Quote: The satellite records used to show much smaller warming trends for the troposphere which were considered to disagree with model prediction; however, following revisions to the satellite records, the trends are now similar. Unquote
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Spike snipped-for-privacy@mail.com writes
It's explained here :-
"Because the tropospheric temperature estimates from satellites overlap with part of the stratosphere, they end up combining a bit of stratospheric cooling with tropospheric warming and can underestimate the true rate of warming. To avoid this issue, the new study applies a correction to remove some of the stratospheric cooling from the TMT series. The approach they use for this is described in a previous paper published in the Journal of Climate."
B
It’s astonishing that so much correction has been applied to data, quite a lot of it to fit the results from modelling. Scientifically, the models should be adjusted to fit the data, but science was ushered out of the debate a long time ago.
Didn’t the chap who put together the data from the Central England Temperature Record resign due to the way his data was being ‘adjusted’?
Anyway, the article says (quote) “Overall, the study suggests that while tropospheric warming has not accelerated to the extent that models have predicted in recent years, there’s little evidence that it has slowed down.”(unquote)
Again, we see temperature differences, in this case it’s troposphere temperatures, being put down to other factors than inadequate modelling. What would happen, apart from the gravy-train crash, if models were adjusted to fit the data, like good science would demand?
Here's an early paper showing the kinds of adjustment that have been made to raw data:
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required