[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I've provided solid evidence that skeptics are not providing raw datat either,

Did you? I missed it. When did you do that?

I'm not sure what you mean by raw data? UAH gives sattelite measurements. Raw, they "measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred". What exactly is it you're looking for? How have you proven it can't be found?

I'm assuming it's not this you're looking for?

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/ ... lt_5.6.txt

[N_Fiddledog]

Zip you appear to be thinking something shady is going on concerning this...

$1:

A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RSS AND UAH TLT DATA

There is a noticeable difference between the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Dr. Roy Spencer discussed this in his September 2011 blog post On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records. In summary, John Christy and Roy Spencer believe the divergence is caused by the use of data from different satellites. UAH has used the NASA Aqua AMSU satellite in recent years, while as Dr. Spencer writes:

…RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.

I updated the graphs in Roy Spencer’s post in On the Differences and Similarities between Global Surface Temperature and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Datasets.

While the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are different in recent years, UAH believes their data are correct, and, likewise, RSS believes their TLT data are correct. Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias? Until the two suppliers can account for and agree on the differences, both are available for presentation.

In a more recent blog post, Roy Spencer has advised that the UAH lower troposphere Version 6 will be released soon and that it will reduce the difference between the UAH and RSS data.

I don't get it. What's your problem? I don't see anything crooked. BTW, what would "UAH lower troposphere Version 6" be? Apparently it will be released soon. Would that contain the the original data you're looking for?

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I've understand the arguments over release of data over the years, they're not as simplistic as raw data.

The bitch I remember hearing about during the Hansen years at NASA/GISS for instance was concerning the metadata. I understood the concern as being more about how the data was converted. Hansen had his secrets concerning that.

There was a long war with Phil Jones over the historical Had Cru data. Jones came out with all kinds of reasons why it could not be released. During climategate it started to look like that data had become so jumbled up with conversions they couldn't find the original starting point even if they wanted to. I think Phil did finally release something. Can't remember what it was though.

[BartSimpson]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Okay, fine. Let me cut to the chase: AGW is BULLSHIT.

Seems I am in fine company with this astute assessment of AGW.

$1:

LONDON, United Kingdom – Former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has called for Britain to abandon is carbon targets, saying that renewable energy cannot help Britain meet its energy needs and only a combination of shale gas, Combined Heat and Power and more, smaller nuclear power plants can provide renewable energy for the foreseeable future in Britain.

Speaking to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, Paterson also derided wind farms, saying that Britain's wind energy policy is the "single most regressive policy we have seen in this country since the Sheriff of Nottingham," calling it: "The coerced increase of electricity bills for people on low incomes to pay huge subsidies to wealthy landowners and rich investors."

He added that it was "immensely costly, regressive and damaging to the environment", and has had virtually no impact on carbon emissions.

Paterson also said that many of the forecasted effects of climate change have been "widely exaggerated".

"The stopping of the Gulf Stream, the worsening of hurricanes, the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, the increase of malaria, the claim by UNEP that we would see 50m climate refugees before now – these were all predictions that proved wrong," he said.

The former minister also slammed all current forms of renewable energy in the UK, saying they will never help Britain achieve "zero carbon" by 2050.

He was particularly scathing of offshore wind turbines, which he criticised for their "gigantic costs" and unreliability, saying: "There is a reason we are the world leader in this technology – no other country is quite so foolish as to plough so much public money into it."

He also called solar power "an expensive red herring" and criticised biomass for not being zero carbon.

Paterson said that Britain should instead adopt shale gas, which has helped reduce emissions in America by displacing coal-fired generation, and has cut US gas prices to a third of their European level. He said that just 10 percent of shale from the Bowland basin, could meet Britain's needs for decades.

He added that Combined Heat and Power could be a brilliant way to bring down energy bills, saying that new localised power plants could produce both energy and heat, with results from Massachusetts showing 40 percent of total energy can be from CHP.

The former Environment Secretary also went on to call for more nuclear power in the UK, saying that small nuclear reactors could be integrated with CHP. He said that while nuclear power is incredibly useful, there are simply not enough sites to build enough big reactors. Britain should instead therefore build more, smaller nuclear plants.

He said: "Small factory built nuclear plants, could be located closer, say within 20 to 40 miles, to users and provide a CHP function. Installed near urban areas, they can deliver electricity and power district heating schemes or, in industrial areas, provide a combination of electricity and process heat."

Finallly, Paterson called for various domestic appliances, including refrigerators, to be fitted with sensors that can switch them off for short periods when they are not in use, which the former minister claimed could save as much as 1.2GW – equivalent to a large nuclear power plant.

Only a combination of these factors, he said, can help Britain "keep the lights on".

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Did you? I missed it. When did you do that?

I'm not sure what you mean by raw data? UAH gives sattelite measurements. Raw, they "measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred". What exactly is it you're looking for? How have you proven it can't be found?

I'm assuming it's not this you're looking for?

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/ ... lt_5.6.txt

No that is processed data. Here is the attached read me file that discusses some of the processing. I assume that the raw data would be binary signals from the satellites.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2 ... .06Oct2014

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't get it. What's your problem? I don't see anything crooked. BTW, what would "UAH lower troposphere Version 6" be? Apparently it will be released soon. Would that contain the the original data you're looking for?

Try and keep track of the issue, Fiddle. Bart said that temperatures were always adjusted to suit the purposes of AGW proponents. This is a claim often made by the WUWT site as well. I provided a counterexample to this.

A satellite that used to comprise the UAH data set was eliminated from the set due to "spurious warming."

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Okay, fine. Let me cut to the chase: AGW is BULLSHIT.

Seems I am in fine company with this astute assessment of AGW.

$1:

Paterson also said that many of the forecasted effects of climate change have been "widely exaggerated".

"The stopping of the Gulf Stream, the worsening of hurricanes, the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, the increase of malaria, the claim by UNEP that we would see 50m climate refugees before now – these were all predictions that proved wrong," he said.

There is a big difference between measuring the amount of heat that is in the atmosphere and linking it's rise to the effects we are creating on the environment; and predicting a chaotic system decades in advance with minimal understanding of the effects in that system.

Many computer models predictions of the effects of global warming are spotty at best (and we know how media likes the bad news and shuns the good news), but whether we do and are affecting the environment through our industrial activity is long past the theory stage.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bart said that temperatures were always adjusted to suit the purposes of AGW proponents.

I said no such thing.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Bart said that temperatures were always adjusted to suit the purposes of AGW proponents.

I said no such thing.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Also, if there were data fixing going on, don't you think they would have engineered their way out of the global warming pause?

Oh, no, they're hard at work on that problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/n ... r-records/

From the page you linked to:

$1:

Yet as we have seen time and time again, with the exception of a -0.05°C cooling applied for UHI (which is woefully under-represented) all “adjustments, improvements, and fiddlings” to data applied by NCDC and other organizations always seem to result in an increased warming trend.

This is getting too easy.

[BartSimpson]

Fine. From now on when you post a link to some story I'll say that you personally said it.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Fine. From now on when you post a link to some story I'll say that you personally said it.

You are correct. You didn't state it personally. You linked to a site that made that claim.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You are correct. You didn't state it personally. You linked to a site that made that claim.

Thank you.