Exuse me for being out of touch, but what is wrong with the article?
Absolutely nothing, though the warmers despise Booker, due too his ability of finding loopholes in a theory full of them! Have you noticed how no one has debunked the story yet, only the man!
Look at the graph I posted, read my reply to NS. Do I need to explain further?
I shall make it crystal clear just in case.
GISS and UAH do not measure exactly the same thing (surface vs lower troposphere). However, when put on the same baseline they match up very well; the trends are similar but at certain times you do see significant differences (GISS red, UAH blue):
So, note how they are similar, and also how GISS has been going up for the last couple of months while, yes, UAH is heading down. Booker is technically correct, but is sowing doubt over nothing at all. Why didn't Booker mention the several months in the second half of 2010 where GISS was much below UAH? Again, I'll repeat that these temp series are not measuring exactly the same thing.
So given that the trends are similar but month-to-month the series are often different, you'd think it might be sensible to smooth them over a year or so:
So UAH says the last 12 months was warmer than GISS. And as has been explained (most recently by Tom I think), many of the differences discussed here are due to ENSO (UAH is more sensitive to ENSO). Booker doesn't know this because apparently his source (Watts) doesn't seem to know it either, so they're just seeding the blogosphere with misinformation.
Tamino examines the claims that GISS is the 'odd one out' here while also pointing out Watts' blind spot for yet again failing to account for different baselines. Which has been pointed out so often it simply has to be deliberate.
Edited by user
22 December 2010 13:03:35
|
Reason: Not specified