Satellite climate data at 33 years: questioning shaky claims that downplay global war

[IanC]

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-

{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 data’s reliability. “As far as the data go, I don’t 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. That’s 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.

“It’s 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?

 

[IanC]

typically it is a matter of who you want to trust, if you even want to trust anyone. Christie (UAH) and Mears (RSS) were heavily scrutinized because their results were somewhat counter to the AGW meme. that was and is a good thing because it leads to better and more reliable information.

the land measurements have only been scrutinized by outsiders and amateurs with no real power to get data or methodologies. it is interesting that McIntyre was the one to find the Y2K bug which dropped the 2000's data by a significant amount but the error is not considered a problem unlike the diurnal correction in satellite calculations. even stranger is how new land adjustments completely negated the Y2K corrections and added a little more as well.

ARGO buoys are another example of heavy scrutiny when the results were not the expected ones. GRACE altimetry results are in the 'right' direction so they seem to be accepted without too much fuss.

personally I dont believe wholeheartedly in any of the methods. there is a lot of leeway in just about any measurement, especially when it involves a lot of calculations from raw data. of course the longer a method has been in place, the more likely the trend is close to being almost correct.

spurious results often come from massaged data to support preconceived notions. warming has occured but the good agreement of the 90's has turned to poor agreement in the 00's. the theories need to be modified or maybe even completely rethought. but zombie science dictates that the same old fitting of square pegs into round holes because it is easy funding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the data refuses to collaborate your theory, you manipulate the data.