2012-01-01 06:23:39Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

This is the version I'm going to submit to Forbes as a response to Taylor's op-ed.  If they don't publish it, I'll look for another media outlet, or perhaps just publish it here.  Comments are welcome.

Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data

2012-01-01 06:59:22Bravo!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

Excellent article!

I do, however, recommend that the lead sentnce of the foruth paragaph be rewitten.

The fourth pargarpah now reads:

It is certainly a possiblity that is worth considering, and yet it was notably absent from the three possible explanations for the model-data discrepancy provided by James Taylor in his article.  In fact, every one of the three possible explanations offered by Taylor involved the man-made global warming theory being either exaggerated or incorrect.  Refusing to consider a possibility which is inconvenient for one's pre-conceived notions and/or biases reveals a distinct lack of true skepticism.

Suggested rewrite of the first sentence:

The possibility that the UAH temperature record could be wrong was notably absent from the possible explanations for the model-data discrepancy set forth by James Taylor in his article. 

   

2012-01-01 08:53:38
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.107.6

Me like. Here thumb.

2012-01-01 10:47:51
Andy S

skucea@telus...
74.198.150.207
"Given that the radiation reaches the satellite sensors having travelled through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere, that bias exists between the various instrument sensors, that the orbital decay of the satellite creates another bias in the data, and a host of other obstacles, there's a lot of careful and painstaking analysis required, and much that can go wrong." That sentence is confusing to me ( too many "that's") and perhaps could be rewritten. You say at the beginning and at the end that Taylors article is riddled with errors but you seem to talk about one big error only. I don't doubt that it is full of errors, even though I haven't read it but other readers might. Anyway, apart from that, really good. (with apologies for the lack of formatting due to typing this on an iPad)
2012-01-01 16:45:31
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.208.50

Yeah, that clunky part is my fault. What about? 

"The satellites sensors face down toward the Earth and radiation therefore reaches the satellites having travelled upwards through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere above that layer. This corrupts any warming signal received by the satellites, and because the lower atmosphere is what is being measured, not the stratosphere, this creates a cooling bias that has to be accounted for. But it doesn't end there. Bias also exists between the various instrument sensors on each satellite, and the satellite orbits decay over time. These and a number of other obstacles mean a lot of careful and painstaking analysis is required. As a result of all this complexity and data correction there's much that can go wrong."

Andy - what's with the iPad and formatting?

2012-01-01 18:28:10iPad-formatting
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.164.80

Rob, I also have formatting issues when using the iPad, so I guess that Andy has similar ones. It for example doesn't have the HTML-formatting options and it also always loses line-breaks and empty lines when posting in the forums.

2012-01-01 22:43:55
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

In your 3 possible explanations list you have models wrong but temperature measurements just biased to some direction. It would be more accurate, I think, if you would describe also the model results as biased, instead of just stating that models are wrong. It gives the picture that if your list item 1 would turn out to be true, then it would be game over for climate models, when in reality we would just see why they are not giving accurate results and then correct them.

"Taylor's error-riddled article demonstrates that when it comes to clmate science,..."

clmate -> climate.

2012-01-01 22:53:50
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
138.130.143.200

Dana

 

Good post. What I find unclear from Taylor's piece is whether he is referring to Lower Troposphere or Upper Troposphere. He says lower, but it reads like a 'the hot-spot is missing' line. Is he confused, is he misleading (in even more ways)? Dunno.

 

This line of his is bizarre "The reason for this is carbon dioxide molecules reside in the lower troposphere and have their greatest heat-trapping effect there."

 

If you could afford a more technical article - obviously not in Forbes - you could tear this apart 6 ways from Xmas

2012-01-02 06:07:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Good comments, thanks guys.  Changes made.

2012-01-02 09:35:14
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.250

Think about repeating (once more!) that the lapse rate is expected to decrease just in the tropics and over the oceans. Comparing the global temperature increase with the expected value in the tropical oceans makes no sense.

2012-01-02 10:25:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.157.121

Baerbel - whaaaaat! I thought the iPad could sing and dance, and make a nice cup of latte! I'm just jealous.

2012-01-03 02:14:16Reality check!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

Before you post this article, you best take a gander at "A Big Picture Look At 'Earth’s Temperature' ” posted on WUWT. It was authored by "Just the Facts", not Anthony Watts.

2012-01-03 04:06:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Nope, no useful information in that post.

2012-01-03 05:07:52
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

I just wanted to make sure that the WUWT post did not contain anything about satellite temperature measuremsnts that you were not already aware of.