Yes or no? I am continuing the same question as in the other thread but have used the "poll" option.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/
Topic: POLL - Do you believe in last 2 decades it has been warming? - page 3. (Read 1822 times)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/
U should read this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
I'm going to answer this in a way that does not prejudice the polling. Skepsci is in error or perhaps you misread what Cook argued on his site. It is correct that slight orbital decays caused several adjustments in the satellite data sets. The current tabulation of 21 years without warming is after these corrections.https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
Thus, there is a dataset - the satellite data set - which shows as I indicated no warming in 21 years to any statistically significant level.
Arguments to the contrary might be that other data contradicts that, etc. But there is no problem with the 21 year data set as you alleged.
Im not sure but if look at this graphic with the updated parameters:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
There is an increase till 2010 ( it only goes so far)
U should read this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
I'm going to answer this in a way that does not prejudice the polling. Skepsci is in error or perhaps you misread what Cook argued on his site. It is correct that slight orbital decays caused several adjustments in the satellite data sets. The current tabulation of 21 years without warming is after these corrections.https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
Thus, there is a dataset - the satellite data set - which shows as I indicated no warming in 21 years to any statistically significant level.
Arguments to the contrary might be that other data contradicts that, etc. But there is no problem with the 21 year data set as you alleged.
U should read this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
The article you cited is bad - or rather the background research is bad.
they cited an paper from the early 90's which used wrong methods to calculate the temperature from satellite data.
One of the authors john christie worked on a new paper in 2006 and this is on the first page:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
*edit
Someone should twitter the guy my post
Yes or no? I am continuing the same question as in the other thread but have used the "poll" option.
We're now going on 21 years.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/
"Satellite data show no global warming for 21 years."
We're now going on 21 years.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/
"Satellite data show no global warming for 21 years."
Jump to: