G'day John,
Summary: - No proof that global warming causes cooling in upper levels of atmosphere while the lower levels are warming.
- The principal authors of the satellite data do not agree this is occuring or that the satellite needs any adjustment from the raw data.
- Satellite measurements are from zero to 4 miles, not upper portions at all.
- Balloon data does not show warming near the earth and cooling higher up. It just shows, well, no trend at all.
- Balloon data and satellite data agree with each other, therefore no real trend in satellite data either
Main Points: Boy am I sick of the new excuse for why satellite measurements do not support global warming models or theory. Those that keep on saying this obviously do not understand the science at all (this is not aimed at you). Do a google search on "climate change satellite Christy" or "University of Hunstville Christy temperature satellite". You will get a large amount of sites that show satellite data and how that site interprets it. Go to the NASA site (
www.giss.nasa.gov) and look at their graphs and data.
Satellites take a snapshot from an altitude of very close to zero to 4 miles up. That is not the upper areas at all. Balloons take data from zero to very high up. They do include the upper areas and you know what? The balloon data does not show the near ground measurements warming and the upper areas cooling.
Mr Christy and Mr Spencer, the two scientists responsible for producing the satellite data have said several times that there is a margin of error in the data. There is an argument that there is an error inherent in the data because of a shift with time in what they are recording. They do not necessarily agree but say that those that have these opinions are entitled to them and the difference is still within their margin of error.
I never said the satellite data shows cooling overall, only if you take out 1998 or 2005 or you use the data only from 1979 to 1997. But it certainly does not show much of a trend at all whether you include the individual very hot years or not.
As to the article, it was interesting but it did not mention at all that Spencer and Christy have not been idle and their techniques have improved. Even so they dispute the arguments made. The argument about drift by the way introduces an error in the order of a couple of hundreds of a degree. Whether you correct for it or not does not alter the data very much at all. It is a very big deal made out of a very small adjustment to the data. Same with weather balloons except the argument tells only a little of the story.
This is not a paper, just a summary quoting one scientist who concludes his argument that the scrutiny needed to be imposed on anyone arguing against global warming or, as in this case, just presenting data of what is being recorded, has to be so perfect that there is not even the tiniest room for doubt. Pity that degree of critique was not applied to Mr Mann et al before he was peer reviewed and published, what could very easily have been seen as a blatant manipulation of data.
Richard
