brian <
nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
In message <m9u15vFk7jcU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<aero.spike@mail.com> writes
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
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature>
It's explained here :-
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-betwee n-models-and-satellite-data/>
"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?
--
Spike
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)