There’s fewer and fewer places for the climate alarmist lunatics to hide. Yesterday, Scott alerted me to this post from Dr. Spencer.
This resolves one of the few issues I’ve had with the larger global warming debate. The satellite data didn’t really agree. For questions regarding why, and what was done in the recalculating of the UAH data, please read the post. It’s straightforward, and unquestionably, an improvement. But, this is what grabbed my eye …..
After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.
Throughout the climate debate, RSS satellite data was often disregarded as an outlier. But, the correction for the diurnal drift by UAH is empirical based! And, it now brings it in very close agreement with RSS. That is to say, thought was confirm by data!
I’d love to go into more detail as to why theory says the lower troposphere temps should echo the land temps, but, I’m short on time. Perhaps one of the commentators can.
For the uninitiated, what this does, is that it condemns and confirms what we all already knew. The global temp averages of the land based thermometers are unreliable, and are being manipulated to show warming which doesn’t exist. Now, there’s much more to say on the notion of an “average global temperature”, especially in anomaly form, but, one step at a time!
Without further ado, here’s the satellite temperature data since 1997.
The satellites say there’s been no warming during this period.
UAH data here.