conflict with his biases. He prefers satellite data. I pointed out that there are all sorts of reasons why satellite data could be unreliable (basically it involves piling inference upon inference to arrive at an answer).
And I'm right (yeah me).
Linked article sates that "corrections" have to be made to satellite data to arrive at accurate results. But in addition to that:
1. Satellite data varies greatly, as much as 400% in terms of temperature anamolies;
2. The satellite data TJ likes to cite (UAH) is way off (less global warming, natch) than the other satellite data.
So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979-2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.
Let's just stick with the surface data.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming
And I'm right (yeah me).
Linked article sates that "corrections" have to be made to satellite data to arrive at accurate results. But in addition to that:
1. Satellite data varies greatly, as much as 400% in terms of temperature anamolies;
2. The satellite data TJ likes to cite (UAH) is way off (less global warming, natch) than the other satellite data.
So, how do the trends compare? Well the lowest trend, in degrees Celsius heating per decade are from UAH and they equal 0.029 for the 1979-2012 period for the mid-troposphere region between 20° South and 20° North. The new results are almost 4 times higher at 0.114°C per decade. The results using a diurnal correction from a climate model are in close agreement with the new findings (0.124°C per decade). As additional support, the NOAA and RSS values are also close to the corrected results. The simple fact is, UAH is an outlier.
Let's just stick with the surface data.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming
