John Christy and Roy Spencer on UAH
Posted by Jeff Condon on December 21, 2011
I have written often that the UAH dataset is the most accurate data available on the market. Unfortunately its trend runs lower than other datasets excepting RSS in recent years. This does not indicate that there are no problems with it but I do make that statement after a considerable amount of time examining the papers and documentation behind the data. Unfortunately, the low trend makes it a denier dataset in the eyes of the IPCC, a fact evident both in the AR documents as well as the disparaging comments in the climategate emails. Please note, UAH has a statistically significant positive trend which is in agreement with AGW (or natural warming), just not with extreme AGW as presented by the models.
Anyway, Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts are carrying a post which replies to some of the often uninformed advocate critique of their data as well as where it differs from the AGW extremist message. It is very much worth a read. –JEFF
December 21st, 2011
The UAH satellite-based global temperature dataset has reached 1/3 of a century in length, a milestone we marked with a press release in the last week (e.g. covered here).
As a result of that press release, a Capital Weather Gang blog post by Andrew Freedman was dutifully dispatched as damage control, since we had inconveniently noted the continuing disagreement between climate models used to predict global warming and the satellite observations.
What follows is a response by John Christy, who has been producing these datasets with me for the last 20 years:
Many of you are aware that as a matter of preference I do not use the blogosphere to report information about climate or to correct the considerable amount of misinformation that appears out there related to our work. My general rule is never to get in a fight with someone who owns an obnoxious website, because you are simply a tool of the gatekeeper at that point.
However, I thought I would do so here because a number of folks have requested an explanation about a blog post connected to the Washington Post that appeared on 20 Dec. Unfortunately, some of the issues are complicated, so the comments here will probably not satisfy those who want the details and I don’t have time to address all of its errors.