Another problem for Spencer & Christy's MSU/AMSU TLT satellite "temperature"
Eric Swanson
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit tropospheric
temperature trends in polar regions
Richard E. Swanson
Abstract
[1] Spencer and Christy have analyzed data derived from the Microwave
Sounding Unit (MSU) series of satellite instruments to assess climate change.
This report presents data which suggests a source of error in their MSU/AMSU
TLT product. A comparison of data for high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere
demonstrate that the TLT product does not represent the seasonal cycle of
temperature in the lower troposphere, as seen in radiosonde data from
Antarctica. The difference appears to be the result of the yearly sea-ice
cycle, thus trends in the sea-ice cycle may impact the TLT product. The Arctic
data could also be influenced. These observations question of the validity of
the TLT product as a measure of climate change at high latitudes.
Received 11 June 2003; revised 29 July 2003; accepted 5 August 2003;
published 22 October 2003.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we going to have some fun with this or what?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Coppock
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET A MSU,
DO WE? Until we learn, let's stick with
ground and balloon data.
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Josh Halpern
Is there any reason to believe that the other reconstructions
will not suffer from this problem also
josh halpern
Ian St. John
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:3F95C291...@adnc.com...
> This is S & C's 5th or 6th major problem.
> WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET A MSU,
> DO WE? Until we learn, let's stick with
> ground and balloon data.
It isn't that we don't know. It is that the MSU was NEVER designed as a
proxy for temperature. Even to use it as a good approximation you need to
have a moisture measurement as well, otherwise there are so many
contaminating influences that the analysis has to be considered GIGO
Garbage In = Garbage Out ) in terms of precise measurements. This is why
most of the calibration and conclusions are based on data over land surfaces
where the moisture content is smaller and less variable.
Most of the fudging on the S&C paper was to try to 'factor out' the
influences, but that process is *always* orders of magnitude harder than
working with good clean data. In this case, probably two orders of
magnitude.
Sort of like the dancing bear. It's not so much how gracefully he dances but
that he dances at all.... The studies are useful in terms of careful
interpretation of what is said and how much confidence can be made in the
conclusion but the whole issue of 'satellite <=> precision and global' is a
bit of a stretch. Perhaps someday, but NOT in the MSU products of today.
Eric Swanson
Well, S & C originally claimed that their MSU 2LT was twice as sensitive to
surface effects as the raw MSU data. I have no other knowledge of the
actual sensitivity.
The other groups' analytical efforts use just the MSU data. Prabhakara et al.
used only the nadir scan position, while Mears et al. at RSI used the inner 5
positions (out of 11). From the Mears AMS conference paper, the main difference
between S & C's TLT and the RSI result was south of 45S. RSS still show a
cooling trend in the SH, but it is considerably reduced.
See figure 5 of:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfview.cgi?username=55016
Then, there is Vinnikov's latest paper in SCIENCE....
Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites
Konstantin Y. Vinnikov and Norman C. Grody,Science 302: 269-272, 10 Oct 2003
David Ball
One of the things being planned is a geostationary version of
the MSU, though if I recall correctly it is still on the drawing
board. Such a device would provide superior resolution both temporally
and spatially and might solve many of the problems that the POES
sounders have.
Eric Swanson
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
I suspect that viewing the Earth from a geostationary location would not
provide an accurate assessment of the polar regions where any warming trend
should be strongest. The view angles would be too shallow.
The AMSU series of instruments would probably provide sufficient accuracy,
given that the data for each wavelength (or altitude of peak emission) can be
corrected for the limb effect using the other frequencies. Thus, each scan
position can be binned to a grid location at the surface, which would overcome
many of the problems associated with the MSU TLT.
The unfortunate consequence of this is that the new data series would begin
after 1998, so trend assessment couldn't be considered valid for at least 8
more years (ie., after one sunspot cycle).
David Ball
You're right. You would be able to get useful information
probably to 65 or 70N.
>
>The AMSU series of instruments would probably provide sufficient accuracy,
>given that the data for each wavelength (or altitude of peak emission) can be
>corrected for the limb effect using the other frequencies. Thus, each scan
>position can be binned to a grid location at the surface, which would overcome
>many of the problems associated with the MSU TLT.
>
>The unfortunate consequence of this is that the new data series would begin
>after 1998, so trend assessment couldn't be considered valid for at least 8
>more years (ie., after one sunspot cycle).
Again, you're right, but imagine having sounder data every 30
minutes 24/7. Orbital effects would be minimal as would time of
measurement errors. Yes, there would be trade-offs, but the benefits
would be substantial.
Eric Swanson
>
>swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
>>>
>>> One of the things being planned is a geostationary version of
>>>the MSU, though if I recall correctly it is still on the drawing
>>>board. Such a device would provide superior resolution both temporally
>>>and spatially and might solve many of the problems that the POES
>>>sounders have.
>>
>>I suspect that viewing the Earth from a geostationary location would not
>>provide an accurate assessment of the polar regions where any warming trend
>>should be strongest. The view angles would be too shallow.
>
> You're right. You would be able to get useful information
>probably to 65 or 70N.
I would be surprized at that. The MSU has a big problem with limb "darkening"
and the zenith angle of the outer scans is not so big. Also, the ground "patch"
at high latitudes would be very much larger than that near the equator for local noon.
>>The AMSU series of instruments would probably provide sufficient accuracy,
>>given that the data for each wavelength (or altitude of peak emission) can be
>>corrected for the limb effect using the other frequencies. Thus, each scan
>>position can be binned to a grid location at the surface, which would overcome
>>many of the problems associated with the MSU TLT.
>>
>>The unfortunate consequence of this is that the new data series would begin
>>after 1998, so trend assessment couldn't be considered valid for at least 8
>>more years (ie., after one sunspot cycle).
>
> Again, you're right, but imagine having sounder data every 30
>minutes 24/7. Orbital effects would be minimal as would time of
>measurement errors. Yes, there would be trade-offs, but the benefits
>would be substantial.
But, for climate assessment, one must still contend with the natural variability,
which would include the sunspot cycle (about 11 yrs), the lunar cycle (18.6 yrs)
and the solar magnetic reversal cycle (2 sunspot cycles) to name a few. Having
lots of data points won't improve long term trend isolation and detection, IMHO.
It would be great for weather prediction efforts, I would think.
Thomas Palm
news:bn6u4p$2fq3$1...@news3.infoave.net:
A really good measurement on global average temperature would be useful
even before we have enough data to derive a trend. It could still be used
to estimate how reliable the ground measurements are, and if it turns out
they are as good as claimed we already have the trend. Or it could be
used as calibration to find errors in the ground trend and thus improve
it.
David Ball
Swanson) wrote:
>In article <leedpvscj56ou126j...@4ax.com>, wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
>>
>>swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>
>>>wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
>>>>
>>>> One of the things being planned is a geostationary version of
>>>>the MSU, though if I recall correctly it is still on the drawing
>>>>board. Such a device would provide superior resolution both temporally
>>>>and spatially and might solve many of the problems that the POES
>>>>sounders have.
>>>
>>>I suspect that viewing the Earth from a geostationary location would not
>>>provide an accurate assessment of the polar regions where any warming trend
>>>should be strongest. The view angles would be too shallow.
>>
>> You're right. You would be able to get useful information
>>probably to 65 or 70N.
>
>I would be surprized at that. The MSU has a big problem with limb "darkening"
>and the zenith angle of the outer scans is not so big. Also, the ground "patch"
>at high latitudes would be very much larger than that near the equator for local noon.
You should be able to correct for some of that, Eric. I'm not
saying that the problems wouldn't be there, but they certainly aren't
insurmountable.
>
>>>The AMSU series of instruments would probably provide sufficient accuracy,
>>>given that the data for each wavelength (or altitude of peak emission) can be
>>>corrected for the limb effect using the other frequencies. Thus, each scan
>>>position can be binned to a grid location at the surface, which would overcome
>>>many of the problems associated with the MSU TLT.
>>>
>>>The unfortunate consequence of this is that the new data series would begin
>>>after 1998, so trend assessment couldn't be considered valid for at least 8
>>>more years (ie., after one sunspot cycle).
>>
>> Again, you're right, but imagine having sounder data every 30
>>minutes 24/7. Orbital effects would be minimal as would time of
>>measurement errors. Yes, there would be trade-offs, but the benefits
>>would be substantial.
>
>But, for climate assessment, one must still contend with the natural variability,
>which would include the sunspot cycle (about 11 yrs), the lunar cycle (18.6 yrs)
>and the solar magnetic reversal cycle (2 sunspot cycles) to name a few. Having
>lots of data points won't improve long term trend isolation and detection, IMHO.
>It would be great for weather prediction efforts, I would think.
The sounder is already there for that. The problem is that
coverage is stopped at about 50N, making derived products like lifted
index and precipitable water impossible to create.
Josh Halpern
Eric Swanson wrote:
> wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
>
>
>>swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>wra...@mb.sympatico.ca says...
>>>
>>>
>>>> One of the things being planned is a geostationary version of
>>>>the MSU, though if I recall correctly it is still on the drawing
>>>>board. Such a device would provide superior resolution both temporally
>>>>and spatially and might solve many of the problems that the POES
>>>>sounders have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I suspect that viewing the Earth from a geostationary location would not
>>>provide an accurate assessment of the polar regions where any warming trend
>>>should be strongest. The view angles would be too shallow.
>>>
>>>
>> You're right. You would be able to get useful information
>>probably to 65 or 70N.
>>
>>
>
>I would be surprized at that. The MSU has a big problem with limb "darkening"
>and the zenith angle of the outer scans is not so big. Also, the ground "patch"
>at high latitudes would be very much larger than that near the equator for local noon.
>
>
what you really have to do is move out to the Lagrangian points L1/L2.
All earth, all the time
josh halpern
caerbannog
Hmmmmm.... It's been over 4 days since you posted this,
and "James", "Titan Point", "Dr. Convection", and
Schulin have been no-shows to this thread...
I wonder why that might be??? :)
Roger Coppock
>
[ . . . ]
> Hmmmmm.... It's been over 4 days since you posted this,
> and "James", "Titan Point", "Dr. Convection", and
> Schulin have been no-shows to this thread...
>
> I wonder why that might be??? :)
They haven't been told what to say yet,
and there isn't anything for them to
cut and paste.
Eric Swanson
says...
Yes, that is curious, especially as "Nuke" Schulin and I have ben thru
many rounds on the subject of the MSU/AMSU TLT satellite product.
As Roger suggested, maybe they are waiting for Daly or Michaels to post their
usual denials. Or, maybe they are really interested and are waiting to learn
of Christy's response at next week's workshop in Asheville, NC?? Nah....
Steve Schulin
swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
You guys are like cackling gossips. I for one look forward to reading
this paper. The notion of being satisfied with abstract is quite foreign
to me. I appreciate Eric's posting of the abstract, and I don't begrudge
you so-called men of science using your wildest imaginations to
speculate about the impacts this study may have on your pet causes.
Eric Swanson
Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
(in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were several participants
who expressed interest in the report. Of course, John Christy didn't like it
one bit.
Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
David Ball
No doubt along with the latest adventures of Captain
Underpants.
>The notion of being satisfied with abstract is quite foreign
>to me.
As is the notion of actually comprehending what appears in the
peer-review. Of course, there is the occasional paper that comes
complete with pretty pictures and those you can no doubt digest though
understanding what they really mean is clearly beyond you.
>I appreciate Eric's posting of the abstract, and I don't begrudge
>you so-called men of science using your wildest imaginations to
>speculate about the impacts this study may have on your pet causes.
LOL. Troll, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. When
you can grasp the basics, feel free to take others to task for their
understanding. Until then, stop wasting everyone's time with your
nonsense.
Steve Schulin
swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
> >> >> tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions
> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
> >> >> ...
>
> Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature
> Trends (in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were
> several participants who expressed interest in the report. Of course,
> John Christy didn't like it one bit.
>
> Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
In my opinion, nobody here has given any evidence of having read the
paper, beyond the abstract.
David Ball
And if someone was to ask you a direct question about the
contents, no doubt you would supply a cogent well thought out response
in purely scientific terms? Oh, wait. You were asked to do that with
S&B's latest effort and you were unable to do it despite repeated
prompting to do so. You're dancing again, Troll. Do you have an
opinion on the paper, Steve? If so, offer it. No dancing. Tell us, in
purely technical language, your thoughts on the contents of the paper.
Dr. Convection
> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
> >> >>
> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
> >> tropospheric
> >> >> temperature trends in polar regions
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
> >> >>
> >> >> Abstract
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] Spencer and Christy have analyzed data derived from the
Microwave
[snip]
> >> >> Received 11 June 2003; revised 29 July 2003; accepted 5 August
2003;
> >> >> published 22 October 2003.
[snip]
> >> >Hmmmmm.... It's been over 4 days since you posted this,
> >> >and "James", "Titan Point", "Dr. Convection", and
> >> >Schulin have been no-shows to this thread...
[snip]
Go back in history a bit. A pseudoscientific movement called eugenics arose
in North America based on an extremist interpretation of Charles Darwin's
theory of natural selection. There were lots of proponents, scientific
papers, peer reviewed journals, public speeches, pressure organizations and
laws passed. Some of the North American eugenics laws were not rescinded
until the 1970's.
The eugenics movement really took off in Europe. The Nazis adopted eugenics
in the notion of the Aryan super race. Under Nazi interpretation eugenics
found its ultimate expression in the "Final Solution", six millions Jews and
five million non-Jews dead in concentration camps. Eugenics was never
defeated via scholarly debate. Eugenics societies still exist. It took 60
million war dead to defeat the influence of eugenics.
Environmentalism is both a structured belief system and a perceived career
path. Presently there is a lot of money available for career
environmentalism, too much money. Dissenters from your belief system will
never have the resources to defeat you in the journals.
On the other hand we could agree to try to kill each other. That might solve
the problem. War is a form of natural selection in its most extreme form.
As for "Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions", sorry, I'll pass.
Ian St. John
"Dr. Convection" <Conve...@convection.net> wrote in message
news:HnnH7...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca...
<snip>
>
> Go back in history a bit. A pseudoscientific movement called eugenics
arose
> in North America
And Dr. Convection was the natural outcome.
David Ball
This from a troll who can't even tell the difference between
weather and climate. Too funny.
Eric Swanson
Well, having been a NoBody for a long time, I suppose you are correct.
Since you haven't a clue, I suppose I must tell you that i wrote it.
Steve Schulin
swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> steve....@nuclear.com says...
> > swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
> >
> >> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
> >> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
> >> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
> >> >> >> tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions
> >> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
> >> >> >> ...
> >>
> >> Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature
> >> Trends (in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were
> >> several participants who expressed interest in the report. Of course,
> >> John Christy didn't like it one bit.
> >>
> >> Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
> >
> >In my opinion, nobody here has given any evidence of having read the
> >paper, beyond the abstract.
>
> Well, having been a NoBody for a long time, I suppose you are correct.
> Since you haven't a clue, I suppose I must tell you that i wrote it.
That's great. Another reason to look forward to reading it. Anything you
could do to hasten that eventuality will be appreciated. I'm a Mac guy -
.txt or .pdf work best for me. I don't understand why you seem to have
put more emphasis on insulting others in this thread than you have on
your work.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
BallB...@nuclear.com
Phil Hays
> I don't understand why you seem to have
> put more emphasis on insulting others in this thread than you have on
> your work.
Cause you are so much fun to pick on, Astrology Boy.
--
Phil Hays
David Ball
wrote:
What's going to be really interesting is watching the
exchanges on a purely technical level about this paper. It's going to
be very interesting to see if Mr. Schulin can actually deal with the
science from a science perspective. I also have to wonder if the boys
at CO2Science will pick up on it and offer their own "unique" insights
on it.
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <bo0j57$5m9$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>> > swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>> >
>> >> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
>> >> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
>> >> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
>> >> >> >> tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions
>> >> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature
>> >> Trends (in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were
>> >> several participants who expressed interest in the report. Of course,
>> >> John Christy didn't like it one bit.
>> >>
>> >> Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
>> >
>> >In my opinion, nobody here has given any evidence of having read the
>> >paper, beyond the abstract.
>>
>> Well, having been a NoBody for a long time, I suppose you are correct.
>> Since you haven't a clue, I suppose I must tell you that i wrote it.
>
>That's great. Another reason to look forward to reading it. Anything you
>could do to hasten that eventuality will be appreciated. I'm a Mac guy -
>.txt or .pdf work best for me.
Sorry, it's copywrited, so you'll need to get a copy somewhere else. It's
online, you know. Maybe by then there will be more supporting evidence
from another analysis.
>I don't understand why you seem to have put more emphasis on insulting
others in this thread than you have on your work.
I don't think it's an insult to point to some posters who are totally one
sided and who completely ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence. For
example, neither of your replies exhibits any interest in the NOAA workshop,
which may be far more important than my report on my homework.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <SpamPos...@attbi.com> wrote:
This kind of post is your best hope at persuasion on the matter, Hays.
Your previous flailing sounded like Ian.
David Ball
You've hinted that Christy didn't like it, Eric, but that
isn't really a surprise. Roy Spencer didn't show much liking for
having his thinking challenged either a couple of years ago. Let's
face it, if other people weren't continually challenging the
statements and finding of S&C, I doubt very much that they would have
made any changes to their methodology. It's science at its very best.
Now, come clean about the workshop. Enquiring minds want to
know. ;-)
Phil Hays
Well, Astrology Boy, if you want to whine about how everyone is picking on you,
I'll explain why it is so much fun. If you would post some serÉ+?© writing,
it would be less fun to pick on you.
--
Phil Hays
Steve Schulin
swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> Sorry, it's copywrited, ...
That's quite alwrite.
> ... so you'll need to get a copy somewhere else. It's
> online, you know. Maybe by then there will be more supporting evidence
> from another analysis.
>
> >I don't understand why you seem to have put more emphasis on insulting
> others in this thread than you have on your work.
>
> I don't think it's an insult to point to some posters who are totally one
> sided and who completely ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence. ...
LOL - I'm glad I'm not you.
> ... For
> example, neither of your replies exhibits any interest in the NOAA workshop,
> which may be far more important than my report on my homework.
One thing my previous replies don't show is the google search I
performed on the workshop topic you specified.
With all due regard,
Eric Swanson
>
>On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:33:45 +0000 (UTC), swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric
>Swanson) wrote:
>
>>In article <steve.schulin-CB5...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <bo0j57$5m9$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
>>> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>>>> > swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
>>>> >> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
>>>> >> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
>>>> >> >> >> tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions
>>>> >> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
>>>> >> >> >> ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature
>>>> >> Trends (in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were
>>>> >> several participants who expressed interest in the report. Of course,
>>>> >> John Christy didn't like it one bit.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
>>>> >
>>
>>>I don't understand why you seem to have put more emphasis on insulting
>>others in this thread than you have on your work.
>>
>>I don't think it's an insult to point to some posters who are totally one
>>sided and who completely ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence. For
>>example, neither of your replies exhibits any interest in the NOAA workshop,
>>which may be far more important than my report on my homework.
>
> You've hinted that Christy didn't like it, Eric, but that
>isn't really a surprise. Roy Spencer didn't show much liking for
>having his thinking challenged either a couple of years ago. Let's
>face it, if other people weren't continually challenging the
>statements and finding of S&C, I doubt very much that they would have
>made any changes to their methodology. It's science at its very best.
> Now, come clean about the workshop. Enquiring minds want to
>know. ;-)
From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends: A Reconciling Vertical Temperature
Trends workshop was held at DOC’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s National Climatic Data Center on October 27-29, 2003.
The workshop was held in anticipation of producing a report for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and was coordinated internationally with a newly
constituted Global Climate Observing System/Atmospheric Observations Panel for
Climate Working Group on Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends. Specifically,
the workshop was designed to: 1)Assess the state of the science in the
measurement of temperature from space, weather balloons, and from surface
instrumentation; 2) assess whether any unresolved differences in the trends are
consistent or inconsistent with present understanding of anthropogenic or
natural climate forcing (e.g. model simulations); and 3) define the
measurements, analyses, or other actions required to reduce uncertainties.
There were approximately 50 scientists who participated in the workshop.
-------
I don't do Powerpoint, but maybe you do.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rvtt.html
Eric Swanson
Oh drat, you're right, write is wrong, it should have been right.
>> ... so you'll need to get a copy somewhere else. It's
>> online, you know. Maybe by then there will be more supporting evidence
>> from another analysis.
>>
>> >I don't understand why you seem to have put more emphasis on insulting
>> others in this thread than you have on your work.
>>
>> I don't think it's an insult to point to some posters who are totally one
>> sided and who completely ignore the bulk of the scientific evidence. ...
>
>LOL - I'm glad I'm not you.
Ditto for a Ditto Head.
>> ... For
>> example, neither of your replies exhibits any interest in the NOAA workshop,
>> which may be far more important than my report on my homework.
>
>One thing my previous replies don't show is the google search I
>performed on the workshop topic you specified.
Google didn't show the NCDC site when I searched:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
James Acker
: In article <steve.schulin-9C9...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...
:>
:>In article <bnumor$f9l8$2...@news3.infoave.net>,
:> swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
:>
:>> >> >> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 20, 2040,
:>> >> >> doi:10.1029/2003GL017938, 2003
:>> >> >> Evidence of possible sea-ice influence on Microwave Sounding Unit
:>> >> >> tropospheric temperature trends in polar regions
:>> >> >> Richard E. Swanson
:>> >> >> ...
:>>
:>> Well Nuke, I attended a workshop on Reconciling Vertical Temperature
:>> Trends (in the Atmosphere) put on by NOAA this week. There were
:>> several participants who expressed interest in the report. Of course,
:>> John Christy didn't like it one bit.
:>>
:>> Got an opinion yet, Nuke, Old Boy?
:>
:>In my opinion, nobody here has given any evidence of having read the
:>paper, beyond the abstract.
: Well, having been a NoBody for a long time, I suppose you are correct.
: Since you haven't a clue, I suppose I must tell you that i wrote it.
Hey Eric, congrats. I didn't pick up on the authorship until
this post. I assume your work will receive good reviews in the
scientific press, and then if it's noteworthy enough, some skeptics
will "audit" your data processing methodology, make a few mistakes,
publish a paper showing how wrong you were, and then, while the media
publishes editorials trumpeting how wrong you were, you will effectively
rebut the skeptical paper completely out of the public limelight.
That's how it's going these days, isn't it?
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical this morning. Comes from reading
Iain Murray's editorial online today -- now they're attacking Quark
Soup over l'affaire Mickey-Mick.
Again, congrats. Email me if you want to know more about
some other possible sea-ice related RS effects.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
"Since we are assured that an all-wise Creator has observed the
most exact proportions, of number, weight, and measure, in the
make of all things, the most likely way therefore, to get any
insight into the nature of those parts of the creation, which
come within our observation, must in all reason be to number,
weigh, and measure." - Stephen Hales