Ben Santer's "damage control" on UAH global temperature data

The post below on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog that contains responses from Spencer and Christy deserves wide distribution and attention, because it shows just how badly Ben Santer and John Abraham want to squelch this dataset. Particularly amusing is the labeling of a graph in an Andrew Freidman article at WaPo as alisting of “corrections”, when in fact it is nothing more than the advance of the trend in step with the graph below.

Addressing Criticisms of the UAH Temperature Dataset at 1/3 Century

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The UAH satellite-based global temperature dataset has reached 1/3 of a century in length, a milestone we marked with a press release in the last week (e.g. covered here).

As a result of that press release, a Capital Weather Gang blog post by Andrew Freedman was dutifully dispatched as damage control, since we had inconveniently noted the continuing disagreement between climate models used to predict global warming and the satellite observations.

What follows is a response by John Christy, who has been producing these datasets with me for the last 20 years:

Many of you are aware that as a matter of preference I do not use the blogosphere to report information about climate or to correct the considerable amount of misinformation that appears out there related to our work. My general rule is never to get in a fight with someone who owns an obnoxious website, because you are simply a tool of the gatekeeper at that point.

However, I thought I would do so here because a number of folks have requested an explanation about a blog post connected to the Washington Post that appeared on 20 Dec. Unfortunately, some of the issues are complicated, so the comments here will probably not satisfy those who want the details and I don’t have time to address all of its errors.

Earlier this week we reported on the latest monthly global temperature update, as we do every month, which is distributed to dozens of news outlets. With 33 years of satellite data now in the hopper (essentially a third of a century) we decided to comment on the long-term character, noting that the overall temperature trend of the bulk troposphere is less than that of the IPCC AR4 climate model projections for the same period. This has been noted in several publications, and to us is not a new or unusual statement.

Suggesting that the actual climate is at odds with model projections does not sit well with those who desire that climate model output be granted high credibility. I was alerted to this blog post within which are, what I can only call, “myths” about the UAH lower tropospheric dataset and model simulations. I’m unfamiliar with the author (Andrew Freedman) but the piece was clearly designed to present a series of assertions about the UAH data and model evaluation, to which we were not asked to respond. Without such a knowledgeable response from the expert creators of the UAH dataset, the mythology of the post may be preserved.

The first issue I want to address deals the relationship between temperature trends of observations versus model output. I often see such posts refer to an old CCSP document (2006) which, as I’ve reported in congressional testimony, was not very accurate to begin with, but which has been superseded and contradicted by several more recent publications.

These publications specifically document the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with altitude.

The blog post even indicates one of its quoted scientists, Ben Santer, agrees that the upper air is warming less than the surface – a result with which no model agrees. So, the model vs. observational issue was not presented accurately in the post. This has been addressed in the peer reviewed literature by us and others (Christy et al. 2007, 2010, 2011, McKitrick et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010.)

Then, some people find comfort in simply denigrating the uncooperative UAH data (about which there have been many validation studies.) We were the first to develop a microwave-based global temperature product. We have sought to produce the most accurate representation of the real world possible with these data – there is no premium in generating problematic data. When problems with various instruments or processes are discovered, we characterize, fix and publish the information. That adjustments are required through time is obvious as no one can predict when an instrument might run into problems, and the development of such a dataset from satellites was uncharted territory before we developed the first methods.

The Freedman blog post is completely wrong when it states that “when the problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.” Indeed, there have been a number of corrections that adjusted for spurious warming, leading to a reduction in the warming trend. That the scientists quoted in the post didn’t mention this says something about their bias.

The most significant of these problems we discovered in the late 1990’s in which the calibration of the radiometer was found to be influenced by the temperature of the instrument itself (due to variable solar shadowing effects on a drifting polar orbiting spacecraft.) Both positive and negative adjustments were listed in the CCSP report mentioned above.

We are always working to provide the best products, and we may soon have another adjustment to account for an apparent spurious warming in the last few years of the aging Aqua AMSU (see operational notes here). We know the data are not perfect (no data are), but we have documented the relatively small error bounds of the reported trends using internal and external evidence (Christy et al. 2011.)

A further misunderstanding in the blog post is promoted by the embedded figure (below, with credit given to a John Abraham, no affiliation). The figure is not, as claimed in the caption, a listing of “corrections”:

The major result of this diagram is simply how the trend of the data, which started in 1979, changed as time progressed (with minor satellite adjustments included.) The largest effect one sees here is due to the spike in warming from the super El Nino of 1998 that tilted the trend to be much more positive after that date. (Note that the diamonds are incorrectly placed on the publication dates, rather than the date of the last year in the trend reported in the corresponding paper – so the diamonds should be shifted to the left by about a year. The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade.)

The notion in the blog post that surface temperature datasets are somehow robust and pristine is remarkable. I encourage readers to check out papers such as my examination of the Central California and East African temperature records. Here I show, by using 10 times as many stations utilized in the popular surface temperature datasets, that recent surface temperature trends are highly overstated in these regions (Christy et al. 2006; 2009). We also document how surface development disrupts the formation of the nocturnal boundary layer in many ways, leading to warming nighttime temperatures.

That’s enough for now. The Washington Post blogger, in my view, is writing as a convinced advocate, not as a curious scientist or impartial journalist. But, you already knew that.

In addition to the above, I (Roy) would like to address comments made by Ben Santer in the Washington Post blog:

A second misleading claim the (UAH) press release makes is that it’s simply not possible to identify the human contribution to global warming, despite the publication of studies that have done just that. “While many scientists believe it [warming] is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically,” Spencer states.

Ben Santer, a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said Spencer and Christy are mistaken. “People who claim (like Roy Spencer did) that it is “impossible” to separate human from natural influences on climate are seriously misinformed,” he wrote via email. “They are ignoring several decades of relevant research and literature. They are embracing ignorance.” “Many dozens of scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature change,” Santer stated.

In my opinion, the supposed “fingerprint” evidence of human-caused warming continues to be one of the great pseudo-scientific frauds of the global warming debate. There is no way to distinguish warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide from warming caused by a more humid atmosphere responding to (say) naturally warming oceans responding to a slight decrease in maritime cloud cover (see, for example, “Oceanic Influences on Recent continental Warming“).

Many papers indeed have claimed to find a human “fingerprint”, but upon close examination the evidence is simply consistent with human caused warming — while conveniently neglecting to point out that the evidence would also be consistent with naturally caused warming. This disingenuous sleight-of-hand is just one more example of why the public is increasingly distrustful of the climate scientists they support with their tax dollars.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Peter Whale

Santer Claws back “corrections” It must be Christmas.

Dave N

Santer is in a hotspot, and suffering from too much wind shear, methinks.

@ Peter – Santer Craws.

Dan

Ah the old confusing correlation with causation…

The 33 year trend through 2011 is +0.14 °C/decade.
My 37 year trend (from 1974) is 0.0137 degrees C/annum
Not bad for an amateur, or what?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

Well, it must be really embarrassing that temperature trends are refusing to cooperate with CO_2 as a primary driver, at least as a simple driver. Just think how embarrassing it will be if a mix of phase changes in primary decade-timescale oscillations plus strongly reduced solar activity relative to the 20th century produce a serious NH cooling trend over the next twenty four months.
Then imagine how embarrassing it will be if CO_2 levels drop, not because anthropogenic CO_2 is being produced more slowly but because the average SST drops and CO_2 absorption in the thermocline picks up. One wonders if even the last 200 years are enough for the ocean to have recovered from heat lost in the LIA.
rgb

There are several interesting points. Main ones for now: the satellite temps are continuously updated with some adjustments up, others down. The surface temps are always updated upwards. Guess which ones are likely more scientific.
As for Santer’s fingerprints it’s hard to imagine him spelling them out clearly, as then we’d have some way to falsify AGW. And I don’t think he can afford providing us that.

The reason why I prefer to look at my own tables is that the satellites don’t tell me what is causing the increase in warming!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/18/co2-sensitivity-is-multi-modal-all-bets-are-off/#comment-837743

John Abraham? Ah yes, that would be this John Abraham:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/jpabraham.htm
A member of the Climate Rapid Response Team and perennial Monckton basher.

Interstellar Bill

For the sake of the Mother Gaia they so profess to care for,
shouldn’t they be glad the atmosphere isn’t warming?
Shouldn’t they hope they’re wrong and sensitivity is low?

For some odd reason, every time I read “human fingerprint” I think of Ikey Solomon (Dickens’ model for the character Fagin in Oliver Twist).

JJThoms

any comments on this page showing many undisclosed corrections?
http://tinyurl.com/bwannra

Marc77

First, it is not enough to find potential problems with satellites. You have to explain why the satellites have measured what they have measured and you have to prove that it is not incompatible with your hypothesis.
Second, here is the graph above detrended by 1/3 degree Celsius for 1/3 of a century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/detrend:0.333/plot/uah/detrend:0.333/mean:13
So, removing a trend of 1 degree Celsius per century seems to remove all of the perceived trend. Is it possible that a trend of 1/2 a Celsius per century comes from the cool Pinatubo in the first half and the 1998 super El-Nino in the second half? If you take the sine function from 0 to 2pi radians. Since it starts with the positive phase then the negative phase, you would find a negative trend even if this function does not have a trend in the long run. It would be interesting if someone knew a way to remove the artificial trend that comes from particular events.

This is nothing but an attempt to smear the character of Spencer and Christy. It isn’t about UAH temp trends vs land. For those unfamiliar, there is a different satellite data set and it shows (to 2/10,000) of a degree, exactly the same thing as UAH data set. (Over the same period of time.) In fact, RSS has been running much cooler than UAH over the last 15 yrs. But, those lunatics don’t say anything about RSS. Why? Because it isn’t about the temps. It’s about the spankage and butthurt Dessler, Santer, and Abraham have all received from skeptics. They don’t like appearing as stupid as they are and that’s why the children are lashing out.
I have a graph that shows the trends of all 4 data sets (GISS, HadCrut, RSS an UAH), I offset the trend lines up and down. Can anyone pick the UAH 33yr trend from the graph?
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/delusional-scientists-and-bloggers-fail-at-character-assassination-attempt/

R. de Haan

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Observation does not match what models predict,
therefore the observations must be wrong.

There’s actually a “consensus” of scientists who believe this?
Amazing.

Peter Hartley

Given this little bit of history
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Michaels_Knappenberger_Nature96.pdf
followed up here
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/26/quick-response-to-ben-santers-comments-at-realclimate/
one would think that Ben Santer would be a little more reticent to keep on bringing up the issue of detecting a “human fingerprint” in climate data.

Joachim Seifert

The UAH temp set has 2 very unfortunate features: Firstly, the 13 months-average….too much up and down to show a decadal trend… why not a decadal or a 5-year trend instead of 13 months?
This 13 months is probably an Alabama lucky number but should be thrown out …. secondly, this wavelike average line: Why should it go down in its first 5 years…it is also strange…..
Both lines do not show the real progress of temps: Which is 1. Plateau since 2001, staying flat
and 1980-2000 occurred a stepwise increase….. somehow muddeling the 1980-2000-2001flat temps plateau into some sort of temp swing ….
A third revised graph of compensating Ninas and Ninos with each other would also be useful since we know that these short time ups/downs are OHC ocean heat related and annullify each other ….
The good Ben Santer news always remains that after 17 years of no increase (by the year 2018) there will be no more human made foot, finger and bottom prints left and the CO2-Yeti must have died after 17 years without his visible traces….which AGW must concede by then…..

In Burrito

I think the most damning thing about the models vs. the data isn’t the failure to predict the trend over time…because, seriously, who knows quantitatively what the natural variability of the climate is.
The most damning thing about the models is that they don’t predict temperature vs. altitude at a single instant in time. This means that the climate modelers don’t even have a handle on the basic atmospheric heat transfer mechanisms, much less the disturbing influences of the sun, cosmic rays, particulates, ocean temp…take your pick.

Sal Minella

Sinusoidal fit on graph shows about 3/4 of a complete cycle with a period of 45 – 50 years. Interesting that the data is that flat.

Theo Goodwin

“Ben Santer, a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said Spencer and Christy are mistaken. “People who claim (like Roy Spencer did) that it is “impossible” to separate human from natural influences on climate are seriously misinformed,” he wrote via email. “They are ignoring several decades of relevant research and literature. They are embracing ignorance.” “Many dozens of scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature change,” Santer stated.”
Because Dr. Santer is a mainstream climate scientist it will be very easy for him to substantiate his claims. All he has to do is present the reasonably well confirmed hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict the contribution to warming that is specific to CO2. Of course, because he is an excellent scholar he will also present the history of experiments undertaken to confirm these hypotheses. Because he wants to communicate with us, he will present these matters in his own words. After all, they are at the tip of the tongue of such an eminent scientist.
Otherwise, he can admit that mainstream climate science is a baby in the birth canal and that neither the head nor feet are yet visible. Let us hope it is not breach. Without the physical hypotheses in question, all we can do is conclude that Dr. Santer is using the same Divine Hunches that are used by Trenberth, Mann, and all of mainstream climate science. Hunches are not science. Models are not science.
As everyone knows, including the Warmists, there is no set of reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that explain the causes or effects of atmospheric phenomena such as cloud formation on global warming. If there were such physical hypotheses, everyone would be referring to them instead of using hand waving terms such as “forcing” and “feedback.”

crosspatch

Bob Tisdale shows that the models have absolutely no skill over the 20th century except for one roughly 30 year period where the CO2 rise happens to coincide with the temperature trend. For the rest of the 20 century (and that since the end of warming at around 2000), the models have absolutely no skill.
What the models are telling us is that “correlation is not causation” when it comes to the late 20th century warming period.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/part-2-do-observations-and-climate-models-confirm-or-contradict-the-hypothesis-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

crosspatch

Sinusoidal fit on graph shows about 3/4 of a complete cycle with a period of 45 – 50 years. Interesting that the data is that flat.

It is actually a 60-ish year cycle (+- 5years or so) that shows up in the climate record nearly everywhere.

AnonyMoose

The human “fingerprint” studies that I’ve looked at were indistinguishable from “we don’t know why our models are different from measurement” studies. Any difference between reality and a model which omits what they imagine CO2 is doing, must be due to humans rather than being due to unknown causes. (Of course, this is dependent upon the values for “reality” which the modelers are using.)

crosspatch

One would like to beat the crap out of Ben.
What about RSS? Present global anomaly is the same as in 1980.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

Steve C

All these “claims that have long been debunked by mainstream climate scientists” (© A. Freedman) … Strange how Freedman doesn’t notice that these “mainstream climate scientists” have also “long been debunked” by cooler heads like those of Drs. Spencer and Christy, to whom thanks for a dispassionate look at those good old-fashioned measurements. Being “debunked by mainstream climate scientists” is the new “peer review”, it seems.
@Sal Minella – Is the data also a not-too-bad fit to the traditional 60 year (ish) cycle? Or maybe the data has “phase noise” like the “11 (or 22) year” sunspot cycle.

Theo Goodwin

crosspatch says:
December 21, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“If you really want to see something scary:
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-temp-trend.gif
On the one hand, it is something that just might motivate belief in God. On the other hand, it is something that I pray will cause all scientists who use proxy evidence to commit themselves to serious empirical evaluation of their proxies.

cui bono

Interstellar Bill says (December 21, 2011 at 11:33 am)
“For the sake of the Mother Gaia they so profess to care for,
shouldn’t they be glad the atmosphere isn’t warming?”
Nah!, They want self-righteous self-justification. More than that, they want to stay alive…
1682.txt: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

Robert in Calgary

I remember Freedman from his days as a Heidi Cullen minion at the Weather Channel blogs.
He was an one-sided propaganda hack then and it seems he hasn’t changed

John West

“consistent with “…… ” This disingenuous sleight-of-hand is just one more example of why the public is increasingly distrustful of the climate scientists they support with their tax dollars.”
Absolutely! I’ve been conditioned to go into hyper-skeptic mode whenever I see “consistent with”!
A banana peel left on my kitchen counter is consistent with an escaped gorilla being loose in my house, yet for some reason I still think one of the kids/grandkids just didn’t throw it away.

danj

I was home today and caught a program on the History Channel that had to do with climate change. Some of the usual suspects (Lonnie Thompson, Overpeck, et al) were in it ranting about run-away, human induced global warming and claiming that the “finger print” of human causation was indisputable. I wanted to gag. I enjoy the History Channel’s “Universe” program because it goes to great pains to bring different viewpoints about applying laws of physics to the universe in its offerings. It is interesting (and disturbing but not surprising) that the producers chose not to do so on their program on climate change…DJ

KR

An interesting presentation, Dr. Spencer.
All corrections so far have increased the UAH record? None have decreased it? And with each correction the UAH record comes closer to the RSS, GISS, and other temperature records?
Yet you state the “supposed “fingerprint” evidence of human-caused warming continues to be one of the great pseudo-scientific frauds of the global warming debate.”
Curious. Personally, I think you protest to much… that your data is biased low, that you accept corrections only when overwhelming, and that (as the data show) your temperature record continues to be an extreme outlier on the cool side.

Charles.U.Farley

Wherever the likes of Santer are found youll also find a large UHI effect…….

DirkH

crosspatch says:
December 21, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“If you really want to see something scary:
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-temp-trend.gif

Very interesting. BUT: Assuming that the temperature anomaly is proportional to the sunspot cycle length is conjecture. We are entering unchartered territory. If there’s a non-spurious correlation, it might as well be nonlinear. We haven’t reached that part of the scale for the last 110 years so our records are not good enough to tell.

Richard deSousa

What do the balloon data say? The last I heard the balloon data match closely to the satellite data. Funny how Santer makes no mention about this.

DirkH

KR says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm
“An interesting presentation, Dr. Spencer.
All corrections so far have increased the UAH record? None have decreased it? And with each correction the UAH record comes closer to the RSS, GISS, and other temperature records?
Yet you state the “supposed “fingerprint” evidence of human-caused warming continues to be one of the great pseudo-scientific frauds of the global warming debate.”
Curious. Personally, I think you protest to much… that your data is biased low, that you accept corrections only when overwhelming, and that (as the data show) your temperature record continues to be an extreme outlier on the cool side.”
KR. You’re quoting Anthony, not Dr. Spencer.

Christopher Hanley

The 33 year UAH trend of +0.1.4C/decade looks, to my untrained eye, very similar to the simple linear trend of HADCRUT over the 50 year period of predominately human impact as claimed by the IPCC:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/trend

BarryW

KR says:
All corrections so far have increased the UAH record? None have decreased it? And with each correction the UAH record comes closer to the RSS, GISS, and other temperature records?
What part of the following were you not able to read?

The Freedman blog post is completely wrong when it states that “when the problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.” Indeed, there have been a number of corrections that adjusted for spurious warming, leading to a reduction in the warming trend. That the scientists quoted in the post didn’t mention this says something about their bias.

Robt319
son of mulder

Keep up the good work. All you have to do is stick to the scientific method. Everything else is froth.

KR says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm
An interesting presentation, Dr. Spencer.
All corrections so far have increased the UAH record? None have decreased it? And with each correction the UAH record comes closer to the RSS, GISS, and other temperature records?
==============================================================
KR, you’re confused. Dr. Spencer didn’t say that, Dr. Dessler did, being quoted in the WaPo blog. It is, btw, demonstrably false. As is his claim that surface temps don’t get adjusted for errors. GISS, in fact, employs an algorithm that is always changing the temps and trends. So much so, that 1998 and 1934 for the U.S. had switched the lead for the hottest year evuh, several times….. in the 2000s decade.
The facts do not support the claims made in that hit piece by Freedman. Some people would mark that up to incompetence. Certainly, Dessler, Santer, Abraham, and Freedman all have had their moments when their a$$ was handed to them by skeptics, but, I think untruths stated were intentional. Those guys can’t be that oblivious to the facts and still be remotely connected to the climate discussion.

TimTheToolMan

KR writes “All corrections so far have increased the UAH record? None have decreased it? ”
But quoting Christy, Spencer wrote…
“The Freedman blog post is completely wrong when it states that “when the problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.” Indeed, there have been a number of corrections that adjusted for spurious warming, leading to a reduction in the warming trend. That the scientists quoted in the post didn’t mention this says something about their bias.”
So it is evident where KR’s bias lies.

Charles.U.Farley said @ December 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm
“Wherever the likes of Santer are found youll also find a large UHI effect…….”
Unbelievably Hubristic Ignorance?

Hugh Kelly

Robt319 says:
December 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@KR
You could do a tiny bit of research before posting.
Sadly, that’s asking a bit much for a team player.
“…..the data needn’t be passed on.” Phil Jones

Kevin Kilty

In my opinion, the supposed “fingerprint” evidence of human-caused warming continues to be one of the great pseudo-scientific frauds of the global warming debate. There is no way to distinguish warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide from warming caused by a more humid atmosphere responding to (say) naturally warming oceans responding to a slight decrease in maritime cloud cover (see, for example, “Oceanic Influences on Recent continental Warming“).

Thank you, Dr. Roy Spencer. I have been trying since 1996 to get someone to acknowledge what you state above. I could not get a proposal on this topic funded, and I have even quizzed several people on this site, hoping to generate some discussion about the observed warming being consistent with, and therefore potentially explained by, advancing humidity. Indeed, increasing humidity may be a feedback from increasing CO2, but it is surely possible that long-term changes in humidity may result from variation in source location of atmospheric moisture and varying characteristics of the source region. El Nino being just one such example.

Roy Spencer

JJThoms:
Yes, I DO have comments…
That blogger (“thefordprefect”?) should have read the disclaimer at the Discover website before critically comparing the daily, automated, “quick-and-dirty” AMSU data averages posted there with the intercalibrated and quality controlled data in our monthly updates of the UAH dataset.
Our corrections are NOT (as the blogger claims) “undisclosed”. If the blogger took the time to read our publications, he/she would not make such uninformed claims.

Ben D.

John Christy…
“The most significant of these problems we discovered in the late 1990’s in which the calibration of the radiometer was found to be influenced by the temperature of the instrument itself (due to variable solar shadowing effects on a drifting polar orbiting spacecraft.)”
Yes of course! I wonder if this feedback influence is present to some degree on all space based platforms since the inception of satellite remote sensing of temperature. And also it should be confirmed that all space based remotely sensed temperature data already incorporated in data sets and models prior to the discovery of this feedback phenomena, has been readjusted to reflect a more accurate reading.

sky

It’s fairly obvious that the academic “climate science” establishment has little interest in being informed by real-world measurements, preferring the virtual reality of unvalidated computer models. In fact, an arrogant hostility toward objective data is evident in their pronouncements. In their hands, patchy historical station data–which indeed is often subject to strong UHI effects–either becomes a convenient crutch for their lame hypotheses about global warming or is summarily “adjusted” to fit such hypotheses. Truly global UHI-free satellite measurements are attacked, because they contradict their specious claims. The palpable aim is the production of pseudo-scientific opiate for the masses. Dispassionate attention to what the data may be revealing about phyical reality seems the last of their concerns.

John M

KR and Christopher Hanley, regarding the “match” between surface and satellite measurements:

These publications specifically document the fact that bulk atmospheric temperatures in the climate system are warming at only 1/2 to 1/4 the rate of the IPCC AR4 model trends. Indeed actual upper air temperatures are warming the same or less than the observed surface temperatures (most obvious in the tropics) which is in clear and significant contradiction to model projections, which suggest warming should be amplified with altitude.

Did you not read that?