitator]

Concerning the Mears, Schabel, and Wentz new analysis of the MSU temperature measurements, it has major flaws. An acquaintance of mine attended their talk. Apparently Mears calibrated their instruments using a climate model and this is probably why they get their large trend. Audience members pointed out about a half dozen flaws in their analysis. Their analysis does not agree with the balloons. I doubt if their results hold up.

Tnanks for the information. As I noted, a meeting presentation is not a published paper. It was primarily of interest because it was from Wentz and Co., which is not a fly-by-night group. We'll have to see what happens. When Wentz and Schabel first suggested the orbital decay correction, Spencer and Christy said it didn't make any difference -- they they proceeded to reanalyze their whole dataset because of the problem that Wentz and Schabel had found.

I'll bet part of the reason that scientists present papers at these meetings is to get an idea of what questions reviewers would ask before they actually submit a paper.