It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Source? Your statement would seem to contradict what NOAA says:
The diurnal adjustment is completely empirical, calculated by comparing a diurnally-drifting spacecraft against one that is not drifting during their overlap comparison period (for a.m. spacecraft, NOAA-15 vs. (non-drifting) AQUA, and for p.m., NOAA-18 vs. (non-drifting) NOAA-19 during 4 years).
The latest models of both RSS and UAH have about the same correlation to radiosonde data for the lower troposphere.
I know. That's the point.
Yes I do. While it should be noted that you have provided none.
Regional, perhaps. Why does it "need" to be applied? More data. More data is good because the point is to determine if, on average, the planet is warming and how rapidly.
Take the NOAA data, for example. In 1979 NOAA launched NOAA-14 which operated until 2004. In 1998 they launched NOAA-15 which is still operating. For six years NOAA had two data sets to compare and they did not agree much at all. So what was NOAA's response? Well, to keep using the NOAA-14 data. But why? It was higher.
On the other hand, RSS (and likely NOAA and UW in some manner) choose to retain the relatively warm trend of NOAA-14, which they termed an ‘unexplained mystery’ (Mears and Wentz 2016 Mears, C. A., and F. J. Wentz. 2016. “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment.” Journal of Climate 29: 3629–3646. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]).
We have shown substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that the satellite datasets experienced spurious warming during the period that began with NOAA-12 and ended with NOAA-14 (1990–2001+) that could not be explained by the processes already addressed.
It just seems that particular attention is only paid to areas which indicate warming, while areas which may indicate cooling are never mentioned. Why is that?
Did you miss the part about Bates not saying the data was manipulated? Him saying that he knew the "skeptics" would take him out of context? Confirmation bias much?
Saying the pause didn't happen because they went back and massaged some data to make it go away is denying the fact that it did happen.
The notion that the "pause" invalidates the theory that increasing CO2 concentrations have, are, and will, increase global temperatures is absurd. The theory acknowledges that there are internal processes (vulcanism being a fairly strong one, one which seems to be the primary cause of the LIA rather than solar activity) which will produce decadal variation with the trend. But the energy is retained and the trend will continue.
originally posted by: Phage
Interesting claim, since sunspot records only go back 400 years.
In any case the worries about cooling, even with a grand solar minimum, seem to be just another Nibiru.