"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?