On Nov 26, 10:20 am, Alastair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, S+C made some very big errors with MSU. Gavin didn't fix the RS.
> > You're descending into conspiracy theory here; stop before its too
> > late
>
> It was claimed in one of a trio of papers to Science that there were
> large errors in S&C's MSU results but Christy would only accept one -
> a small one. S&C know most about the MSUs so I am giving them the
> benefit of the doubt.
Problems with the MSU derived UAH TLT were noted some time before the
papers in SCIENCE. The simple fact is that S & C have repeatedly
claimed that their product was without flaw for more than 15 years,
claims which have been shown to be incorrect. It would seem that you
want to believe the S & C results, without any comment to refute the
claims by others that there were errors. Sorry, that's not what is
called science. Take a look at what Mears and Wentz at RSS do to
produce their MSU analysis. I appreciate their providing this much
detail:
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Mears_and_Wentz_TLT_submitted.pdf
> The point is that Gavin and his crew still cannot land the knockout
> blow - because they are wrong. The upper troposphere will not warm to
> the extent the models predict because they are based on radiative
> forcing, and that is not the way greenhouse effect works.
The fact that changes in atmospheric transmission within the CO2 bands
have been measured as CO2 has increased wouldn't faze you at all, I
suppose.
>Horace-> Benedict de Saussure said as much in his letter to the Journal
>de Paris 17th April 1784:
>
> "One could imagine some complicated system of reflections maybe and of
> repeated radiations, that multiply the effect of the solar rays
> endlessly; but I utterly rejected that idea when it presented itself
> to my mind, because the immortal Newton proved that bodies are warmed
> by the light that they absorb, and not by that which they transmit or
> that they reflect."
Which says next to nothing about the absorption/emission of energy by
gases. Gases are not solid bodies. They do not follow the same
physics of black body thermal emissions.
> Enough, I must get back to translating de Saussure.
Perhaps your time might be better spent working with some older texts
where the only test of veracity is belief. The Bible or the Koran
come to mind. I saw a recent story suggesting that the Koran doesn't
give a true story of Mohammad. Now there's a challenge for you.
Watch your back...
E. S.
---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
