I'm sick of responding to the literal piles of written feces that piehole emits onto this subject. He makes so many wrong assumptions and statements that it has become obvious that he is either a troll or simply an idiot. His fixation on Hansen and rejection of the simple fact that CO2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas and that we have increased it's level by 40% in two hundred years has become beyond irritating. I don't know what his problem is but I'm truly sick of it. He must use speech to text software and just spews pile of nonsense that on the surface seem impressive but are actually just piles of steaming horseshit.
Plus, he NEVER responds when I call him out on his nonsense. Like this A major question that remains unanswered is why is the satellite temperature data in disagreement with the surface monitored data? The above statement shows, once again, his willfull ignorance. We DO know why they don't agree, and so does he. It is because the satellites are only measuring certain areas and the higher layers of the atmosphere. How about this one... Yet despite all our progress, we still don't know the answer because the problem has turned out to be far more difficult than those who jumped to premature conclusions might have guessed. What answer? That CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by 40% and temps are rising and ice melting? If piehole does not work for a libertarian think tank he should. His ability to construct so much empty verbage with so little factual information is impressive
So in summary, it irritates you that he disagrees with you, and the regularly posts information undermining your assertions. For this you call him a troll, piehole, and other names. Yet, as you have admitted in the past, you never read any of the material that skeptics posts... so effectively your remain completely uninformed about any counter perspectives.
everytime I look this subject up, I see small differences in the land vs satellite data. what differences are we talking about. and are they significant.
Out of the goodness of their hearts! Of course there is nothing in it for them, is there? Reminds of the saying (paraphrasing from a Exon exec a few years back) ...."If you're not at the table when they discuss solutions, you might be on the menu".
Of course, both multiple positive and negative feedback is present as a response to energy input. The important feature is the balance between the two.
Plus, he NEVER responds when I call him out on his nonsense. Like this A major question that remains unanswered is why is the satellite temperature data in disagreement with the surface monitored data? The above statement shows, once again, his willfull ignorance. We DO know why they don't agree, and so does he. It is because the satellites are only measuring certain areas and the higher layers of the atmosphere. How about this one... Yet despite all our progress, we still don't know the answer because the problem has turned out to be far more difficult than those who jumped to premature conclusions might have guessed. What answer? That CO2 is a major greenhouse gas and we have raised it's level by 40% and temps are rising and ice melting? If piehole does not work for a libertarian think tank he should. His ability to construct so much empty verbage with so little factual information is impressive
You all keep talking about a difference as if it is large. its not. Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39 °C/decade; avg 0.2 °C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 - 0.08 °C/decade; avg -0.25 °C/decade).[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements Comparison to instrumental record[edit] 1958-2011 radiosonde, satellite and surface temperature record. The satellite records have the advantage of global coverage, whereas the radiosonde record is longer. There have been complaints of data problems with both records. To compare to the trend from the surface temperature record (approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is most appropriate to derive trends for the part of the atmosphere nearest the surface, i.e., the lower troposphere. Doing this, through December 2013: RSS v3.3 finds a trend of +0.125 °C/decade.[25] UAH v5.5 finds a trend of +0.136 °C/decade.[36] An alternative adjustment to remove the stratospheric contamination has been introduced by Fu et al. (2004),[38] after the correction the vertical weighting function is nearly the same of the T2(TMT) channel in the troposhere,[39] the University of Washington analysis finds 1979-2012 trends of +0.13 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set and +0.10 °C/decade when applied to the UAH data set.[40] Reconciliation with climate models[edit] See also: Climate model and Global warming Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39 °C/decade; avg 0.2 °C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 - 0.08 °C/decade; avg -0.25 °C/decade).[41] There remain, however, differences in detail between the satellite data and the climate models used. Globally, the troposphere is predicted by models to warm about 1.2 times more than the surface; in the tropics, the troposphere should warm about 1.5 times more than the surface. Most climate models used by the IPCC in preparation of their third assessment show a slightly greater warming at the TLT level than at the surface (0.03 °C/decade difference) for 1979-1999[41][42][43] while GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends are +0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively,[citation needed] the lower troposphere trends calculated from satellite data by UAH and RSS are +0.140 °C/decade[36] and +0.148 °C/decade.[25] The expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade.[citation needed] This greater global average warming in the troposphere compared to the surface (present in the models but not observed data) is most marked in the tropics. "In the tropics, surface temperature changes are amplified in the free troposphere. Models and observations show similar amplification behavior for monthly and interannual temperature variations, but not for decadal temperature changes. Tropospheric amplification of surface temperature anomalies is due to the release of latent heat by moist, rising air in regions experiencing convection."[43] Although all the datasets show the expected tropospheric amplification at seasonal and annual timescales it is still debated whether or not the long term trends are consistent with the expected moist adiabatic lapse rate[44] amplification due to difficulty of producing homogenized datasets,[45] some satellite temperature reconstruction are consistent with the expected amplification[46] while others are not.[45] Historic differences[edit] See also: UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset § Corrections_made For some time the only available satellite record was the UAH version, which (with early versions of the processing algorithm) showed a global cooling trend for its first decade. Since then, a longer record and a number of corrections to the processing have revised this picture: the UAH dataset has shown an overall warming trend since 1998, though less than the RSS version. In 2001, an extensive comparison and discussion of trends from different data sources and periods was given in the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (section 2.2.4).[47]