On Feb 9, 9:46=A0am, mommycal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:48=A0am, Mr Right <Mr.I.Am.Ri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:56=A0pm, mommycal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 11:15 pm, "B0N0Z" <B0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Too bad so sad
>
> > > NASA announced in May 2004 that the UAH group found errors in their
> > > analysis of the Microwave Sounding Units on board NOAA satellites.
> > > Once the UAH group released thier corrected values the UAH group
> > > agreed that "for more than two decades, the troposphere has actually
> > > been warming faster than the surface. " "Thus, the real lower to
> > > middle troposphere trend appears to be around +0.10 to +0.13 deg K/
> > > decade uncorrected for stratospheric cooling, and +0.18 to 0.21 deg
K/=
> > > decade with this accounted for--exactly as predicted by theory and
the=
> > > latest models. Due to the problems I've described above, few people
> > > today believe UAH[Spencer and Christy]'s lower and middle
troposphere
> > > trends. The only exceptions to this are global warming skeptics, who
> > > prefer them because they yield the desired low warming that their
> > > belief system requires."
>
> > > Try twisting data, peer-reviewed papers and press-releases using
> > > something more recent so you can demonstrate how foolish you are
>
> > This sounds like the sort of "data correction" that Michael Mann (et
> > al.) used to produce the famous hockey stick graph. Data should be
> > used to evaluate the theory. Not "corrected" so that it fits the
> > theory.
>
> This isn't a data correction. Spencer and Christy failed to account
> for the fact that the satellites they used to generate their data set
> did not take into account that the orbit the satellite is in NOW is
> not the same orbit as the satellite was in when it was first launched.
> Thus the time the satellite passed over a point in space then is not
> the same time it p***** over the point now. To compare numbers from
> the same point on the earth at different times you have to make sure
> you are looking at the same point. The denialists have been trying to
> use the bad data to prove global warming doesn't exist since Spencer
> and Christy first released the data. Everyone BUT the denialists have
> been using the corrected data set since 2004. As usual a foolish
> denialist will come across this very old information and tout it as
> some new revelation. As far as Mann is concerned, he freely admits
> that he made a 0.015 deg C error in processing the data. Once he made
> the correction the hockey stick graph fits observations even better
> than it did before. Mann publicly thanked the person who found the
> error. I'd love to see the denialist community admit they have made
> far more numerous mistakes at a far more fundamental level, like CO2
> doesn't absorb infrared radiation or that volcanoes put out more CO2
> than humans. Every one of the denalists arguments against global
> warming show a fundamental lack of understanding of sixth grade
> science.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you talking about the same hockey stick graph that I am. The one
which doesn't show the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. I
think it will take a little more than a 0.015 deg C correction to stop
that graph being wrong.
Thanking somebody for pointing out a 0.015 deg C error is a great way
to try and look good while you are ignoring the person trying to point
out the 2.0 dec C error.
If Spencer and Christy can make an error of the magnitude that you are
pointing out, how can you have any faith in anything they do,
including the results of their "corrected" study.
Labelling everyone who disagrees with you as a "denialist" does NOT
make your argument any stronger. I am NOT a denialist, I am seeking
the truth. I find a lot of misinformation from both sides, but usually
find more misinformation from the global warming believers.
I hope that you are right when you say "Every one of the denialists
arguments against global warming show a fundamental lack of
understanding of sixth grade science". Because sixth grade science is
very simplistic and leaves out many complicating factors which exist
in the real world. Perhaps you have stumbled on to the real reason why
global warming believers (including Al Gore and the IPCC) have got it
wrong. They are still using sixth grade science !!!
|
