Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

[SSDD]

It's confirmed. Scientists lied to us. And the liberal climate change tree-huggers bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic. Isn't it? The rest of us know better. Why? Because we don't have an agenda. We are interested in the truth. That's all. Well, here's some truth for you climate change nuts. You'll probably choke on it, but that's OK.

And the best part is that this is a government press release, so you can't even try to discredit the source. BWAHAHAHA!

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

It's all very well saying there were arguments in NOAA and that the data was released without proper controls etc. But what does that mean?

Are you asking what is the definition of i"is"?

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how after the lie about what Dr Bates actually said was exposed, the Right-wing deniers refuse to admit their sources lied to them and continue to use the same lying sources to deflect from the fact that they lied about Dr Bates.

I remember when the Right first spewed their Dr Bates lie and included a fake temperature graph.

Remember this?

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself.

You failed to provide a link, failed to notice that Karl's supporters come from government pals, not from the science field itself OUTSIDE of government employment.

You also failed to notice what is completely missing, even Hausfather completely left it out because he knows most warmists are science illiterates, who can't notice the obvious that is missing.

Why do you think he is "making" anything of himself? I believe he is just showing his true nature. Does a cow "make a cow" out of itself by mooing and eating grass.

He is nothing other than what his statements suggest that he is.

It keeps coming back to the fact that the OP is an obvious and provable lie, and rather than admit that their sources are liars, the deniers can only call those who recognize the lies, and call out the lying deniers, "fools" rather than admit they were had by liars!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yuk...yuk.....that the climate change industry is engaged in fakery is not in dispute outside the club of the religion.....they promote the narrative by publicly displaying fake maps all the time. You know... those consistently real colorful ones....

realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data

Really though this back and forth exercise on the credibility of the data really is akin to an exercise in group navel contemplation......or internet chatter if you prefer. Hobby stuff.....

In the end the only thing that matters is what the public thinks.... and that is the big problem for people who embrace the thinking of the religion.....like Ed. Waaasaay too many people see this as natural variability...... the evidence on that is staggering.

So really when it comes right down to it the whole debate about rigged data or straight data is immaterial in the real world.

Sorry s0ns.... just sayin'​

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yuk...yuk.....that the climate change industry is engaged in fakery is not in dispute outside the club of the religion.....they promote the narrative by publicly displaying fake maps all the time. You know... those consistently real colorful ones....

realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data

Really though this back and forth exercise on the credibility of the data really is akin to an exercise in group navel contemplation......or internet chatter if you prefer. Hobby stuff.....

In the end the only thing that matters is what the public thinks.... and that is the big problem for people who embrace the thinking of the religion.....like Ed. Waaasaay too many people see this as natural variability...... the evidence on that is staggering.

So really when it comes right down to it the whole debate about rigged data or straight data is immaterial in the real world.

Sorry s0ns.... just sayin'​

An old thread, I commented a few times in it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

 

[edthecynic]

Yuk...yuk.....that the climate change industry is engaged in fakery is not in dispute outside the club of the religion.....they promote the narrative by publicly displaying fake maps all the time. You know... those consistently real colorful ones....

realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data

Really though this back and forth exercise on the credibility of the data really is akin to an exercise in group navel contemplation......or internet chatter if you prefer. Hobby stuff.....

In the end the only thing that matters is what the public thinks.... and that is the big problem for people who embrace the thinking of the religion.....like Ed. Waaasaay too many people see this as natural variability...... the evidence on that is staggering.

So really when it comes right down to it the whole debate about rigged data or straight data is immaterial in the real world.

Sorry s0ns.... just sayin'​

As I have pointed out so many times before, when the Right get caught lying, they simply deflect and lie some more.

Just as the lie in the OP had a fake chart when it was originally told, the above link has a fake station map.

The actual NOAA temperature station map:

Fake data map from your above link showing almost no temperature stations in Africa;

 

[edthecynic]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

 

[edthecynic]

Yuk...yuk.....that the climate change industry is engaged in fakery is not in dispute outside the club of the religion.....they promote the narrative by publicly displaying fake maps all the time. You know... those consistently real colorful ones....

realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data

Really though this back and forth exercise on the credibility of the data really is akin to an exercise in group navel contemplation......or internet chatter if you prefer. Hobby stuff.....

In the end the only thing that matters is what the public thinks.... and that is the big problem for people who embrace the thinking of the religion.....like Ed. Waaasaay too many people see this as natural variability...... the evidence on that is staggering.

So really when it comes right down to it the whole debate about rigged data or straight data is immaterial in the real world.

Sorry s0ns.... just sayin'​

As I have pointed out so many times before, when the Right get caught lying, they simply deflect and lie some more.

Just as the lie in the OP had a fake chart when it was originally told, the above link has a fake station map.

The actual NOAA temperature station map:

Fake data map from your above link showing almost no temperature stations in Africa;

BTW, your lying link was debunked in another thread, just like the OP link was debunked in another thread, showing that the liars just wait a while and then repost the same lies in new threads.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

Actually this is what wiki says about the 1997 Wentz correction:
"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period."

So UAH didn't really correct their fake data until three more papers were published in 2005.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here's the problem.

What's the difference between the data they presented, and the data they would have presented without this manipulation?

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

Actually this is what wiki says about the 1997 Wentz correction:
"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period."

So UAH didn't really correct their fake data until three more papers were published in 2005.

It took just 2 1/2 months for Dr. Christy to make the correction, which is rather fast in science endeavors.

I can see that you dislike him, but you have provided ZERO evidence that he is deliberately fighting the corrections.

Meanwhile from Wikipedia, that you selectively read is this section, bolding mine:

"The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]

Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]"

Orbital decay was CORRECED in 1998 in a few months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Most of the REMAINING disparity (Correction of diurnal drift adjustment) was CORRECTED within 3 months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Now later it was found that RSS was running too hot, guess who told him about it........, which for a while made it COOLER than UAH.

Did you accuse Dr. Wentz in dragging his feet in correcting it or whine that he is running too cold?

 

[edthecynic]

No, the problem is the OP is nothing but lies, there was NO data manipulation!!!! Dr Bates himself admitted it!!!!!
The ONLY people who have EVER been caught manipulating the data were deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH.

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

Actually this is what wiki says about the 1997 Wentz correction:
"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period."

So UAH didn't really correct their fake data until three more papers were published in 2005.

It took just 2 1/2 months for Dr. Christy to make the correction, which is rather fast in science endeavors.

I can see that you dislike him, but you have provided ZERO evidence that he is deliberately fighting the corrections.

Meanwhile from Wikipedia, that you selectively read is this section, bolding mine:

"The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]

Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]"

Orbital decay was CORRECED in 1998 in a few months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Most of the REMAINING disparity (Correction of diurnal drift adjustment) was CORRECTED within 3 months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Now later it was found that RSS was running too hot, guess who told him about it........, which for a while made it COOLER than UAH.

Did you accuse Dr. Wentz in dragging his feet in correcting it or whine that he is running too cold?

You are proving my point, every correction came from outside UAH because they refused to check their own work. They knew they were cooking the data and they continued to do it until they were forced to correct it AFTER it was made public.

 

[skookerasbil]

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

Actually this is what wiki says about the 1997 Wentz correction:
"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period."

So UAH didn't really correct their fake data until three more papers were published in 2005.

It took just 2 1/2 months for Dr. Christy to make the correction, which is rather fast in science endeavors.

I can see that you dislike him, but you have provided ZERO evidence that he is deliberately fighting the corrections.

Meanwhile from Wikipedia, that you selectively read is this section, bolding mine:

"The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]

Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]"

Orbital decay was CORRECED in 1998 in a few months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Most of the REMAINING disparity (Correction of diurnal drift adjustment) was CORRECTED within 3 months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Now later it was found that RSS was running too hot, guess who told him about it........, which for a while made it COOLER than UAH.

Did you accuse Dr. Wentz in dragging his feet in correcting it or whine that he is running too cold?

You are proving my point, every correction came from outside UAH because they refused to check their own work. They knew they were cooking the data and they continued to do it until they were forced to correct it AFTER it was made public.

Holy Mother of God

The modern Progressive will go to the ends of the earth manipulating the semantics to arrive at what they call objective truth. ( operative term = they ).

It really is fascinating stuff.....

By the way Ed.....you really did pwn yourself with that last post...checkmate for Sunset Tommy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You never showed that Dr. Christy was manipulating the data. I showed that he quickly corrected two separate errors Dr. Mears pointed out.

I never disputed what Dr. Bates said either, just pointing out several times that he had a good reason to be unhappy with the Dr. Karl paper, which you keep ignoring over and over, despite that it came straight from Dr. Bated blog post.

If by "quickly" you mean correcting in 2005 data from the 1990s, first found to be in error by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS in 1998, then you would be correct, but 7 years does not seem very quick to honest people. Which is why you dishonestly reference the Mears 2005 paper rather than the Wentz 1998 paper.

Sigh, you didn't look at the Wikipedia link that showed (post 54) Dr. Christy corrected that error after Dr. Wentz brought it up in 1998, within months. Just as he corrected the other error within months in 2005.

You need to slow down and read the links I gave you. You missed vital information on every link I posted.

Actually this is what wiki says about the 1997 Wentz correction:
"Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period."

So UAH didn't really correct their fake data until three more papers were published in 2005.

It took just 2 1/2 months for Dr. Christy to make the correction, which is rather fast in science endeavors.

I can see that you dislike him, but you have provided ZERO evidence that he is deliberately fighting the corrections.

Meanwhile from Wikipedia, that you selectively read is this section, bolding mine:

"The largest of these errors was demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS. In that paper they showed that the data needed to be corrected for orbital decay of the MSU satellites. As the satellites' orbits gradually decayed towards the earth the area from which they received radiances was reduced, introducing a false cooling trend.[9]

Even after the correction for satellite decay UAH continued to infer lower TLT temperatures than RSS based on the same raw data. For example, Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

Much of the remaining disparity was resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.[10]"

Orbital decay was CORRECED in 1998 in a few months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Most of the REMAINING disparity (Correction of diurnal drift adjustment) was CORRECTED within 3 months after Dr. Wentz points it out.

Now later it was found that RSS was running too hot, guess who told him about it........, which for a while made it COOLER than UAH.

Did you accuse Dr. Wentz in dragging his feet in correcting it or whine that he is running too cold?

You are proving my point, every correction came from outside UAH because they refused to check their own work. They knew they were cooking the data and they continued to do it until they were forced to correct it AFTER it was made public.

You keep making accusations without evidence of cooking data. I posted evidence that errors are quickly addressed and that there was no room for manipulations as the errors were all orbital, nothing more.

I have read the papers to know the whole thing was handled in a professional manner in both camps. You show that you have no credibility here as I have corrected YOU several times.

Ciao!

 

[IanC]

Turning satellite data into temperature data is fraught with complexities and room to make errors.

Since 1979 both of the major players, UAH and RSS, have discovered many problems that they passed along to each other.

Unfortunately it seems like politics is getting into the mix. The last version of RSS was peer reviewed without UAH as one of the reviewers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Turning satellite data into temperature data is fraught with complexities and room to make errors.

Since 1979 both of the major players, UAH and RSS, have discovered many problems that they passed along to each other.

Unfortunately it seems like politics is getting into the mix. The last version of RSS was peer reviewed without UAH as one of the reviewers.

Here are some background to the never ending corrections for BOTH Satellites. It is mostly based on orbital changes that causes necessary corrections. Currently UAH is the best of the two because they are using AQUA Satellite that has ZERO orbital issues.

Land/Sea Bias In Satellite Temperature Metrics

Satellite Temps Getting Closer

The next link is written by a scientist who published a paper about the Satellites,

Guest Post By Ben Herman Of The University of Arizona

 

[IanC]

Turning satellite data into temperature data is fraught with complexities and room to make errors.

Since 1979 both of the major players, UAH and RSS, have discovered many problems that they passed along to each other.

Unfortunately it seems like politics is getting into the mix. The last version of RSS was peer reviewed without UAH as one of the reviewers.

Here are some background to the never ending corrections for BOTH Satellites. It is mostly based on orbital changes that causes necessary corrections. Currently UAH is the best of the two because they are using AQUA Satellite that has ZERO orbital issues.

Land/Sea Bias In Satellite Temperature Metrics

Satellite Temps Getting Closer

The next link is written by a scientist who published a paper about the Satellites,

Guest Post By Ben Herman Of The University of Arizona

Thank for that. I think one of the biggest disputes between the two groups is the decision point of when to stop using a satellite because it has degraded too much to be correctable. UAH uses less data from only the most reliable sources, RSS uses more data from more sources with more corrections (or not).

Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is a full science paper published in March 2008, that show as Dr. Christy contended, that RSS uses a Climate MODEL to produce a "overestimating the correction"

From Journal of Geophysical Research

Robb M. Randall
Benjamin M. Herman

First published: 5 March 2008

Using limited time period trends as a means to determine attribution of discrepancies in microwave sounding unit–derived tropospheric temperature time series

EXCERPT:

"Abstract
[1] Limited time period running trends are created from various microwave sounding unit (MSU) difference time series between the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing System (RSS) group's lower troposphere (LT) and mid troposphere to lower stratosphere channels. This is accomplished in an effort to determine the causes of the greatest discrepancies between the two data sets. Results indicate the greatest discrepancies were over time periods where NOAA 11 through NOAA 15 adjustments were applied to the raw LT data over land. Discrepancies in the LT channel are shown to be dominated by differences in diurnal correction methods due to orbital drift; however, discrepancies from target parameter differences are also present. Comparison of MSU data with the reduced Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate radiosonde data set indicates that RSS's method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long‐term trend with a warm bias. Our findings enhance the importance of understanding temporal changes in the atmospheric temperature trend profile and their implications on current climate studies."

LINK

Currently UAH is using a THREE Satellite set (real data) up to maintain integrity of their AQUA satellite based data, while RSS continues to use outdated satellites with their ever growing drift errors and make a MODEL to compensate for them.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Turning satellite data into temperature data is fraught with complexities and room to make errors.

Since 1979 both of the major players, UAH and RSS, have discovered many problems that they passed along to each other.

Unfortunately it seems like politics is getting into the mix. The last version of RSS was peer reviewed without UAH as one of the reviewers.

Here are some background to the never ending corrections for BOTH Satellites. It is mostly based on orbital changes that causes necessary corrections. Currently UAH is the best of the two because they are using AQUA Satellite that has ZERO orbital issues.

Land/Sea Bias In Satellite Temperature Metrics

Satellite Temps Getting Closer

The next link is written by a scientist who published a paper about the Satellites,

Guest Post By Ben Herman Of The University of Arizona

Thank for that. I think one of the biggest disputes between the two groups is the decision point of when to stop using a satellite because it has degraded too much to be correctable. UAH uses less data from only the most reliable sources, RSS uses more data from more sources with more corrections (or not).

Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset « Roy Spencer, PhD

UAH group are using the orbitally stable AQUA Satellite. RSS are using the older satellites with increasing drift and now time reporting problems.