Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models
dude, I don't know anyone who stated the original satellite data was without errors. hmmm, not sure where you're going. Christy still shows little to no warming, I posted it in another thread. so?Don't you recall having thrown this link at us before? Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models to attempt to prove that data exist refuting model outcomes? From the article to which you've linked:
The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."
The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:
"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."
Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.
So, do you believe Christy sold out or what? The simpler conclusion is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
oh, I completely agree with you. All I said was that there were errors in the original satellite data, I didn't say they didn't correlate that data with the balloon data. Not at all. It was well within margin of the balloon data. There was a correction made on the satellites and the correlation was even closer after that.jc, you have to get a clue fast here.
When science has two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures are highly correlated, science dictates that data is FINE and SHOULD BE ACCEPTED because THERE IS NO REASON TO REJECT IT.
What the "warmers" did with satellites and balloons is take just that and fudge BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections..."
That is not science.
That is fraud.
The original raw data from both the satellites and balloons completely proved that CO2 has absolutely no effect on temps at all.
there were errors in the original satellite data
dude, there are links showing they had to recalibrate them. Do you disagree with that?there were errors in the original satellite data
THERE WERE NOT ANY ERRORS.
If you have two measures of the same thing and they are uncorrelated, then you look for "errors." To believe that two highly correlated data sets are in "error" requires a fraudulent "motive."
Did you really think it wise to use an article defending climate models
PARROT is as PARROT does.
TRUTH - the satellite and weather balloon RAW DATA showed NO WARMING until it was FUDGED in 2005
OPINION - the FUDGING was a "correction"
TRUTH - there was NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS whatsoever to question that highly correlated data - none.
So BAWK on with the bias of the article. The truth is the DATA, and the opinion is just hogwash to be parroted by those who have birdbrains...
And why would your dedication to these two particular measurements not be "parroting"?
And what relationship do you believe exists between global warming and land reclamation?
How accurate were deep ocean temperature readings back in 1880?
Can you show us the data and how it was derived
