"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.