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.
Originally posted by Aristophrenia
reply to post by mc_squared
I hate to think how many books I have devoured on global warming, facts and myths / propaganda - but still finding many new insights from your posts. Thanks - great work.
Do you understand what "noise" is? Obviously you don't.
And you also told me you were going to show it to me. I'm still waiting.
there is virtually no debate that humidity itself results in a resoundingly positive one.
Well, let's see - I could leave you all sorts of links showing you how wrong you are about that. Links like these.
First of all you understand that the tropospheric hotspot is not a telltale signature of warming from "increased CO2 output" right? It's just a sign of warming. Period.
1. Are you really going to try and argue with all the mountains of evidence that correlate and show the planet clearly warming for the last century?
A much more telltale sign of actual human influence is tropospheric warming versus stratospheric cooling, which is clearly there.
Warming = evaporation = humidity = more warming. This is exactly what a feedback is - ding!.
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
For those who aren't sure what this is about, it's about leaked emails that seemingly prove that Global Warmists may be fabricating and skewing info when it comes to data that fails to fit in with the official theory.
Not everyone agreed, here's a quote from Nigel Lawson:...
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
One thing I might suggest is that the whole idea that Big Oil is behind the "deniers" (don't you just love their propagandistic terminology?), might just be the other way around. Counterintuitive (as usual it seems).
"What if" Big Oil really preferred Global Warming for their long range plans to succeed? What if it's the SAME people running Big Oil, will also be pocketing the big bucks from the carbon tax scam? What if, they could give a rip if useful idiots in the meantime become "true believers"?
Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by JR MacBeth
...come back and tell me how much of a "good job" Nathan has done. You guys keep going back to two things: you keep claiming how arrogant the science supposedly is, all the while ignoring your own arrogance in making these claims without knowing anything about the science.
That sounds awfully arrogant. Anyway, obviously you think Nathan is doing a terrible job, and as you explain later, you feel you have earned the right to say so. Fine. I still admire his tenacity, and I shutter to think what would happen if no one stood up to bullies.
...THREE independent investigations from different people/organizations that all exonerated the accused. Furthermore, if you're still suspicious of these investigations you don't even have to accept them. All you have to do is read the emails YOURSELF.
Thanks. Good to know you have read over 1,000 emails, and while you were at it, dismissed the ones about soliciting funds from Big Oil. Nice. Perhaps you should send your resume to Phil Jones, you might fit right in.
And then this "intolerance to challenge" BS...
Yes, I have found that you religiously faithful are mostly an intolerant lot. Perhaps the same goes for Nathan, who knows? BTW, I found the video you posted very reminiscent of the old "Pascal's Wager" argument religionists use so "triumphantly". It basically says the same thing, rephrased to fit the AGW religion (I hope you see that, although maybe not everyone has heard of Pascal...)
...looking for whatever fits your already preconceived notions...
You assume too much. I remain open to the possibility that there is something to the AGW religion, just as I remain open to other religions as well. However, until I get over my repugnance for religion in general, I probably should honestly put myself in the camp of the agnostic. I await a really convincing argument.
And threatening a modern global "hell" in your most "terrifying" video isn't going to cut it for the die-hard agnostic, trust me. But points for trying!
...just because the facts and the evidence show his points are routinely misguided, distorted, or flat out lies doesn't make us intolerant - it just happens to be the FACTS. If he was right about one single thing so far I would gladly acknowledge it. But he hasn't been, not even once
Calm down, ye true believer! Of course, you Catholics have the "true" faith, and that nasty Protestant, he isn't right about even one little thing! And he lies, and blah blah blah...(Make Sign of Cross here. Amen.)
So what do you want us to do - give him a pity star and hand out one of those "participant" ribbons you get for finishing last in 3rd grade track and field?
Nah. Just call him "bub", or a "troll", or "stupid". That should help us all understand where you're coming from.
The only thing we are in fact intolerant to is all his knee-jerk dismissal to all the tangible evidence provided - with nothing but repeated conjecture about how brainwashed and intolerant we all are.
Sich Hiel, Mein Fuhrer!
Actually the other thing we are intolerant to is people who don't do their homework, but then feel the right to criticize those of us who have. I have done a LOT of research on BOTH SIDES of this issue, meaning I routinely question my supposed "beliefs". In doing so feel I have earned a certain right to speak with confidence and about it. If you have a problem with anything I said - then take it up with what I've said, not with my supposed arrogance or intolerance.
Ah. I bow to you, oh humble Non-Arrogant One. I do thank goodness that you are still doing your homework. Make sure to get to bed on time though, you're really cranky when you don't get your rest.
Instead of just adding more worthless conjecture to this already steaming pile - how about you show me where what any of us have said is wrong, and therefore arrogant or intolerant?
(Nathan-D) I know what noise is. My point was that the temperature has fluctuated consistently without any abrupt changes in CO2 levels, so noise (natural variation) clearly overwhelms the effects of CO2.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
Radiosondes have been scanning the skies for years and they show no hotspot, and therein lies the problem. It is the signature of positive feedback. And as I mentioned earlier, there are a number of empirical studies (Paltridge 2009, Gregory 2009), showing water vapour causes a negative feedback. Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature and most are negative. The IPCC are asking us to believe a small increase in CO2 is enough to cause a large positive feedback loop from water vapour and this feedback loop will lead to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. There is no evidence to support this claim, apart from GIGO models.
Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta.
The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc.
The planet has been warming for the last century. I don't dispute that, but only by 0.7C, which is well within long-term, established climate trends, and besides, the planet has been warming for 200 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age (the coldest period in the Holocene).
Originally posted by mbkennel
This is why actual scientists are starting to get very angry about it----what would chemists think if you had a serious denialist industry campaigning against the atomic theory of matter and periodic table, all in order to preclude any regulation on toxic waste dumping ("it's too complicated, maybe we should be praying to baal more instead of this liberal socialist atomic theory") It really is exactly as ludicrous as that.
Positive feedbacks are very rare in nature and most are negative.
You REALLY need to research who you're quoting... Nigel Lawson As you can see he also founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation (intentionally harmless/professional sounding name ain't it?) which is a global warming skeptic organization... Global Warming Policy Foundation
Amongst their ranks is a cornucopia of NON-experts on global warming, many with financial links to mining and fossil fuel industries (namely Exxon), economists, people KNOWN to make ridiculous/false claims rife with errors, and people averse to environmentalism/science.
Generally the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" seems at BEST a very inconsequential group in the climate change discussion and AT WORST a paid-off propaganda arm of the fossil fuel industry. Oh, and Richard Lindzen is a member... need I say more?...
The CRU emails WERE spread around as misinformation, purposely interpreted incorrectly, taken out of context, cherry-picked and grossly exaggerated. Every independent analysis of the CRU emails revealed that there was NO actual misconduct or altering of the data, and that AT WORST they simply weren't open enough with their data being overly suspicious of people making detailed requests.
So while we can blame them for avoiding openness/FOIA requests, we CANNOT blame them for the vast majority of the claims leveled against them nor can we really blame them for their paranoia around corrupt skeptics...
That makes absolutely no sense... neither to logic/common sense nor to the actual FACTS. The fossil fuel industries have a LONG and EXPOSED role in trying to cover-up, minimize, and control the discussion about global warming.
They've successfully duped a lot of right-wingers into associating their POLITICS with the propaganda of global warming denial/debate. There is no ACTUAL debate on global warming, as the scientific debate ended YEARS ago,
And who pays the politician's/media's bills? Big corporations like BP, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Dow, GE, Monsanto, etc. DEFINITELY NOT trustworthy companies
Because there are fluctuations in surface temperature when CO2 is held constant, then that means that if you change CO2 there won't be any significant effect on temperature.
Paltridge and Gregory, eh? He doesn't look very clean to me. Ken Gregory is linked with "Friends of Science" (another misleadingly light-hearted organization name)... ain't so clean either.
No, actually the planetary temperature has been pretty stable for the most of the 20th century, and recently has started to get hot fairly rapidly. (Funny a paper in the mid 1970's from a very prominent scientist, predicted it pretty well).
From what I've garnered, much of Gregory's assumptions come from a study by Ferenc M. Miskolczi.
Sure at some extreme excursion there will be a negative feedback. Where will you end up? Witness Venus.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D18101, 18 PP., 2009
Ocean water vapor and cloud liquid water trends from 1992 to 2005 TOPEX Microwave Radiometer data
S. Keihm et al
The continuous 1992–2005 data set of the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) has been reprocessed to provide global, zonal, and regional scale histories of overocean integrated water vapor (IWV) and cloud liquid water (CLW). Results indicate well-defined trends in IWV on global and hemisphere scales, with values of 1.8 ± 0.4%/decade (60°S–60°N), 2.4 ± 0.4%/decade (0–60°N), and 1.0 ± 0.5%/decade (0–60°S). The uncertainties represent 1 standard deviation of the regressed slope parameter adjusted for lag 1 autocorrelation. These results are comparable to earlier results based on analyses of the multiinstrument SSM/I ocean measurements beginning in 1988. For the 1992–2005 interval, comparisons between SSM/I- and TMR-derived IWV trends show remarkable agreement, with global trends differing by less than 0.3%/decade, comparable to the statistical uncertainty level and about one-sixth of the global TMR-derived trend. Latitudinal and regional analyses of IWV trends show large variability about the global mean, with synoptic scale variations of IWV trends ranging from ∼−8 to +8%/decade. Averaged over 5° latitude bands the IWV trends reveal a near zero minimum in the Southern Tropical Pacific and maximum values of ∼4%/decade over the 30–40N latitude band. Comparisons with band latitude averaged SST data over the same 1992–2005 interval roughly match a delta_IWV/delta_SST trend scaling of ∼11%/K, consistent with previously observed tropical and midlatitude seasonal variability. TMR-derived CLW trends are fractionally comparable to the IWV trends. The CLW values are 1.5 ± 0.6%/decade (60°S–60°N), 2.0 ± 0.8%/decade (0–60°N), and 1.1 ± 0.8%/decade (0–60°S). When scaled to global mean CLW derived from SSM/I and compared seasonally, the TMR CLW variations exhibit excellent tracking with the SSM/I results. Unlike IWV, however, the CLW statistical uncertainties do not likely reflect the dominant error component in the retrieved trends. The 1992–2005 CLW trend estimates were particularly sensitive to short-term trends in the first and last 2 years of the TMR archive. Additional errors difficult to quantify include strong aliasing effects from precipitation cells and uncertainties in the radiative transfer models utilized in the generation of the TMR CLW algorithm.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, 4 PP., 2008
Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008; A. E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, P. Yang
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.
Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santer et al
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 841 - 844
The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening
Brian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4
Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.
McCarthy, Mark P., P. W. Thorne, H. A. Titchner, 2009: An Analysis of Tropospheric Humidity Trends from Radiosondes. J. Climate, 22, 5820-5838
A new analysis of historical radiosonde humidity observations is described. An assessment of both known and unknown instrument and observing practice changes has been conducted to assess their impact on bias and uncertainty in long-term trends. The processing of the data includes interpolation of data to address known sampling bias from missing dry day and cold temperature events, a first-guess adjustment for known radiosonde model changes, and a more sophisticated ensemble of estimates based on 100 neighbor-based homogenizations. At each stage the impact and uncertainty of the process has been quantified. The adjustments remove an apparent drying over Europe and parts of Asia and introduce greater consistency between temperature and specific humidity trends from day and night observations. Interannual variability and trends at the surface are shown to be in good agreement with independent in situ datasets, although some steplike discrepancies are apparent between the time series of relative humidity at the surface.
Adjusted trends, accounting for documented and undocumented break points and their uncertainty, across the extratropical Northern Hemisphere lower and midtroposphere show warming of 0.1–0.4 K decade−1 and moistening on the order of 1%–5% decade−1 since 1970. There is little or no change in the observed relative humidity in the same period, consistent with climate model expectation of a positive water vapor feedback in the extratropics with near-constant relative humidity.
THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY
Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Nathan-D
we can question both the data and the models. And often we find the data to be unreliable - like in both of the examples noted
The fact that you believe satellite data in conjunction with thousands of radiosonde measurements could be wildly inaccurate, but complex, unverified "climate models" are right, betrays your religious conviction in the theory of AGW.
The evidence shows that one issue is data biases for the radiosondes. You do understand that 'thousands of radiosonde measurements' which involves different instruments, practices, and coverage isn't exactly ideal?
Journal of Climate 2009; 22: 465-485
Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments
Holly A. Titchner, P. W. Thorne, and M. P. McCarthy
Biases and uncertainties in large-scale radiosonde temperature trends in the troposphere are critically reassessed. Realistic validation experiments are performed on an automatic radiosonde homogenization system by applying it to climate model data with four distinct sets of simulated breakpoint profiles. Knowledge of the “truth” permits a critical assessment of the ability of the system to recover the large-scale trends and a reinterpretation of the results when applied to the real observations.
The homogenization system consistently reduces the bias in the daytime tropical, global, and Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropical trends but underestimates the full magnitude of the bias. Southern Hemisphere (SH) extratropical and all nighttime trends were less well adjusted owing to the sparsity of stations. The ability to recover the trends is dependent on the underlying error structure, and the true trend does not necessarily lie within the range of estimates. The implications are that tropical tropospheric trends in the unadjusted daytime radiosonde observations, and in many current upper-air datasets, are biased cold, but the degree of this bias cannot be robustly quantified. Therefore, remaining biases in the radiosonde temperature record may account for the apparent tropical lapse rate discrepancy between radiosonde data and climate models. Furthermore, the authors find that the unadjusted global and NH extratropical tropospheric trends are biased cold in the daytime radiosonde observations.
Finally, observing system experiments show that, if the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Upper Air Network (GUAN) were to make climate quality observations adhering to the GCOS monitoring principles, then one would be able to constrain the uncertainties in trends at a more comprehensive set of stations. This reaffirms the importance of running GUAN under the GCOS monitoring principles.
Nature Geoscience 1, 399 - 403 (2008)
Published online: 25 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo208
Subject Category: Climate science
Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds
Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.
Journal of Climate 2008; 21: 4587-4606
Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data
Leopold Haimberger, Christina Tavolato*, and Stefan Sperka
Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
The apparent cooling trend in observed global mean temperature series from radiosonde records relative to Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiances has been a long-standing problem in upper-air climatology. It is very likely caused by a warm bias of radiosonde temperatures in the 1980s, which has been reduced over time with better instrumentation and correction software. The warm bias in the MSU-equivalent lower stratospheric (LS) layer is estimated as 0.6 ± 0.3 K in the global mean and as 1.0 ± 0.3 K in the tropical (20°S–20°N) mean. These estimates are based on comparisons of unadjusted radiosonde data, not only with MSU data but also with background forecast (BG) temperature time series from the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) and with two new homogenized radiosonde datasets. One of the radiosonde datasets [Radiosonde Observation Correction using Reanalyses (RAOBCORE) version 1.4] employs the BG as reference for homogenization, which is not strictly independent of MSU data. The second radiosonde dataset uses the dates of the breakpoints detected by RAOBCORE as metadata for homogenization. However, it relies only on homogeneous segments of neighboring radiosonde data for break-size estimation. Therefore, adjustments are independent of satellite data.
Both of the new adjusted radiosonde time series are in better agreement with satellite data than comparable published radiosonde datasets, not only for zonal means but also at most single stations. A robust warming maximum of 0.2–0.3K (10 yr)−1 for the 1979–2006 period in the tropical upper troposphere could be found in both homogenized radiosonde datasets. The maximum is consistent with mean temperatures of a thick layer in the upper troposphere and upper stratosphere (TS), derived from M3U3 radiances. Inferred from these results is that it is possible to detect and remove most of the mean warm bias from the radiosonde records, and thus most of the trend discrepancy compared to MSU LS and TS temperature products.
The comprehensive intercomparison also suggests that the BG is temporally quite homogeneous after 1986. Only in the early 1980s could some inhomogeneities in the BG be detected and quantified.
For the satellite data, there are various series: UAH, RSS etc, and as Santer notes none are actually significantly different than model projections.
So, in sum...
(i) The evidence shows that water vapour feedback exists, other evidence shows it is likely to be as strong as indicated by the models.
(ii) Evidence shows that the previous discrepancy between data-models in one area of the globe (tropics) in one area of the atmosphere (troposphere) is most likely due to data biases and processing methods, and that there is no real discrepancy when these biases are corrected for.
Not much left to say really. Although I note again your attempt to move the goalposts with Santer's work. If you want evidence of the tropospheric hotspot, try the Allen et al. (2008) study above or Fu et al. (2005; who correct for satellite biases).
Satellite-derived vertical dependence of tropical tropospheric
Qiang Fu and Celeste M. Johanson
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Received 18 December 2004; revised 25 March 2005; accepted 27 April 2005; published 26 May 2005.
 Tropical atmospheric temperatures in different
tropospheric layers are retrieved using satellite-borne
Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) observations. We find
that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are
greater than the surface warming and increase with height.
Our analysis indicates that the near-zero trend from Spencer
and Christy’s MSU channel-2 angular scanning retrieval for
the tropical low-middle troposphere (T2LT) is inconsistent
with tropical tropospheric warming derived from their MSU
T2 and T4 data. We show that the T2LT trend bias can be
largely attributed to the periods when the satellites had large
local equator crossing time drifts that cause large changes in
calibration target temperatures and large diurnal drifts.
The satellite data is also known to have numerous biases: from contamination from the stratosphere and diurnal drift (amongst others).
Also, Sherwood resorts to measuring the temperature via windshear. How can windshear be better at measuring temperature than actual thermometers? It defies logic.
It think it would depend how the thermometer was used.
You should have read the introduction of the paper a bit better. The paragraph directly preceding the quote you extracted would be helpful:
It has long been recognized that radiosonde temperature data
are affected by non-climatic artifacts due to station relocations,
observation time changes and radiosonde type or design changes1.
Several investigators have attempted to detect and adjust (that
is homogenize) these artefacts using a variety of tools, including
statistical procedures, station metadata, various indicators of
natural variability (such as volcanic eruptions, vertical coherence)
and forecasts from a climate data assimilation system2–6.
The radiosonde data is much less than perfect, and wind shear has been identified as one approach to overcome their limitations. Their main issue is heterogeneity, and recent methods to homogenise the radiosonde data are indicating more agreement with model projections.
Originally posted by broli
Some people are really closed minded. You can do with data whatever you like but the fact remains is that there could be a million unknown things causing this global warming having nothing to do with man.
Unlike scientists like you to believe the earth's core and let alone its dynamics is not a known fact, it's all theory. God knows how this all interacts with the cosmos and especially sun's magnetic fields or other unknowns. People are concentrating on heat coming from the outside, but have you considered that the earth might be warming from the inside out? Perhaps it's something as ridiculously simple as an eddy current effect, where intense magnetic field changes cause a "current" change in the earth's core which results in heat.
The people who classify anything as 'fact' are people with a hidden agenda. And it's no more secret that this whole man made global warming bull# is one big con.