RSS evidently doesn’t use surface data – they evidently use climate model temperature profiles. What a hoot.

BTW I see you were reading comments not addressed to you on the other thread, because you asked for a reference in a comment addressed to someone else.

Any other statements you would like me to check?

I can provide a discussion of the problem of using radiances to retrieve temperatures based on tomography concepts. The problems are very similar and the common problem can be seen in the manuscript results posted on CA under the name Sylvie Gravel
(plus one additional comment I made on CA related to that manuscript).

Jerry

> Well I though about a bit, this might be it, on UAH MSU technology, way back in August > of 08 where I asked Christy about the technology.
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

Well so I see you finally found John Christy’s response to your inquiry about satellite
retrievals of temperature. I wrote John a message last night and asked hin to confirm his response to your inquiry in order to help your recollect ion of your message to him.
Conveniently you posted the initial date of the thread containing John’s response (August 8, 2008) and not the date of the comment just before mine (January 9, 2009) or the delayed posting dates of my comment (Jan 18 , 2009). Note the close proximity of the dates of my comments and the initial date of the posting of this thread.

> There are two comments from you there, one of which where you can’t even spell your > own name right. “Gerlad”.

Oh give me a break.
Are my comments applicable to the results on this thread (whether or not I mistyped the spelling of my first name that has nothing to do with the quality of the comments)?
And did this thread suddenly magically appear even though on the thread where John’s
reply appeared there was no indication of a problem associated with the use of surface data in satellite temperature data retrievals (until my comments). And I pointed out that even the wikipedia site mentioned on the other thread stated there was a problem associated with satellite temperature retrievals.
Now you suddenly find that the reduction in GISS surface data sites has led to a divergence in satellite temperatures and GISS station data .

> You might want to work on that before you accuse me of deleting things or losing things. I >don’t answer things not addressed to me. You addressed them both to “Andrew” who >was also in the thread as another commenter.

So you don’t read scientific responses on your site even if they have a direct bearing on mistakes you have blatantly made. That is a convenient excuse. But in this case the sudden 180 degree turnaround in your approach to the topic leads me to believe that
this is not the case.

>Dr. Christy states in that thread that no surface data is used in the UAH MSU data >process. If you have something that says otherwise, I welcome you to share it. -

Did you read the wikipedia article or understand the results you have obtained on this thread? If the satellite temperature retrieval did not depend on surface temperature data, then a reduction in GISS surface sites would have no impact on the divergence of the two. And yet that is exactly what has happened.

Did I spell everything correctly?

Jerry

Well I though about a bit, this might be it, on UAH MSU technology, way back in August of 08 where I asked Christy about the technology.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/

There are two comments from you there, one of which where you can’t even spell your own name right. “Gerlad”.

You might want to work on that before you accuse me of deleting things or losing things. I don’t answer things not addressed to me. You addressed them both to “Andrew” who was also in the thread as another commenter.

Dr. Christy states in that thread that no surface data is used in the UAH MSU data process. If you have something that says otherwise, I welcome you to share it. – Anthony

That is not the comment on CA. You only need to state whether or not you wrote a message to John Christy asking about satellite temperature retrievals.
Yes or no.

Jerry

REPLY: In this thread, most definitely no. But if you can speak to the context of the discussion perhaps I can figure out what thread you are talking about. The problem is you keep using the phrase “satellite temperature retrievals” and that does not ring a bell nor any search results. Given that you couldn’t even get my name right, (I’m not Andrew) perhaps you are mistaken about the terminology or phrase.

Like I said, you can search the entire blog on John Christy in the upper right. No posts from him have been deleted that I am aware of. It is not my responsibility to find things for you, but you are most welcome to search. – Anthony Watts

I am positive it was this site. I have never had any problem on CA as all comments are time stamped and Steve keeps records of all threads.

Did you write a message to John Christy asking him about the dependence of satellite temperature retrieval being independent of surface temperature data (with words to the effect that you would go directly to the source to check if that was the case)?

Jerry

REPLY: If you’ll pay attention to the header for each comment, you’ll notice that all comments are time stamped here as well and that they remain here also. I wrote no such message to Dr. Christy in this thread. – Anthony

1. I still have no idea what you are talking about
2. Search on “John Christy” in the search box upper right for any comments or threads
3. Nothing has been deleted, especially any comment by John Christy.

Are you certain it was this blog where you think you saw this? Because absolutely nothing you are saying rings any bells.

I think you may be talking about this comment at Climate Audit

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comment-316393

-Anthony

According to the date at the beginning of this thread, it was started on January 18, 2009.

That is roughly when I sent in my comment in response to Dr. Christy’s message.

Once we find Dr. Christy’s message this should all be resolved.

Jerry

Please indicate a search key word that will bring up the response of Dr. Christy
to your inquiry about satellite temperature retrievals being independent of surfact temperature data. Thank you.

Jerry

Where is Dr. Christy’s response to your inquiry about the independence of satellite data
and surface temperature data. That seems to also have disappeared ( do a search on Christy). That message is why I wrote the my comment s and it seems a bit strange that both have disappeared?

Jerry

What happened to my comment on temperature retrievals from radiances that did
not agree with your messsage from Dr. Christy? Is this thread a result of that comment?
Clearly if the surface station data is being used in the retrievals as I Indicated, then a loss
of surface data would cause a divergence between the satellite retrievals and surface temperatures. You need to give credit where it is due and not a vague statement
as at the beginning of this thread.

And what happened to the thread that contained the message from Dr. Christy
where he so adamantly insisted that there was no use of surface data in the temperature retrieval?

Jerry

REPLY: I don’t know what happened to your comment. I have no idea what it was and do not recall it. It has been months since this thread was active, and I have over 67,000 comments on this blog. If it contained something that put it in the spam filter or violated policy it probably was deleted. It is also possible your comment is on another thread. – Anthony Watts

What happened to my comment on temperature retrievals from radiances that did
not agree with your messsage from Dr. Christy? Is this thread a result of that comment?
Clearly if the surface station data is being used in the retrievals as I Indicated, then a loss
of surface data would cause a divergence between the satellite retrievals and surface temperatures. You need to give credit where it is due and not a vague statement
as at the beginning of this thread.

Jerry

…the revised GISS GHG driven temperature trend is a whopping 25% lower than the IPCC’s [95% certain] “gold standard” of 0.20C per decade.

From Lucia’s site: click

It seems that the IPCC’s AR-4 has been falsified.

I’m incredibly impressed by this site and the thoughtful discussion. It’s very enlightening and, I think, very valuable to those of us who have been “smelling a rat” in the pablum from the media.

Thank each and every one of you, including the civil skeptics of the skeptics. The interplay is very instructive and helpful.

Mark