The MSU and weather balloon controversies are over.
The ground data, data I have presented here monthly
for the the last three years, were the most accurate
all along. It looks like the models win one too.

-.-. --.- Roger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies
find

By Ker Than, Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather
balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global
warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science,
it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon
data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously
showed.

The rest of this story is he
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

Roger Coppock wrote:
The MSU and weather balloon controversies are over.
The ground data, data I have presented here monthly
for the the last three years, were the most accurate
all along. It looks like the models win one too.

-.-. --.- Roger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies
find

By Ker Than, Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather
balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global
warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science,
it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon
data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously
showed.

The rest of this story is he
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

It's pretty obvious that the world is heating up. Retreating glaciers,
melting permafrost, relentless northern (in the UK) march of species, month
after month of above average temperatures. The list goes on. Why are some
people absolutely determined to attempt to prove that it isn't really
happening? Unless we do something about the problem - and sooner rather than
later - the future of life (as we know it Jim) on this planet is in serious
jeopardy.

Now all you have to do is convince President Bush...

Brian

Some people, including GeeDubya, earn a percentage of fossil fuel
sales.
They would not like to see coal, petrolium, and natural gas consumption
decrease. These 'Let me make a buck; I don't care who it hurts."
people
are "Fossil Fools."

Some people get hired by the fossil fools to tell lies and hide the now
all
too obvious facts of global warming. These peoplle are "Fossil Fool
Flunkies"

Other people have have low IQs and little training in science. They
actually believe the lies told by the "Fossil Fool Flunkies." These
people are just plain morons.

"BrianW" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
The MSU and weather balloon controversies are over.
The ground data, data I have presented here monthly
for the the last three years, were the most accurate
all along. It looks like the models win one too.

-.-. --.- Roger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies
find

By Ker Than, Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather
balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global
warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science,
it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon
data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously
showed.

The rest of this story is he
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

It's pretty obvious that the world is heating up. Retreating glaciers,
melting permafrost, relentless northern (in the UK) march of species,
month after month of above average temperatures. The list goes on. Why are
some people absolutely determined to attempt to prove that it isn't really
happening? Unless we do something about the problem - and sooner rather
than later - the future of life (as we know it Jim) on this planet is in
serious jeopardy.

Now all you have to do is convince President Bush...

Brian



Hang on for a bit, Brian. Don't you think that we need a good data set
before deciding what to do?

Based on the story that I read, balloon temperature readings were taken
twice per day. One reading was taken at noon and the other reading was
taken at midnight. The thermometers (or thermocouples) used in the
measurement apparently had no radiation shields on them. This means that
solar radiation during the day produced an abnormally high reading. It also
strongly implies that the thermometers radiated energy to outer space too
rapidly at night, registering an abnormally cool temperature at night. This
means that both data sets may have been in error (both noon and midnight).
Before deciding the course of action, it would be good to determine the
correct daytime and night-time temperatures, and the difference between
those two readings, don't you think?

charliew2 wrote:

Based on the story that I read, balloon temperature readings were taken
twice per day. One reading was taken at noon and the other reading was
taken at midnight.

Conventional twice-daily radiosonde measurements are taken around 00 and
12 UTC, not local noon and midnight. 00 and 12 UTC correspond to noon
and midnight only near longitudes of 0 and 180 degrees (e.g., western
Europe or New Zealand).

The thermometers (or thermocouples) used in the
measurement apparently had no radiation shields on them.

The older thermistors were shielded from radiation, but one of the main
ponts of the article is that the older models had less effective
shielding than at present.

It also
strongly implies that the thermometers radiated energy to outer space too
rapidly at night, registering an abnormally cool temperature at night.

That's very unlikely given the way that a radiosonde is constructed.

"Raymond Arritt" wrote in message
news:A8nLe.23189$084.1324@attbi_s22...
charliew2 wrote:

Based on the story that I read, balloon temperature readings were taken
twice per day. One reading was taken at noon and the other reading was
taken at midnight.

Conventional twice-daily radiosonde measurements are taken around 00 and
12 UTC, not local noon and midnight. 00 and 12 UTC correspond to noon
and midnight only near longitudes of 0 and 180 degrees (e.g., western
Europe or New Zealand).

The thermometers (or thermocouples) used in the
measurement apparently had no radiation shields on them.

The older thermistors were shielded from radiation, but one of the main
ponts of the article is that the older models had less effective
shielding than at present.

It also
strongly implies that the thermometers radiated energy to outer space too
rapidly at night, registering an abnormally cool temperature at night.

That's very unlikely given the way that a radiosonde is constructed.

Thanks for answering this, Raymond, but probably we can go so far as to say
that what charliew2 suggests is more a violation of the laws of physics than
just unlikely. If the thermometers are radiating energy to "outer space"
(assuming that the surrounding atmosphere is what was really meant here),
they would be warmer than their surroundings and thus unable to register a
temperature cooler than their surroundings.

Charlie, there was never a problem with the data sets. The problem was in
properly correlating and interpreting them. Now that has been done.
Ground, radiosonde and satellite temperature data now show sufficient
agreement with each other and with the models that we can all move forward.

"charliew2" wrote in message
...

"BrianW" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
The MSU and weather balloon controversies are over.
The ground data, data I have presented here monthly
for the the last three years, were the most accurate
all along. It looks like the models win one too.

-.-. --.- Roger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies
find

By Ker Than, Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather
balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global
warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science,
it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon
data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously
showed.

The rest of this story is he
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

It's pretty obvious that the world is heating up. Retreating glaciers,
melting permafrost, relentless northern (in the UK) march of species,
month after month of above average temperatures. The list goes on. Why
are some people absolutely determined to attempt to prove that it isn't
really happening? Unless we do something about the problem - and sooner
rather than later - the future of life (as we know it Jim) on this planet
is in serious jeopardy.

Now all you have to do is convince President Bush...

Brian



Hang on for a bit, Brian. Don't you think that we need a good data set
before deciding what to do?

Based on the story that I read, balloon temperature readings were taken
twice per day. One reading was taken at noon and the other reading was
taken at midnight. The thermometers (or thermocouples) used in the
measurement apparently had no radiation shields on them. This means that
solar radiation during the day produced an abnormally high reading. It
also strongly implies that the thermometers radiated energy to outer space
too rapidly at night, registering an abnormally cool temperature at night.
This means that both data sets may have been in error (both noon and
midnight). Before deciding the course of action, it would be good to
determine the correct daytime and night-time temperatures, and the
difference between those two readings, don't you think?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:14:29 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

Charlie, there was never a problem with the data sets. The problem was in
properly correlating and interpreting them. Now that has been done.
Ground, radiosonde and satellite temperature data now show sufficient
agreement with each other and with the models that we can all move forward.

The source of the fault is a bit of a technical red herring - expect
some arguments along the lines of "well if that was wrong then this
could be wrong too.."

The point about the new agreement with climate models is ...
premature, imho. There's been a considerable investment in resolving
the data anomaly, and the models have probably absorbed some some of
that.

As the sun sets, tho, there's a certain irony that when a systemic
'measurement' problem did actually show up, the correction
strengthened rather than weakened the GW case.

"owl" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:14:29 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

Charlie, there was never a problem with the data sets. The problem was in
properly correlating and interpreting them. Now that has been done.
Ground, radiosonde and satellite temperature data now show sufficient
agreement with each other and with the models that we can all move forward.

The source of the fault is a bit of a technical red herring - expect
some arguments along the lines of "well if that was wrong then this
could be wrong too.."

The point about the new agreement with climate models is ...
premature, imho. There's been a considerable investment in resolving
the data anomaly, and the models have probably absorbed some of
that.

As the sun sets, tho, there's a certain irony that when a systemic
'measurement' problem did actually show up, the correction
strengthened rather than weakened the GW case.

But, the debate is not about whether GW is happening. That is
proved by the surface record. The debate is about whether the data
or the models are wrong. The skeptics, for instance GWB, argue
that the models are wrong, and therefore there is no need to worry
about the IPCC projections. But if the models are wrong, the I argue
that we really DO need to worry! I am pretty sure that they are wrong.

So far, I have only read in full Mears & Wentz paper, but I am not
convinced that their corrections are justified. They "... used 5 years
of hourly output from a climate model ... to estimate the seasonally
varying diurnal cycle ...". If the climate models are wrong then those
estimates would also be wrong, and could well ensure that the
corrections to the data make it agree with the model!

Later they write "Although the correlation of total water vapor and
temperature is often limited to the boundary layer, it would be difficult
to explain a moistening of the tropical atmosphere without some
warming within the layer measured by TLT." However, that is a
circular argument. They are saying that the troposphere is warming
because there is more water vapour there, and that there is more
water vapour because it is warming. However, .above the
boundary layer the moisture cannot increase because it is saturated
at the condensation level. i.e. the top of the boundary layer. The TLT
measures the boundary layer, and if you want to say that the
free atmosphere (troposphere) is warming then you must remove
the effect of the boundary layer in the same way that the stratospheric
cooling is discounted.

They conclude with the sentence "Presumably the agreement
between these radiosoncdes and our data would be somewhat
worse [in the extra tropics,] though this has not been tested."
That sounds to me as if there "corrections" are rather like the
fool who cut off the top of his blanket and sewed it on the other
end because it did not cover his feet!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Steve Bloom" wrote in message
news
Charlie, there was never a problem with the data sets. The problem was in
properly correlating and interpreting them. Now that has been done.
Ground, radiosonde and satellite temperature data now show sufficient
agreement with each other and with the models that we can all move
forward.


Thanks for the clarification. I saw a press report on this issue, and as
usual, they got it at least half wrong.


"charliew2" wrote in message
...

"BrianW" wrote in message
...
Roger Coppock wrote:
The MSU and weather balloon controversies are over.
The ground data, data I have presented here monthly
for the the last three years, were the most accurate
all along. It looks like the models win one too.

-.-. --.- Roger

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies
find

By Ker Than, Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather
balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global
warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science,
it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon
data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously
showed.

The rest of this story is he
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

It's pretty obvious that the world is heating up. Retreating glaciers,
melting permafrost, relentless northern (in the UK) march of species,
month after month of above average temperatures. The list goes on. Why
are some people absolutely determined to attempt to prove that it isn't
really happening? Unless we do something about the problem - and sooner
rather than later - the future of life (as we know it Jim) on this
planet is in serious jeopardy.

Now all you have to do is convince President Bush...

Brian



Hang on for a bit, Brian. Don't you think that we need a good data set
before deciding what to do?

Based on the story that I read, balloon temperature readings were taken
twice per day. One reading was taken at noon and the other reading was
taken at midnight. The thermometers (or thermocouples) used in the
measurement apparently had no radiation shields on them. This means that
solar radiation during the day produced an abnormally high reading. It
also strongly implies that the thermometers radiated energy to outer
space too rapidly at night, registering an abnormally cool temperature at
night. This means that both data sets may have been in error (both noon
and midnight). Before deciding the course of action, it would be good to
determine the correct daytime and night-time temperatures, and the
difference between those two readings, don't you think?