“.. Also thrust into this milieu is promotional material, i.e., propaganda, attempting to discredit these data (and researchers) with claims that amount to nothing. Several of these allegations against the data appeared a few weeks ago in the form of a well-made video. I shall address the main assertions with the following material, which in similar form has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature through the years. The video of interest was promoted by a climate change pressure group (Yale Climate Connections, http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/01/over-reliance-on-satellitedata-alone-criticized/) in which well-known scientists make claims that are mostly meaningless or completely wrong relative to the evidence in Fig. 1. I wish to make four points regarding the video and demonstrate the misdirection for which such agendized videos, along with a happily mimicking media, are so famous.
temperature measurements are indirect, using electronic resistance.
Secondly, the scientists claim that the vertical drop (orbital decay) of the satellites due to atmospheric friction causes spurious cooling through time. This vertical fall has an immeasurable impact on the layer (MT) used here and so is a meaningless claim. In much earlier versions of another layer product (LT or Lower Troposphere), this was a problem, but was easily corrected almost 20 years ago. Thus, bringing up issues that affected a different variable that, in any case, was fixed many years ago is a clear misdirection that, in my view, demonstrates the weakness of their position.
races in the past 25 years, and in each one all of the runners start at the same place at the same time for the simple purpose of determining who is fastest and by how much at the finish line. Obviously, the overall relative speed of the runners is most clearly determined by their placement as they cross the finish line – but they must all start together. In the same way I constructed the chart so that the trend line of all of the temperature time series starts at the same point in magnitude and time (zero value at 1979) so the viewer may see how wide the spread is at the finish line (2015). One way to look at this is seen in Fig. 3 where I provide what is seen in Fig. 1 except this is only the trend line without the variations that occur from year due to volcanoes and such. This is analogous to plotting the overall average speed of a runner along the course even though they likely ran slower on an uphill, and faster on a downhill. This image indicates the models, on average, warm this global layer about 2.5 times faster than the observations indicate. This is a significant difference that has not been explained and indicates the theory of greenhouse impact on atmospheric temperature is not sufficiently known to even reproduce what has already happened.
We are not talking about 10 or 15 years here, but 37 years – well over a third of a century.
That two very independent types of measuring systems (balloons and satellites) constructed by a variety of institutions (government, university, private) all showing the much slower rate of warming gives high confidence in its result. Thus, the evidence here strongly suggests the theory, as embodied in models, goes much too far in forcing the atmosphere to retain heat when in reality the atmosphere has a means to relinquish that heat and thus warms at a much slower rate.”