Satellite climate data at 33 years: questioning shaky claims that downplay global warming - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
I read this article and was astounded to read the conclusion at the end-
thats odd....it seems to me that surface data is constantly revised, with little or no peer reviewed explanation to the methodology. and which people have looked at it very, very carefully? the people Jones and Hansen hand picked to share their data with?
no revision there, right?
I read this article and was astounded to read the conclusion at the end-
{Santer} and other researchers contacted for this column noted that there have been several instances when Christy and Spencer have had to correct their datasets for factors such as changes in satellite orbits over time, and with each correction the data has come into better alignment with surface warming and model projections.
For this reason and others, Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, says he is skeptical of the satellite datas reliability. As far as the data go, I dont really trust the satellite data. While satellites clearly have some advantages over the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. Thats why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up, he said via email.
Its also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully.
thats odd....it seems to me that surface data is constantly revised, with little or no peer reviewed explanation to the methodology. and which people have looked at it very, very carefully? the people Jones and Hansen hand picked to share their data with?
no revision there, right?