“So where does that leave us? An “Executive Summary” by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

“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. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.”

In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors. According to RSS, satellites are in good agreement with models.”

Presented in proper context, this is seen as a technical issue for climate scientists to investigate, but one which in no way detracts from the accumulated evidence of AGW. If you are wondering about it in that sense, fine. If you are using it to argue that AGW may not be happening (as CoRev is above), the argument doesn’t hold a drop of water.

In other words, the big picture is that both support a very similar trend of a warming world. The rest of the details about this difference can be hashed out by the climate scientists. Try Realclimate.org for more technical discussions about this.

> Debunked here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Well, I don’t think “debunked” is the right term. While they map well to each from a “trend” perspective over the long term, they don’t agree with the total levels. Which is what the base note was referring to. For example:

http://bp1.blogger.com/ _0HiXKAFhRJ4/ R5gtnxMkqdI/ AAAAAAAAAgc/ 9yCXzJ7Lto8/ s1600-h/ Variations2.JPG

Dano does not appear to understand the first steps of the global warming argument he seems to believe in so passionately. The theory is that the atmosphere absorbs more longwave radiation due to CO2, and then radiates it back, heating the earth. If this was happening, the atmosphere should be warming at least as much as the surface.

No.

First, your ‘belief’ try at argumentation is noted and ignored.

Next, the surface of the earth is heating up faster than the lower trop at this particular time. I don’t know what to tell you as to the reason for this short-term phenomenon. Perhaps you believe that we know everything there is to know and there is nothing to learn. Good for you.

Lastly, let’s see all the denialist papers that have physical reasons for debunking AGW by having this current short-term trend be lower than the surface. Let’s see those models, equations, papers, testable hypotheses, journal articles, letters, empirical evidence sets, scribbles on a napkin.

Best,

D

Arguing against global warming using minor discrepancies in the noise (=weather) is not going to make global warming disappear. If you go to the web site:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ 2008/ jun/ global.html

you will see that the trend (=climate) is positive for all measures (look for lower tropospher). Try educating yourself about the difference between weather and climate. If you are interested, here is a good place to start:

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2008/ 01/ uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison

As for June being the 8th warmest, CoRev has already pointed that this is not true for the satellite data. For the GISS data, of the last 30 years, June 2008 comes 18th. I know that some deniers don’t want to believe the satellite data, but surely they believe the data of James Hansen?

Debunked here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

If you reside permanently on the top of Mt. Whitney, the trend in the satellite data may be relevant to you (over 4,000 meters elevation).

Otherwise, the trend at the surface is what the rest of the earth’s human population wants. This won’t stop the obfuscating by industry and ideologues, but still.

Best,

D