On 07/12/2015 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:45:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
Based on one of your recent posts, you place great trust in satellite records. Yeah, they are *really* reliable aren't they. Which set do you go for BTW? RSS or UAH? I seem to recall the nutjobs switched when one started showing less warming that the other.
You think there's a difference? http://tinyurl.com/j3qu788
(from http://tinyurl.com/nhuqxtc )
You're propagating untruths to try and ridicule those who find the
hypothesis of AGW somewhat lacking in credulity. Pah!
There have been well-documented divergences between UAH and RSS in
recent years. Unlike most graphs that so-called skeptics show, that
graph is actually showing the trend over a longer period and hardly
bolsters the skeptic claims of no warming. The usual tactic is to cherry
pick 1998 as a starting point which, as we all (should) know, is a
highly dubious practice. (This is effectively what TNP is doing verbally
when he says that there has been no warming for 18 years or whatever it
is.) Furthermore, that graph only goes up to 2010.
If one is inclined to focus on short intervals, UAH was showing cooler
temperatures up to about 2010 and was the 'preferred' data set for
skeptics. Since then UAH has started overtaking RSS. Therefore if you
are inclined to cherry pick data you are probably better off with RSS to
show a flatter trend over the whole period.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or so as El
Ninos tend to get emphasised in satellite records (hence the very high
peak in 1998).
Anyway, anyone who complains about adjustments to, and processing of,
surface temperature data hasn't got a leg to stand on if in the next
breath they are going to present satellite records as some sort of gold
standard. The amount of correction, manipulation and processing is
orders of magnitude greater than for surface temperatures. And at the
end of the day, the output is the troposphere temperature which, as you
might be aware, isn't where most of us live.