Spurious warming on UAH likely to be corrected

[BethesdaWX]

As I mentioned about 7 or 8 months ago regarding the upcoming adjustement downwards of UAH (spurious warming signal evidenced in the degrading radiometer), it appears the scientists are going to correct the spurious signal sooner rather than later upon looking at their readme file: http://www.nsstc.uah...eadme.01Dec2011

New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011 demonstrating the relatively small error bars of the UAH satellite data. http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

In that case the error bars are now small enough to where even assuming the largest possible error, the data still does not feature the atmospheric warming profile progged by all GCMs. The error bars are now small enough to where we can adequately determine the atmospheric profile in temperature. So that is something that in both UAH and RSS have been prevolent. Observations do not verify the modeling, and by the scientific method, everyone knows what really has to happen now...you never invent reasons to alter observations simply in altering the error bars on the datasets to claim "it may still be there".

Now, modeling needs to be corrected to accurately represent valid observational data, in continuous peer reviewed validation studies by the operators of the satellite data.

[PhillipS]

As I mentioned about 7 or 8 months ago regarding the upcoming adjustement downwards of UAH (spurious warming signal evidenced in the degrading radiometer), it appears the scientists are going to correct the spurious signal sooner rather than later upon looking at their readme file: http://www.nsstc.uah...eadme.01Dec2011

New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011 demonstrating the relatively small error bars of the UAH satellite data. http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

In that case the error bars are now small enough to where even assuming the largest possible error, the data still does not feature the atmospheric warming profile progged by all GCMs. The error bars are now small enough to where we can adequately determine the atmospheric profile in temperature. So that is something that in both UAH and RSS have been prevolent. Observations do not verify the modeling, and by the scientific method, everyone knows what really has to happen now...you never invent reasons to alter observations simply in altering the error bars on the datasets to claim "it may still be there",

Now, modeling needs to be corrected to accurately represent valid observational data, in continuous peer reviewed validation studies by the operators of the satellite data.

I'm not certain what it is that you are crowing about - the link you provided is not to peer-reviewed science, it's to a blog post on Dr Spencer's blog. And you wrote "you never invent reasons to alter observations" - but you do understand, don't you, that Dr Spencer is reporting that they have systematically altered their dataset, their observations, to correct for known sensor and orbit problems - that's why they can claim smaller error bars on their latest temperature dataset than they had on earlier datasets derived from the same observations.

Dr Spencer posted a chart on how their understanding of global temperature trends has evolved since they began their satellite observations. In 1995 they first reported a cooling trend of 0.07 deg/decade. By 2000, with more observations and correcting the early data their satellite trend was reported as warming at 0.06 deg/decade. Data that had indicated global cooling instead showed global warming after they were altered by Dr. Spencer and his team. Several years and several data adjustments later, Dr. Spencer says "The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade.)". That seems to me to be in pretty close alignment with the mainstream AGW warming estimates of 0.16 - 0.18 deg/decade.

Please help us understand why you feel that Dr Spencer's blog post shakes the very foundations of AGW theory.

[TerryM]

I believe BEST addressed all of the supposed problems with "instrument errors" - this was a Koch funded attempt to show that global warming was a hoax that backfired when the data came in. Spence initially said he'd accept BEST results - then changed his mind when the results were published.

BTW last time Spencer was published the editor of the journal quit in disgust.

[Snow_Miser]

I believe BEST addressed all of the supposed problems with "instrument errors" - this was a Koch funded attempt to show that global warming was a hoax that backfired when the data came in.

BEST used weather station data, not satellite data to draw their temperature trend over the last couple of centuries.

Maybe it shows that despite the funding from the Koch Brothers, the researchers were objective enough to draw independent conclusions and find the world was warming (which no one had really disputed) regardless of the funding source...

In addition, the Berkeley scientists concluded that the human effect on temperatures could be overstated.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not certain what it is that you are crowing about - the link you provided is not to peer-reviewed science, it's to a blog post on Dr Spencer's blog. And you wrote "you never invent reasons to alter observations" - but you do understand, don't you, that Dr Spencer is reporting that they have systematically altered their dataset, their observations, to correct for known sensor and orbit problems - that's why they can claim smaller error bars on their latest temperature dataset than they had on earlier datasets derived from the same observations.

Dr Spencer posted a chart on how their understanding of global temperature trends has evolved since they began their satellite observations. In 1995 they first reported a cooling trend of 0.07 deg/decade. By 2000, with more observations and correcting the early data their satellite trend was reported as warming at 0.06 deg/decade. Data that had indicated global cooling instead showed global warming after they were altered by Dr. Spencer and his team. Several years and several data adjustments later, Dr. Spencer says "The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade.)". That seems to me to be in pretty close alignment with the mainstream AGW warming estimates of 0.16 - 0.18 deg/decade.

Please help us understand why you feel that Dr Spencer's blog post shakes the very foundations of AGW theory.

I'm not "crowing" about anything, nor is his blog post even relavent here. Christy et al 2011 (A rebuttal to past studies questioning the error bars) is a peer reviewed paper. Obviously Spencer's blog isn't peer reviewed, but thats not at all related to the UAH trend being potentially adjusted downwards to correct for radiometer degration leading to a spurious warming signal (less warming than it shows).

The difference isn't whether or not we're warming, but the profile determining the causation of the warming. The LT is supposed to warm, as a whole, 20% faster than the surface. Only problem is the surface has out-warmed the LT, and while studies "widen the error bars" to attempt and say the TLT hotspot 'could' still be there. Now it is becoming evident that there is no hotspot present in the TLT relative to the measured surface warming, which would invalidate all GCMs as even the largest error bars in both RSS and UAH data do not extend far enough to make a hotspot possible relative to the surface warming (which is why studies are trying to widen the error bars to make it seem possible).

Right now it's getting to the point where we'll need to back and try to figure out why there is no GHG profile to the warming trend. Studies that widen the error bars to make a hotspot possible should not be taken seriously, as Spencer/Christy have performed numeorus verification studies, latest in 2011 (a few months ago) verifying the maximum error bar of +/-0.05C/decade.

[BethesdaWX]

I believe BEST addressed all of the supposed problems with "instrument errors" - this was a Koch funded attempt to show that global warming was a hoax that backfired when the data came in. Spence initially said he'd accept BEST results - then changed his mind when the results were published.

BTW last time Spencer was published the editor of the journal quit in disgust.

BEST is surface data, totally irrelavent. BEST showing more warming (even much more than GISS) is actually invalidating GCM's (climate models) because it widens the gap between the LT and surface even further.

Satellite error bars aren't large enough as it is to make up for the difference between UAH and GISS (especiallt after the trend is reduced on UAH), so if BEST is correct on the surface data warming then it is very unlikely that the warming could be caused by GHGes due to the missing hotspot profile.

Already studies are trying to widen the error bars on UAH and RSS, Spencer/Christy are having to publish peer reviewed literature every year to explain away these attempts to degrade UAH, latest one this year (2011) by John Christy. Spencer and Christy are the operators of the satellites, obviously I'd take their word on problems regarding the satellites they run.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not "crowing" about anything, nor is his blog post even relavent here. Christy et al 2011 (A rebuttal to past studies questioning the error bars) is a peer reviewed paper. Obviously Spencer's blog isn't peer reviewed, but thats not at all related to the UAH trend being potentially adjusted downwards to correct for radiometer degration leading to a spurious warming signal (less warming than it shows).

The difference isn't whether or not we're warming, but the profile determining the causation of the warming. The LT is supposed to warm, as a whole, 20% faster than the surface. Only problem is the surface has out-warmed the LT, and while studies "widen the error bars" to attempt and say the TLT hotspot 'could' still be there. Now it is becoming evident that there is no hotspot present in the TLT relative to the measured surface warming, which would invalidate all GCMs as even the largest error bars in both RSS and UAH data do not extend far enough to make a hotspot possible relative to the surface warming (which is why studies are trying to widen the error bars to make it seem possible).

Right now it's getting to the point where we'll need to back and try to figure out why there is no GHG profile to the warming trend. Studies that widen the error bars to make a hotspot possible should not be taken seriously, as Spencer/Christy have performed numeorus verification studies, latest in 2011 (a few months ago) verifying the maximum error bar of +/-0.05C/decade.

This post is 100% myth and has no place on a science forum. There is no such thing as a 'GHG hotspot.' The 'hotspot' is a characteristic of all warming, regardless of whether the warming was caused by the sun, GHGs, or something else. If the hotspot did not exist (which it does) this would have zero reflection on GHG theory. It would reflect only our understanding of how surface warming affects lapse rates and thus tropospheric warming.

[skierinvermont]

obviously I'd take their word on problems regarding the satellites they run.

Spencer and Christy do not 'run' any satellites. NASA and other government agencies do. Spencer and Christy are two of many scientists who interpret this data, and their interpretations are no more or less valid than anybody else's.

[skierinvermont]

You are also incorrect that LT predicted warming lies outside of the UAH error bars. The published error bars for UAH by Christy and Spencer themselves are near +/-.07C/decade. That means they cannot exclude a value as high as .21C/decade.

[BethesdaWX]

This post is 100% myth and has no place on a science forum. There is no such thing as a 'GHG hotspot.' The 'hotspot' is a characteristic of all warming, regardless of whether the warming was caused by the sun, GHGs, or something

else. If the hotspot did not exist (which it does) this would have zero reflection on GHG theory. It would reflect only our understanding of how surface warming affects lapse rates and thus

tropospheric warming.

No, all GCMs prog a hotspot between 30N and 25S, which is not reflected in observations, point is GCMs are wrong. TSI isn't even worth modeling the effect is so small. In a more humid atmosphere resulting from more SW entering the oceans would (should) manifest in a hotspot signal too, since warming would be achieved by means of the GHE. If increased thermal energy is not achieved by the means if the GHE then all bets are off regarding the "hotspot". It does not exist.

It doesn't get any more transparent than that. Widening the error bars (radiosondes have wider bars) is what is usually done. That's it.

It's where longwave is re-emitted upon scattering and general direction in the profile that manifests.

[BethesdaWX]

You are also incorrect that LT predicted warming lies outside of the UAH error bars. The published error bars for UAH by Christy and Spencer themselves are near +/-.07C/decade. That means they cannot exclude a value as high as .21C/decade.

You are incorrect. They mean the total 1979-present trend, the decadal base for anomaly depiction is just used because the means are determined on a decadal timelength avging basis.

That's what I mean by "requiring the maximum error possible", which becomes statistically unlikely in probability the further you deviate from the data mean.

Example, when UAH is adjusted downwards, that will lower the error potential in probable outcome on the warm side, as the excess warming was spurious.

Most folks have common sense in knowing all these dataproducts are very good with minimal error, and that if an error has scientific validation it will be corrected.

[BethesdaWX]

Spencer and Christy do not 'run' any satellites. NASA and other government agencies do. Spencer and Christy are two of many scie

ntists who interpret this data, and their interpretations are no more or less valid than anybody else's.

Spencer and Christy operate (run) UAH, meaning, calibrate, adjust for interference, etc, as they are qualified and required to do so to provide the best dataset they can.

[WeatherRusty]

No, all GCMs prog a hotspot between 30N and 25S, which is not reflected in observations, point is GCMs are wrong. TSI isn't even worth modeling the effect is so small. In a more humid atmosphere resulting from more SW entering the oceans would (should) manifest in a hotspot signal too, since warming would be achieved by means of the GHE. If increased thermal energy is not achieved by the means if the GHE then all bets are off regarding the "hotspot". It does not exist.

It doesn't get any more transparent than that. Widening the error bars (radiosondes have wider bars) is what is usually done. That's it.

It's where longwave is re-emitted upon scattering and general direction in the profile that manifests.

This will be short and sweet for the benefit of others, it's Christmas morning.

You are wrong Bethesda, the hot spot is not anticipated because of the GHE from water vapor, it is due to the release of latent heat as the added moisture condenses. The lapse rate (cooling rate with increased altitude) is reduced.

Ironically, you should be hoping to find the hot spot, since this lapse rate shift towards a more moist rate is a negative feedback on surface warming. Heat carried aloft by water vapor more easily escapes to space thus helping to cool the surface.

[BethesdaWX]

This will be short and sweet for the benefit of others, it's Christmas morning.

You are wrong Bethesda, the hot spot is not anticipated because of the GHE from water vapor, it is due to the release of latent heat as the added moisture condenses. The lapse rate (cooling rate with increased altitude) is reduced.

Ironically, you should be hoping to find the hot spot, since this lapse rate shift towards a more moist rate is a negative feedback on surface warming. Heat carried aloft by water vapor more easily escapes to space thus helping to cool the surface.

Exactly, 2 posts back I essentially said exactly that...added water vapor in a warmer atmosphere from the heating of the oceans (increased convection within presence, water vapor --- thermal expansion) would show up in this manner (hotspot). Thats where cloud cover comes into play.

If the warming is a result of 1) Stratospheric ozone depletion, and 2) Alterations in cloud anomalies on a global scale (not necessarily a change in the net cloud nomber), for net increase in total SW radiation, more OLR as a result of increased earthshine + UV scattering, the warming would not show up as a TLT hotspot but rather more of an equilaterally balanced anomaly except for the albedo loss that would warm the surface faster in the arctic region (warming North Atlantic is the causative mechanism there only because of the oceans currents in the Arctic basin collapsing by the means of thermodynamic processes)

The TLT varies more than the surface in ENSO, for example, because the heating IN SOURCE is achieved by the means you decribe, or the above means specifically, it's only a response to the previous forcing, externally, years earlier. Energy takes time to process when it's upper atmospherically derived That has not been the case in our long term (once) warming trend, now flatlining before the cooling beginning in 2012, because it isn't the GHE processing itself that is responsible, only that it is processing the energy change as it always does, since the atmosphere behaves like an atmosphere (obviously). That has to be sourced externally, all molecules (oxygen, hydrogen, etc) transfer their energy thermally in the LW after interaction but only by those very means.

If I'm right, we'll never have a year as warm as 1998 again in our lifetimes, so that is an easy verification test.

[BethesdaWX]

what is the full citation for Christy et al. 2011?

Linked in the hyperlink I posted, or use google scholar to find it if you could not view it. Verification tests are published by UAH every 1-2 years.

[PhillipS]

there is no link to a published, peer-reviewed paper in what you posted.

also Christy's homepage doesn't list such a paper: http://www.nsstc.uah...blications.html

if you've read it, why can't you just give the full cite do we can too?

Here's the link to the Spencer & Christy paper. Note that it's been cited only twice (for comparison, the Trenberth et al paper debunking Spencer & Christy has been cited 144 times). Just reading the abstract (I'll be damned if I'm going to pay to read the full article) it doesn't say what Bethesda thinks it says.

In the sentence:

Error ranges of these estimates, if we do not apply information that indicates some data sets contain noticeable trend problems, are at least ±0.05°C decade

⁻¹

, which needs

reduction

to characterize forcing and response in the climate system accurately.

the word reduction refers to the error trend, not the warming trend. As Dr Spencer pointed out on his blog all of the adjustments to the UAH temperature record since the first report in 1995 have been upwards. There is no spurious warming.

The facts have been pointed out to Bethesda but, since he's only here to troll and spread disinformation, reality made no impression on him.

[BethesdaWX]

Here's the link to the Spencer & Christy paper. Note that

it's been cited only twice (for comparison, the Trenberth et al

LE2.0.CO%3B2'>paper debunking Spencer & Christy has been cited 144 times). Just reading the abstract (I'll be damned if I'm going to pay to read the full article) it doesn't say what Bethesda thinks it says.

In the sentence:

Error ranges of these estimates, if

Lwe do not apply information that indicates some data sets contain noticeable trend problems, are at least ±0.05°C decade

⁻¹

, which needs

reduction

to characterize forcing and response in the climate

system accurately.

the word reduction refers to the error trend, not the warming trend. As Dr Spencer pointed out on his blog all

of the adjustments to the UAH temperature record since the first report in 1995 have been upwards. There is no spurious warming.

The facts have been pointed out to Bethesda but, since he's only here to troll and spread disinformation, reality made no impression on him.

Huh? Wrong paper and wrong interpretation.

Read the released statement I posted...You don't write a paper to correct spurious trends. UAH is being changed (adjusted down) to correct spurious warming resulting from the aging of the AQUA AMSU radiometer.

And trix, the paper was linked by Spencer on his blog ( that I linked )

[BethesdaWX]

thanks, Phillip. I didn't think BB was referring to the Journal of Remote Sensing paper as it has

been thoroughly discredited, so I assumed there was a new paper that had been published since then.

these kinds of threads--citing totally discredited

research--really have no place here.

Well this is funny. The upcoming adjustment downwards of UAH does not belong in the CC forum...because of an irrelevant 2010 paper...? The info release by the scientists has nothing to do with peer review, it is the deteriorating radiometer on the satellite that is being calibrated for...starting now....

PhillipS brought up some irrelevant 2010 paper on error bars. This (adjustment) is correcting for error discovery.

PhillipS is arguing that despite the news release by the scientists, UAH is not being adjusted downward post-2008 and references an irrelevant paper and counter-papers to assert

this when they have nothing to do with

The papers he listed were error analysis in 1 of many many studies that analyze the error bars. What is being done in his reference is widening of the error bars and use of even more uncertain radiosondes to assert there could still be a hotspot in the TLT.

That has nothing to do with the spurious warming being caused by a deteriorating radiometer on the satellite since 2008.

Your above post is a factless cheerleading mess.

[BethesdaWX]

link me up with Christy et al., 2011.

What does Christy et al 2011 have to do with UAH being re-adjusted? You said this thread has no place here, yet you haven't said why. And you don't know why Christy et al 2011 is irrelevant?

Thst is because you didn't click the link I posted to the readme file with the

statement describing the process.

[tacoman25]

thanks, Phillip. I didn't think BB was referring to the Journal of Remote Sensing paper as it has been thoroughly discredited, so I assumed there was a new paper that had been published since then.

these kinds of threads--citing totally discredited research--really have no place here.

Straw man! You aren't even addressing what this thread is about, instead choosing to focus solely on a citation.

So every thread in the climate change forum needs to be linked to a new, peer-reviewed paper? No discussion can start unless it's based on that? Who made these rules?

[PhillipS]

Wxtrix - sorry if I posted a link to the wrong Christy paper. I was just trying to be helpful since BB clearly isn't interested in supporting his own assertions. (Hmmm - could it be that he's realized there isn't any Christy 2011 paper relevant to his claims?)

Bethesda - You're the one who first brought up Christy et al 2011 as support for your claims. In your OP you wrote:

New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in

Christy et al 2011

demonstrating the relatively small error bars of the UAH satellite data.

http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

All we're asking for is the link to this new peer-reviewed literature. I'm sure you'll agree that that is a perfectly reasonable request. Unless, of course, there really isn't any new paper and you're just lying to us.

The only mention of even the possibility of a downward adjustment to the UAH temperature record is in the 12/1 entry to the readme file - and there the text says that there may be a slight adjustment.. On 12/9, Dr Spencer wrote about the adjustment with no indication that it would be downward. On 12/15 Dr spencer wrote about the adjustment again, and again there is no mention about it being downward. And, most recently, on 12/21 Dr Spencer posted a long column defending the robustness of the UAH temperature record. He also states that "The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade". No mention of any spurious warming.

So it appears that all of your supporting info is either stale, obsolete, or missing in action. You're embarassing yourself again, BB.

Tacoman - This is a forum for discussing the latest in climate science so, yes, every new thread should ideally start of with links to supporting papers. If somebody just wants to vent their unsupported biases or display their willful ignorance they should spare the readers here and instead go join the circle jerk at WUWT.

[BethesdaWX]

Wxtrix - sorry if I posted a link to the wrong Christy paper. I was just trying to be helpful since BB clearly isn't interested in supporting his own assertions. (Hmmm - could it be that he's realized there isn't any Christy 2011 paper relevant to his claims?)

Bethesda - You're the one who first brought up Christy et al 2011 as support for your claims. In your OP you wrote:

New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in

Christy et al 2011

demonstrating the relatively small error bars of the UAH satellite data.

http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

All we're asking for is the link to this new peer-reviewed literature. I'm sure you'll agree that that is a perfectly reasonable request. Unless, of course, there really isn't any new paper and you're just lying to us.

The only mention of even the possibility of a downward adjustment to the UAH temperature record is in the 12/1 entry to the readme file - and there the text says that there may be a slight adjustment.. On 12/9, Dr Spencer wrote about the adjustment with no indication that it would be downward. On 12/15 Dr spencer wrote about the adjustment again, and again there is no mention about it being downward. And, most recently, on 12/21 Dr Spencer posted a long column defending the robustness of the UAH temperature record. He also states that "The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade". No mention of any spurious warming.

So it appears that all of your supporting info is either stale, obsolete, or missing in action. You're embarassing yourself again, BB.

Tacoman - This is a forum for discussing the latest in climate science so, yes, every new thread should ideally start of with links to supporting papers. If somebody just wants to vent their unsupported biases or display their willful ignorance they should spare the readers here and instead go join the circle jerk at WUWT.

??? Do you honestly read anything written here? Read the very first link I posted which will direct you to a 'readme' file. If you can't figure out what to do when you get there I cannot help you.

And, the two paragraphs are irrelavent to eachother, my mentioning the paper(s) (there are numerous papers) was only in regards to error bars in the decadal trend which is not in question. All datasets feature similar error bars are trend similarly as well in the long run.

If somebody just wants to vent their unsupported biases or display their willful ignorance they should spare the readers here and instead go join the circle jerk at WUWT.

Good, why don't you do so?

[ORH_wxman]

The only mention of even the possibility of a downward adjustment to the UAH temperature record is in the 12/1 entry to the readme file - and there the text says that there may be a slight adjustment.. On 12/9, Dr Spencer wrote about the adjustment with no indication that it would be downward. On 12/15 Dr spencer wrote about the adjustment again, and again there is no mention about it being downward. And, most recently, on 12/21 Dr Spencer posted a long column defending the robustness of the UAH temperature record. He also states that "The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade". No mention of any spurious warming.

Christy mentioned the spurious warming in the 12/21 Spencer column.

We are always working to provide the best products, and we may soon have another adjustment to account for an apparent spurious warming in the last few years of the aging Aqua AMSU

[tacoman25]

Tacoman - This is a forum for discussing the latest in climate science so, yes, every new thread should ideally start of with links to supporting papers. If somebody just wants to vent their unsupported biases or display their willful ignorance they should spare the readers here and instead go join the circle jerk at WUWT.

The problem is, there isn't going to be a peer-reviewed paper for everything discussed in this forum. Look through all of the threads, and you'll find very few that were started solely to discuss a peer-reviewed paper. And that's fine. Following global temperatures or sea ice does not require a peer-reviewed paper. Neither does following changes made to satellites or other global temperature sources.

[PhillipS]

Christy mentioned the spurious warming in the 12/21 Spencer column.

We are always working to provide the best products, and we may soon have another adjustment to account for an apparent spurious warming in the last few years of the aging Aqua AMSU

You are correct - I missed that mention in the 12/21 blog post. I should have read the quote from Christy more carefully.

[PhillipS]

??? Do you honestly read anything written here? Read the very first link I posted which will direct you to a 'readme' file. If you can't figure out what to do when you get there I cannot help you.

And, the two paragraphs are irrelavent to eachother, my mentioning the paper(s) (there are numerous papers) was only in regards to error bars in the decadal trend which is not in question. All datasets feature similar error bars are trend similarly as well in the long run.

You are trying to move the goalposts in this discussion. In your opening post you asserted that there is new peer-reviewed literature from Christy and Spencer - but you still, despite repeated requests, have not provided links to those new peer-reviewed papers. You did provide links to a readme file and blog posts, neither of which is peer-reviewed.

You now claim that there are numerous papers - fine, give us links to, say, the most recent four or five publications. That would not be difficult if you are telling the truth.

Put up or shut up.

[BethesdaWX]

It's all good PhillipS, but you gotta admit this is good for at least a chuckle

You're embarassing yourself again, BB.

[BethesdaWX]

You are trying to move the goalposts in this discussion. In your opening post you asserted that there is new peer-reviewed literature from Christy and Spencer - but you still, despite repeated requests, have not provided links to those new peer-reviewed papers. You did

provide links to a readme file and blog posts, neither of which is peer-reviewed.

You now claim that there are numerous papers - fine, give us links to, say, the most recent four

or five publications. That would not be difficult if you are telling the truth.

Put up or shut up.

lol

What are you asking me? I'm not understanding what you're going ballistic about.

What does peer review have to do with this thread? Why are you asking me to find a paper for you? I'm not your servant.

Roy Spencer must be inventing fake papers too.

[PhillipS]

The problem is, there isn't going to be a peer-reviewed paper for everything discussed in this forum. Look through all of the threads, and you'll find very few that were started solely to discuss a peer-reviewed paper. And that's fine. Following global temperatures or sea ice does not require a peer-reviewed paper. Neither does following changes made to satellites or other global temperature sources.

You make several good points and I don't feel our perspectives are all that far apart. I didn't express myself as well as I should have in my earlier post.

I feel that there is a large qualitative difference between a technical discussion forum, like this one, and open opinion blogs. On an open (unmoderated) blog any poster can write whatever they want about anything, or anybody they want. Everyone's opinion is equal. RIght? Unfortunately the threads on these blogs generally end up as content-free garbage from those who have the least sense and the ugliest rants. Something of a mob rule effect.

But a technical discussion forum is different - more disciplined, more informative, more tolerant of differing opinions - or at least it should be. You're right that not every post involves peer-reviewed research. But if a poster says "Research shows . . . " then they ought to include a link to that research. If they post a map or graph they should provide a link to the source of that data. Yes, providing those links takes time and effort - but the discipline of doing so is critical to keeping this a forum for exchanging information and not just expressing opinions. At least, that's my opinion.

[BethesdaWX]

your first post:

you wrote that--referring to Christy et al, 2011. why can't you provide the full cite for it?

Christy et al 2011 is a reference to UAH error bars, a basic verification study, and has nothing to do with the thread (the reason I mentioned error bars in the intro post was to provide an example of how spurious readings are corrected vigorously when evident, and if there were "sound" evidence of others they'd be adjusted for).

If you want to read Christy et al 2011 fine but don't ask me so search for you. I have not read it, only linked a blog post citing numerous verification studies for UAH, not more uncertain radiosonde bits, and it was the latest one referenced.