by John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer
University of Alabama in Huntsville
A new paper by Stephen Po-Chedley and Quang Fu (2012) (hereafter PCF) was sent to us at the end of April 2012 in page-proof form as an article to appear soon in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. The topic of the paper is an analysis of a single satellite’s impact on the rarely-used, multi-satellite deep-layer global temperature of the mid-troposphere or TMT. Some of you have been waiting for our response, but this was delayed by the fact that one of us (J. Christy) was out of the country when the UW press release was issued and just returned on Tuesday the 8th.
There are numerous incorrect and misleading assumptions in this paper. Neither one of us was aware of the paper until it was sent to us by Po-Chedley two weeks ago, so the paper was written and reviewed in complete absence of the authors of the dataset itself. In some cases this might be a normal activity, but in a situation where complicated algorithms are involved, it is clear that PCF did not have a sufficient understanding of the construction methodology.
By way of summary, here are our main conclusions regarding the new PCF paper:
1) the authors’ methodology is qualitative and irreproducible
2) the author’s are uninformed on the complexity of the UAH satellite merging algorithm
3) the authors use the RSS (Remotes Sensing Systems) satellite dataset as “verification” for their proposed UAH NOAA-9 calibration target adjustment for TMT, but barely mention that their TLT (lower tropospheric) results are insignificant and that trends are essentially identical between UAH and RSS without any adjustment in the NOAA-9 calibration coefficient
4) the authors neglected the main TMT differences among the datasets – and instead try to explain the UAH v. RSS trend difference by only two years of NOAA-9 data, while missing all of the publications which document other issues such as RSS problems with applying the diurnal correction.
The paper specifically claims to show that a calibration target coefficient of one satellite, NOAA-9, should be a value different than that calculated directly from empirical data in UAH’s version of the dataset. With an adjustment to the time series guesstimated by PCF, this increases the UAH overall global trend by +0.042 °C/decade. Their new UAH trend, being +0.042 warmer, then becomes the same as the TMT trend from RSS. This, they conclude, indicates a verification of their exercise.
More importantly, with regard to the most publicized UAH dataset, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), there was no similar analysis done by PCF – an indication that their re-calculations would not support their desired outcome for this dataset, as we shall demonstrate below.
All of this will soon be moot, anyway. Since last year we have been working on v6.0 of the UAH datasets which should be ready with the tropospheric temperature datasets before summer is out. These will include (1) a new, more defensible objective empirical calculation to correct for the drift of the satellites through the diurnal cycle, and (2) a new hot calibration target effective emissivity adjustment which results in better agreement between simultaneously operating satellites at the calibration step, making the post-calibration hot-target adjustment PCF criticizes unnecessary. So, since our new v6.0 dataset is close to completion and submission for publication, we have chosen this venue to document PCF’s misinformation in a rather informal, but reproducible, way rather than bother to submit a journal rebuttal addressing the older dataset. However, to show that version 5.4 of our datasets was credible, we discuss these issues below.
The Lower Tropospheric Temperatures (TLT)
We shall return to TMT below, but most of the research and popular use of the UAH datasets have focused on the lower tropospheric temperature, or TLT (surface to about 300 hPa, i.e. without stratospheric impact). Thus, we shall begin our discussion with TLT because it is rightly seen as a more useful variable because it documents the bulk heat content of the troposphere with very little influence from the stratosphere. And [this is important in the TMT discussion] the same hot-target coefficients for NOAA-9 were used in TLT as in TMT.
PCF focused on the deep layer TMT, i.e. temperature of the surface to about 75 hPa, which includes quite a bit of signal above 300 hPa. As such, TMT includes a good portion of the lower stratosphere – a key weakness when utilizing radiosondes which went through significant changes and adjustments during this time. [This was a period when many stations converted to the Vaisala 80 radiosonde which introduced temperature shifts throughout the atmosphere (Christy and Norris 2004).]
As indicated in their paper, it seems PCF’s goal was to explain the differences in trend between RSS and UAH, but the history of this effort has always been to find error with UAH’s products rather than in other products (as we shall see below). With us shut out of the peer-review cycle it is easy to assume an underlying bias of the authors.
Lord Kelvin told us that “All science is numbers”, so here are some numbers. First, let’s look at the “global” trends of UAH and RSS for TLT (70S to 82.5N) for Jan 1979 to Apr 2012:
+0.137 °C/decade UAH LT (70S-82.5N)
+0.134 °C/decade RSS LT (70S-82.5N)
These trends are, for all practical purposes, identical. This, however, hides the fact that there are indeed differences between the two time series that, for one reason or another, are balanced out when calculating the linear trend over the entire 30+ year period. As several papers have documented (see Christy et al. 2011, or C11, for the list – by the way, C11 was not cited by PCF) the evidence indicates RSS contains a spurious warming in the 1990’s then a spurious cooling from around 2002 onward (note that the RSS temperature anomaly for last month, April, 2012, was 0.08°C cooler than our UAH anomaly).
This behavior arises, we believe, from an over-correction of the drift of the satellites by RSS (in the 1990’s the satellites drifted to cooler times of day, so the correction must add warming, and in the 2000’s the satellites drifted to warmer times of day so a correction is needed to cool things down.) These corrections are needed (except for the Aqua satellite operating since 2002, which has no diurnal drift and which we use as an anchor in the UAH dataset) but if not of the right magnitude they will easily affect the trend.
In a single paragraph, PCF admit that the UAH TLT time series has no significant hot-target relationship with radiosonde comparisons (which for TLT are more robust) over the NOAA-9 period. However, they then utilize circular reasoning to claim that since RSS and UAH have a bit of disagreement in that 2-year period, and RSS must be correct, that then means UAH has a problem. So, this type of logic, as stated by PCF, points to their bias – assume that RSS is correct which then implies UAH is the problem. This requires one to ignore the many publications that show the opposite.
Note too that in their press release, PCF claim that observations and models now are closer together for this key parameter (temperature of the bulk troposphere) if one artificially increases the trend in UAH data. This is a questionable claim as evidence shows TLT for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models averages about +0.26 °C/decade (beginning in 1979) whereas UAH *and* RSS datasets are slightly below +0.14 °C/decade, about a factor of 2 difference between models and observations. We shall let the reader decide if the PCF press-release claim is accurate.
The key point for the discussion here (and below) is that TLT uses the same hot-target coefficients as TMT, yet we see no problem related to it for the many evaluation studies we have published. Indeed this was the specific result found in Christy and Norris 2004 – again, work not cited by PCF.
The Mid-Tropospheric Temperature (TMT)
About 12 years ago we discovered that even though two different satellites were looking at the same globe at the same time, there were differences in their measurements beyond a simple bias (time-invariant offset). We learned that these were related to the variations in the temperature of the instrument itself. If the instrument warmed or cooled (differing solar angles as it orbited or drifted), so did the calculated temperature. We used the thermistors embedded in the hot-target plate to track the instrument temperature, hence the metric is often called the “hot target temperature coefficient.”
To compensate for this error, we devised a method to calculate a coefficient that when multiplied by the hot target temperature would remove this variation for each satellite. Note that the coefficients were calculated from the satellite data, they were not estimated in an ad hoc fashion.
The calculation of this coefficient depends on a number of things, (a) the magnitude of the already-removed satellite drift correction (i.e. diurnal correction), (b) the way the inter-satellite differences are smoothed, and (c) the sequence in which the satellites are merged.
Since UAH and RSS perform these processes differently, the coefficients so calculated will be different. Again recall that the UAH (and RSS) coefficients are calculated from a system of equations, they are not invented. The coefficients are calculated to produce the largest decrease in inter-satellite error characteristics in each dataset.
To make a long story short, PCF focused on the 26-month period of NOAA-9 operation, basically 1985-86. They then used radiosondes over this period to estimate the hot-target coefficient as +0.048 rather than UAH’s calculated value of +0.0986. [Note, the language in PCF is confusing, as we cannot tell if they conclude our coefficient is too high by 0.051 or should actually be 0.051. We shall assume they believe our coefficient is too high by 0.051 to give them the benefit of the doubt.]
Recall, radiosondes were having significant shifts with the levels monitored by TMT primarily with the switch to Vaisala 80 sondes, and so over small, 26-month periods, just about any result might be expected. [We reproduced PCF’s Fig. 2 using only US VIZ sondes (which had no instrument changes in the 26-month period and span the globe from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska to the Caribbean Sea) and found an explained variance of less than 4% – an insignificant value.]
Another problematic aspect of PCF’s methodology is that when looking at the merged time series, one does not see just NOAA-9’s influence, but the impact of all of the other satellites which provided data during 1985-86, i.e. NOAA-6, -7 and -8 as well. So, it is improper to assume one may pick out NOAA-9’s impact individually from the merged satellite series.
That PCF had little understanding of the UAH algorithm is demonstrated by the following simple test. We substituted the PCF value of +0.048 directly into our code. The increase in trend over our v5.4 TMT dataset was only +0.022 °C/decade for 1979-2009 (not 0.042), and +0.019 °C/decade for 1979-2012.
To put it another way, PCF overestimated the impact of the NOAA-9 coefficient by a factor of about 2 when they artificially reconstructed our dataset using 0.048 as the NOAA-9 coefficient. In fact, if we use an implausible target coefficient of zero, we still can’t return a trend difference greater than +0.037 °C/decade. Thus PCF have incorrectly assumed something about the construction methodology of our time series that gave them a result which is demonstrated here to be faulty.
In addition, by changing the coefficient to +0.048 in an ad hoc fashion, they create greater errors in NOAA-9’s comparisons to other satellites. Had they contacted us at any point about this, we would have helped them to understand the techniques. [There were 4 emails from Po-Chedley in Aug and Sep 2011, but this dealt with very basic facts about the dataset, not the construction methodology. Incidently, these emails were exchanged well after C11 was published.]
PCF brought in a third dataset, STAR, but this one uses the same diurnal corrections and sequential merging methodology as RSS, so it is not a truly independent test. As shown in C11, STAR is clearly the outlier for overall trend values due to a different method of debiasing the various satellite data and a differing treatment of the fundamental brightness temperature calibration.
We have additional information regarding UAH’s relatively low error statistics. Using radiosondes to evaluate microwave temperatures requires great care. In our tests, we concentrated on sondes which had documented characteristics and a high degree of consistency such as the US VIZ and Australian sondes. These comparisons have been published a number of times, but most recently updated in C11.
Here are the comparisons for the US VIZ radiosonde network (stretching from the western tropical Pacific to Alaska down across the conterminous US and to the Caribbean.) As you can see, UAH MT provides the lowest error magnitudes and highest reproducibility of the three data sets. Similar results were found for the Australian comparisons.
For data through April 2012 we have the following global TMT trends: UAH +0.045, RSS +0.079 and STAR +0.124 °C/decade. So, RSS, in the middle, is closer to UAH than STAR, yet PCF chose to examine UAH as the “problem” dataset. Had PCF wanted to pick some low-hanging fruit regarding the differences between UAH, RSS and STAR, they would have (a) looked at the diurnal differences between UAH and RSS (see publications) or (b) looked at a simple time series of differences between the three datasets (below). One thing that pops out is a spurious upward shift in STAR TMT relative to UAH and RSS of about +0.06 °C on precisely 1 Jan 2001 – an obvious beginning-of-year glitch. Why not look there?
The Bottom Line
In conclusion, we believe that the result in PCF was a rather uninformed attempt to find fault with the UAH global temperature dataset, using an ad hoc adjustment to a single, short-lived satellite while overlooking the greater problems which have been documented (published or as demonstrated in the figure above) regarding the other datasets.
And think about this. If PCF is correct that we should be using a revised NOAA-9 coefficient, and since we use the same coefficient in both TMT and TLT, then the near perfect agreement currently between RSS and UAH for TLT will disappear; our TLT trend will become warmer, and then RSS will have the lowest warming trend of all the satellite datasets. The authors of the new study cannot have it both ways, claiming their new adjustment brings RSS and UAH closer together for TMT (a seldom used temperature index), but then driving the UAH and RSS trends for TLT farther apart, leaving RSS with essentially the same warming trend that UAH had before.
Since it is now within 3 months of the publication cutoff for research to be included in the IPCC AR5, one is tempted to conclude that PCF will be well-received by the Lead Authors (some of whom are closely associated with the RSS dataset) without critical evaluation such as briefly performed here. However, we cannot predict what the AR5 outcome will be or, for that matter, what waning influence the IPCC might still exert.
That PCF brushed aside the fact that the UAH and RSS trends for the LOWER troposphere are essentially identical (for which the UAH NOAA-9 coefficient is the same) seems to us to be a diversionary tactic we have seen before: create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence. We hope that rationality instead prevails.
References
Christy, J.R. and W. B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, No. 6.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and W.B Norris (deceased), 2011: The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 671-685, DOI:10.1080/01431161.2010.517803.
Po-Chedley, S. and Q. Fu, 2012: A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1.
The only double standards are between the internet’s “Best Science” site, and all the thinly trafficked alarmist blogs like RealClimate, which have a Policy of censoring skeptics’ comments. If “Tom” doesn’t try to rectify that, then he is a world class hypocrite.
The “topic at hand” is the unarguable fact that PCF dispensed with established past practice, and made an end run around Drs Spencer and Christy. They are the pre-eminent experts on the subject, and PCF’s dubious shenanigans are typical of the current crop of climate alarmist charlatans, who are following Chief Charlatan Michael Mann’s lead, and trying to game the pal review/journal system to their own advantage. That is not science; that is advocacy.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:47 am
“@frank – maybe you could kindly explain how refusing to engage on the specific question on the Christy and Spencer double standard and author contact issue that they themselves raise is off topic? ”
The author contact issue is not important. PCF didn’t know the algorithms and made no attempt at finding out about them. They were obviously not interested in the algorithms. Which is a funny detail indeed. WHY did they invest their work but didn’t bother to do it RIGHT?
Well, obviously they were not interested in even pretending they were doing it right – they had a deadline to meet, publish SOME criticism in time for RIO+20 and IPCC AR5 to try to discredit UAH.
It’s the usual rushed job we expect from IPCC guys, like in this case
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest? Since clearly this happens in each and every case don’t by shy about showing, oh, say 5 years worth of that interactions. That would be most interesting and consistent with the requests made of Mann.
Eagerly awaiting that documentation – nice to be making progress on this. So very exciting.
By chance the dog ate the material, by all means get the dog looked at post haste.
Tom babbles on;
May I perhaps suggest that we please return to the topic at hand as there are some important issues it raises..such as if double standards and the authors need to be contacted prior to corrections being issued. That would be the science part of the discussion.>>>>>>>>
That wasn’t the discussion at all until YOU introduced it as a distraction from the science being discussed. The science being discussed is the criticisms levelled by PCF against UAH, and the response from Christy and Spencer to those criticisms. All you’ve done is whine about where you think the response should appear instead of here, complained about data and methods not being available when they were, and avoiding every single question or point put to you regarding the science itself.
In other words, you are just a troll and obviously so, defending the indefensible with nonsense distractions from the facts. Again, if you don’t want to be treated with all the scorn and derision that a troll deserves, then stop behaving like one.
And another (distracting) question from Sir Tom of the Church of CAGW. 8<)
Have you read the 14 year history of Mann's and CRU's flat-out refusals between 1998 printing and today's continuing denial as refusing to follow their countries' laws and simply reveal the data behind their so-called "science"? See, THEY are the ones breaking the FOIA laws, and THEY are the ones who have deliberately refused to even reveal the raw data of their policy-forming so-called "scientific research" … Now, what relation does a 5 year "history" of all of Dr Spencer's emails have to do with a 14 year refusal to release original data.
You asked before, in an earlier distracting question that you similarly refused to follow up on, who has falsified Mann's original 1998 paper. How can that question be answered, how can that paper be checked, criticized or analyzed – other than by carefully-cherry-picked writers who used Mann's same source papers! – and reviewers who remain carefully anonymous and hidden behind dutiful CAGW-promoted editors, if the orginal data is hidden in Mann's file folders.
@ur momisugly RAC – is this not a thread on Christy and Spencer? Am I reading the “Christy and Spencer” bit in the title wrong?
Seems a bit odd that no one other than me is trying to actually help resolve the specific issue on this specific thread.
I wonder why anyone would want to go off this topic rather than dealing with the actual double standard and prior-contact requirement that they ask for but appear to violate?
Why would anyone be so very insistent on changing the topic when we are dealing with a specific matter of the science practices at hand here?
Perhaps the person who can explain that can also explain why simply trying to get clarity on this one specific matter justifies a most uncivil reaction. I thought we agreed that personal attacks/smears are not helping anything, right?
Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
“@ur momisugly Latutide – nice personal attacks…
If the claim is that everything should be documented and open then why the need make contact them at all? Have Christy and Spencer contacted everyone they reviewed or claim to be in “error”?
Seems to be a bit of a double standard here.”
Double standards yes.
Skeptics invite to be contacted to ask for data or information to make proper analysis – read how many time alarmists have been contacted and how did they answer:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html
So, how dare you put that comment there with a straight face?
What kind of twisted glasses do you have in front of your eyes?
@Tom: With all due respect to the owners of this site, you are a confused waste of bandwidth. You point to past blog entries by Christy/Spencer, and than claim its a double standard if they don’t behave the same way in which a scientific journal is supposed to behave during the peer review process.
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest?>>>>
Yes because obviously Smokey has copies of all of Christy and Spencer’s correspondence. TROLL!
Tom continues to whine;
Since clearly this happens in each and every case don’t by shy about showing, oh, say 5 years worth of that interactions. That would be most interesting and consistent with the requests made of Mann.>>>>>
How about instead, YOU post something much easier to do, which would be a claim by any researcher that they approached Christy and Spencer for access to their data and methods and were delcined. I won’t even hold you to the 5 year standard you insist on above. Show us one. TROLL.
T for TROLL Tom continues on;l
Eagerly awaiting that documentation – nice to be making progress on this. So very exciting.
By chance the dog ate the material, by all means get the dog looked at post haste.>>>>
Yes, in true TROLL fashion, you demand information from someone you know very well doesn’t have it and couldn’t possibly have it and then smugly declare victory. Why? Because you are nothing but a TROLL and look increasingly foolish for your efforts.
Not to mention that you STILL have not answered a single point regarding the science. Why? Could it be because you are just a TROLL?
When you have shot off both feet, aim for the knees. Keep going, please keep going. This type of obfuscation and misdirection becomes painfully obvious even to neophytes in the AGW debate. You are discrediting your side by continuing.
Tom, if you really believe what you are shoveling, you have a reality distortion field more powerful than the one made famous by the late lamented Steve Jobs. Either that or you are an agent provocateur. In either case, I have seen enough by the end of this thread to conclude it is a waste of time engaging with you, and I hope everyone will get back to the topic give you exactly the attention you deserve (none).
Tom says:
May 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“@Smokey – since it is an fact, per your assertion, that Christy and Spencer reached out to and reviewed their publications with any author they took issue with, surely you can post that correspondence here and put the matter to rest?”
Tom, you dope, that is exactly what Christy and Spencer are doing here. Wake up!
Tom clearly isn’t responding anything other than the sound of his own voice – and his brain is apparently on autopilot. I’m done…
Friends:
You have been had.
The odious troll posting under the name of Tom has successfully distracted discussion on this thread from its subject, He/she/they/it has posted nothing except irrelevancies and untrue assertions while ignoring every point and question put to him/her/them/it. And people have nibbled at his/her/their/its bait and been hauled in.
So, the thread has become boring and uniformative to onlookers who – by now – will have stopped reading. Thus the troll has achieved his/her/their/its objective.
I strongly suggest that it is best to ignore him/her/them/it and to avoid similar destruction of future threads by ignoring all similar trolls as soon as his/her/their/its behaviour becomes apparent.
Richard
@Smokey – you said it was a fact that Christy and Spencer contact authors that they disagreed with prior to publishing their counter material. I mean to have done otherwise makes their protest now a double standard, and no one here would stand for that. After all that would be a terrible practice.
I simply asked, since it is clearly a fact they did that each and every time, that you show the documentation of that. As it is a fact, yes, surely that is simple to do.
So will you be posting documentation that today will you?
“Tom” says:
“Seems a bit odd that no one other than me is trying to actually help resolve the specific issue on this specific thread.”
Earth to Tom: You are not trying to resolve anything. Drs. Spencer and Christy have resolved the specific PCF issue in their article above, titled:
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures
If you have a response to that specific criticism, post it. Otherwise, GTFA.
@DavidM – no, I assume Smokey has the documentation because to state something as a fact without any shred of evidence, and counter to actual history, at a site focused on science would be ludicrous. I mean all the science focused people here would obviously take issue with that.
Richard, I think Tom served a very usefull purpose. The only critiscism of Spencer and Christy’s article comes from an obvious troll unable to muster a single comment that has anything to do with the science. Not one single point has been raised by anybody in refutation of the science they presented. THAT is the seminal point of this thread that needs to be made to those who are recently arrived to the debate. The skeptic cristism of CAGW is well rooted in science. The warmist critiicism is limited to troll behaviour of which Tom is a perfect example. How many times did I challenge him to discuss the science? He failed to do so each and every time, because science is NOT in the side of CAGW, and those new to the debate need to see and think about that at every opportunity.
davidmhoffer:
re. your post addressed to me at May 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm.
I take your point. Thankyou. And I hope you are right that onlookers will recognise it.
Richard
My review of this post and comments tell me the climate science bureaucracies had a lot invested in having the troublesome satellite “debunked” by a paper. Because they knew that it was a big enemy, that’s why they jumping on unimportant rhetorical details.
Tom, really, you doth protest too much. The IPCC 5AR can’t beat the internet. If they try to pull that stunt about debunking the satellites, they would become the focus of instant derision. The people believe the satellites more than the warmistas or skeptics. Also, the satellite debunking sounds too obviously “tricky.” It will only work on those already believing or invested in big feedbacks.
Also, the non-scientists in the media warmista brigade are already dumping the feedbacks. Obama would call it “evolving.” They are changing their goal posts to the position that they have always only argued that increased CO2 will cause some effect (e.g., climate change, non necessarily global warming), and that the “deniers” have always denied that their could be “any” effect. You might join them, or you can take a big leap and join the McKibbenista lunatic fringe who worship the words of James Hansen. Something, don’t hang your hat on debunking the satellites.
davidmhoffer says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Richard, I think Tom served a very usefull purpose. The only critiscism of Spencer and Christy’s article comes from an obvious troll unable to muster a single comment that has anything to do with the science. Not one single point has been raised by anybody in refutation of the science they presented. THAT is the seminal point of this thread that needs to be made to those who are recently arrived to the debate. The skeptic cristism of CAGW is well rooted in science. The warmist critiicism is limited to troll behaviour of which Tom is a perfect example. How many times did I challenge him to discuss the science? He failed to do so each and every time, because science is NOT in the side of CAGW, and those new to the debate need to see and think about that at every opportunity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry, I just thought this bore repeating.
Tom says:
“@DavidM – no, I assume Smokey has the documentation because…” &etc.
Tom is a noob here, so he believes he can counter my criticism by trying to re-frame the argument using something I never said or even implied.
Tom: ball’s in your court. Quote my words, verbatim, where I said I had your “documentation”. If you can’t, then explain your misrepresentation. You wouldn’t want to be seen as a lying propagandist, would you? So, quote where I said I had any ‘documentation’. Thanx in advance, old chump.
@Smokey – you said it was a fact. Facts require and have evidence.
So please show your evidence of the fact. Simple.
Just like answering a Yes or No question.
Let us do that so we can then proceed to the other questions.
My goodness, truly hard to understand the inability – and it does appear to be an inability at this point – to do that.
So much effort to avoid answering my simple question.
After reading this article and the comments, here are my (layman’s) conclusions:
1. JOAT did not ask the original authors of the satellite data to peer review the paper attacking the satellite data.
2. PCF did not consult with the the authors of the satellite data prior to writing a paper attacking the satellite data.
3. PCF did not reference any of the prior papers written about the satellite data, in thier paper attacking the satellite data.
4. According to the authors of the satellite data, PCF appear to be uninformed on the complexities of the algorithms used to analyze satellite data. This might not have been a problem, had PCF or JOAT given more respect to the scientific method and/or the peer review process.
5. PCF appears to have cherry picked data, in as an attempt to make the satellite data better fit AGW climate models.
6. In general, the PCF paper appears to be a political shot across the bow to climate skeptics, and (considering items 1,2 and 3 above), it is highly suspect that cronism took place during the peer review process.
@Just some guy – was all the satellite data in question or just the data from a specific source that has been widely shown to have accuracy issues? Creating a straw man argument isn’t effective in dismissing the issue raised in the paper correcting the error.
That Christy and Spencer are seeing boogie men, as are you, as a result of a double standard being applied is telling.
Still no one here who can handle my original, on topic, per the matter in the post, simple Yes or No question? Curious…
Tom, in answering your question, I was referring to the UAH data, which is the subject matter for this blog post.
The rest of your comments are subterfuge.