http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/...-vs-space.html

See Tisdale's "A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data" (many images):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...perature-data/

Land vs. Space
June 25, 2009, 10:19:01 | admin

Apropos of my last post, Bob Tisdale is beginning a series analyzing the differences between the
warmest surface-based temperature set (GISTEMP) and a leading satellite measurement series (UAH).
As I mentioned, these two sets have been diverging for years. I estimated the divergence at around
0.1C per decade (this is a big number, as it is about equal to the measured warming rate in the
second half of the 20th century and about half the IPCC predicted warming for the next century).
Tisdale does the math a little more precisely, and gets the divergence at only 0.035C per decade.
This is lower than I would have expected and seems to be driven a lot by the GISS's
under-estimation of the 1998 spike vs. UAH. I got the higher number with a different approach, by
putting the two anamolies on the same basis using 1979-1985 averages and then comparing recent
values.

Here are the differences in trendline by area of the world (he covers the whole world by grouping
ocean areas with nearby continents). GISS trend minus UAH trend, degrees C per decade:

Arctic: 0.134

North America: -0.026

South America: -0.013

Europe: 0.05

Africa: 0.104

Asia: 0.077

Australia: -0.02

Antarctica: 0.139

So, the three highest differences, each about an order of magnitude higher than differences in
other areas, are in 1. Antarctica; 2. Arctic; and 3. Africa. What do these three have in common?

Well, what the have most in common is the fact that these are also the three areas of the world
with the poorest surface temperature coverage. Here is the GISS coverage showing color only in
areas where they have a thermometer record within a 250km box:


[IMAGE: world map]

The worst coverage is obviously in the Arctic, Antarctica and then Africa. Coincidence?

Those who want to argue that the surface temperature record should be used in preference to that of
satellites need to explain why the three areas in which the two diverge the most are the three
areas with the worst surface temperature data coverage. This seems to argue that flaws in the
surface temperature record drive the differences between surface and satellite, and not the other
way around.

Apologies to Tisdale if this is where he was going in his next post in the series.

FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? They measure different
places in different ways. Apples and oranges!
The ground and weighted vertical cross sections!
Thermometers and microwaves!



On Jun 25, 10:41*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/...-vs-space.html

See Tisdale's "A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data" (many images):http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...comparison-of-...

Land vs. Space
June 25, 2009, 10:19:01 | admin

Apropos of my last post, Bob Tisdale is beginning a series analyzing the differences between the
warmest surface-based temperature set (GISTEMP) and a leading satellite measurement series (UAH).
As I mentioned, these two sets have been diverging for years. *I estimated the divergence at around
0.1C per decade *(this is a big number, as it is about equal to the measured warming rate in the
second half of the 20th century and about half the IPCC predicted warming for the next century).
Tisdale does the math a little more precisely, and gets the divergence at only 0.035C per decade.
This is lower than I would have expected and seems to be driven a lot by the GISS's
under-estimation of the 1998 spike vs. UAH. *I got the higher number with a different approach, by
putting the two anamolies on the same basis using 1979-1985 averages and then comparing recent
values.

Here are the differences in trendline by area of the world (he covers the whole world by grouping
ocean areas with nearby continents). *GISS trend minus UAH trend, degrees C per decade:

Arctic: *0.134

North America: *-0.026

South America: -0.013

Europe: *0.05

Africa: *0.104

Asia: *0.077

Australia: *-0.02

Antarctica: *0.139

So, the three highest differences, each about an order of magnitude higher than differences in
other areas, are in 1. *Antarctica; *2. Arctic; and 3. Africa. *What do these three have in common?

Well, what the have most in common is the fact that these are also the three areas of the world
with the poorest surface temperature coverage. *Here is the GISS coverage showing color only in
areas where they have a thermometer record within a 250km box:

[IMAGE: world map]

The worst coverage is obviously in the Arctic, Antarctica and then Africa.. *Coincidence?

Those who want to argue that the surface temperature record should be used in preference to that of
satellites need to explain why the three areas in which the two diverge the most are the three
areas with the worst surface temperature data coverage. *This seems to argue that flaws in the
surface temperature record drive the differences between surface and satellite, and not the other
way around.

Apologies to Tisdale if this is where he was going in his next post in the series.

Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? They measure different
places in different ways. Apples and oranges!
The ground and weighted vertical cross sections!
Thermometers and microwaves!

Not only that, but the UAH - a favorite of denialists - is the work of
John Christy, a lying denialist who made a fraudulent presentation to
congress based on the early uncorrected results. His dataset has had to be
corrected - after being found wanting by other investigators, not Chrsty -
several times, by large amounts.

With multiple revisions over the years, it is probably converging or
diverging with just about everything. =)





On Jun 25, 10:41 am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/...-vs-space.html

See Tisdale's "A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global
Temperature data" (many
images):http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...comparison-of-...

Land vs. Space
June 25, 2009, 10:19:01 | admin

Apropos of my last post, Bob Tisdale is beginning a series analyzing
the differences between the
warmest surface-based temperature set (GISTEMP) and a leading
satellite measurement series (UAH).
As I mentioned, these two sets have been diverging for years. I
estimated the divergence at around
0.1C per decade (this is a big number, as it is about equal to the
measured warming rate in the
second half of the 20th century and about half the IPCC predicted
warming for the next century).
Tisdale does the math a little more precisely, and gets the
divergence at only 0.035C per decade.
This is lower than I would have expected and seems to be driven a
lot by the GISS's
under-estimation of the 1998 spike vs. UAH. I got the higher number
with a different approach, by
putting the two anamolies on the same basis using 1979-1985 averages
and then comparing recent
values.

Here are the differences in trendline by area of the world (he
covers the whole world by grouping
ocean areas with nearby continents). GISS trend minus UAH trend,
degrees C per decade:

Arctic: 0.134

North America: -0.026

South America: -0.013

Europe: 0.05

Africa: 0.104

Asia: 0.077

Australia: -0.02

Antarctica: 0.139

So, the three highest differences, each about an order of magnitude
higher than differences in
other areas, are in 1. Antarctica; 2. Arctic; and 3. Africa. What do
these three have in common?

Well, what the have most in common is the fact that these are also
the three areas of the world
with the poorest surface temperature coverage. Here is the GISS
coverage showing color only in
areas where they have a thermometer record within a 250km box:

[IMAGE: world map]

The worst coverage is obviously in the Arctic, Antarctica and then
Africa. Coincidence?

Those who want to argue that the surface temperature record should
be used in preference to that of
satellites need to explain why the three areas in which the two
diverge the most are the three
areas with the worst surface temperature data coverage. This seems
to argue that flaws in the
surface temperature record drive the differences between surface and
satellite, and not the other
way around.

Apologies to Tisdale if this is where he was going in his next post
in the series.

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Sorry, k00ksite.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Sorry, k00ksite.

On Jun 25, 12:41*pm, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! *Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? *They measure different
places in different ways. *Apples and oranges!
The ground and weighted vertical cross sections!
Thermometers and microwaves!

* Not only that, but the UAH - a favorite of denialists - is the work of
John Christy, a lying denialist who made a fraudulent presentation to
congress based on the early uncorrected results. *His dataset has had to be
corrected - after being found wanting by other investigators, not Chrsty -
several times, by large amounts.

* With multiple revisions over the years, it is probably converging or
diverging with just about everything. *=)





On Jun 25, 10:41 am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/...-vs-space.html

See Tisdale's "A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global
Temperature data" (many
images):http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...comparison-of-...

Land vs. Space
June 25, 2009, 10:19:01 | admin

Apropos of my last post, Bob Tisdale is beginning a series analyzing
the differences between the
warmest surface-based temperature set (GISTEMP) and a leading
satellite measurement series (UAH).
As I mentioned, these two sets have been diverging for years. I
estimated the divergence at around
0.1C per decade (this is a big number, as it is about equal to the
measured warming rate in the
second half of the 20th century and about half the IPCC predicted
warming for the next century).
Tisdale does the math a little more precisely, and gets the
divergence at only 0.035C per decade.
This is lower than I would have expected and seems to be driven a
lot by the GISS's
under-estimation of the 1998 spike vs. UAH. I got the higher number
with a different approach, by
putting the two anamolies on the same basis using 1979-1985 averages
and then comparing recent
values.

Here are the differences in trendline by area of the world (he
covers the whole world by grouping
ocean areas with nearby continents). GISS trend minus UAH trend,
degrees C per decade:

Arctic: 0.134

North America: -0.026

South America: -0.013

Europe: 0.05

Africa: 0.104

Asia: 0.077

Australia: -0.02

Antarctica: 0.139

So, the three highest differences, each about an order of magnitude
higher than differences in
other areas, are in 1. Antarctica; 2. Arctic; and 3. Africa. What do
these three have in common?

Well, what the have most in common is the fact that these are also
the three areas of the world
with the poorest surface temperature coverage. Here is the GISS
coverage showing color only in
areas where they have a thermometer record within a 250km box:

[IMAGE: world map]

The worst coverage is obviously in the Arctic, Antarctica and then
Africa. Coincidence?

Those who want to argue that the surface temperature record should
be used in preference to that of
satellites need to explain why the three areas in which the two
diverge the most are the three
areas with the worst surface temperature data coverage. This seems
to argue that flaws in the
surface temperature record drive the differences between surface and
satellite, and not the other
way around.

Apologies to Tisdale if this is where he was going in his next post
in the series.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John Christy is a piece of ****

Wotta ****ing moron. Of course they should correlate.
Are you saying microwaves produced by GHG are due to heat?
What is bizzare is the belief that tree ring growth correlates to temperature, not moisture.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? They measure different
places in different ways. Apples and oranges!
The ground and weighted vertical cross sections!
Thermometers and microwaves!

"Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message ...
Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? They measure different
places in different ways. Apples and oranges!
The ground and weighted vertical cross sections!
Thermometers and microwaves!

Not only that, but the UAH - a favorite of denialists - is the work of John Christy, a lying
denialist who made a fraudulent presentation to congress based on the early uncorrected results.
His dataset has had to be corrected - after being found wanting by other investigators, not
Chrsty - several times, by large amounts.

More lies from a deranged troll.
Christy is not a denialist. "Denialism" is a fantasy of alarmists.

He never made a fraudulent presentation, but alarmists do it all the time. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

BTW, Jacko's dead! Soon AGW hysteria will too.

Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the that's what the
reputed climate models indicate?

On Jun 25, 8:54*pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! *Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other? *

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the that's what the
reputed climate models indicate?

No, they do not.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:54 pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
FOOL! Why would anyone with above room temperature
IQ think that the ground station and satellite data
should track each other?
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the that's what the
reputed climate models indicate?

No, they do not.

Exhibiting your ignorance of climate models again?

The gcms indicate both the middle troposphere and surface to warm,
but the middle troposphere should warm at a greater rate.

Problem.

The thirty year surface trend (GISS -and- CRU) is 1.6K/century.
The thirty year RSS MSU-MT trend is 0.9K/century.

And losing ground.

The ten year RSS MSU-MT trend is -0.1K/century.