On 08/01/2020 11:55, JGD wrote:
On 08/01/2020 10:36, Spike wrote:

So? I don't seek sympathy, I seek discussion of the science.

But it's very clear that you do not 'seek discussion of the science' but
have other motives. If you'd done any background research on this topic
and had any real grasp of the science involved, you'd realise 3 things:

1. Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from satellite
data is technically very challenging because of all the corrections that
need to be made to account for issues like orbital decay. Satellite data
is an interesting contribution to the overall picture, but far from
definitive.

Estimating long-term trends of atmospheric temperature from near-urban
temperature data sites is technically very challenging because of all
the corrections that need to be made to account for issues like the heat
island effect. Surface data is an interesting contribution to the
overall picture, but far from definitive, there being rural stations
around the globe that have recorded no temperature increase in the last
100 years.

2. The UAH group have been widely criticised, especially with the
introduction of v6 of their dataset, because of the excessive and - to
many in the scientific community - unwarranted use of corrections that
set out to minimise the warming trend. (Though despite their best
efforts to underplay the warming, UAH still shows a current warming
trend of 1.3C/century.) If you're going to use satellite data at all
then use the more objective RSS dataset.

The IPCC have been widely criticised, especially with the selection of
their datasets, because of the excessive and - to many in the scientific
community - unwarranted use of corrections that set out to maximise the
warming trend. (Through their best efforts to overplay the warming, the
IPCC shows a current warming trend in the 'alarmist' mode.) If you're
going to use data at all then use more objective datasets.

3. The tricks used by Christy (more so than Spencer I suspect) in
concocting that spurious comparison of UAH and CIMP5 model trends have
been repeatedly exposed - there's plenty of information out there on the
web if you're genuinely interested in learning.

Is that a 'Nature trick'? You may not have have noticed that Spencer's
analysis *includes* the RSS data.

I was struck by the exchange of emails between a university professor
and some of the leading lights in the global warming industry. The prof
had attempted to reproduce some of the IPCC's temperature predictions
using their own published data, but couldn't do so, and wrote to the
data holders querying this. My recollection is that he was essentially
given the bum's rush, even though he was a climate scientist himself,
and the matter was never resolved.


--
Spike