Quote:Are you really arguing that balloon launches have the coverage of satellites? Really? How many radiosonde datasets did they use? Where were they launched (a map would be nice)? I doubt there were many over the oceans, which comprise most of the planet. Satellite coverage over the tropics is total.


Here is an article describing the latest satellite measurements (which find no hot spot) that also answers the criticism that the satellite data can't separate the layers.


 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-...l-hotspot/

 

 

See the highlights above. They admit to removing data! Some of those removed changes were done to correct instrument drift. Eliminating those incorporated the drift into their data rather than removing an error. And somehow I doubt they actually looked at each case individually. If so it would be a first in CliSci.


And from your previous entry:


 

 

How many models did they start with? One hundred? How many survived the purge? Twenty? Five? One? Whatever the numbers, the conclusion is that the eliminated models are garbage. How much tax was taken from hard working Americans to develop the garbage models?


You claim to be a scientist.


1) Link a paper you have published in a scientific journal.

2) What would happen to your job if the Federal Government cut off funding for climate change research? Are you tenured? You claim Environmental Science. Is your present funding not from the climate change pool?

 

You didn't actually read the paper did you? Where did I say balloons have more coverage than satellites? The website you linked was described in the climate denier website (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-sat...-balloons/). This is what Dr. Roy Spencer said:

 

Roy Spencer has used new methods to improve the satellite signal of the hot spot, and is “increasingly convinced” the all important mysterious hot spot is really not there, which fits with 28 million weather balloons and humidity data too.  Satellites are not particularly good at finding the hot spot because it is a very thin layer over the tropics and satellites peering down from on high find it difficult to measure signals from 10km up and separate them from signals, say 8km up. Radiosondes are much better at resolving the different layers, which is really what matters — only the uppermost layer of water vapor counts, not the total column. Having said that, satellites are pretty handy over the oceans where not many weather balloons get released, and it would be good if we could use them.

 

The study I cited was published later in May 2015. 

 

Quote:See the highlights above. They admit to removing data! Some of those removed changes were done to correct instrument drift. Eliminating those incorporated the drift into their data rather than removing an error. And somehow I doubt they actually looked at each case individually. If so it would be a first in CliSci.
 

 

I honestly don't know else to say to you, other than that your level of ignorance is astounding. It's one thing to remove data, to force your predictions to match your hypotheses. However it is completely statistically valid to remove artifacts or nuisance factors. In fact, they are often controlled for in experiments. Somehow "you doubt they actually looked at each case individually"...That sounds like conjecture to me. 

 

Quote:How many models did they start with? One hundred? How many survived the purge? Twenty? Five? One? Whatever the numbers, the conclusion is that the eliminated models are garbage. How much tax was taken from hard working Americans to develop the garbage models?

You claim to be a scientist.

1) Link a paper you have published in a scientific journal.
2) What would happen to your job if the Federal Government cut off funding for climate change research? Are you tenured? You claim Environmental Science. Is your present funding not from the climate change pool?

 

 

Read the paper. How much tax was taken? Are you serious? So science shouldn't be funded when it fails to meet your own misinformed expectations?

 

I don't have anything to prove to you. I will not link a paper so you can know my personal information outside of academic/professional spheres. No thanks. 

 

I don't work in climate change research. My expertise is in microbial ecology/bioinformatics.

 

Funding comes from multiple departments: DOE, DOD, CDC, EPA, FDA, USDA, NSF...I'm funded by DOE, and partially by NSF.

 

Tenured? I'm not in academia.

---