Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.
Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.
I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.
So Lubos is fine with GISS repeatedly adjusting the data outside of their own error bars, massively increasing warming in a way which conveniently matches their theory, and making it unrecognizable compared to previous versions of the temperature record – and says I am irrational for questioning it.
The adjustments above are outside of the error bars. The data and methodology is crap.
Forty years ago, NCAR showed no net global warming from 1900 to 1970. In the GISS temperature record, essentially all of the post-1940 cooling has disappeared.
In 1961, the global cooling consensus was unanimous – but Gavin knows better than the scientists who worked at the time.
Lubos is correct about one thing. Surface temperatures measure UHI. Satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere. If you are examining the greenhouse effect, you want to measure the temperature of the atmosphere – not the asphalt.
]]>
