Why Did The Ice Sheets Melt 10,000 Years Ago?

[edthecynic]

does the RSS do a better job than the UAH? who knows. but in the last year RSS made a substantial change in the post- 1998 data.

I havent heard anyone accusing Mears and Wentz of fraudulently adjusting the temps upwards in the past, have you? why should C&S be accused then

They made that correction in the data because one of the sensors on one of the satellites was shown to be defective and they removed the effected data from the data set themselves. It was not a matter of them using the opposite sign, something they should have known how to do right in the first place, or refusing to correct their work themselves and forcing others to correct it for them, as Christy and Spencer did.

 

[gslack]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit

Title:
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Authors:
Christy, John R.; Norris, William B.; Spencer, Roy W.; Hnilo, Justin J.
Affiliation:
AA(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AB(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AC(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AD(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, CiteID D06102 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/2007
Origin:
AGU

Abstract

Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S-20°N) during the period 1979-2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade-1) is 0.05 K decade-1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade-1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade-1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 +/- 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade-1.

Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Now lets fix the Hockey stick BS...

LOL pretty dam different don't you think? ED you are full of it...

 

[edthecynic]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit

Title:
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Authors:
Christy, John R.; Norris, William B.; Spencer, Roy W.; Hnilo, Justin J.
Affiliation:
AA(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AB(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AC(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AD(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, CiteID D06102 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/2007
Origin:
AGU

Abstract

Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S-20°N) during the period 1979-2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade-1) is 0.05 K decade-1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade-1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade-1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 +/- 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade-1.

Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Damn you are a stupid
Mears and Wentz corrected the UAH data in 2003 and 2005!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Now lets fix the Hockey stick BS...

LOL pretty dam different don't you think? ED you are full of it...

And the Graphs you post from denier McIntyre is a perfect example of how to deliberately mislead by giving incomplete info. Mann's hockey stick used MORE data than just tree rings. And following the 2006 US National Academy Of Science's suggestion, Mann did a new study with even more sources than the original and got essentially the same results within the margin of error of the original study.

 

[gslack]

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit

Title:
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Authors:
Christy, John R.; Norris, William B.; Spencer, Roy W.; Hnilo, Justin J.
Affiliation:
AA(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AB(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AC(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AD(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, CiteID D06102 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/2007
Origin:
AGU

Abstract

Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S-20°N) during the period 1979-2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade-1) is 0.05 K decade-1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade-1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade-1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 +/- 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade-1.

Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Damn you are a stupid
Mears and Wentz corrected the UAH data in 2003 and 2005!!!!!

AND CHristy and others helped to show this error moron, the paper were published in 2003 and 2005, and CHristy and others backed their findings in 2007. But you don't believe in truth only the goracle..

Heres one from your favorite source wikkipedia..

UAH satellite temperature dataset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[citation needed]
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[13]
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.

NOW, moving on... You have been proven grossly wrong and incompetent here again.

1. You were wrong about spencer and christy when you claimed they deliberately fudged data...

2 you were wrong when you said they didn't work for NASA... THey DID and SPENCER STILL DOES TO THIS DAY. Even head of science for their new temperature satellite system.

3. You were wrong when you tried to claim the hockey stick graph was correct...

Wow any chance of you being right about anything?

 

[gslack]

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit

Title:
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Authors:
Christy, John R.; Norris, William B.; Spencer, Roy W.; Hnilo, Justin J.
Affiliation:
AA(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AB(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AC(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AD(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, CiteID D06102 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/2007
Origin:
AGU

Abstract

Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S-20°N) during the period 1979-2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade-1) is 0.05 K decade-1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade-1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade-1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 +/- 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade-1.

Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Now lets fix the Hockey stick BS...

LOL pretty dam different don't you think? ED you are full of it...

And the Graphs you post from denier McIntyre is a perfect example of how to deliberately mislead by giving incomplete info. Mann's hockey stick used MORE data than just tree rings. And following the 2006 US National Academy Of Science's suggestion, Mann did a new study with even more sources than the original and got essentially the same results within the margin of error of the original study.

ED McIntyre and Mckitrick were the guys who proved that they were full of it. And the scientific community (the real one not the algorian faith you hold) agreed with them. Took them years to get the data from mann but once they did they found that 103-105 out of 112 data sources were either in error, missing, or insufficient. By adding more data from the current studies and removing the bad ones they made the reconstruction... LIke it or not its been peer reviewed and you guys like to cry for that...

 

[edthecynic]

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit
Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Damn you are a stupid
Mears and Wentz corrected the UAH data in 2003 and 2005!!!!!

AND CHristy and others helped to show this error moron, the paper were published in 2003 and 2005, and CHristy and others backed their findings in 2007. But you don't believe in truth only the goracle..

Heres one from your favorite source wikkipedia..

UAH satellite temperature dataset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[citation needed]
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[13]
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.

NOW, moving on... You have been proven grossly wrong and incompetent here again.

1. You were wrong about spencer and christy when you claimed they deliberately fudged data...

2 you were wrong when you said they didn't work for NASA... THey DID and SPENCER STILL DOES TO THIS DAY. Even head of science for their new temperature satellite system.

3. You were wrong when you tried to claim the hockey stick graph was correct...

Wow any chance of you being right about anything?

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other tha adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

And the discredited pair still work for NASA because the GOP have injected their politics into NASA.

And thirdly, I NEVER said the hockey stick graph was "corrected". I said the US National Academy of Science confirmed it in 2006, and at their suggestion Mann UPDATED it with additional data sets that were not available when the original was done and the new version was within the margin of error of the original.

 

[edthecynic]

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit
Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already..

Now lets fix the Hockey stick BS...

LOL pretty dam different don't you think? ED you are full of it...

And the Graphs you post from denier McIntyre is a perfect example of how to deliberately mislead by giving incomplete info. Mann's hockey stick used MORE data than just tree rings. And following the 2006 US National Academy Of Science's suggestion, Mann did a new study with even more sources than the original and got essentially the same results within the margin of error of the original study.

ED McIntyre and Mckitrick were the guys who proved that they were full of it. And the scientific community (the real one not the algorian faith you hold) agreed with them. Took them years to get the data from mann but once they did they found that 103-105 out of 112 data sources were either in error, missing, or insufficient. By adding more data from the current studies and removing the bad ones they made the reconstruction... LIke it or not its been peer reviewed and you guys like to cry for that...

BULLSHIT!

I'll take the US National Academy of Science over Deniers with an agenda any day and twice on Sunday.

 

[gslack]

Damn you are a stupid
Mears and Wentz corrected the UAH data in 2003 and 2005!!!!!

AND CHristy and others helped to show this error moron, the paper were published in 2003 and 2005, and CHristy and others backed their findings in 2007. But you don't believe in truth only the goracle..

Heres one from your favorite source wikkipedia..

UAH satellite temperature dataset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[citation needed]
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[13]
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.

NOW, moving on... You have been proven grossly wrong and incompetent here again.

1. You were wrong about spencer and christy when you claimed they deliberately fudged data...

2 you were wrong when you said they didn't work for NASA... THey DID and SPENCER STILL DOES TO THIS DAY. Even head of science for their new temperature satellite system.

3. You were wrong when you tried to claim the hockey stick graph was correct...

Wow any chance of you being right about anything?

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other tha adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

And the discredited pair still work for NASA because the GOP have injected their politics into NASA.

And thirdly, I NEVER said the hockey stick graph was "corrected". I said the US National Academy of Science confirmed it in 2006, and at their suggestion Mann UPDATED it with additional data sets that were not available when the original was done and the new version was within the margin of error of the original.

ED you are tiresome...

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other tha adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

IN 2007 Christy confirmed their findings and published that confirmation. That was my point moron, you keep wanting to nitpick and twist the point to hide your incompetence. I say CHristy helped to confirm it, so did wikkipedia and the scientific community but hey you go right on ahead cause the goracle don't see it that way...

And thirdly, I NEVER said the hockey stick graph was "corrected". I said the US National Academy of Science confirmed it in 2006, and at their suggestion Mann UPDATED it with additional data sets that were not available when the original was done and the new version was within the margin of error of the original.

LOL ed, you did in your own post you did see it? And whats worse is I didn't say you said it was corrected, I said you said it was correct as in right.. Reading is good...

Now you can play the sematics BS game till you rot for all I care, you showed your ass again ed... You screwed up once more way to go!

 

[edthecynic]

Christie and Spencer fixed their error after it was pointed out. Where is the similar outrage and demand for corrected results for Mann and the Hockey Team? Mann wont even stop using the upsidedown Tiljander proxy let alone fix all the reconstructions using bristlecone pines and inappropriate statistical methodologies. its very odd how there are different standards depending on which side of the fence the author is on.

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit

Title:
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
Authors:
Christy, John R.; Norris, William B.; Spencer, Roy W.; Hnilo, Justin J.
Affiliation:
AA(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AB(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AC(Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA), AD(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA)
Publication:
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, CiteID D06102 (JGRD Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/2007
Origin:
AGU

Abstract

Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S-20°N) during the period 1979-2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). At the 29 stations that make both day and night observations, the average nighttime trend (+0.12 K decade-1) is 0.05 K decade-1 more positive than that for the daytime (+0.07 K decade-1) in the unadjusted observations, an unlikely physical possibility indicating adjustments are needed. At the 58 sites the UAH data indicate a trend of +0.08 K decade-1, the RSS data, +0.15. When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 +/- 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade-1.

Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already...

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other than adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

ED you are tiresome...

IN 2007 Christy confirmed their findings and published that confirmation. That was my point moron, you keep wanting to nitpick and twist the point to hide your incompetence. I say CHristy helped to confirm it, so did wikkipedia and the scientific community but hey you go right on ahead cause the goracle don't see it that way...

you lie so much you can't even keep track of your own lies.

 

[gslack]

No, Mears and Wentz fixed the AUH error, Christy and Spencer just admitted they were in error and adopted the Mears and Wentz correction.

And the difference with Mann's hockey stick graph" is rather than being proven wrong, as deniers habitually lie, it was proven to be correct in 2006 by the US National Academy Of Science after the GOP congreas requested that they investigate it.

But true to typical denier fashion, deniers still lie about and condemn the proven to be correct hockey stick!!!

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. "Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.
It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.
The problems

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.
Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.
The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.
In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit
Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already...

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other than adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

ED you are tiresome...

IN 2007 Christy confirmed their findings and published that confirmation. That was my point moron, you keep wanting to nitpick and twist the point to hide your incompetence. I say CHristy helped to confirm it, so did wikkipedia and the scientific community but hey you go right on ahead cause the goracle don't see it that way...

you lie so much you can't even keep track of your own lies. [/QUOTE]

Point out my lie ed..... Come on you point to it....

You crack me up....So is Spencer still working for NASA? Ah yep...

DId CHristy help to confirm the error and help correct the data? Ah Yep...

Did either spencer or Christy get charged or even accused in the scientific community or a court of any malfeasance or incompetence? Ah no.....

You are batting .000 pal, a perfect 0....

 

[edthecynic]

Dam Ed you are such a lair!

Gonna have to spank you for this one....

First Christy DID help to figure out the error you lying little weasel..

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellit
Game, set and match... Now please get over it you been lied to so grow up already...

Christy and Spenser had absolutely nothing to do with either the 2003 or 2005 data corrections by Mears and Wentz other than adopting them. 2007 still comes after 2005 just as v5.2 comes after v5.1.

ED you are tiresome...

IN 2007 Christy confirmed their findings and published that confirmation. That was my point moron, you keep wanting to nitpick and twist the point to hide your incompetence. I say CHristy helped to confirm it, so did wikkipedia and the scientific community but hey you go right on ahead cause the goracle don't see it that way...

you lie so much you can't even keep track of your own lies.

Point out my lie ed..... Come on you point to it....

You crack me up....So is Spencer still working for NASA? Ah yep...

DId CHristy help to confirm the error and help correct the data? Ah Yep...

Did either spencer or Christy get charged or even accused in the scientific community or a court of any malfeasance or incompetence? Ah no.....

You are batting .000 pal, a perfect 0....

Well, since I couldn't make the type of your lie any BIGGER than I did in my last post, and you still decided to pretend you didn't see it milking your dumb act to death, I turned your lie RED this time. You will probably pretend to be colorblind next!

 

[gslack]

you lie so much you can't even keep track of your own lies.

Point out my lie ed..... Come on you point to it....

You crack me up....So is Spencer still working for NASA? Ah yep...

DId CHristy help to confirm the error and help correct the data? Ah Yep...

Did either spencer or Christy get charged or even accused in the scientific community or a court of any malfeasance or incompetence? Ah no.....

You are batting .000 pal, a perfect 0....

Well, since I couldn't make the type of your lie any BIGGER than I did in my last post, and you still decided to pretend you didn't see it milking your dumb act to death, I turned your lie RED this time. You will probably pretend to be colorblind next!

Oh I get it its a lie cause you don't like it... OKay just like Spencer working for NASA, and the hockey stick graph BS and all the other things your faith won't allow...

 

[Old Rocks]

Whenever CON$ say "fact is" you know it isn't!!!

The decade following 1998 has been the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement!!! So much for the BULLSHIT that no warming has occurred since 1998, and therefore the crap about manipulating the data is obviously unnecessary and just more BULLSHIT.

Direct instrument measurement... Glad you mentioned that ed...

Care to explain why the great lakes regions had temps of 600+ degrees added into the satelite data from the NOAA? How about the 400 degrees and up? Or the measurements of lake erie being at boiling point?

Yeah best not use that excuse anymore pal, they are in trouble as it is...

NOAA caught in temperature fraud..”SatelliteGate” will deliver a new blow to the AGW scam « Follow The Money

Care to explain why any scientifically minded person should waste their time on a conspiracy theory blog?

LOL. These kooks believe that all the scientists in the world are in on a huge conspiracy. Now what the reason for the conspiracy is, and how it is supposed to benefit them, is something that they cannot explain.

They repeatedly go to political fruitcake sites, like Heritage, to get their scientific information, that is, when they are not depending on an obese junkie for that information.

 

[wirebender]

LOL. These kooks believe that all the scientists in the world are in on a huge conspiracy. Now what the reason for the conspiracy is, and how it is supposed to benefit them, is something that they cannot explain..

Not at all rocks. Nowhere near all the scientists. Only a very small clique who happen to be the darlings of the media. Of course, their hoax is falling down around their ears even as we speak but I am sure you don't want to talk about that.

The idea that all the scientists in the world, or even something approaching 20% are on board with the hoax is little more than the result of your own mental masturbation.