My head is still spinning. But at least I –seem–to gather that at least they weren’t conflating it with ground station data.

Bottom line, so far: seems to be as flat as a pancake. With that nasty little recent down-tic. (Cycle 24 where aaaaaaare you? Poor Tom’s a-cold!)

BTW, I got a bone to pick with you, Rev: You need to squeeze that surface temp graph a bit narrower. Your current slope doesn’t look nearly threatening enough. And play it safe: stick with the 5-year averaging. We want to avoid those ugly dips and we need to start our 1998-2007 trendline from a lower spot on the graph, don’t we? Get with the program! Your grant money [not] may be at issue!

Kristen Byrnes–Presence noted. Sic the “minaccing” bums. (Not all liberals are against you.)

RSS’ analysis of the the raw satellite data has typically had a warmer trend than Christy and Spencer’s UAH results. Much of their difference had previously been resolved, but I think there are still small difference in their calibration algorithms when accounting for satellites going on and off-line.

Please don’t discount data on a name basis. Test the results and the data first and then if it is in error post your results and methods.

My thoughts and Anthony you may remove the post if you desire.
Bill

However, based on the ever increasing stridence of the AGW group towards getting expensive legislation passed immediately, one wonders if they are seeing reversals in some of their temperaure trends more clearly then we have.

I’ve made a couple of corrections to the text, to make sure the provenance of the data is clear. I don’t know if Christy has “blessed” these results or not, and I don’t want to get caught up in the middle of a war between two groups on the subject.

My goal for this post was to provide some relevant data in time series form for those that came away from the Telegraph UK article with questions. Hopefully I haven’t created more than I’ve answered. ;-)

From the Introduction on the page you linked:
…The scientists working on the microwave sounding data are Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems….

Has Christy blessed these results? Or is there still disagreement amongst the warring parties scientists that analyze the data?

When you look at the truly raw data from the different spacecraft, spotting trends is very difficult. See this paper to get an idea of what I’m talking about:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uah-msu.pdf

Is this data semi-raw, with adjustments for orbital decay and the like? Or has it been through the usual hash-mill?

So the lower trop doesn’t jibe with the surface data, eh? Veeeery interesting!
Seems to me that THERE’S your delta. Does the dif match up with what you’d expect from the microsite biases? Or must needs you continue in madarin mode until the rest of the surface data comes in?

Also, Note how that 5-year trend makes adjusted (bah!) temps look like it just keeps heading up from 1998. Ain’t no trendline here! Yeah, the multi-year averaging has its uses, but the main purpose seems to me to be to convey a statistical lie regarding the trend over the last decade.

I assume you’ve seen how a bell-curve gets grossly distorted if expressued using multi-point averaging, and how it perverts the trend.