My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset.
ted-cruz-says-satellite-data-show-the-globe-isnt-warming-this-satellite-scientist-feels-otherwise/
The surface data sets currently agree, because they collude and use approximately the same underlying data. More than half of the surface data is fake.
By contrast, Mears’ satellite data covers almost the entire planet.
NASA surface data doesn’t even agree with NASA surface data. What kind of pressure is Mears under to spout such nonsense?
Global warming theory is about troposphere warming. Why would you measure it in Urban Heat Islands, rather than by satellites measuring the actual troposphere? But the real story is below.
]]>
