otto105
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 34,446
- 11,024
- 1,315
That's not what your stupid article from 2006 states idiot.LOL!!!
We have TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temperatures, satellites since the 1970s, and over 100 years from weather balloons.
For the first twenty years of Algore's fraud and long before it started, both the balloons and the satellites have shown NO WARMING in the atmosphere. Since the satellites went up in the 1970s, their data has correlated with the balloons, both showing a cooler than normal atmosphere during Bill Clinton's "warmest ever year in 1998." Since NBC is not journalism they slanted their piece, but it doesn't fool anyone with a working brain....
Your outside thermometer says (according to NBC "suggested") 80F. You have two choices. One, accept that it is 80F outside. Two, allow a biased, politicized narrative driven taxpayer funded "scientist" to "correct" that to 90F....
LOL!!!
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.www.nbcnews.com
satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data
So, let's be clear here. The theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 would warm the atmosphere. The DATA said NO. NOT HAPPENING.
So they fudged, and they fudged with pathetic excuses and lies. "Orbit wobble" on satellites wouldn't change the reading of the IR sensors. "Shade issues" claimed on balloons would be a one time length of period adjustment, not a slant from a flat line.
Theory - increasing atmospheric Co2 would warm atmosphere
Evidence - None, data completely refuted theory, FUDGE was used in place of truth
"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.
Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.
The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.
"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.
Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.
After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.
Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.
"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."
